Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: craig crawford who wrote (21193)	3/11/2002 11:00:56 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 281500

Wallmart may be the biggest private employer but that doesn't mean most of the new jobs are jobs at Wallmart. In the past those jobs would have been at K-mart or at small stores. The new jobs are in manufacturing exports and in services that are provided to manufactures and individuals. you are looking at this from the point of view of a paper scribbling economist. america is a country, not a corporation. once someone pointed out your argument to ronald reagan. you know what his response to the notion that we can just find new jobs for displaced workers in manufacturing? he said, well maybe so, but what is the guy going to do to take care of his family in themeantime? that's why simple bottom line economics is not how you run a country. If you run the country with bad economic policies like protectionism, real people suffer. They pay more for goods, those that export products lose their jobs. Capital is allocated less efficently which lowers production and makes people overall poorer. As for the story about Reagan 1 - He was not for heavy protectionism. 2 - You could say "what about the guy who looses his job" when you talk about all the farm and factory jobs that have been lost to automation. Sure we could still have most of the country working in farms of factories, mostly with their hands by outlawing a lot of technological and systems progress but that would make the country poorer and not just as some figure for economists, it would make "real people", including most "little guys" poorer. They would work harder and longer and have less real income. Tim