[Luis Gonzalez]

"Among Samuelson's fellow liberals, this revisionism has been a welcome development and could not have come a day sooner."

As I've said time and time again, you are who you agree with, and you Willie, now agree with the guy who agrees with his "fellow liberals" on the issue of free trade.

Samuelson has come around to the liberal stance and they're ecstatic...you are happy as well.

You've always been against free trade, haven't you Willie?

Which is why I've always said that you're a liberal.

No insult there, just a fact.

[AndyJackson]

and the targets he has chosen include some of his most prominent acolytes and disciples.

The liberal disease all over again. It is not about truth, about martialling argument and fact in support of your thesis. It is all about power and influence on behalf of the liberal cause. His former students are not scholars in their own right (i.e. independent thinkers). they are acolytes and disciples to be brought to heel for their doctrinal heresy. Any legitimate economist has questions and doubts about the short term benefits and detriments of free trade with countries like China. It is a serious quesiton worthy of reasoned debate.

But no, once again, the liberal master calls the twelve apostles to a last supper and asks them to drink the Kool Aid one last time for the sake of the party.

[WilliamofCarmichael]

gains may be more than neutralised by large losses sustained by American workers who lose their jobs.

"Free traders" have already responded: Americans have no right to jobs -- uh.. excepting the job of risking life and limb protecting "free traders" and others from enemies.

The greed-related cognitive challenged "free traders" forget that jobs = pay checks = consumer demand.

"Free traders" actually have an answer to that: "Who cares? Our business partners and dear friends have promised us one billion Chinese middle class spendin' fools. Who needs America?"

[txhurl]

bump for later

[Rockitz]

Initially, American consumers may benefit from low-priced goods in their supermarket chains, but their gains may be more than neutralised by large losses sustained by American workers who lose their jobs.

Bingo! The American worker does not realize that those manufacturing jobs are never coming back. We're headed for a depression and a revolution when the American worker discovers that. There goes Clinton's legacy- He sold the American worker down the river with NAFTA.

The only manufacturing jobs to survive are those that are associated with export-controlled items like weapon systems and high tech stuff as well as items that have a high percentage of their cost associated with shipping (dog food, furniture, etc).

[bvw]

Every house has a kitchen. Ooops. No more. Kitchens are declasse.

Best outsourced. That's why there are bills in the Senate ad House -- SB-186 and HR-413 -- to outlaw kitchens in new construction. The House version goes further -- creating a Federal Anti-Home-Cooking-And-Kitchens Agency (FAHACAKA).

Outsourceing is good for the economy. It's silly for people waste their time in the kitchen cooking when they could be engaged in productive activity. How many trillions of productive hours have we lost already??!!

Wake up America -- get out of the Kitchen already. Leave the cooking to the professionals! Eat out today and every day! Three times a day!

[Dec31,1999]

The thrust of Samuelson's analysis is that a country like China, basically a low-wage economy, will create a net negative impact on the American people, when it manages a substantial rise in productivity in an industry in which the United States was earlier a leader. Initially, American consumers may benefit from low-priced goods in their supermarket chains, but their gains may be more than neutralised by large losses sustained by American workers who lose their jobs.

This is it in a nutshell. Wasn't this what Spain did in its "Golden Age"? They used their wealth to import goods instead of developing industry.

[Paul Ross]

[headsonpikes]

Samuelson's foolish textbooks have misled millions of economics students.

He just can't help himself, I suppose.

[e_castillo]

"They showed free trade is characterised by conflicting interests and not by mutual benefit, as neoclassical economists assume."

This is terrible. We simply cannot have any common sense here!

"There is now sufficient evidence (and semi-official admission) that Japan was a major protectionist country throughout its period of growth in the 1960s and much later on."

DUH!

They continue to manipulate the currency exchanges to improve their positions and now the Chinese are in on the act.