You are currently browsing the Armchair Economist weblog archives for the day March 7, 2008.
- General post (802)
- April 3, 2008: Armchair Economist gets a much-needed update
- April 3, 2008: Ghost of Herbert Hoover
- April 3, 2008: Are you smarter than a high-schooler?
- April 3, 2008: Katrina hero: Wal-Mart
- April 2, 2008: No Child Left Behind
- April 2, 2008: The poverty hype
- April 2, 2008: Oil profits
- April 2, 2008: Don's response
- April 2, 2008: Oil refinements
- April 1, 2008: My profile
Archive for March 7, 2008
Free to trade
March 7, 2008 by Tom Armstrong.
Don Boudreaux responds to an anti-trader. Here is one of his letters:
Among Robert Lighthizer’s objections to principled free-traders is their opposition to protectionism “no matter how many jobs are lost” (”Grand Old Protectionists,” March 6).
If Mr. Lighthizer is referring to overall employment, his facts are wrong. Free trade does not reduce net employment. But perhaps he’s talking about specific jobs, such as those lost in Carolina textile mills when Americans buy more textiles from abroad. The argument seems to be that practical statecraft often justifies protecting such jobs even if doing so prevents the creation of other jobs in their place. If this is Mr. Lighthizer’s point, he’s too modest when calling for trade policies that allow for “practicality, nuance or flexibility.” Because technology destroys far more jobs than does trade, Mr. Lighthizer should endorse also a “pragmatic” approach to innovation - empowering government with the flexibly and nuance to block firms’ introduction of efficiency-enhancing production techniques that displace workers. Surely, according to Mr. Lighthizer’s practical logic, we must reject the “dogma” that tolerates “unbridled” improvements in firms’ operating efficiencies.
Posted in General post | No Comments »
Freedom means responsibility
March 7, 2008 by Tom Armstrong.
George McGovern says government should resist the temptation to save us from ourselves. He concludes:
Since leaving office I’ve written about public policy from a new perspective: outside looking in. I’ve come to realize that protecting freedom of choice in our everyday lives is essential to maintaining a healthy civil society.
Why do we think we are helping adult consumers by taking away their options? We don’t take away cars because we don’t like some people speeding. We allow state lotteries despite knowing some people are betting their grocery money. Everyone is exposed to economic risks of some kind. But we don’t operate mindlessly in trying to smooth out every theoretical wrinkle in life.
The nature of freedom of choice is that some people will misuse their responsibility and hurt themselves in the process. We should do our best to educate them, but without diminishing choice for everyone else.
Posted in General post | 1 Comment »