"Free Trade"

[kalm]

And once again, you ignore hyperinflation of key areas like healthcare, home prices, and education.

Also, how do household debt and savings compare to the golden age?

No I don't. Inflation in key areas is part of the overall inflation picture

Yes you do. Hyperinflation in the price of fishing rods isn't that important. Not everyone needs to fish. However, everyone needs healthcare and housing, and most think an education increases your chances of making a better wage. So much so that people have been willing to go into massive debt and risk bankruptcy over all three.

Wouldn't you rather see people hold on to that money and perhaps be less dependent on the government and even perhaps apply it toward entrepreneurial endeavors?

Just because the middle class has large flat screen TV's doesn't mean they are better off, John.

[kalm]

Making **** up rather than face the music. How unlike you!

Come on, you know Trump's almost saying verbatim a lot of the stuff you've been saying here for years. Even the whole "Make America Great Again" is very kalmesque in it's yearning for a return to better times. It can hard to look in the mirror when you see Donald looking right back at you. We're here for you.

Okee dokee...

[Ibanez]

Looks like it only took 22 years for home ownership levels to decline to, approx., pre-NAFTA levels.

[Pwns]

Very interesting read and as I've said before, the problem with free trade for the good ol' US of A is that other countries don't play by the same rules and we fail to leverage our assets to the benefit of the country as a whole. As the article points out, it's never exactly been a win-win. The winners have been the rest of the world and specific US industries and corporations (see the bit about GE in the article).

But thinking those wins along with lower priced consumer goods has been a net-gain for the US is a shaky argument at best. And it's not just Trump and Bernie that are coming around...

Amid these conflicts and debates, the fundamental founding myth of U.S. global economic policy—that America’s major trading partners were all dedicated in principle to free trade, and were all playing essentially the same game—was maintained. As a policy matter, no difference was recognized between the mercantilist catch-up strategy of a Japan and the largely laissez-faire strategy of a Great Britain. If there were problems, the cognoscenti were convinced that it had to be because all markets had not yet been sufficiently opened. Thus the recipe was to negotiate yet more free trade deals to tear down those hidden barriers. More deals were also seen as a way to strengthen U.S. alliances. This caused complications, because trade deals meant primarily to cement alliances had to be sold to Congress as aimed at opening foreign markets and creating good jobs for Americans. Consequently, the proposed new deals were always presented as the means to reduce trade deficits and create millions of jobs while checking the Soviet Union and China.

While orthodoxy reigned in the negotiating chambers, questions began to arise from some halls of academe around 1980. Young economists like Paul Krugman, James Brander, and Joseph Stiglitz noted that much of world trade was operating outside the theory. Krugman emphasized that this was because the theory rested on a host of now completely unrealistic assumptions—perfectly competitive markets (like commodities such as coffee or wheat), full employment, fixed exchange rates, no economies of scale, no cross-border flows of capital and technology, no costs for closing factories or switching to new industries, no government subsidies or industrial policies, and constantly balanced trade. He particularly focused on the fact that in reality economies of scale not only exist but are a driver of trade flows as or more important than land, labor, and capital in major industries such as aircraft, steel, and autos. For incorporating economies of scale into the standard trade model, Krugman was eventually awarded the Nobel Prize in economics......

At this point, it is clear that some of the most high-profile pro–free trade thought leaders have changed their minds. The über-globalist and New York Times columnist Tom Friedman has recently said that “free trade with China has hurt more people than originally thought.” Krugman has also acknowledged that he didn’t anticipate the extent of the impact of trade with China on the American workforce. And the longtime orthodox trade champion and former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers is now calling for “harmonization” rather than more “globalization.”

More important, the public has caught on. Trump and Bernie are resonating with the American people because many of them feel in their bones that their future is being stolen by a combination of inadequate trade deals and excessive care for allies at their expense. That feeling won’t pass with the election. The new president will have to redo the old trade-off. The days of unilateral American free trade for unilateral U.S. security guarantees may at long last be ending, but a new strategy is needed.

http://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/j ... e-is-dead/

Wow, maybe kalmie (and Trump) actually had a point?

MAGA!

[kalm]

Very interesting read and as I've said before, the problem with free trade for the good ol' US of A is that other countries don't play by the same rules and we fail to leverage our assets to the benefit of the country as a whole. As the article points out, it's never exactly been a win-win. The winners have been the rest of the world and specific US industries and corporations (see the bit about GE in the article).

But thinking those wins along with lower priced consumer goods has been a net-gain for the US is a shaky argument at best. And it's not just Trump and Bernie that are coming around...



http://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/j ... e-is-dead/

Wow, maybe kalmie (and Trump) actually had a point?

MAGA!

You got that shit right....