[Snerfling]

You took his words out of context or did not comprehend his words. He's saying there are times that tariffs are appropriate, one of which is to protect industry from foreign competition.

On the contrary, I'm very familiar with Smith, and well understand the two cases he states for protection: (1) retaliation, and (2) phased protection in cases were tariffs are being phased out as well to avoid wholesale displacement.

Perhaps you should re-read what Smith is saying. My reponse addressed these two cases and posed the question of which one(s) where applicable in this debate. Please resubmit your reply.

[RockyMtnMan]

Are you are saying offshoring millions of IT personnel is not wholesale displacement?

I am by no means advocating tariffs that never go away, only ones that protect labor against third-world labor. Once equalibrium has been established they should be removed post-haste. The sudden availibility of offshore labor is precisely the condition the framers had in mind with regard to tariffs. We must protect our existing industry until they can compete on the world stage dollar for dollar. We already can compete skill for skill and they have the financial advantage of accepting a wage below our poverty level.

Besides once equalibrium, or at least near equalibrium, has been established the buying power of India will be greatly enhanced. Corporations can then sell their goods to a newly minted 1st world country.