Replies

"There you go, the screw my neighbor and protect thyself attitude! Until it affects me I will just keep my head in my bu... Wow, people like you make this country great!"

You do realize that this argument can be completely reversed? Let's talk textiles. Suppose a shirt can be produced overseas and sold in America for $15. Suppose an equivalent shirt can be produced in America and sold here for $30 bucks.

Now, you are saying that if I oppose protective tarriffs on shirts I'm being selfinterested and out to screw my neighbor who makes shirts. I can turn that around and say that it is the neigborly textile worker who is out to screw his neighbor by forcing his neighbor to buy his $30 product when a cheaper product is available. That neighbor could use the $15 difference to support his family by buying additional shirts, invest in his retirement, send his daughter to college, or any number of other lifestyle issues.

No, the issue of self interest and who is trying to screw someone is really a wash isn't it? The issue then becomes who is trying to use the government for his own selfish ends? I believe it is the guy who wants to use the power of government to force his neighbor into buying a more expensive product.

Then there is the issue of what is the correct level to set the protective tarriff. That power would go to the government. Implicit within that power is the power to set wage levels and to determine the number of workers in a particular industry. (that's just another manifestation of the living wage) Of course, if the government is going to do that for textile workers, how about auto workers? If you're going to influence wages and employment levels, then you're into the relative levels between industry. And, that is the old argument about "compartive worth". Should a textile worker make more or less than an autoworker? Do we really want to go down this path?