I agree that Romney wants to have it both ways. Your last paragraph raises some interesting issues, esp in light of the fact that more South-North labor mobility has been touted by some political economists (notably D.Rodrik) as an effective global poverty-reduction measure. But seeing the problem purely in these terms may overlook the cultural and distributional issues you mention.
I will point out also that economists often talk about trade as the equivalent of importing labor: when you import cheap goods made in China, you are, in effect, importing cheap labor.
There is something grossly wrong with advocating the free mobility of capital while concurrently denouncing the free mobility of labor. If liberal economics require that capital should be able move to the location where its return is maximized, what (valid economic) justification can there be for preventing labor from maximizing *its* return?
Yeah, Nexon! Keep on posting, even if it is on the disastrous CNN planting fiasco!
(Seriously, I learned a lot, but the plants are going detract from the rest.)
Giuliani came off unpresidential, and on the defensive. I think less of him, but at least he's got Podhoretz as an advisor.
I can't say too much about Romney. I'd need more facts, but perhaps his own staff could have vetted the company performing the services (maybe he could get CNN to do is vetting!).
Keep it up, man!
Commenting by HaloScan.com
