Steven E. Landsburg subjects the current campaign issue of domestic jobs lost by export overseas to a philosophical re-examination.
Even if youâ€™ve just lost your job, thereâ€™s something fundamentally churlish about blaming the very phenomenon thatâ€™s elevated you above the subsistence level since the day you were born. If the world owes you compensation for enduring the downside of trade, what do you owe the world for enjoying the upside? …
Some people suggest, however, that it makes sense to isolate the moral effects of a single new trading opportunity or free trade agreement. Surely we have fellow citizens who are hurt by those agreements, at least in the limited sense that theyâ€™d be better off in a world where trade flourishes, except in this one instance. What do we owe those fellow citizens?
One way to think about that is to ask what your moral instincts tell you in analogous situations. Suppose, after years of buying shampoo at your local pharmacy, you discover you can order the same shampoo for less money on the Web. Do you have an obligation to compensate your pharmacist? If you move to a cheaper apartment, should you compensate your landlord? When you eat at McDonaldâ€™s, should you compensate the owners of the diner next door? Public policy should not be designed to advance moral instincts that we all reject every day of our lives.
Hat tip to Frank A. Dobbs.