Interesting article. More of an editorial than a review, but it was thought-provoking, even if it does seem like it's wasted on the book that the editorial is about. However, that is not what I'm commenting about....
"The seller now has to sell their own cameras for $60 to stay competitive, so they are worse off by at most $20 -- however, if they voluntarily switch to some other business, then they'll be better off than they were when they were selling cameras for $60, and therefore worse off by some amount less than $20 from their original position."
This line made me want to argue with the internet. In addition to all the humanist and environmental considerations brought into play elsewhere in the comments, I think this argument is simply an oversimplification. The problem with cramming complex issues into nice little premise-sized chunks is that they don't always fit. This statement assumes that the American company is -capable- of selling cameras for $60 or switching to some other business, and completely ignores whatever damage might be done to the system by the American company going out of business (now the employees of the American company have $0 to spend on anything). I'm not saying I believe in protectionism, just highlighting what I perceive to be the flaw in the argument.
It's been years since I took a logic class and I almost thought about getting this book to refresh myself, but I think I'm going to pass on it. I think I would pop too many blood vessels upon reading it. You can't answer questions or solve problems with logic -- it is a filter to ensure that solutions are correct, not a solution itself.
