Re: (Blinder 2) More on the anti-globalization trend.

On Mar 30, 12:36 pm, alexy <nos...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Russell" <Russell.Mar...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 30, 10:56 am, alexy <nos...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Straydog <a...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I just posted excerpts from a recent WSJ article on Alan Blinder who now
thinks globalization isn't working.

You mean the article that said that "Mr. Blinder... remains an
implacable opponent of tariffs and trade barriers."

Didn't sound to me like he was saying it wasn't working, but rather
was cautioning that the side effects in the form of displacements in
our economy would be much more dramatic than previously thought, and
would require more dramatic solutions than just "retraining programs".
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

Then it isn't working,

Well, if he (Blinder) thinks it isn't working, why would he remain an
implacable opponent of tariffs and trade barriers?

When a drawer slide bracket broke the other
night I didn't get a door knob to fix it, while
last night when I needed a door knob I didn't
buy another drawer slide bracket.


or at least isn't working
for everyone in the way that it was sold to us
said it would.

I think that is more the point he was making. I don't think anyone (of
any credibility) ever said that it would be beneficial for everyone,

That wasn't what they told the public. Anyone who
lost their job would be able to get retrained for
a wonderful new 21st century job. But someone who
is 55 with a high school education isn't going to
be a good candidate to be retrained as a brain
surgeon, assuming there was enough money for the
training programs, which there wasn't.

but Blinder's point, if I read him right, is that those for whom it
will have initial negative effects are a much larger group than
initially thought.

Yes, and things haven't worked out as planned in
Iraq either. And the reaction has been the same
in both cases, that is more of the same plan.
Remember the definition of insanity is doing the
same thing over and over expecting a different
result.


Kinda like a "miracle drug" that was initially reported to have minor
side effects. If it is later determined that there are major serious
side effects, that doesn't mean that the drug doesn't work, but rather
that its use needs to assessed in light of those side effects, and
EFFECTIVE treatments for those side effects need to be developed.
--

Or maybe spend that effort developing a drug that works
and doesn't have side effects instead of rearranging
the deck chairs on the Titanic?

Cheers,
Russell

.

Relevant Pages