And I'd say you misunderstand my point which is not that I have a problem with some people losing, I have a problem with a few losers losing almost everything.

And I'd say you misunderstand my point which is not that I have a problem with some people losing, I have a problem with a few losers losing almost everything. It's almost a negative lottery, where if you come up snake-eyes your job is deported and now you're competing with thousands of other laid off individuals with almost exactly your same experience to find the few applicable jobs that are available. Except that even in a negative lottery you could choose not to play. >should be able to find a good use of our unemployed american t-shirt maker. This is just a total handwave though. There's nothing in your economic theory that says these people are going to find good employment, it's just wishful thinking. We had jobs, we sent them somewhere else, now there's less jobs. Plenty of people who worked at the car plants will never have another job as good. I don't know the history but I'd say that there probably plenty of cobblers who never found as good of employment again either. >I have no (nationalistic/whatever) allegiance to the people who happen to be living near me. That puts you in a tiny minority though. Most people aren't true globablists. >Do you feel like we should have banned the car, for the sake of stablehands and horseshoe cobblers? No, because then most of us lose (we don't get cars), I feel we should have taxed cars and redistributed that money to unemployed stablehands and cobblers though. Then we all win! Let me pose to you a hypothetical example. ABC Corp sells $20 shirts in America. It moves its shirt factory from America to Cambodia. It still sells its shirts for $20. Its new profits are greater than the lost wages of the americans it laid off. If all that profit were distributed to one person, say the CEO would you still think it morally good? I think that example might get at the heart of our disagreement.