I have read where the citizens in European Nations are calling for less trade and imports as well as limiting or stopping immigration. Growing alarm in the developed nations stems from the emergence of powerful competitors in the developing world, especially China and India.

The same is happening in America, can politicians hope to hold their jobs if they don't cave to those demands; because the economy has out stripped the war in importance for many Americans as the new jobs are not acceptable.

Should politicians cave to the demands?

Globalization Was Good Then, Not Now (http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=9677)

Now let's see ;what is better for America and the developed world .

1 . Emerging economies that lifts millions of people out of poverty?? Or
2. $2 trillion in foreign aid aimed at fixing poverty in the under-developed world??

In the next decade over a billion people will be lifted from the ranks of the poor to middle class existence in developing countries . I would argue that that alone will change the migration pattern that people are concerned about.

We already know what protectionism brings us . We tried it right before the Great Depression.

Tom my question was not about what is best (Supply will always find its way to demand), but rather will the popular vote necessarily allow politicians do what they believe is best.

“It is a greater honor to be right than to be president—or popular, for statesmanship consists rather in removing causes than in punishing or evading results—thus, it is the rarest of qualities.” —James Garfield

An example Tom can be found in states receiving large amounts in farm subsidies.
Given that tariffs and subsidies is protectionism, can a politician be elected in those states who voted against subsidies? The same can be said about the steel industry. It would seem to follow in those cases that popular vote can prevent politicians from doing what they believe is best. Or is it simply that politicians in those states believe that protectionism is necessary for the country, or just for that particular state, at the expense of the country.

Survey: Asia Has World's Freest Economy - Yahoo! Singapore News (http://sg.news.yahoo.com/ap/20080115/twl-world-economic-freedom-1be00ca.html)


European countries accounted for half of the top 20 economies considered free or mostly free, with Ireland at No. 3, Switzerland at No. 9 and Britain at No. 10. The U.S. ranked No. 5, and Canada ranked 6th.

Moves by newer members of the European Union to introduce straightforward tax policies to attract more investment were having a radical impact on the region as a whole, the authors said.

"What we are seeing is a very strong commitment to economic freedom in the new EU countries, and this is having a positive impact on policies in the some of the older European countries ... such as France," said Edwin Feulner, president of the Heritage Foundation, a Washington-based think tank. "I think we will continue to see this evolve over time and we expect to see gradual improvement in economic freedom throughout Europe as a whole."

While Europe was moving more greater economic liberalization, the prevailing sentiment in the United States was protectionism, said Mary Kissel, the editorial page editor of the Wall Street Journal's Asian edition.

"We have Democratic candidates coming out against free trade agreement and for higher taxes," she told reporters. "On the Republican side too, there's talk of protecting American jobs. Meanwhile, you have a Congress which is considering a clutch of bills aimed at punishing China for exporting too much to American consumers."