But Heckscher, Ohlin, Stolper, and Samuelson say that there is a very strong presumption that increased trade is bad for the *scarce* domestic factor of production--which in the case of the U.S. today is labor.
You have to believe very strongly in new growth theory
magic--increasing returns of one sort or another somewhere (which, by
the way, I do)--to reach the conclusion that increased trade is
Pareto-preferable (unless, of course, reduced trade barriers are
coupled with increasing social welfare and worker training and
education expenditures; which is why Clinton's legitimacy to lead the
Democratic Party has been in doubt since he cut off the left hand of
his administration; but I degress...) Brad DeLong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
[mbs] yeah. what he said.
I have to add that I can see why a pareto-improvement might contain the smidgeon of consolation for BDL, but how could the radical D. dine on such treacle?
mbs