Tuesday, April 24, 2012
William Poole on Free Trade (Heady but Illustrative)
"The economist's case for free trade rests primarily on the
fact that imposing or removing trade restrictions invariably helps some
firms and people and hurts others but with a positive net benefit for
the country as a whole from moving toward freer trade. As I emphasized
in a speech in November 2003, a key reason why the general public is
reluctant to embrace free trade is that many do not understand the
benefits. (9) And the reason people do not understand the benefits is
that they do not understand the interactions and connections across
markets. For one example, people may see the genuine costs imposed on
workers who lose their jobs to imports, but fail to see the benefits to
consumers of lower-priced goods from abroad..........................................................................................Economists are trained from their first course in the subject to
understand the interactions across markets. The interactions are
numerous and sometimes remote from the initial disturbance that sets off
a chain of such interactions. It is usually possible to explain the
nature of these effects to noneconomists, and formal statistical studies
can often yield estimates of the magnitude of effects.............................................................................................Sometimes, an interaction is pretty obvious and it may not be
difficult to convey the point. For example, restricting imports of a raw
material will have positive effects on domestic producers of the raw
material, and their employees, but will hurt domestic users of the raw
material. Indeed, by forcing up the price of the raw material, domestic
producers of the finished product may find themselves at a competitive
disadvantage to foreign companies with a cheaper source of the raw
material. Thus, saving jobs in the industry producing the raw material
comes at the cost of reduced jobs in industries using the raw material
and higher costs to consumers of the finished product.............................................................................................Most journalists want to smoke out all sides of a story. In the
case of a story involving a trade dispute, smoking out the indirect
effects is critical to explaining all sides of the story. Understanding
the simultaneity principle leads immediately to questions about possible
indirect and remote effects of trade restrictions. Those questions need
to be addressed to economists and industry experts who can uncover the
connections across markets and the indirect effects of trade
restrictions."
i·a·bil 
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
50 comments:
Free trade is a good idea if your goal is to impoverish America. Why would people without jobs care if their goods are lower priced? Think for once man!
William Poole is Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute. The Cato Institute is a libertarian think tank. What is it exactly that you think makes you a "Moderate" Will? I'm sure not buying it.
90% of economists support free trade, wd. It's you who have the minority position on this one, dude. And it is also you who who never think things through (you obviously didn't read the piece very closely, oh close-minded one). It isn't simply consumers who get hurt. Businesses who use the products are also damaged and that costs people jobs in other sectors. What we have here is a case of you trying to protect favored industries and laughably not understanding the ripple-effect that this destructive policy foists on people.............And you can stuff your labels, too, dude.
Ah, but wd certainly uses his inactive "open" mind a bunch Will. Can't you tell?
Open minded = Individual who agrees with Will's Conservative ideology.
Les, he never deviates one iota from his rigid progressive ideology and then he has the audacity to accuse other people of not thinking. Unbelievable. And I'll bet that the dude didn't even read the piece. He just saw the name and then slavishly went to the internet to dig up dirt on him (and, no, belonging to the Cato Institute isn't dirt).
stuff your labels = quit pointing out that I'm a conservative.
Criticizing someone for never deviating one iota from their rigid progressive ideology = criticizing a Democrat for not being Republican enough.
OR
Criticizing a religious person for not being atheist enough.
Also, in regards to "90 percent of economists" supporting free trade... we need to remember that consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest thinkers in history are great precisely because they broke with consensus.
Which is what I think will eventually happen in regards to free trade. Economist Ian Fletcher is one of the economists in the minority. He believes free trade doesn't work. Eventually the truth of his position on this issue will become more accepted.
Hopefully it won't be to much longer before our politicans realize what a plague on our economy free trade is... and we start to back away from these destructive job-killing policies.
WD,your talking points are wonderful,but you never seem to have any substantial proof to back up your beliefs.
Now,what exactly is the plague free trade is hoisting on the countrys economy? How does free trade kill jobs? Name three of the worlds economies who have successfully eliminated free trade.
Now,I dont expect you to have any sort of cogent response to the questions,but you'll just confirm what most of us think anout you.
"Criticizing someone for never deviating one iota from their rigid progressive ideology = criticizing a Democrat for not being Republican enough." Wrong on that one, wd. I have ZERO problem with most of the mainstream Democrats out there. My problem is strictly with rigid ideologues who slavishly and moronically adhere to one set of beliefs and who never compromise. Morons like you, in other words.
Alexander Hamilton believed in tariffs in moderation and that they should be temporary. That's a hell of a lot different than your freedom killing agenda of today. And, yes, wd, you found a modern-day economist who agrees with you here. Congratulations.......Hey, Russ, did you notice that he never addressed any of the points made by the author here? He simply slimed him and me as conservatives. What a guy!
Of course Will,if it does'nt come from thinkprogress,huffpo or any other far left loon source WD will just discredit it offhand...he really is quite stupid,dont you know.
Wow,so am I...hit the button twice.
It was a good point and so making it twice wasn't a problem.
Will: Wrong on that one, wd. I have ZERO problem with most of the mainstream Democrats out there.
Actually I'm right, because by "mainstream" you mean Conservative, and many Democrats are "Republican enough" (that is, conservative enough... from your POV). That's why you used the word "mainstream", so as to exclude Progressives.
Will: My problem is strictly with rigid ideologues who slavishly and moronically adhere to one set of beliefs and who never compromise. Morons like you, in other words.
What about morons like Rusty? He said (on this blog, although it was some time ago) that compromise was like saying to the other said that it was OK if they destroyed the country "a little".
Let me guess, you don't have any problem at all with those morons.
Will: Alexander Hamilton believed in tariffs in moderation and that they should be temporary.
Obviously we didn't go that route. We kept our tariffs largely in place until after WWII. The "infant industry argument" says we protect industries until they are able to compete on a level playing field. The argument doesn't say we should build up manufacturing, and then lower trade bariers to unfair competition and allow our mature industries to be decimiated. I'm pretty sure Hamilton would have been opposed to your idea of free trade (we get rid of manufacturing in the US).
Will: That's a hell of a lot different than your freedom killing agenda of today.
"Freedom" is Libertarian code for policies that put a damper on their greed.
Will: And, yes, wd, you found a modern-day economist who agrees with you here.
I've found 3, and I'm sure there are more: Ravi Batra, Ha-Joon Chang, and Ian Fletcher.
And Business Week says, "Economists Rethink Free Trade ...something momentous is happening as doubts begin to creep in".
Also, neither of you Conservatives acknowledge the dangers of long run trade deficits?
Ah WD,you're getting so predictable.
Never did answer the questions.
Refered to some inane far left dribble.
Yes my friend...you are'nt the sharpest knife in the drawer.
Looks like my ignoring Rusty's dumbass questions caused him to get his panties all in a twist.
No WD,not answering valid questions about your inane postings only enforces our impression of you.You take stands on issues,but cannot give facts to support your beliefs.
In your small mind what you believe is fact....no matter that you cant validate your beliefs.You're small my friend...very small.
"Our impression"? I responded to Will. I didn't respond to you (and just you) because your questions were dumb (not valid). For instance, you asked me to "Name three of the worlds economies who have successfully eliminated free trade". This question makes no sense because no country engages in free trade except the US, so it's impossible for me to name even one that has "successfully eliminated" it.
Well then sparky,what is the plague free trade is hoisting on the economy?How is free trade killing jobs?
An aside to Will here....I'll bet you 20 and lay 7-2 that numbnutz refers to either some little known lefty economist or a far left publication no one has heard or cares about.
I'd take that bet if I were you Will, since no blogger using the ID "sparky" or "numbnutz" comments here.
On second thought I would NOT take the bet, as I just remembered that Rusty has multiple Blogger IDs... If you took the bet he'd probably post as either "sparky" or "numbnutz" and then claim he "won".
Yes, I am Rusty's 7th blogger alt, and proud of the fact.
Will said: "90% of economists support free trade"
Of course. The idea of letting the individuals involved in the trade decide if it is advantageous or fair is far and away the best.
dmarks: Of course. The idea of letting the individuals involved in the trade decide if it is advantageous or fair is far and away the best.
The Constitution says "no". Now, we know that when it comes to further enriching the plutocrats that dmarks and Will both bow down to, dmarks says, "chuck the Constitution"... but a majority of Americans say sending jobs overseas has hurt our economy.
They say "no" to free trade, and in that regard I'm in the majority. On both counts. "NO" on free trade and "YES" on following the Constitution. The wealthy plutocrats may make a little less money, but American as a whole will be richer.
WD said: "The Constitution says "no"."
Show me where.
"Now, we know that when it comes to further enriching the plutocrats that dmarks and Will both bow down to"
Better lay off the tequila, man. You are being incoherent. Neither Will or I have mentioned plutocrats. Why? Because they have nothing to do with our defense of free trade.
"but a majority of Americans say sending jobs overseas has hurt our economy."
The real picture is not the same as your false summary of it. Sure, some jobs are "lost" due to the fact that some foreign people end up being better at some jobs. But it is also true that free trade increases exports from the US, and creates a lot of jobs too.
"They say "no" to free trade"
That is fine. The people who say this are free to act on these decisions. But they have no right to force their decisions on the rest of us.
"The wealthy plutocrats may make a little less money, but American as a whole will be richer."
Plutocrats have nothing to do with this. I hate to break it to you, but the average Hyundai buyer (as per my example) tends to be middle class. With your bloviating about plutocrats and your drunken lurch from misperceptions of existing topics to entire new ones, it is clear that this is probably something you are not aware of.
Now, excuse me. I'm going to buy a Hyundai. It is none of your damn business, Nor is it that of Will, "plutocrats", the ruling elites, or anyone else other than the person selling it to me.
dmarks muzzily said: show me where [in the Constitution it says the Government can involve itself in foreign trade].
Here: Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution, known as the Taxing and Spending Clause.
According to this clause, "the Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises".
This means that when dmarks claims that transactions involving purchases of foreign goods are none of government's "damn business", he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.
The Constitution gives the government the right to regulate and tax these transactions.
dmarks muzzily said: Sure, some jobs are "lost" due to the fact that some foreign people end up being better at some jobs. But it is also true that free trade increases exports from the US, and creates a lot of jobs too.
More jobs have been lost then have been created. Far more.
dmarks muzzily said: Plutocrats have nothing to do with this. I hate to break it to you, but the average Hyundai buyer (as per my example) tends to be middle class.
I was talking about the plutocrats selling the Hyudais. They are the ones getting rich by manufacturing overseas were labor costs are less, and environmental regulations and workplace safety standards are fewer.
So, I hate to break it to you, but the plutocrats are VERY much involved in these transactions. Oops. Perhaps dmarks imbibed to much tequila before writing his incoherent response.
dmarks drunkenly replied: Now, excuse me. I'm going to buy a Hyundai. It is none of... [the ruling elites] damn business... or anyone else other than the person selling it to me.
The Constitution says "no". Do you have a problem with the Constitution? Perhaps dmarks needs to look into moving to one of those floating Libertarian cities that are close to being built.
Chris Van Hollen, Ron Wyden, Diane Feinstein, Dick Durbin, Kent Conrad, and Chuch Schumer (hell, I don't even mind Biden all that much) are only conservatives in your world, wd.............And you obviously didn't comprehend the principle of simultaneity one iota. The money that I save buying something produced more cheaply in another country I spend on other things HERE. I just got back from Newport (you'd hate it, wd, lots of mansions and rich people) and I spent a shitload. Bought a giclee print and pigged out at this awesome Thai restaurant. The problem with you, wd, is that you only see the obvious and not the spillover.............And you only want to trade with countries that are our economic equal? Way to keep the rest of the world impoverished and totally pissed off, wd.
Will: And you obviously didn't comprehend the principle of simultaneity one iota. The money that I save buying something produced more cheaply in another country I spend on other things HERE.
People without jobs (or lower paying ones) don't have money left over after buying those cheaper imported items.
Will: And you only want to trade with countries that are our economic equal?
I never said this. We use tariffs to equalize labor costs with low wage countries. And we only trade with them if they sign Fair Trade agreements (so companies can't poison the environment in these countries or endanger workers' lives to save money).
Will: Way to keep the rest of the world impoverished and totally pissed off, wd.
Yeah, paying workers in poor countries slave wages so we can save a little on lower priced goods (at the cost of jobs for Americans) while the wealthy elites reap most of the profits is VERY generous of you Will.
Will said: "Chris Van Hollen, Ron Wyden, Diane Feinstein, Dick Durbin, Kent Conrad, and Chuch Schumer (hell, I don't even mind Biden all that much) are only conservatives in your world, wd."
Don't forget the great liberal President Bill Clinton also.
WD said: "People without jobs (or lower paying ones) don't have money left over after buying those cheaper imported items."
So then they find a job they are good at.
WD said: "According to this clause, "the Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises".
This is a prime example of your illogic. Opposing bad greedy policies such as tariffs is not unConstitutional. This artlce does not say that Congress MUST pass these.
"Do you have a problem with the Constitution? "
No, you do. You are lying about it.
"So, I hate to break it to you, but the plutocrats are VERY much involved in these transactions."
No, they aren't.
"Yeah, paying workers in poor countries slave wages "
You have no idea what you are talking about. Slaves don't make wages. Your arrogance and stupid statement in contempt of foreign workers can be viewed by some as racist. You simply have no idea what you are talking about.
"More jobs have been lost then have been created. Far more."
Actually, again, you have no idea what you are talking about. For example, consider NAFTA. Before it, there was a big slide in US manufacturing jobs. After NAFTA, this slide slowed down. NAFTA, by creating more jobs, went against this trend.
dmarks: So then they find a job they are good at.
When you send tens of thousands of jobs overseas there are LESS jobs remaining. In many case there simply aren't enough jobs for everyone who wants one. I see you offer the typical dmarks' solution to the problem though... do nothing and blame the victim.
dmarks: Opposing bad greedy policies such as tariffs is not unConstitutional. This artlce does not say that Congress MUST pass these.
So now you're calling the Founding Fathers "bad and greedy"?! They're the ones who specifically put that language in the Constitution... why? To be ignored? And I never said free trade was unConstitutional... it is antithetical to the Constitution though.
dmarks: No, you do. You are lying about it.
I'm lying about the existence of the Taxing and Spending Clause? I gave a link, check it out... the clause is real and was intended to be used (otherwise why put it in there?)
dmarks: Slaves don't make wages.
dmarks, you're confused again. I wasn't talking about actual slaves, I was talking about people paid very low wages. "Slave wages" is a common term that most people (including you) have heard before.
I know you've heard it before because I've used it here before and explained what it meant then... Cut out this silly nonsense why don't you? It only makes you look dumb.
dmarks: Your arrogance and stupid statement in contempt of foreign workers can be viewed by some as racist.
I made no such statement and have no contempt for foreign workers.
What about your contempt for foreign workers? I think it's shameful that you want these workers to toil for low wages so the wealthy elites can be further enriched (and you can get slightly lower priced goods).
Also, what about your contempt for American workers who you want to see lose their jobs? Clearly dmarks has absolutely no idea what he's talking about.
dmarks: ...consider NAFTA. Before it, there was a big slide in US manufacturing jobs. After NAFTA, this slide slowed down. NAFTA, by creating more jobs, went against this trend.
NAFTA cost jobs in aggregate. Thousands of them in fact. What you say is flat-out false.
dmarks: No, they aren't.
Come on!! You think the plutocrats enriching themselves by screwing BOTH American and foreign workers don't exist simply if you ignore them? WHO do you think is selling the Hyundais?? (using your example.)
And Bill Clinton wasn't a Liberal, he was a corporate Democrat. His signing of the job-killing NAFTA agreement was proof of this.
(I deleted my comment, as it contained a lowbrow insult directed at WD. The rest was full of my refutations of his accusing me of something others did; which is kind of common as he gets things mixed up).
dmarks: I am merely pointing out the FACT that just because the Constition allows Congress to do something, does not mean Congress must do it.
So I guess you think they put that clause in the Constitution for no reason? They intended it to not be used?
dmarks: in your arguments about the Citizens United decision, you claimed that free speech was a privilege only to be granted by the ruling elites in Washington to government-approved press organs such as the New York Times.
You must have me confused with someone else, as I made no such claims. Also, the New York Times isn't a "government-approved press organ". You show your arrogance toward (and contempt for) our media in making this false and slanderous accusation.
dmarks: What you say about NAFTA is flat-out false.
It's 100 percent the truth.
dmarks: ...you should be able to make your own trade decisions. Why not stop being an arrogant fool and respect mine as well...
The Constitution says "no".
dmarks: That's bullshit. You are making things up as you go.
I'm telling the truth. Also, how can I be "making things up as I go" if this is an opinion I've held for many years? More incoherence from dmarks.
dmarks: Many liberals are involved in corporations. That does not make him liberal.
Incoherence that ignores the actual meaning of "corporate Democrat".
dmarks: There was no job-killing NAFTA agreement. That's alternate reality. More bullshit.
What's bullshit is your lies about NAFTA not killing jobs. It killed tens of thousands of jobs.
dmarks: Hey shithead. Go ahead. Tell me which part of the Constitution bans free trade.
I never said there was such a section. There is, however, a section that says tariffs should be applied to foreign goods. Does the shithead dmarks believe that the Founding Fathers put that in the Constitution so it could be ignored?
Of course not! They weren't shitheads like dmarks. They knew charging tariffs would be necessary to protect manufacturing here in the US.
"Come on!! You think the plutocrats enriching themselves by screwing BOTH American and foreign workers don't exist simply if you ignore them?"
This is a perfect example of an uninformed judgement, which proves why trade decisions should be kept to yourself and the person trading with.
The so-called plutocrats are involved in giving American and foreign workers are great deal. They are not "screwing" them. These people know their own lives, and their own jobs. You do not. you have incredible delusions of grandeur if you think you do.
Wd said: "You must have me confused with someone else, as I made no such claims. Also, the New York Times isn't a "government-approved press organ". You show your arrogance toward (and contempt for) our media in making this false and slanderous accusation."
I read your post on your own blog in which you made an empassioned argument in favor of censorship. And yes, you opposed free speech for the people and protection for a narrowly-defined government-approved "press" to have free speech.
WD said "There is, however, a section that says tariffs should be applied to foreign goods."
I call your bluff. Quote it.
dmarks: This is a perfect example of an uninformed judgement, which proves why trade decisions should be kept to yourself and the person trading with.
I agree. Your judgment on this issue is VERY uninformed. You didn't even know that the Constitution says the government should insert itself in between people buying and people selling foreign goods. And you still disagree even after I pointed you to the passage in the Constitution.
Now you're being willfully uninformed.
dmarks: They are not "screwing" them. These people know their own lives, and their own jobs. You do not. you have incredible delusions of grandeur if you think you do.
So you think American workers LIKE losing their jobs, and foreign workers LIKE being paid low wages and working incredibly long hours in unsafe conditions?
Common sense tells us that this assumption is false. Clearly dmarks just doesn't care if they like it or not, and wishes to force his wishes upon these workers. Delusions of grandeur must be the reason... why else does he think millions of workers should submit to his will?
dmarks: And yes, you opposed free speech for the people and protection for a narrowly-defined government-approved "press" to have free speech.
I call your bluff. Quote me the portions from my blog where I said these things. You won't be able to because they don't exist. I do not oppose free speech for people. I do not believe free speech protections should only go to a narrowly-defined government-approved press.
dmarks: I call your bluff. Quote it.
Why would you say I'm bluffing? This makes no sense. I've already cited you the passage. Click this link and you can read it yourself.
Take those jobs away, wd, and they'd be even more impoverished.......And I never said that certain jobs wouldn't be lost from free trade, only that other jobs would develop in their absence (the days of having one job making widgets for 40 years are clearly over, wd) and that the overall trajectory would be better without these regressive taxes (yes, they disproportionately hurt the poor). The law of simultaneity, wd. Study it.......And I have to ask. Do you want tariffs on every import from every country? Or do you only want them on certain poor countries that you want to punish for presently not being on a par with us?
WD said: "I agree. Your judgment on this issue is VERY uninformed."
Wrong-o. I know my life and my situation when making a deal. You do not. You are by definition uninformed. So is Will. And neither of us has the right to tell you that a deal that you have mutually entered into with another is "unfair".
"...and foreign workers LIKE being paid low wages and working incredibly long hours in unsafe conditions?"
What incredible arrogance. The ugly American is alive and well in you. I know MANY of these foreign workers, and they are happy with their jobs and the fair wages they earn. They resent ignorant Americans who think they know best imposing their ignorant views on them.
"and wishes to force his wishes upon these workers"
Ummm. no. Not all. Just mutual consent. No forcing by anyone.
As for the Constitution link, it does not RECOMMEND that Congress pass tariffs. your claim about the link is in your imagination.
-------------
Will said:
"Take those jobs away, wd, and they'd be even more impoverished...."
WD doesn't give a damn. To him they are ignorant brown people in foreign lands who don't know what is best for them. Only WD does. This hatred for foreign people and contempt and ignorance for their lives (especially Chinese and Mexicans) is strongly condescending.
Will asked of WD "Or do you only want them on certain poor countries that you want to punish for presently not being on a par with us?"
Remember the Yellow Peril. WD wants us to, and quake in fear.
dmraks/wd, here is a link to a study by the Council on Foreign Relations (a nonpartisan think-tank) pertaining to NAFTA (they also make reference to a study by the CBO) and it's effects. It's a pretty fair/balanced and accurate appraisal, I think.
I say the ugly American is alive and well in dmarks. No doubt it is for racist reasons (at least in part) that he wants these workers in low wage countries to be exploited by the plutocrats.
As well as his contempt for the American workers he wants to see fired. But mostly his support of free trade is due to his desire to see the plutocrats get richer.
As for the lies he's telling about my contempt for the ignorant brown foreigners... nothing could be further from the truth. If we are to trade with these countries I'd be in favor of it being on a Fair Trade basis. That would require a trading partner to adhere to similar environmental and workplace safety regulations, and to pay a decent wage.
dmarks: ...neither of us has the right to tell you that a deal that you have mutually entered into with another is "unfair".
The Constitution says otherwise.
dmarks: I know MANY of these foreign workers, and they are happy with their jobs and the fair wages they earn.
Baloney. I call BS on this outlandish claim.
dmarks: As for the Constitution link, it does not RECOMMEND that Congress pass tariffs. your claim about the link is in your imagination.
The Framers recommended tariffs by putting that section in there! And then they actually did it (pass and collect tariffs). For most of our history tariffs were in the 20-30 percent range. No more proof is needed than what they actually DID.
That the Constitution does NOT recommend tariffs is purely in dmarks' imagination.
"The Constitution says otherwise."
Show me where.
"The Framers recommended tariffs by putting that section in there! "
No, they did not. You are being illogical. You are confusing the Framers permitting the ruling elites to bully us through tarifs with demanding it.
Besides, it is a big step in the direction of fascism: the ruling elites controlling a matter that the people should decide instead.
"That the Constitution does NOT recommend tariffs is purely in dmarks' imagination."
Actually, the Constitution agrees with me. Read it sometime. In the mean time, stop trying to force your uninformed decisions on me.
"Baloney. I call BS on this outlandish claim."
This claim is quite true. I suggest you learn something and talk to some of these brown and yellow people you keep bashing over and over.
dmarks: Show me where.
I already did. Multiple times. I can't help you if you are too stupid to see what's in front of your face.
dmarks: No, they did not. You are being illogical.
I'm being completely logical. The Framers didn't put things in the Constitution that they thought should be ignored. You're being illogical thinking they did.
dmarks: it is a big step in the direction of fascism...
This is a pretty audacious statement... accusing the Framers of being fascists.
dmarks: I suggest you learn something and talk to some of these brown and yellow people you keep bashing over and over.
I'm defending them against your desire to use them as wage slaves to enrich the plutocrats.
wd, not every product that we import from a foreign country is produced by corporation headed by an American "plutocrat".............And you can't equate the wages earned in one country with the wages earned in another country. Yes, maybe if we continue to do business with them, they will eventually reach a level of prosperity commensurate with us.............And you continue to only focus on one aspect of this. As the law of simultaneity clearly points out, this is not a zero-sum game. The money that I save each year purchasing lower priced products from overseas, I either save or utilize to purchase other goods and services. If I were to get fucking reamed by protectionism, I wouldn't have been able to go to Newport this past week and spend money on things such as accommodations, fuel, art work (why do you so despise the artists, wd?), food, beverage, etc.. This is a hell of a lot more complicated that you've been led to believe, bud.
Will, I think you're oversimplifying things here. If we keep jobs here in the US more consumers have more money to spend. With a higher volume of sales the price per item could be less.
Prices would probably only end up being minimally higher. Also, with more jobs fewer people would be unemployed or underemployed... in fact everyone's wages would most likely go up (due to a tighter labor market).
Bottom line is that you would not get "reamed". The issue is a little more complicated then you've been led to believe.
And why do you so despise American workers whose jobs can be offshored? Why do you love the plutocrats so much? IMO enriching the plutocrats is the only reason to do free trade. The ONLY one.
'M oversimplifying things? This from a guy who thinks that actions have no unintended consequences, that only "plutocrats" benefit from free trade, and that economic transactions are strictly a zero-sum game.......And a frigging tariff only protects the workers from the protected industry. How in the hell do higher costs and the compulsion to buy what could clearly be an inferior product help the McDonald's worker, the home health aid, the security guard, the pharmacy worker, the day laborer, the landscaper, the dog groomer, etc, etc.? Oh, yeah, I'm really oversimplifying things.
You're WAY oversimplifying the issue. All those people you list will do better if we abandon free trade because the economy will improve (because workers will have more money to spend). EVERYONE benefits from an improved economy.
Economic policies rarely, if ever, have antiseptic effects. Wilson and Hoover both markedly raised taxes and the results were disastrous. I think that there are ways to stimulate the economy that wouldn't involve us becoming such a pariah-like nation.
Will: Wilson and Hoover both markedly raised taxes and the results were disastrous.
Higher taxes didn't contribute to the depression. Your analysis is incorrect. Especially with this "pariah" nonsense. How would our doing what every other nation is doing make us a "pariah"?
The unemployment rate was going down in 1930. And it was actually going down FASTER than it is during this recovery. The rate only started ticking back upward when Mr. Hoover panicked and started using his "beneficent hand".
Post a Comment