Economists on the Run

  • Thread starter Thread starter Theo520
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Would this be considered a miracle? A globalist admitting that globalism hasn’t been working. What a time to be alive. We live in a society
 
Last edited:
I don’t know. Is it a matter of nationalization or consumerism or both?

That said, what policies have changed? The deficit keeps growing, as does the debt, unions keep striking, currency remains strong in spite of low interest rates, the foreigners keep lending, and the Fed continues to print money. Looks like we’re just staying the course.
 
Ending globalization is about as easy as trying to stuff the genie back into the bottle. It has some advantages and drawbacks, but for better or worse this is now what we have and we need to deal with it.
 
Metis1 said:
Ending globalization is about as easy as trying to stuff the genie back into the bottle. It has some advantages and drawbacks, but for better or worse this is now what we have and we need to deal with it.
Click to expand...
I don’t think it’s a binary issue.

The better option is to pursue “balanced trade”
 
If you read the Krugman piece, he says that what they got wrong in the 90s was thinking that “globalization” would mean international trade might increase like 20%, when in reality it nearly tripled. He goes on to say that it seems the growth of global trade has mostly leveled off, but that a good way to re-disrupt everything would be to try and undo shift to global trade.
 
Kappa,
I’m not disputing trade benefits, educate yourself on Balanced Trade, what I advocated
 
Last edited:
I’m not disputing balanced trade, just pointing out that you agreed with Krugman about the dangers of arbitrarily undoing globalization.
 
I’ve never seen anyone arguing against trade.
You are introducing a straw man.

Even trump is for trade that is fair
 
JapaneseKappa said:
“We reject globalism and embrace the doctrine of patriotism.”
Click to expand...
He’s not rejecting trade

I too reject an accelerated move towards golbalisim.

We’ll get there eventually, but it will take time, the move should be evolutionary rather than top down forced revolution by elites.

I also think it’s appropriate to retain regional and even local identities that may differ from your neighbor.
 
Last edited:
But as Krugman pointed out, globalization-as-measured-by-trade has already leveled off. There are no more accelerating moves, those all took place in the 90s through early aughts.
 
Last edited:
JapaneseKappa said:
But as Krugman pointed out, globalization-as-measured-by-trade has already leveled off. There are no more accelerating moves, those all took place in the 90s through early aughts.
Click to expand...
At the country level, the focus should be on balanced trade.

Whether global trade is or isn’t accelerating is irrelevant to the impact on specific countries. The US problem was the imbalance sustained over many decades…
 
Last edited:
An imbalance of trade actually is compensated for with the international exchange rate, but what’s not compensated for is the loss of domestic jobs here and in the west largely due to our higher wages and legacy costs.
 
Metis1 said:
An imbalance of trade actually is compensated for with the international exchange rate, but what’s not compensated for is the loss of domestic jobs here and in the west largely due to our higher wages and legacy costs.
Click to expand...
Pull your head out of book theory and join the real world.

Countries manipulate their currency and prevent letting it respond to trade imbalances.

Real World =/= econ fantasy land​

Countries should actively pursue balanced trade, perhaps even using exchange rates as a means to get there, but they must get there.
 
Last edited:
Is it any wonder why I simply will not engage some people here, plus why I left CAF for about a year.
 
Metis1 said:
Is it any wonder why I simply will not engage some people here, plus why I left CAF for about a year.
Click to expand...
Do or don’t you agree that currency manipulation thwarts the the balancing that econ theory predicts with free trade?

Do you recognize that China has consistently devalued their currency, thereby artificially supporting exports.

On top of that, the US currency is intentionally kept strong, which hurts US exports.

ps. If you are going to refute someone here (or anywhere) you should be prepared to defend your argument.
 
Last edited:
Not interested.

BTW, as an anthropologist, I studied and taught about macro-economics since it is considered one of the “five basic institutions” all societies have, so I’m not just blowing smoke. I’ve studied economics for over 50 years, which doesn’t make me any kind of expert but at least I know what I’m generally talking about on this.
 
Metis1 said:
Not interested.

BTW, as an anthropologist, I studied and taught about macro-economics since it is considered one of the “five basic institutions” all societies have, so I’m not just blowing smoke. I’ve studied economics for over 50 years, which doesn’t make me any kind of expert but at least I know what I’m generally talking about on this.
Click to expand...
So you are steeped in theory but won’t dissuade/refute my point, for all the readers (not just me)

Candidly, this signals my point is valid, that govt intervention has unbalanced the free trade theory we were all taught in school

Just found this forbes article on the topic
International commerce has evolved significantly since Smith made his discoveries over two centuries ago, but his understandings of how mercantilist practices used by nation states distort free market principles remain relevant. Today, currency manipulation is a potent tool of mercantilists, tempting nations to increase their trade balances and export domestic unemployment to the countries that are not devaluing, a “beggar-thy-neighbor” approach to international economics.

The negative impacts are well documented: The Peterson Institute for International Economics has found that more than 20 nations have utilized currency manipulation policies that keep “the currencies of the interveners substantially undervalued, thus boosting their international competitiveness and trade surpluses.” The effects aren’t insignificant—especially for the U.S. Peterson Institute experts estimate that “the United States has lost 1 million to 5 million jobs due to currency manipulation.”
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top