At 01:03 PM 8/1/01 +0200 Baardwijk, J. van DTO/SLBD/BGM/SVM/SGM wrote:
>> By this logic, you would say that a candle-maker benefits from trade
>> restrictions against lightbulbs. In a very narrow, short-term sense,
>> yes a candle-maker is harmed by trade in light bulbs, because said
>> candle-maker loses his job.
>
>He won't neccesarily lose his job, because there will still be a market for
>candles. A smaller market, but a market nonetheless. (But yes, with a
>smaller market it is likely that a certain number of candle-makers will lose
>their jobs.)
By this logic, there is no problem with free trade, because
anitque-shopper, "buy-American" types, and other people with idiosyncratic
types will always keep a small number of people in a market employed.
Heck, there are still a handfull of blacksmiths in this country.
If this discussion is going to be productive, I need you to concede that
the candle-maker has a very reasonable (and accurate) expectation of losing
his job.
>Marc is right on this one: he needs to find only one person that doesn't
>benefit from free trade to prove you wrong. Can you prove to us that he
>won't be able to find such a person?
It depends how you define "better off." If you really think that there
is even *one person* in the candle-producing country that would not benefit
from the import of lightbulbs, I am not sure that we have much to talk about.
This logic would suggst that some of us would benefit from maintaining a
hunter-gatherer society. Likewise, it would suggest that the
candle-maker would benefit from the deployment of a solar shade, that would
ensure that there is a minimum of 14 hours of darkness every day in the
Community.
After all, the sun produces the same product as the candle-maker (light),
and produces it in enormous supply at very cheap cost. This would seem to
be a classic argument for protectionism. Would a candle-maker *really*
benefit from less sun, however?
>> Nevertheless, even he benefits from having cheaper lighting for himself
>
>But will our candle-maker consider the net result a benefit? Personally, I'd
>consider it a net loss if the price for cheaper lighting would be the loss
>of my job (and thus, my income).
It doesn't matter what the candle-maker considers. The truth of the
matter is that everyone benefits when the cost of lighting goes down,
because that reduction in price gives everyone more money with which to
create more demand for other products, and thus, other jobs.
>> and also because the rest of his society is able to reap the benefits
>> of cheaper lighting.
>
>John, do you even know what it's like to loose your job and income? When
>something like that happens, it's NOT a consolation that the rest of society
>will benefit from you losing your job. At a time like that, *you* have a
>problem, a problem so big that you couldn't care less about the rest of
>society.
IAAMOAC. I would never expect to deny society a benefit simply so I could
keep my current job. So long as I am able-bodied, I have a moral
obligation to not accept charitable assistance, unless I am already earning
the fruits of my labor.
Moreover, I could never be so narrow-minded. Even though I produce
candles, even I would recognize that lightbulbs are superior. If I was
honest, I'd employ them in my own home. I'd also purchase goods and
services that were only made possibly by the superior lighting of a lightbulb.
If my job becomes obsolete, it is my obligation to learn a new trade, or
else take a job as unskilled labor. I may not like it, but there are
almost always unskilled jobs available. (And even when there are not
low-tier jobs available, making goods cheaper to the entire society will
boost GDP, and fuel job creation. Thus, I should plan on living off of
charity for a while, until I can land one of these new jobs.)
JDG
__________________________________________________________
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - ICQ #3527685
We are products of the same history, reaching from Jerusalem and
Athens to Warsaw and Washington. We share more than an alliance.
We share a civilization. - George W. Bush, Warsaw, 06/15/01
