Posted on 01/16/2008 4:01:09 AM PST by LowCountryJoe
Rochester
IN the days before Tuesday’s Republican presidential primary in Michigan, Mitt Romney and John McCain battled over what the government owes to workers who lose their jobs because of the foreign competition unleashed by free trade. Their rhetoric differed — Mr. Romney said he would “fight for every single job,” while Mr. McCain said some jobs “are not coming back” — but their proposed policies were remarkably similar: educate and retrain the workers for new jobs.
All economists know that when American jobs are outsourced, Americans as a group are net winners. What we lose through lower wages is more than offset by what we gain through lower prices. In other words, the winners can more than afford to compensate the losers. Does that mean they ought to? Does it create a moral mandate for the taxpayer-subsidized retraining programs proposed by Mr. McCain and Mr. Romney?
Um, no. Even if you’ve just lost your job, there’s something fundamentally churlish about blaming the very phenomenon that’s elevated you above the subsistence level since the day you were born. If the world owes you compensation for enduring the downside of trade, what do you owe the world for enjoying the upside?
[Snip]
One way to think about that is to ask what your moral instincts tell you in analogous situations. Suppose, after years of buying shampoo at your local pharmacy, you discover you can order the same shampoo for less money on the Web. Do you have an obligation to compensate your pharmacist? If you move to a cheaper apartment, should you compensate your landlord? When you eat at McDonald’s, should you compensate the owners of the diner next door? Public policy should not be designed to advance moral instincts that we all reject every day of our lives.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Really? That's what this post was about?
To: am452; nicmarloThat's about economics? Wow.....is that what passes for economics these days with you?
Did you ask nicmarlo if you could ping your friends?
190 posted on 01/16/2008 2:25:47 PM EST by 1rudeboy
Didn't he just ask you to identify the salient points of what you posted? When do you plan to get started?
Good Come Back....
;-)
I am baffled that the “tag team” thinks this little corner of the internet warrants the efforts they put forth here....its like they have a larger agenda....at least thats how it feels.
You apparently stuttered....and didn’t finish reading the rest of my post....or, haven’t you learned to read past the 3rd grade level yet?
I see I violated another one of your “rules.” This one appears to be “I can say and do what I want, and you cannot.”
Yeah....it's looks like that, smells like that, and feels like that. Maybe because, it's just so transparent to everyone but themselves about their larger agenda... : )
Not at all, boy. You said that particular post had to do with “teaching economics.” I just question the veracity of your statement concerning that post....or is that not allowed in your rule book because I’m questioning YOUR veracity?
And you haven't done squat.
Here, from my post #198:
If someone wishes to discuss the contents of articles, rather than show up as a globalist tag team, I am ALWAYS willing to discuss the contents of articles and their merits.
The tag team, however, has a proven history of wishing to do anything but discuss contents of articles.
And seeing as how you are part of the tag team, when I post articles, it is to refute your propaganda.
I already know that you and your buddies have your pieces of silver, we just don’t know what was the amount upon which each of you settled.
So in other words, you “ALWAYS” do something, except when you do not. (And when I told you I was “teaching,” I was responding to your comment that I was still in school).
Did you not see the CONDITIONAL “if” at the beginning of the sentence? That infers that “if” condition “a” is met, “then” condition “b” will occur. “If” condition “a” is not met, “then” condition “b” will not occur.
Get it yet?
Oh, I get it perfectly: when you typed “ALWAYS,” you meant to type “SOMETIMES.”
If someone wishes to discuss the contents of articles, rather than show up as a globalist tag team, I am ALWAYS willing to discuss the contents of articles and their merits.The tag team, however, has a proven history of wishing to do anything but discuss contents of articles. And seeing as how you are part of the tag team, when I post articles, it is to refute your propaganda. I already know that you and your buddies have your pieces of silver, we just don’t know what was the amount upon which each of you settled.
*yawn*
next?
Bingo!
And if someone calls him on it he'll whine about some nonsense he refers to as a tag team. I wouldn't want to have to defend Schlafly, Dobbs and EPI either.
I think that's an excellent point, and worthy of further study. I recommend we outsource all faculty positions at his university to India, where I'm sure there are many qualified teachers with advanced degrees who can teach through 'distance learning' via Internet video.
Because that's just the way the economy works in real life, right?
LOL!
Protectionists - every last one of them. You're known by the company you keep.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.