 Author |
 Post
|
 |
|
Owulezi
Joined: Apr 4, 2006
Posts: 438 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
Country: Nigeria
Province/State: Imo
City: Owerri
|
Why Do Economists Make Such Dismal Arguments About Trade?
June 2, 2008 - 04:36 AM
|
|
Economists are manning the barricades to defend free trade from a growing public backlash. But with globalization increasingly seen as a threat, their arguments are falling on deaf ears. Maybe it’s time to stop claiming they know what is best for everyone.
What do you think?
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Danjuma Mohammed
Joined: Nov 2, 2006
Posts: 12 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Soft-spoken
User is
Offline
Country: Nigeria
Province/State: Kogi
City: Lokoja
|
Re: Why Do Economists Make Such Dismal Arguments About Trade?
June 2, 2008 - 05:40 AM
|
|
Hello, I am an Economist, i have done alot of researches in the area of globalization and free trade. But your question i don't seems to understand. Maybe you could save us some of the big words you used in the question.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
R Kahendi
Joined: Jul 19, 2002
Posts: 59 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Talkative
User is
Offline
 Virtual Volunteer
Country: United States
Province/State: New York
City: New York
|
Re: Why Do Economists Make Such Dismal Arguments About Trade?
June 2, 2008 - 07:00 PM
|
|
plato123 wrote:
Economists are manning the barricades to defend free trade from a growing public backlash. But with globalization increasingly seen as a threat, their arguments are falling on deaf ears. Maybe it’s time to stop claiming they know what is best for everyone.
What do you think?
Actually I agree with the gist of your idea.
The most popular theories of the economy in our day don't seem to care too much about the ordinary person's situation. They seem largely impersonal, and shrug off the damage done to people and to national and regional economies. They also seem more slanted to macroeconomic issues than to the economy as experienced at the ground level by ordinary men and women. This became very clear to me a couple of years ago when I watched "Straight Talk Africa" host, Shaka Ssali interview two African 'economists' (loosely-defined) with different ideological leanings. I can't remember their names now, but I remember that one, a lady, was well-versed in grassroots issues and the other, a gentleman, focused a good deal more on textbook Economics. The lady's insights made a good deal more sense to me because she was taking into account the human cost.
Free trade is all well and good in an ideal world, but in the real world, the playing ground is not level. As some prosper, others get increasingly poorer. And it's no longer a first-world, third-world divide. Consider: a developing nation such as Kenya has the highest paid Members of Parliament in the world, and America, popularly referred to as the world's greatest nation, is home to heartbreaking poverty and destitution.
These extremes of poverty and wealth exist everywhere, and the disparities between them are worsening.
This post was edited on: 2008-06-02 at 07:00 PM by: bumbuwazed
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Danjuma Mohammed
Joined: Nov 2, 2006
Posts: 12 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Soft-spoken
User is
Offline
Country: Nigeria
Province/State: Kogi
City: Lokoja
|
Re: Why Do Economists Make Such Dismal Arguments About Trade?
June 3, 2008 - 03:13 PM
|
|
I totally disagree with your views, though economist are always off different opion concerning a particular matter. Economist focusing basically on Macro and not Micro Economics factors you said, i not true as this has to do with different countries and the kind of economy they operate. In Nigeria for example they formulate policies, but implementation is alsways a great problem. And the level of corruption is hyper high, that it affects a sincere policy formulation and implementation. And that what is obtainable in most African countries. This is the reason why i don't see the United Nations achieving the MDGs target in most African countries as they projected.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
prieten47
Joined: Oct 26, 2006
Posts: 748 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 53
Country: Japan
Province/State: Hokkaido
City: Sapporo
|
Re: Why Do Economists Make Such Dismal Arguments About Trade?
June 4, 2008 - 09:19 AM
|
|
Is globalization good or bad? Anyone who says they haven't benefited from it really isn't thinking far enough.
The earliest globalization benefitted Japan and Germany which became industrial powerhouses based on a strong foreign trade.
While America lost jobs in traditional industries to first Japan and Germany, now to China, India, etc., they created new jobs in IT and services. Americans could also buy everything much cheaper than before. Likewise, China, India, Vietnam, etc. are growing by leaps and bounds economically. The "dirty/dangerous" industries in America moved to China, and now China is becoming too expensive, so they are moving elsewhere.
This whole process has spread prosperity far beyond Europe and America to the "Asian Tigers" and the Middle East.
BUT....globalization is very reliant on cheap energy for transportation. As the oil begins to run out, all those countries that have exported their industries and food sources overseas are going to be in big trouble. That is the Achilles Heel of globalization.
I think countries will soon return to producing goods and food locally. It will cause much hardship at first, but it is inevitable.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Danjuma Mohammed
Joined: Nov 2, 2006
Posts: 12 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Soft-spoken
User is
Offline
Country: Nigeria
Province/State: Kogi
City: Lokoja
|
Re: Why Do Economists Make Such Dismal Arguments About Trade?
June 8, 2008 - 03:25 PM
|
|
We are not arguing about the effects or benefits of Globalization. It is a true fact that if the principles of globalization is properly applied between the Developed, Developing, and underdeveloed countries in the world it will yeiid a very positive results interms of bridging developmental gaps between those countries.
But the developed countries are after the major benefits to them are leaving less develped countries to suffer the effects. I sincerely support globalization, but it should be on equitable ground. For example it is thought that one of the benefits of globalization migth be knowledge or expertrate exchange from Developed nations to less developed, and you discover that this exchange only serve as a condiut through which funds are been stolen from less developed countries by the said expertrates and the government of the LDCs. Infact, from my research i have found that it is more of a way of reducing unemployment in Developed countries i mean Knowledge transfer.
Again, technology transfer, most of the technologies to help the LDCs are more of obsolete technologies which are not useful in advanced countries been dump in LDCs to creat market for its sale and at a high price.
For Globalization to work, there has to be a positive approach to its application by both Developed contries and the government of the LDCs.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Ioana
Joined: Jun 30, 2008
Posts: 24 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Talkative
User is
Offline
Virtual Volunteer
Gender & Age: Female, 25
Country: Romania
Province/State: Bucuresti
City: Bucharest
|
Re: Why Do Economists Make Such Dismal Arguments About Trade?
July 9, 2008 - 06:17 AM
|
|
Prieten47 has brought some very good, ontopic arguments - you cannot separate free trade from globalization - one implies the other; there would be no globalization if there were no trade.
It is true that the most developed countries have more to benefit from free trade than LDCs, but the poorer countries benefit as well.
You have said that funds are being stolen from the less developed countries by the experts from the developed countries and the governments of the LDCs.
I believe that experts stealing the funds from the least developed countries were the exceptions and it's not what happened in the majority of cases.
Regarding the governments of the LDCs, it is clear that with or without the foreign expert help the governments of those countries were corrupt.
About the technologies that are brought to the LDCs after they have become obsolete - well, I think that it's a good thing that they are brought. Without trade, they wouldn't be brought at all. And it's not the developed countries that bring those technologies, it's companies, multinational companies that bring them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Culture is largely invisible to the people brought up in it.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Carl Quinto
Joined: May 6, 2008
Posts: 7 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Soft-spoken
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 24
Country: Philippines
Province/State: Rizal
City: Montalban
|
Re: Why Do Economists Make Such Dismal Arguments About Trade?
July 14, 2008 - 11:22 AM
|
|
plato123 wrote:
Economists are manning the barricades to defend free trade from a growing public backlash. But with globalization increasingly seen as a threat, their arguments are falling on deaf ears. Maybe it’s time to stop claiming they know what is best for everyone.
What do you think?
It is plain cynical to argue that globalization has been more of a threat than a major contributor to the global economy. Please elaborate on your assertion. How is globalization a threat? What ominous consequence are we facing? And where's the public backlash brewing? Support your statement because we don't want ambiguity in here.
Moreover, globalization is not only spurred by trade, or economics for that matter.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Luciana Brasil
Joined: Jun 3, 2008
Posts: 106 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Chatterbox
User is
Offline
Virtual Volunteer
Gender & Age: Female, 27
Country: Brazil
Province/State: Distrito Federal
City: Brasília
|
Re: Why Do Economists Make Such Dismal Arguments About Trade?
July 22, 2008 - 02:23 PM
|
|
I believe it is really important to note that most of these arguments regarding free trade and economic development were raised by rich, dominant economies.
In fact, most economic theories were developed by 1st world economies.
So, I guess you already have a disparity there.
If free trade and capitalism were such good practices, how come poverty gap is increasing? This standardization of economies exclude a very crucial identity factor called culture.
Also, there is such a big difference between economic growth andeconomic development, that unless there is a good balance between those two, the consequences of economic growth may well outweigh the social gains.
This post was edited on: 2008-07-22 at 02:25 PM by: lulukabrasil
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Ioana
Joined: Jun 30, 2008
Posts: 24 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Talkative
User is
Offline
Virtual Volunteer
Gender & Age: Female, 25
Country: Romania
Province/State: Bucuresti
City: Bucharest
|
Re: Why Do Economists Make Such Dismal Arguments About Trade?
August 4, 2008 - 06:52 AM
|
|
lulukabrasil wrote:
I believe it is really important to note that most of these arguments regarding free trade and economic development were raised by rich, dominant economies.
In fact, most economic theories were developed by 1st world economies.
Indeed, most economic theories were developed by 1st world economies and it's nothing abnormal or curious about that. Between the advice of 2 construction engineers- one that has a sound, solid home and the other, whose house is falling on him, I think that, if I started to build my own home, I would take the advice of the first one.
So, I guess you already have a disparity there.
If free trade and capitalism were such good practices, how come poverty gap is increasing?
Well, in countries were there is free trade, everybody is better. Indeed, there are people who lose their jobs, but more jobs are created and people have access to cheaper goods.
The poorest countries are the ones who do not practice free trade. The poverty gap is increasing because countries with open economies get richer, while the rest, where trade is controlled by the state, get poorer.
This standardization of economies exclude a very crucial identity factor called culture.
I think free trade has proved successful in very different countries and regions, regardless of this factor called culture (Western Europe, Eastern Europe, North America, South Korea, Japan etc).
Also, there is such a big difference between economic growth and economic development, that unless there is a good balance between those two, the consequences of economic growth may well outweigh the social gains.
You are right - there is a difference and there may be cases when economic growth may not imply economic development. In my opinion, in order to have both of them, a state needs to be as much deregulated as it can be, so as not to favour some in the detriment of others (because the ones that will be favoured will be the most powerful, not the poor).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
|
Display posts from:
|
