Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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.
Yes but good things also come from trade. We need to change our laws to work for workers. Currently they favor the employer.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.Protectionism doesn’t work. Look at the steel tariffs, steel is laying off workers.Throw in Chinese harvesting of our industry and he understated the results
Yep, that was Clinton's doing and hadn't happened yet.
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.
Those are factors also. There is little doubt, however, that the world labor market established by these agreements is also working against workers, as they are competing with workers making a fraction of what they do.
Yes but good things also come from trade. We need to change our laws to work for workers. Currently they favor the employer.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.Protectionism doesn’t work. Look at the steel tariffs, steel is laying off workers.Yep, that was Clinton's doing and hadn't happened yet.
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.
Those are factors also. There is little doubt, however, that the world labor market established by these agreements is also working against workers, as they are competing with workers making a fraction of what they do.
Economics doesn't favor the employer, crony capitalism does. Workers need to demand these things get fixed, the wealthy have been getting richer due to cronyism.Yes but good things also come from trade. We need to change our laws to work for workers. Currently they favor the employer.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.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.
Those are factors also. There is little doubt, however, that the world labor market established by these agreements is also working against workers, as they are competing with workers making a fraction of what they do.
Well sure. Problem is that economics in general favors the employer. They write the checks, they pull the strings on both their employees and Washington DC. They have the power. This was good for them and continues to be, so they have no desire to see any of it changed. For workers, not so much.
Maybe in 50-60 years, (the link I posted earlier indicated this is how long it would take for the trade gap to narrow/close, so I'm going with that for argument's sake, as really who knows) all of this will balance out. Maybe it will happen, although there were a lot of assumptions there on terms of how China would act once part of the WTO that simply aren't happening either.
The politicians that sold this knew what the real fallout was likely going to be. The data was there, they knew and opted to lie to sell it to the American people. Had they told the actual truth nobody in their right minds would have agreed to it, which they also knew. George HW Bush, Bill Clinton, I'm looking at you.
Economics doesn't favor the employer, crony capitalism does. Workers need to demand these things get fixed, the wealthy have been getting richer due to cronyism.Yes but good things also come from trade. We need to change our laws to work for workers. Currently they favor the employer.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.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.
Those are factors also. There is little doubt, however, that the world labor market established by these agreements is also working against workers, as they are competing with workers making a fraction of what they do.
Well sure. Problem is that economics in general favors the employer. They write the checks, they pull the strings on both their employees and Washington DC. They have the power. This was good for them and continues to be, so they have no desire to see any of it changed. For workers, not so much.
Maybe in 50-60 years, (the link I posted earlier indicated this is how long it would take for the trade gap to narrow/close, so I'm going with that for argument's sake, as really who knows) all of this will balance out. Maybe it will happen, although there were a lot of assumptions there on terms of how China would act once part of the WTO that simply aren't happening either.
The politicians that sold this knew what the real fallout was likely going to be. The data was there, they knew and opted to lie to sell it to the American people. Had they told the actual truth nobody in their right minds would have agreed to it, which they also knew. George HW Bush, Bill Clinton, I'm looking at you.
Maybe you are using the wrong term. Economics is the study of production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services. Economics isn't any particular way to run an economy.Economics doesn't favor the employer, crony capitalism does. Workers need to demand these things get fixed, the wealthy have been getting richer due to cronyism.Yes but good things also come from trade. We need to change our laws to work for workers. Currently they favor the employer.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.
Those are factors also. There is little doubt, however, that the world labor market established by these agreements is also working against workers, as they are competing with workers making a fraction of what they do.
Well sure. Problem is that economics in general favors the employer. They write the checks, they pull the strings on both their employees and Washington DC. They have the power. This was good for them and continues to be, so they have no desire to see any of it changed. For workers, not so much.
Maybe in 50-60 years, (the link I posted earlier indicated this is how long it would take for the trade gap to narrow/close, so I'm going with that for argument's sake, as really who knows) all of this will balance out. Maybe it will happen, although there were a lot of assumptions there on terms of how China would act once part of the WTO that simply aren't happening either.
The politicians that sold this knew what the real fallout was likely going to be. The data was there, they knew and opted to lie to sell it to the American people. Had they told the actual truth nobody in their right minds would have agreed to it, which they also knew. George HW Bush, Bill Clinton, I'm looking at you.
Of course economics favor the employer relative to the employee.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...017428-c42f-11e4-ad5c-3b8ce89f1b89_story.html
"As former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers put it recently “The consensus view now is that trade and globalization have meaningfully increased inequality in the U.S. by allowing more earning opportunities for those at the top and exposing ordinary workers to more competition, especially in manufacturing.”"
Trade agreements create more economic opportunity for employers than workers. That seems fairly logical.
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...
Maybe you are using the wrong term. Economics is the study of production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services. Economics isn't any particular way to run an economy.Economics doesn't favor the employer, crony capitalism does. Workers need to demand these things get fixed, the wealthy have been getting richer due to cronyism.Yes but good things also come from trade. We need to change our laws to work for workers. Currently they favor the employer.Those are factors also. There is little doubt, however, that the world labor market established by these agreements is also working against workers, as they are competing with workers making a fraction of what they do.
Well sure. Problem is that economics in general favors the employer. They write the checks, they pull the strings on both their employees and Washington DC. They have the power. This was good for them and continues to be, so they have no desire to see any of it changed. For workers, not so much.
Maybe in 50-60 years, (the link I posted earlier indicated this is how long it would take for the trade gap to narrow/close, so I'm going with that for argument's sake, as really who knows) all of this will balance out. Maybe it will happen, although there were a lot of assumptions there on terms of how China would act once part of the WTO that simply aren't happening either.
The politicians that sold this knew what the real fallout was likely going to be. The data was there, they knew and opted to lie to sell it to the American people. Had they told the actual truth nobody in their right minds would have agreed to it, which they also knew. George HW Bush, Bill Clinton, I'm looking at you.
Of course economics favor the employer relative to the employee.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...017428-c42f-11e4-ad5c-3b8ce89f1b89_story.html
"As former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers put it recently “The consensus view now is that trade and globalization have meaningfully increased inequality in the U.S. by allowing more earning opportunities for those at the top and exposing ordinary workers to more competition, especially in manufacturing.”"
Trade agreements create more economic opportunity for employers than workers. That seems fairly logical.
Ours certainly does, and that's because of all the corruption. I don't agree that globalization is bad for workers, certainly Chinese workers have done well with globalization. We would also be doing fine without the corruption. But our corrupt government has allowed non competes, right to work laws, corporations to become monopolies, wage collusion....Maybe you are using the wrong term. Economics is the study of production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services. Economics isn't any particular way to run an economy.Economics doesn't favor the employer, crony capitalism does. Workers need to demand these things get fixed, the wealthy have been getting richer due to cronyism.Yes but good things also come from trade. We need to change our laws to work for workers. Currently they favor the employer.
Well sure. Problem is that economics in general favors the employer. They write the checks, they pull the strings on both their employees and Washington DC. They have the power. This was good for them and continues to be, so they have no desire to see any of it changed. For workers, not so much.
Maybe in 50-60 years, (the link I posted earlier indicated this is how long it would take for the trade gap to narrow/close, so I'm going with that for argument's sake, as really who knows) all of this will balance out. Maybe it will happen, although there were a lot of assumptions there on terms of how China would act once part of the WTO that simply aren't happening either.
The politicians that sold this knew what the real fallout was likely going to be. The data was there, they knew and opted to lie to sell it to the American people. Had they told the actual truth nobody in their right minds would have agreed to it, which they also knew. George HW Bush, Bill Clinton, I'm looking at you.
Of course economics favor the employer relative to the employee.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...017428-c42f-11e4-ad5c-3b8ce89f1b89_story.html
"As former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers put it recently “The consensus view now is that trade and globalization have meaningfully increased inequality in the U.S. by allowing more earning opportunities for those at the top and exposing ordinary workers to more competition, especially in manufacturing.”"
Trade agreements create more economic opportunity for employers than workers. That seems fairly logical.
Fine, the economic system favors employers over workers.
The economic system as influenced by globalization even more so.
Ours certainly does, and that's because of all the corruption. I don't agree that globalization is bad for workers, certainly Chinese workers have done well with globalization. We would also be doing fine without the corruption. But our corrupt government has allowed non competes, right to work laws, corporations to become monopolies, wage collusion....Maybe you are using the wrong term. Economics is the study of production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services. Economics isn't any particular way to run an economy.Economics doesn't favor the employer, crony capitalism does. Workers need to demand these things get fixed, the wealthy have been getting richer due to cronyism.Well sure. Problem is that economics in general favors the employer. They write the checks, they pull the strings on both their employees and Washington DC. They have the power. This was good for them and continues to be, so they have no desire to see any of it changed. For workers, not so much.
Maybe in 50-60 years, (the link I posted earlier indicated this is how long it would take for the trade gap to narrow/close, so I'm going with that for argument's sake, as really who knows) all of this will balance out. Maybe it will happen, although there were a lot of assumptions there on terms of how China would act once part of the WTO that simply aren't happening either.
The politicians that sold this knew what the real fallout was likely going to be. The data was there, they knew and opted to lie to sell it to the American people. Had they told the actual truth nobody in their right minds would have agreed to it, which they also knew. George HW Bush, Bill Clinton, I'm looking at you.
Of course economics favor the employer relative to the employee.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...017428-c42f-11e4-ad5c-3b8ce89f1b89_story.html
"As former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers put it recently “The consensus view now is that trade and globalization have meaningfully increased inequality in the U.S. by allowing more earning opportunities for those at the top and exposing ordinary workers to more competition, especially in manufacturing.”"
Trade agreements create more economic opportunity for employers than workers. That seems fairly logical.
Fine, the economic system favors employers over workers.
The economic system as influenced by globalization even more so.
I think that's a harder sell than you think, look at the unemployment rate. We have plenty of jobs and plenty of wealth. Corruption only thing keeping workers from getting paid.Ours certainly does, and that's because of all the corruption. I don't agree that globalization is bad for workers, certainly Chinese workers have done well with globalization. We would also be doing fine without the corruption. But our corrupt government has allowed non competes, right to work laws, corporations to become monopolies, wage collusion....Maybe you are using the wrong term. Economics is the study of production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services. Economics isn't any particular way to run an economy.Economics doesn't favor the employer, crony capitalism does. Workers need to demand these things get fixed, the wealthy have been getting richer due to cronyism.
Of course economics favor the employer relative to the employee.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...017428-c42f-11e4-ad5c-3b8ce89f1b89_story.html
"As former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers put it recently “The consensus view now is that trade and globalization have meaningfully increased inequality in the U.S. by allowing more earning opportunities for those at the top and exposing ordinary workers to more competition, especially in manufacturing.”"
Trade agreements create more economic opportunity for employers than workers. That seems fairly logical.
Fine, the economic system favors employers over workers.
The economic system as influenced by globalization even more so.
Well, maybe, although its a pretty straight line from the availability of cheap labor elswhere to pressure on labor here, with or without corruption.
I think that's a harder sell than you think, look at the unemployment rate. We have plenty of jobs and plenty of wealth. Corruption only thing keeping workers from getting paid.Ours certainly does, and that's because of all the corruption. I don't agree that globalization is bad for workers, certainly Chinese workers have done well with globalization. We would also be doing fine without the corruption. But our corrupt government has allowed non competes, right to work laws, corporations to become monopolies, wage collusion....Maybe you are using the wrong term. Economics is the study of production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services. Economics isn't any particular way to run an economy.Of course economics favor the employer relative to the employee.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...017428-c42f-11e4-ad5c-3b8ce89f1b89_story.html
"As former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers put it recently “The consensus view now is that trade and globalization have meaningfully increased inequality in the U.S. by allowing more earning opportunities for those at the top and exposing ordinary workers to more competition, especially in manufacturing.”"
Trade agreements create more economic opportunity for employers than workers. That seems fairly logical.
Fine, the economic system favors employers over workers.
The economic system as influenced by globalization even more so.
Well, maybe, although its a pretty straight line from the availability of cheap labor elswhere to pressure on labor here, with or without corruption.
All the reasons I give are new. Non compete agreements are a newer thing. Our companies didn’t used to have near monopolies. Right to work laws are a new thing. The corruption didn’t use to be so blatantly against workers.I think that's a harder sell than you think, look at the unemployment rate. We have plenty of jobs and plenty of wealth. Corruption only thing keeping workers from getting paid.Ours certainly does, and that's because of all the corruption. I don't agree that globalization is bad for workers, certainly Chinese workers have done well with globalization. We would also be doing fine without the corruption. But our corrupt government has allowed non competes, right to work laws, corporations to become monopolies, wage collusion....Maybe you are using the wrong term. Economics is the study of production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services. Economics isn't any particular way to run an economy.
Fine, the economic system favors employers over workers.
The economic system as influenced by globalization even more so.
Well, maybe, although its a pretty straight line from the availability of cheap labor elswhere to pressure on labor here, with or without corruption.
Corruption isn't new so it doesn't wash for me that suddenly this is the drag on wage growth rate.
Thanks. He does not agree with protectionism: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?
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 & 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
Died? He says they were wrong about how much trade there would be. And this increased inequality. Well you are a republican, you guys love growing inequality. You should be happy. Thank the republican war on unions that made buying foreign goods ok.Thanks. He does not agree with protectionism: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?
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.
Where does he apologize to all the people he poo pooed over the last 30 years?
He admits that they would have done things differently?
PEOPLE FUCKING DIED, BECAUSE OF HIS FUCKING MISTAKES.
And we are supposed to just stay the fucking course? And how about some accountability on the people who are responsible?
He has admitted that he was wrong. He was so sure for so long, and people listened to him, and people died, and now we are supposed to keep listening to him?
FUCKING WHY?
Died? He says they were wrong about how much trade there would be. And this increased inequality. Well you are a republican, you guys love growing inequality. You should be happy. Thank the republican war on unions that made buying foreign goods ok.Thanks. He does not agree with protectionism: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?
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.
Where does he apologize to all the people he poo pooed over the last 30 years?
He admits that they would have done things differently?
PEOPLE FUCKING DIED, BECAUSE OF HIS FUCKING MISTAKES.
And we are supposed to just stay the fucking course? And how about some accountability on the people who are responsible?
He has admitted that he was wrong. He was so sure for so long, and people listened to him, and people died, and now we are supposed to keep listening to him?
FUCKING WHY?
You are quite the drama queen today. You better go relax. People lose jobs all the time and not for trade reasons.Died? He says they were wrong about how much trade there would be. And this increased inequality. Well you are a republican, you guys love growing inequality. You should be happy. Thank the republican war on unions that made buying foreign goods ok.Thanks. He does not agree with protectionism: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?
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.
Where does he apologize to all the people he poo pooed over the last 30 years?
He admits that they would have done things differently?
PEOPLE FUCKING DIED, BECAUSE OF HIS FUCKING MISTAKES.
And we are supposed to just stay the fucking course? And how about some accountability on the people who are responsible?
He has admitted that he was wrong. He was so sure for so long, and people listened to him, and people died, and now we are supposed to keep listening to him?
FUCKING WHY?
Yes, died. Are you going to fucking ask me how economic pain and job losses, means people died? Are you going to be that fucking dishonest?
I assume you are mad about the trump steel tariffs? People are being laid off after his tariffs. US steel stock is down 80%.Died? He says they were wrong about how much trade there would be. And this increased inequality. Well you are a republican, you guys love growing inequality. You should be happy. Thank the republican war on unions that made buying foreign goods ok.Thanks. He does not agree with protectionism: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?
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.
Where does he apologize to all the people he poo pooed over the last 30 years?
He admits that they would have done things differently?
PEOPLE FUCKING DIED, BECAUSE OF HIS FUCKING MISTAKES.
And we are supposed to just stay the fucking course? And how about some accountability on the people who are responsible?
He has admitted that he was wrong. He was so sure for so long, and people listened to him, and people died, and now we are supposed to keep listening to him?
FUCKING WHY?
Yes, died. Are you going to fucking ask me how economic pain and job losses, means people died? Are you going to be that fucking dishonest?
You are quite the drama queen today. You better go relax. People lose jobs all the time and not for trade reasons.Died? He says they were wrong about how much trade there would be. And this increased inequality. Well you are a republican, you guys love growing inequality. You should be happy. Thank the republican war on unions that made buying foreign goods ok.Thanks. He does not agree with protectionism:The link to the original article was literally the SECOND word in the Breitbart article.
Bloomberg - Are you a robot?
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.
Where does he apologize to all the people he poo pooed over the last 30 years?
He admits that they would have done things differently?
PEOPLE FUCKING DIED, BECAUSE OF HIS FUCKING MISTAKES.
And we are supposed to just stay the fucking course? And how about some accountability on the people who are responsible?
He has admitted that he was wrong. He was so sure for so long, and people listened to him, and people died, and now we are supposed to keep listening to him?
FUCKING WHY?
Yes, died. Are you going to fucking ask me how economic pain and job losses, means people died? Are you going to be that fucking dishonest?
