|
NY Times Editorial Idiots |
|
|
|
|
Written by Stumo
|
|
Saturday, 22 December 2007 |
|
The NY Times Editorial Board launched another editorial missive on behalf of wacko "free trade" ideas today.
Trade, like technological change, can produce wrenching
dislocations that hurt some workers. But trade barriers are not the
proper tool to deal with these changes. What is needed is a bold
strategy to rebuild a functioning safety net, deploying some of the
vast wealth this nation has gained through globalization to assist
those hurt by the forces of economic change. This will allow Americans
to embrace globalization, rather than fear it.
Trade Adjustment Assistance is what they propose. Burial
Insurance. Lose your job and be retrained to flip burgers. The
program works about as well as sexual abstinence classes. These
people should be smarter than that.
Their evidence of the
benefits of our current trade policy? Look real close at the
article. Read it twice. Three times. NO
EVIDENCE. Just claims.
Here's the conclusion:
These changes [proposed by Democratic presidential
candidates] would do virtually nothing to protect American workers from
the disruptions wrought by trade, technology and other economic forces.
A protectionist agenda would hurt them.
Just an assertion. It has been repeated enough that it must now be true. Except its not.
Trackback(0)
 |
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
As a country, America needs to get out of the sterile dialog of the deaf over "free trade" vs. "protectionism." What we need instead is a coherent national economic strategy that addresses the damage -- much of it self-inflicted -- from existing policies. Neither the Chinese nor the WTO nor NAFTA can be blamed for America's antiquated tax system, our addiction to mindless consumption fed by cheap credit, our refusal to devote the resources to inspect goods at our border, our hugely costly and cumbersome set of trade law remedies, etc. These are things we have done to ourselves, or rather let our democratically elected representatives do to us. I don't blame the US-based multinationals, either. They're just defending a system that rewards them mightily. That's economically rational behavior, even if morally tainted. What's not rational is that so many of the people most affected by poor public policy spend their time on trivial pursuits -- fantasy football, March madness, American Idol, etc. -- instead of the things that would change their lives. Pogo said it best: the enemy is us.