tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6685155377705481833.post742593173033293010..comments2023-09-22T03:17:50.469-04:00Comments on Middle Class Political Economist: Is Globalization Good for America's Middle Class? Part 2Kenneth Thomashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05747704671007690674noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6685155377705481833.post-60790059552152082672012-06-19T19:17:10.815-04:002012-06-19T19:17:10.815-04:00Good idea for another post Ken.Good idea for another post Ken.Danhttp://www.angrybearblog.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6685155377705481833.post-58049922027694765822012-06-15T02:27:46.479-04:002012-06-15T02:27:46.479-04:00The trade imbalance has been bad for the US middle...The trade imbalance has been bad for the US middle and working classes, as well as its domestic based manufacture. See:<a href="http://anamecon.blogspot.com/2010/04/effects-of-unbalanced-trade.html" rel="nofollow">http://anamecon.blogspot.com/2010/04/effects-of-unbalanced-trade.html</a><br /><br />The US, for the 21st Century, has played trade patsy to the world, and its people have, and are, paying. Running a trade deficit is bad, bad, bad. If you want more evidence, look at the Euro periphery. <br /><br />If you want evidence on how running a <i>surplus</i> is good for an economy, look at China and Germany.greghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08201906679062960215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6685155377705481833.post-70301152856909613812012-06-14T15:52:00.561-04:002012-06-14T15:52:00.561-04:00This was surely one of the most clear-headed, conc...This was surely one of the most clear-headed, concise expositions of the problems of globalization I've seen; thank you.<br /><br />Does it address the headline question though? <br /><br />I would argue that no one can answer that question, because the empirical research needed to write a conclusive answer can never be conducted at a reasonable cost in a reasonable time frame.<br /><br />Consider all the costs and benefits we'd have to measure: costs of unemployment (there's surely tens if not hundreds of types of costs here, short-term and long-term), costs of reduced bargaining rights, costs of uncertainty due to capital mobility, etc.; all versus the benefits of cheaper products (another multi-dimensional category), increased employment in cushy service jobs, larger investment opportunity sets, etc.<br /><br />We'd then have to make arguments about how each of these affects utility/welfare (i.e. does an increase in employment in SC have a smaller, larger, or equivalent effect on total social welfare than an equal decrease in employment in Washington).<br /><br />Of course, we'd have to think about agglomeration and other effects that create non-linear relationships within our massive study.<br /><br />So where do we end up? We end up humble. I don't honestly think anyone can tell us whether globalization in aggregate is good or bad for the middle class. <br /><br />But we can try to figure out if specific effects are good or bad and I think this article does a great job of covering many of the specific effects we need to look at.Zlati Petrovnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6685155377705481833.post-40800008945247111702012-06-14T13:21:55.445-04:002012-06-14T13:21:55.445-04:00Robert, a very interesting paper. I like your dire...Robert, a very interesting paper. I like your direct attack on the Hicks-Kaldor view of efficiency. A professor of mine once said in class that its predominance in the economics discipline was due to a very deliberate assault on Pareto optimality as the basis of efficiency by the Chicago School. Does this make sense to you?Kenneth Thomashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05747704671007690674noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6685155377705481833.post-10288607723167921532012-06-14T10:03:31.588-04:002012-06-14T10:03:31.588-04:00"...and by the common desire to live near the..."...and by the common desire to live near their families (another way in which corporations are not people, by the way)."<br /><br />My company set up its factories at certain locations in Asia to be near critical suppliers. It also responded to tax incentives. But it has kept its US R&D facility in the very-expensive Silicon Valley, due I believe to the specialized skills that are needed for this work that are not readily available elsewhere. I imagine this rationale also applies to financial institutions operating on Wall Street or in the City of London. So while corporations are not people, those that are engaged in higher-margin non-commodity businesses may reflect some of the mobility constraints imposed by their human workforces.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6685155377705481833.post-28766386897763459942012-06-14T03:59:36.294-04:002012-06-14T03:59:36.294-04:00Anyone interested in this line of thought might be...Anyone interested in this line of thought might be interested in A Utilitarian Welfare Analysis of Trade Liberalization at http://works.bepress.com/robert_shelburne/34/Robert Shelburnehttp://works.bepress.com/robert_shelburne/noreply@blogger.com