Economists are now admitting that they were wrong about globalization • Hacker News Board

Re: Economists are now admitting that they were wrong about globalization

#31

Post by deogeo » Fri, Oct 25, 2019, 7:04 PM UTC

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #19

deogeo wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We're saying, we want, we're okay By 'we', you mean the multinational corporations that write 'free-trade' treaties (that usually encompass much more than just tariff reductions). Because voters tend to not get much say (and sometimes not even senators!): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Partnership#Secr...

As a consumer you are voting with those corporations by buying from them or using their services. It might not seem like it's a choice, because the plurality of consumers have made the choice to go along, so if you do otherwise you're in a small group. It's still a choice though. You either live the modern lifestyle, which includes (though reducing) consumption based on what could be classified in many cases slave la…

How nice. First subvert democracy through lobbying so they can offshore production, so the only 'choice' consumers have is go along with it, or live in the stone age. Then when consumers don't all retreat to caves and huts in the woods, claim this means they agree with and 'voted' for this course.

Buying is not voting, and deceiving people into believing this has been one of capitalism's greatest successes.

Re: Economists are now admitting that they were wrong about globalization

#32

Post by lazyeye » Fri, Oct 25, 2019, 7:07 PM UTC

Krugman and his ilk are to the economy are what Ansel Keys was to nutrition. And they appear to be getting off rather lightly considering the devastation they've wreaked on peoples lives.

Re: Economists are now admitting that they were wrong about globalization

#33

Post by ZeroGravitas » Fri, Oct 25, 2019, 7:07 PM UTC

> globalization would lead to “hyperglobalization” and huge economic and social upheaval, particularly of the industrial middle class in America.

This line reminded me of the joke that the worst part of the US invading your country is that 20 years later they'll return to make films about how killing your civilians made their soldiers really sad.

Re: Economists are now admitting that they were wrong about globalization

#34

Post by davidw » Fri, Oct 25, 2019, 7:08 PM UTC

shkkmo wrote: post #21

beagle3 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me play the devil’s advocate: you buying those products is measurably better for those disadvantaged blue collar workers, than you not buying it (on a 10 year horizon IIRC - There are some UN studies on this, on phone and can’t find them right now). So you are damned if you don’t enjoy them, damned if you do (but a bit less). Obviously, it is better if you could improve their situation to the point where their la…

> Let me play the devil’s advocate: you buying those products is measurably better for those disadvantaged blue collar workers, than you not buying it (on a 10 year horizon IIRC - There are some UN studies on this, on phone and can’t find them right now). Maybe in some cases. However, you then have labor in those countries trying to struggle for the same protections and advances in wages that workers in the US strugg…

> a more corrupt/disfunctional government

You...sure about that?

Re: Economists are now admitting that they were wrong about globalization

#35

Post by rb808 » Fri, Oct 25, 2019, 7:09 PM UTC

To be clear this article isn't whether globalization is good or bad but about how it affects "American workers". Its pretty clear it has been on average very good for America and the world, but bad for say factory workers or coal miners. The response should have been to tax the wider benefits and subsidize the people who lost out, but that money got lost somewhere en-route...

Most of the world is far better off in nearly every measure than 20 years ago.

Re: Economists are now admitting that they were wrong about globalization

#36

Post by naravara » Fri, Oct 25, 2019, 7:09 PM UTC

tr3ndyBEAR wrote: post #14

markmet433 wrote: post #3

Outside hardline libertarian and establishment wall street circles, no serious intelectualls fell for the new free trade religion. Seeing Krugman admit as much in order to preserve a shred of credibility is a good sign. Dont be confused though, Krugman is stil a hack intellectual for hire.

The establishment of both major US policies have been pretty staunchly neoliberal and pro free trade up until recently. I don't think it's fair to say "no one fell for it"

That was largely driven by bankers and the finance industry moreso than academic economists. It's all about incentives.

Re: Economists are now admitting that they were wrong about globalization

#37

Post by aeternum » Fri, Oct 25, 2019, 7:11 PM UTC

ep103 wrote: post #22

codingslave wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The problem in the U.S. was much the same problem we've always had: free trade became synonymous to opposition to government intervention. All the free trade bills in the U.S. invariably included funding for re-education and R&D to help manage dislocation and build competitive advantages, but they were meager financially and suffocated by neglect. And that's because these measures were considered "government interve…

I read an article once, that claimed when a Scandinavian country joined the EU, they expected significant job distortion as a result of free trade. So they literally moved government agencies from their current locations, to locations that they expected would be hardest hit. The end result was the shifting of thousands of government jobs from one location to another. Highly trained people in the old government center…

This seems like a great idea. It ensures that even if government efficiency is low, it is providing positive value. I'm surprised this concept isn't more widespread.

Re: Economists are now admitting that they were wrong about globalization

#38

Post by cactus2093 » Fri, Oct 25, 2019, 7:11 PM UTC

shkkmo wrote: post #21

beagle3 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me play the devil’s advocate: you buying those products is measurably better for those disadvantaged blue collar workers, than you not buying it (on a 10 year horizon IIRC - There are some UN studies on this, on phone and can’t find them right now). So you are damned if you don’t enjoy them, damned if you do (but a bit less). Obviously, it is better if you could improve their situation to the point where their la…

> Let me play the devil’s advocate: you buying those products is measurably better for those disadvantaged blue collar workers, than you not buying it (on a 10 year horizon IIRC - There are some UN studies on this, on phone and can’t find them right now). Maybe in some cases. However, you then have labor in those countries trying to struggle for the same protections and advances in wages that workers in the US strugg…

Yes people still have challenges and problems. But at the end of day, there are hundreds of millions fewer people in poverty than there were just a few decades ago. None of what you're saying justifies that the alternative would have been better, where most of these people remained poor subsistance farmers.

Re: Economists are now admitting that they were wrong about globalization

#39

Post by themagician » Fri, Oct 25, 2019, 7:14 PM UTC

eznoonze wrote: post #28

Free market only works when everyone follows the same rules. When you have a player like China who is dead set on taking advantages of the rules but never taking the responsibility, you create an one-sided situation. Trade is not just an economic issue. It's a political issue when you have China in the game.

The “free market”, as it’s often portrayed, is a magical idea that exists only in text books. It’s not real. The real market is a mess of information asymmetry, unpriced negative externalities and govern emend subsidies.

Economic theory is great for determining the direction of economic policy but not defining policy itself.

Re: Economists are now admitting that they were wrong about globalization

#40

Post by bryanlarsen » Fri, Oct 25, 2019, 7:15 PM UTC

ep103 wrote: post #22

codingslave wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The problem in the U.S. was much the same problem we've always had: free trade became synonymous to opposition to government intervention. All the free trade bills in the U.S. invariably included funding for re-education and R&D to help manage dislocation and build competitive advantages, but they were meager financially and suffocated by neglect. And that's because these measures were considered "government interve…

I read an article once, that claimed when a Scandinavian country joined the EU, they expected significant job distortion as a result of free trade. So they literally moved government agencies from their current locations, to locations that they expected would be hardest hit. The end result was the shifting of thousands of government jobs from one location to another. Highly trained people in the old government center…

Such a strategy failed utterly in Canada. They moved a government department from Ottawa to Miramichi, New Brunswick for similar reasons. All the skilled bureaucrats used their reputations to get transfers to a different department so they wouldn't have to uproot their family, and the department was rebuilt around a core of incompetents. I'm sure the locals they hired weren't so incompetent, but rot starts from the top. That move caused the failure of the long-gun registry and a waste of $2B. After the long gun registry was cancelled they used the same department to rewrite the pay system (code name Phoenix) and have managed to waste about $5B so far, and growing.

That's about $50 million wasted per job.