Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
If A were true and B not true, that would mean it is beneficial for the country but that it hurts more people than it helps. It is hard for me to imagine such a scenario. It would seem to me that if it hurts more people than it helps then, it is not beneficial to the country.
|
Suppose that repealing a certain tariff helps the richest 40% of the country, making them $100,000,000 richer. But it hurts the poorest 60%, making them $60,000,000 poorer. In the aggregate, the country is better off. But more citizens are hurt than helped. What then?
Quote:
|
The problem with that scenario is that free trade, and free markets, almost always benefit the poor more than restricted markets. The main benefit of free trade is it drives consumer prices down. And no one benefits more from lower consumer prices than the poor. Restrictions on agriculture hurt the poor the most.
|
As consumers, yes. Because the poor spend more of their money on things like food. But as workers, free trade tends to hurt the working class more than the upper classes, because the former is more vulnerable to competition from unskilled labor in foreign countries than the latter is. We lawyers can (imperfectly) protect our jobs through restrictions on the unlicensed practice of law, etc.
I agree with you about agricultural barriers, many of which our government supports for fear of pissing off politically influential groups like the sugar lobby. What do you think about that flavor of free trade, Tables?
