Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Economists are now admitting that they were wrong about globalization

foreignpolicy.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 265 posts

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

#231

Post by CryptoPunk »

jandrese wrote: post #104

It seems to me that the big problem with Globalization is that we're only doing half of it. If we exported work but also exported working conditions then globalization would be a good thing. Bringing all of the people of the world up to the first world standards. But instead we outsource only the work and not the working conditions so there's an enormous gap between what you can expect in the first world vs. third wo…

>>That gap ends up mostly as profit that is absorbed by the ultra-rich.

The statistics don't bear this pessimistic hypothesis out. Global wages have increased faster over the last 20 years than at any point in history, and the global poverty rate has declined at similarly unprecedented rates.

Globally there has been no change in income inequality either.

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

#232

Post by TheOperator »

sarah180 wrote: post #73
TheOperator wrote: post #68

One thing I notice about Trade now is the perverse power we've given to groups which fundamentally don't have other countries or individuals interests in minds. One thing I notice is that left wingers are essentially universally aghast over what's happening to Hong Kong. They will hold to the idea that a trade war with China is the stupidest thing ever that causes economic damage to yourself and incurs great risk. Wh…

This is true in a discussion where the relative value you place on international trade is either infinite or zero. You can oppose an ill-considered trade war without opposing all actions that would impact trade. This is not an either/or proposition. It's not hypocritical to suggest that, in the real world, sometimes you might have to weigh competing goods.

I just see a status quo where Trump would openly abandon HK in a heartbeat for a good trade deal. Whereas the left can stomach talking about boycotting a company like Blizzard but they're violently opposed to action with any teeth because that action will likely have more real negative consequences for theirselves than not being able to play SOME video games. I'm not saying it's hypocritical but is sure as shit is weak.

In the end trade is valued higher than democracy by both Trump and his detractors. It just makes me sad and cynical. I wonder if we will ever have a "Nixon goes to China" moment in reverse?

P.S. Don't know what you're on about saying how my position is only true if trade has no or infinite value. My position would be utterly incoherent if I thought it had infinite value. My position would be coherent if I believed Trade had no value but it's also coherent if I believe it's overvalued.

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

#233

Post by jandrese »

CryptoPunk wrote: post #231
jandrese wrote: post #104

It seems to me that the big problem with Globalization is that we're only doing half of it. If we exported work but also exported working conditions then globalization would be a good thing. Bringing all of the people of the world up to the first world standards. But instead we outsource only the work and not the working conditions so there's an enormous gap between what you can expect in the first world vs. third wo…

>>That gap ends up mostly as profit that is absorbed by the ultra-rich. The statistics don't bear this pessimistic hypothesis out. Global wages have increased faster over the last 20 years than at any point in history, and the global poverty rate has declined at similarly unprecedented rates. Globally there has been no change in income inequality either.

Interesting premise, but the data doesn't support it very well.

https://wir2018.wid.world/files/download/wir2018-full-report...

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

#234

Post by distances »

CharlesColeman wrote: post #149
distances wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be nice if you could name the country and bureaucracy of the success story. I know of one such move; the experts made it known they'd rather resign and find new jobs than move to the periphery with their families. The move was cancelled as it was pointless without the experts.

> It would be nice if you could name the country and bureaucracy of the success story. I know of one such move; the experts made it known they'd rather resign and find new jobs than move to the periphery with their families. The move was cancelled as it was pointless without the experts. It would be nice if you could name the failure you cite, too. Government experts will live in a lot of places. NASA has major opera…

> It would be nice if you could name the failure you cite, too.

Sorry, should of course named it as that's what I was asking. It was the move of the Finnish Medicines Agency from Helsinki to Kuopio. Checking the latest status, they do now have presence in both cities so it wasn't cancelled in the end; I guess they pushed on but ended keeping the Helsinki office for the experts refusing to relocate.

Do you have the name of your example?

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

#235

Post by harryh »

methodover wrote: post #227
harryh wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's all the same though. In the vast majority of circumstances you aren't firing an individual American and hiring an individual from China. You're just choosing to buy something from a giant corporation that manufactures goods in China instead of a competing giant corporation that manufactures goods in the US. Switching cell phone providers is just like switching from American Giant (made in America) to some other…

This discussion and the original post has been what the United States government’s trade policy ought to be, not the morality of an individual’s purchasing choice (say, to buy a Chinese-made sweater or a US-made one). I think the question you’ve asked is interesting, but I don’t see how it’s pertinent to the matter at hand.

It's pertinent to the matter at hand because trade policy is about enforcing this sort of morality at a large scale. If it is, in fact, immoral to buy goods from China then we can enforce that through trade policy that restricts free trade.

But if it's not, then we shouldn't restrict free trade.

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

#236

Post by asdff »

neffy wrote: post #181
hos234 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The money that is used to pay for that work has been extracted from the economy and hoarded away. If you want better schools and infrastructure, step 1 is to tax property at market rate.

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

#237

Post by petre »

Roboprog wrote: post #140
matthewdgreen wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are Trump’s tariffs a lever for ?

To make domestic products price competitive with sweatshop products

What about the "luxury" cheese and wine tariffs? Are Italian cheeses and French wines also sweatshop products? I can understand Airbus tariffs, but these? What's next, tariffs on bicycles?

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

#238

Post by NeedMoreTea »

barry-cotter wrote: post #211
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…

Counter example: Hong Kong. It had no industrial policy whatsoever and went from a bombed out ruin in 1945 to the first world in 40 years based on unilateral free trade, while taking in massive numbers of refugees from China. Completely executed trade policy works but so does free trade if you have rules of law and security of contract and property.

Not at all. Hong Kong built herself upon stealing and producing cheap copies of firstly plastic toys and items. In the 1960s "Made in Hong Kong" was an insult for the shoddiest crap of all - just like all the rest at some point. They ignored IP, trade, subsidy and all the other world rules to steal and copy their way up the food chain.

She also had the unique position of the free-port whilst being allowed better access to China than the rest of the globe had. Those refugees were the reason she grew, as they were mostly highly educated and skilled anti-Communists fleeing China's civil war, and the ugly repressive aftermath. The doctors, bankers, merchants and financiers rushing in surged the population from a minor town supporting the port and little else, to major offshore centre.

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

#239

Post by jokoon »

barry-cotter wrote: post #222
jokoon wrote: post #91

Isn't that common knowledge that China devaluating its currency allows them to take advantage of their big worker population to develop their economy and make the entire world dependent on China's industry? It really sounds like china is being the smartest one here.

How? They’re paying more than ten percent of GDP to keep the value of their currency down in a massive subsidy to their export sector at the expense of everyone else in China. They’re subsidizing the rest of the world’s consumption.

Sure, but it's massive advantage for the future of china. It's an investment.

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

#240

Post by NeedMoreTea »

Animats wrote: post #58
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…

There's a similar book, "How Asia Works".[1] This has a good survey of industrial policy in Asia, what worked and what didn't. Summary: Step 1: Mechanize agriculture, to free up people for an industrial labor force Step 2: Support export-oriented industries. Step 3: Transition to a developed country. Trouble comes when you botch step 2. [1] https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0802121322/

Absolutely.

Steps 1 and 2 are increasingly frowned upon with WTO or trade agreement requiring acceptance of foreign finance into your markets, preventing the levels of subsidy most of the developed world went through, or trying to require honouring of foreign IP. Which seems to look increasingly like taking away the ladder the developed world used to "get there".

The honouring of IP is particularly comical (and to read about here seeing outrage at China borrowing some overseas IP), as from what I can remember everyone who managed to develop did so by stealing IP, subsidising etc whilst providing enough walls to ensure the fledgling industry couldn't simply be bought up by someone higher up the food chain.

Post reply on HN