Don Boudreaux writes:
Today's New York Times has several letters critical of Steve Landsburg's recent op-ed, in those pages, on trade. Here's a letter that I just sent to the Gray Lady in response to one of these letters:
To the Editor:
Taking Steven Landsburg to task for showing no "compassion" for those "who have fallen victim to the deleterious side of free trade," Alan Ross completely misses Mr. Landsburg's point (Letters, January 20). Free trade, as Mr. Landsburg eloquently explains, has no victims. In the long run, it benefits everyone - even those who today lose their jobs to foreign rivals. The vitally important insight is that almost every job that Americans today worry about losing was made higher-paying, and even possible, by trade. For any worker to complain that he is victimized by trade would be akin, say, to Elvis Presley complaining that he was victimized by radio because that medium did so much to make the Beatles more popular than him.
Sincerely,
Donald J. BoudreauxI might also have ended my letter with this alternative question: Suppose that the rise of Internet news sites causes the New York Times to lose market share. Could the owners and editors of that newspaper then justifiably complain about being victimized by freedom of the press?
I'd also add that focusing only on the loss of someone's job to trade is only part of the story. Any economic analysis of the gains from trade must account for both the benefits and the costs of trade. If someone loses a job, that is a cost to that person. But only looking at the job loss overstates the negative effect trade has on that person. Trade lowers prices for everyone, including those that lose their jobs, and will to some extent offset the loss of a job. Surely that has to be taken into account when we try to account for how trade creates "victims" of its "deleterious" side.