>But if you see well-being springing from lower prices,
>then you ought to oppose all manner of industrial
>action, trade unionism, public spending, etc., and
>join the G.O.P.
>
>Why stop at cross-border transactions? Occupational
>health & safety? Screw it. Reduce prices.
>They key social relation is that of the worker,
>not the consumer or taxpayer. The fundamental
>cause is labor income and the social wage, NOT
>the price level or "efficiency." "Internationalism"
>as purveyed by certain nameless marxists is just
>another way of saying free trade isn't as good
>as revolution, but it's better than everything
>else.
>
>Gawd I'm so radical.
Max, descend from that high horse for just a moment. Breaking unions almost always means wage cutting. Lifting environmental and worker safety regulations is almost always worker-hurting. Not all trade is job-destroying or wage-cutting. EPI & Mark Weisbrot write and talk as if it is. Some trade can be welfare-enhancing for all involved, even. If you're going to analyze the issue completely you've got to acknowledge that, and not take the lazy step of running the trade deficit through some difference engine and coming up with a job-loss number. Or the lazy step of translating any positive statement about trade into an lust for seeing workers mangled.
Doug