Jonathan Webb, Chapter 12, Question 6

       Reading the two passages about how trade makes us richer and trade creates losers cought my attention the most. I thought it was funny but important how he went from talking about all the advantages of trade to the bad side affects of it. About trade making us richer, he says, "productivity is what makes us rich, specialization is what makes us productive. Trade allows us to specialize" (275). He gives examples of why it's better for people in Seattle to engineer airplanes rather than spend their time on making shirts where people in Banglesesh can do it because they do it best there while the people in Seattle do best by engineering planes. I agree with that. But when he gets into telling about how trade creates losers is where I question him. He mentions in trade, the Gaines outweigh the losses. An examle he gave was In Maine there is a shoe factory where many were employed but the the company notices that it can move the factory to Vietnam and pay those workers a lot cheaper than the ones in Maine. He then brings up that someone had written him, they're going to stay poor no matter what. He agreed but went on talking about how it's still better for the factory. My question is, why can't they keep the factory in Maine and keep Americans employed. Yes it's more expensive, but those workers can use the money they get and donate to the people in Vietnam. The people here might not know how to do anything else Either!Like he says no matter what, someone is going to lose out. But I think we need to focus on employing people in our country first rather than having these business take advantage of others. But again, he's an economist, and they think about the long run. Trade facilitates growth. But where do you draw the line on when is it not the best option to think about the long run? Or is the long run always the best option?