Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Stop the World! Second Thoughts by a First Rank Economist OR The Case for Free Trade Crumbles
Unsustainable.org ^ | 9/17/2004 | Eamon Fingleton

Posted on 11/20/2004 9:56:42 AM PST by curiosity

When the 1970 Nobel laureate Paul Samuelson was asked what it takes to win a Nobel Prize, he volunteered, "It doesn't hurt to have good students."

But even Samuelson's overachieving students -- he has taught economics at MIT for six decades -- sometimes need to be put in their place. At least that seems to be the subtext of a new Samuelson paper in the Journal of Economic Perspectives.

Samuelson argues that, far from representing an unmitigated boon, free trade may in some circumstances prove a net loser. Among countless globalists who stand duly corrected, not the least chastened are two of Samuelson's own former students: Jagdish Bhagwati and Gregory Mankiw. Noted for their ardent embrace of globalism, the pair are identified by name as purveyors of "polemical untruth" in Samuelson's opening paragraphs.

Samuelson's insight is that if a low-wage country like China suddenly makes a major productivity leap in an industry formerly led by the United States, the result can be a net negative for the American people. Although American consumers may benefit via low-low prices at Wal-Mart, their gains may be more than outweighed by large losses sustained by laid-off American workers.

This conclusion, coming as it does from the pope of economic orthodoxy, is already (even before its official publication) causing a sensation in the economics profession.

Mainly the reaction is positive. Certainly this sudden flash of the obvious has come not a moment too soon for many of Samuelson's fellow liberals.

According to Jeff Madrick, author of Why Economies Grow and editor of Challenge, the take-home message is that the United States needs to do much more to support workers thrown on the scrap heap by globalism.

"The Samuelson paper is a strong argument from the most illustrious of neoclassical economists for a much stronger safety net for American workers," Madrick says. "The price being paid for free trade is falling on many workers, and there's little empirical doubt of that anymore. Moreover, I think the bias among free-trade advocates has skewed the empirical research in the field. Claims of finding that gains from free trade are many magnitudes larger than the losses have been based on extraordinarily poor studies that have hardly been criticized. Maybe some serious sense -- I would ask only for balance -- will now return to trade economics."

For James Fallows, a liberal-leaning critic of Washington's blink-first style in trade diplomacy, Samuelson's analysis is a call to policy-makers to break free from utopian theories and, instead, take a hard look at the real world.

"The great problem in Western discussion of trade theory has been its simpleminded Panglossianism," he says. "The main thing that has supported globalism, apart from the self-interest of many powerful participants, has been the idea that economic theory was 100 percent on the side of Dr. Pangloss. To have the most esteemed of all modern economists say that things are not this simple is a very important step."

On the moderate right, Pat Choate sees Samuelson's paper as essentially defensive, less a confident breakthrough than the correction of an embarrassing mistake.

“At the age of 89, Samuelson is finally stepping onto the road to wisdom,” says Choate. “It is a road where uncertainty prevails over the certainty of the ‘laws’ of economics, which are not laws but ruminations by closeted academics. His article is important, for it effectively gives permission to his disciples to begin to think about the real world, rather than try to postulate assumptions and develop elegant models which ultimately are irrelevant.”

Paul Craig Roberts, a fiercely anti-globalist economist who served as President Ronald Reagan’s assistant treasury secretary, puts it even more pointedly. Samuelson’s rethink, he suggests, is merely an attempt to patch up a leaking, and ultimately doomed, vessel.

As he points out, the paper is in large part a reaction to arguments made by Ralph E. Gomory and William J. Baumol, who in Global Trade and Conflicting National Interests have mounted a powerful challenge to the orthodoxy's utopian take on international trade. Roberts adds, “Gomory and Baumol show that, in the relevant zones, free trade is characterized by conflicting interests -- not by mutual benefit, as economists unthinkingly assume."

In Roberts' view, though the Samuelson paper is an important modification of free-trade theory, Samuelson has chosen his assumptions carefully to avoid any frank discussion of the widespread damage being caused by outsourcing.

If Roberts is disappointed by the narrowness of the Samuelson modification, many on the globalist side of the trade argument are evidently worried. A leader of the damage-control effort is none other than Bhagwati, the former Samuelson student singled out for obloquy in the paper.

Already Bhagwati, a Columbia University professor, has collaborated with two allies in a hastily written response that will be published in the same journal.

Judging by a bad-tempered recent contribution to The Wall Street Journal, Bhagwati is clearly rattled. Describing John Kerry's trade policies as "voodoo economics," Bhagwati embarrased his cause by hurling juvenile personal abuse at the anti-globalist CNN presenter Lou Dobbs.

What is clear is that Bhagwati has plenty to be rattled about. As one of the earliest and most extreme globalists, he has offered several hostages to fortune over the years, most notably in his indecent embrace of the Japan trade lobby in the 1980s. Blaming "bullying" American policy-makers for most of the tension at the time in U.S.-Japanese relations, he exonerated Japan from charges of protectionism. Writing in Fortune magazine in 1989, for instance, he argued that the evidence was "slim" that nontariff barriers significantly reduced Japan's appetite for American exports.

In what must have been the ultimate bad hair day for Bhagwati, one of Japan's leading spokesmen has now admitted that Tokyo's 1980s denials of protectionism were poppycock. The admission came from Mitsubishi Corporation President Minoru Makihara, who told the Tokyo foreign correspondents' club that the Japanese market in the 1980s was "still closed and tightly protected.”

Bhagwati's demeanor cannot have been improved by the realization that Japan’s continuing trade surpluses (they never went away) are likely soon to re-emerge as a hot-button issue in Washington. The reason: Japan’s current account surplus is headed for a record $170 billion this year. By comparison, in 1989 -- which was both the last year before the Tokyo stock-market crash and the year of peak Washington lamentation about Japan’s “juggernaut” trade strategy -- Japan earned a current surplus of a mere $57 billion.

Under the circumstances, Bhagwati seems a weak candidate to lead what will obviously be a hard fight to defend academic orthodoxy. Certainly only the first casualty will be Henry Kissinger's cruel witticism about academic life: that the fights are so bitter because the stakes are so low. This is one dispute where the stakes justify the bitterness.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Government
KEYWORDS: economics; freetrade; globalism; outsourcing; trade
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-172 next last
The case for free trade has been discredited by mainstream trade economists since the late 1980's. Only now is this fact starting to move outside the walls of Academe.
1 posted on 11/20/2004 9:56:43 AM PST by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: curiosity
From his website:

[Eamon Fingleton's] earlier book, Blindside: Why Japan Is Still on Track to Overtake the U.S. by the Year 2000, was named one of the Ten Best Business Books of 1995 by Business Week

2 posted on 11/20/2004 9:59:43 AM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: curiosity
he has taught economics at MIT for six decades

What, along with that e-communist, Lester Thurow? My economists are better than your economists.
3 posted on 11/20/2004 10:02:56 AM PST by dr_who_2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: curiosity
Paul Samuelson is not a first rank economist, he is a semi socialist Keynesian and always has been. This is like a news flash that Karl Marx has doubts about capitalism.
4 posted on 11/20/2004 10:04:28 AM PST by JasonC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: curiosity

Free trade benefits american investors at the expense of american workers. However, the process of globalization is unstoppable and it's utopian to think that much can be done to help either the American worker or the environment until the process of worldwide equalization of standards, living conditions, and legal structures progresses much further than at present.


5 posted on 11/20/2004 10:09:10 AM PST by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JasonC

Globalism = Communism

"Do not imagine, gentlemen, that in criticizing freedom of trade we have the least intention of defending the system of protection."

. "One may declare oneself an enemy of the constitutional regime without declaring oneself a friend of the ancient regime."

. "Moreover, the protectionist system is nothing but a means of establishing large-scale industry in any given country, that is to say, of making it dependent upon the world market, and from the moment that dependence upon the world market is established, there is already more or less dependence upon free trade. Besides this, the protective system helps to develop free competition within a country. Hence we see that in countries where the bourgeoisie is beginning to make itself felt as a class, in Germany for example, it makes great efforts to obtain protective duties. They serve the bourgeoisie as weapons against feudalism and absolute government, as a means for the concentration of its own powers and for the realization of free trade within the same country."

. "But, in general, the protective system of our day is conservative, while the free trade system is destructive. It breaks up old nationalities and pushes the antagonism of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie to the extreme point. In a word, the free trade system hastens the social revolution. It is in this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, that I vote in favor of free trade." : Karl Marx


6 posted on 11/20/2004 10:11:23 AM PST by nanak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: curiosity

Yeah! And it turns out that the Earth is really flat, afterall.


7 posted on 11/20/2004 10:12:59 AM PST by opinionator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nanak

So, you agree with Marx?


8 posted on 11/20/2004 10:13:41 AM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

I think your should read THE WEALTH OF THE NATIONS by ADAM SMITH.


9 posted on 11/20/2004 10:15:43 AM PST by nanak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: dr_who_2

Don't forget Paul Krugman, though I think he's with Princeton now.


10 posted on 11/20/2004 10:16:12 AM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: nanak

I have. And I've studied it. And I've written about it. And I've taken exams about it. So if you think I'm unfamiliar with Smith, prove it. Make my day.


11 posted on 11/20/2004 10:17:22 AM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: nanak

Moreover, I can say the same about Marx. How about you?


12 posted on 11/20/2004 10:19:06 AM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: curiosity

Unfortunately, freepers are biologically unable to admit that free trade is contrary to conservatism.


13 posted on 11/20/2004 10:28:29 AM PST by Nephi (AIDS: The disease originally known as GRIDS (Gay Related Immune Deficiency Syndrome)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nanak

If you wish to make a reply, please do so here, instead of private mail.


14 posted on 11/20/2004 10:30:44 AM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Nephi

Not "pure" enough, huh? LOL


15 posted on 11/20/2004 10:32:44 AM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: nanak

I think your should read THE WEALTH OF THE NATIONS by ADAM SMITH.>>>>>>>>>>>

The theories which support free trade are all based on the concept that there is essentially full employment. Ricardo's theory is irrelevant in today's world as practically nothing trades on the basis of comparative advantage. If a country does not have an absolute advantage in producing a product it will not be able to sell the product on the world market.


16 posted on 11/20/2004 10:38:18 AM PST by jmeagan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: dr_who_2

Samuelson is a Nobel Laureate, same as Milton Friedman.


17 posted on 11/20/2004 10:44:13 AM PST by Willie Green
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: jmeagan

....and a nation's economy dependent on DEBT, Walmart, McDonald's , Sam's Club is unsustainable.

For how long we will keep consuming and will keep sending our manufacturing overseas.

Where goes the manufacturing, there goes the RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT.

It is a race towards the bottom.


18 posted on 11/20/2004 10:50:14 AM PST by nanak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Willie Green

which means he's in the same distinguished category of nobel prize recepients as yassar arafat.

Some great company to have.


19 posted on 11/20/2004 10:56:13 AM PST by flashbunny (Every thought that enters my head requires its own vanity thread.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: curiosity
Although American consumers may benefit via low-low prices at Wal-Mart, their gains may be more than outweighed by large losses sustained by laid-off American workers.

The many now-bankrupt American workers who lost their jobs and their homes can attest to this fact as they're struggling to pay their bills.

I don't hear much concern for American workers in Washington, they're too busy importing more foreigners to do American jobs.

20 posted on 11/20/2004 11:02:25 AM PST by janetgreen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: curiosity

Ping for later reading.

A good parallel article is: "Benedict Arnold?(Outsourcing U.S. Jobs)"


21 posted on 11/20/2004 11:04:42 AM PST by Kevin OMalley (Kevin O'Malley)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nanak

I would also suggest "The National System of Political Economy " by Friedrich List, there is an English version at this URL, very good:

http://socserv2.socsci.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/list/national.html


22 posted on 11/20/2004 11:16:08 AM PST by fallujah-nuker (I like Ike.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Nephi
Unfortunately, freepers are biologically unable to admit that free trade is contrary to conservatism.

If I own a business in the tax hell of California, should I be free to take it to a lower-tax state? If so, am I not depriving the workers of CA of their livelihoods just for my own profit?

23 posted on 11/20/2004 11:17:34 AM PST by John Jorsett (Kerry-Edwards: FORGING AHEAD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: nanak
Race to the bottom. Right.


24 posted on 11/20/2004 11:19:00 AM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
I have. And I've studied it. And I've written about it. And I've taken exams about it. So if you think I'm unfamiliar with Smith, prove it. Make my day.

Have you done a compare and contrast between Smith's The Theory of Moral Sentiments and The Wealth of Nations?  Some think there's a perplexing contradiction between the two, with Sentiments offering better insights.

But then, some might say mercantilism has more to teach about the modern world economy than laissez-faire capitalism.

25 posted on 11/20/2004 11:21:12 AM PST by Racehorse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: curiosity

Placemarker *Bump*


26 posted on 11/20/2004 11:24:18 AM PST by Yardstick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Racehorse

I am familiar with it . . . but I always saw it as more of a treatise on sociology instead of economics.


27 posted on 11/20/2004 11:33:23 AM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: John Jorsett
If I own a business in the tax hell of California, should I be free to take it to a lower-tax state?

Of course not. The government of California should place punitive taxes on the products of other states in order to save all those high-paying jobs you provide. [chuckle]

28 posted on 11/20/2004 11:35:14 AM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry
Free trade benefits american investors at the expense of american workers. There are several errors in this statement.

Firstly, the benefits accrue not only to investors (who are incidentally, oftentimes foreign) but also to consumers. Both are numerous categories: the vast majority of Americans are investors, and all are consumers. Most Americans benefit thus, even if you assume that a SMALL number of workers lose in the SHORT-run.

Secondly, you take workers as an immutable entity. They are not: displaced workers in outdated industries do not become permanently unemployed: they find other jobs.

Thirdly, the very criterion you employ to compute benefits is faulty. Consider, for instance, the IT sector. The decades-long shortage of labor in that are translated into premium paid to programmer over what they would get in the absence of shortage. Now the internet has enabled employers to outsource some of that work, and programmers' wages well. Does that hurt American workers?

YOu answer in the positive: wages fell, hence workers are hurt. But that includes the tacit assumption that the previous wages were somehow justified. One can easily say that the present, lower wages are normal, and the previous ones were unreasonably high (due to shortage). It was AMERICAN consumers and AMERICAN investors (pretty much everybody who has any savings at all) who subsidized --- and for decades were held hostage by --- programmers and other IT specialist.

In sum, you make a rather popular error of only looking that the LATEST change to assess the situation. That is a fallacy. If you confiscate from me $1M, that is not necessarily a robbery: I may have previously robbed the bank and was not entitled to that money. You will not be able to deduced that, however, if you only look at the latest change.

However, the process of globalization is unstoppable and it's utopian to think that much can be done to help either the American worker or the environment until the process of worldwide equalization of standards, living conditions, and legal structures progresses much further than at present.

This is another popular misconception, rather popular in the socialist (morern-day liberal circles). The "equalization" occurs in a dynamical system only if it is closed. Neither the humankind nor America is a closed system, and no equalization is mandatory. The process of globalization has been in place forever, and we have never been anywhere close to what may be viewed as equality of living standard and even less similarity of social institution.

Don't feel bad: Lenin too fell for the same error.

What does a liberal --- and, judging by your remarks, VERY liberal Larry is doing on a conservative forum?

29 posted on 11/20/2004 11:37:33 AM PST by TopQuark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: John Jorsett

Prior to free trade the textile industry migrated from New England to the Piedmont.


30 posted on 11/20/2004 11:40:12 AM PST by fallujah-nuker (I like Ike.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: nanak
Just because Marx was for free trade, it does not make it wrong. He also slept and ate: this does not make sleeping or food bad for us. Simply illogical.

Marx was for free trade for wrong reasons.

31 posted on 11/20/2004 11:41:11 AM PST by TopQuark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: nanak
You have serious misconception about the facts:

and a nation's economy dependent on DEBT, Walmart, McDonald's , Sam's Club is unsustainable. Where do you see "dependence" of a trillion dollar economy on these companies?

For how long we will keep consuming and will keep sending our manufacturing overseas.

This is like asking, for how long will we be breathing air and still continuing to eat?

Where goes the manufacturing, there goes the RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT.

Could you please show the empirical evidence for that statement?

32 posted on 11/20/2004 11:46:11 AM PST by TopQuark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: janetgreen
Thank you for posting socialist propaganda on this conservative forum. What do you think makes you conservative, Janet?

The many now-bankrupt American workers who lost their jobs and their homes can attest to this fact as they're struggling to pay their bills.

How many, Janet? The unemployment is at 5.3%, which until a few years ago was considered MINIMAL possible even theoretically. It was 5.4% when Clinton was elected the second time --- and everybody feels great about the economy of the nineties. I don't hear much concern for American workers in Washington,

This very much may be true --- are you deaf? Bush repeatedly talked about it education, training and other programs. You don't hear it because you don't want to hear: education presupposed that the workers will do the learning instead of Saturday trips to the mall. Apparently, that is what you want: the government protecting the jobs, as they are. You've missed your opportunity for happiness: the Soviet Union, where that was implemented full, has collapsed.

33 posted on 11/20/2004 11:54:32 AM PST by TopQuark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: TopQuark; liberallarry
displaced workers in outdated industries do not become permanently unemployed: they find other jobs.

We simply send the half of America having IQ's under 100, to MIT to become tech workers, and problem solved?

34 posted on 11/20/2004 12:05:42 PM PST by Age of Reason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: TopQuark; janetgreen
Bush repeatedly talked about it education, training and other programs. You don't hear it because you don't want to hear: education presupposed that the workers will do the learning . . . .

See my post above, number 34.

35 posted on 11/20/2004 12:07:45 PM PST by Age of Reason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Age of Reason
Why don't we send them to MIT to become economists? At minimum, they could then find a job writing for the New York Times, or the New Republic like this guy.
36 posted on 11/20/2004 12:08:19 PM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: nanak

"I think your should read THE WEALTH OF THE NATIONS by ADAM SMITH."

Nah, that would ruin the poor boys day. Too much reality would humble them and a leftist is anything but humble.


37 posted on 11/20/2004 12:11:33 PM PST by nmh (Intelligent people recognize Intelligent Design (God).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: curiosity
Free trade has resulted in the loss of jobs to China...who now is in competition with the US for the energy of the world.

Unless we set out to develop a new energy source other than oil, there will be war over oil in the next few years.

We have sewn the seeds of our destruction...China now has our technology to send missiles accurratley to our shores due to the Clinton administration.

We will pay for our stupidity.

38 posted on 11/20/2004 12:11:41 PM PST by Radioactive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Age of Reason
Oh, I see, you too have socialist leanings:

We simply send the half of America having IQ's under 100, to MIT to become tech workers, and problem solved?

Obviously, they would not be admitted to the M.I.T. That, of course, is obvious. WHat perhaps is not obvious to you is that workers with low IQs do not produce enough to justify the high standard of living.

Like a typical socialist, you leave the issue of who produces wealth aside: people simply MUST live well.

I was not arguing for all displaced to go to school: it's a free country, and they don't have to if they don't want to. Buy they --- and you --- should then stop b----ng that their standard of living has declined.

I don't know your Age, but I certainly have not seen Reason in your post.

39 posted on 11/20/2004 12:26:58 PM PST by TopQuark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: nmh

Agreed.


40 posted on 11/20/2004 12:41:34 PM PST by nanak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: TopQuark
Firstly, the benefits accrue not only to investors...but also to consumers.

True.

even if you assume that a SMALL number of workers lose in the SHORT-run.

If this was as clear-cut as you paint it Samuelson wouldn't have written his mea culpa and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

displaced workers in outdated industries do not become permanently unemployed: they find other jobs.

Here also you muddy the waters. The industries in question are not outdated. Rather the same products can be made abroad using cheaper labor. Thus high-priced American labor is either forced to accept much lower wages, forced into unemployment, or able to find a similar or better paying job in a new industry. What's at issue are the proportions or each.

Does that hurt American workers?

If it lowers their wages, yes. How would you feel if your employer told you he could replace you with someone earning only half your salary? I know plenty of people in IT who've faced this.

One can easily say that the present, lower wages are normal

It's you who fall into the trap by creating false categories. In a market system there's no such thing as normal. However, when it comes to received monies more is better and less is worse...and decades of experience have taught fiscal planners that falling wages are very bad psychologically.

Also investors have no trouble going to Congress and the Courts to ask for protection from unfair competition - meaning tariffs to equalize a cost advantage gained by employing cheaper foreign labor (or time to move their own companies abroad). But, somehow, the definition of unfair becomes incredibly difficult to pin down when labor asks for the same protections.

The "equalization" occurs in a dynamical system only if it is closed...The process of globalization has been in place forever

We're not speaking about idealizations in physics. We're making crude models of economic reality. For nearly a century there's been a national market in the United States that could've been considered closed for many purposes. Thus unions could be formed and the environment protected.

No longer.

But in the future world markets will approach some sort of - relatively - stable equilibrium where it will no longer be worthwhile to move whole industries out of a country to take advantage of cheap labor elsewhere...or the whole system will collapse into revolution and chaos.

Don't feel bad: Lenin too fell for the same error.

I don't feel bad and I don't make the typically partisan error of assuming that mistakes are made only by those who disagree with me.

What does a liberal --- and, judging by your remarks, VERY liberal Larry is doing on a conservative forum?

Testing my ideas, of course. Is there any other reason to indulge in political discourse?

41 posted on 11/20/2004 12:52:37 PM PST by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: nmh
Amazon.com: What do you like to read?

Fingleton: I spend much of my time keeping up with my own field of global economics, which I find completely engrossing. I am an admirer of J.K. Galbraith and recently began rereading his great early work American Capitalism. Among the younger generation of economic commentators, I particularly like the work of James Fallows, Robert Kuttner, Jeff Madrick, Lester Thurow, George Soros, and the British management commentator Robert Heller.

Source


42 posted on 11/20/2004 12:52:37 PM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: nanak
Agreed? LOL

I aked you to test my understanding of Adam Smith. I'm still waiting. I beginning to think you pulled the comment about Wealth of Nations out of your arse.

43 posted on 11/20/2004 12:54:39 PM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot; LowCountryJoe; Poohbah

Check out my #42. A veritable collection of All-Stars!


44 posted on 11/20/2004 12:56:32 PM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Age of Reason
What was I thinking? The New Republic and the Times? Heck this guy is published by CommonDreams.org!
For all you newbies out there, Common Dreams provides "News & Views for the Progressive Community."
45 posted on 11/20/2004 1:04:41 PM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

Colonization of lagging countries led, via forced (or through WTO, IMF, WORLD BANK) integration, to the loss of manufactures, a shrinking comparative advantage in primary production, and the displacement of indigenous capital, skills and enterprises.


46 posted on 11/20/2004 1:05:28 PM PST by nanak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: nmh
Please see my #44. Your cabana-boy is the Leftist. I'll extend the same offer I've made to nanak. . . think I'm a Leftist? Prove it.
47 posted on 11/20/2004 1:07:05 PM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: TopQuark
What perhaps is not obvious to you is that workers with low IQs do not produce enough to justify the high standard of living

This is the issue which separates social and economic systems.

In a purely market system you're worth whatever you can get by playing by the rules (more or less). If you have talents or products or possessions which people wish to own or rent then the price which they're willing to pay determines your worth.

Well, what of those - and they are numerous - who have neither talents or possessions? The answer is that - in most situations - they're worth subsistance wages...or nothing.

That's why a strictly market system - laissez faire capitalism - has been consistantly and repeatedly rejected.

48 posted on 11/20/2004 1:08:21 PM PST by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: nanak

Nope, doesn't sound like Smith to me. Unless you are claming that the "colonizing" countries in your example are monopolizing the "colony's" product, thereby holding the "colony" back?


49 posted on 11/20/2004 1:13:08 PM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: JasonC
Paul Samuelson is not a first rank economist, he is a semi socialist Keynesian and always has been.

News flash: every mainstream economist today, including Bush's cheif economic advisor, accepts the Keynesian theory as the best explanation of short economic fluctuations. Samuelson is no exception. The empirical evidence in favor of it is overwhelming. You need to study.

And Keynes was not a socialist.

50 posted on 11/20/2004 1:14:35 PM PST by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-172 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson