[snip]Brad, you seem to proposing that the market should be viewed as part of society, responsible to society, and not the other way around. What a radical thought!
I don't think I've just drivelled out another obvious "romantic" platitude, although I didn't give my reference:
...[T]he principle should be "Protect the worker, not the industry."
"Tariffs on steel: George Bush, protectionist: The
president's decision to place high tariffs on
imports of steel is disgraceful", The Economist,
9-15Mar2002 (page ref. lost).This article is behind the pay-for barricade on the Economist website -- It will take someone who saves the print editions or has a subscription to get at the article.
But I believe the idea was that every country should provide its workers a social safety net, and *then* remove tariffs and let uneconomical industries fail if foreign competition beat them.
[Of course, this doesn't answer the question what to do about a counry that is a universal loser like the U.S. may have a predilection for tending to become -- I'm thinking here about things like "Detroit" which produces cars nobody except an American or somebody with "American envy" -- would buy.]
I hope this helps...
\brad mccormick
--
Let your light so shine before men,
that they may see your good works.... (Matt 5:16)Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thes 5:21)
<![%THINK;[SGML+APL]]> Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----------------------------------------------------------------- Visit my website ==> http://www.users.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
