LawTalkers  

Go Back   LawTalkers > General Discussion > Politics

» Site Navigation
 > FAQ
» Online Users: 702
0 members and 702 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 02-22-2007, 04:00 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 Tyrone Slothrop
His hypothetical was designed to get you to focus -- if only for a moment -- on the interests of the "real people" who get screwed by free trade.
Sometimes you are so pretentious it is nauseating. Why do I need to "focus" on the people who get "screwed"? I have already acknowledged that some people are disadvantaged by free trade. Is this Oprah or the Dr. Phil show, so I have to demonstrate that "I feel their pain" instead of just understanding there is pain. How will such "focus" alter the logic behind what tables is arguing and what I am arguing? It won't, it is just a chance for you to demonstrate once again your affinity for sour grapes.

Do you think if I "focus" for a while on the people that are disadvantaged by capitalism that I will rethink my position and develop a new appreciation for "socialism"? If I really focus on the pain caused by the loss of the slide rule industry I will reassess my position that the introduction of the calculator was positive for the U.S. economy? Give me a break.
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 02:22 PM.