High paying manufacturing jobs produce high priced consumer goods. Protectionism reduces purchasing power of the average American consumer. You seem to want to play Robin Hood to take from the consumer and give to the semi-skilled laborer.

Protectionism is unsound economic policy. Tariffs are the bread part of bread and circuses.

I'm not defending W, but talk of starvation is nothing but hyperbole.

Could you explain?

We're people starving en masse under W? I seem to recall that the biggest health problem facing America is obesity related illness.

Are you not at all interested in economics? Does economic thought have no influence on your politics? By politics do you mean anything of substance, or just political strategy? We could probably win elections by a platform of bread and circuses. We'd probably have a hard time when the economic failure of that platform became apparent though.

Xennady- we're not going to convince each other, but I do have a question about Reagan tariffs being a benefit to the free market. How do you feel about GWB's comment that he "had to abandon free market principles in order to save the free market?"

Xennady- I read #249 again. I can see how it's possible to argue that the wage mechanism you propose may be benificial, though I happen to disagree. However, it is clearly artificial.

“Capitalism: God’s way of determining who is smart and who is poor.”

"Under my administration, you will grow from boys to men. From men into gladiators. And from gladiators into Swansons.”

Xennady- Also, if you disagree with the idea that economists should define an economic term who do you think should?

Xennady- I define an artificially high wage as a wage that is higher than it would be in a free market. That is pretty much the definition of an artificially high wage which has been accepted as standard by economists. How would you define it?

Xennady- my point was not specific to Americans. It was based on the premise of your point regarding Obama. I happen to think that the idea of protectionism is incredibly attractive to most of humanity as it is natural to prefer those who you identify with over strangers. Arguments in favor of free trade are inherently more difficult for people to accept because its much easier to point to a lost steel job next door than it is to recognize the lower cost of consumer goods imported from abroad. As to the specifics of your protectionist preferences, they boil down to the idea that I have an obligation to pay more for any steel products I purchase than I would in a free market so that you can have a job as a steelworker paying a artificially high wage.

Xennady- First, the Pope was not making a statement about prudent political strategy. To claim that he was is to ignore what he actually said. Second, if the American people are so misguided that they favor Obama out of concern that markets are excessively free (or about the perceived net-detriment of outsourcing) that is a poor reflection on the American people and not an argument on the merits of markets versus the state.

KC- the autonomy of free markets is precisely the point. To the extent that the cost of oil to consumers differs in a particular country from the global market price, it is in large part due to regulatory and tax burdens enacted by governments for the purpose of limiting the autonomy of the market.

KC- the problem with the oil analogy is that it reflects a weak grasp of how markets work. Oil is a fungible commodity. It's price is determined by global supply and demand. It doesn't really matter where American oil companies sell their oil in a free market. The effect will be on the global price. As to the larger principle, I don't think you have an obligation to charge someone less for your property simply because they are geographically closer to you, though it might make economic sense to do so because of transaction costs.