It appears that Mr. Krugman has morphed into one of those Very Serious People at whom he was always poking fun. And right quick, too.
> On Mar 11, 2016, at 8:02 AM, Robert Naiman <nai...@justforeignpolicy.org> > wrote: > > Poor Krugman. He was against the TPP until Sanders was against it. > > > > > Robert Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org <http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/> > nai...@justforeignpolicy.org <mailto:nai...@justforeignpolicy.org> > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 8:53 AM, Louis Proyect <l...@panix.com > <mailto:l...@panix.com>> wrote: > NY Times Op-Ed, Mar. 11 2016 > Trade and Tribulation > by Paul Krugman > > Why did Bernie Sanders win a narrow victory in Michigan, when polls > showed Hillary Clinton with a huge lead? Nobody really knows, but > there’s a lot of speculation that Mr. Sanders may have gained traction > by hammering on the evils of trade agreements. Meanwhile, Donald Trump, > while directing most of his fire against immigrants, has also been > bashing the supposedly unfair trading practices of China and other nations. > > So, has the protectionist moment finally arrived? Maybe, maybe not: > There are other possible explanations for Michigan, and free-traders > have repeatedly cried wolf about protectionist waves that never > materialized. Still, this time could be different. And if protectionism > really is becoming an important political force, how should reasonable > people — economists and others — respond? > > To make sense of the debate over trade, there are three things you need > to know. > > The first is that we have gotten to where we are — a largely free-trade > world — through a generations-long process of international diplomacy, > going all the way back to F.D.R. This process combines a series of quid > pro quos — I’ll open my markets if you open yours — with rules to > prevent backsliding. > > The second is that protectionists almost always exaggerate the adverse > effects of trade liberalization. Globalization is only one of several > factors behind rising income inequality, and trade agreements are, in > turn, only one factor in globalization. Trade deficits have been an > important cause of the decline in U.S. manufacturing employment since > 2000, but that decline began much earlier. And even our trade deficits > are mainly a result of factors other than trade policy, like a strong > dollar buoyed by global capital looking for a safe haven. > > And yes, Mr. Sanders is demagoguing the issue, for example with a > Twitter post linking the decline of Detroit, which began in the 1960s > and has had very little to do with trade liberalization, to “Hillary > Clinton’s free-trade policies.” > > That said, not all free-trade advocates are paragons of intellectual > honesty. In fact, the elite case for ever-freer trade, the one that the > public hears, is largely a scam. That’s true even if you exclude the > most egregious nonsense, like Mitt Romney’s claim that protectionism > causes recessions. What you hear, all too often, are claims that trade > is an engine of job creation, that trade agreements will have big > payoffs in terms of economic growth and that they are good for everyone. > > Yet what the models of international trade used by real experts say is > that, in general, agreements that lead to more trade neither create nor > destroy jobs; that they usually make countries more efficient and > richer, but that the numbers aren’t huge; and that they can easily > produce losers as well as winners. In principle the overall gains mean > that the winners could compensate the losers, so that everyone gains. In > practice, especially given the scorched-earth obstructionism of the > G.O.P., that’s not going to happen. > > Why, then, did we ever pursue these agreements? A large part of the > answer is foreign policy: Global trade agreements from the 1940s to the > 1980s were used to bind democratic nations together during the Cold War, > Nafta was used to reward and encourage Mexican reformers, and so on. > > And anyone ragging on about those past deals, like Mr. Trump or Mr. > Sanders, should be asked what, exactly, he proposes doing now. Are they > saying that we should rip up America’s international agreements? Have > they thought about what that would do to our credibility and standing in > the world? > > The most a progressive can responsibly call for, I’d argue, is a > standstill on further deals, or at least a presumption that proposed > deals are guilty unless proved innocent. > > The hard question to deal with here is the Trans-Pacific Partnership, > which the Obama administration has negotiated but Congress hasn’t yet > approved. (I consider myself a soft opponent: It’s not the devil’s work, > but I really wish President Obama hadn’t gone there.) People I respect > in the administration say that it should be considered an existing deal > that should stand; I’d argue that there’s a lot less U.S. credibility at > stake than they claim. > > The larger point in this election season is, however, that politicians > should be honest and realistic about trade, rather than taking cheap > shots. Striking poses is easy; figuring out what we can and should do is > a lot harder. But you know, that’s a would-be president’s job. > > Read Paul Krugman’s blog, The Conscience of a Liberal, and follow him on > Twitter. > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > pen-l@lists.csuchico.edu <mailto:pen-l@lists.csuchico.edu> > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > <https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l> > > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > pen-l@lists.csuchico.edu > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list pen-l@lists.csuchico.edu https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
