5 ms·

This article is completely hypocritical to be coming from Tom Friedman. He has been one of the primary cheerleaders for globalism which has been a major driver

by cudgy 6y ago

This article is completely hypocritical to be coming from Tom Friedman. He has been one of the primary cheerleaders for globalism which has been a major driver of corporations gaining more favor from the government. This favor has been in the many forms including favorable trade deals (to China and the companies that manufacture there), ignoring the environmental impact of manufacturing in China which hurts all people especially the citizens of China, lax immigration enforcement (which led to more competition for the workers and cheaper labor for the companies), and ultra low interest rates that make it difficult for people to save money without buying overpriced assets and accepting extended risk.

bildung 6y ago
International trade agreements, taxation of corporations and interest rates are all distinct issues. Trade agreements are not the reason Amazon and Google aren't paying taxes, and neither are the current interest rates.
- TearsInTheRain 6y ago
  I disagree that they are distinct issues. Ultra low interest rates inflating their market cap gives them access to capital and in turn power to lobby for favorable tax policies, trade policies etc.
  - bildung 6y ago
    Of course it all happens in the same economy, so the outcome of a can affect b. But if something develops into a problem for society, it should be acted on directly, which is possible for all the points at hand here: * If uber-profitable companies abuse their wealth for lobbying, then stop allowing these kinds of lobbying. The current system with PACs an Super PACs and so on is unique to the US, it essentially is a societal decision to have a system like that. * If FAANG companies are very profitable (see p/e ratios) but don't pay taxes, then fix tax law. * If money is cheap because there is no demand for it to invest into new businesses etc., then raise minimum wages and invest into infrastructure at federal and state level, to induce demand. Remember that low interest rates mean companies have no need to borrow money. This is a common misconception, but low interest rates are a consequence of the current economical climate, not its cause - if money were in demand interest rates wouldn't be so low, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rate_of_interest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rate_of_interest ) * if employers employ illegal immigrants to do tax fraud, then enforce the tax law. The tax fraud part has nothing to do with the immigration, small business tax fraud works perfectly fine with exclusively Americans employed in the company.
_qulr 6y ago
> This article is completely hypocritical to be coming from Tom Friedman. True, but I would say better late than never.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
paulpauper 6y ago
that probably makes him qualified to understand the problem he helped create
- petermcneeley 6y ago
  Does this logic apply to software? When someone creates a giant slow insecure spaghetti monster piece of code do you rush out and hire them as a consultant to fix it? Are they not the last person that should do that job given that they are the only ones that have proven that that they cannot?
  - afarrell 6y ago
    That depends on what they've learned from the experience.
  - paulpauper 6y ago
    you mean visual studio ? lol
- cudgy 6y ago
  He didn’t understand the problem he created, so why should we expect him to understand his new position?
ardy42 6y ago
> This article is completely hypocritical to be coming from Tom Friedman. He has been one of the primary cheerleaders for globalism which has been a major driver of corporations gaining more favor from the government. If that's so, doesn't the defection to an opposing camp make his message even here more credible?
- cudgy 6y ago
  No. It just means that he shifts with the wind. Trump pulled the ugly band-aid off the China problem and now even the Dems and some Republicans have realized the mess that economists like Friedman got the US into.
  - ardy42 6y ago
    > Trump pulled the ugly band-aid off the China problem and now even the Dems and some Republicans have realized the mess that economists like Friedman got the US into. Are you kinda also thinking of Milton Friedman? Thomas Friedman isn't actually an economist.
- specialist 6y ago
  Yes? So "yay" for small victories. Mea culpas are more convincing when there's some kind of contrition. An intellectually honest person would at least nod towards having a change of heart, updated opinions. Shoutouts to Liberal (neoliberal?) economists like Ruchir Sharma is progress. Of course, I hope Friedman ventures outside of the Mises vs Keynes food fight. I find Raj Chetty and David Graeber interesting, for instance. Edit: Oops. Looks like a "contrarian" economist Sharma is something like a deficit hawk. I regret my suspension of disbelief. The Rescues Ruin Capitalism [2020/06/24] https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-rescues-ruining-capitalism-11595603720 https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-rescues-ruining-capitalism-...
- JeremyNT 6y ago
  > If that's so, doesn't the defection to an opposing camp make his message even here more credible? All you really need to judge a Tom Friedman article is the "Opinion columnist" badge by his name. What does he produce? He produces opinion. By what metric are his opinion pieces judged? Engagement. Tom Friedman - and for that matter, most other opinion columnists (excepting those who are practicing domain experts who occasionally write about those specific subjects) - isn't paid to be right. He can be wrong over, and over, and over again. If the orthodoxy of the group who employs him changes (hey, look who's buying NYT subscriptions these days...) he can be wrong in novel ways. He doesn't have to "show his work." He never suffers any consequences. He might have re-evaluated things! He might even be right - because hey, a stopped clock is right twice a day! But knowing what his job is and how he's performed in the past, it should be apparent that there's no particular reason one should believe him over, say, a random commenter on HackerNews such as myself. He has no incentive, credentials, or history that suggest a reader could usefully appeal to his authority.
metalliqaz 6y ago
> lax immigration enforcement (which led to more competition for the workers and cheaper labor for the companies) Please explain how you know this. Was there ever any bottom at all for the cost of low-skilled labor? More people means more workers, generally, I accept that. But more people also means more consumption, generally. And that requires more labor. Surely you don't think that normal population growth implies cheaper labor, right?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- username90 6y ago
  Do you think it is just a coincidence that wages stopped rising when they ramped up low skill immigration in the 70's? When you increase one class of people without increasing the other then simple economics says that said class will get less valued and see wage stagnation/reduction, which is exactly what history says happened. https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2012/04/2012-phc-mexican-migration-10a.png https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/wp-content/uploads/site... Where I live low skilled labor is paid well simply because otherwise you wont find anyone who wants to do the job. That is how it should work, educate everyone and there will be a shortage of low skill labor driving up their wages.
  - api 6y ago
    A lot of things happened in the early 70s: - Many overseas markets opened to more outsourcing. Nixon "going to China" was one of the big ones. - The rest of the world had pretty much fully recovered from WWII and started being more competitive with US manufacturing. - The collapse of Bretton Woods and the removal of the gold peg for the US dollar freed central banks to pursue aggressive monetary policy. - Automation really took off in the 1970s, and the computer revolution really got going. - Women entered the work force in large numbers. In case anyone misreads: I am not against this. I'm just pointing out the supply and demand effects. - Unions started declining for numerous reasons including the rise of anti-union politics and corruption in unions themselves. - Increased racial equality is another thing I'm not against, but I am forced to point out that it increases the supply of labor in many labor markets that had been at least partly closed to non-whites. - Finally, more immigration is definitely on the list too. ... there's a lot more, but those are the big ones. Almost everything I listed is deflationary to labor prices. So many things hit in the 70s it's like the floor dropped out. It's amazing US labor has managed to hang on at all.
eplanit 6y ago
Friedman has been irrelevant for about 10+ years now. He, Carl Bernstein and Paul Krugman are characatures of their former selves. I guess the statement is true for the new York times overall, as they have become a lifestyle magazine, of sorts.

by cudgy 6y ago

bildung 6y ago

International trade agreements, taxation of corporations and interest rates are all distinct issues. Trade agreements are not the reason Amazon and Google aren't paying taxes, and neither are the current interest rates.

TearsInTheRain 6y ago
I disagree that they are distinct issues. Ultra low interest rates inflating their market cap gives them access to capital and in turn power to lobby for favorable tax policies, trade policies etc.
- bildung 6y ago
  Of course it all happens in the same economy, so the outcome of a can affect b. But if something develops into a problem for society, it should be acted on directly, which is possible for all the points at hand here: * If uber-profitable companies abuse their wealth for lobbying, then stop allowing these kinds of lobbying. The current system with PACs an Super PACs and so on is unique to the US, it essentially is a societal decision to have a system like that. * If FAANG companies are very profitable (see p/e ratios) but don't pay taxes, then fix tax law. * If money is cheap because there is no demand for it to invest into new businesses etc., then raise minimum wages and invest into infrastructure at federal and state level, to induce demand. Remember that low interest rates mean companies have no need to borrow money. This is a common misconception, but low interest rates are a consequence of the current economical climate, not its cause - if money were in demand interest rates wouldn't be so low, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rate_of_interest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rate_of_interest ) * if employers employ illegal immigrants to do tax fraud, then enforce the tax law. The tax fraud part has nothing to do with the immigration, small business tax fraud works perfectly fine with exclusively Americans employed in the company.

_qulr 6y ago

> This article is completely hypocritical to be coming from Tom Friedman. True, but I would say better late than never.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

paulpauper 6y ago

that probably makes him qualified to understand the problem he helped create

petermcneeley 6y ago
Does this logic apply to software? When someone creates a giant slow insecure spaghetti monster piece of code do you rush out and hire them as a consultant to fix it? Are they not the last person that should do that job given that they are the only ones that have proven that that they cannot?
- afarrell 6y ago
  That depends on what they've learned from the experience.
- paulpauper 6y ago
  you mean visual studio ? lol
cudgy 6y ago
He didn’t understand the problem he created, so why should we expect him to understand his new position?

ardy42 6y ago

> This article is completely hypocritical to be coming from Tom Friedman. He has been one of the primary cheerleaders for globalism which has been a major driver of corporations gaining more favor from the government. If that's so, doesn't the defection to an opposing camp make his message even here more credible?

cudgy 6y ago
No. It just means that he shifts with the wind. Trump pulled the ugly band-aid off the China problem and now even the Dems and some Republicans have realized the mess that economists like Friedman got the US into.
- ardy42 6y ago
  > Trump pulled the ugly band-aid off the China problem and now even the Dems and some Republicans have realized the mess that economists like Friedman got the US into. Are you kinda also thinking of Milton Friedman? Thomas Friedman isn't actually an economist.
specialist 6y ago
Yes? So "yay" for small victories. Mea culpas are more convincing when there's some kind of contrition. An intellectually honest person would at least nod towards having a change of heart, updated opinions. Shoutouts to Liberal (neoliberal?) economists like Ruchir Sharma is progress. Of course, I hope Friedman ventures outside of the Mises vs Keynes food fight. I find Raj Chetty and David Graeber interesting, for instance. Edit: Oops. Looks like a "contrarian" economist Sharma is something like a deficit hawk. I regret my suspension of disbelief. The Rescues Ruin Capitalism [2020/06/24] https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-rescues-ruining-capitalism-11595603720 https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-rescues-ruining-capitalism-...
JeremyNT 6y ago
> If that's so, doesn't the defection to an opposing camp make his message even here more credible? All you really need to judge a Tom Friedman article is the "Opinion columnist" badge by his name. What does he produce? He produces opinion. By what metric are his opinion pieces judged? Engagement. Tom Friedman - and for that matter, most other opinion columnists (excepting those who are practicing domain experts who occasionally write about those specific subjects) - isn't paid to be right. He can be wrong over, and over, and over again. If the orthodoxy of the group who employs him changes (hey, look who's buying NYT subscriptions these days...) he can be wrong in novel ways. He doesn't have to "show his work." He never suffers any consequences. He might have re-evaluated things! He might even be right - because hey, a stopped clock is right twice a day! But knowing what his job is and how he's performed in the past, it should be apparent that there's no particular reason one should believe him over, say, a random commenter on HackerNews such as myself. He has no incentive, credentials, or history that suggest a reader could usefully appeal to his authority.

metalliqaz 6y ago

> lax immigration enforcement (which led to more competition for the workers and cheaper labor for the companies) Please explain how you know this. Was there ever any bottom at all for the cost of low-skilled labor? More people means more workers, generally, I accept that. But more people also means more consumption, generally. And that requires more labor. Surely you don't think that normal population growth implies cheaper labor, right?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
username90 6y ago
Do you think it is just a coincidence that wages stopped rising when they ramped up low skill immigration in the 70's? When you increase one class of people without increasing the other then simple economics says that said class will get less valued and see wage stagnation/reduction, which is exactly what history says happened. https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2012/04/2012-phc-mexican-migration-10a.png https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/wp-content/uploads/site... Where I live low skilled labor is paid well simply because otherwise you wont find anyone who wants to do the job. That is how it should work, educate everyone and there will be a shortage of low skill labor driving up their wages.
- api 6y ago
  A lot of things happened in the early 70s: - Many overseas markets opened to more outsourcing. Nixon "going to China" was one of the big ones. - The rest of the world had pretty much fully recovered from WWII and started being more competitive with US manufacturing. - The collapse of Bretton Woods and the removal of the gold peg for the US dollar freed central banks to pursue aggressive monetary policy. - Automation really took off in the 1970s, and the computer revolution really got going. - Women entered the work force in large numbers. In case anyone misreads: I am not against this. I'm just pointing out the supply and demand effects. - Unions started declining for numerous reasons including the rise of anti-union politics and corruption in unions themselves. - Increased racial equality is another thing I'm not against, but I am forced to point out that it increases the supply of labor in many labor markets that had been at least partly closed to non-whites. - Finally, more immigration is definitely on the list too. ... there's a lot more, but those are the big ones. Almost everything I listed is deflationary to labor prices. So many things hit in the 70s it's like the floor dropped out. It's amazing US labor has managed to hang on at all.

eplanit 6y ago

Friedman has been irrelevant for about 10+ years now. He, Carl Bernstein and Paul Krugman are characatures of their former selves. I guess the statement is true for the new York times overall, as they have become a lifestyle magazine, of sorts.