And of course, it benefits the Chinese and the corporations just like the Big Three moving production of cars for the US market from the hands of American workers to those of Chinese workers.
In the process, US corporations will make greater profits, will hire fewer US workers and though supposedly, the savings could be passed on to American consumers, no one will make enough money to buy the cars.
The problem that I have with this discussion is a pretty profound one: Whenever Pat Buchanon or Nadir express their view, it seems unassailable. But then when the Cafe Hyak'ers, Thomas Sowell, or Larry Kudlow expresses theirs, it also seems just as unassailable.
It's very difficult for me to make up my mind on this issue, though I tend to come down on the side of the open/free marketeers.
"It's very difficult for me to make up my mind on this issue, though I tend to come down on the side of the open/free marketeers."
So you fall on the side of the "free" market even if those policies scuttle the US economy. That's fine. If you are more concerned with the purity of an economic theory than you are with human beings, then this makes sense.
Nadir: As I stated, I am uncertain. If I was convinced that free marketing constituted "scuttling the US economy", I would oppose it. The reason that I favor the free marketeers is that I if pressed to make a choice, on balance I find their case more believable.
Nadir: My view has nothing to do with a desire to service a theory than to serve humans. Apparently you want the choice that provides the greatest benefit to the most humans; that is surely my aim. You are 100% convinced that protectionism better serves this goal than does free market free trade. I am less than 50% convinced. My interest in protecting and advancing a model is nill; I want the model that best serves humans.
5 comments:
And of course, it benefits the Chinese and the corporations just like the Big Three moving production of cars for the US market from the hands of American workers to those of Chinese workers.
In the process, US corporations will make greater profits, will hire fewer US workers and though supposedly, the savings could be passed on to American consumers, no one will make enough money to buy the cars.
The problem that I have with this discussion is a pretty profound one: Whenever Pat Buchanon or Nadir express their view, it seems unassailable. But then when the Cafe Hyak'ers, Thomas Sowell, or Larry Kudlow expresses theirs, it also seems just as unassailable.
It's very difficult for me to make up my mind on this issue, though I tend to come down on the side of the open/free marketeers.
"It's very difficult for me to make up my mind on this issue, though I tend to come down on the side of the open/free marketeers."
So you fall on the side of the "free" market even if those policies scuttle the US economy. That's fine. If you are more concerned with the purity of an economic theory than you are with human beings, then this makes sense.
Nadir: As I stated, I am uncertain. If I was convinced that free marketing constituted "scuttling the US economy", I would oppose it. The reason that I favor the free marketeers is that I if pressed to make a choice, on balance I find their case more believable.
Nadir: My view has nothing to do with a desire to service a theory than to serve humans. Apparently you want the choice that provides the greatest benefit to the most humans; that is surely my aim. You are 100% convinced that protectionism better serves this goal than does free market free trade. I am less than 50% convinced. My interest in protecting and advancing a model is nill; I want the model that best serves humans.
Post a Comment