Free Trader Paul Krugman Admits Failure of Globalization for American Workers: ‘Major Mistake’

[The Purge]

Economist Paul Krugman, the longtime DemonRAT defender of global free trade and a member of the failed “Never Trump” movement, now admits that globalization has failed American workers.

In a column for Bloomberg titled “What Economists (Including Me) Got Wrong About Globalization,” Krugman admits that the economic consensus for free trade that has prevailed for decades has failed to recognize how globalization has skyrocketed inequality for America’s working and middle class workers.

Krugman, though, writes that he and his fellow free trade economists “had no way to know” that globalization of the American economy or a surge in trade deficits “were going to happen,” though the anti-globalization movement had warned for years of the harmful impact free trade would have on U.S. workers — including Donald Trump.

(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...

<< “there was no way to know” - Krugman >>

Yeah Paul, who could’ve possibly foreseen that open borders and massive trade/tariff disparities (with the U.S. always getting the short end of the stick) and the outsourcing of millions of American jobs could’ve led to massive trade deficits and the ...loss of millions of American jobs? Hmmm...

 

[Supposn]

The Purge, I'm not an economist, but I doubt if my appreciation of “comparative advantage” is lesser than that of professor Krugman's. Additionally, I suppose the professorappreciates USA's global trade transactions are generally determined by enterprises rather than our government.

The comparative advantages in play within those transactions are those of those individual enterprises which is not our government or our entire economy. I'm pleased that the professor seems to has recognized his error. USA's annual trade deficits always reduced our GDP, numbers of jobs, and aggregate payrolls more than otherwise.

Respectfully, Supposn

Refer to
Opinion | Trade and Tribulation
A Protectionist Moment?

Balance of trade - Wikipedia
Import certificates - Wikipedia

 

[Oddball]

 

[Brain357]

Breitbart can't be trusted and I can't seem to find what he really said. They no doubt made it whatever they wanted him to say.

 

[Correll]

Breitbart can't be trusted and I can't seem to find what he really said. They no doubt made it whatever they wanted him to say.

The link to the original article was literally the SECOND word in the Breitbart article.


Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

 

[Supposn]

Breitbart can't be trusted and I can't seem to find what he really said. They no doubt made it whatever they wanted him to say.

Brain357, two of the links posted were written by Professor Krugman himself.

Refer to Opinion | Trade and Tribulation
and A Protectionist Moment?

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[sparky]

If there's been some part of globalization and it's trickle down economics screwing us all not obvious in the last generation , it's because the 1% of this country making good on it all has you duped.

~S~

 

[Pete7469]

Free traitor Krugman is living proof that leftists have no grasp of economics, and whatever "school" issues their credentials should be shut down for malpractice.

Then we've got Alexandria Occasional Cortex to further prove it.


.

 

[Brain357]

Breitbart can't be trusted and I can't seem to find what he really said. They no doubt made it whatever they wanted him to say.

The link to the original article was literally the SECOND word in the Breitbart article.


Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

Thanks. He does not agree with protectionism:


Does this mean that Trump is right and a trade war would be in the interests of workers hurt by globalization?

No. This answer is based not so much on some rigid commitment to free trade as on the nature of the losses that globalization imposed. The problem with surging globalization wasn’t so much changing demand for labor as the disruption that was caused by some of the most rapid changes in history. Rapid change now appears to be largely behind us: Many indicators suggest that hyperglobalization was a one-time event, and that trade has more or less stabilized relative to world GDP. You can see it leveling off in the first chart above.

As a result, major disruptions now would be more likely to come from an attempt to reverse globalization than from leaving the current trade regime in place. At this point, millions of decisions about where to put plants, and where to move and take jobs, have been made on the assumption that the open world trading system will continue. Making that assumption false, by raising tariffs and forcing a contraction of world trade, would set off a whole new wave of disruption along with a whole new set of winners and losers.

So while the 1990s consensus on the effect of globalization hasn’t stood the test of time, its shortcomings don’t make a case for protectionism now. We might have done things differently if we had known what was coming, but that’s not a good reason to turn back the clock.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Breitbart can't be trusted and I can't seem to find what he really said. They no doubt made it whatever they wanted him to say.

The link to the original article was literally the SECOND word in the Breitbart article.


Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

Thanks. He does not agree with protectionism:


Does this mean that Trump is right and a trade war would be in the interests of workers hurt by globalization?

No. This answer is based not so much on some rigid commitment to free trade as on the nature of the losses that globalization imposed. The problem with surging globalization wasn’t so much changing demand for labor as the disruption that was caused by some of the most rapid changes in history. Rapid change now appears to be largely behind us: Many indicators suggest that hyperglobalization was a one-time event, and that trade has more or less stabilized relative to world GDP. You can see it leveling off in the first chart above.

As a result, major disruptions now would be more likely to come from an attempt to reverse globalization than from leaving the current trade regime in place. At this point, millions of decisions about where to put plants, and where to move and take jobs, have been made on the assumption that the open world trading system will continue. Making that assumption false, by raising tariffs and forcing a contraction of world trade, would set off a whole new wave of disruption along with a whole new set of winners and losers.

So while the 1990s consensus on the effect of globalization hasn’t stood the test of time, its shortcomings don’t make a case for protectionism now. We might have done things differently if we had known what was coming, but that’s not a good reason to turn back the clock.

Perot told ya what was coming.

 

[Brain357]

Breitbart can't be trusted and I can't seem to find what he really said. They no doubt made it whatever they wanted him to say.

The link to the original article was literally the SECOND word in the Breitbart article.


Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

Thanks. He does not agree with protectionism:


Does this mean that Trump is right and a trade war would be in the interests of workers hurt by globalization?

No. This answer is based not so much on some rigid commitment to free trade as on the nature of the losses that globalization imposed. The problem with surging globalization wasn’t so much changing demand for labor as the disruption that was caused by some of the most rapid changes in history. Rapid change now appears to be largely behind us: Many indicators suggest that hyperglobalization was a one-time event, and that trade has more or less stabilized relative to world GDP. You can see it leveling off in the first chart above.

As a result, major disruptions now would be more likely to come from an attempt to reverse globalization than from leaving the current trade regime in place. At this point, millions of decisions about where to put plants, and where to move and take jobs, have been made on the assumption that the open world trading system will continue. Making that assumption false, by raising tariffs and forcing a contraction of world trade, would set off a whole new wave of disruption along with a whole new set of winners and losers.

So while the 1990s consensus on the effect of globalization hasn’t stood the test of time, its shortcomings don’t make a case for protectionism now. We might have done things differently if we had known what was coming, but that’s not a good reason to turn back the clock.

Perot told ya what was coming.

Im curious what he said.

 

[Fueri]

Breitbart can't be trusted and I can't seem to find what he really said. They no doubt made it whatever they wanted him to say.

The link to the original article was literally the SECOND word in the Breitbart article.


Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

Thanks. He does not agree with protectionism:


Does this mean that Trump is right and a trade war would be in the interests of workers hurt by globalization?

No. This answer is based not so much on some rigid commitment to free trade as on the nature of the losses that globalization imposed. The problem with surging globalization wasn’t so much changing demand for labor as the disruption that was caused by some of the most rapid changes in history. Rapid change now appears to be largely behind us: Many indicators suggest that hyperglobalization was a one-time event, and that trade has more or less stabilized relative to world GDP. You can see it leveling off in the first chart above.

As a result, major disruptions now would be more likely to come from an attempt to reverse globalization than from leaving the current trade regime in place. At this point, millions of decisions about where to put plants, and where to move and take jobs, have been made on the assumption that the open world trading system will continue. Making that assumption false, by raising tariffs and forcing a contraction of world trade, would set off a whole new wave of disruption along with a whole new set of winners and losers.

So while the 1990s consensus on the effect of globalization hasn’t stood the test of time, its shortcomings don’t make a case for protectionism now. We might have done things differently if we had known what was coming, but that’s not a good reason to turn back the clock.

Perot told ya what was coming.

Yep "Giant Suckin' Sound". Hit the nail right on the head.

Here in the debate with Bush and Clinton he lays it out and is dead nuts right.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Breitbart can't be trusted and I can't seem to find what he really said. They no doubt made it whatever they wanted him to say.

The link to the original article was literally the SECOND word in the Breitbart article.


Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

Thanks. He does not agree with protectionism:


Does this mean that Trump is right and a trade war would be in the interests of workers hurt by globalization?

No. This answer is based not so much on some rigid commitment to free trade as on the nature of the losses that globalization imposed. The problem with surging globalization wasn’t so much changing demand for labor as the disruption that was caused by some of the most rapid changes in history. Rapid change now appears to be largely behind us: Many indicators suggest that hyperglobalization was a one-time event, and that trade has more or less stabilized relative to world GDP. You can see it leveling off in the first chart above.

As a result, major disruptions now would be more likely to come from an attempt to reverse globalization than from leaving the current trade regime in place. At this point, millions of decisions about where to put plants, and where to move and take jobs, have been made on the assumption that the open world trading system will continue. Making that assumption false, by raising tariffs and forcing a contraction of world trade, would set off a whole new wave of disruption along with a whole new set of winners and losers.

So while the 1990s consensus on the effect of globalization hasn’t stood the test of time, its shortcomings don’t make a case for protectionism now. We might have done things differently if we had known what was coming, but that’s not a good reason to turn back the clock.

Perot told ya what was coming.

Yep "Giant Suckin' Sound". Hit the nail right on the head.

Here in the debate with Bush and Clinton he lays it out and is dead nuts right.

Throw in Chinese harvesting of our industry and he understated the results

 

[Fueri]

Breitbart can't be trusted and I can't seem to find what he really said. They no doubt made it whatever they wanted him to say.

The link to the original article was literally the SECOND word in the Breitbart article.


Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

Thanks. He does not agree with protectionism:


Does this mean that Trump is right and a trade war would be in the interests of workers hurt by globalization?

No. This answer is based not so much on some rigid commitment to free trade as on the nature of the losses that globalization imposed. The problem with surging globalization wasn’t so much changing demand for labor as the disruption that was caused by some of the most rapid changes in history. Rapid change now appears to be largely behind us: Many indicators suggest that hyperglobalization was a one-time event, and that trade has more or less stabilized relative to world GDP. You can see it leveling off in the first chart above.

As a result, major disruptions now would be more likely to come from an attempt to reverse globalization than from leaving the current trade regime in place. At this point, millions of decisions about where to put plants, and where to move and take jobs, have been made on the assumption that the open world trading system will continue. Making that assumption false, by raising tariffs and forcing a contraction of world trade, would set off a whole new wave of disruption along with a whole new set of winners and losers.

So while the 1990s consensus on the effect of globalization hasn’t stood the test of time, its shortcomings don’t make a case for protectionism now. We might have done things differently if we had known what was coming, but that’s not a good reason to turn back the clock.

Perot told ya what was coming.

Yep "Giant Suckin' Sound". Hit the nail right on the head.

Here in the debate with Bush and Clinton he lays it out and is dead nuts right.

Throw in Chinese harvesting of our industry and he understated the results

Yep, that was Clinton's doing and hadn't happened yet.

 

[Brain357]

The link to the original article was literally the SECOND word in the Breitbart article.


Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

Thanks. He does not agree with protectionism:


Does this mean that Trump is right and a trade war would be in the interests of workers hurt by globalization?

No. This answer is based not so much on some rigid commitment to free trade as on the nature of the losses that globalization imposed. The problem with surging globalization wasn’t so much changing demand for labor as the disruption that was caused by some of the most rapid changes in history. Rapid change now appears to be largely behind us: Many indicators suggest that hyperglobalization was a one-time event, and that trade has more or less stabilized relative to world GDP. You can see it leveling off in the first chart above.

As a result, major disruptions now would be more likely to come from an attempt to reverse globalization than from leaving the current trade regime in place. At this point, millions of decisions about where to put plants, and where to move and take jobs, have been made on the assumption that the open world trading system will continue. Making that assumption false, by raising tariffs and forcing a contraction of world trade, would set off a whole new wave of disruption along with a whole new set of winners and losers.

So while the 1990s consensus on the effect of globalization hasn’t stood the test of time, its shortcomings don’t make a case for protectionism now. We might have done things differently if we had known what was coming, but that’s not a good reason to turn back the clock.

Perot told ya what was coming.

Yep "Giant Suckin' Sound". Hit the nail right on the head.

Here in the debate with Bush and Clinton he lays it out and is dead nuts right.

Throw in Chinese harvesting of our industry and he understated the results

Yep, that was Clinton's doing and hadn't happened yet.

Protectionism doesn’t work. Look at the steel tariffs, steel is laying off workers.

 

[Fueri]

Thanks. He does not agree with protectionism:


Does this mean that Trump is right and a trade war would be in the interests of workers hurt by globalization?

No. This answer is based not so much on some rigid commitment to free trade as on the nature of the losses that globalization imposed. The problem with surging globalization wasn’t so much changing demand for labor as the disruption that was caused by some of the most rapid changes in history. Rapid change now appears to be largely behind us: Many indicators suggest that hyperglobalization was a one-time event, and that trade has more or less stabilized relative to world GDP. You can see it leveling off in the first chart above.

As a result, major disruptions now would be more likely to come from an attempt to reverse globalization than from leaving the current trade regime in place. At this point, millions of decisions about where to put plants, and where to move and take jobs, have been made on the assumption that the open world trading system will continue. Making that assumption false, by raising tariffs and forcing a contraction of world trade, would set off a whole new wave of disruption along with a whole new set of winners and losers.

So while the 1990s consensus on the effect of globalization hasn’t stood the test of time, its shortcomings don’t make a case for protectionism now. We might have done things differently if we had known what was coming, but that’s not a good reason to turn back the clock.

Perot told ya what was coming.

Yep "Giant Suckin' Sound". Hit the nail right on the head.

Here in the debate with Bush and Clinton he lays it out and is dead nuts right.

Throw in Chinese harvesting of our industry and he understated the results

Yep, that was Clinton's doing and hadn't happened yet.

Protectionism doesn’t work. Look at the steel tariffs, steel is laying off workers.

I used to believe that, based on economic theory, as well- and I never said anything about advocating total protectionism.

Steel is laying off hundreds of workers, which sucks, obviously. Meanwhile, millions of jobs have been offshored in areas that use that steel and other raw materials to make stuff.

When the World Opened the Gates of China
"On the issue of U.S. manufacturing jobs, critics made the right call. A study by the MIT economist David Autor and colleagues calculated that Chinese competition cost the U.S. some 2.4 million jobs between 1999 and 2011, battering factory towns that made labor-intensive goods."


Some people knew it, including Perot, and predicted exactly what we are seeing now in terms of trade deficit explosion, net impact on jobs here etc:

The High Cost of the China-WTO DealAdministration’s own analysis suggests spiraling deficits, job losses
The High Cost of the China-WTO Deal: Administration’s own analysis suggests spiraling deficits, job losses

There is a lot there and too much to C&P, but it is worth the read.

 

[Supposn]

Manonthestreet & Sparky, regarding globalization and USA's chronic annual trade deficits, refer to Wikipedia's improved trade policy proposal, "Import Certificates”.
Refer to: Import certificates - Wikipedia

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Brain357]

Perot told ya what was coming.

Yep "Giant Suckin' Sound". Hit the nail right on the head.

Here in the debate with Bush and Clinton he lays it out and is dead nuts right.

Throw in Chinese harvesting of our industry and he understated the results

Yep, that was Clinton's doing and hadn't happened yet.

Protectionism doesn’t work. Look at the steel tariffs, steel is laying off workers.

I used to believe that, based on economic theory, as well- and I never said anything about advocating total protectionism.

Steel is laying off hundreds of workers, which sucks, obviously. Meanwhile, millions of jobs have been offshored in areas that use that steel and other raw materials to make stuff.

When the World Opened the Gates of China
"On the issue of U.S. manufacturing jobs, critics made the right call. A study by the MIT economist David Autor and colleagues calculated that Chinese competition cost the U.S. some 2.4 million jobs between 1999 and 2011, battering factory towns that made labor-intensive goods."


Some people knew it, including Perot, and predicted exactly what we are seeing now in terms of trade deficit explosion, net impact on jobs here etc:

The High Cost of the China-WTO DealAdministration’s own analysis suggests spiraling deficits, job losses
The High Cost of the China-WTO Deal: Administration’s own analysis suggests spiraling deficits, job losses

There is a lot there and too much to C&P, but it is worth the read.

We have tons of wealth and really low unemployment, Our issues are more with wage collusion, monopolies, right to work laws, non compete agreements... everything has moved against the workers.

 

[Supposn]

You all, Import Certificates, the superior proposed trade policy significantly reduces, (if not entirely eliminates) its nation's annual trade deficits of goods. A trade deficit nation's annual trade balance, regardless of their annual GDP, reduced that GDP more than otherwise. Annual trade deficits are particularly net detrimental to their nation's aggregate job's and their wages.

Import Certificate policy is of at advantage to any nation that would otherwise experience annual trade deficits. USA has experienced annual trade deficits in excess of the past half century.

The substantially market driven policy does not discriminate among industries, enterprises, or foreign nations. IC policy, as do most other than pure free trade policies, is consequentially entirely funded by USA purchasers of imported goods. Unlike less superior policies, if additional costs to USA purchasers reflect more than federal expenses due to the policy, those additional expenses indirectly but effectively serve as price subsidies for USA's exports.

Refer to Wikipedia's improved trade policy proposal,
“Import Certificates”, Import certificates - Wikipedia

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Brain357]

You all, Import Certificates, the superior proposed trade policy significantly reduces, (if not entirely eliminates) its nation's annual trade deficits of goods. A trade deficit nation's annual trade balance, regardless of their annual GDP, reduced that GDP more than otherwise. Annual trade deficits are particularly net detrimental to their nation's aggregate job's and their wages.

Import Certificate policy is of at advantage to any nation that would otherwise experience annual trade deficits. USA has experienced annual trade deficits in excess of the past half century.

The substantially market driven policy does not discriminate among industries, enterprises, or foreign nations. IC policy, as do most other than pure free trade policies, is consequentially entirely funded by USA purchasers of imported goods. Unlike less superior policies, if additional costs to USA purchasers reflect more than federal expenses due to the policy, those additional expenses indirectly bur effectively serve as price subsidies for USA's exports.

Refer to Wikipedia's improved trade policy proposal,
“Import Certificates”, Import certificates - Wikipedia

Respectfully, Supposn

That is certainly an interesting idea.