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

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

#181

Post by neffy » Fri, Oct 25, 2019, 11:33 PM UTC

hos234 wrote: post #61

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 don't think economists are lying about it. Krugman atleast keeps posting graphs about the low odds of unemployed men over 35(?) getting back into the workforce. If I remember right, he brings it up to push Infrastructure Spending (2-3 Trillion much overdue since everything is falling apart/also has bipartisan support). Something like that would produce that "glut of jobs".

There's really a very fundamental lack of imagination going on in economics if people there are defending a state where there is clearly work that needs doing (bridge repair for starters), and people available to do it.

The equivalent in a computer would be a bunch of processors sitting idle, because the programmers couldn't figure out multi-threading.

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

#182

Post by gridlockd » Fri, Oct 25, 2019, 11:38 PM UTC

What difference does it make whether globalization hurt "the american worker" more than some people estimated? What really matters is whether it hurt them more than it helped.

That may well be the case, but it isn't obvious.

Also, what about "the non-american worker"? Did it hurt them more than it helped? Is there a comparative disadvantage?

Also, why the focus on workers? What about the young, the sick, the elderly? Could an aging society's welfare be improved by being shielded economically from younger societies?

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

#183

Post by harryh » Fri, Oct 25, 2019, 11:39 PM UTC

claudiawerner wrote: post #179

harryh wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have they? Unequivocally yes! Understanding this ironclad fact is one of the most important things to understand about changes in the world economy over the last 50 years. China has gone from a country full of subsistence farmers to a country of middle class wage earners.

That wasn't really the question being asked - the question concerned more, whether, for instance, people feel happy working for wages, under working conditions that seem set fifty years in the past to any Western observer, and what the quality of life is like in conjunction with the regimes which typically administer these policies. The argument, to me, seems rather similar to the argument the English bourgeoisie mad…

I don't have a hard time saying that people's live are a lot better when they make enough money to afford things like reliable shelter, a better diet, access to medical care (Chinese lifespans have nearly 2Xed in 70 years) & modern transportation.

In addition, while working in a factory making iPhones might not be the best of jobs, it's a hell of a lot better breaking one's back on the rice patties every day.

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

#184

Post by aeternum » Fri, Oct 25, 2019, 11:42 PM UTC

repolfx wrote: post #106

aeternum wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Usually it just means gutting the department that moves. The UK has been trying this with the BBC, forcibly relocating the organisation to the north of the country. It encodes a basic assumption that in government, skilled and experienced people are so unimportant you can just lose all of them (as very few people want to relocate to a place chosen specifically because it's fallen behind). Says a lot, really.

Many governmental organizations do not need to have the most skilled or experienced. Different people bring different ideas, in government especially diversity is important. Moving the department seems like a great way to do this.

Those that choose not to move can leverage their experience in private industry.

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

#185

Post by drtillberg » Fri, Oct 25, 2019, 11:44 PM UTC

armitron wrote: post #125

NeedMoreTea wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the truth is, on balance free trade is better for the world and for every nation in it; Well not quite. Free trade is better for every nation after they have achieved development and wealth. Pretty much all of whom got wealthy by pointedly ignoring free trade. There's a decent book from 10 or 15 years ago by Ha-Joon Chang called Bad Samaritans that explores globalisation, free trade and in particular the insistence…

This x1000. Everybody interested in economics should read Ha-Joon Chang and study the South Korean phenomenon. Those who haven't and still feel obliged to put down their 2 cents praising free trade / markets are talking out of their asses. The fact that people are still willing to listen to Krugman (even this FP article is sympathetic) rather than cast him out as a colossal buffoon - not quite Alan Greenspan status b…

For the life of me I can't understand his prominence either. He seems profoundly lost and misguided, so much I take even his mea culpa with a grain of salt. I only can imagine that someone important considers him to be a useful idiot.

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

#186

Post by claudiawerner » Fri, Oct 25, 2019, 11:52 PM UTC

harryh wrote: post #183

claudiawerner wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That wasn't really the question being asked - the question concerned more, whether, for instance, people feel happy working for wages, under working conditions that seem set fifty years in the past to any Western observer, and what the quality of life is like in conjunction with the regimes which typically administer these policies. The argument, to me, seems rather similar to the argument the English bourgeoisie mad…

I don't have a hard time saying that people's live are a lot better when they make enough money to afford things like reliable shelter, a better diet, access to medical care (Chinese lifespans have nearly 2Xed in 70 years) & modern transportation. In addition, while working in a factory making iPhones might not be the best of jobs, it's a hell of a lot better breaking one's back on the rice patties every day.

My point is that the comparison is disingenuous, you're comparing the thoughts and feelings of people situated in one group of time to the ones today, and it doesn't address the fact that wage labour brings its own, more transparent problems - alienation, risk, and domination among them.

When you compare living conditions and material benefits, of course the world is better, but that comes at the moral cost frequently expressed as "sweatshops are necessary because the country becomes richer and you get better living conditions". I don't know how this is justified, this kind of trade-off is not justified by any major ethical system, including most serious forms of utilitarianism.

Consider the case of a Chinese peasant farmer who has has land confiscated by the regime, so now he gets to make iPhones to earn a wage so he can spend it on buying food and shelter and medical care. The conditional freedom of needing to sell one's product (whether that is a material thing the peasant makes, or the labour power the iPhone factory worker produces) hasn't been eliminated, it's just changed form.

You claim to be able to reduce these factors to a comparison in which you can say one is better than the other, and I'm not convinced the reduction is sound. Most people, even our iPhone factory worker, would think that there is (and there should be) more to life than the wage and its spending.

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

#187

Post by harryh » Fri, Oct 25, 2019, 11:58 PM UTC

claudiawerner wrote: post #186

harryh wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't have a hard time saying that people's live are a lot better when they make enough money to afford things like reliable shelter, a better diet, access to medical care (Chinese lifespans have nearly 2Xed in 70 years) & modern transportation. In addition, while working in a factory making iPhones might not be the best of jobs, it's a hell of a lot better breaking one's back on the rice patties every day.

My point is that the comparison is disingenuous, you're comparing the thoughts and feelings of people situated in one group of time to the ones today, and it doesn't address the fact that wage labour brings its own, more transparent problems - alienation, risk, and domination among them. When you compare living conditions and material benefits, of course the world is better, but that comes at the moral cost frequentl…

Let's make things real simple:

Chinese people used to starve to death all the time because they couldn't afford to buy food. Now that happens much less often because China has gotten much richer through international trade.

That's a much better world.

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

#188

Post by resters » Sat, Oct 26, 2019, 12:00 AM UTC

This is ridiculous. Trump's economic policy is a near exact copy of what Krugman has been advocating for years. See my previous comment with an itemized list of op-ed pieces by Krugman linked with major themes of Trump's economic rhetoric:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20647721

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

#189

Post by pessimizer » Sat, Oct 26, 2019, 12:04 AM UTC

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #65

methodover wrote: post #2

The big question I’ve been struggling with in regards to the free trade debate is this: Is cheap labor a legitimate source of comparative advantage? I increasingly don’t think that it is. Yes, we get products more cheaply. But those products are made in countries with fewer labor restrictions, often in places that are not democratic, where workers cannot vote for changing laws. We’re effectively saying we want democr…

The thing is, for those workers in "poor" countries, this is a step up . My wife can tell you what two months' work for $300 meant to subsistence farmers in Guatemala. They were happy to get it. You may say "Sure, they're poor and exploited, but that doesn't make it morally right for us to exploit them just a little less ". I agree, up to a point. But insisting on first-world working conditions (including pay) mean t…

> The thing is, for those workers in "poor" countries, this is a step up.

Not if the companies can help it. Just because they're in a low labor cost country doesn't mean that they want to pay any more than the minimum they can there - they're not looking to give a step up, they're looking for the minimum cost to attract a sufficient workforce.

Everybody always talks about these jobs as if they are necessarily great jobs. They may be great, maybe if the company has some sort of local political arrangement that would stay favorable if the jobs stay good, maybe if the management is simply bad and is accidentally paying more than the prevailing rate. But, on the other hand, these jobs are often with awful subcontractors who pay bargain basement wages even for the area, cut safety corners, demand unpaid overtime, and have any potential union leaders killed.

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

#190

Post by mr_toad » Sat, Oct 26, 2019, 12:16 AM UTC

The article cherry picks a few words from the original Krugman essay in a way that would make Maximilien Robespierre proud.

So while we’re at it:

> major disruptions now would be more likely to come from an attempt to reverse globalization than from leaving the current trade regime in place. At this point, millions of decisions about where to put plants, and where to move and take jobs, have been made on the assumption that the open world trading system will continue. Making that assumption false, by raising tariffs and forcing a contraction of world trade, would set off a whole new wave of disruption along with a whole new set of winners and losers.