Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Oh good. So we can both agree that globalization and free trade increases wealth for poor countries. That is what the empirical evidence suggests.
Oh good. So we can both agree that globalization and free trade increases wealth for poor countries. That is what the empirical evidence suggests.
No, you're simply deluging the thread with everything with any slight relation to the topic at all. I could do that too, of course, but it would make for a ridiculously cluttered thread not suited for specific policy analysis.
Well, since you called me out on the Dollar and Kraay data, it warranted a response.
But, as I posted right above you, globalization and trade has had little to do with rising inequality, regardless of theory. So unless you can post something empirically worthwhile, I'm out.
There is obvious value in delivering greater efficiency gains to those in greatest need of it in the way of marginal utility. Northern countries with a large surplus in efficiency gains can do little with them in the way of necessities, and thus divert their additional assets to commodities, which provide far less utility than do necessities. Hence, if necessities are given to Southern countries before commodities are to Northern countries, this would be in line with acknowledging the diminishing rate of marginal utility that rising surpluses bring to the wealthy.
The effect FREE TRADE has on the former non-industrial nation now becoming industrialiszxe MIGHT or MIGHT NOT work to the benefit of the working classes of that nation.
It seems to be working fairly well for China.
Is it working for the MEXICO?
So that economic model completely IGNORES the effect that the society itself has on the inflow of cash coming from industrialization.
Mexicans in general are NOT better off because of NAFTA.
Meanwhile I see NO ANALYSIS of what FREE TRADE has done to the AMERICAN working class.
Why's that?
The effect FREE TRADE has on the former non-industrial nation now becoming industrialiszxe MIGHT or MIGHT NOT work to the benefit of the working classes of that nation.
It seems to be working fairly well for China.
Is it working for the MEXICO?
So that economic model completely IGNORES the effect that the society itself has on the inflow of cash coming from industrialization.
Mexicans in general are NOT better off because of NAFTA.
Meanwhile I see NO ANALYSIS of what FREE TRADE has done to the AMERICAN working class.
Why's that?
Probably because those who are pushing it are more concerned about their own agenda rather than America continuing to exist as a thriving independent country.
The effect FREE TRADE has on the former non-industrial nation now becoming industrialiszxe MIGHT or MIGHT NOT work to the benefit of the working classes of that nation.
It seems to be working fairly well for China.
Is it working for the MEXICO?
So that economic model completely IGNORES the effect that the society itself has on the inflow of cash coming from industrialization.
Mexicans in general are NOT better off because of NAFTA.
Meanwhile I see NO ANALYSIS of what FREE TRADE has done to the AMERICAN working class.
Why's that?
Probably because those who are pushing it are more concerned about their own agenda rather than America continuing to exist as a thriving independent country.
Yup!
My theory is basically that the masters HATE democracy and fear the American people.
These are the grandchildren (ideologically or heretically, doesn't really matter which) which killed strikers, called in the pinkertons to assassinate union leaders, send children to work in the mines, fought against worker safety, the 40 hour work week, unemployment.
And for some of the tools writing here, those scum are heroic!
There is obvious value in delivering greater efficiency gains to those in greatest need of it in the way of marginal utility. Northern countries with a large surplus in efficiency gains can do little with them in the way of necessities, and thus divert their additional assets to commodities, which provide far less utility than do necessities. Hence, if necessities are given to Southern countries before commodities are to Northern countries, this would be in line with acknowledging the diminishing rate of marginal utility that rising surpluses bring to the wealthy.
EPIC FAIL !
since north is more advanced they have means of utilizing labor units more efficiently than does south. therefore each labor unit is "worth" more in the north than in the south. it is therefore more important to free up units in the north than in the south.
who are you to make assumptions about how these freed up units will be used? why do you assume they will be used to produce gold toilet seats? maybe they will be used to produce breakthrough vaccines?
Not only that, but Agna's assumption is wrong.
There is a reason why emerging countries that have instituted the correct policies grow faster than developed countries. Long-term economic growth is driven primarily by advances in technology, which lower cost curves and frees up resources for other uses. The countries that have been most successful are those that are able to capture technology transfer from the developed to the emerging world. As technologies become commoditized, they move to cheaper locales. To the cheaper locales, they represent a significant improvement to the human capital of the region, and the changes in marginal productivity of labor is higher in the emerging economies than it is in the developed economies since they start at a much lower point. This capture of technology transfer is the main reason (along with participation in global markets since their local markets are immature) why some emerging countries have been able to grow faster than developed nations.
Economic growth is a function of technological advancement. Growth is limited by the bounds of technological knowledge. Advanced economies grow by pushing out the bounds of technology. Emerging economies are far below the bounds of technological advancement. Their growth occurs by moving up to the bounds of the curve. Since they are further below the curve, technology transfer to the emerging market moves them closer to the curve and thus their economy grows at a faster rate.
Probably because those who are pushing it are more concerned about their own agenda rather than America continuing to exist as a thriving independent country.
Yup!
My theory is basically that the masters HATE democracy and fear the American people.
These are the grandchildren (ideologically or heretically, doesn't really matter which) which killed strikers, called in the pinkertons to assassinate union leaders, send children to work in the mines, fought against worker safety, the 40 hour work week, unemployment.
And for some of the tools writing here, those scum are heroic!
Disagree about fearing the people---they already have them in the palm of their hand and keep them there using the media and the myth of the two party system.
since north is more advanced they have means of utilizing labor units more efficiently than does south. therefore each labor unit is "worth" more in the north than in the south. it is therefore more important to free up units in the north than in the south.
who are you to make assumptions about how these freed up units will be used? why do you assume they will be used to produce gold toilet seats? maybe they will be used to produce breakthrough vaccines?
your model proves the opposite of what you think it does. it proves that free trade is more efficient because it frees up resources where they can be most efficiently used.
freeing up resources in the south is pointless. all they can possibly do with the extra people is grow more corn ( that nobody needs ) because that's the only thing they're bright enough to do.
in fact it would probably be optimal to do the OPPOSITE of what your "fair" trade suggests. it would probably be optimal to make sure the ONLY people working are in the south. and all the people in the north are free to develop new vaccines, write music, send satellites into space etc.
because ultimately any progress made in the south is IRRELEVANT as they are merely playing catch up with the north. they are NOT advancing humanity as a whole NOT THE SLIGHTEST BIT. they should be employed 100% growing corn AND building machines while paying LICENSE FEES to the north in form of corn and anything else the north desires.
if north feels charitable they may be nice enough to allow some southern students into its universities.
Not only that, but Agna's assumption is wrong.
There is a reason why emerging countries that have instituted the correct policies grow faster than developed countries. Long-term economic growth is driven primarily by advances in technology, which lower cost curves and frees up resources for other uses. The countries that have been most successful are those that are able to capture technology transfer from the developed to the emerging world. As technologies become commoditized, they move to cheaper locales. To the cheaper locales, they represent a significant improvement to the human capital of the region, and the changes in marginal productivity of labor is higher in the emerging economies than it is in the developed economies since they start at a much lower point. This capture of technology transfer is the main reason (along with participation in global markets since their local markets are immature) why some emerging countries have been able to grow faster than developed nations.
Economic growth is a function of technological advancement. Growth is limited by the bounds of technological knowledge. Advanced economies grow by pushing out the bounds of technology. Emerging economies are far below the bounds of technological advancement. Their growth occurs by moving up to the bounds of the curve. Since they are further below the curve, technology transfer to the emerging market moves them closer to the curve and thus their economy grows at a faster rate.
Almost all of todays rich countries used tariff protection and subsidies to develop their industries. Interestingly, Britain and the USA, the two countries that are supposed to have reached the summit of the world economy through their free-market, free-trade policy, are actually the ones that had most aggressively used protection and subsidies.
That exactly why they work so hard convincing the terminally stupid that the problem is welfare mothers, guns owners, minorities, Whites, males, females, teenagers or...
That exactly why they work so hard convincing the terminally stupid that the problem is welfare mothers, guns owners, minorities, Whites, males, females, teenagers or...
...the terminally stupid?
This is based on a utopian conception of trade policy. Obviously, trade is not limited to "technology transfer," (although I can see why that would function as an attractive commodity for you to selectively describe), but with the intrusion of more established firms and industries with greater knowledge and information about various facets of production and market structure into developing countries. Hence, while quaint references to Ricardo and comparative advantage might have some role in the maximization of static comparative advantage, they will inevitably ignore dynamic comparative advantage and the greater long-term gains (as measured by various utility algorithms, perhaps), promoted by consideration of that latter element of trade.
The entire basis behind the infant industry argument, for instance, relies on the consideration of dynamic comparative advantage maximization that is so woefully neglected by the Washington Consensus and like-minded proponents of neoliberal expansion. The strategic use of interventionism to protect the stability and growth of infant industries is the entire basis behind the development of the current capitalist powers of the world that today disavow that approach for developing countries. As noted in Chang's Kicking Away the Ladder:
Almost all of today’s rich countries used tariff protection and subsidies to develop their industries. Interestingly, Britain and the USA, the two countries that are supposed to have reached the summit of the world economy through their free-market, free-trade policy, are actually the ones that had most aggressively used protection and subsidies.
As to the remainder of your posts, I've decided to refrain from imitating you and adopting the good ole' copy and paste flood, which is why I've attempted to stay on topic. I shall endeavor to examine your posts and their selective incorporation of largely irrelevant data, of course, but it would be thrilling to all involved if you'd manage to fully respond to the criticisms of Dollar and Kraay instead of just claiming one single criticism rebutted by referring to a book that the rest of us don't have access to, and failing to expound on the specific elements of the "rebuttal."
