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

"Russell" <Russell.Martin@xxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mar 31, 12:29 pm, alexy <nos...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Straydog <a...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Fri, 30 Mar 2007, alexy 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."

Looks like you missed the forest for the trees.

No. You missed the point. Ever play the "whispering game" as a child,
where something is whispered through a chain of people, and the end
result compared to the original. That seems to be what is happening
here. You are putting your twist on what Wassel (who appears to be a
Lou Dobbs wannabe) has put forth as his twist of what Blinder said.

If Blinder thinks globalization isn't working, why would he oppose
tariffs and trade barriers? Think about that one a second. Then
speculate on what might be a better characterization of his position,
considering his opposition to anything that would curtail
globalization. Might it have been more accurate to say that Blinder
now thinks the negative effects of globalization are much worse than
previously thought?

Russell responded with an analogy to door knobs and drawer slides, but
I didn't follow the analogy.

Please, I don't think you're that dense, but I'll
explain further. One uses use the proper tool or
part for the job in which it will work successfully.
It is generally much easier and works much better
than using a part meant for some other purpose. I
could have screwed a door knob onto the back of the
cabinet and epoxied the drawer slide to it, and
screwed the slide support bracket to the door and
pulled on it instead of a door knob to open the
door, but neither solution would have worked nearly
as well as using the proper part for fixing each
problem.
No, that part was very obvious. What is not so obvious is how it fits
with a statement that he is against anything to inhibit (tariffs in
one form or another) or prevent (barriers) global trade, but is also
against global trade.

Do you or Russell think it is possible to
oppose globalization while not imposing tariffs or trade barriers?
How? You might camouflage tariffs or trade barriers, but I don't see
how you oppose globalization without putting some restrictions on it.
--

I can't read minds, but perhaps Blinder doesn't
think tariffs or trade barriers will work.
I suspect you are right, which is why I suspect that a statement that
he is now against globalization is not true.

As for
what will work, until they make me Secretary of
Commerce or Treasury that's for someone else to
figure out. There is an old saying, when all you
have is a hammer, everything starts to look like
a nail. We may need a new tool, and if Blinder
is wise enough to realize that and not see
everything as a nail, he's wiser than most of
our "leaders" today.

I highly suspect that if he thought there was another tool, and was
against globalization, he would be promoting that tool heavily.

Here's an interesting discussion, including clarification from
Blinder: http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/politics/index.html

:This doesn't mean we shouldn't worry about trade. But it does mean that the
:right reasons to worry about trade are relatively specific and relatively
:small in number.
:
:I see four reasons:
:
: * First, we can worry about trade because we can worry about what trade
: does to our income distribution: perhaps we would be happier with
: our income distribution and assess ourselves as having a higher level
: of social welfare if we made some of the things we import at home and
: didn't make some of the things we export--even though each of our
: imports and exports makes narrow profit-and-loss getting-and-spending
: sense.
: * Second, we can worry about trade because we worry about what trade does
: to external benefits from productive activity that boost growth: perhaps
: we would grow faster and become richer if we made some of the things we
: import at home and didn't make some of the things we export--because
: making some things produces increased worker skills and technological
: knowledge through unpriced, un-accounted for channels.
: * Third, we can worry about trade to the extent that it amplifies the ability
: of our dysfunctional government to dysfunction: the ability to borrow
: from abroad to cover deficits may diminish the pressure on feckless
: politicians and their supporters to deal responsibly with fiscal policy.
: * Fourth, we can agree that increased trade is good for the nation, yet
: believe that government has to play an active and aggressive role in
: providing social insurance and a measure of compensation to those ground
: exceedingly fine by the mills of globalization--and outsourcing/offshoring
: are likely to cause bigger changes and more disruption than anything we
: have seen to date.
:
:It is not clear which of these reasons is behind Alan Blinder's current worries
:on outsourcing and offshoring.
<snip>
:
:But I don't know what worries Alan most. I should ask him for clarification...
:
:UPDATE: Alan writes: of course it's number 4!

Sounds to me like someone who says there are serious problems brought
about by globalization, not someone who says it is not working.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
.

Relevant Pages