One more thing, please, and I will leave you alone for a time.

I meant to point out that protectionism is most rampant, and most expensive, in government and education. To see protectionism at its’ most excessive, look at government and education employee unions and their efforts against lack of employment, or reductions in compensation

I agree, RJN, but on this issue you are preaching to the choir here.

Well, I hope you’re happy now that you have won.

I totally am. Thanks!

I meant to point out that protectionism is most rampant, and most expensive, in government and education. To see protectionism at its' most excessive, look at government and education employee unions and their efforts against lack of employment, or reductions in compensation

I didn't say that self-betterment or that participatory government are irrelevant or unimportant. My point is that when competition is allowed in economic endeavors, things get better. When competition is stifled things tend to get worse.

Limiting immigrant workers on economic grounds falls into the latter catagory. Controlling our borders for security reasons is very sensible and something we should do. But this idea that there is an economic bonus or that it is also good for the economy is almost surely not true.

As for taxing imports, that has basically the same effect. It gives the domestic industries market (increases monopoly) power. If it works on an international trade basis, why not do it on a domestic basis.

Isn't the bedrock of free enterprise self betterment? And, isn't the bedrock of community and participatory government the family? Aren't these the glue of a Nation, and isn't emotion involved?

If we spurn these qualities, and consider them useless in economic affairs; in other words, if we say to one-half of our population - "We don't respect your contributions enough anymore, you don't get consideration as full citizens anymore" - are we still a Nation?

Another thing that matters is the fact that we are keeping too much technological development from our own workers and industries by letting it all happen outside of the U.S.

In any case my proposal has always been to collect duties, or tariffs, on mfg. goods from abroad and apply the proceeds to Soc. Sec.

I still think your proposed experiment is apples and oranges.

Try googling “Godwin’s Law.” It might aid you in developing the sense of humor that is so obviously lacking.

I'd suggest you use dictionary.com to look up the word sarcasm. Sheesh.

You take your economic analysis very personally, particularly when arguing with an anonymous poster who agrees with your central point. Take a deep breath, man.

I took nothing personally. Your comments were largely irrelevant and I said so.

BTW: You still never began to address the substance of my comment. Therefore I win.

Well, I hope you're happy now that you have won.

Oh and I apologize for the terse nature of my posts as it seems to have upset you.

Try googling "Godwin's Law." It might aid you in developing the sense of humor that is so obviously lacking.

You take your economic analysis very personally, particularly when arguing with an anonymous poster who agrees with your central point. Take a deep breath, man.

BTW: You still never began to address the substance of my comment. Therefore I win.

Your last comment makes no sense.

While I cited competition in my footnote, I also closed that note with the following,

The same result holds, qualitatively for markets that are between competitive markets and monopoly markets such as markets that are characterized as oligoply.

In short,

1. I'm aware that perfect competition in the real world is very, very rare.
2. That perfect monopoly is also very, very rare.
3. That despite this possible objection the qualitative aspects of the footnote hold when we move from one end of the continuum to the other.

Hence your objection is without any merit and highlights at best a superficial understanding of economic theory and how to apply it to the real world.

...do you want to go ahead and call me a nazi now and get it over with?

Why, would it make you feel better or something?

Oh and one more thing, I didn't bring up the WPA, so agian an irrelevant point that doesn't address in anyway the substance of my post.

And guys like Hamilton are not your typical "Chicago type" as he went ot Berkeley to get his PhD.

RJN,

I don’t think your challenge was, itself, very honest. You ignore the fact that we have to include the value of nationhood, and tax burdens, and expected rights after generations of doing it right for your country, and perhaps serving in the military, and or losing a child or brother while ostensibly serving the U. S. in your thought experiment.

Oh yes, lets drag in lots of emotional baggage so that we can make a decision based on emotion vs. logic, empirical evidence, and sound reasoning.

I like your very well reasoned responses to the other points of my posts. Given the tone and general level of intellectual discourse evident in your reply, do you want to go ahead and call me a nazi now and get it over with?

Second, comparing employment protectionism to a state-created monopoly creates a false dichotomy. The two policy arenas don't even exist on the same plane, and cannot be analogous to each other. That's why no one took the bait the first time around - the analogy makes no sense.

I do agree that employment protectionism is a terrible idea in the long-term and doomed to failure in any event. But I question the way it's been articulated here, you seem to try (unsuccessfully) to score a particular political point against the New Deal policy initiatives rather than making the very salient economic argument against employment and immigration protectionism.