The US government leadership failed to acknowledge and address the decline in American competitiveness, and in typical fashion went for the quick fix,
rather than to train and educate and invest in more efficient systems.
rather than to train and educate and invest in more efficient systems.
14
Very disturbing read, in places. And I can well imagine the teaching profession being decimated by chatbots.
3
We have been hearing about "the rules of The Road"for over a decade now. They are empty promises that are never enacted or enforced.
"Free Trade"has gutted the working class and is now affecting the middle class whose jobs are now being filled by cheap visa holders like Disney world has done.
"Free Trade"has been great for the 1% and their lackeys.
In spite of the inevitability claims that the NYT is so big on, from free trade to endless war to Mommie Dearest, there are things that could be done but the 1% has bought the politicians and the "think tanks". They dronk the neo-liberal Kool-Aid because it puts money in their pockets and jobs to their always overpaid families and "charitable foundations".
America has everything it needs, from energy to raw materials to be completely self sufficient. It could use that power and ability to make sure that American workers aren't competing with one dollar an hour ( or less) workers from Asian countries.
Of course that might cut into corporate profits, something both parties, and the NYT, care about much more than US citizens.
"Free Trade"has gutted the working class and is now affecting the middle class whose jobs are now being filled by cheap visa holders like Disney world has done.
"Free Trade"has been great for the 1% and their lackeys.
In spite of the inevitability claims that the NYT is so big on, from free trade to endless war to Mommie Dearest, there are things that could be done but the 1% has bought the politicians and the "think tanks". They dronk the neo-liberal Kool-Aid because it puts money in their pockets and jobs to their always overpaid families and "charitable foundations".
America has everything it needs, from energy to raw materials to be completely self sufficient. It could use that power and ability to make sure that American workers aren't competing with one dollar an hour ( or less) workers from Asian countries.
Of course that might cut into corporate profits, something both parties, and the NYT, care about much more than US citizens.
13
Most people do not understand trade policy economics, and cannot analyze the trade policy specifics offered by political candidates. Candidates who are reliable and have a track record on what they support are the best we can do without spending days and weeks glued to NPR or the Times. So America, do you believe Trump's track record of reliability is enough for you to give him control of the value of your family's property and investments ? Because if you vote for him, that is what you are doing.
9
the Obama Administration declares a war against the European banks, he act on behalf go the American Hege Fonds, They have been betting on declining prices and have ordered the Ministry of Justice to bring extravagant court cases. If US administration plans to sue a Swiss bank, we will apply for peoples referendum, which will force Swiss banks to fire all employees in the USA, that are about 60'000 people
We don't hear Trump supporters shouting they want to pay 35% more for the inexpensive goods they're buying (along with the rest of us) every day. Why's that part of his message missing?
6
Trump's an idiot and anyone who takes him seriously is an idiot.
That being said - everyone who talks about free trade talks about it in terms of trading merchandise between countries, win-win economic growth and expanding market opportunities. Yes we can all now buy a lawn chair at Walmart for $5, and that is great. However, part of that expansion is the realization that you don't have to use expensive labor or costly regulations - you can ship the jobs overseas, or import programmers on an H1B visa. No one talks about free trade in terms of undercutting your current US workforce. But that's what happened and that's why inequality is such an issue. Trump has hit a nerve, because the nerve is real and the elites ignored it. The market between US labor and Chinese labor or Mexican labor is imbalanced - you can't compete with someone who will do your job for 25% of what you do it! This is simple math. The 1 percent knew it and shipped as many of those jobs as it could telling us we were all going to be winners. You can bash Trump all you want - he deserves it. But lets stop pretending we didn't see this coming. The Carrier workers for the past three decades saw it, and they are still seeing it!
That being said - everyone who talks about free trade talks about it in terms of trading merchandise between countries, win-win economic growth and expanding market opportunities. Yes we can all now buy a lawn chair at Walmart for $5, and that is great. However, part of that expansion is the realization that you don't have to use expensive labor or costly regulations - you can ship the jobs overseas, or import programmers on an H1B visa. No one talks about free trade in terms of undercutting your current US workforce. But that's what happened and that's why inequality is such an issue. Trump has hit a nerve, because the nerve is real and the elites ignored it. The market between US labor and Chinese labor or Mexican labor is imbalanced - you can't compete with someone who will do your job for 25% of what you do it! This is simple math. The 1 percent knew it and shipped as many of those jobs as it could telling us we were all going to be winners. You can bash Trump all you want - he deserves it. But lets stop pretending we didn't see this coming. The Carrier workers for the past three decades saw it, and they are still seeing it!
17
"Many economists share the view...." What many economists don't consider in their theorizing is the human "collateral damage" of unregulated greed. Global trade, capitalism fueled by greed, is all well and good. The person who can figure out - and implement - how to regulate greed will win the Nobel Prize.
One thing is sure, it's not Donald Trump, a mean-spirited, narcissistic sociopath who is only concerned with himself. How can anyone think that he has their interests in mind when he spouts his platitudes to the gullible.
I sure hope adults show up to vote in November.
One thing is sure, it's not Donald Trump, a mean-spirited, narcissistic sociopath who is only concerned with himself. How can anyone think that he has their interests in mind when he spouts his platitudes to the gullible.
I sure hope adults show up to vote in November.
10
I remember clearly when NAFTA was being negotiated how anti-globalization protesters were mocked and jeered in the press as naive morons who did not understand the way the world worked or appreciate the wonderland of human joy free trade was about usher in.
One of the chief concerns of the protesters was that the free trade agreements contained not a word protecting the interests and rights of workers and very little that looked good for the environment. They were agreements for the elites, penned by the elites for their own benefit.
Twenty years on, we can see now that the protesters were right and the jeerers wrong. Free trade works for the elites. For the common worker, it's been a catastrophe because, just as the protesters prophesied all those years ago, nothing was written into the treaties to safeguard their interests.
Now those workers fuel the campaign of a proto-fascist demagogue. The irony is delicious.
One of the chief concerns of the protesters was that the free trade agreements contained not a word protecting the interests and rights of workers and very little that looked good for the environment. They were agreements for the elites, penned by the elites for their own benefit.
Twenty years on, we can see now that the protesters were right and the jeerers wrong. Free trade works for the elites. For the common worker, it's been a catastrophe because, just as the protesters prophesied all those years ago, nothing was written into the treaties to safeguard their interests.
Now those workers fuel the campaign of a proto-fascist demagogue. The irony is delicious.
12
There are two facets to globalization:
1) Trade liberalization. For all practical purposes, its impossible to put the genie back into the bottle. International competition, economies of scale, and technological diffusion of ideas and processes cannot be stopped, nor should be.
Having said this, it would be a mistake to conclude that trade liberalization and globalization is a panacea for what ails us. Paul Krugman one of the foremost trade economists of our time correctly identified the efficiency benefits of trade as relatively small - especially when compared with the more recent and surprising slowdown in productivity growth. One should also bear in mind, that entire sectors of the US economy have witnessed very little if any productivity growth and that these sectors are growing as a proportion of GDP for this very reason.
2) Immigration. Although conflated with trade liberalization, the benefits and costs associated with a boundless supply of low skilled, low paid labor is essentially dissimilar to that associated with trade liberalization or technological progress in general. The growth and diversity of new products and manufacturing processes notwithstanding, an almost limitless supply of low paid labor will most assuredly swamp the sophisticated technological side of any society, giving rise to an ungovernable have/have not society more characteristic of modern day Brazil than the middle class America of the 1960s, 70's or 80's.
1) Trade liberalization. For all practical purposes, its impossible to put the genie back into the bottle. International competition, economies of scale, and technological diffusion of ideas and processes cannot be stopped, nor should be.
Having said this, it would be a mistake to conclude that trade liberalization and globalization is a panacea for what ails us. Paul Krugman one of the foremost trade economists of our time correctly identified the efficiency benefits of trade as relatively small - especially when compared with the more recent and surprising slowdown in productivity growth. One should also bear in mind, that entire sectors of the US economy have witnessed very little if any productivity growth and that these sectors are growing as a proportion of GDP for this very reason.
2) Immigration. Although conflated with trade liberalization, the benefits and costs associated with a boundless supply of low skilled, low paid labor is essentially dissimilar to that associated with trade liberalization or technological progress in general. The growth and diversity of new products and manufacturing processes notwithstanding, an almost limitless supply of low paid labor will most assuredly swamp the sophisticated technological side of any society, giving rise to an ungovernable have/have not society more characteristic of modern day Brazil than the middle class America of the 1960s, 70's or 80's.
2
The real truth about the tremendous loss of middle class factory jobs in this country has to do with one fact: The corporatists, multinational corporations, sold the American worker down the river to make unreasonable profits by taking their factories overseas for slave labor and bringing the products back to the USA for sale to people who had lost their jobs. The solution is: More regulations of the global economy to prevent the elitists from controlling and taking all the wealth, and leaving nothing for the workers.
8
Trade with China is not free trade - that would imply a two-way street. This is evident in the technology sector as well. Chinese students abound at US universities and companies in Silicon Valley and elsewhere. Can a US citizen get a job that easily in China? Moreover, the US has trained a large number of Chinese nationals, whose loyalty is to China first despite having US citizen children (these aren't the Chinese of old escaping communism). I don't think anyone would have a problem with this if China extended the same courtesy to US citizens.
Someone has to stand up to China on trade. Trump isn't it. But neither is Secretary Clinton, unfortunately.
Someone has to stand up to China on trade. Trump isn't it. But neither is Secretary Clinton, unfortunately.
6
I think we all miss the point. If elected, President Trump will surround himself with good people, listen to them, and select the best solution. He does not need to know anything except how to select good people. He says he knows how to do that. Many of them will most likely be successful businessmen and women who can do their government jobs on a part time basis. After all, government jobs are simple and we have too many people doing them. We can outsource. The EPA could easily be run by a power company president on a part time basis say 10 hours a week. There is no reason to make this complicated. Government jobs are simple. Business jobs are hard and complicated. Eliminate the FDA. After all if enough people die taking a certain medicine the drug company will stop making it. Competition. Did I mention competition?
There will be no worries and we will be great again. It will be so great. I can give you so many examples but I think I will stop here.
There will be no worries and we will be great again. It will be so great. I can give you so many examples but I think I will stop here.
8
Once again ignoring that TPP has almost nothing, N O T H I N G, to do with free trade.
7
Mr. Edsall, I am ashamed of you in this column and I usually read you for the honesty and fair mindedness of your opinions. In this case you equate the TPP (and by extension also the TTIP) with "trade deals" and say we must have them. That is rank dishonesty and you definitely know this so why lie? Do your bosses make you? I would quit if I were you if that is the case. So, back to the TPP; it is not a trade deal to make it easier to trade between countries, it does very little reduce tariffs which ARE ALREADY VERY LOW. What it does do, is protect intellectual property for Big Pharma and forces the signatories to abide by the monstrous ISDS. Let me help you Mr Edsall if you really don't know what that is: it stand for Investor State Dispute Settlement and it give HUGE MULTINATIONAL corporations power over the elected laws of nations and the ability to bring very expensive law suits which are decided by...three international lawyers who are hired by the very corporations bringing the suits. So, if Australia wants to put very graphic anti smoking photographs on their cigarette packs Phillip Morris can sue the Australian government because they will lose market share (MONEY) because of these very smart anti-smoking policies to PROTECT THEIR CITIZENS. Which part of this do you not understand? You disgust me.
11
First, let us assume Trump is going to put a 35% tariif. The consumers would be shelling out this money (effectively another tax on US consumers). The companies can't set up factories overnight, so the immediate effect would be soaring cost of imports. I doubt this scheme can survive 6 months as consumers start agitating.
Secondly, what does he propose he does with this money? Ihe is more likely to pass it on as tax cuts to wealthy. That would be yet another way to siphoning middle class wealth and pushing it to the top.
Secondly, what does he propose he does with this money? Ihe is more likely to pass it on as tax cuts to wealthy. That would be yet another way to siphoning middle class wealth and pushing it to the top.
6
The American losers to the trade deals and globalization have not been compensated for their loses because they have no political, economic or ideological power. All the plans that were made to help those on the losing side of NAFTA and other trade deals were never followed through on because the costs of those programs were weighed against other priorities of constituents who actually mattered to elected officials.
Now we have the revenge of those left behind.
Now we have the revenge of those left behind.
13
It bothers me when these academics - many of whom have never done a hard day's work in the lives (they are pencil pushers, desk-sitters) get on television/media outlets and regurgitate nonsense.
They told us we should embrace globalization. They told us, globalization is good for all of us. They trick us with made up data about the benefits of globalization/trade deals. Meanwhile, in reality, the opposite is true.
They told us we should embrace globalization. They told us, globalization is good for all of us. They trick us with made up data about the benefits of globalization/trade deals. Meanwhile, in reality, the opposite is true.
2
There are many ways to support a free trade agreement, it's not "Yes" or "No." The agreement should be transparent -- people shouldn't pass it and then say, "Oh, I didn't know THAT was in it." It should be crafted to benefit the workers, not the corporations. Sometimes their interests coincide; sometimes they don't. The corporations will be just fine, even if the CEOs have to take a pay cut. The workers will not be fine. There should be forums where citizens, not only lobbyists, can have their say. The process is just as important as the policy, though in the case of TPP, if the process had included those who would be adversely affected, the policy would have been better.
1
I hope the Bernie backers who are going to vote for the whacko Johnson are reading this and many other studies. Our countries future - no, the World's future is at stake
1
What will help our middle class better compete in a globalized, highly automated world? Yes, a college education. Those with college educations have much lower unemployment rates and higher labor force participation rates.
Who wants to raise taxes on the rich to pay for college? Yes, that would be Ms. Clinton. Who wants to cut taxes on the rich and start a trade war that 95% of economists says is a bad idea? Yes, that would be Mr. Trump.
While Mr. Trump's plan may have a nice emotional ring to it, getting our folks educated is the right strategy.
Who wants to raise taxes on the rich to pay for college? Yes, that would be Ms. Clinton. Who wants to cut taxes on the rich and start a trade war that 95% of economists says is a bad idea? Yes, that would be Mr. Trump.
While Mr. Trump's plan may have a nice emotional ring to it, getting our folks educated is the right strategy.
4
No doubt working class America would have preferred to keep their outsourced careers, despite the improvement in the buying power of the rest of American consumers. The loss of working class income wreaks hidden harm to us all from reduced consumer demand, reduced tax revenues, and a host of social ills that follow from taking a productive chunk of society and cutting them loose. Nevertheless, economists see an overall benefit, one that is especially appreciated by the 1% certainly but also other Americans whose incomes have improved from global trade. I suspect there is a middle ground here: free trade but accompanied by extremely aggressive labor and environmental standards enforced with so-far absent relentless vigor. In effect, creating a non-economic tariff on non-compliant foreign products that amounts to an absolute bar to foreign products made cheap because of horrendous pollution, child labor, and sweat shop conditions. The American working class can compete with an even playing field, but not when the 1% are enjoying free trade on the misfortune of workers at home and abroad. No wonder Trump resonates.
But there is another issue: the rise of ever larger international conglomerates, so large they become beyond the reach of any government to control, capable of bribery on a scale that destroys any attempt to enforce any rules. How can this existential danger be avoided? If they are inevitable, then global free trade will in time become a global disaster.
But there is another issue: the rise of ever larger international conglomerates, so large they become beyond the reach of any government to control, capable of bribery on a scale that destroys any attempt to enforce any rules. How can this existential danger be avoided? If they are inevitable, then global free trade will in time become a global disaster.
4
There are two factors negatively impacting US manufacturing jobs:
1) Automation and computerization. There is nothing that can be done about it, unless you want to outlaw computers.
2) Global trade. This is a very serious threat to American manufacturing and associated jobs. It is impossible to compete when workers in much of the world are paid $500- 1,000 per month. These jobs are lost if there is "free and unfair trade," and this, together with cheap illegal immigrant labor contribute to the large income inequality that has developed in the past 20 years, since NAFTA was in effect. Wages are driven down and people on the bottom and middle lose their jobs to workers abroad.
It is amazing to see that people who state that they want more equitable income distribution (including Sec. Clinton) to be for free trade, and for open borders. These are the policies that big businesses want because cheap labor is profitable, and they sell more product here and abroad.
1) Automation and computerization. There is nothing that can be done about it, unless you want to outlaw computers.
2) Global trade. This is a very serious threat to American manufacturing and associated jobs. It is impossible to compete when workers in much of the world are paid $500- 1,000 per month. These jobs are lost if there is "free and unfair trade," and this, together with cheap illegal immigrant labor contribute to the large income inequality that has developed in the past 20 years, since NAFTA was in effect. Wages are driven down and people on the bottom and middle lose their jobs to workers abroad.
It is amazing to see that people who state that they want more equitable income distribution (including Sec. Clinton) to be for free trade, and for open borders. These are the policies that big businesses want because cheap labor is profitable, and they sell more product here and abroad.
3
By the way--and this is a big by-the-way, prices will rise if the low-cost producers are no longer able to compete. That will also impact exactly the people Mr. Trump says he is trying to help.
3
"an outsize share of the winnings has been harvested by people with advanced degrees, stock options and the need for accountants"
Hmm... that sounds a lot like one of the candidates, but which one? I just can't recall.
Hmm... that sounds a lot like one of the candidates, but which one? I just can't recall.
On some level journalists should address Trump "policies" at face value, yet everyone knows that nothing he says can be taken at face value -- even his most ardent supporters openly acknowledge that. It's plainly just demagoguery.
Ergo, dissecting his "policies" may be a necessary exercise, but is nonetheless an academic one.
Ergo, dissecting his "policies" may be a necessary exercise, but is nonetheless an academic one.
1
Isn't that sad that those who so religiously voted for free markets, capitalism, GOP and self-reliance, now are finding Globalism, which is nothing else than global capitalism at fault, and screaming bloody murder?
Worse yet, they still vote for Trump and GOP. Go figure.....
Worse yet, they still vote for Trump and GOP. Go figure.....
2
Trump reminds me of another weird populist ideologue who was more interested in popularity and image than in actually improving his country: Hugo Chavez. Like Chavez, Trump acts like a victim, he's paranoid, unskilled, nationalistic, and power hungry. Instead of moderately socializing an oil-rich nation to benefit the masses, Chavez went haywire and squandered a fortune in a constantly shifting and impulsive series of dictatorial economical edicts, Trump proposes to do it from the right-wing, proposing radical departures from the norm, and convincing ignorant voters that it will work, along with a sickening dose of nationalism. He proposes to damage the richest country in the world, all in his own quest for power. Some of the worst dictators the world has seen have been democratically elected.
1
You don't get it. Trump is a maverick. He is winning support from millions of voters because he does not play by rules or adhere to conventions. His motto seems to be:
"If it isn't broken, break it!"
--------------------------------
My fear is that Trump takes this too far. What does he care about, anyway? What has he got to lose if he starts breaking rules and things get worse? He can blame it all on Obama. If he messes with the economy and we get into another recession, he can blame it on "Obama-nomics" and trade policies.
This scares me about Trump...
The only thing we have to fear is... Donald (Lying) Trump!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"If it isn't broken, break it!"
--------------------------------
My fear is that Trump takes this too far. What does he care about, anyway? What has he got to lose if he starts breaking rules and things get worse? He can blame it all on Obama. If he messes with the economy and we get into another recession, he can blame it on "Obama-nomics" and trade policies.
This scares me about Trump...
The only thing we have to fear is... Donald (Lying) Trump!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
1
I am not going to vote for Trump because he is an idiot. And nothing in this world will get me to vote for Hillary. the last thing this country needs is another Clinton or Bush in office. But the NY Times constant intervention on behalf of Hillary is really a worrying trend. The NY Times now acts like Pravda did in the old Soviet Union. To me the NY Times is the mouthpiece of the Democrats. It really sad, and I am a Democrat. this strategy is not going to end well for the NY Times, nor will it for the country. It is like a drug. It cannot be stopped once started, and it will demand more and more loyalty to the one party and villification of the other. Eventually it will cause death. I would really look in the mirror and try to get some corporate help. It does no good for the country or for the NY Times to continue down this path.
5
Factory jobs were once the lowest form of employment: dangerous, little pay, child labor, you name it. Higher wages turned them into the halcyon nostalgia of the current political campaigns. How did they get higher wages? Unions. Those jobs are gone, both to trade and automation. But there are plenty of similar jobs for low-skilled workers that are now considered the lowest form of employment -- in the service sector, flipping the proverbial burgers. These are immune from globalization. How do we turn them into today's equvalent of those vanished factory jobs? WIth higher wages. Their prestige would rise as they became ladders to the middle class, like the factory work of yore. And how do we get those higher wages? Same way as with factory jobs -- with unions. That should be the centerpiece of a progressive economic policy, not a regressive trade war.
8
Having many skilled workers who have had their expectations dashed is exceedingly dangerous. We now have many well educated highly skilled people who have had their reasonable expectations ruined. This is a prescription for creating revolutionaries willing to destroy the existing political system.
4
This article nicely summarizes the argument for free trade. It does not, however, explain how the benefits of trade could be more equally distributed, how the environmental and labor rights global playing field can be leveled, or say much of anything that would convince a typical Trump voter to reconsider. I would like to see a follow up article that explicitly addresses these issues.
1
This article, unsurprisingly, does not address what it calls the white working class's concerns at all. It is just more of how good trade is. Well, we've done free trade for more than 20 years and look what has happened. You can assemble all the arguments you want regarding free trade, but it will be futile, because you don't address the primary concern of the voters. You have failed to do so at your own peril. The take is, it couldn't get any worse, and at least Mr. Trump is cognizant of voter anger. You establishment people have accomplished nothing and if Mr. Trump wins, you will deserve what happens next.
5
the reason the " experts " are confused with Trump's plan is that they are so used to.....so addicted to......what administrations HAVE done in the past that they are TERRIFIED of anything " new "....when the " new " is actually what we did in the PAST and it WORKED......
The govt corruption, underhanded deals, under the table deals, back office deals
are like heroin.....they addict and alter their perception.....just like real drug addicts........
we need CHANGE....we MUST have CHANGE.....and we MUST do things differently than before.....
HEY!!! If it doesnt work ( but it will ) we can go back to the same failed techniques we have been using that havent worked.....
Everyone HAS to remember.......Trump/Pence and CHANGE is NOT forever......give it the chance to work and we WILL get our country percolating in business......like we USED TO HAVE
The govt corruption, underhanded deals, under the table deals, back office deals
are like heroin.....they addict and alter their perception.....just like real drug addicts........
we need CHANGE....we MUST have CHANGE.....and we MUST do things differently than before.....
HEY!!! If it doesnt work ( but it will ) we can go back to the same failed techniques we have been using that havent worked.....
Everyone HAS to remember.......Trump/Pence and CHANGE is NOT forever......give it the chance to work and we WILL get our country percolating in business......like we USED TO HAVE
Reflecting on the comments of Daron Acemoglu concerning automation and the inevitability of technology-driven change, my question is: WHY is technological change inevitable? It seems that the majority of people claiming the unstoppability of "progress" are looking more closely at the corporate bottom line than at the welfare of the human race.
Weaponizing smallpox so that it will be untreatable by any sort of human intervention is a technological "breakthrough," but would we want it?
To use a less extreme example, there is a great deal of enthusiasm in some parts of the corporate world for self-driven automobiles. But why? Even if robot cars could be developed that were overall safer than human drivers, why throw millions of people who are taxi and truck drivers out of work just so that Nissan and Ford and Mercedes can make a little extra money? There might be some very specialized applications where self-driven cars would be useful (say, in areas contaminated by radiation), but overall, why can't we continue to employ the millions of working class people who now drive taxis, limos, buses and trucks? And there is no reason (aside from corporate greed) why we shouldn't continue to use humans to deliver our packages from Amazon.com or FedEX rather than drones.
We need to begin to be critical about how technical "progress" impacts on human society, and the ability of humans to live a decent life.
Weaponizing smallpox so that it will be untreatable by any sort of human intervention is a technological "breakthrough," but would we want it?
To use a less extreme example, there is a great deal of enthusiasm in some parts of the corporate world for self-driven automobiles. But why? Even if robot cars could be developed that were overall safer than human drivers, why throw millions of people who are taxi and truck drivers out of work just so that Nissan and Ford and Mercedes can make a little extra money? There might be some very specialized applications where self-driven cars would be useful (say, in areas contaminated by radiation), but overall, why can't we continue to employ the millions of working class people who now drive taxis, limos, buses and trucks? And there is no reason (aside from corporate greed) why we shouldn't continue to use humans to deliver our packages from Amazon.com or FedEX rather than drones.
We need to begin to be critical about how technical "progress" impacts on human society, and the ability of humans to live a decent life.
7
Aside from a weak nod toward the end of the article neither Mr. Edsall nor any of the people he quotes deals with what Peter Goodman describes:
" Ordinary laborers have borne the costs and suffered from joblessness and deepening economic anxiety."
Small wonder Mr. Trump has gained the support of these folks.
" Ordinary laborers have borne the costs and suffered from joblessness and deepening economic anxiety."
Small wonder Mr. Trump has gained the support of these folks.
15
It is a wonder, because Trump won't actually help them. I understand being angry, but their response to the situation they're in is not just self-destructive; it threatens to destroy the fabric of our civil society, which is already badly torn.
1
That's what happens when you're just ordinary. Most of us who are successful try our hardest to be extraordinary. We know we're in competition with the hardest-working and the brightest people in the world, and we know we Americans can compete with them. The "ordinary" workers are not fit for today's economy, much less the future. By definition, they are losers. They are very often the ones who decry safety net programs like family leave, single-payer government health care, and food stamps that could help them. They decry "socialism." These losers are getting what's coming to them, and they deserve to be failures. They did nothing to prepare themselves to be extraordinary.
3
the TPP is a prime example of why people turn against trade and globalization. The pro arguments tend to be:
- It will benefit American investors by providing them security.
- It will generate more money for American patents by extending the system globally.
- It will generate more money for American IP firms by extending the system globally.
These have been the 3 most common arguments for it and not one of them is pro-consumer or pro-worker. The first directly benefits outsourcing while allowing companies to sue countries if they try to improve living standards, the later 2 have been considered a drag on economic growth within America yet are being exported as a way of generating more revenue (read rent seeking for drug companies).
Globalization would have a very different face if it meant IT companies from India offering all inclusive plans in America for 25$ a month, instead what it has meant is the outsourcing of call center jobs and an overpriced monopolized market.
Ultimately, free trade must be protected from the free traders, at this point the amount of riders and deregulatory packages shoehorned into sweeping trade deals rightly makes them unpopular.
- It will benefit American investors by providing them security.
- It will generate more money for American patents by extending the system globally.
- It will generate more money for American IP firms by extending the system globally.
These have been the 3 most common arguments for it and not one of them is pro-consumer or pro-worker. The first directly benefits outsourcing while allowing companies to sue countries if they try to improve living standards, the later 2 have been considered a drag on economic growth within America yet are being exported as a way of generating more revenue (read rent seeking for drug companies).
Globalization would have a very different face if it meant IT companies from India offering all inclusive plans in America for 25$ a month, instead what it has meant is the outsourcing of call center jobs and an overpriced monopolized market.
Ultimately, free trade must be protected from the free traders, at this point the amount of riders and deregulatory packages shoehorned into sweeping trade deals rightly makes them unpopular.
9
An extremely good article which covers many of the central issues re globalization. We can't go back by imposing tariffs on other countries. That is very foolish and it certainly won't bring back jobs. Global trade is a fact and we can't escape it. We must develop a strategy for creating new jobs. That is one of the central issues of our time.
10
Elections should be solely publicly funded....and only those who pay taxes should be allowed to vote....
3
"...is also the story of how Democrats turned their backs on their working-class roots and sided with the elites..." Absolutely. The Democrat elite (with HRC right at the top) decided that banks and bureaucrats would feel NONE of the pain of deflation driven by globalization, so it has ALL fallen to the middle and working classes. This fact is what has energized Trump supporters more than anything. How do you think it makes them feel to see millions of government employees IMMUNE to layoffs, free from worry about finding only low-paying work and demanding ever greater pensions and benefits, all PAID FOR by the very people hurting the most.
7
Ahem. I think you mean 'Trump is a lunatic.'
3
Trump wants many US economic conditions to limp along so that interest rates will remain low. This helps him service his debt.
1
I thought that Mr. Trump's economic suggestions were lunatic until reading this article. Now that I see that Larry Summers also thinks so, I have reason to doubt my original conclusion. Oh dear.
3
Trump and Clinton both have roughly the same view on trade but only Trump is a lunatic, according to the economists quoted, all of whom are obvious Democrats.
2
If you think Rebublican economists would have a different view on trade, you haven't been paying attention over the last 20 years.
1
The last time anything like Trump's trade policies were tried the result was the great depression.
2
Policies to transition workers are most needed to allow for people to adjust to changing conditions, rather than in today's world they are thrown to the curb.
2
This article bashes trump for his view of the problem and his solutions
Ok
But the article doesn't offer tangible solutions to the status quo which blue collar Americans dislike. That's why it's ineffective. Solutions are needed. Blue collar Americans see their extinction and aren't going to just accept that
Ok
But the article doesn't offer tangible solutions to the status quo which blue collar Americans dislike. That's why it's ineffective. Solutions are needed. Blue collar Americans see their extinction and aren't going to just accept that
6
How do countries like Germany manage to manufacture goods while paying a union wage with good benefits? And why can we not imitate it.
11
Economists need to accept the supremacy of political economy over economics?
2
I wonder if the displaced steel workers supporting Trump to fix their plight would be interested in a Newsweek article this week (10-3) that Trump out sourced steel and aluminum purchases for his projects from China?
3
Thomas Edsall is a left winger, so what is one to expect from an article written by him. The Times took the pains to hire tax "experts" and start its own investigation of Trump's taxes. Talking about witch hunts. Don't expect objectivity or professionalism from these folks.
2
Yet, if all you can do is provide a label for the writer, what do you bring to the discussion? What specific points in this article do you find wrong, or falsely argued? Those whose only position is that someone else'e writings are ignorable because he is a left-winger, a right-winger, a Communist, a Nazi, etc., end up having no impact on much of anything. That's where you are.
2
Trump's policies are "lunatic" because they undermine the very foundation of our Corporate Governance. Trump is venturing into sacred territory that is shared by both political parties [akin the Temple Mount] each has their own ideological stake in the game while they swim in the same pool. One only need look at the visceral reactions from both sides at the mere mention from Trump about his paradigm shifts.. He's just talking and everyone is yelling that the sky is falling. Well let it fall - They can't kill and eat all of us!
2
All of these issues cut at least two ways - and political hay is made through the oversimplification of the downsides which were rationally accepted when the original decisions were taken.
For instance - "automating and outsourcing American jobs," is a direct consequence of corporate officers exercising their fiduciary responsibility to return shareholder value. Return of shareholder value is one of the tenets of our capitalistic society - no one would argue it's immoral or even unfair. If your priority is making America great through capitalism, then you accept the bald fact you're going to need to reduce your employee expenses. Automation and outsourcing does this. And it puts Americans out of work - but your priority is shareholder return - not working Americans.
As a politician - a businessman - you understand this is the tradeoff and so you can instantly gain a constituency by going to those put out of work and telling them how unfair it is (when you know you have already decided they were acceptable collateral damage) and to make America great again they need only vote for you.
But truth is - you have no work for those people and if you had to make the decision again to put them out, you would.
What is needed, then, is a modification of priority. Sacrifice shareholder return for support of Americans. Though this in of itself seems unAmerican, it is the only thing Trump is saying that has some moral resonance, even though it's fiction.
For instance - "automating and outsourcing American jobs," is a direct consequence of corporate officers exercising their fiduciary responsibility to return shareholder value. Return of shareholder value is one of the tenets of our capitalistic society - no one would argue it's immoral or even unfair. If your priority is making America great through capitalism, then you accept the bald fact you're going to need to reduce your employee expenses. Automation and outsourcing does this. And it puts Americans out of work - but your priority is shareholder return - not working Americans.
As a politician - a businessman - you understand this is the tradeoff and so you can instantly gain a constituency by going to those put out of work and telling them how unfair it is (when you know you have already decided they were acceptable collateral damage) and to make America great again they need only vote for you.
But truth is - you have no work for those people and if you had to make the decision again to put them out, you would.
What is needed, then, is a modification of priority. Sacrifice shareholder return for support of Americans. Though this in of itself seems unAmerican, it is the only thing Trump is saying that has some moral resonance, even though it's fiction.
4
People somehow think that by voting for Trump that their lot in life will become more secure by keeping them out and preserving their jobs.
Trump will be the first to sell them to the lowest bidder.
Trump will be the first to sell them to the lowest bidder.
17
Well said, and should be mandatory reading for Hillary's team prior to Sunday night. While Trump is obviously ignorant of trade complexities, Hillary was ill-prepared on trade in the last debate. Salient points, all of them.
3
Hillary was far from unprepared. However she has painted herself, intentionally, into a corner by backing off support for Ttp. She will paint herself out if that corner quickly when she gets elected. She knows that treaty has to be ratified with modifications if possible, and ratified even without modifications if necessary.
The one glaring omission here is to point out that China got itself out of poverty and is now the dominant world economic, and soon to be military, force WITHOUT practicing free trade.
A rising tide raises all ships. However ship USA has been raised a tiny bit and ship China a huge amount. And global power is a relative thing not an absolute thing. So some in the US have become richer, our GDP has flatlined , without Fed printing of money we would be in deflation and manufacturing jobs are still vanishing overseas.
And still the economists line up with their simplistic views.
I want someone to please do an article on how China, by fixing its currency, does NOT do free trade, and it was through protectionism that their economy rose and ours shrunk.
A rising tide raises all ships. However ship USA has been raised a tiny bit and ship China a huge amount. And global power is a relative thing not an absolute thing. So some in the US have become richer, our GDP has flatlined , without Fed printing of money we would be in deflation and manufacturing jobs are still vanishing overseas.
And still the economists line up with their simplistic views.
I want someone to please do an article on how China, by fixing its currency, does NOT do free trade, and it was through protectionism that their economy rose and ours shrunk.
10
This is an excellent article, and it takes a deep and long read to understand all the issues. I recommend this week's The Economist. The issue is entitled "Why they're wrong, A special report in defense of globalisation". My favorite quote: "Protectionism ... hurts consumers and does little for workers. A study of 40 countries found the richest consumers would lose 28% of their purchasing power if cross border trade ended; but those in the bottom 10% would lose 63%". Grief, just think about that.
Bernstein and Wallach's call for new "rules of the road" make sense. One might be an expanded GI Bill for impacted families. Those familiar with the education benefits will realize they are not a give away, but for serious people.
Bernstein and Wallach's call for new "rules of the road" make sense. One might be an expanded GI Bill for impacted families. Those familiar with the education benefits will realize they are not a give away, but for serious people.
9
Oh come on! Temporary tariffs are allowed under WTO rules to eliminate trade deficits. That is the way trade was supposed to work. It's not the end of the world and balancing trade is something that both Clinton and Trump should consider.
Our current $550 billion trade deficit acts like an anti-stimulus and it happens every year. Compare that to the one time Obama stimulus of $700 billion and you can see why our economy is so sluggish.
Our current $550 billion trade deficit acts like an anti-stimulus and it happens every year. Compare that to the one time Obama stimulus of $700 billion and you can see why our economy is so sluggish.
5
I should think that if we are going to reckon with the terrible effects of globalization we might turn to sources other than economists and political hacks (Robert Reich and Solenz, for God's sake?)
Some of us remember well when the economists predicted virtually nothing but upside to previous trade deals, only to see jobs bled from our economy like nothing in history. If they were capable of competent prediction, they would at least be capable of the prediction of massive job losses, without any compensating jobs of equal pay in other areas -- the grim truth of the last 25-30 years or more.
I don't think the American public should trust a profession and discipline that can't make competent and honest predictions even in its own domain. They are worse than worthless.
And even if most manufacturing and other jobs don't come back under more "protectionist" schemes, it will be a boon to many if some portion of them do, and it will be a very great boon to many others if the loss of further jobs is greatly slowed.
Yes, we can get cheaper iPhones if we globalize like mad. But a less pricey iPhone, while great for the elites, isn't so great for the working class workers in America who might take many of those jobs themselves.
Some of us remember well when the economists predicted virtually nothing but upside to previous trade deals, only to see jobs bled from our economy like nothing in history. If they were capable of competent prediction, they would at least be capable of the prediction of massive job losses, without any compensating jobs of equal pay in other areas -- the grim truth of the last 25-30 years or more.
I don't think the American public should trust a profession and discipline that can't make competent and honest predictions even in its own domain. They are worse than worthless.
And even if most manufacturing and other jobs don't come back under more "protectionist" schemes, it will be a boon to many if some portion of them do, and it will be a very great boon to many others if the loss of further jobs is greatly slowed.
Yes, we can get cheaper iPhones if we globalize like mad. But a less pricey iPhone, while great for the elites, isn't so great for the working class workers in America who might take many of those jobs themselves.
5
Well said. People gravitate to Donald Trump because he says what you're saying - what they want to hear. He at least seems to empathize with people who have lost big in the last 40 years.
.
The troubling part is: 1: it's all a mirage. None of Trump's economic plans will actually work; and he's not really empathizing - he's marketing. 2: Nobody, not a politician; not an economist has actually come up with plans that would work. Actually to see a lot of economists' writing on the subject, I get the impression they flatly don't care!
.
The troubling part is: 1: it's all a mirage. None of Trump's economic plans will actually work; and he's not really empathizing - he's marketing. 2: Nobody, not a politician; not an economist has actually come up with plans that would work. Actually to see a lot of economists' writing on the subject, I get the impression they flatly don't care!
Throughout my 30+ year career as an educator, I have tried to find ways to introduce this evolving reality into the thinking of my students, to mixed success. To imagine that future employment opportunities would resemble the past has been fallacious, especially with the rise of global free market economics, the growing digital age, cheap transportation costs, uneven workers' pay, robotics, etc.
We now see the results of ignoring such concerns. While DT's prescriptions for what to do about this would exacerbate the problems immensely, we all must recognize that he has struck a chord that has been resonating with American workers, most especially white males with little or no higher education. They have been taking it on the chin economically since the mid-1970s, as they have seen their economic positions eroding, their values shifting, their perceived abilities to control their own destinies undermined by a parade of flim-flam: Reagan, Falwell, Roberts, W. Clinton, Fox News, corporate-controlled commercial media, Limbaugh, GWBush...all while being told that they themselves are to blame for their shifting circumstances.
We are only now beginning to reap what we have been sowing all these years, and it will not end whomever the voters choose in November 2016. The revolt is not confined to the US alone, to be sure.
No, DT didn't create this environment, but he surely has been successful at exploiting it. And I fear what is yet to come.
We now see the results of ignoring such concerns. While DT's prescriptions for what to do about this would exacerbate the problems immensely, we all must recognize that he has struck a chord that has been resonating with American workers, most especially white males with little or no higher education. They have been taking it on the chin economically since the mid-1970s, as they have seen their economic positions eroding, their values shifting, their perceived abilities to control their own destinies undermined by a parade of flim-flam: Reagan, Falwell, Roberts, W. Clinton, Fox News, corporate-controlled commercial media, Limbaugh, GWBush...all while being told that they themselves are to blame for their shifting circumstances.
We are only now beginning to reap what we have been sowing all these years, and it will not end whomever the voters choose in November 2016. The revolt is not confined to the US alone, to be sure.
No, DT didn't create this environment, but he surely has been successful at exploiting it. And I fear what is yet to come.
2
The US has been hurt by Trade. Our trade deals have encourages both jobs and companies to go overseas. That is not a smart trade policy. The concept of free trade sounds great, but too many people are hurt by it. The only ones who really profit are the big global corporations.
People who say we profit by having lower prices goods available are not looking at the problem as a whole. Are cheaper goods a great benefit when the result is job loss, lower wages etc. I think most Americans would rather have a good paying job with security and pay more for goods, than a low paying or no jobs when maybe you can't afford the low price, shoddy built goods from China.
I think our trade negotiators do not keep in mind the cost to AMericans of trade policy which strip our country of manufactured goods made in the US, in return for job loss. We have poor negotiators who want trade deals at all costs and thus do not negotiate in as tough a way as they should.
People who say we profit by having lower prices goods available are not looking at the problem as a whole. Are cheaper goods a great benefit when the result is job loss, lower wages etc. I think most Americans would rather have a good paying job with security and pay more for goods, than a low paying or no jobs when maybe you can't afford the low price, shoddy built goods from China.
I think our trade negotiators do not keep in mind the cost to AMericans of trade policy which strip our country of manufactured goods made in the US, in return for job loss. We have poor negotiators who want trade deals at all costs and thus do not negotiate in as tough a way as they should.
2
Donald Trump never has a solution to anything that can't fit on a bumper sticker, But, on the othre hand there does not seem to be a political will to to develop real structures and programs to save the middle class and poor people from the the "inevitable" march of globalization and automation. Plenty of intellectual, and journalistic attention to the problems.
The wide assumption that our collective genius can find new sources of productive and good paying jobs is not corroborated by actual successful programs (on a national scale). The problem has been festering for over thirty years, so it isn't like its something brand new.
Let's face it, China will not return to being an industrial wall flower. Our strong suit is military might, so confrontation is the apparent track we are on.
The wide assumption that our collective genius can find new sources of productive and good paying jobs is not corroborated by actual successful programs (on a national scale). The problem has been festering for over thirty years, so it isn't like its something brand new.
Let's face it, China will not return to being an industrial wall flower. Our strong suit is military might, so confrontation is the apparent track we are on.
Milton Friedman won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, the sole recipient for 1976, "for his achievements in the fields of consumption analysis, monetary history and theory and for his demonstration of the complexity of stabilization policy." His thesis was that it was poor monetary policy that caused the Great Depression. No one has proven or received a Nobel for the theory that Smoot Hawley caused the Great Depression... Because it didn't.
Leading economists keep telling as that leading economists overwhelmingly favor free trade because it is good for the economy. If this is true, are our current free trade agreements actually free trade agreements - or are they something else? Moreover, if these agreements are so good, why has our averaged GDP growth plunged by 40% since 2000 and Chinese PNTR? Why was/is our averaged growth in that combined 16 year time period less than 2%, while China's growth was double digits?
Leading economists keep changing their tune... Now the problem with American manufacturing is automation. Prior to that it was a lack of education. Prior to that it was unions. The truth is that our leading economists say what their masters tell them to say... I simply don't believe them anymore.
We can change these agreements and get better outcomes for America with the stroke of a pen. Trump has the guts to do just that and it scares the establishment and their .01% masters to death.
Leading economists keep telling as that leading economists overwhelmingly favor free trade because it is good for the economy. If this is true, are our current free trade agreements actually free trade agreements - or are they something else? Moreover, if these agreements are so good, why has our averaged GDP growth plunged by 40% since 2000 and Chinese PNTR? Why was/is our averaged growth in that combined 16 year time period less than 2%, while China's growth was double digits?
Leading economists keep changing their tune... Now the problem with American manufacturing is automation. Prior to that it was a lack of education. Prior to that it was unions. The truth is that our leading economists say what their masters tell them to say... I simply don't believe them anymore.
We can change these agreements and get better outcomes for America with the stroke of a pen. Trump has the guts to do just that and it scares the establishment and their .01% masters to death.
4
Articles like these make me wish some university somewhere would slash it's economics department. That would show economists what it's like to experience a mass layoff. I think it would do the profession some good if they actually understood the localized, personal pain that comes when factories are shut down.
.
Of course America cannot recoil from global markets. Anyone with half a brain knows that Donald Trump's approach to globalization is wrong. (It will do the opposite of what's promised). But large parts of the US population have been left behind in the last 40 years of economic growth. They can hardly be blamed for looking back wistfully at the good old days, and wishing for a return to those days. And economists these days seem to offer plenty of excuses and criticisms; but few actual solutions
.
Of course America cannot recoil from global markets. Anyone with half a brain knows that Donald Trump's approach to globalization is wrong. (It will do the opposite of what's promised). But large parts of the US population have been left behind in the last 40 years of economic growth. They can hardly be blamed for looking back wistfully at the good old days, and wishing for a return to those days. And economists these days seem to offer plenty of excuses and criticisms; but few actual solutions
5
The continuing advances of machine technology make Trump’s case for supporting an American workforce more compelling, not less. If there will be fewer human jobs worldwide, it would be nice to have a few them here.
2
Trump's economic approach is to add a 'pandering' element to the current dis-proven theories of trickle down - all the while running counter to traditional Republican pro-trade policies.
And to think the Chamber of Commerce, energy groups and main stream / moderate Republicans continue to support him - blatant hypocrisy at its' worst.
Of course any of these fact-based analyses will fail to change the narrative promoted by Trump facilitators.
And to think the Chamber of Commerce, energy groups and main stream / moderate Republicans continue to support him - blatant hypocrisy at its' worst.
Of course any of these fact-based analyses will fail to change the narrative promoted by Trump facilitators.
Who is our economy to serve? The vast majority of laboring Americans who are paying the price for global free trade, or the small minority of 'people with advanced degrees, stock options and the need for accountant?'
There are 2 problems with free trade that politicians must squarely address, or the social unrest will tear this country apart.
First, not all comparative advantages are equal. The comparative advantage of the third world is (a) workers willing to work for slave wages, and (b) no environmental regulation. Unless we want labor to be devalued and the global environment destroyed, we shouldn't reward these forms of comparative advantage. Only trading partners who have legitimate comparative advantages should be rewarded with mutually beneficial trade. Otherwise our cheap consumer goods are directly attributable to the global devaluing of labor.
Second, as a result of the comparative advantage of the price of labor, Americans who rely upon their labor to survive pay all the price while consumers benefit due to marginally lower prices and stockholders benefit due to reduced cost of production. Angry people are fertile ground for xenophobia and nationalism. For the future health of our democracy, politicians must ensure that Americans who rely on their labor have the dignity of a livelihood.
There are 2 problems with free trade that politicians must squarely address, or the social unrest will tear this country apart.
First, not all comparative advantages are equal. The comparative advantage of the third world is (a) workers willing to work for slave wages, and (b) no environmental regulation. Unless we want labor to be devalued and the global environment destroyed, we shouldn't reward these forms of comparative advantage. Only trading partners who have legitimate comparative advantages should be rewarded with mutually beneficial trade. Otherwise our cheap consumer goods are directly attributable to the global devaluing of labor.
Second, as a result of the comparative advantage of the price of labor, Americans who rely upon their labor to survive pay all the price while consumers benefit due to marginally lower prices and stockholders benefit due to reduced cost of production. Angry people are fertile ground for xenophobia and nationalism. For the future health of our democracy, politicians must ensure that Americans who rely on their labor have the dignity of a livelihood.
4
What no-one seems to be discussing is that Free Trade helps ensure world peace. Countries that have strong economic ties tend not to go to war against each other.
While we need to do more to help displaced workers with real re-training, we should also determine the economic costs and benefits of not killing one another in expensive wars.
While we need to do more to help displaced workers with real re-training, we should also determine the economic costs and benefits of not killing one another in expensive wars.
2
The Dems left the working class and then New Deal behind and went corporate under Bill Clinton's "triangulation " policies. Suddenly the party was no longer pro- union but pro-Wall Street. The economy went from a manufacturing base to a financial base and many workers were left behind. Herein lies the genesis of the Trump phenomenon.
We now have both parties in the pocket of Wall Street and we're heading for a fall. We need to rid ourselves of the oligarchy and restore jobs and democracy.
We now have both parties in the pocket of Wall Street and we're heading for a fall. We need to rid ourselves of the oligarchy and restore jobs and democracy.
11
Not everyone who opposes TPP does so because of isolationism. One problem with TPP specifically is that it enshrines in US and international law the idea of copyright as an entitlement, turning on its head the idea in the Constitution, in which copyright is a /limited term/ monopoly tolerated as part of a bargain society makes with creators /to ensure that the created works eventually end up in the public domain./ Like NAFTA, TPP gives corporations the right effectively to veto environmental protection laws or worker protection laws that cost them money. It would be possible to negotiate a pro-worker, pro-environment, pro-social-compact trade agreement, but those things have never been important to the DLC.
6
Mr Edsall, you make the mistake that other commentators make about Trump's appeal to white, working class voters. You think they are drawn to Trump because of his economic and trade policies. From my perch here in the heart of Trump country in rural, northeastern Pennsylvania, I can assure you that most of his supporters could not accurately describe his views.
Reading the letters to the local paper, it is clear to me that their support for Trump is driven by their innate racism, ethnocentrism and xenophobia. After all, they repeatedly send Lou Barletta, the one-time mayor of Hazleton who made his political name by blaming all the woes of his run down city on illegal Mexican "criminals" and "murderers."
The past seven years of a black man in the White House have been an intolerable affront to their sense of white privilege. All the local "problems" (from black students enrolling at the local university to abuse of opioids) are the result of undesirables from Philadelphia (code in these parts for black people), who take advantage of and prey upon innocent, hardworking white people.
They want a wall and they want it now, preferably one that cuts northeastern PA off from the rest of the U,S as well as the rest of the world. The last "good" outsiders were their ancestors.
Trump could declare tomorrow to be in favor of the TPP and NAFTA, and he wouldn't lose a single vote, as long as he continued to spew his hatred for Mexicans, Muslims and any other category of outsiders.
Reading the letters to the local paper, it is clear to me that their support for Trump is driven by their innate racism, ethnocentrism and xenophobia. After all, they repeatedly send Lou Barletta, the one-time mayor of Hazleton who made his political name by blaming all the woes of his run down city on illegal Mexican "criminals" and "murderers."
The past seven years of a black man in the White House have been an intolerable affront to their sense of white privilege. All the local "problems" (from black students enrolling at the local university to abuse of opioids) are the result of undesirables from Philadelphia (code in these parts for black people), who take advantage of and prey upon innocent, hardworking white people.
They want a wall and they want it now, preferably one that cuts northeastern PA off from the rest of the U,S as well as the rest of the world. The last "good" outsiders were their ancestors.
Trump could declare tomorrow to be in favor of the TPP and NAFTA, and he wouldn't lose a single vote, as long as he continued to spew his hatred for Mexicans, Muslims and any other category of outsiders.
5
Republicans have been doing their best to get rid of unions for years and the workers seemed to go for it. Places where there are "right to work" laws like Texas and unions have no strength to negotiate on behalf of workers, wages are lower. It seems that when the TPP is renegotiated, as Clinton has said it would be on her watch, perhaps unions will be involved in putting in provisions to retrain or help those displaced by globalization and automation. Workers should not have allowed the Republicans to get rid of the unions who spoke for them and kept them informed about what corporations were doing to them. This piece was very informative in helping me to better understand a complicated issue. It is ridiculous to think we could prosper without trade.
3
I read the Jared Bernstein piece that is billed as the sensible progressive approach. It starts out blaming trade inequities on currency manipulations. While that has happened, China stopped artificially devaluing its currency some time ago and it didn't help American workers one bit. Then Bernstein says we should demand adherence to some set of global minimum labor, environmental. and human rights standards as conditions to trade. He doesn't explain how we would do that. Since we can't dictate other countries' labor laws, we would have to directly regulate who American companies can do business with. That isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it is far more than a minor tweak. Such regulations would have to be as harsh in impact as high tariffs to incentivize China, etc. to change their internal policies.
Few if any pro-globalization arguments address the reality that the profitability of globalization is expressly based on disparities between the mobility of labor and of capital (capital crosses borders with a few keystrokes, while labor is penned in by immigration laws and financial and social transaction costs of relocating). It's what makes it more profitable to make shoes for New Englanders in China than in Massachusetts. We can't act surprised that globalization has come with a shift of the overall share of the pie from labor toward capital. It was intended. So to fix it, we need to make globalization unprofitable by taxing/regulating the gains away, somehow.
Few if any pro-globalization arguments address the reality that the profitability of globalization is expressly based on disparities between the mobility of labor and of capital (capital crosses borders with a few keystrokes, while labor is penned in by immigration laws and financial and social transaction costs of relocating). It's what makes it more profitable to make shoes for New Englanders in China than in Massachusetts. We can't act surprised that globalization has come with a shift of the overall share of the pie from labor toward capital. It was intended. So to fix it, we need to make globalization unprofitable by taxing/regulating the gains away, somehow.
3
If most of these quotes are taken out of context, like the one attributed to Robert Reich, this article is pretty worthless. The main problem with this critique is that the author and the experts he relies on evaluate Trump's PROPOSALS which are probably not what Trump, himself, would expect to end up with after negotiation. Whether or not this businesslike approach is appropriate for politics, as it may be too undiplomatic or make it harder for voters to participate in the process, is another issue, altogether.
If economists are worried about the repercussions from a political over-reaction by the "have-nots" of our society, then they have themselves to blame for letting the inequality of wealth and education get so extreme. Forty years of profit-taking at the expense of the working class may come at a cost.
If economists are worried about the repercussions from a political over-reaction by the "have-nots" of our society, then they have themselves to blame for letting the inequality of wealth and education get so extreme. Forty years of profit-taking at the expense of the working class may come at a cost.
1
When the recession started the customer service client I supported went from having 8 call centers throughout the USA to one. They moved the rest to Mexico, the Philippines, and the Dominican republic. The remaining call center was within driving distance of their corporate office and housed the more complicated processes that they prefer to keep in-house.
Thousands of people lost their jobs. But from a business standpoint they were able to save 40% by using near shore customer service reps and 70% using offshore customer service reps. This allowed their business to continue to grow even though we were in the midst of an economical crisis.
Free trade is here to stay. Rather than trying to fight a losing battle, our politicians need to work with business leaders to come up with a plan that will make economical sense for them to reinvest in the USA. Punitive measures like raising taxes and imposing tariffs isn't going to work. Instead incentives for job training programs and jobs created in the USA need to be explored.
Thousands of people lost their jobs. But from a business standpoint they were able to save 40% by using near shore customer service reps and 70% using offshore customer service reps. This allowed their business to continue to grow even though we were in the midst of an economical crisis.
Free trade is here to stay. Rather than trying to fight a losing battle, our politicians need to work with business leaders to come up with a plan that will make economical sense for them to reinvest in the USA. Punitive measures like raising taxes and imposing tariffs isn't going to work. Instead incentives for job training programs and jobs created in the USA need to be explored.
1
It is generally agreed that free trade has a positive impact on essentially everyone, but a much larger negative impact on a smaller number of our citizens. It is also agreed that support for Trump by these dispossessed should have been ameliorated by retraining programs.
This is generally perceived as a screw up by the Democrats and, to some extent, it has been. Republicans, on the other hand, believe that anything that government can do the private sector can do better. But there is no profit motive in helping these people (For-profit universities? I don't think so.) And the current crop of Grover Norquist commandos is violently opposed to raising taxes to fund such a major retraining program. So, to an excellent approximation the politicians are getting what they (or we) paid for. As usual our "leaders" insist on doing everything (except defense) on the cheap. As usual the bottom 90% end up paying.
This is generally perceived as a screw up by the Democrats and, to some extent, it has been. Republicans, on the other hand, believe that anything that government can do the private sector can do better. But there is no profit motive in helping these people (For-profit universities? I don't think so.) And the current crop of Grover Norquist commandos is violently opposed to raising taxes to fund such a major retraining program. So, to an excellent approximation the politicians are getting what they (or we) paid for. As usual our "leaders" insist on doing everything (except defense) on the cheap. As usual the bottom 90% end up paying.
1
In one way, Trump and friends are right that Americans cannot compete in global labor markets, but they are wrong about the reason. The reason that goods made in America are usually too expensive to compete successfully is that our dollar remains the world's reserve currency, and thus its value remains high despite our burgeoning debt. The reason labor is cheaper elsewhere is that workers in Vietnam, India, China, etc. pay their living expenses and buy consumer goods in their own lower-valued currencies, not dollars. Unless we want to devalue the dollar, there isn't much we can do about that. Making foreign-made goods more expensive through tariffs will not help, since it will not make American-made goods any less expensive elsewhere.
We are just passing through a small period of no critical innovation. When that particular innovation takes place, you can see America thriving again. Globalization must hold. That is the world spirit. You can never hide away from it. If so, expect to be a Venezuela or Zimbabwe. In the modernizing world, don't expect to be under-educated and still get a job. Build useful skills that is applicable in this phase of growth. Collect more taxes which can be spend for free education of critical skills for those people who are in dire needs.
1
There's a fallacy in our debates about trade --that we can only choose between free trade and protectionism -- but a growing minority has been working on a third way: fair trade.
2
A really interesting article, not for what it says, but for what it leaves unsaid.
The article demonstrates fairly clearly that Trump´s idea that we should cancel trade agreements with China and Mexico is lunacy. Nothing new there. It also points out that while globalization is a good thing overall, it comes at a price. The price is that the uneducated, unskilled worker, is left on the sideline while the better educated reap the benefits. Also not entirely new, and in the past the answer has always been: Well, we will retrain our workforce so that they can compete and benefit. The problem is that that solution does not work, and the question then becomes: What should we do to make the benefits of globalization benefit everyone, and not leave those white non-college educated men on the sidelines voting for a policy that is only going to hurt them more. The article does not tackle this question.
Would be interesting to hear the view of these same economists on the question
The article demonstrates fairly clearly that Trump´s idea that we should cancel trade agreements with China and Mexico is lunacy. Nothing new there. It also points out that while globalization is a good thing overall, it comes at a price. The price is that the uneducated, unskilled worker, is left on the sideline while the better educated reap the benefits. Also not entirely new, and in the past the answer has always been: Well, we will retrain our workforce so that they can compete and benefit. The problem is that that solution does not work, and the question then becomes: What should we do to make the benefits of globalization benefit everyone, and not leave those white non-college educated men on the sidelines voting for a policy that is only going to hurt them more. The article does not tackle this question.
Would be interesting to hear the view of these same economists on the question
1
Prof. Edsall, whose articles I have found most enlightening in the past, has turned himself into a mimic of Thomas Friedman: "innovation," "productivity," an "open" economy. But his insights on the necessity for globalization do not even begin to answer the question of what we should do about unemployed and underemployed workers.
It seems that globalization and automation are leading us rather rapidly toward a dead end. If humanity defines itself in terms of labor (mental or physical), what can we do if no work is available for us to do? If Prof. Edsall couldn't teach at Columbia or write articles for the New York Times, what would HE do?
It seems that globalization and automation are leading us rather rapidly toward a dead end. If humanity defines itself in terms of labor (mental or physical), what can we do if no work is available for us to do? If Prof. Edsall couldn't teach at Columbia or write articles for the New York Times, what would HE do?
1
Trump will crash the US and possibly the world economy in short order. This is not an if, it's clear as can be.
Remember what he did with his own "empire" in from 1995 to 2005, when others were doing well. He's recovered by licensing but that's by letting others use his inflated name, and accepting money from oligarchs abroad, and Deutsche Bank, which is also in trouble.
He wants to use the US as his personal piggybank, and he doesn't care about anyone but himself and his rich friends. Don't be fooled: your adulation feeds his addiction, but he doesn't care about you.
Listen to what he had to say about terminal patients.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2016/oct/06/donald-trump-urges...
"I'm no sorry" he says, claims to be kidding, but given his history, I think his heartlessness is all too typical of the man.
Remember what he did with his own "empire" in from 1995 to 2005, when others were doing well. He's recovered by licensing but that's by letting others use his inflated name, and accepting money from oligarchs abroad, and Deutsche Bank, which is also in trouble.
He wants to use the US as his personal piggybank, and he doesn't care about anyone but himself and his rich friends. Don't be fooled: your adulation feeds his addiction, but he doesn't care about you.
Listen to what he had to say about terminal patients.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2016/oct/06/donald-trump-urges...
"I'm no sorry" he says, claims to be kidding, but given his history, I think his heartlessness is all too typical of the man.
5
Automation is the sleeper problem that will change the parameters of our trade difficulties. When robots become cheaper than Bangladeshis, the Bangladeshis will return to subsistence (or not-quite-subsistence) rice farming on their soon-to-disappear river delta, most of the robots will gather dust because of a shrunken market for what they produce, and most of their owner/investors will lose their shirts as their investments lie idle.
To create a market for what the robots produce, those who consume their product must own the robots, individually or collectively. In any economy where the work is done by slaves, those who do not own slaves will be pushed to the edge of the economy because their labor will be more expensive. We do not know what the answers to this would look like, but we do know that they are not to be found within our current capitalistic framework, which will have to go the way of feudalism. Like Al Capp's schmoo, robot-produced "free stuff" makes TANSTAAFL obsolete and upends any economy or economic thinking based on that principle. Most of us will wind up as gentlemen, who may be impoverished but do not work for a living but rather have one (the definition of being a gentleman). Our capitalistic values hold this lifestyle in contempt, and that too will have to change.
To create a market for what the robots produce, those who consume their product must own the robots, individually or collectively. In any economy where the work is done by slaves, those who do not own slaves will be pushed to the edge of the economy because their labor will be more expensive. We do not know what the answers to this would look like, but we do know that they are not to be found within our current capitalistic framework, which will have to go the way of feudalism. Like Al Capp's schmoo, robot-produced "free stuff" makes TANSTAAFL obsolete and upends any economy or economic thinking based on that principle. Most of us will wind up as gentlemen, who may be impoverished but do not work for a living but rather have one (the definition of being a gentleman). Our capitalistic values hold this lifestyle in contempt, and that too will have to change.
2
The relationship of Hoover's tariffs on the economy, ie the great depression. is proof enough that Trump's ideas on trade are bad.
5
I think it's strange when a journalist calls Robert Reich an economist. He has no formal economic education, he's a well educated lawyer with a lot of opinions. Does having a lot of economic opinions make you an economist? Trump seems to have economic opinions as well, would you say "the economist Donald Trump". I think you should refer to him as: Robert Reich lawyer, political professor, and former Secretary of Labor or something a long those lines. I don't know, but to me the term economist refers to a someone with a PhD in economics maybe if you have a masters degree and work in the field, but i think that might about where I'd draw the line.
8
It is too close to the election for either candidate to backtrack on this issue. They are trapped. Obama has been right all along, modestly. Hopefully, Hillary, in office, will go back to supporting
Trade and explain to the public why it is a better idea than
trade wars.
Trade and explain to the public why it is a better idea than
trade wars.
8
Asian food imports and machinery purchases would soon find American suppliers hit with equal or worse tariffs. NAFTA makes free auto trade with Mex. and CA. lawful and uncancellable. Thus a Trump tax or tariff threatens American farmers and major car makers and parts suppliers. The latter number 2 million workers, the farmers several million. His plan is suicidal when we add in the extra costs a Toyota truck would bring to a farmer whose produce has become unexportable at the same time. A 20% drop in corn exports plus a 30 or 45% rise in vehicle costs? Goodbye, American farmer. Andhello, worldwide recession.
5
Even if trumps tariffs proposals brought more manufacturing jobs back to the U.S. we would not return to the golden age of the 40s and 50s. Those factories were unionized resulting in high wages and good benefits. Does anyone think the owners of the new factories would simply roll over for the unions. They would fight with everything they have including using their GOP allies in Congress. If wages did go up they would simply automate the jobs out of existence. There are problems with the TPP but it is not the lack of tarriffs. It is mainly the dispute resolution procedures and intellectual property protections that will reduce consumer worker and environmental protections
2
A truthful, accurate assessment of Trump's make America great, again, by the delusional proposals that have struck a chord in America economic anxiety. His message is reinforced by made-in-everywhere but America labels on the shelves of America's stores.
The jarring statement in this column is that the Democrats have ceded this issue to Trump. Vexing! How he captured the message that was so strongly delivered by Senator Sanders can only be laid at the feet of the media -- present company, excepted.
The growing threat to our way of life has been around since 60's and started growing geometrically in the 1980's. There was an effort toward protectionism in the case of the big industries like steel but the invisible hand kept moving.
In my view, we do not have to move toward protectionism/tariffs/quotas but could invest in technologies that could lead to manufactured products that could compete in foreign markets. We have, but most investments were based on Defense. Pure comparative advantage of non-defense products were frittered away.
E.g., In 1987, I was very disappointed that Senator Moynihan's proposal to Federally fund the development of a 300 mph superconducting Maglev transport for passengers & freight trucks was defeated by transport interests. See www.magneticglide.com
Maglev is a great idea & could have created a US industry. Instead Japan invested & now Japan is investing in capturing the US market by hiring a lobbying team of former US policymakers.
The jarring statement in this column is that the Democrats have ceded this issue to Trump. Vexing! How he captured the message that was so strongly delivered by Senator Sanders can only be laid at the feet of the media -- present company, excepted.
The growing threat to our way of life has been around since 60's and started growing geometrically in the 1980's. There was an effort toward protectionism in the case of the big industries like steel but the invisible hand kept moving.
In my view, we do not have to move toward protectionism/tariffs/quotas but could invest in technologies that could lead to manufactured products that could compete in foreign markets. We have, but most investments were based on Defense. Pure comparative advantage of non-defense products were frittered away.
E.g., In 1987, I was very disappointed that Senator Moynihan's proposal to Federally fund the development of a 300 mph superconducting Maglev transport for passengers & freight trucks was defeated by transport interests. See www.magneticglide.com
Maglev is a great idea & could have created a US industry. Instead Japan invested & now Japan is investing in capturing the US market by hiring a lobbying team of former US policymakers.
2
I don't trust or like any trade deals anymore, 'We the People' have been lied too so much over the past 20 plus years since NAFTA. Trade was supposed to be great, it was going to lift all boats. Then the factories started to be boarded up and the firings numbered in the 100K + in a day. We were told more lies about the service economy, new and better jobs just around the corner. Well all those factories are still boarded up, the solid ground of Detroit, Cleveland,Chicago, etc. has turned to the rust belt with the same boarded up factories. The so called experts didn't even want to talk about trade, unless it was to trumpet their shinny new TPP deal. Now Trump comes along and says he's going to smash the trade deals and raise tariffs. And the so called experts are saying how terrible its going to be, well things have been terrible for 20 years, and no one noticed. So YES lets have a trade war, because the so called experts have been 100% wrong. I hate Trump, he's a liar and a thief, but so are the so called experts. Maybe President Clinton will make Elizabeth Warren Attorney General, and Bernie Sanders head of the SEC. Well at least I have a few more weeks to dream.
7
"We the people have been lied to..." please, speak for yourself. I always knew exactly what the benefits and drawbacks were of trade deals, and the benefits outweighs the drawbacks quite significantly.
"Fair" trade assumes working conditions, wages, environmental regulations, benefits to workers are equal in all countries. If businesses incorporated these standards in offshore countries, they would have no incentive to move there. Why do we allow businesses to practice slave labor and ruin our environment? Fair trade, not free trade, will alleviate some of our suffering.
2
Thomas Edsall's article brings to mind the great 17th Century satirist, Jonathan Swift's, comment as it applies to Trump supporters: "It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into". There is absolutely nothing rational about the right's infatuation with The Donald. It is entirely directed at "sticking it to the system". Total worldwide economic collapse is just collateral damage. The whole point of a Trump presidency (God forbid) is to create chaos .... a revenge tantrum that my grandmother used to call "cutting off your nose to spite your face". Those trying to stop Trump are trying to help you keep your nose until you can find a mirror and give it some thought.
15
Free Trade with basic protections for consumers, workers and the environment is good for everyone. How we distribute the wealth we create is a political decision, not an economic decision.
3
Some really wise person said, "Everyone needs someone to love, someone to love them back, and something to do".
The political class forgets that having something to do is good for us. That something to do for the majority of our lives is work.
What happens when work disappears? Look at the poorest neighborhoods in inner cities, at the poorest neighborhoods in former factory towns, at the poorest neighborhoods in farming communities. What do you find there? Crime. Drug use. Drug overdoses and deaths.
Do we as a country want more of this? More importantly, can we as a country survive more of this?
The political class forgets that having something to do is good for us. That something to do for the majority of our lives is work.
What happens when work disappears? Look at the poorest neighborhoods in inner cities, at the poorest neighborhoods in former factory towns, at the poorest neighborhoods in farming communities. What do you find there? Crime. Drug use. Drug overdoses and deaths.
Do we as a country want more of this? More importantly, can we as a country survive more of this?
15
TRUMP'S POLICIES, Were we to have the cataclysmic misfortune to have the madman himself as President, all of his policies would involve wholesale wreckage of many institutions of which he has not the slightest idea. For one example, Trump has confused 7/11 with 9/11. He has tweeted that Paris is in Germany. For a person whose mental capacity is so extremely impaired, even ideas that seem half-baked can be made into wrecking balls. Trump's experience in business is to have a free hand with business failures because he can use the losses to gain large tax writeoffs. And the use of bankruptcy laws as well as legally stiffing workers and contractors while skimming millions off of taxes he has not paid. These slimy tricks are a preview of what his economic policies would be like. If he's elected, we may as well fly the white flag and surrender. We're not talking about losing on the trade front. The US will be flushed down the toilet because of Trump's demented ideas. There is no end to the filth Trump can foul the nation with if elected. It's bad enough that it's confined to his businesses. As proof, witness the fact that he is scheduled to be in federal court due to fraud charges related to the Trump Un-university, where he is accused of defrauding students. As president he would have no profit motive, just an imbecilic, harebrained use of whim and caprice in forming the US international trade and business policies. A vote for Trump is a vote for our destruction!
5
Each time DT appears, just repeat, "The Trump campaign is filmed before a live studio audience."
2
In the aftermath of the Wall Street crash of 1929, the American Congress approved anti-trade/protectionist laws. The result was a global depression.
The consequences of US protectionism -- besides awful economic outcomes -- was the rise of nazism in Germany and fascism in Italy. In 1939 the world was in a state of total war.
If Trump is elected president and trade protectionist laws are implemented, the global economy will certainly be engulfed into a sort of post-1929 funk state.
As the wealthiest nation today, America has most to lose from a trade war. American workers will certainly be among the casualties.
The consequences of US protectionism -- besides awful economic outcomes -- was the rise of nazism in Germany and fascism in Italy. In 1939 the world was in a state of total war.
If Trump is elected president and trade protectionist laws are implemented, the global economy will certainly be engulfed into a sort of post-1929 funk state.
As the wealthiest nation today, America has most to lose from a trade war. American workers will certainly be among the casualties.
7
The day after Brexit, thousands of people woke up and claimed that they never voted for Britian to leave the EU - they just wanted to kick out the foreigners who take their jobs. But it was too late - the pound fell, leadership of the main political parties collapsed, and the new Prime Minister is spending all her time back-pedaling. Half the Brexit voters are probably wishing they could change their votes - as they ponder their even bleaker future.
Expect worse when Trump is elected. He and his billionaire cronies will raise inequality, increase poverty among those without college education, crash the stock market, wipe out our retirement savings, send our soldiers to fight unnecessary wars, impoverish our veterans, and create massive unemployment among those who voted for him. It will be too late to take back the vote.
Expect worse when Trump is elected. He and his billionaire cronies will raise inequality, increase poverty among those without college education, crash the stock market, wipe out our retirement savings, send our soldiers to fight unnecessary wars, impoverish our veterans, and create massive unemployment among those who voted for him. It will be too late to take back the vote.
14
The tragic irony of Trump's proposed policies is that the very people who hang on his every word, and mistakenly believe in him in denial of the vast catalog of history's outcomes with the same, past policies, those people will not just continue to decline, but decline more precipitously while the Trump class, as it always does, will set a course of profit through investment manipulation.
Trump doesn't care about his supporters or any of us. He just wants to be president, and he believes that telling his supporters what they want to hear will achieve that end, regardless of what would actually happen should he be elected and act in that manner.
The alternative, equally tragic, is that it's all just more of his lying.
He is described perfectly in the first stanza of "Pearl Jam" 's "Nothingman":
"once divided...nothing left to subtract...
some words when spoken...can't be taken back...
walks on his own...with thoughts he can't help thinking...
future's above...but in the past he's slow and sinking...
caught a bolt 'a lightnin'...cursed the day he let it go...
nothingman...
nothingman...
isn't it something?
nothingman..."
Trump doesn't care about his supporters or any of us. He just wants to be president, and he believes that telling his supporters what they want to hear will achieve that end, regardless of what would actually happen should he be elected and act in that manner.
The alternative, equally tragic, is that it's all just more of his lying.
He is described perfectly in the first stanza of "Pearl Jam" 's "Nothingman":
"once divided...nothing left to subtract...
some words when spoken...can't be taken back...
walks on his own...with thoughts he can't help thinking...
future's above...but in the past he's slow and sinking...
caught a bolt 'a lightnin'...cursed the day he let it go...
nothingman...
nothingman...
isn't it something?
nothingman..."
2
Trump doesn't have policies. Policies require knowledge and analysis of likely outcomes. Trump disdains knowledge as unnecessary because he has a "big brain". Trump only has catch phrases. Build that Wall. Give a haircut to US bondholders. Cut taxes (especially for) the rich. Deport 11 million immigrants.
Trump is a con man, a flim-flam artist, a TV comic (the joke is on us).
This message is brought to you courtesy of the Republican leadership.
Trump is a con man, a flim-flam artist, a TV comic (the joke is on us).
This message is brought to you courtesy of the Republican leadership.
13
Studying the economics, the diagrams, the charts, gives the bleak picture. STUDYING THE PSYCHOLOGIES, THE BEREFT STATE OF LIFE FOR AMERICAN WORKING CLASS, is far more vague, more abstract. John and Jane Doe can no longer swell their chests and say "I pour castings for refrigeration compressors" or "I run a CNC machine that turns out Apple computer frames". Work promotes self esteem. We've been losing work for decades. No trumpian trumpets will bring it back.
2
Given his vast experience in manufacturing and exporting those goods, I don't see how you can argue against trump knowing what's the best way to bring back American manufacturing jobs. Once elected, America will build more hotels and golf courses, then export them to the rest of the world.
7
Haven't some of those Trump business ventures failed, too?
Two words....Great Article...
2
Edsall quotes the same economists who promised that globalization would be beneficial for everyone to say now that the flight of manufacturing from the US is irreversible. Those economists were wrong about globalization then and there is no reason to think they are right now. Globalization has obviously not brought greater prosperity to the US overall or those economists would not be talking about "secular stagnation" and as everyone knows by now most improvement in the economy that has occurred has flowed to the uppermost tiers. Since 2000 nobody except the top 1% has really improved real income, so the promised opportunities in more educated jobs are not materializing either.
The US has to be more competitive in the world economy but this means striking deals that protect US workers, not just improve profits. Other countries have in fact been allowed to dictate terms, in collaboration with US capitalists and upper managers. Trump is hardly qualified to handle international trade, but he - and Sanders - are right that tariffs, or the threat thereof, may have to be employed.
The US has to be more competitive in the world economy but this means striking deals that protect US workers, not just improve profits. Other countries have in fact been allowed to dictate terms, in collaboration with US capitalists and upper managers. Trump is hardly qualified to handle international trade, but he - and Sanders - are right that tariffs, or the threat thereof, may have to be employed.
13
Globalization has made America a lot of wealth. But, all of that new wealth went to 1% of the people. So the rest of the Country can be excused for not noticing all the wealth being created. Creating wealth efficiently is an economic issue, distributing it effectively is a political decision.
5
Clearly, Trump relies on fools for his support. These fools have no understanding of modern manufacturing, which is very high tech, very low brawn.
These fools have never asked themselves if Trump actually believes in the U.S. He probably doesn't. He imported workers and he imported two of his three wives.
Also, are these fools ready for the high inflation, especially for food prices when he kicks out foreigners? Who will take their places at their wages working in the fields and slaughter houses? The fools? I don't think so. Also, as pointed out in your article, there will be retribution from our trade partners. Exports will shrink. The fools make a great case for using tests to determine who can vote.
These fools have never asked themselves if Trump actually believes in the U.S. He probably doesn't. He imported workers and he imported two of his three wives.
Also, are these fools ready for the high inflation, especially for food prices when he kicks out foreigners? Who will take their places at their wages working in the fields and slaughter houses? The fools? I don't think so. Also, as pointed out in your article, there will be retribution from our trade partners. Exports will shrink. The fools make a great case for using tests to determine who can vote.
1
Pundits have released a furious torrent of criticism against Trump's every stance and action in this Presidential election. Their frustration is intense as is the fear they express. These exasperated "experts" are however completely out of touch with a large and growing part of the electorate that has closed their ears to these dire warnings. Trump followers feel left out and marginalized in a country that they have fought, struggled and died for. They are called "Deplorables" and seen as ridiculous in their support of Trump. If their issues are not addressed they will not go away. Trump has the matches and America is tinder dry.
5
The trump supporters don't have the intellectual tools to understand that trump is leading them down a primrose path. this is not entirely their own fault. they are the products of an educational system that can barely teach them to think let alone create the capacity to appreciate that they are being manipulated by a master con man who will get their votes, but whose policy proposals (where they exits) will do nothing to help them retool their lives and livelihoods.
2
Its a cold hard fact that virtually ALL of the complaints about America are coming from the GOP, and are rooted in the disdain that the party manifests for anyone that does not conform to it's 'shape shifting', ideological definition of human perfection.
Making America great is about working together, not about who has managed to accumulate the most wampum by hook or by crook.
It's a dour and sour ideology that relies on the idea that the 'human condition' itself can and should be judged and regulated by its relationship to wampum.
While it may be true that wampum is an easy and brainless measure of the value of individual humans, history has clearly shown that it has no relationship to the value of the collective human, "we, the people" who represent a society and a civilization.
We are great when we are 'banging on all cylinders' to pull people out of the depths of inhumanity, but not so much when we spend our time and energy reveling in how many we can summarily judge and throw into those depths.
Making America great is about working together, not about who has managed to accumulate the most wampum by hook or by crook.
It's a dour and sour ideology that relies on the idea that the 'human condition' itself can and should be judged and regulated by its relationship to wampum.
While it may be true that wampum is an easy and brainless measure of the value of individual humans, history has clearly shown that it has no relationship to the value of the collective human, "we, the people" who represent a society and a civilization.
We are great when we are 'banging on all cylinders' to pull people out of the depths of inhumanity, but not so much when we spend our time and energy reveling in how many we can summarily judge and throw into those depths.
5
The fact is, wealth is the only appropriate scorecard in a capitalist economy. Liberals need to accept that we are not all equal in talent, ability or pedigree. What what we want from life has no relationship to what we get and that for every Bill Gates, there will be a million homeless, scores of whom will not survive.
2
Edsall polls a gaggle of pointy head ivory tower liberals and progressive who have the ultimate job security - tenure - and, lo and behold, they, who are in no way impacted by the displacements of globalization, declare that Trump is nutz.
There are plenty of poorly trained boobs who could replace any of Edsall's economic experts, at $11 an hour and no bennies or job security, and get just as good of results as any of them have produced. Unfortunately, Academia is not a free trade zone.
If these guys are so smart, why does the US owe $20Trillion, pay $400Billion a year in interest on the $20T, have a trade deficit of $500Billion a year, have a student loan of $1.25Trillion, have 43Million people below the federal poverty level, have massive structural un/underemployment, have a dysfunctional health care system....did I forget anything?
Next Valentine's Day, the US will have a Dimocratic President, the same Edsall economic experts, and the same intractable macroeconomics.
Yeah, Trump is the problem. Not the status quo political establishment and its economist lackeys.
There are plenty of poorly trained boobs who could replace any of Edsall's economic experts, at $11 an hour and no bennies or job security, and get just as good of results as any of them have produced. Unfortunately, Academia is not a free trade zone.
If these guys are so smart, why does the US owe $20Trillion, pay $400Billion a year in interest on the $20T, have a trade deficit of $500Billion a year, have a student loan of $1.25Trillion, have 43Million people below the federal poverty level, have massive structural un/underemployment, have a dysfunctional health care system....did I forget anything?
Next Valentine's Day, the US will have a Dimocratic President, the same Edsall economic experts, and the same intractable macroeconomics.
Yeah, Trump is the problem. Not the status quo political establishment and its economist lackeys.
6
It is them who voted GOP and no US investments, that is the problem. Those who voted GOP got what they deserve, with Trump or without him.
So stop complaining, pull yourself up and don't look for the government help!
So stop complaining, pull yourself up and don't look for the government help!
Growing up in the 70s, I remember being at the big amusement parks in cities around the country and always riding the Viking ship that rocked back and forth like a pendulum. With each pass it rose just a little higher to the point where doing a complete loop was all but achieved.
In this election season that loop has been achieved several times over and doesn't seem to be slowing down...
In this election season that loop has been achieved several times over and doesn't seem to be slowing down...
As a country we could put people to work fixing our worn-out infrastructure.
No corporate CEO has yet figured out how to send building roads, bridges, water and sewage transmission systems , airports, etc abroad.
Congress won't do that, of course. It "increases the deficit", but it won't if people are at work and paying taxes.
No corporate CEO has yet figured out how to send building roads, bridges, water and sewage transmission systems , airports, etc abroad.
Congress won't do that, of course. It "increases the deficit", but it won't if people are at work and paying taxes.
3
The concept of "cash flow" seems to be beyond most politicians, and guess who is managing the budget.
4
It seems to me that a consensus is building that the upper portions of the economic ladder benefit from trade agreements, and those at the bottom suffer.
A quick solution: raise the minimum wage.
Sanders was right: $15.00 per hour.
A quick solution: raise the minimum wage.
Sanders was right: $15.00 per hour.
6
There's this guy on the NYT payroll who knows a thing or two about international trade. Money quote:
"After all, doesn’t everyone know that protectionism causes recessions? Actually, no. There are reasons to be against protectionism, but that’s not one of them."
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/03/04/the-mitt-hawley-fallacy/
"After all, doesn’t everyone know that protectionism causes recessions? Actually, no. There are reasons to be against protectionism, but that’s not one of them."
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/03/04/the-mitt-hawley-fallacy/
2
Global trade ensures global peace. As the article notes 60% of world GDP now derives from global trade. Why dismantle something that is working?
My car mechanic is considered to have a "service job", not a manufacturing one, but assembles engines like a factory worker. He just disassembles them first. The same skills, and perhaps more interesting (varied) work. Service jobs can be as well paying as manufacturing jobs and require the same skills.
Service jobs do require a bit more social skills; which may be a chore for some, but it's a necessary skill in modern society, and brings individuals from different cultures together; which addresses the pockets of racism and xenophobia that fuels Trump supporters.
My car mechanic is considered to have a "service job", not a manufacturing one, but assembles engines like a factory worker. He just disassembles them first. The same skills, and perhaps more interesting (varied) work. Service jobs can be as well paying as manufacturing jobs and require the same skills.
Service jobs do require a bit more social skills; which may be a chore for some, but it's a necessary skill in modern society, and brings individuals from different cultures together; which addresses the pockets of racism and xenophobia that fuels Trump supporters.
Now, why don't you write a column about the actions that we should take to mitigate the bad effects of globalization and free trade, as well as the actions necessary to prepare our workforce for further globalization in the future?
THAT would be an interesting column.
THAT would be an interesting column.
3
While the piece is well written, it stops short on effective solutions. It's not enough to simply state that Trump's policies are "lunatic". What exactly are the best proposals for creating millions of middle class jobs with middle class incomes? If no one has an answer, then say that too. Open a debate about guaranteed minimum incomes, expanding tax credits, whatever will put money into the hands of the former middle class. It seems that we are going to have to begin the discussion of some guaranteed form of middle class income, divorced from employment because the idea that we are going to retrain all the displaced factory workers at the tail end of the baby boom to become STEM workers is ludicrous. Worse some of the retraining efforts are actually predatory. In my practice as a psychologist, I see dozens of people taking out student loans, offered by predatory schools, to attend curricula that have no guaranteed jobs at the other end, often leaving even the accomplished students worse than hopeless. The will have seen their hopes crushed while incurring debt they cannot pay back. We need to be having serious conversations about these issues and we are mired in whether Donald Trump will or will not build a wall; and whether or not Hillary Clinton mishandled e-mails or Benghazi.
3
A broad middle class is not a normal feature of a capitalist economy. The post war years were an aberration in the history of mankind and we should simply be grateful that they lasted as long as they did.
Trump is a fraud who believes himself to be special, talented, very smart and successful. What he knows about business is how to circumvent business ethics and rig deals so only he is the "winner" even as his businesses tank and he files for bankruptcy. So what he knows about economics and global trade is pretty much what he knows about most things...nothing.
Trump can't comprehend the damage his so-called make America great again plans will do economically in this country and the ripple effect on trading partners. An intellectual zero with severe anger management issues, he proves how dumb his supporters are for not recognizing the disaster he represents. They want responsible, fair governance but will vote for a dimwit bully who has no experience with governing.
Eclectic Pragmatist — http://eclectic-pragmatist.tumblr.com/
Eclectic Pragmatist — https://medium.com/eclectic-pragmatism
Trump can't comprehend the damage his so-called make America great again plans will do economically in this country and the ripple effect on trading partners. An intellectual zero with severe anger management issues, he proves how dumb his supporters are for not recognizing the disaster he represents. They want responsible, fair governance but will vote for a dimwit bully who has no experience with governing.
Eclectic Pragmatist — http://eclectic-pragmatist.tumblr.com/
Eclectic Pragmatist — https://medium.com/eclectic-pragmatism
8
These fake debates between Trade or No Trade, are propaganda exercises. This article is more nuanced than most, but still glosses over the real problem.
Global corporations, with the help off the US government, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organization, etc, have been shoving am extreme version of "free" trade down the throat of countries and workers for decades, using extreme violence, terror, torture, and assassinations, when necessary. Bill Clinton even supported Yeltsin shelling the Russian Parliament, so the Soviet economy could be looted and handed over to a bunch of brand new billionaires.
The trade deals have assumed that any protections for workers, product safety, or the environment (not to mention local culture) are trade barriers that must be cut at any cost. So the safety nets that could have helped cushion the blow to workers were dismantled at the same time, as government services were privatized cutting millions of extra jobs.
Global corporations now shop the world for governments most willing to abuse workers and the environment. The TPP and other new deals will expand this capability greatly. This is not the kind of competitive advantage of workers being more efficient. It is workers being forced to choose between poverty and starvation. It is the choice between screwing your family or the earth.
I don't think Trump will fix it, but either will Clinton.
The People of the world's must join together and fight back.
Global corporations, with the help off the US government, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organization, etc, have been shoving am extreme version of "free" trade down the throat of countries and workers for decades, using extreme violence, terror, torture, and assassinations, when necessary. Bill Clinton even supported Yeltsin shelling the Russian Parliament, so the Soviet economy could be looted and handed over to a bunch of brand new billionaires.
The trade deals have assumed that any protections for workers, product safety, or the environment (not to mention local culture) are trade barriers that must be cut at any cost. So the safety nets that could have helped cushion the blow to workers were dismantled at the same time, as government services were privatized cutting millions of extra jobs.
Global corporations now shop the world for governments most willing to abuse workers and the environment. The TPP and other new deals will expand this capability greatly. This is not the kind of competitive advantage of workers being more efficient. It is workers being forced to choose between poverty and starvation. It is the choice between screwing your family or the earth.
I don't think Trump will fix it, but either will Clinton.
The People of the world's must join together and fight back.
6
The sad fact is that Republicans have convinced the very people negatively effected by trade agreements that any attempts to help them would be Socialism. Instead of helping them they mine their misery for votes.
16
Poor, poor Republicans. They have been exposed. Their base -- that is, 60% of the voters -- are religious bigots who believe not only that Obama is Muslim, but that is wrong. The base also has no tether to GOP principles on war, trade, entitlements, etc. Their candidate is is not candid: no tax returns and no explanation of all his secret plans.
altogether, the republicans have little to hold on to.
altogether, the republicans have little to hold on to.
5
The lead picture captures how we live now. I drive around parts of rural Vermont and that is what I see, only people are living in houses that look like that.
4
I am a democrat. I plan to vote for Mrs. Clinton. But I must admit that on one point, I agree with Mr. Trump. Free Trade to me means the free flow of goods across borders without punishing tariffs. In layman terms, it should mean "I'll sell you what I make and you'll sell me what you make". To me, it shouldn't mean, "I'll teach you make the things I make, move my production to your country, use your labor to make them, and you can sell it back to me without tariffs".
Without U.S. and European so-called "investment" in China for instance - a euphemism for "teaching you how to make the things I make", we could see real competition between Chinese products and ours. Then let's see who buys what from whom. And if adjustments to the cost of production in the U.S. is necessary to compete in the international arena against identical products made elsewhere (without our help), we could develop OUR solutions to the problem; by deliberation, and not by fiat!
If Mrs. Clinton is elected, I for one, will continue to hold my views, and will not vote to re-elect her unless she moves away from the distortion that has become "free trade", and restore the real spirit of it.
Without U.S. and European so-called "investment" in China for instance - a euphemism for "teaching you how to make the things I make", we could see real competition between Chinese products and ours. Then let's see who buys what from whom. And if adjustments to the cost of production in the U.S. is necessary to compete in the international arena against identical products made elsewhere (without our help), we could develop OUR solutions to the problem; by deliberation, and not by fiat!
If Mrs. Clinton is elected, I for one, will continue to hold my views, and will not vote to re-elect her unless she moves away from the distortion that has become "free trade", and restore the real spirit of it.
5
New York Times readers don't need to hear about the faults in Trump's economic proposals.
We need to hear about Hillary Clinton's plan to help those who have been left behind. We're not hearing about it because she doesn't have one. The few, tiny, pathetic efforts to help those whose jobs have been lost have all been almost complete failures.
Americans have been forced to trade jobs paying ~$15 - 30 an hour with good benefits for jobs paying minimum wage with no benefits, no guaranteed hours and shifts that serve only the convenience of employers. In return, they have the right to buy flimsy junk made in China at Wal-Mart.
The next President has to put the best minds of our universities, Silicon Valley and our still productive manufacturers to work on the question of how we can create jobs offering adequate pay, benefits and security for the American middle class.
If Trump's not the answer (and he's not), what is?
Dan Kravitz
We need to hear about Hillary Clinton's plan to help those who have been left behind. We're not hearing about it because she doesn't have one. The few, tiny, pathetic efforts to help those whose jobs have been lost have all been almost complete failures.
Americans have been forced to trade jobs paying ~$15 - 30 an hour with good benefits for jobs paying minimum wage with no benefits, no guaranteed hours and shifts that serve only the convenience of employers. In return, they have the right to buy flimsy junk made in China at Wal-Mart.
The next President has to put the best minds of our universities, Silicon Valley and our still productive manufacturers to work on the question of how we can create jobs offering adequate pay, benefits and security for the American middle class.
If Trump's not the answer (and he's not), what is?
Dan Kravitz
10
We have one fairly recent example of a set of countries that decided that a convertible currency and free trade would be a disaster for them, and maintained their own currency with artificially set prices and impossible tariffs from the rest of the world. It also required people within its borders to buy "local."
But I'm not sure that following the path of the Soviet Union is the recipe for prosperity. How'd that work out for them?
But I'm not sure that following the path of the Soviet Union is the recipe for prosperity. How'd that work out for them?
2
I agree that free trade is essential to global prosperity, BUT...
Trade agreements need to be developed by a larger constituency than trans-global corporations. The TPP may be a wonderful thing and, yes, the USA needs to be helping to set the rules. But the corporations have been demonstrating that they don't care about the welfare of the lower and middle classes for the last 40 years. We don't need to be letting them be the sole segment setting the terms for trade.
Trade agreements need to be developed by a larger constituency than trans-global corporations. The TPP may be a wonderful thing and, yes, the USA needs to be helping to set the rules. But the corporations have been demonstrating that they don't care about the welfare of the lower and middle classes for the last 40 years. We don't need to be letting them be the sole segment setting the terms for trade.
8
Re. TPP. Europeans, and northern Europeans in particular, have been against TPP primarily because of the additives in US meat and other foodstuffs that are banned in Europe. Primarily hormones and antibiotics. We were disturbed while shopping in the US to find sugar added to meat. No wonder there's an obesity problem. Strange additives too such as Genuine artificial garlic flavor.
I'm an American abroad concerned too about the outcome of the election. Should Trump win, heaven help the whole world.
I'm an American abroad concerned too about the outcome of the election. Should Trump win, heaven help the whole world.
3
A job in Mexico means one less Mexican who needs to come the the U.S. to find a job.
Infrastructure stimulus spending would jump start the jobs program so desperately needed. Stimulus spending has been D.O.A. thanks to republican obstruction, though, so they blame Obama and Clinton for a war on coal.
The war on coal is being waged by the manufacturers who build the machines that are replacing the miners. Not to mention the obsolescence of coal as an energy source.
Democrats have possibly dropped the ball for the worker but they haven't stood in steadfast opposition to their needs, either. The other party has, and it is being personified by the faux oligarch at the top of their ticket.
Infrastructure stimulus spending would jump start the jobs program so desperately needed. Stimulus spending has been D.O.A. thanks to republican obstruction, though, so they blame Obama and Clinton for a war on coal.
The war on coal is being waged by the manufacturers who build the machines that are replacing the miners. Not to mention the obsolescence of coal as an energy source.
Democrats have possibly dropped the ball for the worker but they haven't stood in steadfast opposition to their needs, either. The other party has, and it is being personified by the faux oligarch at the top of their ticket.
3
Kaine missed multiple opps to jab Pence on the fake Clinton war on coal. He should have explained that a free market by its nature renders some things obsolete, which is happening to coal .
1
Trump's world view is limited to Trump Enterprises.
He has not factored in that his ties would become 45% more expensive and that his market would suffer severely under his tariff regime.
Just wait - it may be his ties that save America from a trade war.
He has not factored in that his ties would become 45% more expensive and that his market would suffer severely under his tariff regime.
Just wait - it may be his ties that save America from a trade war.
3
I am very sick of this narcissistic. The most tragedy in terms of politics in america since I came here. What's a normal person can do to Stop this ignorant to become a president of the US ? The sad part of that is the statistic of voters, about 47% more or less follow him, believe in his sick lies. This people in my opinion are just like Trump. This people see the world in a Square box. They're extremely ignorant, and some are very stupid to point that, even if he loses (God help for that). He burst the bubble , and now we have to deal with this angry , racists, xenophobic, selfish and ignorant people. The only way we change that is with better public education for the new generation, because the one we have now is already damage. Everything is wrong in WDC politics. Politicians, specially Republicans, some Democrats too, are eagle , to get their job to become lobbyists to guarantee their position in some big Banks, Military Industrial Complex,Multinational Corporations etc..al, when they leave WDC. They do Nothing, to help the inequality,the education,or the ridiculous salaries of the Social Security, How can millions of elderly survive with a check $1,400/monthly? What a shame for this unscrupulous republicans,they 're so individualists, they only care about the 1%. For better progress and health future, we have to do much better in terms of education, and create more participant, citizens young voters. They are the future.
4
This article is more nuanced than most, but in general we are once again faced with a fake debate:
Trade or no trade.
There are many ways to trade and there are many ways to globalize. For example, the fact that the Chinese have been running a trade surplus with the US for decades proves they are doing it differently than we are, because according to economists, over the medium run, a trade surplus is supposed to drive up the price of your currency, making it harder to export and balancing out the trade. This never happens because the Chinese use some combination of subsidies and currency manipulation. Otherwise they are magically defying gravity.
But the Chinese are not even the real problem. The real problem is global corporations that manipulate governments to reduce all protections for workers and the environment.
Read Shock Doctrine for a thoroughly researched account of how it's been done for decades.
Trade or no trade.
There are many ways to trade and there are many ways to globalize. For example, the fact that the Chinese have been running a trade surplus with the US for decades proves they are doing it differently than we are, because according to economists, over the medium run, a trade surplus is supposed to drive up the price of your currency, making it harder to export and balancing out the trade. This never happens because the Chinese use some combination of subsidies and currency manipulation. Otherwise they are magically defying gravity.
But the Chinese are not even the real problem. The real problem is global corporations that manipulate governments to reduce all protections for workers and the environment.
Read Shock Doctrine for a thoroughly researched account of how it's been done for decades.
16
Free trade, even if unilateral, is better than tariffs.
Take for example the “safeguard” tariffs imposed by the Obama administration in September 2009 on tire imports from China. According to a study by the Peterson Institute for International Economics, this measure “saved a maximum of 1,200 jobs,” but the “cost per job saved was at least $900,000 in that year.”
The study continues: The “total cost to American consumers from higher prices resulting from safeguard tariffs on Chinese tires was around $1.1 billion in 2011.” As a knock-on effect, the “additional money that US consumers spent on tires reduced their spending on other retail goods, indirectly lowering employment … [and costing] the US economy around 2,531 jobs.”
Take for example the “safeguard” tariffs imposed by the Obama administration in September 2009 on tire imports from China. According to a study by the Peterson Institute for International Economics, this measure “saved a maximum of 1,200 jobs,” but the “cost per job saved was at least $900,000 in that year.”
The study continues: The “total cost to American consumers from higher prices resulting from safeguard tariffs on Chinese tires was around $1.1 billion in 2011.” As a knock-on effect, the “additional money that US consumers spent on tires reduced their spending on other retail goods, indirectly lowering employment … [and costing] the US economy around 2,531 jobs.”
3
Seems to me Trump's trade ideas are fixing on the wrong problems. What we should be focusing on is reducing the cost to hire domestically, tax reform, and paying attention to currency valuation.
The incentive to ship jobs overseas is to take advantage of lower labor costs there, which are then offset by increased transportation costs. Yet we make American labor more expensive by such things as the employer portion of FICA, unemployment insurance, and the like. We should seek to finance our government in other ways, thereby incentivizing employers to hire domestically.
Part of this move should be to impose a VAT in lieu of other taxes. Other nations rebate such tax to their exporters and impose it on our exporters, such being legal under existing trade statutes. Operating in such manner could level the playing field somewhat.
Currency valuation is trickier, and much of Trump's furor is directed against other nations gaming the system. But much of the problem stems from the dollar being the world's reserve currency, thereby overvaluing it, which inflates the cost of American labor and exports while making our imports cheaper. We gain purchasing power but at the expense of jobs. And the size of our fiscal deficits gives our partners convenient places to park their dollars so as to keep their own currencies undervalued. I suspect we will have to make progress on our deficits and migrate to a different global currency system to make headway here.
The incentive to ship jobs overseas is to take advantage of lower labor costs there, which are then offset by increased transportation costs. Yet we make American labor more expensive by such things as the employer portion of FICA, unemployment insurance, and the like. We should seek to finance our government in other ways, thereby incentivizing employers to hire domestically.
Part of this move should be to impose a VAT in lieu of other taxes. Other nations rebate such tax to their exporters and impose it on our exporters, such being legal under existing trade statutes. Operating in such manner could level the playing field somewhat.
Currency valuation is trickier, and much of Trump's furor is directed against other nations gaming the system. But much of the problem stems from the dollar being the world's reserve currency, thereby overvaluing it, which inflates the cost of American labor and exports while making our imports cheaper. We gain purchasing power but at the expense of jobs. And the size of our fiscal deficits gives our partners convenient places to park their dollars so as to keep their own currencies undervalued. I suspect we will have to make progress on our deficits and migrate to a different global currency system to make headway here.
Only the US has the market power to end this race to the bottom and demand that other countries have minimum wages, and other protections for workers and the environment. If we do not create a standard that our trading partners must meet, then the global corporations will continue to make us compete with workers that make a dollar a day, in factories that are allowed to dump there pollution on their neighbors and into the water and air.
The People of the world, who are suppose to own the resources owned by their governments and who are suppose to be in charge of the democracies they live in are having their national wealth given away for nearly nothing.
Privatisation of government services shifts wealth from the people to the already rich.
Wake up people. Your economy is being hollowed out. Soon the shiny facade will crack. The Clinton's of the world's will not be able to save your status quo.
You will have a choice between people like Trump (some of whom pretend to be polite), who will use disaster as an excuse to rob everyone more, with a violent police state, or the progressive left, with people like Jill Stein and the Green Party who iare already resisting this global corporate coup and the anarchists who have withdrawn from party politics to create a new world from the ashes of the old.
It's crunch time. Trump and Clinton are on the same side, the side of billionaires. Who's side are you on?
The People of the world, who are suppose to own the resources owned by their governments and who are suppose to be in charge of the democracies they live in are having their national wealth given away for nearly nothing.
Privatisation of government services shifts wealth from the people to the already rich.
Wake up people. Your economy is being hollowed out. Soon the shiny facade will crack. The Clinton's of the world's will not be able to save your status quo.
You will have a choice between people like Trump (some of whom pretend to be polite), who will use disaster as an excuse to rob everyone more, with a violent police state, or the progressive left, with people like Jill Stein and the Green Party who iare already resisting this global corporate coup and the anarchists who have withdrawn from party politics to create a new world from the ashes of the old.
It's crunch time. Trump and Clinton are on the same side, the side of billionaires. Who's side are you on?
1
The policies attributed to Trump are bad. However, divining Trump's likely actions from Democratic interpretations of his meandering rhetoric is not likely to be reliable.
Trump probably does not know either, except that he'd do something.
Then again, the present policy is bad too. Doing something is vital. That is not the same as just do anything at all different, but it does require something.
Why has it happened that "Trump has successfully appropriated an issue — the distributional impact of free trade — that was, in recent years, the turf of Democrats."
That happened because the Democrats let it happen by many years of failure to address the distributional impact of free trade.
The underlying problem is Democratic failure, not exactly what Trump would do differently.
If the Democrats offered something different themselves, to do something themselves to deal with the distributional impact of free trade, then they could debate which plan is better.
Instead, Democrats have sat on the status quo, defending what does not work, does not satisfy voters. From that position, it is not possible to make an appealing argument. Voters already know they don't like this.
More of the same won't sell, and using scare stories attributing new ideas to the other side just feeds the voter desire for something different.
Trump probably does not know either, except that he'd do something.
Then again, the present policy is bad too. Doing something is vital. That is not the same as just do anything at all different, but it does require something.
Why has it happened that "Trump has successfully appropriated an issue — the distributional impact of free trade — that was, in recent years, the turf of Democrats."
That happened because the Democrats let it happen by many years of failure to address the distributional impact of free trade.
The underlying problem is Democratic failure, not exactly what Trump would do differently.
If the Democrats offered something different themselves, to do something themselves to deal with the distributional impact of free trade, then they could debate which plan is better.
Instead, Democrats have sat on the status quo, defending what does not work, does not satisfy voters. From that position, it is not possible to make an appealing argument. Voters already know they don't like this.
More of the same won't sell, and using scare stories attributing new ideas to the other side just feeds the voter desire for something different.
11
Will Trump tax the products he manufactures overseas? Another example of do as I say, but not as I do.
Let’s be clear if trade surpluses were a key driver to a healthy economy then Japan would have the most vibrant economy the world. Instead its economy has languished for more than two decades even though it has had a trade surplus every year for the last 35 years.
The problem with free trade is that its costs are concentrated while its benefits are dispersed throughout the economy. It is easy to see the jobs that are lost because they are usually concentrated within specific industries, such as autos, appliances, or garments. Meanwhile, the jobs that are created by free trade are spread throughout the economy and are not as easily seen. If we were to impose a $1,000 tariff on TVs we would certainly be able to make TVs in the US and employ hundreds if not thousands of workers. The jobs created by that tariff would be easily seen by all of us. But after purchasing a TV each consumer will have an incremental $1,000 less to spend on other goods and services and the jobs that are lost from this aggregate decrease in consumer demand will ripple throughout the economy. Because the effects will be spread throughout the economy it will be difficult to see the jobs that are lost by the $1,000 tariff but the total jobs lost will be substantial because every industry will be impacted.
Every economic policy has both intended and unintended consequences. Too often we enact policies simply to fix a perceived problem and never consider the unintended consequences.
The problem with free trade is that its costs are concentrated while its benefits are dispersed throughout the economy. It is easy to see the jobs that are lost because they are usually concentrated within specific industries, such as autos, appliances, or garments. Meanwhile, the jobs that are created by free trade are spread throughout the economy and are not as easily seen. If we were to impose a $1,000 tariff on TVs we would certainly be able to make TVs in the US and employ hundreds if not thousands of workers. The jobs created by that tariff would be easily seen by all of us. But after purchasing a TV each consumer will have an incremental $1,000 less to spend on other goods and services and the jobs that are lost from this aggregate decrease in consumer demand will ripple throughout the economy. Because the effects will be spread throughout the economy it will be difficult to see the jobs that are lost by the $1,000 tariff but the total jobs lost will be substantial because every industry will be impacted.
Every economic policy has both intended and unintended consequences. Too often we enact policies simply to fix a perceived problem and never consider the unintended consequences.
8
You have it backwards. The costs, millions of lost jobs and falling wages, global warming and mass extinction, are distributed around the economy, and the benefits are concentrated in the few thousands mega rich individuals that control half of the world's wealth, and use it to legally bribe politicians into making them richer every day, at the expense of 99% of the planet.
Unfortunately most jobs for economists are working for people that do well in the current system. Most economists get paid to produce pro corporate propaganda, whether they admit is to themselves or not. I have a degree in math and economics, and a master's in political science, but I don't work as an economist, so I am not paid to ignore reality.
Large parts of capitalist economics theory are ignored by professional economists, like perfect market theory. Only rosy scenarios are tolerated. The fact that you can use capitalist theory to measure how well a market performs is sacrificed to the idea that markets are good, period.
Here's one example of market failure that is destroying the planet: If you make a high quality product that lasts for ever, after everyone buys one, you can't sell many more.. The market solution is to make cheap goods that break so you can keep selling them. That is not efficient. That is wasting people's time making extra pollution.
Democracy is one person one vote. Anyone that confuses it with one dollar, one vote is lying to you.
Unfortunately most jobs for economists are working for people that do well in the current system. Most economists get paid to produce pro corporate propaganda, whether they admit is to themselves or not. I have a degree in math and economics, and a master's in political science, but I don't work as an economist, so I am not paid to ignore reality.
Large parts of capitalist economics theory are ignored by professional economists, like perfect market theory. Only rosy scenarios are tolerated. The fact that you can use capitalist theory to measure how well a market performs is sacrificed to the idea that markets are good, period.
Here's one example of market failure that is destroying the planet: If you make a high quality product that lasts for ever, after everyone buys one, you can't sell many more.. The market solution is to make cheap goods that break so you can keep selling them. That is not efficient. That is wasting people's time making extra pollution.
Democracy is one person one vote. Anyone that confuses it with one dollar, one vote is lying to you.
1
Trump may be a "lunatic" revisiting the era of the "high tariff" and trade wars, but the Clinton campaign has by their silence ceded the trade issue. That is why they need to protect workers who have, as you note, been the losers to free trade policies. A Worker's Bill of Rights that would mandate that employers pay a full year's salary as well as the cost of a re-education or retraining program to all workers who lose their jobs to trade and automation would be a good start. in addition, workers should be at the negotiating table in all future trade agreements. It's time for Hillary Clinton to speak out on this issues. Labor has been a natural Democratic constituency that she can afford to cede to regressive policies of
anti-labor, anti- minimum wage Donald Trump.
anti-labor, anti- minimum wage Donald Trump.
5
If you are fifty and lose your job, no amount of retaining will get you a decent job. It is a scam. Employees don't want experience, someone that gets to work on time, and can learn new skills, they want young people they can pay cheap and abuse.
Stop believing obvious lies.
Stop believing obvious lies.
1
For the benighted, Trump's trade proposals, among many of his remedial measures to right the economy, may seem quite Delphic. One can be polemical about his ''promises of economic and military greatness'', since he has not had hands on experience in public administration, his tall claims in administering his business notwithstanding. Those who are not erudite in economics, his policy prescriptions may not ring bells, and in fact, may seem dubitable. Trump may still mean well, but his messaging has been quite nihilistic, and inscrutable, for an ordinary voter. His fervent supporters may care diddly- squat for his prevarications, or his relative lack of depth.
Another candidate, with a dubious political history, Hillary, has been making a few inroads into peoples' minds, as a seemingly sane and a bit sensible person, but she has lots of hurdles to cross, before the finish line. Her stance on the TPP also has not been fully comprehensible, but at least it does not seem reprehensible, conceivably.
Economists will be cudgeling their brains as to whose are the better and executable trade and economic suggestions. One can only hope the voters can make discreet decisions in choosing the right kind of candidate, come November. Next 2 debates can be triggers.
Another candidate, with a dubious political history, Hillary, has been making a few inroads into peoples' minds, as a seemingly sane and a bit sensible person, but she has lots of hurdles to cross, before the finish line. Her stance on the TPP also has not been fully comprehensible, but at least it does not seem reprehensible, conceivably.
Economists will be cudgeling their brains as to whose are the better and executable trade and economic suggestions. One can only hope the voters can make discreet decisions in choosing the right kind of candidate, come November. Next 2 debates can be triggers.
Globalization is not going away, unless Brexit is the start of a trend. Instead of Globalization we should start talking about decentralization, its opposite. It is not as efficient, but it is far more disaster proof than globalism.
1
For America to stay competitive it must have a vibrant manufacturing base and a strong, engaged workforce treated with fairness. Businesses have to do that. In a globalized economy it is possible -- but only if businesses will accept that what matters most is making the product competitive, not simply maximizing share price in the short term. Make a great product and engage the US workforce fairly. It worked in the 1950s-1960s and made America what it was (until about 1985). But what did businesses do, starting in the 1980s? They turned from making great appliances to becoming "financial institutions," and made a lot of money. Tax cuts were supposed to go to research and development. Instead, the extra money went into playing the market and enriching CEOs. Too much 'management science,' not enough actual management. And upper management also paid themselves inordinate amounts of money while moving jobs away. Brazenly and dishonestly, they blamed any problems on "liberals" and "taxes" and "government regulation" -- even though most of this happened in periods of tax cuts and deregulation. And the level of public discussion about all this ranges from the hypocritically and dangerously incoherent (Trump) to the simplistically stale (let's just create jobs in clean energy! - Clinton via Kaine) to the simplistically unrealistic (jail the bankers - Sanders). Well, Clinton has at least produced an actual jobs plan, not that journalists report on it.
8
Sanders was not unrealistic. Sanders explained that our democracy had been taken over by global corporations, that it no longer responds to the will of the people, and that only the people can take back our country and our planet. He used examples of policies that are actually preferred by majorities of the People, that are already working in other countries, to illustrate how we are told there is no money (even by Clinton) while we pay for wars, the looting of government services, bailouts for global banks, $1.5 trillion printed for global banks from the Federal Reserve, etc.
Most importantly, Sanders explained that relying on politicians who have already drunk the cool aid will change nothing, so the people will have to organize to both resist, outside of the system, and to vote for candidates inside the system that are not owned by corporations.
That is the only serious plan. Since Sanders has now retreated into the Clinton Camo, the only Party that is still pushing the only serious plan is the Green Party. And this is why corporate mass media, which is owned by the same global conglomerates tell yo that voting Green is a waste of your vote. Because they don't want the people to take back our democracy.
Vote Green.
Most importantly, Sanders explained that relying on politicians who have already drunk the cool aid will change nothing, so the people will have to organize to both resist, outside of the system, and to vote for candidates inside the system that are not owned by corporations.
That is the only serious plan. Since Sanders has now retreated into the Clinton Camo, the only Party that is still pushing the only serious plan is the Green Party. And this is why corporate mass media, which is owned by the same global conglomerates tell yo that voting Green is a waste of your vote. Because they don't want the people to take back our democracy.
Vote Green.
2
The most surprising thing about this election is how the Democrats got upside down on the trade issue, defending bad trade deals like NAFTA when they should've been admitting the deals have problems that need to be addressed. Traditional Democrat partners like labor unionists know this is true; they've suffered the downside while the wealthiest skim the benefits. As a result, the Democrats end up defending deals that contribute to income inequality and the erosion of the middle class. This is simply bad politics, and I've been saddened to see the Democrats, who once defended working people, embrace such a transparently bad position. (And please, don't rely on Larry Summers to defend any case if you want to appear credible. Summers, like Trump, has corrupted everything he touched.)
58
Yes. Summers helped give away Russia to the oligarchs and pushed the deregulation of global banks and legalizing derivatives, helping to create the Great Recession.
2
Christopher, like you I have been surprised to see the Democrats support bad trade deals like NAFTA.....and TPP, which would be another great blow to the middle class.
Why do Democrats, both Bill and Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, support trade deals that removed millions of jobs from the USA? Why do they support TPP which will remove additional millions of jobs from the USA?
The only explanations I can arrive at are:
- The people who support these trade deals which devastate the middle class see themselves as citizens of the world, not citizens of the USA. They are so anxious to bring prosperity to Third World countries that they turn a blind eye to turning vast areas of the US population into areas similar to Third World countries.
- There is wealth waiting for the politicians who support these trade deals because of their support. There is greater wealth for Wall Street billionaires, who accumulate vast wealth. The billionaires rewards the politicians, who amass fortunes greater than $100 million.
Harry S Truman said, "No man can get rich in politics unless he's a crook. It cannot be done." The same is true for women in politics.
Why do Democrats, both Bill and Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, support trade deals that removed millions of jobs from the USA? Why do they support TPP which will remove additional millions of jobs from the USA?
The only explanations I can arrive at are:
- The people who support these trade deals which devastate the middle class see themselves as citizens of the world, not citizens of the USA. They are so anxious to bring prosperity to Third World countries that they turn a blind eye to turning vast areas of the US population into areas similar to Third World countries.
- There is wealth waiting for the politicians who support these trade deals because of their support. There is greater wealth for Wall Street billionaires, who accumulate vast wealth. The billionaires rewards the politicians, who amass fortunes greater than $100 million.
Harry S Truman said, "No man can get rich in politics unless he's a crook. It cannot be done." The same is true for women in politics.
2
Christopher, not sure what you've been reading or smoking, but the Trade Agreements are overwhelmingly supported by the GOP. Do some Googling and you will find less support from the Democrats that the GOP.
Trump would be horrible on trade because he admits he does not honor the deals he makes.
Trump is running for President on the title “Businessman”, but he is actually a failed businessman.
After inheriting millions from his Father (Fred Trump), the son Donald ran the business into the ground.
4 to 6 bankruptcies, 2 failed casinos, and multiple lawsuits citing his inability to pay workers.
Trump will not release his taxes returns because, it will reveal monumental business failures. Trump calls himself the “King of Debt”, which American would want this man to handle Trade deals?
Trump is running for President on the title “Businessman”, but he is actually a failed businessman.
After inheriting millions from his Father (Fred Trump), the son Donald ran the business into the ground.
4 to 6 bankruptcies, 2 failed casinos, and multiple lawsuits citing his inability to pay workers.
Trump will not release his taxes returns because, it will reveal monumental business failures. Trump calls himself the “King of Debt”, which American would want this man to handle Trade deals?
6
In reading comments, I saw one complaining that Mrs. Clinton had done nothing to address the gutted out economy. That is not true. Along with other things, she has proposed a major infrastructure investment program that would create jobs for the people who have been displaced. Most economists I have read say this would be a great start. It is not happening because Republicans took back the House in 2010 and have been doing their best to thwart an economic recovery since. Fighting market forces is a losing battle, but you can make the best of what you have to work with--e.g the world's largest and most successful economy--and Republicans have prevented our doing that. I could give a long list of examples such as opposing subsidies for renewable energy. Proposing trade barriers is a bad idea; we have to compete based on our strengths, and right now we are operating with one of our political parties working against the country.
8
Trump is an idiot if he thinks the way to compete in a globalized economy is simply to place huge tariffs on foreign goods. Foreign governments would retaliate by imposing tariffs on American goods and trade would be brought to a standstill. It's called a trade war. This country obviously needs to learn to compete in a globalized economy since it's here to stay. Countries like Germany seem to have learned to compete much more effectively than America. Trump's whining is not doing anybody any good.
2
Received this via email today, a poll of current and former federal employees election choice after the first debacle:
___
The first presidential debate between the two leading candidates is over and done. The pundits, of course, leaped in the day after the debate telling anyone who would listen what the candidates said and the impact they thought it would have on the election...
A FedSmith survey, posted shortly after the debate was held, asked readers: If the presidential election were held today, for whom would you vote? Approximately 1560 readers submitted a vote.
Here are the results:
http://www.fedsmith.com/2016/10/05/readers-opt-for-trump-over-clinton/
___
The first presidential debate between the two leading candidates is over and done. The pundits, of course, leaped in the day after the debate telling anyone who would listen what the candidates said and the impact they thought it would have on the election...
A FedSmith survey, posted shortly after the debate was held, asked readers: If the presidential election were held today, for whom would you vote? Approximately 1560 readers submitted a vote.
Here are the results:
http://www.fedsmith.com/2016/10/05/readers-opt-for-trump-over-clinton/
Thomas,
NAFTA was signed in 1994 and a lot has happened in the Western Democracies not called the USA. The NYT Business section is one of the world's best information sources but I sometimes wonder if even Paul Krugman ever reads it and it is only people like myself on this side of the border who turn to it every day to see what is happening.
When NAFTA was signed Canada was America's number one trading partner and today even though the USA is absolutely vital to the Canadian economy, today China is more important to the US economy.
Canada is currently negotiating a trade deal with China and after 22 years of NAFTA trade deals have taken on a new meaning in our small population large land mass Western Democracy. Canada's trade deal with China is mutually beneficial and will be a great addition to both the Canadian and Chinese economy but is not signed and may never be signed. Canada is demanding that China put in place worker protections such as reasonable wages, family leave, vacations, reasonable break and health, education and welfare provisions for its workers. Had Canada done this in 1994 NAFTA would never have seen the light of day.
The new globalism is for Western democracies is an understanding we are our brothers keeper and we cannot engage in trade deals where the trade partners do not respect the needs and the welfare of their people. Many of us here in Canada for the USA, Russia and China trade deals are written for the few at the expense of the many.
NAFTA was signed in 1994 and a lot has happened in the Western Democracies not called the USA. The NYT Business section is one of the world's best information sources but I sometimes wonder if even Paul Krugman ever reads it and it is only people like myself on this side of the border who turn to it every day to see what is happening.
When NAFTA was signed Canada was America's number one trading partner and today even though the USA is absolutely vital to the Canadian economy, today China is more important to the US economy.
Canada is currently negotiating a trade deal with China and after 22 years of NAFTA trade deals have taken on a new meaning in our small population large land mass Western Democracy. Canada's trade deal with China is mutually beneficial and will be a great addition to both the Canadian and Chinese economy but is not signed and may never be signed. Canada is demanding that China put in place worker protections such as reasonable wages, family leave, vacations, reasonable break and health, education and welfare provisions for its workers. Had Canada done this in 1994 NAFTA would never have seen the light of day.
The new globalism is for Western democracies is an understanding we are our brothers keeper and we cannot engage in trade deals where the trade partners do not respect the needs and the welfare of their people. Many of us here in Canada for the USA, Russia and China trade deals are written for the few at the expense of the many.
1
Lets not forget that these two so called experts are life long democrats who would probably love the opportunity to serve in Hillary's cabinet..............they are biased, just like the NYT
3
For the most part, this antiglobalization nonsense is coursing through our politics because we haven't done enough to help those negatively affected by the impact of Chinese competition or to retrain the workforce for the jobs of the future. I would urge readers who are interested in learning, as opposed to pontificating, to read The Economist's sixteen-page special report, from the October 1st issue ("An open and shut case"), on globalization. It can be found and read for free at economist.com.
While there, you can also read President Obama's piece, penned upon invitation for the upcoming October 8th issue ("The way ahead"). http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21708216-americas-president-write...
The socialist Left has convinced people that globalization is only good for "the elite." Ingenuous intellectual errors like this have, of late, infected the Right as well. The truth, of course, is the opposite. Our country has to do a better job of cushioning the impact of technology and trade, and of explaining its benefits, or else our politics will continue to be rather combustible.
While there, you can also read President Obama's piece, penned upon invitation for the upcoming October 8th issue ("The way ahead"). http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21708216-americas-president-write...
The socialist Left has convinced people that globalization is only good for "the elite." Ingenuous intellectual errors like this have, of late, infected the Right as well. The truth, of course, is the opposite. Our country has to do a better job of cushioning the impact of technology and trade, and of explaining its benefits, or else our politics will continue to be rather combustible.
2
Read Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein and get back to me.
A consequence of Mr.Trump's trade proposals that his supporters might most easily understand: what would be the resultant changes in prices for, say, shoes, children's clothes, TV sets at Walmart?
2
For the benighted, Trump's trade proposals, among many of his remedial measures to right the economy, may seem quite Delphic. One can be polemical about his ''promise of economic and military greatness'', since he has not had hands on experience in public administration, his tall claims in administering his business notwithstanding. Those who are not erudite in economics, his policy prescriptions may not ring bells, and in fact, may seem dubitable. Trump may still mean well, but his messaging has been quite nihilistic, and inscrutable, for an ordinary voter. His fervent supporters may care diddly- squat for his prevarications, or his relative lack of depth.
Another candidate, with a dubious political history, Hillary, has been making a few inroads into peoples' minds, as a seemingly sane and a bit sensible person, but she has lots of hurdles to cross, before the finish line. Her stance on the TPP also has not been fully comprehensible, but at least it does not seem reprehensible, conceivably.
Economists will be cudgeling their brains as to whose are the better and executable trade and economic suggestions. One can only hope the voters can make discreet decisions in choosing the right kind of candidate, come November. Next 2 debates can be triggers.
Another candidate, with a dubious political history, Hillary, has been making a few inroads into peoples' minds, as a seemingly sane and a bit sensible person, but she has lots of hurdles to cross, before the finish line. Her stance on the TPP also has not been fully comprehensible, but at least it does not seem reprehensible, conceivably.
Economists will be cudgeling their brains as to whose are the better and executable trade and economic suggestions. One can only hope the voters can make discreet decisions in choosing the right kind of candidate, come November. Next 2 debates can be triggers.
Despite the poll trends, there's a very real chance that Trump will be elected. The breadth of his ignorance is stunning, so if he is elected, who does he get around him to steer him away from these lunatic policies?
So far, with the likes of Newt Gingrich, the increasingly erratic Rudy Giuliani and Chris Christie, we shouldn't be encouraged. I'm stunned at the profound ignorance of his supporters to believe in these policies. The size of this big lie is just stunning.
So far, with the likes of Newt Gingrich, the increasingly erratic Rudy Giuliani and Chris Christie, we shouldn't be encouraged. I'm stunned at the profound ignorance of his supporters to believe in these policies. The size of this big lie is just stunning.
5
If he does get elected it will be Nevada's the DNC and corporate mass media fixed the Democratic primary, taking the election from Sanders who was beating him by far more in polls.
Maybe Trump can make America Unionized again.
3
th union movement, which was responsible for many of th worker benefits people enjopy today, is dead in america, and its never coming back
I'm sure deciding which countries to tax out of our markets won't impact the Crony Capitalism Mr. Trump has used for his own personal profit and now wants to take apart to make America Great Again.
3
Sure, Trump has no real plan.
But can't the experts admit that globalization will never allow our middle class to be anything close to what it once was?
Globalization, maybe inevitable but it comes with a YUGE price tag for America's middle class: extinction.
But can't the experts admit that globalization will never allow our middle class to be anything close to what it once was?
Globalization, maybe inevitable but it comes with a YUGE price tag for America's middle class: extinction.
7
3rd world countries dont have large middle classes, mostly very few rich and masses of poor
america is well on th way
4
You can make globalization based on fair trade instead of free trade, which is only free for people that manipulate markets for a living.
What I fail to see here are any solutions. If the jobs left behind are service jobs, let's make the conditions of these jobs the same as the manufacturing jobs that have left. Raise the minimum wage to $20, as it is in Denmark and Australia, among other places. McDonald's still has outlets there, so obviously it manages to make a profit off even when paying workers a living wage. And make schedules humane and consistent, not week-to-week. Provide health insurance and paid leave. When you treat workers as "labor cost," you stop thinking of them as people. No wonder they're angry and willing to turn to anyone who promises them a life with dignity. Germans in the early 1930s felt the same way.
133
Raising the minims wage, while helping the vast majority productive workers, would price out the least experienced and productive from the job market, denying them that first step on the ladder of economic success and stability. Too many priced out of that first step to employment have never held a paying job, condemning them to street corner hustling, including street drug sales, steering them into a life of crime. Raising the minimum wage above what the market will bear becomes a barrier to initial employment for some.
1
@Mike 71
You've bought into the nonsense churned out by the American Enterprise Institute, paid for by plutocrats. You think young people in Denmark and Australia are consigned to a life of hustling on street corners? To quote a certain orange-hued con-artist who's benefited greatly from that kind of ignorance: "Sad!"
You've bought into the nonsense churned out by the American Enterprise Institute, paid for by plutocrats. You think young people in Denmark and Australia are consigned to a life of hustling on street corners? To quote a certain orange-hued con-artist who's benefited greatly from that kind of ignorance: "Sad!"
2
To me this is the clearest encapsulation of the current trade issues and what the U.S. policy should be going forward. My takeaway is: 1) globalization and technological advances are here to stay and 2) we need to prepare for the changes that are foreseeable, so that their effects on the Americans most likely to be negatively affected by them are minimized to the extent possible. It's a great and complicated challenge but there is really no choice, and at least we know that with wonkish Hillary we will stand a good chance.
1
I wonder why Democrats are so slow to point out something pretty obvious about this: if you put a 45% tariff on Chinese imports, you are essentially adding that amount to what it costs to shop at Walmart. Of course the big plan is that such a change would stimulate US manufactures, but guess what? That would not happen instantaneously, and even if it did, the cost of living would have gone up considerably (because US suppliers are not about to compete on price with China and the rest of the Pacific Rim for the kinds of products you find at Walmart).
Net result: the folks who can least afford it get the pay the bill. Plenty of profit opportunities for the likes of Trump, though.
It makes you want to holler at Trump supporters, "What is it going to take to make you notice that you are being used?"
Net result: the folks who can least afford it get the pay the bill. Plenty of profit opportunities for the likes of Trump, though.
It makes you want to holler at Trump supporters, "What is it going to take to make you notice that you are being used?"
5
Trump supporters in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan, Kentucky, West Virginia are unlikely to read articles like this, and if they do are unlikely to believe the economists quoted.
They will be much more affected if they read Newsweek and find out that Trump bought cheap steel for his buildings from China rather than from US steel mills. This is Trump's actual international trade policy. http://www.newsweek.com/how-donald-trump-ditched-us-steel-workers-china-...
They will be much more affected if they read Newsweek and find out that Trump bought cheap steel for his buildings from China rather than from US steel mills. This is Trump's actual international trade policy. http://www.newsweek.com/how-donald-trump-ditched-us-steel-workers-china-...
2
Merits of free trade properly stated but short attention of what to do with those left behind, What of the Carrier workers whose primary asset was the now greatly diminished equity in their homes and live in a small town with no other opportunities? A short period of grudgingly given unemployment insurance? Until we find some help - retraining, relocation, etc. - the numbers will grow until another narcissistic, possibly orange tinted, demigod comes along and promises them something, anything, which seems better than what they will ever have, and he takes control. And for the rest of us the waste matter then hits the ventilation device. Current solution by Congress - take help for the unfortunate from programs for the unfortunate. Washington better act!
1
"... an argument that the United States cannot compete successfully in the world arena unless protected by the imposition of high tariffs and punitive taxes on foreign production and foreign competitors."
To the extent this is true or feels true to many it is because we have failed to invest in our country, leaving education and infrastructure to wither and corrode. The elite, moneyed, job-creating, 1%'ers (choose your description) can just get new shocks for the Benz and the roads are fine. Send the kids off to boarding school (and fire the nanny) and education is fine. Profits dipping a bit? Fire a few workers and demand more of the rest. If that's not enough, hire a new accountant and avoid additional taxes. And when junior is back from school he will inherit it all, assets and attitudes.
Waiting on the investment classes to invest in our country is a recipe for further decline. Government, as our broadest social construct, must be used to spread economic and social benefits equitably.
To the extent this is true or feels true to many it is because we have failed to invest in our country, leaving education and infrastructure to wither and corrode. The elite, moneyed, job-creating, 1%'ers (choose your description) can just get new shocks for the Benz and the roads are fine. Send the kids off to boarding school (and fire the nanny) and education is fine. Profits dipping a bit? Fire a few workers and demand more of the rest. If that's not enough, hire a new accountant and avoid additional taxes. And when junior is back from school he will inherit it all, assets and attitudes.
Waiting on the investment classes to invest in our country is a recipe for further decline. Government, as our broadest social construct, must be used to spread economic and social benefits equitably.
7
Trade is not does not create universal winners but it does better consumers. If we go down the road that Trump and some on the Left want to go cars, most things in Wal-Marts will go up in price. The Japanese car companies that manufacture in the U.S. might pull out. Better to figure out how to help those who are hurt by trade than eliminate it all together.
When most media is biased or attempts to be "entertaining", Mr. Edsall, again, provides the Times' best journalism.
2
I am in a quandary over the causes and effects of our "Trade Agreements”. It seems so obvious to me that we are in the job loss predicament we face because of one main reason. It is the fact that as we grew we had the huge advantage of being the great innovator nation. Since we were producing products, only we knew how to create, we allowed ourselves to get used to the excessive valuation we put on our work. We could drive our wages up as long as we were monopolistic manufacturers with inferior competition. We have lost the monopolies on our products because workers in the rest of the world are willing to work for lower wages. Where we once had a real edge in quality we now are struggling to make products better than the rest of the world.
So, what I see is we have lost any intrinsic advantage in product quality. Couple that with artificially inflated wages and we cannot expect to have successful sales when our costs of production are higher. Until we lower our wages, to the average wages of the rest of the world, there will be an advantage to the manufacturers of the lower priced goods. This is simple supply and demand. We will see our wages beaten down to near that average or else always be at a serious trade disadvantage. If you look carefully you will find that the industries, which have moved overseas, are the ones with the highest pay scales. Pay scales that are highest in relationship to pay scales of other workers around the world who make the same products
So, what I see is we have lost any intrinsic advantage in product quality. Couple that with artificially inflated wages and we cannot expect to have successful sales when our costs of production are higher. Until we lower our wages, to the average wages of the rest of the world, there will be an advantage to the manufacturers of the lower priced goods. This is simple supply and demand. We will see our wages beaten down to near that average or else always be at a serious trade disadvantage. If you look carefully you will find that the industries, which have moved overseas, are the ones with the highest pay scales. Pay scales that are highest in relationship to pay scales of other workers around the world who make the same products
The fact that "Many economists share the view that Trump’s trade proposals would be ruinous to the American economy" should be considered a point in favor of Trump's proposals, because it is those same economists that got us into this mess.
The cancer of global neoliberal Laissez-faire economics has been spread by those 'expert' economists around the world and it’s taken forty years of this neoliberalism to create a society of vast inequality, financial instability, democratic corruption, rampant job insecurity, permanent austerity for the many and runaway wealth for the few.
Remember Brexit?
“I think people in this country,” declared Vote Leave’s Michael Gove, “have had enough of experts.”
I know it is a really ignorant statement and a stupid sentiment, but this is where the US is right now as well.
The global elites, just like their French 15th century counterparts, just couldn't restrain themselves and went a few steps too far.
Queen Hillary Antoinette Clinton is just as clueless, wondering why nobody wants to eat her cake of center-right policies of more wars and neoliberal policies benefitting her corporate donors, the .1%ers and her extensive cabal of profiteers.
Trump might be a moron, but the only thing left for people devastated by four decades of neoliberalism is hope, hope for change, any kind of change.
Obama didn't deliver and Hillary certainly won't.
This election Trump represents the 'hope for change candidate' and Obama showed that's hard to beat for HRC.
The cancer of global neoliberal Laissez-faire economics has been spread by those 'expert' economists around the world and it’s taken forty years of this neoliberalism to create a society of vast inequality, financial instability, democratic corruption, rampant job insecurity, permanent austerity for the many and runaway wealth for the few.
Remember Brexit?
“I think people in this country,” declared Vote Leave’s Michael Gove, “have had enough of experts.”
I know it is a really ignorant statement and a stupid sentiment, but this is where the US is right now as well.
The global elites, just like their French 15th century counterparts, just couldn't restrain themselves and went a few steps too far.
Queen Hillary Antoinette Clinton is just as clueless, wondering why nobody wants to eat her cake of center-right policies of more wars and neoliberal policies benefitting her corporate donors, the .1%ers and her extensive cabal of profiteers.
Trump might be a moron, but the only thing left for people devastated by four decades of neoliberalism is hope, hope for change, any kind of change.
Obama didn't deliver and Hillary certainly won't.
This election Trump represents the 'hope for change candidate' and Obama showed that's hard to beat for HRC.
11
If you want to know why Trump is doing so well, why he may well win, and why his policies - in the hands of someome who is more at home on the debate stage - would almost certainly carry that person to victory, look no further than this article.
Tens of millions of Americans have lost access to the reliable, low-skill industrial jobs that not only put food on the table and offered a sense of purpose to life, but which enabled an entire model of domestic national stability that invluded marriage and child-rearing and homeownership. Some of those jobs have been confiscated by robots, true, but a great many of them still exist - just not within our borders. Trump believes it is in our capacity to win those jobs back by putting our trade policies back on a level playing field.
His detractors, in contrast, offer either a socislist welfare state that robs those still earning of large percentages of their pay; or else tired platitudes about "retraining"...you're not going to retrain a 40-something or 50-something guy off the line at Ford to write code.
The elites and "experts" (who couldn't see the possibility of Brexit even as it danced naked in front of them) are completely tone deaf. And clueless.
Tens of millions of Americans have lost access to the reliable, low-skill industrial jobs that not only put food on the table and offered a sense of purpose to life, but which enabled an entire model of domestic national stability that invluded marriage and child-rearing and homeownership. Some of those jobs have been confiscated by robots, true, but a great many of them still exist - just not within our borders. Trump believes it is in our capacity to win those jobs back by putting our trade policies back on a level playing field.
His detractors, in contrast, offer either a socislist welfare state that robs those still earning of large percentages of their pay; or else tired platitudes about "retraining"...you're not going to retrain a 40-something or 50-something guy off the line at Ford to write code.
The elites and "experts" (who couldn't see the possibility of Brexit even as it danced naked in front of them) are completely tone deaf. And clueless.
4
The Republican Party has been pro-global trade but the problem is the man on top of the ticket in presidential contest. And the man, Mr.Trump has no brain or intelligent enough to understand the complicated Global Trade . He does not have any clue about running the government of America which involves economy, defense, national security, diplomacy, trade, education, judiciary or anything. If he is elected, he will quit in 3 days. It is not all fun.
Ah the Walmart is flourishing under the Obama administration. Folks get smart and vote Donald Trump.
2
"Get Smart." OK, what exactly would be done that is smart? I'm sure that you're smart enough to tell us, since you're clearly very smart. I want to know what smart things will be done that no one sees. I'll grant the floor for just a moment that Trump has a lot of smart people on his side, in order to hear the smart ideas. What exactly are they? Since we live in the real world, these smart people have already calculated the effects of their smart policies and can cite at least a projected statistic of some kind. The world of the not-so-smart is waiting for the smart Trump supporters to come forward and talk about their smart plans of smartyness coming from the smart land of Smartistan.
2
Further evidence that Trump's habit is to stuff money in his own pockets, and let the devil take the hindmost. To hell with everyone else. To hell with the US. As long as I get MINE. Me, me, me. Amoral ignoramus. Presidential material. He would make us so proud.
Important article...but doubt thuggish ignoramus Trump will read it; and if he were, it would be misread to his devious advantage and with no basis in truth nor common sense. Crooked lying Trump is a lost case, a dangerous demagogue promising his misinformed crowd he'll return jobs lost to modernity and to what makes the U.S. tick, trade. That many manufacturing jobs not requiring much education were lost, all true; but nothing an intelligent approach to new ideas can't resolve, by explaining to people the need to go back to school, so to speak, and reach higher and better jobs in our information technological world. But Trade in non-negotiable.
Let's stop talking about the angry displaced blue collar workers who support Donald Trump.
Five Thirty Eight's Nate Silver has estimated that the average household income among Trump supporters is $72,000 a year, well above the national median.
It's just another fantasy. Perhaps HRC can't get their support because she already has it.
Five Thirty Eight's Nate Silver has estimated that the average household income among Trump supporters is $72,000 a year, well above the national median.
It's just another fantasy. Perhaps HRC can't get their support because she already has it.
1
President Obama called income inequality the central economic issue while Republicans went through various stages of denial, so let's not assume the Democrats surrendered on this issue. The after-tax strategy of raising taxes on the rich to fund big-ticket middle class items like healthcare (e.g., Obamacare) and college education (HRC's debt-free college proposal) are great examples.
Pre-tax strategies like protectionism, raising the minimum wage, strengthening the hand of labor relative to capital via unions and pro-labor laws, mandatory profit sharing or larger 401k contributions prior to paying dividends and stock buybacks, etc. are also more likely to come from Democrats.
Mr. Trump has proposed protectionism to his credit. For example, we have a huge trade deficit with China that economic theory says should be whittled away by currency appreciation over there. But the Democrats have an overall stronger program for addressing inequality.
Pre-tax strategies like protectionism, raising the minimum wage, strengthening the hand of labor relative to capital via unions and pro-labor laws, mandatory profit sharing or larger 401k contributions prior to paying dividends and stock buybacks, etc. are also more likely to come from Democrats.
Mr. Trump has proposed protectionism to his credit. For example, we have a huge trade deficit with China that economic theory says should be whittled away by currency appreciation over there. But the Democrats have an overall stronger program for addressing inequality.
As another commentator has said, we are quickly becoming a service economy, we don't manufacture anything anymore. Is there is a way to bring manufacturing back to this country? Shutting the borders to trade and immigration will only enhance the fact that we are no longer world leaders in producing things everyone wants, and instead will reinforce the fact that we only consume what others make for us. Without the ability to make and trade we will not have the dollars to buy goods, and the control of foreign economies over us will be absolute fact.
3
We are not becoming a service economy, we have been for quite sometime. My husband, 52, went into computers straight out of high school in the early 80's thanks to the sage advice of an older cousin who worked in the corporate world and saw that manufacturing was the past, and services and technology were the future. He was making more money than his friends who went for the traditional college degrees and continues to do so. My daughter's school has become heavily involved in the organization 'Black Girls Code' and a new high school recently opened up in the Bronx where we used to live that focuses on tech skills.
Rather than promising to give people the past, why don't we focus on helping them move towards the future. Now for those who lake the aptitude for highly skilled, tech savvy jobs, we have crumbling infrastructure all over our nation that requires a lot of labor to be repaired and rebuilt. If Trump or the GOP really wanted to make America great they could stop blocking all funding for improvements and maintenance of our roads, bridges, tunnels, airports, dams, rail lines, waterways, ect, and put people to work to help us prepare for the future. Even the IMF is urging wealthy nations to invest in infrastructure to increase lagging global economic growth.
Rather than promising to give people the past, why don't we focus on helping them move towards the future. Now for those who lake the aptitude for highly skilled, tech savvy jobs, we have crumbling infrastructure all over our nation that requires a lot of labor to be repaired and rebuilt. If Trump or the GOP really wanted to make America great they could stop blocking all funding for improvements and maintenance of our roads, bridges, tunnels, airports, dams, rail lines, waterways, ect, and put people to work to help us prepare for the future. Even the IMF is urging wealthy nations to invest in infrastructure to increase lagging global economic growth.
3
Clarificatio - Ford is moving small car assembly to Mexico but moving light truck assembly into same MI plant so no net loss of jobs.
Bad enough when Drumpf tells 1/2 the story, but i expect better here.
Bad enough when Drumpf tells 1/2 the story, but i expect better here.
6
Here's the story: No net loss of jobs = no gain in jobs.
Government tells us the number of new jobs but doesn't post the number of jobs lost. Why? Because they don't want to reveal the truth.....and they think we are dumb and don't know the truth.
Government tells us the number of new jobs but doesn't post the number of jobs lost. Why? Because they don't want to reveal the truth.....and they think we are dumb and don't know the truth.
5
How about everyone howling about the export of jobs by way too large multinationals stop buying anything at Walmart, Home Depot, Target, Lowes, etc etc.? Otherwise you are selling your soul, and the soul of our country for $5.99 Pampers...
2
An interesting thing about Trump is that he says very little, and not infrequently, reverses himself. This allows the faithful and the fearful to hear what they want to hear. Interpreting and explaining Trump is a major industry, one that precludes critical thinking.
8
issues as large as global trade should not be treated like a high-school football game. Neither should presidential debates, for that matter. Television coverage turns everything into money-making episodes. In addition, no matter how elections might be funded, the term of a House Rep is too short. Even if fundraising were greatly reduced, members would still treat re-election as priority #1. How, then, do we think politicians can contemplate the seemingly inexorable drift of major corporations away from national links and origins?
Phillip Bobbit wrote about this 20 years ago, John Le Carré floated it in a couple of novels, notably The Constant Gardener: corporations are the majority stock-holders in western governments.
Phillip Bobbit wrote about this 20 years ago, John Le Carré floated it in a couple of novels, notably The Constant Gardener: corporations are the majority stock-holders in western governments.
8
It is telling that you quote an historian to argue that most economists believe Smoot-Hawley was a major cause of the Great Depression. If you asked economic historians (economists who specialize in economic history), you would be hard pressed to find any that believe Smoot-Hawley had more than a trivial on the US or world economy in the 1930s. At least in the short run (the 1930s), the law would have stimulated production of goods that had suffered from foreign competion. The Great Depression was a financial market meltdown. The collapse of global trade was a result, not a cause.
3
Instead of starting a trade war, the US congress ought to put a tax on all robots that take peoples jobs. That tax could be called a robot payroll tax and the money would be used to help those who have lost their jobs due to automation. And it could help with the money needed for Social Security/Medicare.
7
Is there something in the contract of NYT reporters and op-ed contributors which obliges them to falsely and invidiously refer to agreements like TPP as "free trade" agreements == and opponents of these agreements as enemies of "free trade"?
Thomas, why don't you actually read the document -- at least the parts we can see? Tariffs are already low or non-existent between most of the countries in TPP. What the agreement does do is establish "investors' rights" across national borders.
Did you know that drug prices will be higher under TPP? That municipalities will not be able to resume control over local utilities privatized to disastrous effect? That corporations have an asserted right in this document to future profits, which can override local or national environmental regulations -- and that the matter is decided in courts with no appeal and no outside scrutiny run by corporate lawyers who have a financial effective to rule in favor of corporations?
And did you know that, unlike for the right profit, there is no enforcement for workers and environmental provisions in the agreement?
And this is deemed a "free trade" agreement?
Thomas, why don't you actually read the document -- at least the parts we can see? Tariffs are already low or non-existent between most of the countries in TPP. What the agreement does do is establish "investors' rights" across national borders.
Did you know that drug prices will be higher under TPP? That municipalities will not be able to resume control over local utilities privatized to disastrous effect? That corporations have an asserted right in this document to future profits, which can override local or national environmental regulations -- and that the matter is decided in courts with no appeal and no outside scrutiny run by corporate lawyers who have a financial effective to rule in favor of corporations?
And did you know that, unlike for the right profit, there is no enforcement for workers and environmental provisions in the agreement?
And this is deemed a "free trade" agreement?
1
Nobody in their right mind listens to anything that economists say anymore. It's a "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me" situation.
I do not support Trump, but if Larry Summers is against him, I may need to reconsider. Summers has done more damage to America than Putin, ISIS, or even Trump could ever dream of.
And the "new rules of the road" for globalization are rather unhelpful, since the economic car has already been driven off a cliff.
I sense growing panic among the elites, from Christine Lagarde to Larry Summers to Tom Friedman and all of the other globalization cheerleaders, for good reason. After decades of denial, they recognize that their thirty-year unsupervised experiment of nothing more than academic theories in college textbooks has gone horribly wrong, and we are now at the very beginning of a revolution that is destined, unfortunately, to turn violent. Very violent. And they bear some responsibility for it. I honestly don't know how they sleep at night.
Globalization has decimated the American Middle Class. Hard stop. The free trade agreements we "negotiated" were unilateral economic disarmament. Our trading "partners" are often countries that we were raised to fear as existential threats to America. Until their low-cost labor could help maximize shareholder value for Wall Street.
The sad irony is that more globalization is the only way out of this mess. But it has become so stigmatized that that is going to be very hard to sell.
I do not support Trump, but if Larry Summers is against him, I may need to reconsider. Summers has done more damage to America than Putin, ISIS, or even Trump could ever dream of.
And the "new rules of the road" for globalization are rather unhelpful, since the economic car has already been driven off a cliff.
I sense growing panic among the elites, from Christine Lagarde to Larry Summers to Tom Friedman and all of the other globalization cheerleaders, for good reason. After decades of denial, they recognize that their thirty-year unsupervised experiment of nothing more than academic theories in college textbooks has gone horribly wrong, and we are now at the very beginning of a revolution that is destined, unfortunately, to turn violent. Very violent. And they bear some responsibility for it. I honestly don't know how they sleep at night.
Globalization has decimated the American Middle Class. Hard stop. The free trade agreements we "negotiated" were unilateral economic disarmament. Our trading "partners" are often countries that we were raised to fear as existential threats to America. Until their low-cost labor could help maximize shareholder value for Wall Street.
The sad irony is that more globalization is the only way out of this mess. But it has become so stigmatized that that is going to be very hard to sell.
4
The economist of yore would say - "well, yes, the makers of buggy whips lost their jobs but then went on to much better, higher paying jobs in automobile manufacturing."
What's the equivalent today, economists? Something like "Well, yes, the burger-flippers will lose their jobs to robots, but then will get better, higher paying jobs as writers of burger-flipping algorithms"?
What's the equivalent today, economists? Something like "Well, yes, the burger-flippers will lose their jobs to robots, but then will get better, higher paying jobs as writers of burger-flipping algorithms"?
2
Donald Trump is too pig-headedly vain to recognize his economic folly, no matter the critical mass of economic expertise arrayed against his quaint thinking. Hillary Clinton is smart enough to know better, and she does, notwithstanding her temporary abandonment of commitment to freer trade.
I'll go with the "smart enough to know better," but is sure leaves a nasty taste in the mouth.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
I'll go with the "smart enough to know better," but is sure leaves a nasty taste in the mouth.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
3
The grave shortcomings of Clinton and Trump are that both are shelf worn: Mrs. Clinton repuprosing FDR and JM Keynes, Trump tapping Andrew Jackson for fresh robber barons.
Neither really addresses wealth creation, capital markets nor demand management in the distinct circumstances of hoarding, which exerts such pervasive force over commerce, manners and mores.
Let's expect something fresh acknowledging the generational value-add of information and meta information reviving capital markets and stimulating aggregate demand and wealth creation.
Neither really addresses wealth creation, capital markets nor demand management in the distinct circumstances of hoarding, which exerts such pervasive force over commerce, manners and mores.
Let's expect something fresh acknowledging the generational value-add of information and meta information reviving capital markets and stimulating aggregate demand and wealth creation.
Has it not crossed Trump's brain that if we increase taxes on Chinese goods, then they will increase taxes on our goods. Our population is only 365 million, the Chinese population is 1.4 billion, and the world's population is 6.5 billion. Who has more consumers?
As an example, let us discuss smart phones. Trump increases taxes on Chinese phones and prices them out of the US markets. This would be great for Apple. But Apple will only have the population of the USA to sell, but this is only 318 million people. China increases taxes on USA products, Apple is priced out of the Chinese markets. This will be great for Chinese phone makers, but they have a 1.4 billion consumer market. Now, Apple will have to move production to the USA, this will increase the cost of the phones. Apple will still have to buy the raw materials from the Chinese and the Koreans. Another increase in costs in the USA.
Should we now also not assume that the Indians and other countries will also increase their taxes on USA goods? What have we done? Restricted the market for our own goods to 318 million people.
This is what Trump is proposing. A simple solution assuming that all other countries will simply accept orders from the USA without any adjustment or equal retaliation against the USA. He thinks they will just roll over and commit economic suicide because Trump is so great.
As an example, let us discuss smart phones. Trump increases taxes on Chinese phones and prices them out of the US markets. This would be great for Apple. But Apple will only have the population of the USA to sell, but this is only 318 million people. China increases taxes on USA products, Apple is priced out of the Chinese markets. This will be great for Chinese phone makers, but they have a 1.4 billion consumer market. Now, Apple will have to move production to the USA, this will increase the cost of the phones. Apple will still have to buy the raw materials from the Chinese and the Koreans. Another increase in costs in the USA.
Should we now also not assume that the Indians and other countries will also increase their taxes on USA goods? What have we done? Restricted the market for our own goods to 318 million people.
This is what Trump is proposing. A simple solution assuming that all other countries will simply accept orders from the USA without any adjustment or equal retaliation against the USA. He thinks they will just roll over and commit economic suicide because Trump is so great.
3
As far as I can tell, when it comes to trade agreements, "believing in America", as Mr. Reich says, seems to be that the top 1% enjoy the bulk of the "benefits" while the rest of us wallow in less than full time employment, stagnant wages and no health coverage.
Otherwise, why would the "United States Chamber of Commerce", an organization which, like the NRA, is a mouthpiece for the Republicans, wholly back any free trade agreement?
Apparently, 'economists' don't get out and mingle with the working stiffs very much or they are part of the top of this particular pyramid.
The rich are getting richer, they're buying politicians like the most of us buy french fries and they love any opportunity to improve their bottom line at the expense of the rest of us.
I believe, Mr. Edsall, that Mr. Trump is truly a buffoon but I am not buying your particular 'snake oil' today because, frankly, it also stinks.
Otherwise, why would the "United States Chamber of Commerce", an organization which, like the NRA, is a mouthpiece for the Republicans, wholly back any free trade agreement?
Apparently, 'economists' don't get out and mingle with the working stiffs very much or they are part of the top of this particular pyramid.
The rich are getting richer, they're buying politicians like the most of us buy french fries and they love any opportunity to improve their bottom line at the expense of the rest of us.
I believe, Mr. Edsall, that Mr. Trump is truly a buffoon but I am not buying your particular 'snake oil' today because, frankly, it also stinks.
You've missed one piece of the history of the past 30 years: that politicians support trade agreements. That's politicians, plural - not one party but two parties.
You do realize that one of Bill Clinton's proud achievements was the passing of NAFTA, don't you? NAFTA devastated town after town, neighborhood after neighborhood.
Please note Bill Clinton is a Democrat before you blame Republicans alone. Also note that Barack Obama is a Democrat who fully supports TPP......the Trans-Pacific Partnership that will devastate many more towns and neighborhoods if - and when - it is passed.
The issue of trade policies has little to do with political party, and everything to do with increasing wealth for the top one-tenth of one percent.....including former presidents and former secretaries of state and current politicians including the current president.......unless he forgoes giving 20 minute speeches for $200,000 to Wall Street et al.
You do realize that one of Bill Clinton's proud achievements was the passing of NAFTA, don't you? NAFTA devastated town after town, neighborhood after neighborhood.
Please note Bill Clinton is a Democrat before you blame Republicans alone. Also note that Barack Obama is a Democrat who fully supports TPP......the Trans-Pacific Partnership that will devastate many more towns and neighborhoods if - and when - it is passed.
The issue of trade policies has little to do with political party, and everything to do with increasing wealth for the top one-tenth of one percent.....including former presidents and former secretaries of state and current politicians including the current president.......unless he forgoes giving 20 minute speeches for $200,000 to Wall Street et al.
4
This column shows well how protectionism in a globalizing world is the wrong strategy and how governments have to plan for distributional/ethical impacts of free trade.
To be added to this view is a sharp evaluation of the neo-liberal political context of trade that keeps inequality systemically in place. A similar evaluation should be made of the neoliberal WTO that unfortunately replaced UNCTAD—the UN Conference on Trade and Development which is still functioning—minimally.
Finally, the world’s balance of payments system should include an accounting of both financial and ecological (climate) credits and debts in the face of a looming climate catastrophe. Such two-pronged balance of payments system is presented as part of a carbon-based international monetary system with its monetary standard of a specific tonnage of CO2e per person. The conceptual, institutional, ethical and strategic dimensions of that system are presented in Verhagen 2012 "The Tierra Solution: Resolving the climate crisis through monetary transformation" and updated at www.timunnet.
To be added to this view is a sharp evaluation of the neo-liberal political context of trade that keeps inequality systemically in place. A similar evaluation should be made of the neoliberal WTO that unfortunately replaced UNCTAD—the UN Conference on Trade and Development which is still functioning—minimally.
Finally, the world’s balance of payments system should include an accounting of both financial and ecological (climate) credits and debts in the face of a looming climate catastrophe. Such two-pronged balance of payments system is presented as part of a carbon-based international monetary system with its monetary standard of a specific tonnage of CO2e per person. The conceptual, institutional, ethical and strategic dimensions of that system are presented in Verhagen 2012 "The Tierra Solution: Resolving the climate crisis through monetary transformation" and updated at www.timunnet.
1
In short, outsourcing / offshoring increases profits of rich who bring money to economy at the cost of american workers who bring labor to the table.
6
The danger that is coming in the future is not globalization but the increases use of robotics in the workplace. There may come a day in the not to distant future where much of human labor will be done by smart robots who can do much of the manufacturing and labor many workers are doing today. If we are not careful there may be a mass of humanity around the globe that will be without work for much of their lifetime. The reason? Robots will be doing all the labor. The owner of the company may need only a small work force or no workforce at all to run his or her business. If this were to happen what would the mass of humanity do for a living?
6
Changes in trade practices and consequences of those changes, the ruined house in Schuylkill County PA, have produced the Trumpisms of today; "Backward looking, intellectually bankrupt, technologically uninformed and deficient understanding"
Rabble rhetoric and Trumps vortex of protectionism and isolation feeds the despair and anger of the displaced and disgruntled. The need for discussion of workable policies and methods to treat this malaise ( "harsh distributional consequences") seems to be totally absent from Trumps or the republican agenda. Trump's narrow focus and language also disrupts problem solving and the critical thinking and discussion required to address and formulate solutions.
However It was good to read this comment by Erik Brynjolfsson from MIT Sloan School of management "We have the largest, most productive and most technologically advanced economy that's ever existed on this planet". How can we correct the dissonance of Trumps "vision" of America and the potential expressed by Brynjolfsson?
Rabble rhetoric and Trumps vortex of protectionism and isolation feeds the despair and anger of the displaced and disgruntled. The need for discussion of workable policies and methods to treat this malaise ( "harsh distributional consequences") seems to be totally absent from Trumps or the republican agenda. Trump's narrow focus and language also disrupts problem solving and the critical thinking and discussion required to address and formulate solutions.
However It was good to read this comment by Erik Brynjolfsson from MIT Sloan School of management "We have the largest, most productive and most technologically advanced economy that's ever existed on this planet". How can we correct the dissonance of Trumps "vision" of America and the potential expressed by Brynjolfsson?
2
Usually Mr. Edsall columns are fantastic, this one not so much. He failed to have all of these economists answer the REAL question: What's the correct move when "muscular government intervention" is not going to happen anytime in the next decade?
Saying "free trade is always good" only makes sense when a country has a functioning government. The United States absolutely does NOT have a functioning government. So what do these economists propose when they can't just assume good governance? My guess is they would shrug and go "that's a tough one".
Saying "free trade is always good" only makes sense when a country has a functioning government. The United States absolutely does NOT have a functioning government. So what do these economists propose when they can't just assume good governance? My guess is they would shrug and go "that's a tough one".
5
All of want you write may be true, but Mrs. Clinton has not addressed the concerns of the gutted out industrial heart of America.
If these issues of unemployment and displacement are not addressed we can only expect every more extreme solutions.
If these issues of unemployment and displacement are not addressed we can only expect every more extreme solutions.
46
Mrs. Clinton and other top politicians cannot address the concerns of the gutted-out industrial heart of America........Wall Street doesn't want to hear it.
The people who live in the towns and neighborhoods of the gutted-out industrial heart of America have no money to donate to political campaigns or foundations........Wall Street does.
The people who live in the towns and neighborhoods of the gutted-out industrial heart of America have no money to donate to political campaigns or foundations........Wall Street does.
4
Shawn, have you gone to her website? I have heard her talk many times about support for these displaced workers through job training and subsidies. And no, coal jobs are NOT coming back. Not because of Hillary, but because of automation and fracking. There are many workers in their late 50's and early 60's who will not find meaningful work before they reach retirement age, so maybe SS retirement age should be lowered.
Raise the cap for SS and that problem would be solved also.
Raise the cap for SS and that problem would be solved also.
"Filings (of jobless claims) have been below 300,000 for 83 straight weeks -- the longest streak since 1970 and a level economists say is typical for a healthy labor market... Companies are going head-to-head in finding skilled applicants amid record job openings"
"About 69 percent of construction firms are having trouble filling the hourly craft positions that represent much of the workforce..."
"“It’s been a challenge to get good, qualified drivers,” said Strutz, who supervises about 2,500 truckers at the company..."
Bloomberg 6 Oct 2016
By all means, let's have a trade war! A perfect solution to growing labor shortages at all skill levels.
Another idea, let's open more fake schools like Trump University, ITT Technical and Corinthian to suck up Federal dollars and bury desperate students in debt.
Or we could address the downward trajectory of education since the 1960s, which began with the exodus of the brightest young women to better paying jobs previously denied to them. We could reverse the steady defunding of educationby states, address the growing shortage of qualified teachers with higher pay and better work conditions, move aggressively to on-line higher education as at Georgia Tech.
We could address gender pay equity, minimum wage levels and other workplace issues.
Naaaah... let's elect Trump, start a trade war but carve out a tariff exemption for Trump branded merchandise. We're gonna need alot of "Make America Great Again" hats from China.
"About 69 percent of construction firms are having trouble filling the hourly craft positions that represent much of the workforce..."
"“It’s been a challenge to get good, qualified drivers,” said Strutz, who supervises about 2,500 truckers at the company..."
Bloomberg 6 Oct 2016
By all means, let's have a trade war! A perfect solution to growing labor shortages at all skill levels.
Another idea, let's open more fake schools like Trump University, ITT Technical and Corinthian to suck up Federal dollars and bury desperate students in debt.
Or we could address the downward trajectory of education since the 1960s, which began with the exodus of the brightest young women to better paying jobs previously denied to them. We could reverse the steady defunding of educationby states, address the growing shortage of qualified teachers with higher pay and better work conditions, move aggressively to on-line higher education as at Georgia Tech.
We could address gender pay equity, minimum wage levels and other workplace issues.
Naaaah... let's elect Trump, start a trade war but carve out a tariff exemption for Trump branded merchandise. We're gonna need alot of "Make America Great Again" hats from China.
11
"With his trade policies, as with pretty much everything else, his backward-looking, intellectually bankrupt agenda will take us very far from the promised land."
Exactly, the man is a Prophet of man-made doom.
When you add in Trump's promise of trickle-down strychnine poisoning to his trade isolationism, Trump's economic plan is assisted national economic suicide.
Trickle-down Brownback is destroying Kansas.
Trickle-down Jindal bankrupted Louisiana.
Trickle-down Christie destroyed New Jersey's roads, NJ Transit and the entire transportation infrastructure.
Reagan's and Dubya's trickle-down tax fraud helped explode the national debt to catastrophic heights.
Trump's proposed tax cuts would disproportionately enrich billionaires while shattering the fiscal solvency and safety nets of America.
Germany is a highly taxed economy with highly trained workers that dominates the global marketplace that helps nurture medium and small businesses with its 'Mittelstand' public policy.
Donald Trump has no plan to educate and train America's desperate white workers from Appalachia into alternative energy workers - he simply wants to 'bring back 18th century coal'.
Have you ever heard of a more backward clarion call for economic salvation ?
Tax cuts don't provide anybody an education, job training, health care or the high-quality infrastructure that a high-quality German-like economy demands.
Trump Ignorance and Trump Tax Cuts will categorically collapse the American economy.
Exactly, the man is a Prophet of man-made doom.
When you add in Trump's promise of trickle-down strychnine poisoning to his trade isolationism, Trump's economic plan is assisted national economic suicide.
Trickle-down Brownback is destroying Kansas.
Trickle-down Jindal bankrupted Louisiana.
Trickle-down Christie destroyed New Jersey's roads, NJ Transit and the entire transportation infrastructure.
Reagan's and Dubya's trickle-down tax fraud helped explode the national debt to catastrophic heights.
Trump's proposed tax cuts would disproportionately enrich billionaires while shattering the fiscal solvency and safety nets of America.
Germany is a highly taxed economy with highly trained workers that dominates the global marketplace that helps nurture medium and small businesses with its 'Mittelstand' public policy.
Donald Trump has no plan to educate and train America's desperate white workers from Appalachia into alternative energy workers - he simply wants to 'bring back 18th century coal'.
Have you ever heard of a more backward clarion call for economic salvation ?
Tax cuts don't provide anybody an education, job training, health care or the high-quality infrastructure that a high-quality German-like economy demands.
Trump Ignorance and Trump Tax Cuts will categorically collapse the American economy.
256
Tax cuts NEVER grew an economy. Tax cuts make rich people richer. Like Trump, and by comparison, he's not even that rich. You're absolutely right.
4
Drumpf's trade stance is a further step in the GOP's effort to make sure there is no re-training of workers by government/industry, no guaranteed income, no higher minimum wage, no better safety net for Americans, etc., etc. - Drumpf offers a word salad solution to a problem so prevalent that even the GOP'ers have to talk about it.
This is their party's stance of choosing to ignore the fact that in every other area of economic competition, you adopt/adapt your business model to include/improve the practices of your competition that are producing better results - GOP'er dogma does not allow for adopting/adapting the best/most successful economic policies from around the world, and improving on them.
GOP'er voodoo economic trickle-down is adamant today, in the same way GOP'er dogma brought us Smoot-Hawley; facts need not apply, they are irrelevant.
This is their party's stance of choosing to ignore the fact that in every other area of economic competition, you adopt/adapt your business model to include/improve the practices of your competition that are producing better results - GOP'er dogma does not allow for adopting/adapting the best/most successful economic policies from around the world, and improving on them.
GOP'er voodoo economic trickle-down is adamant today, in the same way GOP'er dogma brought us Smoot-Hawley; facts need not apply, they are irrelevant.
44
Maybe Trump, the vaunted businessman, can provide an example for all by putting into practice his trade ideas for his own businesses.
No more Trump hats, ties, jackets or other products made in other countries.
Shutter all overseas business that takes advantage of currently negotiated, unfair, trade deals.
Send back all immigrants on Hib visas who work for him.
In the alternative, maybe Trump could just tell us what provisions in current trade deals are unfair and how he can unilaterally negotiate them.
No more Trump hats, ties, jackets or other products made in other countries.
Shutter all overseas business that takes advantage of currently negotiated, unfair, trade deals.
Send back all immigrants on Hib visas who work for him.
In the alternative, maybe Trump could just tell us what provisions in current trade deals are unfair and how he can unilaterally negotiate them.
28
As I've written repeatedly in this space, America can be a welfare state, a workers state, or a Walmart state in the 21st century - and what we're becoming is a Walmart state, or state where the lion share of jobs created are low wage positions with few benefits and in which the rich pay few taxes and are indigent about those that they do.
One alternative would take us towards a European-style welfare state, in which the biggest winners in globalization pay tax rates a lot closer to what they paid under Eisenhower, with the additional revenues being used to balance the budget, fund infrastructure repairs using American workers, as well as a robust safety net that would take the edge off the suffering of the losers.
Another alternative is a complete redesign of the corporate and personal tax codes that would strip any tax advantage from outsourcing, offer dramatically lower rates for domestic business activity, while seeking to shift the tax burden to the money that corporations pay out through dividends, capital gains, executive salaries, etc. This approach would also include an alliance between workers in the advanced industrial block whose goal would be to force business to pay workers in emerging markets fair wages or be faced with tariffs.
If jobs losses due to automation continue, then the welfare state becomes the only option.
Drumpf's plan, like everything else in his world, is crude and rude - and will hurt more than it will help. But attention must be paid.
One alternative would take us towards a European-style welfare state, in which the biggest winners in globalization pay tax rates a lot closer to what they paid under Eisenhower, with the additional revenues being used to balance the budget, fund infrastructure repairs using American workers, as well as a robust safety net that would take the edge off the suffering of the losers.
Another alternative is a complete redesign of the corporate and personal tax codes that would strip any tax advantage from outsourcing, offer dramatically lower rates for domestic business activity, while seeking to shift the tax burden to the money that corporations pay out through dividends, capital gains, executive salaries, etc. This approach would also include an alliance between workers in the advanced industrial block whose goal would be to force business to pay workers in emerging markets fair wages or be faced with tariffs.
If jobs losses due to automation continue, then the welfare state becomes the only option.
Drumpf's plan, like everything else in his world, is crude and rude - and will hurt more than it will help. But attention must be paid.
89
I agree. While it goes against the grain to concede that a "welfare state" might be in order, your logic holds. When our productivity gains can not embellish the welfare of all (as opposed to just the rich), what's the point?
Trump's considerable incompetence aside, let's give him this - it took his demagoguery to bring national political focus on a problem that has been in the making for at least twenty years, namely, the failure on the part of US leadership to anticipate and plan for the dislocations attendant to globalization and automation. As labor increasingly demands technological know-how, even as low-skill labor becomes increasingly obsolete, we will require a highly original system of distribution to replace one that has historically functioned through broad-based employment. As yet I have read little in the way of thoughtful commentary on such a system. Meanwhile, the robins of inattentiveness come home to roost. I just hope they don't all land on November 8.
32
Haha. A very backhanded compliment if there ever was one. Trump is raising the issue of trade that exposes all of these incompetent economists. Fact: they don't know what they're talking about any more than the guy in the street. To immediately say that Trump's "plan" won't work is simply more political mudslinging. Larry Summers and Robert Reich are two of the most intelligent idiots ever to rise to power. They along with all the other Dems just want to control the distribution of wealth through the government nanny system. Trump is very irritating, for sure, because he has rightly questioned all sorts of issues of the status-quo. What have Hillary and the elites done? -- line their personal pockets on the backs of the commoners and always prescribe how the rest of us should live.
5
For being incompetent, Trump has probably done better in life than you.
He signs the FRONT of a lot of paychecks, something Hillary has never done..................he's created jobs, something else your gal has never done.................
He signs the FRONT of a lot of paychecks, something Hillary has never done..................he's created jobs, something else your gal has never done.................
1
Trump and the Republican Party are proof that little men have little ideas and don't learn from history. The problem is not unfair trade causing unfair distribution of wealth. The problem is that our country is getting wealthier because of global trade, but we are not responding to the unequal distribution of wealth created by a nineteenth century social compact. The troglodyte policies of the Royalists only exacerbate the problem.
Vote Democrat for societal change. Put the Royalists in the garbage can of history where they belong.
Vote Democrat for societal change. Put the Royalists in the garbage can of history where they belong.
320
True, but it's wise to remember that a lot of these little ideas are simply contrivances design to distract from big thefts.
Don't be distracted.
Don't be distracted.
1
There is one solution that never seems to make it past the elevated talk of very serious people who seem to believe that we can continue making trade deals with countries that pay its workers 10 times less than we do for the same skills. And that solution is NOT to expect that somehow we can find employment for millions of displaced workers with no college education to happily convert to some other skill. Doing what, shipping and receiving? Oiling the joints of robots? The solution is to reward those businesses that employ americans and use american materials, by setting up tax benefits based on simple accounting methods. Those benefits to be reinvested in the business, not treated as personal gain by owners. Bingo, a solution that will instantly increase employment and living standards.
30
There is a lot of talk about productivity in this article. During the Great Prosperity of 1946 to 1973, wages rose in lockstep with productivity. The benefits of productivity were shared between the workers who produce and the rich owners.
Start in 1973 and especially since 1981, however, productivity has pulled away from wages. Most of the gains have gone to the rich owners, not to the workers. What has happened recently? After years of working harder, longer hours for less real money, of learning new methods of production, of being forced to change to often lower paying jobs,workers are finally wising up. Productivity is slowing down. And the pundits are wondering why.
Start in 1973 and especially since 1981, however, productivity has pulled away from wages. Most of the gains have gone to the rich owners, not to the workers. What has happened recently? After years of working harder, longer hours for less real money, of learning new methods of production, of being forced to change to often lower paying jobs,workers are finally wising up. Productivity is slowing down. And the pundits are wondering why.
98
Once again your argument reveals the issue but does not suggest a solution.
This much is clear from your column and your earlier columns. Properly regulated international trade is good for every nation. And that seems to be true.
Too many economists insist that our "free trade" treaties are too good to be renegotiated even as you admit they have failed a large segment of our population.
You also make it clear that government trade policy embodied in taxation, economic regulation, labor regulation, education and social welfare regulation have exacerbated the effects of those "free trade" treaties.
That is why Donald Trump appeals to so many voters.
This much is clear from your column and your earlier columns. Properly regulated international trade is good for every nation. And that seems to be true.
Too many economists insist that our "free trade" treaties are too good to be renegotiated even as you admit they have failed a large segment of our population.
You also make it clear that government trade policy embodied in taxation, economic regulation, labor regulation, education and social welfare regulation have exacerbated the effects of those "free trade" treaties.
That is why Donald Trump appeals to so many voters.
6
I realize that this is an op-ed piece, but I would like to see the arguments for the Trump trade ideas, defended by academics or business economists. If there are no credible apologists, say so.
Mr. Edsall's list of detractors are clearly-identified as Democratic-leaning. Are there more conservative economists who detract Mr. Trump's ideas, as well?
There is a lot missing from this piece that would help a reader like me at least feel like I have had an opportunity to examine the issue from more sides than one, even while allowing Mr. Edsall to stake out his anti-Trump position.
Mr. Edsall's list of detractors are clearly-identified as Democratic-leaning. Are there more conservative economists who detract Mr. Trump's ideas, as well?
There is a lot missing from this piece that would help a reader like me at least feel like I have had an opportunity to examine the issue from more sides than one, even while allowing Mr. Edsall to stake out his anti-Trump position.
30
Well Steve, welcome to the NYT, whose operating slogan is "all the news that fits (our narrative), we print".
1
Even the most trivial web search turns up links which answer your question about "conservative economists" (are they conservatives, i.e., political party affiliates, because they are economists, i.e., social scientists? Don't know about that one). See "Conservative Economists Mock Trump Campaign’s Trade Proposals" at http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2016/09/26/Conservative-Economists-Mock-Tr...
43
Steve, there are NO defenders. Not to mention trump actually has no policies to defend in the first place. It's all hot air and maybe a little kool-aid.
8
Unfortunately, the people who need to understand these dangers are not the ones reading this column.
34
I don't care where you work or studied, as long as, say, Apple, manufacturers its products in overseas sweatshops, and pays no US (or Irish) taxes, this 'trade' is isn't trade at all. It's more like working on a plantation for the crumbs that fall off the rich owner's dining table.
64
Apple pays nu US taxes? Really? Cmon...
trump won't change that.
1
What is seldom mentioned in this protectionist debate is that there are many foreign car industries having plants in the US. Honda, Toyota, Hyundai, Kia etc. The oversimplified world view of Mr. Trump is therefore dangerous for jobs in the US.
Free Trade is not free.
There is a cost and it is borne by the workers who have lost jobs. Even the consumers are short changed by goods which are often of lesser quality while retaining the same price.
This is also true with goods produced through the use of robotics which again benefit neither consumer nor worker.
Discussion which centers around trade policies do nothing to deal with problems of wealth disparity which arises through constantly increasing population coupled with more efficient and profitable means of production.
Until a more equitable distribution of wealth is devised and followed the disparities which to some degree are presently addressed through wars will continue to plague those who rebel against practices they see as unfair.
Donald Trump benefits in his own small way from manufacture of the items he stamps with his imprimatur while others who remain in the economic shadows siphon a greater share of relatively cheap offshore labor. These point to a venality which thanks to online and print media is becoming acceptable to a burgeoning class of proletarians.
Globalization is bringing about a world in which anonymity will become the watchword of the wealthy and commentaries such as this will be the only outlet for the disgruntled to express their grievances.
Like most men I lived with an underlying fear which prompted me to compete and win by any means rather than accept the equality that life and its' undeniable corollary brings to all of us
There is a cost and it is borne by the workers who have lost jobs. Even the consumers are short changed by goods which are often of lesser quality while retaining the same price.
This is also true with goods produced through the use of robotics which again benefit neither consumer nor worker.
Discussion which centers around trade policies do nothing to deal with problems of wealth disparity which arises through constantly increasing population coupled with more efficient and profitable means of production.
Until a more equitable distribution of wealth is devised and followed the disparities which to some degree are presently addressed through wars will continue to plague those who rebel against practices they see as unfair.
Donald Trump benefits in his own small way from manufacture of the items he stamps with his imprimatur while others who remain in the economic shadows siphon a greater share of relatively cheap offshore labor. These point to a venality which thanks to online and print media is becoming acceptable to a burgeoning class of proletarians.
Globalization is bringing about a world in which anonymity will become the watchword of the wealthy and commentaries such as this will be the only outlet for the disgruntled to express their grievances.
Like most men I lived with an underlying fear which prompted me to compete and win by any means rather than accept the equality that life and its' undeniable corollary brings to all of us
2
Trade is complicated. If the answer to the loss of jobs is simple, then it is also wrong.
Neither party has a compelling and workable solution waiting in the wings. We could identify industries that for national security reasons must have a domestic manufacturing presence. We could unravel healthcare from compensation to make US employees more competitive. We could invest in new technology - alternative energy and carbon re-capture look like untapped markets. We could look at tax law and the effect of healthcare and wage taxes on employment.
But instead we fall back on protectionism and the myth of unregulated markets to dig us out. If the answer were really that easy, we would have done it already.
Neither party has a compelling and workable solution waiting in the wings. We could identify industries that for national security reasons must have a domestic manufacturing presence. We could unravel healthcare from compensation to make US employees more competitive. We could invest in new technology - alternative energy and carbon re-capture look like untapped markets. We could look at tax law and the effect of healthcare and wage taxes on employment.
But instead we fall back on protectionism and the myth of unregulated markets to dig us out. If the answer were really that easy, we would have done it already.
160
The problem isn't trade, its the fact that the 'rules of the game' across nation-states does not provide a level playing field.
That said, globalization is a reality that face no matter what, and the leveling of the playing field will be incremental (no matter what).
Sticking our head in the sand is the worse answer we could have.
As with nuclear proliferation, the solution to world trade has no silver bullet. It's going to take hard work, and it's going to involve great risk. Those are major attributes of the American spirit. It's our game to lose.
And, oh, by the way, the Republican idea of 'overt toughness' is a sure path to confrontation, conflict and even war. The Obama approach of 'speaking softly and carrying a big stick' is, in fact, the ONLY viable way to move forward........no silver bullet, just incremental progress with occasional quantum leaps as the world at large comes to find it's common ground.
We simply cannot allow profits, corporate corruption, and over reach to dictate our path forward. Our corporations must serve the country, not themselves, lest their autocratic roots and leanings suck all of the humanity out of our future.
That said, globalization is a reality that face no matter what, and the leveling of the playing field will be incremental (no matter what).
Sticking our head in the sand is the worse answer we could have.
As with nuclear proliferation, the solution to world trade has no silver bullet. It's going to take hard work, and it's going to involve great risk. Those are major attributes of the American spirit. It's our game to lose.
And, oh, by the way, the Republican idea of 'overt toughness' is a sure path to confrontation, conflict and even war. The Obama approach of 'speaking softly and carrying a big stick' is, in fact, the ONLY viable way to move forward........no silver bullet, just incremental progress with occasional quantum leaps as the world at large comes to find it's common ground.
We simply cannot allow profits, corporate corruption, and over reach to dictate our path forward. Our corporations must serve the country, not themselves, lest their autocratic roots and leanings suck all of the humanity out of our future.
1
Cathy,
The truth is in fact very simple. The USA is the most successful economy on the planet. When your economy does everything it is supposed to do and your country falls apart it is time to consider plan B. Trump is the symptom not the disease.
The truth is in fact very simple. The USA is the most successful economy on the planet. When your economy does everything it is supposed to do and your country falls apart it is time to consider plan B. Trump is the symptom not the disease.
2
In 1989 and early 90's Latin countries started negotiating to become part of GATT. A long and exciting process which I am proud to have been part of the Venezuela's team as Director of Negotiation of the Institute of Foreign Trade.
We had long sessions with the US through the USTR and the interest of our then counterpart was to open markets to American products and services and protect intellectual property rights.
Protectionism will close markets for USA products and services. Will the US renegotiate with today's WTO?
We had long sessions with the US through the USTR and the interest of our then counterpart was to open markets to American products and services and protect intellectual property rights.
Protectionism will close markets for USA products and services. Will the US renegotiate with today's WTO?
8
It is extremely frustrating that the corporate media constantly try to frame the issue as an all or nothing proposition. If you oppose the brand of corporate "free trade" favored by the so-called "elites" then you're against trade, want to isolate America, etc., etc. They set up that all or nothing straw man and then ferociously knock it down, trying to make all the job loss, loss of sovereignty inherent in the wrong-headed provisions for dispute resolution, increasing income and wealth inequality and all the rest seem as inevitable as an earthquake or other natural disaster. I favor fair trade conducted in a manner which does not destroy American jobs. If that means the rich must settle for less then that's ok by me. Fair trade treaties should include limited provisions to cover situations in which governments attempt to nationalize, i.e., steal, the private property of corporations, but no open-ended authorizations for these artificial creations to gut our laws and/or raid our treasuries.
116
Both tides and human sentiment ebb and flow. The trick is in harnessing the energy, and guarding against erosion.........AND, in recognizing that it's neither the perfect process of simply 'imposing our will', nor the immediate gratification or allowing our corporation to trample the ground others. It's working together, dealing with the setbacks, and keeping our eye on facts rather than following self serving or self righteous ideological illusions or political machinations.
It is not about trade that our government failed. It is about new investments in American future economy that are lacking. Millions of manufacturing jobs lost were not replaced with new kind of jobs. Even today high skilled jobs are going unfilled because the workforce is under-educated.
GOP Congress has stalled any significant investing in our country, that's where the devil resides. Simple increasing tax top brackets by 5%, on capital and on income would provide enough funds for these investments. It is them who produced Trump's demagoguery and uninformed electorate supporting him.
GOP Congress has stalled any significant investing in our country, that's where the devil resides. Simple increasing tax top brackets by 5%, on capital and on income would provide enough funds for these investments. It is them who produced Trump's demagoguery and uninformed electorate supporting him.
But will Americans -- and not just the go-getters among us -- be able to adapt quickly enough? Are our educational institutions capable of providing and inspiring the need for ongoing training and retooling that will be required just to keep up? As a group, U.S. students rank from average to below average among OECD nations in math, science, and reading, while students in a number of (currently) less wealthy nations rank higher. It's concerning, especially given the anti-intellectual sentiments running rampant today. However, I suspect if people were presented viable, concrete paths towards middle class jobs, there would be less anxiety and anger.
14
What are the chances that the economic elites will ever agree to share fairly the spoils of corporate "free trade" with working and middle class Americans? What are the chances that our cowardly Congresspeople would ever vote against the wishes of the economic elites? Slim or none comes to mind.
47
EJS: the chances are slim absent something like the conditions that prevailed post WWII. America was, for a time, the manufacturer to much of the world. Labor was needed--and respected. Unions were respected. Corporations were tangible entities with whom unions could negotiate. The rest of the world caught up, and corporations globalized, but Americans went on demanding the high standards of living of the 1950s. That time became the stuff of the American dream.
3
Don't think the working class voters in rural Pennsylvania are sitting around on the front porch reading Larry Summers white papers. No. They're watching the highest rated cable news network (FOX), the highest rated radio show (Limbaugh), and the most active news website (Drudge Report).
So much ink has been spilled this election season and so little of it directed at the real phenomenon, the rise of the right-wing media as the creator of our national narrative. If we ever hope to get the country back on a sane track, we will need to restore something like the Fairness Doctrine and the Equal Time rules so that our public media is no longer held hostage by ratings seeking propagandists.
So much ink has been spilled this election season and so little of it directed at the real phenomenon, the rise of the right-wing media as the creator of our national narrative. If we ever hope to get the country back on a sane track, we will need to restore something like the Fairness Doctrine and the Equal Time rules so that our public media is no longer held hostage by ratings seeking propagandists.
285
@Henry Crawford
Yes! A hundred times, yes!
Yes! A hundred times, yes!
1
You can bet that few of those folks are reading the NYT
1
You've clearly identified the source of America's political decline, the electronic media. Unlike or print journalists, the TV and on-line bloviators you mentioned depend entirely on advertisements for their income. Sensationalism, not journalism, is the key to their success. The truth is of no concern to them whatever.
1
American economists for globalization, against protectionism, thus against Presidential candidate Trump 2016 and for H. Clinton?
I cannot recall the last time an economist has said it is possible to create an advanced (technologically, politically, etc.) society and have this society simultaneously a closed, internal, self-sufficient, "protectionist" system. But virtually all economists say it is possible by free trade, globalization to arrive at this identical concept except in the larger sense of essentially the gigantic closed, self-sufficient, protectionist system of all the nations on the planet economically interlocked and working in harmony!
Quite logically, if economists cannot provide a model of the former--a self-sufficient, advanced, protectionist society--it makes even less sense to say they can arrive at an advanced, closed, "planetary system" by free trade and globalization. We must conclude that an advanced, successful protectionist society can exist but globalization is advanced for other reasons, namely to entwine nations to prevent war, to bring peace, etc. (to keep failing societies from attacking successful ones).
But the plausible reasons for globalization also just put off the creation of a model of a self-sufficient, closed, economic system which can be held up as an example to both individual nations and projected "worldwide, globalized economic order" and give elites worldwide sufficient excuse to profit at expense of own and other people.
I cannot recall the last time an economist has said it is possible to create an advanced (technologically, politically, etc.) society and have this society simultaneously a closed, internal, self-sufficient, "protectionist" system. But virtually all economists say it is possible by free trade, globalization to arrive at this identical concept except in the larger sense of essentially the gigantic closed, self-sufficient, protectionist system of all the nations on the planet economically interlocked and working in harmony!
Quite logically, if economists cannot provide a model of the former--a self-sufficient, advanced, protectionist society--it makes even less sense to say they can arrive at an advanced, closed, "planetary system" by free trade and globalization. We must conclude that an advanced, successful protectionist society can exist but globalization is advanced for other reasons, namely to entwine nations to prevent war, to bring peace, etc. (to keep failing societies from attacking successful ones).
But the plausible reasons for globalization also just put off the creation of a model of a self-sufficient, closed, economic system which can be held up as an example to both individual nations and projected "worldwide, globalized economic order" and give elites worldwide sufficient excuse to profit at expense of own and other people.
Why are you condemning the human race to staying on a 'closed, "planetary system"'?
2
Problem is the jobs left behind don't pay a living wage any more. This has to be addressed or America will see many more DT types and social unrest. The wealthy and corporate America must do more to lift incomes and that begins with paying a fair share of taxes.
358
Just what is 'paying a fair of taxes' for, say, the top 10 percent? And how do the wealthy and corporate America paying more in taxes lift incomes?
..and raising the minimum wage.
1
Why even take any of his policy statements seriously?
He'll just change them to their 180 degree opposite as soon as he gets bored and needs to stir the pot.
He'll just change them to their 180 degree opposite as soon as he gets bored and needs to stir the pot.
6
I think we all know, after the coronation the ruling class , who has it very good, will get economic circumstances back on track. Those who benefit want no change and have the authority to keep the status quo. Watch, TPP will be re-energized. That new labor pool will add millions of available low cost labor. Couple that with no intention of comprehensive tax reform and off shore incorporation is safe.
13
Does the "ruling class" include those poor souls that support GOP against their own interests?
If they supported democrats, Democratic party would have been quite immune to those corporate (true elites?) interests.
If they supported democrats, Democratic party would have been quite immune to those corporate (true elites?) interests.
What nonsense. As unhinged as Trump might be, preventing the export of jobs from the US is a far cry from Smoot Hawley. How many "airport jobs" are created for every factory that is closed in the US and sent to China? There is also the fallacy that those who used to work in factories can develop new skills for more advanced jobs. This ignores a hard reality that many people just don't have the mental hardware to do much more than operate a machine press or do a McJob (sorry, education [software] cannot make everyone a knowledge worker).
I would much rather have lower economic performance (guess who benefits the most from higher "performance") while keeping jobs here than the current reality where abject poverty in developing countries is being solved by importing it here. That is one import we should definitely put a tax on.
I would much rather have lower economic performance (guess who benefits the most from higher "performance") while keeping jobs here than the current reality where abject poverty in developing countries is being solved by importing it here. That is one import we should definitely put a tax on.
32
This is not something that happened last few years. The trade has been for decades, and deficiencies in our education system are on full display now. Had we had a better education system, and a better attitude to public schools, we would have enough of well trained workers by now.
Voting for GOP, global capitalism, and so called "self-reliance" didn't get us far, did it? Now we want more government, right?
Voting for GOP, global capitalism, and so called "self-reliance" didn't get us far, did it? Now we want more government, right?
Global free trade could work well for us in an environment of medium high taxes and guaranteed
food, shelter, education, and medical care for all. .
We now have the technology and resources to provide these basic services at such a relatively low cost historically that we can easily afford them.
Times have changed from when wealth had to be produced on the backs of animals or humans.
food, shelter, education, and medical care for all. .
We now have the technology and resources to provide these basic services at such a relatively low cost historically that we can easily afford them.
Times have changed from when wealth had to be produced on the backs of animals or humans.
4
In regard to trade and job loss, Trump is covering up the decades of unrestrained export of whole factories by US corporations. The winners are the stockholders, mostly the 1%, but also pension funds. On the whole, the better off have profited. The only counter strategy would have been to insist that the firms exporting jobs pay for the workers toosed out on the street. But Reagan, Bush 1, 2 and Bill Clinton did nothing in this regard. The GOP firmly backed this entire process. Obama referred to this in an oft-quoted sentence about "now they have nothing left except for guns, pickups and religion". Europe did better, because the unions started to look at what happened in the USA and these unions are stronger. But th problem remains. I find it laughable that Trump clothing, etc are all made outside the USA. Trump is not the solution--he is part of the problem, as in the GOP.
222
Obama is pushing even more misery for the working class with TPP, and Clinton is so callous and tone deaf that he hasn't even bothered to apologize for NAFTA. The Republicans are NOT the only villains in this tragedy.
5
Just the other day while shopping in a well-known department store, I saw a blouse with an Ivanka label. It was also made in China. The apple never falls far from the tree.
5
But their "guns, pickups and religion" never helped them.
Meanwhile they're played by Trump & shills to the despicable hilt.
Meanwhile they're played by Trump & shills to the despicable hilt.
2
"More muscular government intervention" is not happening and won't happen, and we all know that now. That is why so many people supported Bernie and on the other side, Trump. And Hillary's popularity is poor because Bill signed NAFTA, primarily.
Trump is a crackpot and of course I'm voting for Hillary. But the latest iteration of NAFTA will only be nails in the coffin of the American worker. Let's not kid ourselves about that.
Trump is a crackpot and of course I'm voting for Hillary. But the latest iteration of NAFTA will only be nails in the coffin of the American worker. Let's not kid ourselves about that.
16
None of this comes as a surprise considering Trump's deadly combination of ignorance and arrogance. So for those who don't like the liar and bigot in Trump but plan on voting for him because they apprehend an economic savior in him, even that alleged good attributed to him has been shown to be a chimera. In other words, there is nothing redeeming about this narcissistic bragger who would be POTUS.
13
The Democrats forfeited their primacy on this issue by supporting corporate "free trade." President Obama is still planning on sneaking the job and sovereignty destroying TPP through Congress during the lame duck session after the November election. I realize that the majority of Congressional Democrats vote against these corporate boondoggles, but people understandably fixate on the fact that the leading Democrat supports them.
14
Blaming TPP is crazy, it is the lack of US investments that is hampering the economy the most. But this is obviously blocked by GOP and their supporters. They found TPP to be another scapegoat to blame. Besides, 8 out of 10 last trade agreements were negotiated by GOP.
The angry white workers who support Donald Trump--I call them Trump Nation and not disparagingly--never had the wisdom to notice, let alone, embrace a changing world.
Their prosperity began with the computer chip. Back in the early 1950's, when the new innovations of television and that hot object--the transistor radio--were all the rage, it was easy to see that the means of production and employment would someday broaden to encompass a culture that demanded mathematical and scientific literacy. It was clear that American ingenuity and initiative were on the cutting edge of production, of providing goods and services on an unheard-of level. All of this coincided with remaking America from an essentially agrarian society--farm to market if you will--into a high-speed landscape, nurtured by a brand-new interstate highway system and its corresponding need for newer and faster automotive transport. This industry, and its fellows: steel, heavy equipment and transportation, were the source of the splendid well-paying jobs that went almost exclusively to the progenitors of Trump Nation. Others applied of course, but they weren't welcome, as segregation continued to rule the day.
So these poor folks continued to bury their heads in the sand while others went to college and learned new ideas while the old ones were becoming obsolete. The world changed for these guys and no one told them. Now they blame everyone else for their ignorance.
They think Trump can stop a turning wheel.
Their prosperity began with the computer chip. Back in the early 1950's, when the new innovations of television and that hot object--the transistor radio--were all the rage, it was easy to see that the means of production and employment would someday broaden to encompass a culture that demanded mathematical and scientific literacy. It was clear that American ingenuity and initiative were on the cutting edge of production, of providing goods and services on an unheard-of level. All of this coincided with remaking America from an essentially agrarian society--farm to market if you will--into a high-speed landscape, nurtured by a brand-new interstate highway system and its corresponding need for newer and faster automotive transport. This industry, and its fellows: steel, heavy equipment and transportation, were the source of the splendid well-paying jobs that went almost exclusively to the progenitors of Trump Nation. Others applied of course, but they weren't welcome, as segregation continued to rule the day.
So these poor folks continued to bury their heads in the sand while others went to college and learned new ideas while the old ones were becoming obsolete. The world changed for these guys and no one told them. Now they blame everyone else for their ignorance.
They think Trump can stop a turning wheel.
224
Soxared: unfortunately, the elected representatives also buried their heads, being more interested in re-election than in the major trends reshaping the world of trade. Corn country elects Republicans who impose corporate welfare.
4
I once visited an antique show where people had beautiful things to sell, but many were complaining about there not being enough "traffic" during the show and that they weren't selling very much. I stopped to talk to one lady and asked if she'd ever considered E-bay or Craigslist as another means of selling her things, and she said, "Nope, no computers for me. I don't believe in them." I found this astounding since people in many, many jobs and professions have had to either adapt to the computer in their workplace, or be considered professionally incompetent. For example, waiters and cooks - and starting many years ago - had to learn to submit and receive orders via computers from the wait station into the kitchen in many large restaurants. Inventory and payroll in most businesses are done via a computer.
Some are able to make lifestyle choices that either involve using personal money or being willing to live with much less, but refusing to change expectations, adapt to a new economy, move to another part of the country, go back to school or even reconsider how you make your living is never a good strategy, and shouldn't be laid at the feet of others.
Some are able to make lifestyle choices that either involve using personal money or being willing to live with much less, but refusing to change expectations, adapt to a new economy, move to another part of the country, go back to school or even reconsider how you make your living is never a good strategy, and shouldn't be laid at the feet of others.
4
You are mostly correct but that is not really the issue is it? At no point in modern history can we really hold the working men and women of an economy responsible for the tasks that should really have been taken on by their leaders. However well we educate people a significant majority will not be able to grasp the complexities of global trade or economics. Add on to this the emerging influences of AI and robotization of manufacturing.
It is down to the leaders to address this (and yes I know we elect them but that does not remove their responsibility once elected) and that is something they have failed to do. America has not had an industrial policy of note since the 1970's and has indulged in a 40 year experiment in free market economics that has produced the results we have today.
Going forward we need to face the future confidently and recognize that we are in a periodic of tremendous technological and structural change. For no other reason than to avoid revolutions or more Trumps (if we can avoid this one) we have to ensure that the wider population get enough of the benefits of change and not just cut them adrift with a message of "you should have seen this coming". This approach, if history serves us correctly, did not work out too well for Marie Antoinette!
It is down to the leaders to address this (and yes I know we elect them but that does not remove their responsibility once elected) and that is something they have failed to do. America has not had an industrial policy of note since the 1970's and has indulged in a 40 year experiment in free market economics that has produced the results we have today.
Going forward we need to face the future confidently and recognize that we are in a periodic of tremendous technological and structural change. For no other reason than to avoid revolutions or more Trumps (if we can avoid this one) we have to ensure that the wider population get enough of the benefits of change and not just cut them adrift with a message of "you should have seen this coming". This approach, if history serves us correctly, did not work out too well for Marie Antoinette!
7
If Trump does what he says he’d do as president, would that really precipitate a global trade war? How so, when access to U.S. markets is so sought-after, and so central to the efforts of the world to prosper? Wouldn’t the target result more likely be somewhat less trade with the rest of the world but still immense volumes, somewhat higher costs for some goods and services domestically, and a better balance of available jobs between white collar and blue collar workers?
What has happened is that government, in a fear of too tightly managing an economy, has ignored the effects of creative destruction. But it is precisely in these macro matters that government has a legitimate role to play in guiding economic direction and in better assuring a GENERAL prosperity.
You just need to get the balance right. Too-insistent a protectionist stance and goods and services become too expensive, demand dries up as a consequence and jobs suffer. Too little and we see our middle classes disappearing in a global race to the bottom.
We need to invent new economic frameworks to address the obsolescence of labor by automation, which eventually will affect the entire world and make these concerns of trade themselves obsolete. But while we’re doing that, there is no rule that says that we can’t more manageably transition working-class Americans to those new frameworks.
It’s Trump who is making these points, and they’re powerful arguments.
What has happened is that government, in a fear of too tightly managing an economy, has ignored the effects of creative destruction. But it is precisely in these macro matters that government has a legitimate role to play in guiding economic direction and in better assuring a GENERAL prosperity.
You just need to get the balance right. Too-insistent a protectionist stance and goods and services become too expensive, demand dries up as a consequence and jobs suffer. Too little and we see our middle classes disappearing in a global race to the bottom.
We need to invent new economic frameworks to address the obsolescence of labor by automation, which eventually will affect the entire world and make these concerns of trade themselves obsolete. But while we’re doing that, there is no rule that says that we can’t more manageably transition working-class Americans to those new frameworks.
It’s Trump who is making these points, and they’re powerful arguments.
4
Real Republicans think that the market itself will manage these transitions just as long as government stays out of the way by lowering taxes and reducing regulation. The market would manage these transitions as it has managed the prosperity of Detroit, by getting rid of market-deforming and unaffordable entitlements and leaving retirees, the disabled, and the excess unemployed to take care of themselves however they can.
Drive through the country and you will see abandoned houses and barns left to survive or decay on their own. The market does not waste resources on maintaining these buildings, and similarly does not like wasting resources on maintaining people who are no longer needed as producers and cannot function as consumers (which are needed) because they lack sufficient savings.
Trump may make some of your points, and they are powerful arguments. But there is no evidence that Trump knows how to do these things, and the economists he hangs with do not believe in them. As a salesman and promoter, Trump says what will turn his audience on and does what will benefit him, which has usually been shafting anyone he has dealt with. Just ask them.
Those who do believe in your legitimate government role and have thought about the details of what to do are economists and politicians on the Democratic left. Proposals like theirs would be blocked by our current Republican congress whether they were backed by Hillary or the Donald. Which side are you on?
Drive through the country and you will see abandoned houses and barns left to survive or decay on their own. The market does not waste resources on maintaining these buildings, and similarly does not like wasting resources on maintaining people who are no longer needed as producers and cannot function as consumers (which are needed) because they lack sufficient savings.
Trump may make some of your points, and they are powerful arguments. But there is no evidence that Trump knows how to do these things, and the economists he hangs with do not believe in them. As a salesman and promoter, Trump says what will turn his audience on and does what will benefit him, which has usually been shafting anyone he has dealt with. Just ask them.
Those who do believe in your legitimate government role and have thought about the details of what to do are economists and politicians on the Democratic left. Proposals like theirs would be blocked by our current Republican congress whether they were backed by Hillary or the Donald. Which side are you on?
5
c3p0:
I'm on the side that is more likely to get SOMETHING passed by Congress. That's not Sec. Clinton's side.
I'm on the side that is more likely to get SOMETHING passed by Congress. That's not Sec. Clinton's side.
From the article:
" which will likely increase our productivity but require huge adjustments on the labor side.
Without careful preparation, Acemoglu wrote,
this adjustment will take the form of large declines in employment and pervasive joblessness."
Surely our government has plans for all these (possibly) permanently unemployed people? Somebody somewhere has to think about doing something or else there is going to be millions of hungry, desperate, angry people right here in the USA.
Anybody got any ideas?
" which will likely increase our productivity but require huge adjustments on the labor side.
Without careful preparation, Acemoglu wrote,
this adjustment will take the form of large declines in employment and pervasive joblessness."
Surely our government has plans for all these (possibly) permanently unemployed people? Somebody somewhere has to think about doing something or else there is going to be millions of hungry, desperate, angry people right here in the USA.
Anybody got any ideas?
1
But this requires sharing wealth. And those with it are afraid and don't want to share. They think they alone are entitled. They also think that they acquired wealth without any help, which is delusional.
Trump got rich largely by taking advantage of stupid tax laws, and he thinks he did it all on his own.
Trump got rich largely by taking advantage of stupid tax laws, and he thinks he did it all on his own.
2
There is a field of economics that is not taught in the abstract world of economics and business it is political economics and it is taught in Law School. Political economists negotiate trade deals and inhabit a world unknown to Donald Trump or even Robert Reich. It is unfortunate that American trade deals are negotiated by and for American business interests instead of on behalf of the American people.
Canada is in the midst of negotiating a free trade deal with China. There is one major stumbling block that I consider the major disgrace of US trade policy and that makes Canada a functioning democracy and a leader in global trade agreement as Canada's free trade agreement with China is contingent on Canada being assured that Chinese workers are protected. China says Canada's demands threaten China's sovereignty much as international corporations assure themselves that US trade agreements never threaten their bottom line.
When Canada got rid of its right wing government last fall it opened up the Pandora's box that international commerce had feared for so many years. International agreement can involve national sovereignty and parties to international agreements can now demand things like reasonable working conditions, parental leave, 40 hour weeks and paid vacation.
Some of us consider Chinese, American and Russian trade policy the major threat to achieving a world where globalization means the 90% benefit instead of the few at the top. Democracy is a funny word.
Canada is in the midst of negotiating a free trade deal with China. There is one major stumbling block that I consider the major disgrace of US trade policy and that makes Canada a functioning democracy and a leader in global trade agreement as Canada's free trade agreement with China is contingent on Canada being assured that Chinese workers are protected. China says Canada's demands threaten China's sovereignty much as international corporations assure themselves that US trade agreements never threaten their bottom line.
When Canada got rid of its right wing government last fall it opened up the Pandora's box that international commerce had feared for so many years. International agreement can involve national sovereignty and parties to international agreements can now demand things like reasonable working conditions, parental leave, 40 hour weeks and paid vacation.
Some of us consider Chinese, American and Russian trade policy the major threat to achieving a world where globalization means the 90% benefit instead of the few at the top. Democracy is a funny word.
11
"There is a field of economics that is not taught in the abstract world of economics and business it is political economics and it is taught in Law School. Political economists negotiate trade deals and inhabit a world unknown to Donald Trump or even Robert Reich. It is unfortunate that American trade deals are negotiated by and for American business interests instead of on behalf of the American people."
And this is because of the myth of success shared by most of us.
And this is because of the myth of success shared by most of us.
1
The man is a lunatic, and that is not a figure of speech. Why should it be otherwise with his policies?
36
"Many economists share the view that Trump’s trade proposals would be ruinous to the American economy, but in order to retain union support, Hillary Clinton has not been able to directly challenge Trump on these grounds. It was Sanders’s primary campaign that prompted Clinton to abandon past support for free trade agreements."
This is a well-researched piece and all you really need to know about the viability of Trump's solution to a huge problem he latched onto at the beginning of his campaign.
I hate to give Trump compliments, but he has identified the malaise and anger of displaced non-college educated workers better than any politician ever, with the exception of Sanders.
But, as he approaches all his "proposals," Trump is deeply ignorant of the "how". The Trump campaign in a nutshell is this: : A) zero in on an area of big discontent; 2) promise a grand solution, and C) refuse to provide any details of how the distance between A and B gets crossed; or D): throw out a solution that sounds good but offers disaster.
Anybody can run for President using that formula. But, the economic world has changed, as it has every 50 years, since America was born. Invoking a bygone era may be smart politics but once in office, and the promise gets broken, what will you do with the rage of supporters then?
Or, if you do enact tariffs, what do you tell the American people when a huge depression hits?
This is a well-researched piece and all you really need to know about the viability of Trump's solution to a huge problem he latched onto at the beginning of his campaign.
I hate to give Trump compliments, but he has identified the malaise and anger of displaced non-college educated workers better than any politician ever, with the exception of Sanders.
But, as he approaches all his "proposals," Trump is deeply ignorant of the "how". The Trump campaign in a nutshell is this: : A) zero in on an area of big discontent; 2) promise a grand solution, and C) refuse to provide any details of how the distance between A and B gets crossed; or D): throw out a solution that sounds good but offers disaster.
Anybody can run for President using that formula. But, the economic world has changed, as it has every 50 years, since America was born. Invoking a bygone era may be smart politics but once in office, and the promise gets broken, what will you do with the rage of supporters then?
Or, if you do enact tariffs, what do you tell the American people when a huge depression hits?
57
"Or, if you do enact tariffs, what do you tell the American people when a huge depression hits?"
Oh, you just blame it on someone else.
Oh, you just blame it on someone else.
2
Trump's trade ideas are also rooted in a core characteristic of his personality. He sees himself and acts as the strongman/bully who believes that he can do anything and everything simply by pushing others around. Proclamations that he will unilaterally impose huge taxes on foreign powers and the assumption that they will cower in the face of his stern demands and greatness are part of his personal pathology.
His personal motto is "I am Donald Trump. I can bend the world to my will." His fans love him for this delusion, which they buy into, because they believe that his will is in tune with their needs/desires. Since they likely do not, in general, have a deep understanding of trade, economics, or tax law, they simply swallow his aura of greatness and his promise to make all things better for them and in the way that they want.
His personal motto is "I am Donald Trump. I can bend the world to my will." His fans love him for this delusion, which they buy into, because they believe that his will is in tune with their needs/desires. Since they likely do not, in general, have a deep understanding of trade, economics, or tax law, they simply swallow his aura of greatness and his promise to make all things better for them and in the way that they want.
79
* * * *
Mr Trump likes to talk about how often he'd slap on this or that tariff on somebody, he felt wasn't doing the right thing
But, that can't be implemented through Executive Actions
So let's imagine that he does get a 30%tariff on 'Mexico' passed through Congress, and somehow navigates the problems that this creates in terms of previous long-standing Trade Agreements.
Short-Term is a massive reduction in imports, and large increase in consumer costs
* Lots of Plants in Mexico will shut down temporarily, and lots of workers will lose jobs
* Any competing plants in the US will see increased production
* No plants will come back to the US, unless there is a very easy way for them to do so, which will be nearly zero,
* The shut down plants in Mexico will wait until the next Congress comes along, or worst-case: the next-one-after-that
* * * *
AGAIN, hard to imagine this tariff getting put in place to begin with
REALITY-CHECK: Manufacturing jobs on any scale, will not return to the US under any imaginable circumstances
The exception would be for maybe places where there are mostly robots, and very few workers. In that case, the higher cost of US Labor inputs in negligible. But even here, the tax-sheltering possibilities of operating outside the US are still enormous
* * *
CERTAINLY A JOKE: Multinational Tax-Holiday, make it payable each year, and give 5 years to catch up