>Let's see if I've got this straight. The comparative advantage argument
>is that imports are by definition cheaper than the products they replace,
>so consumers have more money to spend on more products that induce more
>jobs. But this job loss argument is simply that prices are lowered
>because wages are lowered because of the threat of moving. Do you think
>that part dominates nowadays?
Well, that's the issue. I don't think you can simply assume it does. It may be true, but you have to prove it, which I don't think Mark or anyone at EPI has ever done. Max? You guys on top of this?
Doug