The Establishment Rethinks Globalization

The Nation ^ | April 12, 2007 | William Greider

[A. Pole]

The implication is this: If nothing changes in how globalization currently works, Americans will be increasingly exposed to downward pressure on incomes and living standards. "Yes," says Gomory. "There are many ways to look at it, all of which reach the same conclusion."

I ask Gomory what he would say to those who believe this is a just outcome: Americans become less rich, others in the world become less poor. That might be "a reasonable personal choice," he agrees. "But that isn't what the people in this country are being told."

Bump

[expatpat]

Intersting. Wish the article were more concise and incisive, though.

[edcoil]

“Some nations, in other words, do indeed become “losers.” Gomory fears the United States is now one of them”

When you have a government that gives away its people treasures, you should expect to lose. governments cannot do anything except take and that, is evil.

[A. Pole]

Corrected link to the book:

Global Trade and Conflicting National Interests

[what's up]

The Nation?

Be careful. They are as close to commie as you can get.

[the anti-liberal]

More regulation and more taxation.

I'm no expert, but isn't that part of the problem? How about making it easier and more profitable to form and operate a business in the States than overseas?

[cgbg]

The Nation is a lefty mag but this comment about politicians is absolutely correct:

I ask Gomory what he would say to those who believe this is a just outcome: Americans become less rich, others in the world become less poor. That might be "a reasonable personal choice," he agrees. "But that isn't what the people in this country are being told. No one has said to us: 'You're probably a little too rich and these other folks are a little too poor. Why don't we even it out?' Instead, what we usually hear is: 'It's going to be good for everyone. In the long run we're going to get richer with globalization.'"

I support global free trade even though it has negative consequences--but I have no sympathy for our politicians who lie to the American public about it.

The reason I support it btw is that trade is not simply a zero sum game. A stronger world economy will drive the creation of new technologies that will create vast new wealth worldwide.

However, that new wealth will be unequally distributed and there is no assurance that the US will be an overall net gainer in the transaction.

Economics is truly "the dismal science". That is why almost all politicians lie about it.

[A. Pole]

How about making it easier and more profitable to form and operate a business in the States than overseas?

By making USA more like China or India?

[what's up]

However, that new wealth will be unequally distributed and there is no assurance

And what's wrong with unequal "distribution" (the latter a favorite word of Hillary-types? This is the way a capitalist world works.

Assurance? That's the nature of the beast. Risk/reward. Of course there's no assurance. But if American remains competitive and smart it will prosper as a whole. Will every US citizen prosper? No. Not all deserve to.

[A. Pole]

Will every US citizen prosper? No. Not all deserve to.

Perhaps not every American deserves to prosper. But are you treating US citizens the same way as anybody else in the world? Or do you think that being an American confers some special status and privileges?

If you are against preferential treatment of your countrymen, what is the point in having a country? See my tagline.

[rellimpank]

-——b-—

[penowa]

The implication is this: If nothing changes in how globalization currently works, Americans will be increasingly exposed to downward pressure on incomes and living standards. "Yes," says Gomory. "There are many ways to look at it, all of which reach the same conclusion."

Isn't that exactly what the intention of the globalists is and has been since this began? All their other programs are designed to bring the US down to 3rd world status, so why would "free" trade be any different?

[what's up]

But are you treating US citizens the same way as anybody else in the world?

No, our citizens need to be protected under our rule of law...which helps to ensure more freedoms for them than anywhere else in the world.

However, freedom does not guarantee monetary success. Many of our citizens will not take advantage of those freedoms to compete and get ahead, unfortunately, but will moan and whine about how underprivileged they are.

So they will not get wealthy. But the leaders of our society will carry American forward and a rising tide will life all boats in the US of A as usual.

[A. Pole]

No, our citizens need to be protected under our rule of law...which helps to ensure more freedoms for them than anywhere else in the world.

Are you saying that if some place on the Earth has more freedom even for US citizens it is the place to which they should owe more loyalty? And what type of freedom do you have in mind? Freedom to trade and make money?

What do you think about this statement by Thomas Jefferson: "Merchants have no country."?

[HardStarboard]

>>>That could include international rights for workers, which Gomory favors. <<<

Damn...racking my brain to remember where I heard this idea before....something like, ummmm...workers of the world unite!...maybe that was it.

[gcruse]

...bordering on incoherent. But as oxymorons go, “infallible pretensions” is a dandy.

[RockyMtnMan]

And what's wrong with unequal "distribution" (the latter a favorite word of Hillary-types? This is the way a capitalist world works.

Are we talking about Earth? Our largest trading partners are communists and socialists, they will look out for their national interests every time. Do you think they'll kindly point out to us all the mistakes we are making out of the goodness of their hearts?

It's time we start evaluating our goals as a nation and ensure that our "partners" are not taking advantage of our naive and reckless approach to trade. Greed has a tendency to incentivize people to make decisions that are really good for themselves and really bad for everyone else.

Our politicians can be voted out but that doesn't discourage them from making deals that make them or their friends wealthy until then, no matter how bad it is for their constituency. Even if they don't make a buck on the deal now they may have made someone else happy enough to employ them later with a generious salary and perks.

[what's up]

What kind of freedom do I have in mind? Freedom to operate within the rule of law.

Are you saying that if some place on the Earth has more freedom even for US citizens it is the place to which they should owe more loyalty?

If America voted in a Hillary Clinton and ever after went down a road of totalitarianism and communism some other countries might start to look pretty good...even I who now love America might move for the sake of my family and for the sake of freedom.

[what's up]

Our largest trading partners are communists and socialists

Yeah...well that has been the big debate for decades.

Do you isolate commies or do you engage them in trade, thereby forcing them into the capitalist system that they so claim to hate.