Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
And, re the post above, skeks is picking up the thread of an old conversation. His point, as I understand it, is that if the gains to the country of free trade are greater than the losses to some workers, why not compensate the later out of the gains to the former. Club seems to accepting that compensation is appropriate when it's propertyholders who receive it, but not when it's working men and women.
|
In order to buy into Skek's view, you have to essentially ignore macroeconomics. A treatise can be written on the subject, but as an example, what do you think happens to our exports in the absence of a free trade pact and who do you think ultimately pays the price?
I am accepting of compensation in the propertyholder context because propertyholders actually have a right that should be compensated. There is no right to earn a living, and certainly not at a particular wage. If one's services are no longer as valuable as in the past, why should they continue to be paid for them at the same price. It is a complete waste of resources.
Paying someone for the provision of services is based in contract (i.e., mutual agreement). The basis for compensating someone for taking their property has an entirely different basis that is not dependent on mutual agreement.
efs
