The argument that Fisher uses is that the entire world does best when each country produces what it can produce MOST efficiently and purchases the remainder of its needs from other countries. Most economists will likely agree (I am taking a stab here) that what the US produces most efficiently is skilled labor, not goods (although anyone who has been to college lately realizes that we are quickly training the skilled labor component of other countries as well). Thus, we can most effectively dream up and run companies that have the actual production overseas and, according to fisher, everyone prospers with some local pain.

I have no problem with the US being known for purchasing all of its goods from other countries, that is more efficient and benefits both economies. My ethical problem lies in my opinion that not everyone in the US has an equal chance to become proficient at producing skilled labor, so that local pain is often going to hit the same populations again and again. We can argue that student loans are available to everyone and even that certain disadvantaged ethnic groups have more access to student aid than others. But when the real preparation for learning how to think takes place in grade school, and those grade schools are unevenly funded based on revenues from property taxes, our argument that everyone has an equal chance to succeed is nullified.

I realize that our economic model neccessitates certain worker groups willing to work for minimum wage, but I really hate to see certain populations disproportionally distributed amongst worker/wage levels. If we are going to just accept that we are a skilled labor society, we need to have a better plan to take everyone along who is willing to work their tails off for it.

That may sound socialistic, but I argue that it is not. There is no free ride here.