The economically illiterate public reads the Wall Street Journal (?)(!)

Re: Pain from Free Trade Spurs Second Thoughts (WSJ $)

Who in the hell is reading The Journal and buying this protectionist crap? The comments are filled with the stupid, the racist, union members, etc. I understand if you have personally lost your job and didn't figure out how to improve your situation yet you might hold a grudge, but that does not give you the right to STEAL from the whole of society just to make you feel better.

Winners AND losers, yes, there will be losers in every competition. The world is a competition, nobody is going to hold your hand and put food on your plate. (North Korea, the last of the great communist states cannot feed their own citizens.) Is this what people want for their American brothers and sisters?

Okay, enough drama, nobody will take these people seriously, but sometimes they wind up in Congress and they become loaded weapons.

Look, even Alan Blinder is a "free trader down to my toes" and he has simply made a bleeding heart appeal that we should make huge gifts to the people who can't shift with the changing world. Is it okay to feel sorry for someone who loses their job? Yes. Is it a good idea to encourage them to shift their career path, shift their ass to a productive city, shift their attitude towards their own country? Hell Yes!

Dr. Blinder's own student, N. Greg Mankiw was ashamed of the statements made by his evil teacher. Greg seems to feel that Dr. Blinder is resisting new technology. That certainly is not a new problem and whole communities of people, even here in the United States, feel the same way. However, they do not recruit or use rent seeking tactics to restrict the liberty of the World.

Please people, WAKE UP! If you are unhappy, get some professional help, but don't come begging me for a hand out or a hand up, all I have to offer is employment, but... don't faint... you have to WORK for it.

From the WSJ:

What's the net effect of free trade on U.S. employment?

It helps. It hurts. It's neutral. 774 votes (39%) 935 votes (47%) 272 votes (14%)

Total Votes : 1981

From the comments:

Roger Theriualt: Not a single person has been hired because of free trade. And if free trade were not here, we would still be doing well. Operations would be a little different, but that is all. ... Free trade, when raised to the extremes of idealism is toxic to all concerned. Moderation is the answer, some things can go too far.

romesh: remember, US can print US$ in unlimited quantities at no cost and it does so; just look at payments for Iraq war.

Are jobs of WSJ Editors offshoreable to Bangalore (India)?; after all, their work can be done by a person sitting anywhere with an access to a laptop and tele-communications. If so, would the Editors call it Free Trade?

Stephen Carroll: If country A takes 5 hours to produce a product with a labor cost of 20 dollars per hour the cost is 100 dollars. If country B takes 10 hours to produce a product with a labor cost of 5 dollars per hour the cost is 50 dollars. Country B puts country A out of business at the cost of increased man hours worked. The result is a reduction in the world’s productivity.

Dr. jur. Heinz L, Gundlach (Dr? seriously? He works at an M&A firm): we have to stop this crazy free import thinking. Tax foreign firms on their sales in the US (10% of sales) and exit the WTO and again rely on bilateral trade negotiations requiring balanced accounts with each country. Our employment situation must have formost importance. Dr. jur. Heinz L, Gundlach, Palm Beach, Fl..

My talk with Justice Scalia

Well, not exactly a talk, but he did listen and respond to my question. The highlight of the year's speakers was today's visit by Justice Antonin Scalia at the University of Toledo. Justice Scalia was approachable, honest and even entertaining. He worked without notes and never skipped a beat reciting decisions and important historical events throughout the history of our country.

On a side note, there was almost no security presence at either of two venues. There may have been a Federal Marshall, and the University Police came through before the event, but no metal detectors or searches. I was shocked.

During his morning Q&A with the College of Law, I was privileged to have the opportunity to pose a question to one of the world's great legal minds. My humble question related to the conflict among justices on the court and whether this is an important feature of the supreme court or if Chief Justice Roberts is correct to seek more unanimity? Justice Scalia without pause started into a dissertation on the ridiculous thought that courts should be unanimous. He began with a bit of history that under Justice John Marshall the Supreme Court first shifted to a majority opinion from its previous policy of five separate opinions. Justice Scalia opined that this is a dishonest approach on the part of the judges who do not fully agree with the majority opinion.

Justice Scalia took particular pride in his own reputation as the great dissenter because he considers his dissents as honest and provides accountability. He believes he has been consistent through his decisions and the dissent is a public tool for predicting future responses and influencing future judicial and legal minds.

The morning audience, all law students and professors, posed a number of great questions covering the gamut of constitutional questions. Some notable quotes:

Yes, there is a right of privacy... [A European court considered a case,] in what can only be described as a five many homosexual orgy... Somehwere between five men and a full Coliseum the right of privacy ends.

I believe in stare decisis and I accept the mistakes of the court as water over the damn.

I live in this Marble Palace. Hell, I don't know what the evolving standards of decency are. I am afraid to inquire

I am an originalist, but I am not a nut.

I don't think the Supreme Court would affirm... Kelo. The public has turned against the decision.

On his former colleague Justice Sandra Day O'Connor:

If you are ever on the wrong side of a civil procedure question, she will grab you like a dog with a bone and shake you. She lives and dies by [civil procedure].

Regarding oral argument:

It is very rare that oral argument changes my mind, but a persuasive advocate can change my mind.

His considerations for overturning precedent:

1. How wrong was the decision?
2. How wide has the decision been accepted?
3. How does the decision permit me to be a lawyer? [to advise and predict the outcome of a dispute based on the precedent]

Justice Scalia delivered many persuasive arguments for his position as an originalist. The alternative, to consider the Constitution as a "living organism," does not provide any guidance for the role of the courts. If the Constitution, the foundation of our country, is interpreted in light of current "standards of decency" and political climate, it loses its power and all of that power is transferred to the Court. Justice Scalia proposes keeping that power with the people, who voted for and ratified the Constitution. Originalists are not necessarily ultra-conservative, a textual reading of the Constitution does not mean it cannot be changed, merely that changes should come in the form originally proposed: amendments. The Constitution clearly intends changes to come from Congress, not the Court.

I enjoyed the festivities immensely and I look forward to following Justice Scalia and his colleagues more closely.