2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: Krugman Raises White Flag on Trade, admits his “free-trade” cheerleading was mostly garbage [View all]Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Like most complicated issues there are many facets. The blogger skirts the other things Krugman said. I can only post 4 pargraphs, so try these"
"The second is that protectionists almost always exaggerate the adverse effects of trade liberalization. Globalization is only one of several factors behind rising income inequality, and trade agreements are, in turn, only one factor in globalization. Trade deficits have been an important cause of the decline in U.S. manufacturing employment since 2000, but that decline began much earlier. And even our trade deficits are mainly a result of factors other than trade policy, like a strong dollar buoyed by global capital looking for a safe haven. . . . . . . .
And yes, Mr. Sanders is demagoguing the issue, for example with a Twitter post linking the decline of Detroit, which began in the 1960s and has had very little to do with trade liberalization, to Hillary Clintons free-trade policies. . . . . . .
"Yet what the models of international trade used by real experts say is that, in general, agreements that lead to more trade neither create nor destroy jobs; that they usually make countries more efficient and richer, but that the numbers arent huge; and that they can easily produce losers as well as winners. In principle the overall gains mean that the winners could compensate the losers, so that everyone gains. In practice, especially given the scorched-earth obstructionism of the G.O.P., thats not going to happen. . . . . .
"And anyone ragging on about those past deals, like Mr. Trump or Mr. Sanders, should be asked what, exactly, he proposes doing now. Are they saying that we should rip up Americas international agreements? Have they thought about what that would do to our credibility and standing in the world? . . . . .
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/11/opinion/trade-and-tribulation.html?_r=0