Tuesday, April 26, 2016

Dean Baker — The Question Is Not "Free Trade" and Globalization, It Is Free Trade and Globalization Designed to Screw Workers

Will the media ever stop the ridiculous charade of pretending that the path of globalization that we are on is somehow and natural and that it is the outcome of a "free" market?
The bulk of the post is kind of weak, but the title and above quote get it right.

Beat the Press
The Question Is Not "Free Trade" and Globalization, It Is Free Trade and Globalization Designed to Screw Workers
Dean Baker | Co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, D.C

12 comments:

Ignacio said...

And how yet from "here" to "there"? This exemplifies what I was saying below...

Some economists, usually progressives, hold a 'rationalist' vision for policy. But the outcomes never follow up.

Hence you get a reaction from the public, against the status quo, and people like Trump gets wider support.

We don't need rationales, we need actionable policies that happen in practice. And don't run before learning to walk, don't support policies which are pro-corporations before you have governments which can actually govern those corporations putting the well being of the population first.

Tom Hickey said...

As long as economists are working within the frame of "capitalism" there is no social and political resolution possible because the very term "capitalism" defines the frame based on the foundational assumption that capital formation is the necessary condition for growth and growth is the route to prosperity — assuming trickle down, that is, a rising tike lifts all boats.

Capitalism depends on prioritizing capital formation (the vast majority of people are workers) and the environment (because property rights). This means in practice that everything that economists deem and everything that economics deems relevant to capital formation, including finance, is also prioritized before people and the environment. Economists only consider "efficiency" and ignore negative externality (capitalize gains and socialize losses). They also promote "flexibility" in the labor market to "discipline workers' demands" that they claim to be the basis for inflation. In addition, increasing the labor share is assumed to reduce the funds for investment and therefore negatively impact capital formation, thereby inhibiting growth and reducing prosperity.

There is no way out in this paradigm, and progressives should just realize it and get on with a post-capitalist solution that prioritizes people and the environment over property rights. This is the foundational meaning of democratic socialism based on government of, by and for the people, and environmentalism based on true cost including externality.

Instead of "free market capitalism" base on economic liberalism progressives need to be working on a social, political and economic vision based on a managed economy that balances markets and policy management that puts people and the environment first.

Failure to do this in a timely fashion will lead to conflict and culling.

In Marx's time, "Workers of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your chains," may have been appropriate to conditions then. Now in a consumer-based culture, it's, "Workers of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your brains." The primary reason that people are voting agains their social, political and economic interests is now not so much that they are oppressed, at least in the developed world, but that they are brainwashed into believing they keep them supporting a system that is rigged against them and is fouling the nest for future generations.

Simsalablunder said...

"Some economists, usually progressives,"
You don't care about left and right those mostly to blame is the lefties economists?

"don't support policies which are pro-corporations before you have governments which can actually govern those corporations putting the well being of the population first."

Are you saying that one should wait for policies which gives the outcome -putting the well being of the population first before corporations and then support those policies after they've been implemented and you see the outcome of those policies?

Sounds like it'll be a waiting forever. Unless someone comes up with policies, ask for support for those policies and then the policies get tried out.

But that hair splitting aside, what kind of real action do you do to get "governments which can actually govern those corporations putting the well being of the population first"?
What kind of politics and policies do you do to get there?

Ignacio said...

You don't care about left and right those mostly to blame is the lefties economists?

I didn't blame anyone, I said progressive economists have a 'rationalist' approach to the policy, like Dean here, and sometimes they end up with policies and 'incrementalists' approaches that when implemented in practice goes against their own desires. A case of shooting themselves in the foot. I'm not considering the 'right' or 'center' because most of the current 'right' is internationalist/neoliberal too and that sort of outcomes is the ones they want.

Ie. "Globalization is good! Is just that THIS globalization is not good." but then many times end up supporting 'globalization' policies (an example, more free trade and open borders policies) because, on aggregate, theoretically 'globalization is good', but it ends up being bad for most people. I don't know where you are from but from where I am from I've seen this trend happen over and over under 'left' governments all the time (in Europe), backed by 'left' economists and policy-makers.

Unless someone comes up with policies, ask for support for those policies and then the policies get tried out.

Sounds like a good plan, but here is a tip: don't end up with policies that actually end up being pro-business instead of pro-people/pro-market.

What kind of real action do you do to get "governments which can actually govern those corporations putting the well being of the population first"?

IDK, maybe supporting and voting a politician that has that agenda is a good start. If such politician does not exist or appear, well... we're screwed. Maybe Tom has a point (I tend to agree on this) and the system is irrecoverable, and at some point if it breaks down there is a window of opportunity to empower someone who would do the necessary changes (there is always a high possibility for whoever ends up being empowered is worse than the current status quo).

Simsalablunder said...

"I didn't blame anyone"
Then I misunderstood you. I have no beef with most of what you say.

" but here is a tip: don't end up with policies that actually end up being pro-business instead of pro-people/pro-market.

I agree with the content, but it's also easy to say without any obligation. It's a long way to get new policies into real action and there are many pits to fall into so to know in beforehand the outcome otherwise one shall not support it is really not much of a tip is it.

"If such politician does not exist or appear, well... we're screwed."

Well, I see the waiting for the perfect candidate to come along as a major problem and the roadmap to be screwed. Lazy democracy where people want to served the right stuff, instead of getting involved.

Matt Franko said...

Well all Trump is technically talking about is a tariff (not the end of the world) with the intent it be an enforcement action leading to balanced CAD... and regulating our system boundaries... again, not the end of the world...

Then the lefty "economists" cant be seen to agree with ANY of this so they call that "xenophobia!" or wtf... and conjure up all of this type of bibble babble like from Baker here... a lot of words but it doesnt say anything.... same with the thing from Bernstein...

They have trapped themselves into a situation where they cannot have a professional/competent technical discussion of all options due to their political biases...

They literally have backed themselves into a corner where now if somebody wants to look at tariffs and regulating the borders/immigration that person is a "xenophobia!"....

Fucking politicians.....

Simsalablunder said...

"Then the lefty "economists" cant be seen to agree with ANY of this so they call that "xenophobia!"

No it's not that they call xenophobia. There are enough of other stuff to call for xenophobia. You just constantly deliberately conflate things for your own political reasons. You're just as bad as those you're pointing finger at. Actually worse.

Matt Franko said...

Hey again, I am not the disgraced academic working in the Trump campaign...

You have a bunch of the MMT left top enders actually SIGNING UP for the Sanders campaign and I am supposed to be the politician? LOL!

Simsalablunder said...

"Hey again, I am not the disgraced academic working in the Trump campaign..."

Yeah that's your excuse your running with. Not impressive at all.

"You have a bunch of the MMT left top enders actually SIGNING UP for the Sanders campaign and I am supposed to be the politician? LOL!"

LOL here LOL there… One of your deliberate misinterpretation again or is your reading that bad? Do you really believe YOU don't do politics here? Well if you don't understand that then Trump shall be glad you've not signed up for his campaign…

Ignacio said...

Supporting political movements and/or politicians can mean passively, but also actively. That post was a bit short, but yes, things won't get done alone. It requires involvement and grassroots movements to happen. If movement it's left to its own it will just go the way those with more resources and command of the status quo want them to go.

there are many pits to fall into so to know in beforehand the outcome otherwise one shall not support it is really not much of a tip is it.

We can't never predict all the outcomes before hand, but over the last two decades there were policies enacted which outcomes would be obviously detrimental on the long run, often by 'the left' spectrum (and with which the right was all on-board privately, if not publicly, for obvious reasons). Again talking from my pov over here, it does not require to be a genius sometimes to see how things will go.

Matt Franko said...

Why are tariffs a bad thing?

"Makes the deficit smaller!" ????

"deficit will be too small!" ???

Tariffs can be used to adjust for a depressed exchange rate imposed by a surplus nation's CB.... I dont see the big deal ...

What is Baker proposing here? NOTHING...

This is just some sort of quick write up of the trade issue on orders from the Hillary camp to sound like the left is aware of the issue and feigning concern about it... it offers no concrete policy proposal...


Tom Hickey said...

Why are tariffs a "bad" thing? Because under the conventional thinking in terms of which liberal globalization is structure, free markets, free trade, and free capital flows are foundational. Attacking any of these is tantamount to mounting a revolt agains the status quo, which is cemented in institutional arrangements. I'm all for this engaging in this attack, but it will be a battle royale with TPTB.