On Sat, 20 May 2000, Doug Henwood wrote:
> If imports keep domestic prices down, then people (those who don't
> lose their jobs to imports, of course) have more money to spend on
> other goods. We can argue about the relative importance of the two
> influences - lower prices vs. job loss - but to ignore the lower price
> angle is analytically incomplete.
If I understand it correctly, the comparative advantage argument is that that extra money is not only spent on other things that wouldn't otherwise have been bought, but those things are produced by people that wouldn't otherwise have been employed -- so that even imports produce jobs. Do you and Mark agree that part's not true? If so, can you send me to a good critique of it?
Michael
__________________________________________________________________________ Michael Pollak................New York City..............mpollak at panix.com