The argument could be justified – I dont’ have access to the social welfare function so I can’t say. One thing I would say is that, if we want to subsidise importers (beyond the implicit subsidy from the exchange rate) why only do it for importers with families?

@Swan

For sure – we just need to improve jail services so that people committing the crimes don’t miss out by as much …

@Miguel Sanchez

Good point.

@Paul Walker

By no economists would disagree, I meant no economist who is will to read it is a “potential pareto improvement” and not be pedantic about terminology 😉

@Miguel Sanchez

Indeed, I haven’t been able to get on your blog over the last few days either Paul.

Greg :So in the NZ context, with our comparative advantage in land-intensive production and comparative disadvantage in labour-intensive production, transfers from land owners to labour owners are appropriate. Working for Families, for instance.
No?

No. WFF is not a transfer from land owners, who have endlessly creative ways to minimise their taxable income. Instead it’s mostly a transfer from labour owners to other labour owners.

No?

Short answer: No.

Long answer: Some economists may put on their normative hat, as people rather than economists, and reach that sort of conclusion. However, the general economic framework is very much premised on the quote about – and no standard economist would disagree with it.

I thought the standard economist line was that the losers could frictionlessly move into the winning industries.