Now that I have your attention, I would like to point out to all those Scadenfreude loving Clarkies that this statement is exactly the same as Clark's.
Seriously, maybe one of you could explain to me why any software person should bother supporting Union factory jobs, family farmers, etc...under a Clark Admin? After all, without a bunch of govt. largess, most of their gigs would have been gone a year ago. Family farmers exist because we all pay up for price supports. Steel workes solely keep getting checks because of implicit protectionism (recently explicit). There shouldn't be a US textile industry under Clark's Macroecon 101 conception of how things work.
So, can all of anticipate all of you telling us you also think it's a bang up idea to take away all of the govt. intevention for them? Actually, Unions only exist due to laws that favor them, so I'll expect you to renounce them as well (with the same snide tones I've seen the debate threads about the software industry).
I went for a MA in Econ (real econ, as opposed to "economic history"), so I know the Hecksher-Olin Factor Analysis his comment was based on. But once you pass 101, you discover that not everything in the universe matches theory...there are a ton of impicit subsidies and costs that have to be factored in as well. What is superficially an economic gain can in fact be a deadwood loss once those are considered.
But that's irrelivant. I'll just be checking back in while our Clarkies show their intellectual honesty by renouncing family farmers and union jobs.
Why do I doubt that will happen?