Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsTrade, Labor, and Politics by Paul Krugman
Trade, Labor, and Politicsby Paul Krugman at the NY Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/28/opinion/trade-labor-and-politics.html?smid=pl-share&_r=0
"SNIP............
Serious economic analysis has never supported the Panglossian view of trade as win-win for everyone that is popular in elite circles: growing trade can indeed hurt many people, and for the past few decades globalization has probably been, on net, a depressing force for the majority of U.S. workers.
But protectionism isnt the only way to fight that downward pressure. In fact, many of the bad things we associate with globalization in America were political choices, not necessary consequences and they didnt happen in other advanced countries, even though those countries faced the same global forces we did.
Consider, for example, the case of Denmark, which Bernie Sanders famously held up as a role model. As a member of the European Union, Denmark is subject to the same global trade agreements as we are and while it doesnt have a free-trade agreement with Mexico, there are plenty of low-wage workers in eastern and southern Europe. Yet Denmark has much lower inequality than we do. Why?
Part of the answer is that workers in Denmark, two-thirds of whom are unionized, still have a lot of bargaining power. If U.S. corporations were able to use the threat of imports to smash unions, it was only because our political environment supported union-busting. Even Canada, right next door, has seen nothing like the union collapse that took place here.
And the rest of the answer is that Denmark (and, to a lesser extent, Canada) has a much stronger social safety net than we do. In America, were constantly told that global competition means that we cant even afford even the safety net we have; strange to say, other rich countries dont seem to have that problem.
............SNIP"
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
4 replies, 562 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (3)
ReplyReply to this post
4 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Trade, Labor, and Politics by Paul Krugman (Original Post)
applegrove
Apr 2016
OP
Excellent article. Last paragraph emphasizes how important trade is poor countries.
Hoyt
Apr 2016
#1
I think at this point tarriffs and canceling trade agreements are a faster way than unions
hollowdweller
Apr 2016
#2
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)1. Excellent article. Last paragraph emphasizes how important trade is poor countries.
hollowdweller
(4,229 posts)2. I think at this point tarriffs and canceling trade agreements are a faster way than unions
The GOP has enacted right to work and other noxious BS at the state level and a lot of the population that would benefit from unions are republican and have been brainwashed against them.
I agree with him that unions are the best way because with money in politics if the gov't is the redistributor companies will always push to keep redistribution lower than if workers themselves were bargaining for them.
1939
(1,683 posts)4. Labor surplus
Unions thrive in a condition of labor shortage. Due to demographics, excess immigration, and automation, the U.S. has a labor surplus which makes unionization difficult.
pampango
(24,692 posts)3. "Republicans have been more protectionist than Democrats ... protectionism is all they’ve got."
Rhetorical claims aside, Republicans have long tended in practice to be more protectionist than Democrats. And theres a reason for that difference. Its true that globalization puts downward pressure on the wages of many workers but progressives can offer a variety of responses to that pressure, whereas on the right, protectionism is all theyve got.
When I say that Republicans have been more protectionist than Democrats, Im not talking about the distant past, about the high-tariff policies of the Gilded Age; Im talking about modern Republican presidents, like Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. Reagan, after all, imposed an import quota on automobiles that ended up costing consumers billions of dollars. And Mr. Bush imposed tariffs on steel that were in clear violation of international agreements, only to back down after the European Union threatened to impose retaliatory sanctions.
Actually, the latter episode should be an object lesson for anyone talking tough about trade. The Bush administration suffered from a bad case of superpower delusion, a belief that America could dictate events throughout the world. The falseness of that belief was most spectacularly demonstrated by the debacle in Iraq. But the reckoning came even sooner on trade, an area where other players, Europe in particular, have just as much power as we do.
Nor is the threat of retaliation the only factor that should deter any hard protectionist turn. Theres also the collateral damage such a turn would inflict on poor countries. Its probably bad politics to talk right now about what a trade war would do to, say, Bangladesh. But any responsible future president would have to think hard about such matters.
Then again, we might be talking about President Trump.
When I say that Republicans have been more protectionist than Democrats, Im not talking about the distant past, about the high-tariff policies of the Gilded Age; Im talking about modern Republican presidents, like Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. Reagan, after all, imposed an import quota on automobiles that ended up costing consumers billions of dollars. And Mr. Bush imposed tariffs on steel that were in clear violation of international agreements, only to back down after the European Union threatened to impose retaliatory sanctions.
Actually, the latter episode should be an object lesson for anyone talking tough about trade. The Bush administration suffered from a bad case of superpower delusion, a belief that America could dictate events throughout the world. The falseness of that belief was most spectacularly demonstrated by the debacle in Iraq. But the reckoning came even sooner on trade, an area where other players, Europe in particular, have just as much power as we do.
Nor is the threat of retaliation the only factor that should deter any hard protectionist turn. Theres also the collateral damage such a turn would inflict on poor countries. Its probably bad politics to talk right now about what a trade war would do to, say, Bangladesh. But any responsible future president would have to think hard about such matters.
Then again, we might be talking about President Trump.