4 ms·

Paul Krugman and other mainstream trade experts are now admitting that they were wrong about globalization: It hurt American workers far more than they thought

Paul Krugman and other mainstream trade experts are now admitting that they were wrong about globalization: It hurt American workers far more than they thought it would. Did America’s free market economists help put a protectionist demagogue in the White House? Even if you didn't vote for Trump or don't like him, Trump has been critiquing globalization for years before he came to office especially with regards to China. Yet their conclusion is that he is a demagogue. The very people who cheered on the very globalization that made some of us rich but left many of our fellow citizens in the dust. I assume they agree that the purpose of globalization was to make everyone better of not just some and that those that would benefit from it most should be paying back their fair share to the communities. Today we have a situation where it's impossible to save your way to retirement, where the cost of living has increased and the middle class decreased and we did so while increasing the deficit of the country.

sarah180 7y ago
I think most economists would say that the purpose of globalization was to make the nation better off, and that the nation's values, systems and leadership would be called on to distribute those gains in a way consistent with that nation's values. Perhaps the real issue here is not one of trade, but of the collapse of unions, the dramatic change in the nature of our media, broken leadership structures, and a lazy mindset that views capital and markets as the goal rather than the tool.
- ThomPete 7y ago
  Well, nations are part of everyone in globalization no? Not sure I understand the distinction. The issue wasn't of trade but of a small group of people who benefitted from exporting jobs abroad to sell products at home and then still avoid paying the taxes.
  - sarah180 7y ago
    Increasing the wealth of a nation doesn't mean increasing the wealth of everyone in that nation. A nation can distribute those gains in wealth and power in a way that provides no utility to many of its citizens. Trade has made nations richer. Economists were not wrong about this. What many were wrong about is the thesis that the social & market structures in developed, "stable" democracies would ensure that those gains eventually improved the utility of everyone—the proverbial "rising tide that lifts all boats." The standard claim is that markets may not immediately fix issues, but over time they will converge on an efficient distribution of resources. Yes, this is a late reply.

sarah180 7y ago

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

ThomPete 7y ago
Well, nations are part of everyone in globalization no? Not sure I understand the distinction. The issue wasn't of trade but of a small group of people who benefitted from exporting jobs abroad to sell products at home and then still avoid paying the taxes.
- sarah180 7y ago
  Increasing the wealth of a nation doesn't mean increasing the wealth of everyone in that nation. A nation can distribute those gains in wealth and power in a way that provides no utility to many of its citizens. Trade has made nations richer. Economists were not wrong about this. What many were wrong about is the thesis that the social & market structures in developed, "stable" democracies would ensure that those gains eventually improved the utility of everyone—the proverbial "rising tide that lifts all boats." The standard claim is that markets may not immediately fix issues, but over time they will converge on an efficient distribution of resources. Yes, this is a late reply.