Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

Dems Support Trade Embargo on...

Recs

3

November 29, 2007 – Comments (2)

on us?

Yahoo's Nekkid economist poses a great question: Why would any presidential candidate propose "helping the American middle class with essentially the same policy that you're advocating to punish Iran for building nuclear weapons?"

Alas, the answer is too easy: "Because it plays well to the angry yokels who are going to decide this election." You'll never get 'em to admit it, though.

2 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On November 29, 2007 at 2:21 PM, HKendrick (< 20) wrote:

Seth,

I tend to agree with the good doctor (and who wouldn't be inclined to agree with such a handsome young lad), but I don't think it's as simple as he makes it seem.

For starters, using his (correct) logic, even an embargo against Iran (or Cuba or any other nation) is an embargo on America as well.  Just ask a cigar smoker.  So, the question when considering any sort of trade limitation, whether it's a tariff, quota, embargo, etc. really becomes whether the benefits outweigh the costs.  Perhaps one might be inclined to think that in the majority of cases the costs exceed the benefits (and, of course, this depends on which costs we care about), but it's certainly not as simple as handsome Dr. Whelan suggests.

Best,

Squints

Report this comment
#2) On November 29, 2007 at 3:09 PM, TMFBent (99.82) wrote:

True enough, but it would be a VERY fun question to ask at a town hall meeting.

Now, get back to the OSTK board with your messages of hate.

;P

Sj

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement