LawTalkers  

Go Back   LawTalkers > General Discussion > Politics

» Site Navigation
 > FAQ
» Online Users: 302
0 members and 302 guests
No Members online
Most users ever online was 4,499, 10-26-2015 at 08:55 AM.
 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
Old 02-21-2007, 11:03 PM   #11
Spanky
For what it's worth
 
Spanky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: With Thumper
Posts: 6,793
The Economist and Paul Samuelson question Free Trade

Quote:
Originally posted by Tables R Us
Sooooo, people in unionized manufacturing jobs lose, people in high-end white collar jobs lose. Who wins?
Not all manufacturing jobs lose. Not all high end white collar jobs lose. And news jobs are created in all this. For every job lost 1.2 jobs are created in its place.

Quote:
Originally posted by Tables R Us
If you are saying the only people that win are upper management and superstar inventors, actors, musicians, etc, then you are re-shaping the economy in a way that leads to massive inequality and isn't politically viable without marginal tax rates of 70% or 90% to redistribute money from them to everyone else.
No I am not saying that.


Quote:
Originally posted by Tables R Us Soooo, I repeat, are you willing to have that level of income and wealth redistribution? The natives are getting restless about free trade and immigration. They will protect themselves. Maybe with protectionism. Maybe with very heavy progresive taxation. Maybe with something else. But they will protect themselves.
No - the natives are not getting restless. Certain special interest groups are getting wrestless. The vast majority of Americans beneift from free trade. Their incomes depend on free trade, and all the low prices they enjoy in their everyday life depends on free trade. If the protectionists ever did something stupid like revoked NAFTA or the WTO there would be mass job losses and massive prices increases. That is when you would have the real backlash.

Quote:
Originally posted by Tables R Us Rich people aren't going to get a free lunch. You're an economist, you know there's no such thing as a free lunch.
Free lunch? That is a term void of meaning. Use terms that actually have meaning. Economics is not a zero sum game. By using the term "no free lunch" you are implying that economics is a zero sum game. The majority of Americans always have and always will continue to benefit from free trade. Trade restrictions benefit the few at the expense of the many. You have not stated anything in any of your myriad posts that disputes that.
Spanky is offline  
 


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.0.1

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:57 AM.