« nobel ned is a babbit bitch | | vickrey »
fed up
"....Those who lose their jobs in advanced countries from this opening of markets deserve our sympathy and our support to find new jobs, but displaced workers can be assisted in other ways than trade restrictions....."
Translation:
The standard of living of American working people must be sacrificed to improve the standard of living in underdeveloped countries.
We must sacrifice enought to make up for the corruption and incompetence of the leaders in those countries.
But we do get to buy cheap sneakers at Wal-Mart.
Am I being too cycnical?Posted by: save_the_rustbelt | Oct 9, 2006 1:39:16 PM
rusty
please
you know
its trans nat profits driving
this process
not
a desire to lift emergers wages
by lowering ours
thus
my paraphrase:"The standard of living of American working people
unfortunately
must be sacrificed
to improve
the standard of profit
of our own
over-developed trans national corporations"i bet lots of these tower titans
and their minions like this fedskin here
have a humane side
and
encourage their wives and daughters
to join goo goo outfits
that might even slightly comp
10% of
the world victims
of
this wage rate arbitragePosted by: slink/js paine | Oct 9, 2006 2:28:44 PM
progress
is building stuff with less total labor content
not finding cheaper labor so it just costs the corporation less to producetrans nat profits may well advance china
(btw there are better ways to do that too)
but it retards cutting edge
technical progress globallyin fact why save laborwhy automate production
when its so cheap at the margin
to do it the same way (or worse)
in china and risklessly increase global profits
by even more then by technical progressPosted by: slink/js paine | Oct 9, 2006 2:39:30 PM
mobilizing capital while and immobilizing labor
is shooting fish in a barrelPosted by: slink/js paine | Oct 9, 2006 2:40:46 PM
The column is foolishly insensitive and the response is as blindly foolish. Republicans are simply incapable of understanding that it is possible to have and that we should have a labor supporting domestic policy that does not involve destroying trade relations. Trade is not the problem, but lack of support for American workers is a continual problem. This will change when Republicans are no longer politically dominant.
Posted by: anne | Oct 9, 2006 3:13:57 PM
This'll likely be my last post here. It's made for your benefit. Anyone who's taken time to read through my philosophy book should know that.
First of all, in the article, this rosy, progress is good, modernization is good, the West has all the answers to cure the world's problem, spaceships to the stars, and the galaxy beyond to colonize, and, bring us into the next great age of some golden globalized comfort... When was the first great age of economy? I've read all the history I can lay my hands on, and things have never been "great". They've always kinda been greed and war are good for the economy, and, the only good Indian is a dead Indian.
During the current era of "modernization" (the one dumping American jobs overseas) the disparity between rich and poor has grown in both China and India, Taiwan and Thailand, and, even in Mexico. Poverty, starvation, pestilence, pollution, militancy, bigotry, and populations have all increased, just as the mean qualitiy of life, the quality of the environment, the potential for future generations, and the outlook for peace in these regions has clearly diminished, and, worse than the diminishment going on in the U.S. about which other posters here are quite aware.
This rosy picture painted by this Washington social climber author is so unrealistic, it's sadistic in it's sure hidden-agenda of personal agrandizement with a brown-nosed smile meant for his future and now new employer.
No one, I hope no one believes any of this crap about making things better in these countries. Yes, for a few corrupted individuals at the expense of many more. (We're shown budding entrepreneurs overseas repeatedly, but that's not the real story at all. It's a propaganda lie like the propaganda-ads you see on Lehrer's NewsHour.)
The only economic message worth selling today is sustainability.
These messages that are meaningful should entirely abandon the use of the words "progress", "Globalization" and phrases like "income per capita" and "reduction of poverty", which have become mere catch phrases for continuance on the path toward "progress" and "Globalization".
I'm optimistic over the long run.
I'm optimistic because the terrorists will likely win as long as their opposition is the "progress" and "Globalization" groups they assail for their lack of touch with reality.
Best-
Don Robertson, Philosopher
Limestone, MaineAn Illustrated Philosophy Primer for Young Readers
Precious Life - Empirical Knowledge
The Grand Unifying Theory & The Theory of Time
http://www.geocities.com/donaldwrobertson/index.html
Art Auctions:
http://www.artbyus.com/auctions.php?a=6&b=4807Posted by: Don Robertson | Oct 9, 2006 3:55:09 PM
"the response is as blindly foolish."
please anne what have i done to deserve such a harsh response
ps gets me thinking so keep it up
Posted by: slink | Oct 9, 2006 5:18:46 PM
Absolutely nothing, I quite agree with you and should have made that clear:
"mobilizing capital while and immobilizing labor
is shooting fish in a barrel"Slink
Posted by: anne | Oct 9, 2006 5:29:52 PM
What I keep pushing at is getting any reasonable conservatives, there may be some, to pay attention to historical or possible domestic labor policy, rather than think simply limiting a trade market is an answer to labor's significant complaints.
Notice this dreadful column contains a rationale not just for setting aside any labor policy here, but any in developing trade partners. The rationale is william Easterley's dreadful conclusion that beyond open markets there is nothing to be done in developing countries in the way of assistance that will be effective. Phooey.
Posted by: anne | Oct 9, 2006 5:39:19 PM
STR writes a complaint that lacks any acknowledgement that Frederic Mishkin has as little concern and as much condescension for American workers as for workers in developing countries. The problem is not trade, the problem is ignoring displacement and exploitation of labor which can be stopped by domestic policy in both America and developing trade partners.
Already the conservative government in Germany has given up in both labor market structure and health care policy "reform." So much for any similar kind of conservatism in Germany and America. Germany will globalize on worker's terms, with conservative compromise.
Posted by: anne | Oct 9, 2006 5:48:55 PM
Slink, generally I agree with you completely. Do not fret. The pretense of banking answers and a use of William Easterley to dismiss assistance to workers confronting trade problem in developing countries is even more intolerable than the dismissal of the needs of American workers.
Posted by: anne | Oct 9, 2006 5:53:41 PM
anne i'm not sure how u figure my take on this but thanx for the suppport
prolly u know i'm a fair trader typemy main message look to exchange rates
not to protectionism or border walls or quotasall those become necessary if the trans nats conspire to permit low balled currency
it really amounts to dumping by other means
and dumping is barred because
it works
its profitable
and its lethalmy point
don't let the big corporations dflect our eyes from themas an exercise notice the times the "other side" is china india south korea japan etc
not the us corporations doing the importing and as often as not
the offf shore production as wellbut even more to the point
none of this dumping by other means would last for a second
if it didn't have dramatic effects on speed
of de unionization of america's own industrial basethis is not a strategy of international division of labor
hell no
the jobs will come full circle
they'll be back here eventually
once the world industrial wage level is comfortable
for prolly our own immigrant industrial work forcehey that was the story between 1854 and 1914
the replacement of home grown operatives
by cheaper imports
from europelook to a latin work force in our factories
over the next 20 years time
as we rebalance our trade position
re industrialization
without much automation
ie without much progress
Posted by: slink | Oct 9, 2006 7:08:56 PM
"re industrialization
without much automation
ie without much progress"We can get away with this lack of innovation and automation so long as we are able to manufacture the money (debt) that the trans nats and CB's desire.
Germany mostly lost a large portion of its ability to manufacture money when it joined the Euro and it must create more difficult things.
There is a choice in America who will manufacture that desired debt, the American private or public sector. Given the private sector ratios are 'flashing red' we may soon see the public sector step forward as they did in Japan though here in America we would rather build bombs than bridges. 'Flashing red' means no new debt could be carried without an increase in wages.
Until recently, the Fed with their capital requirements has stated very clearly, real estate is where the private sector debt was to be created. The Fed with their inverted yeild curve, has stated very clearly the private sector is to create no new debt.
I'd like to see the entrepreneur put in the same position as the public sector in his/her ability to create new debt by birthright and credit score, without regard to the Fed. Then as Poole says, the Fed would truly 'not matter'. A structural change of this sort would shift the 'natural' rate of growth upward.
In my opinion the bond market vigilantes are impotent in these deflationary times.
Posted by: Winslow R. | Oct 9, 2006 8:29:25 PM
my main message look to exchange rates
not to protectionism or border walls or quotasAnd decent safety nets funded by the winners from free trade... so displaced workers still might lose their multiple SUVs & big screens & minimansions when the company offshores the office to Chindia but they don't lose their health insurance, their kids still get to go to college and they don't all sleep in a box in the street. A step down is 'okay', a step off the cliff is 'not okay'.
Lock that in as part of the deal and I'm back to being 100% free-trader.
But it isn't even being mentioned let alone debated. The silence is deafening, yes/no?
Posted by: dryfly | Oct 9, 2006 8:45:18 PMhttp://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=34935
Trade does not make friends.
Posted by: ninjaplease | Oct 9, 2006 9:30:37 PM
Exchange rates and safety nets and retraining all sound great. Seriously.
But let's put them to the test with a petition:
"We, the following economists, strongly encourage the American government to implement the above-mentioned trade fixes immediately. But IF, within 2 years, regardless of how effectively those fixes have been implemented, (1) the lower 80% of American wages aren't growing faster than inflation and (2) the overall trade deficit hasn't fallen by at least 20%, THEN we will call loudly and relentlessly for the implementation of substantial trade restrictions in the form of tariffs and quotas."
Sadly, Mishkin and other free traders will never, never sign it. That's how you know all those 'fixes' are simply delay tactics which they know will fail.
Posted by: MarkedExcess | Oct 9, 2006 10:50:33 PM
Fred Mishkin: "The solution is to increase demand within developing countries for more robust financial activity."
Translation: Create and fund credit debt.
WaPo on Fred Mishkin's book:
"Economists are nearly unanimous in favoring the free movement of goods and services across borders, but in recent years even free-traders have warned against the dangers of instability when developing countries open themselves up to giant flows of international capital."
"Now comes a protest from the newest member of the Federal Reserve Board that the pendulum has swung too far against financial openness. In "The Next Great Globalization," Frederic Mishkin, a Columbia University professor, acknowledges the risks of globalized capital and devotes attention to crises such as those that struck Mexico, South Korea and Argentina. But he argues that with safeguards, financial openness can confer benefits that are often overlooked, like reducing corruption and busting up local monopolies. While these probably won't persuade the most determined skeptics, Mishkin's critique of their critique is one they cannot lightly dismiss."
If there isn't any substantail risk, why isn't this being done everywhere? The answer lies in the risk and convergence of FDI investment flows under the current WTO rules, which eliminates the need for duplicate FDI ventures that fail to undercut production costs in key producing countries.
So, does Mishkin believe that helicopters can just drop credit cards and bank notes from the sky in the developing countries? If he were in charge and could create sound banking practices to support his massive credit investment goals in developing nations, does he understand that he would be creating primary growth in infrastructure and merchant trade as opposed to substantial industrial and agricultural exports - low ROI ventures? If not, then he doesn't fully globalization as presently practiced by transnational corporations and supporting nations.
I'm not saying that Fred is wrong, but I have read no evidence that he knows how to change the ongoing trade regimes we are observing, which are based on good ROI and production scales.
Posted by: Movie Guy | Oct 9, 2006 10:53:05 PM
marked excess
i love your petitionprotection is the hammer
it can never be thrown asideas a final act of popular out rage
the threat of huge globe trade freezing quotas
are the only way to get attention
on wall street and at the treasury and fedthe threat must be real
not just from the pat buc and lou dobbs howlers
but from millions
too bad immigration walls etc
are really a diversionby itself
keeping cheaper labor out
solves few problemsvide reverse samuelson barrassa effects
if trade goods fall
service wages fall eventually regardless of immigration
lets scare the nuts off em
or no changes will be forth comingPosted by: slink | Oct 10, 2006 6:08:11 AM
dry fly
u are dead on
the safety net is still being de threaded
and as to
the compensate the losers line
which is a very bare minimum
part of all academic free trade Rxs
so far at best its just a gestureno hard acts no bills near pasage
nothing worth a bottle blue fly's ass
so farand that is like taking
"sure i'll pay you back "
from some welcher "pal" of yours
time after time after time
and still lending him more moneycomes a point when you send in a "collector "
Posted by: slink | Oct 10, 2006 6:13:31 AM
So many insights
Sir slink
(yes mosquito Phelps
can have his candy Nobel
but our peregrine slink,
the knighthood please.
maybe more)
but lest you
think I be but
another pyschophant,
do consider that
all those bankers
attending Snow and
Greenie on that
China visit were
not there to
sample what it
was that w did
or did not eat.So though this
strikes a chord
"the trans nats
conspire to permit
low balled currency",
there are other
chords in this bar
that do make for
this rather
nervous melody.Posted by: calmo | Oct 10, 2006 9:04:17 AM
------------------
i'll be honest
i have no idea what the fed folks
are pretending to dobut i like the reporters use of the phrase
"validate market expectations..."
to me the reality is some crude
very visible
if you look behind the curtain
notion of credit growth constrictionie a quantitative
intervention
but one
you don't see
happen
but say once a decade or lessi'm thinking of the volks krieg 79
and the greenspan credit crunch of 89
hey its been bubblicious since then
as rudy might say"sure the taylor
rule works great
when the system is running smoothly
but ...."ya ya sure sure
there's been
a few times
in a few asset areas
where things went wobbly
but no hammer drop
was required
the one potential "big one"
the 97 asian flu
was external
and containedthe rest ???
just spontaneous pops and fizzles
even the recent house lot boomer
though
for a time i thought
gentle ben
was going to crank up the guidelines on household lending
ie change the standards
and reduce the exposure
maybe even
directly region by region
ration mortgage creditbut so far .....
nopemaybe we really are in a new global game
where the fed
is playing with
a toy steering wheel
like little kids have on the front of their car seatsPosted by: slink | Oct 9, 2006 7:24:25 PM
Posted by js paine at October 10, 2006 06:06 PM