[meadsjn]

And you benefit, too. Cheaper socks and shoes for you, too. Or would you rather pay more, and let the local socks and shoes workers keep their jobs?

IMHO, the people here who think I should pay more for socks and shoes by barring imports, so that I subsidize the local workers making socks and shoes, are closet socialists.

Let the market decide.

That is a bogus and worn-out argument, just like the "buggy-whip" analogy from the movie Other People's Money.

In order for imported finished goods to benefit our overall economy, the retail price of the imported goods would have to be less than ten cents on the dollar of those same goods produced here, due to the lost multiplier effect on the imported goods.

That means a $50 pair of imported boots would have to cost over $500 retail for the domestically produced version before any positive economic benefit could be realized from the import.

It is disgusting that some of our most respected economists have bought into the free trade lie and are ignoring the economic rule that "second effects count".

[1rudeboy]

That means a $50 pair of imported boots would have to cost over $500 retail for the domestically produced version before any positive economic benefit could be realized from the import.

We could slap a $450 tariff on imported boots without negative effect on our economy?

[1rudeboy]

BTW, David Ricardo's theory of comparative advantage is not bogus, nor worn-out, despite your protestations to the contrary.