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

261–265 of 265 posts

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

#261

Post by subject117 »

andrekandre wrote: post #202
adventured wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An extreme exaggeration that ignores the extraordinary wealth holdings of the US middle class, which is wealthier than their peers in Germany or Sweden. That is despite heavy middle class demographic change from Latin America immigration the past ~45 years, they're still wealthier than those elite nations. The 50% to 90% bracket in the US for example holds $31-$35 trillion in household wealth. The 90% to 99% bracket…

> The 50% to 90% bracket what percentage of the u.s population fits into that bracket?

90%-50%=40%

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

#262

Post by sarah180 »

ThomPete wrote: post #94
sarah180 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think most economists would say that the purpose of globalization was to make the nation better off, and that the nation's values, systems and leadership would be called on to distribute those gains in a way consistent with that nation's values. Perhaps the real issue here is not one of trade, but of the collapse of unions, the dramatic change in the nature of our media, broken leadership structures, and a lazy min…

Well, nations are part of everyone in globalization no? Not sure I understand the distinction. The issue wasn't of trade but of a small group of people who benefitted from exporting jobs abroad to sell products at home and then still avoid paying the taxes.

Increasing the wealth of a nation doesn't mean increasing the wealth of everyone in that nation. A nation can distribute those gains in wealth and power in a way that provides no utility to many of its citizens.

Trade has made nations richer. Economists were not wrong about this. What many were wrong about is the thesis that the social & market structures in developed, "stable" democracies would ensure that those gains eventually improved the utility of everyone—the proverbial "rising tide that lifts all boats."

The standard claim is that markets may not immediately fix issues, but over time they will converge on an efficient distribution of resources.

Yes, this is a late reply.

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

#263

Post by pas »

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…

HJC is a crackpot :(

Basically he argues using survivor bias. All the countries that tried to pick the winners (support X industry) and levy high tariffs but did not make it are simply not discussed.

https://eh.net/book_reviews/kicking-away-the-ladder-developm...

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

#264

Post by pas »

abfar wrote: post #195
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…

Also IIRC much of the "trade" created by free trade agreements are not trade at all, but movements of goods internal to a company (e.g. US companies produce goods in a factory in Mexico and later move those goods back to US to be sold).

That's still perfect example of trade. Labor is a very important form of goods.

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

#265

Post by pas »

NeedMoreTea wrote: post #50
wahern wrote: post #6

> But after the Cold War ended, the debate over trade (Krugman’s Nobel-winning specialty) became a proxy for a larger intellectual struggle over free markets versus government intervention. This is the crux of it. The notion that economics, as a field, was blindsided by the rapidity and extent of economic dislocation doesn't match the history. Such a narrative is a whitewashing of a particular clique of superstar eco…

> 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…

Regarding Ha-Joon Chang: https://eh.net/book_reviews/kicking-away-the-ladder-developm... tl;dr his book is a big exercise in the survivorship bias fallacy
Post reply on HN