At least there’s still a nice museum! 
Warren Buffet says we are engaged in a class war and his class is winning . It is obvious to me, and he and I don’t come from the same experiences. If Americans don’t learn that much ,we are in deep trouble. If the poor, aged and fairly well off can be convinced to vote against their own interests again, we will be even worse off.
Why is it obvious that it “doesn’t work”? Please don’t cite the joblessness created by the Great Recession. That had nothing to do with offshoring, and unemployment was low or average by historical standards in the time period prior.
I’m looking at the past two decades. We had a “Do you want fries with that?” economic recovery under Clinton and a jobless recovery under W. That won’t do.
If you want to make an actual argument, please do so. Putting forth cute little slogans is not debating. Please demonstrate that the adoption of free trade policies hasn’t “worked”.
First guy who even mentions “the Austrian School”, and the puppy goes straight into the blender. I’ll do it. You know I’ll do it.
Well put. The Democrats like to say that they’re on an economic crusade for the lower class against the uppers. In reality, they’re cuturally the party of the top and bottom against the middle. McCain won among the moderately wealthy; Obama swept the super-rich.
Just to be clear, the idea that free trade is beneficial is not unique to the Austrian School of Economics. It’s a tenet of Economics, no modifier needed.
If someone wants to put forth the thesis that free trade is deleterious, please publish your paper and be prepared to receive your Nobel Prize. You will overturn a fundamental tenet of modern economic theory in a way similar to Intelligent Design overturning Evolution by natural selection.
Clubbed that joke to death like a baby seal.
Well getting rid of Glass-Steagall could be considered a move toward free trade … do you think it was a good idea, John?
Hence the “just to be clear” qualifier. Not everyone knows when a given poster is joking or not, and there is way too much misinformation out there about the “evils” of outsourcing.
Wait, you say free trade is beneficial to all states/societies/classes/individuals at all times and periods under all circumstances? And you mean there are no schools of economic thought that hold otherwise? Not even any heterodox-but-respectable schools like Ha-Joon Chang’s? OK, definitely gonna need a cite for that.
Provided the trade is actually free, more or less, yeah.
It’s true that if you bring ten economists into a room then you’ll get ten very different points of view, and each of them will believe something that make the other nine scratch their heads in bewilderment. But insofar as anything is agreed upon by the vast majority of economists, it’s the doctrine of comparative advantage and the benefits of free trade – we learn it at our mother’s breasts, as graphs and figures as an undergraduate, as equations as a graduate. This is something, at least to varying degrees, that economists running the ideological gamut from Milton Friedman to Paul Samuelson to Paul Krugman can agree on.
No, I’m not saying that. Free trade can be devastating to certain individuals in a society, even if it is a net benefit to the whole society.
Now, if you want to advocate something that will buy you political advantage with certain groups while negatively affecting the larger country as a whole, that’s fine. But let’s be clear about it.
I’m no economist, but I know there are very few propositions in economics that can be taken as near-certain and uncontroversial as a statement in physics, and I am fairly certain that “free trade is always beneficial to a society” is not one of them. Again, cite?
There was a long time, long ago, when high protective tariff barriers were pretty damn good for America’s economy, or at least very much seemed so at the time. The Whig and Republican platforms were always based on that up the turn of the 20th Century.
There are no statements in economics that are as certain and uncontroversial as, say, that a ball thrown on a Newtonian Earth will travel a parabolic arc. Nevertheless, “free trade is always, on the whole, advantageous” is as near as you can get. What would serve as a cite for that statement – a survey of economists? I’m not aware of any that address this. But it’s in all the introductory textbooks; it’s taken as a given, to the extent that you if you disagree you’d certainly have to point that out.
We’ve given a cite to a survey of economists many times in many different threads. Anyone paying attention has seen it.
But here’s the thing. It’s **BG **who is saying his recommendation is: “It means doing whatever will grow industry and provide jobs in the U.S. It means coming down hard on outsourcing and offshoring.” It’s up to him to show that there is a consensus among economists that this is possible. So far, he hasn’t done so and is just shifting the burden of proof. Now, if he wants to say economists are poopy-heads, and he doesn’t care what they think, that’s fine. But let’s understand where his ideas are coming from and what he is backing them up with.
This would make for a nice separation from the Republicans.
It would be a welcome change if Democrats stopped echoing that meme about immigrants doing work that Americans won’t, and recognize that exploiting cheap labor and keeping wages down is bad for the blue-collar base.
Actually, no, it isn’t. This thread is about electoral strategy, not economic-policy strategy. The only test is whether a given economic message is plausible and persuasive to a sufficient number of voters. You know, the test trickle-down economics and the Laffer Curve passed with flying colors back in the day. Whether they passed any test of actual economic success – that would be for a different thread.
Yes – and let us remember that any restriction, however mild or perfunctory, on foreigners coming to the U.S. and being employed here is also an instance of economic protectionism/nationalism, WRT the labor market. No country can claim to have “free trade” unless it has open borders.
If economists have a consensus that tariffs on imported goods are always bad for a country’s economy, then, logically, they should have a corresponding consensus that any limitation on immigration or the employment of immigrant labor is always bad. Do they?