Keith Hudson wrote: > Evidently, emotional statements are more important to you than economic > factuality.
Is that an either-or issue? Well, some economists lack _both_, emotions and factuality... ====== Arthur Cordell wrote: > The push for free trade did not serve the needs of the average worker. > Sure cheaper goods have come into the country. With the loss of many > good jobs those goods were needed. And the cheaper goods aren't cheap enough to compensate for the loss in wages (especially where the loss is total, i.e. unemployment). Housing/rents, healthcare/insurances and other fixed costs are big parts of the average worker's household spending, but these costs don't go down, rather up. So people end up having to "save" on food -- the silliest place to "save" on in terms of public health and happiness. And cheap food also happens to be the place where the junkfood-pharma- industrial complex is maximizing profits with the unhealthiest stuff (like trans-fats, flavor enhancers, artificial sweeteners and colorants). And then people wonder why healthcare costs and insurance fees are going thru the roof... But what do economists care about such "technical details", anyway? Chris ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword "igve". _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
