New York Times: "most economists" agree that major trade deals have benefited most Americans

[molova]

NYT: "Similarly, in the United States, most top economists agree that “past major trade deals have benefited most Americans” and that “trade with China makes most Americans better off.” But those aren’t sentiments we will be hearing anytime soon from Mr. Trump or Mrs. Clinton." http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/31/upshot/why-voters-dont-buy-it-when-economists-say-global-trade-is-good.html?_r=0

[Ken Burch]

1. "Most economist"?

The greater part of ONE economist agrees with that?

[Warren Stupidity]

2. Hand picked selection "agrees" but their comments

are damning.

We underestimate the costs of trade through employment (e.g. with low-wage countries in manufacturing), net benefits still likely to be +.

Trade made certain, especially lower quality, goods cheaper but also transferred some jobs.

Trade deals are about expanding consumption choices not about jobs. Ross Perot's giant sucking sound is a myth

http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-results?SurveyID=SV_d68906VNWqVmiGN

[TheBlackAdder]

23. Yeah, because that American job is now performed by someone making $4 a day. Like Nabisco cookies!

[B Calm]

3. So now made in China is good for most Americans. I remember

my older brother fooling mom into thinking he has a fever by holding the thermometer to a light bulb to increase the temperature.

[DanTex]

4. It's good for consumers, yes.

[B Calm]

5. Up until the consumer loses his job. Yes

[DanTex]

6. Few consumers have lost their jobs to China.

[B Calm]

7. Thanks to NAFTA, I lost my job to Mexico.

[DanTex]

9. In that case you didn't benefit from NAFTA.

[B Calm]

11. You benefited from my job loss?

[DanTex]

12. No, I benefited from lower consumer prices.

[B Calm]

13. LOL

[Armstead]

14. A downward spiral....So we can buy cheap crap but can't afford it because jobs are being cheapened

[DanTex]

18. An upwards spiral. Goods become less expensive, and our production shifts to

areas where we are comparatively more productive.

[Armstead]

19. Productivity makes no difference

Yiu think people in otehr countries are stupid? Think they can't make advanced components in India? Think China is incapable of operating complex services?

We have NO comparative advantage over otehr countries.

We have comparative disadvantages because we're not able to work at sweatshoip wages.

If efficiency and costs and "productivity" are the only values we exercise in our society and economy, we're all fucked.

We have to inject humanistic values that also look at the whole picture into account unless we want to continue to devolve into a modern feudalistic society.

[DanTex]

22. That doesn't make sense.

We can't have comparative disadvantages but no comparative advantages. Comparative advantages and disadvantages are zero-sum: whatever we're not disadvantaged at, we are advantaged at.

The US has better infrastructure and industrial base than India or China, so we have comparative advantage in capital-intensive industries. Like airplanes. Pharmaceuticals. Industrial machinery. Stuff like that.


And, sure, there is more to society that productivity. But I don't see why that means that Americans shouldn't be able to buy goods manufactured in China.

[Armstead]

24. Where are most of our products made now?

With our wonderful infrastructure why the hell have so many of our major manufacturing companies fled the US?

And if one doesn't have a job -- or is forced to settle for a crappy low wage one, they are lucky if they can only buy buy a chap knockoff from the Dollar Store.

I don't know if you remember when we did actually make a lot of manufactured goods here, and there was an abundance of middle class blue collar jobs. Now even the professional jobs are being off-shored.

[DanTex]

25. Most are made in the US. Imports are about 15% of GDP. Exports about 12%.

Yeah, we used to have a lot more manufacturing jobs, and a lot of them were middle class blue collar jobs. They are disappearing for a lot of reasons, for example, automation. Are you opposed to industrial robotics as well as international trade?

[JRLeft]

32. Trade has decimated my people aka black people.

[Hortensis]

8. I remember back in the 1980s a cabinet official or

fed chairman, don't remember which, explaining on ABC, NBC, or CBS that American workers should expect to change what they do for a living 5 times on average through their lives. He explained the progression that has, in fact, taken place in which manufacturing and other lower-skill jobs would disappear and be replaced with higher tech jobs that required advanced training and often additional education.

This wasn't new news by a long shot. I'd heard and read it before.

The fact is, by and large those who have those new jobs are doing just fine economically. Yes, a wide wage gap has grown between jobs that require decision-making and those that do not, but only a somewhat above average intelligence is the main qualification for taking THAT leap. Such as to an RN degree instead of low-pay practical nurse work.

Yes, business has its tentacles in government and has far too much say in our laws and agreements, to the harm of society. BUT, much of the opposition to trade agreements is coming from those who blame THEM for their low incomes instead of many other factors, only three among them a national shift to idealizing greed, incredible negligence and gullibility on the part of the voters who colluded, and of course foolish, and lazy decisions by those who did not obtain higher, more marketable skills.

Imo, today's self-indulgent ignorance on the benefits and costs of trade agreements and blame-slapping is simply more of a fecklessness that we should be very ashamed of.

Fact is, we could back out of every trade agreement, and those working hard at lower-pay jobs would continue to do just that -- IF their low-pay job survived the change. Many would not.

[Armstead]

15. I agree with half your post

Tehnology is partially to blame, and we citizens/consumers/workers have been complacent for too long.

But trade polities are a reflection of that by enshrining greed into our economic policies. Trade is fine, trade policies are necessary. But "free trade" is more of a political scam to increase the power of corporations over government, "markets" over humanistic and environmental values, and the private sector over the public interest.

Also, you're not giving workers enough credit. We're not all cut out for those "think" jobs, or leadership Jobs or highly technological advanced positions. The jobs in the "middle" for which most people are suited are what is disappearing. If we continue to ignore the human costs of our policies, business behavior and economic principles, 75 percent of the country is screwed.

[JHB]

10. Also worth reading, since the author of the NYT OpEd is...

...N. Gregory Mankiw:

Stop Calling Deals That Help CEOs Pillage with Impunity “Free Trade”
Posted on May 15, 2016 by William Black | 4 Comments

By William K. Black
May 14, 2016 Bloomington, MN

This is the second column in my series on the “Mankiw’s myths and Mankiw morality.” In the first column I showed that N. Gregory Mankiw’s own unprincipled principles of economics predicted that the financial system would be rigged by and for the financial CEOs. In his New York Times column Mankiw purported to be writing to dispel myths, but actually did the opposite, asserting that the financial system could not be rigged. I explained in the first column how Mankiw famously decreed that it would be “irrational” (rather than ethical) for a CEO not to “loot” a firm that he controlled. I term this view that being ethical is irrational for a CEO “Mankiw morality.” Under Mankiw morality, financial CEOs would have the incentive and the ability to rig the system and would do so repeatedly.
***
The “free trade deals” are pretexts for emasculating regulation and prosecution of corporate elites. They have virtually nothing to do with “trade” much less the oxymoronic abuse of the term “free trade.” Consider first why the deals are always crafted in an indefensible manner. The CEOs get to participate in making the deals. Consumers, workers, and investors are excluded under official secret laws. All of economic theory, particularly under Mankiw morality (it would be “irrational” for CEOs not to defraud), predicts that the CEOs would use their unique ability to rig the deals in their favor. They deliberately crafted the deal making system to give them the means and opportunity to rig the deals – they already had the motive.
***
The deals are designed to maximize the regulatory race to the bottom. They are designed as a ratchet that provides rewards only in one direction – for weakening regulation and the ability to prosecute corporate elites. There is no incentive to strengthen vital health and safety regulations even though they have been repeatedly shown to be already too weak. A nation that joins the deals must, for example, conduct cost-benefit analyses to adopt any new rule – but it can deregulate without any such analysis. Anyone who has followed the practice of pro-business U.S. jurists using their personal hostility to regulation and their personal views as to “benefits” and “costs” to overturn rules can predict exactly how these deals will be used to intensify the regulatory race to the bottom that has caused catastrophic harm to China, India, and as climate change intensifies, the world.

http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2016/05/stop-calling-deals-help-ceos-pillage-impunity-free-trade.html
William K. Black is a Professor of Economics and Law at the University of Missouri-Kansas City and former high level regulator during the Saving and Loan Crisis of the 1980s.

[Armstead]

17. +1

[okieinpain]

16. How can such eduated people be so dumb.

People hate trade beacuse of falling wages and low job opportunities, why couldnt they just say that instead of all the big words and bs.

[B Calm]

21. +1

It's a race to the bottom.

[Tatiana]

20. From a consumer standpoint, yes.

But from the vantage point of the American worker, it's been a disaster.

It's the reason why we don't make things here in this country anymore, which I believe is a threat to our national security.

[Hoyt]

26. How about poor workers in countries that finally get a chance to share in wealth

that we take for granted? A Mexican
who was making a dollar an hour, but gets a job at the new Audi plant at $8 an hour, is not a bad thing unless you are a Nationalist and Americafirster.
And we all benefit from that. Most of our jobs aren't that , although they might fall victim to technology. It's too bad so many here view poor foreigners as scabs.

[BobbyDrake]

27. Some people who speak in favor of progress only really want "so much" progress. Specifically,

only progress that benefits them financially. An isolationist progressive is a fraud, IMO. If they were genuine, the record low global poverty rate would be enough to convince them of trade's benefits for everyone. But it's usually not, though.

[Hoyt]

29. There's a reason we are called "greedy Americans." I understand how people directly impacted feel,

but unless we plan to bomb China, Europe, Japan, etc., someone is going to manufacture goods in poorer countries. We need to be in the game from a lot perspectives. I do think there should be tax penalties for corporations who invest abroad with proceeds used for social good and incentives to foreign countries.

[Tatiana]

30. How about we set a standard of $10-15 no matter the country.

Of course, we have an obligation to improve working conditions in a multitude of nations that produce good for us, including Mexico, Vietnam, China, and other places. But we should be setting a minimum wage in these trade deals, taking into account the salary necessary to maintain a decent standard of living.

Instead of having wages driven down, they should be going up. That being said, I'm not going to apologize for wanting to support our country's infrastructure and labor sector as well.

[Hoyt]

31. The TPP will improve working conditions in poor countries. A decent standard of living for someone

with a small rice paddy isn't comparable to most Americans. Fact is, probably 95% of our citizens are the world's 1%ers.

[Recursion]

33. As always it depends on how you measure things

The simplest measure puts about the top 20% of the US in the world's 1%, and most of the rest of the US in the world's 10%.

[Recursion]

34. Well, for starters we couldn't even trade with ourselves by that rule

But we should be setting a minimum wage in these trade deals, taking into account the salary necessary to maintain a decent standard of living.

So, I assume you support the TPP, since it does precisely that?

[ShadowLiberal]

28. Because all trade agreements are the same!

By that logic you could put any random thing on a piece of paper, label it a trade agreement, and it would be beneficial for Americans.

Only a fool doesn't read the details to see if a deal is good or bad.