Those GE workers got exactly the kind of thing I was talking about, some cushioning for the radical change.

I’ve never said the change shouldn’t happen just that ways needed to be found to let those folks hit hard, through no fault of their own, down easier.

BTW I really don’t like welfare, especially corporate welfare. The money spent on GE that you mention is not welfare though it’s marketing expense by the governments trying to make their “product” more attractive. Same with football stadiums built at public expense for private ownership.

For the company not to take advantage would be as dumb as you or I not buying a new car that was priced as a loss leader to increase traffic.

But they closed down anyway. And no doubt they will blame Mexico.

When I was a kid growing up in Oklahoma people lost jobs every day without so much as a kiss my behind. No one supported them for years or retrained them or anything else. Believe it or not when you find yourself suddenly unemployed the fact that the job either disappeared or ended up being taken by another American does not really make it any easier to bear. You are still SOL.

I understand what you are saying, my point is there are also a lot of people out there who have to pay bills and they are more interested in keeping down prices. Their plight can can be demagogued as well.

BTW, I used to farm. I notice that when commodity prices are down people complain about subsidies {to offset low prices}. However, when prices are up {and the subsidies are down}, people complain about higher food prices and inflation.

I understand all too well that the market does not work for everyone and that some people pay. I can remember watching friends and neighbors lose everything they owned and people just called them bad managers. But hey, let the price of milk go up and those same people bitch and moan and whine and act as if they have been robbed at gun point.

When Bush tried to save the steel industry a few years ago and practiced a little protectionism was he praised or criticized? The latter… because hard working Americans were being ripped off to take care of inefficient lazy out of date steel producers. Or so said just about everyone. The Aussies were livid. The fact that people worked for those steel companies mattered not a whit.

There’s nothing you said that I don’t understand or agree with. BUT, there are people who get screwed by jobs moving off shore. AND they are ripe for the demogogues and con-artists.

I know a fair number of folks in the computer industry. Their jobs went to India. Now, the young studs had no real problem getting a new job (mostly) but that 45 year old with a couple of kids coming up on college or in college? There is ageism out there and it is damn hard to take a 50% or more pay cut at that point in your life. It’s also hard to try and pull up stakes and move across country. At a macro level everything is fine but at the micro level?

Like I said I’m all for free trade but let’s not pretend that it is ualloyed goodness for everyone.
The time frames are very different and the geographical limits are very different. Like the old saw goes, a man dying of thirst and one with his house on fire put a different value on a glass of water. So, some thought needs to be given to softening the blows for the hardest hit.

BTW I’ve consulted at both Chrysler & GM and I’ve yet to meet one of those auto workers that have anything to say about what they build or how much it costs have you? The unions are a whole nother issue and this isn’t the time or place to bash them (as much as they deserve it).

Well then again there are the people here in Indiana who got a job at the Toyota plant in Princeton and they do not want the unions screwing that up for them.

The real problem is not the fat cats getting rich, they will bitch about that no matter what, the real problem is the poor people who can not afford to buy a $60,000 pick up truck that gets 12 miles to the gallon. I know you will say that the auto worker does not get that, but he does. He is not stupid. He just does not give a damn if some poor slob can afford to buy what he makes or not.

The pharm industry is always getting a bad rap because they are protected from cheap Canadian imports, but the people who work for these companies are American workers with mortgages and 401Ks, however, most Americans think that the pharma industry is too protected and makes too much money.

Moral of the story: you can not please everyone. sometimes you can not pleas anyone.

No matter what.

Ever wonder what happened to all the people who made covered wagons?

The thing you have to admit is that free trade does not effect everyone equally. Now, I am a staunch classical liberal (aka conservative) with libertarian leanings, BUT, you have to recognise that something can be a net good for the country as a whole but a net terrible for some of the people, through no fault of their own, and a net great for a few lucky fat cats.

What do you say to the 45 year old auto worker when his employer boots him and moves overseas, “Hey tough luck, suck it up for the good of the country” ?

Somehow that ain’t going to go over well and I have no trouble sympathising or understanding why he would fight against this. Why should he get shit on so someone else gets rich? That’s the type of society that has revolutions; or at least BO/HC voters.

Don’t give me economics, I know all about it, but this is not economics that we’re talking about.

If you’re going to be in favor of free trade you need to have a policy to keep the shit from all flowing down on these folks, don’t you think?

“Seeing Robert Lighthizer’s name in the New York Times today took me back to the 1996 campaign, when in part thanks to his influence Bob Dole started backtracking on his support for NAFTA and the WTO deal. That’s why Dole did so surprisingly well in Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. (Just kidding. He lost all three.)

In today’s op-ed he is arguing that conservatives and Republicans should be protectionists. (In part he is arguing against me; he mentions me, though not by name.) To make this case he notes that some conservatives have in the past supported protectionist policies, and some liberals have supported free-trade policies. That is true, although it is not particularly useful in figuring out which policies are right. But even in the process of making this weak point Lighthizer doesn’t play it straight. Ted Kennedy may have “supported the advance of free trade” in some instances, but lately he has more often opposed its advance.

His case that protectionism works is awfully peculiar. He notes that the Reagan administration protected textiles, for example. How is that a shining success story? The Plaza accords of 1985 were, on his telling, a great triumph over free-trade dogmatists because they let the dollar sink against the yen. Four paragraphs later, he tells us that free trade is harmful because it causes the dollar to sink.

Lighthizer believes that free traders are airy philosophers. People who represent the steel industry, as he has, are on the other hand practical and empirically-minded. Well maybe so, but you couldn’t tell it from this op-ed.”

For instance, do we all have equal rights — or do manufacturing workers in Ohio have a special right to have the government force business owners in their area to employ them rather than shifting manufacturing elsewhere?

Do we ALL have equal rights — or do workers have a right to quit one job and go to a higher paying one any time they see fit, whereas business owners have no such right, and must continue a worker’s employment even if cheaper labor is available elsewhere?