Comments on: Free Trade: Here We Go Again

By: Matthew

Matthew — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 18:25:09 +0000

And by “Obama’s economic policy”, I meant “Obama’s economic policies”…

By: Matthew

Matthew — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 18:23:27 +0000

Divina Westerfield -
Are you really promoting Obama’s economic policy? In the words of Alan Greenspan, “It is conceivable that Barack Obama would forget many of the positions he has taken once he is in office, which are VERY TROUBLING and anti-competitive.”

Also, you are quick to assume that “those benefited from free trade have NOT used a portion of those benefits to help those harmed get retrained.” That is a rather harsh, absolute statement. For example, the Washington Post wrote a terrific article a while back about how many in the state of North Carolina had been making the transition from manufacturing to biotech-based jobs. Any large number of books (particularly labor economics texts) have written about similar transitions, a noted feature of our highly flexible economy. Also recall that the broad trend has been towards firms making larger and larger investments in their employees (more frequent/substantial on-the-job training, etc…). Of course, that’s not to say that more couldn’t be done – more could and should be done (see Greenspan’s book). But absolute statements fail to capture the broader truths that are occuring in our dynamic economy …

By: LVTfan

LVTfan — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 17:19:31 +0000

Were we to follow Henry George’s recommendations, many of our employment problems would likely melt away. Landholders would be motivated to put their well-located land to its highest and best use, and first the construction process and then the resulting buildings would create all sorts of jobs and opportunities — not to mention more housing close to the center of activity.

Why on earth would we want all those good things, instead of letting land speculators pocket the treasure we create. We might get lucky one day, and we wouldn’t want to see those privileges taken away from them, now would we?

By: Divina Westerfield

Divina Westerfield — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 17:02:28 +0000

You said, “Free trade helps almost everyone a little bit, but hurts a few a lot. Furthermore, the higher standard of living associated with, and attributable to, free trade is not easily identified — while a job lost at a plant moving to China is easily associated with it. Theoretically, those benefited could use a portion of those benefits to help those harmed get trained for the new jobs created by trade.”

The problem, and one that I hope and believe Obama will address, is the fact that those benefited from free trade have NOT used a portion of those benefits to help those harmed get retrained. Instead, they have lined their corporate pockets, specifically their C-level pockets. Redress is desparately needed and required particularly in the so called, “rust-belt” states that relied on this manufacturing base. I may be ill-informed as to McCain’s position regarding this issue, but my guess is that he has ignored it as he tried ignore the national foreclosure issue. Or, as McCain himself stated, “The issue of economics is not something I’ve understood as well as I should…” See: http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2007/12/mccain_its_abou.html

While I agree in the long term free trade may be good, we cannot abandon those families left without economic recourse. The candidate that focuses on this redress, is the candidate that can resolve the problem.

Divina Westerfield