« Benjamin Barber's *Consumed* | Main | Muslims in Europe »
Alan Blinder worries about free trade
Mr. Blinder's answer is not protectionism...he accepts the economic logic that U.S. trade with large low-wage countries like India and China will make all of them richer -- eventually. He acknowledges that trade can create jobs in the U.S. and bolster productivity growth. But he says the harm done when some lose jobs and others get them will be far more painful and disruptive than trade advocates acknowledge. He wants government to do far more for displaced workers than the few months of retraining it offers today. He thinks the U.S. education system must be revamped so it prepares workers for jobs that can't easily go overseas, and is contemplating changes to the tax code that would reward companies that produce jobs that stay in the U.S.
Here is the article. Arnold Kling says technological progress will be more important than trade. I think that China is due for a crack-up and India will soon bump up against its horrible legal and educational systems. I saw that economists are listed as among the most threatened groups, but I doubt if the United States can look forward to the liberation of so much talented and witty labor. I also think that corporate welfare is a bad idea, and that universities should not train everyone to be a small town divorce lawyer. Teaching reading and writing would be a good start.
When our economists start preaching that we should look to economists and higher educators to predict the new, growing economic sectors, I again think that the Chinese are not the major problem.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on March 28, 2007 at 05:03 PM in Economics | Permalink
Comments
This Blinder dude's got blinders on. Can we just get rid of academics and listen to some smart people for once?
Posted by: Dave at Mar 28, 2007 7:31:25 PM
Here is the direct link to a 6m video interview with Blinder on the topic.
http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid452319854/bctid711665115
Posted by: Caravaggio at Mar 28, 2007 8:33:09 PM
The competitive advantage that we would gain in dealing with such technologically lacking societies such as China and India would be offset by the loss of jobs in this country. As long as China operates as a closed society and does not allow immigration. No real advantage is therefore gained. Open borders to free trade should go hand in hand with open borders to immigration.
Posted by: w.d. reed at Mar 28, 2007 10:02:43 PM
What do you mean China doesn't allow immigration? I've investigated job offers from the USA and China and it wasn't China that was going to be difficult for me to move to.
(I ended up moving to Sydney, Australia, which tried to keep me out via their very high real estate prices.)
Posted by: doctorpat at Mar 28, 2007 10:41:45 PM
I agree completely. Corporate welfare will just make our industries uncompetitive in the long run, raising the dislocations of the inevitable globalization.
But, I do think that investment in technological progress, along with regulatory streamlining (such as developing unified cell phone standards, or revising recent silly changes in patent laws, or reforming SarbOx), would help our competitive position a lot.
Posted by: Mr. Noah at Mar 28, 2007 10:59:42 PM
The government should not be trying to pick winning jobs based on how easily they can be done overseas. Creating a better safety net, and, of course, better education, should be enough.
Moreover, Mr Blinder does not consider that jobs can be moved the other way, ie from low wage countries to rich ones. For instance, he considers accounting 'highly offshorable'. Yet China faces a shortage of about 300,000 accountants, and this means many accounting functions are done elsewhere.
I'm from Australia, and here all the big four accounting firm fast track Mandarin speaking grads.
Posted by: smithy at Mar 29, 2007 12:12:49 AM
Creative destruction
As a general point, it seems to me that growth depends on the fact that most efficiency gains are liberated for new uses. But if people who are made unemployed by efficiency gains are given *too much* support (especially via higher taxes and inefficient government agencies) then all the efficiency savings are simply wasted, and (economically speaking) there was no point in them losing their jobs in the first place.
In other words, the creation depends upon the destruction. In the long term, destruction is necessary if we want creation.
Posted by: Bruce G Charlton at Mar 29, 2007 2:12:47 AM
Doctor Pat,
What makes you think you have an automnatic right to go anywhere?
Posted by: Martin at Mar 29, 2007 2:17:11 AM
Wonder why Blinder is not concerned about technological changes that will also render certain workers' skills useless and help others with higher skills get richer? Outsourcing and technology have precisely the same economic effects -- the unit cost of production goes down, but expanded markets and higher level jobs bring the prosperity.
Where I do agreee with Blinder is that retraining needs a fix, though by using the market. I don't think learning to read or write is the problem in developed countries that arew losing jobs due to technology or outsourcing -- it is specific job skills that are way past reading and writing. A classical education is truly a wonderful thing, but it is a luxury. My not-for-profit (http://www.k-capital.com) is based on the supposition that we have a market failure in the market for information about good (effective at increasing income) re-training schools and programs. Schools are quite happy to train as manay as show up and not be responsible for the income that results. Banks that lend for such training would have such incentives, and so by creating a deep secondary market for such re-training loans, (a) the information should become more and more availaible and (b) good schools will gain more than bad schools, and (c) the worker needing retraining will get an avalanche more of information about effectiveness of competing retraining programs. Just imagine that instead of mortgage brokers desparately searching for people to sell houses to, we get training brokers dying to lend for retraining and helping you find a course that would work for you...
Somehow I think that would be better than the governments' couple of months of training for laid off workers.
Posted by: KP at Mar 29, 2007 2:44:36 AM
Economists are one of the few professions that are probably more insulated
from international competitive pressures than in most other areas of
policy advice in that an understanding of the domestic political context
is essential in crafting economic policy advice. This understanding can
only be derived from working in government generally or at the least this is the case in Australia. A non tariff barrier but for understandable
reasons and economists should take advantage of it
Posted by: tjr at Mar 29, 2007 6:40:34 AM
Blinder's about-face was prompted by the realization "additional American workers will start to experience an element of job insecurity that has heretofore been reserved for manufacturing workers" and that a college diploma is losing "'silver bullet' status."
Does he worry because the allegedly larger number of offshorable workers increases the size of the problem? Or do blue-collar workers not rate?
Posted by: gundryggia at Mar 29, 2007 7:34:13 AM
How long do the Blinders of academia have to be wrong before academia begins to change its mind about collectivism and protectionism?
Competition, as Blinder points out, is uncomfortable. The more competition you have the less comfortable you are. Didn't we cover this in econ 101? The trade-off is more innovation born of that uncomfortable competition, more efficient allocation of resources and higher wealth creation. Why is Blinder suddenly having an epiphany about the first part of this "duh" concept but not the second?
Also, why does his model include a fantastical amount of technological development but no corresponding increase in the demand for labour as new jobs are created by the predicted tech boom? Blinder's model also doesn't seem to assume that there will be any domestic growth in demand for these same professions in developing countries to which we now offshore jobs (as someone else already pointed out here with the chinese accountant example). Nor does his model assume that as demand for, say, bookkeepers grows in China, along with general Chinese economic growth, that the cost of bookkeeping labour between the US and China will be equalized, disinsentivizing offshoring of US domestic bookkeeping work. This example would hold true for all professions and for all developing markets. Developing countries have no incentive to keep down their cost of labour forever.
He suggests that we develop businesses that are difficult to offshore - regardless of how much value they create. At least two problems with that 1.) That would require central planning of the sort that the Russians engaged in, where people were hearded into approved professions. We saw how well that worked out (or does empirical evidence have no place in economics?). 2.) A focus on creating non-offshorable jobs is the wrong focus. The focus of any economy should be the efficient allocation of resources, thus maximizing value. Every economy injected with central planning has seen a reduction (or a comparitive reduction in growth) in the standard of living. So, if Blinder is afraid that our standard of living is possibly in danger from free trade, implementing his little plan will take it from a remote modeled possibility to a certainty in one fell swoop.
Does anyone else here find his tax solution absurd? In the first part of the article he waxes indignant about tariffs and how he witnesses companies pass along the cost of the tariff to consumers in 1993 (was he seriously surprised by this as late as 1993? Didn't they actually cover tariffs somewhere during his education?) then he suggests a higher tax for corporations that offshore jobs. Tariffs are evil, according to Blinder, but a tax is A-OK! Isn't a tax a tariff and a tariff a tax?
Either he's an idiot or he has an agenda. He clearly couldn't be an idiot, so I'm left with the distinct impression that he's suffering from the same superiority complex and lust for power that J.K. Galbraith suffered from. Is he, like Krugman, fitting his academic opinion to the Democrat agenda for political purposes ahead of the election? I don't mean to pick on Democrats, the Republicans haven't proven to be any more inclined to reduce government meddling. It's not in politician's best interest to reduce the scope of his job. It's just sad when academics aid the government in taking over our lives.
Posted by: Methinks at Mar 29, 2007 9:28:00 AM
If one is thinking in zero sum terms then I'd think that abolishing the corporate income tax would be a no-brainer. It would discourage offshoring and encourage onshoring by foreign firms. Why are we shooting ourselves in the foot?
By the way, this also has positive sum benefits as well. It would encourage more new businesses. It would keep capital in the hands businesses with which to hire still more workers as it is now able to expand at a faster pace. The new hiring would both lower the unemployment rate and also bid up wages(!) of workers. The new businesses with all those new products would tend to lower prices as they compete for customers, thus in effect giving all workers a raise as they get more bang for their buck, as well as introduce new products and services that didn't even exist before.
Posted by: happyjuggler0 at Mar 29, 2007 1:48:01 PM
Blinder's advice is simply awful, and really seems to let fear get in the way of clearheaded economic analysis.
If you're wondering what you should do if Blinder's offshoring projections are correct, here's the formula: DO NOT take Blinder's advice and look at jobs that "can't be offshored." This just limits your labor market opportunities to non-tradable goods/services. Instead, you should think in terms of what jobs will complement/consume those new cheaper services that we'll get thanks to offshoring. As far as I can see, those services that will get offshored complement virtually every other job, so if we're lucky enough to experience the scale of offhsoring that Blinder predicts, that means we're in for a broad-based increase in profits and wages.
I guess I'm still trying to figure out why Blinder has a problem with a form of trade that will generate widely dispersed benefits.
Posted by: Keith at Mar 29, 2007 2:35:01 PM
I don't want to be mean to Blinder - and I was a bit in my post. He's not the first free Trade economists who has started saying that we must "do something" about the discomfort of change. But by virtue of "doing" something, the trade is no longer "free" by definition.
In Blinder's defense, he does worry that his concern will be used to install protectionist measures. But I still have problems with his forecast and recommendations.
Posted by: Methinks at Mar 29, 2007 5:36:26 PM
look to economists and higher educators to predict the new, growing economic sectors
I have to agree with that. They are no help at all. None at all. Perhaps they should go into different work as they are quite useless in what they do.
Posted by: Lord at Mar 30, 2007 12:46:20 AM
With globalization and free trade comes change. While the effects of free trade are evident in manufacturing, the workforce in the US will have to reeducate itself and adapt to ever changing global economy. Additional incentives could be offered for "high value-added jobs" through government funded education assistance in addition to tax breaks for companies that create high value added jobs
Posted by: gmiller at Apr 8, 2007 10:36:44 PM
happyjuggler0 wrote:
"If one is thinking in zero sum terms then I'd think that abolishing the corporate income tax would be a no-brainer. It would discourage offshoring and encourage onshoring by foreign firms. Why are we shooting ourselves in the foot?
By the way, this also has positive sum benefits as well. It would encourage more new businesses. It would keep capital in the hands businesses with which to hire still more workers as it is now able to expand at a faster pace. The new hiring would both lower the unemployment rate and also bid up wages(!) of workers. The new businesses with all those new products would tend to lower prices as they compete for customers, thus in effect giving all workers a raise as they get more bang for their buck, as well as introduce new products and services that didn't even exist before."
I have to ask, when has any benefit given to a multinational, such as tax breaks, or the de-unionization of the Airline industry, EVER passed benefits to their consumers? No, in fact by "giving" them a legislated competative edge, all they do is pass those dollars to their investors while the cost of goods remains constantly increasing, wages in constant decline, and althought the GDP increases, the standards of living for all but the top 1% decline. Paying chinese workers less than the chinese cost of living to make jeans hasn't lowered the price of jeans here in the States. Your entire model is based on the idea that they WANT to lower thier prices and so look for cheaper labor. No, they want to increase profits for their investors. Cheaper labor = more for the already wealthy. It does not = more for the rest of us.
Economics theory, especially your Utopia, need to be coupled with what we actually see happening to the market--aka practical experience.
Posted by: Culverapex at May 20, 2007 12:15:34 AM
liqingchao 07年8月10日
google排名
google排名
wow gold
wow gold
powerleveling
powerleveling
wow gold
wow gold
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
powerleveling
powerleveling
wow power level
wow power level
world of warcraft powerleveling
world of warcraft powerleveling
world of warcraft power leveling
world of warcraft power leveling
hong kong hotel
hong kong hotel
beijing tour
beijing tour
rolex replica
rolex replica
北京搬家公司
北京搬家公司
北京搬家公司
北京搬家
搬家
搬家
搬家公司
搬家公司
北京搬家公司
搬家公司
超声波探伤仪
超声波探伤仪
翻译公司
翻译公司
上海翻译公司
上海翻译公司
北京翻译公司
北京翻译公司
北京搬家公司
北京搬家公司
超声波探伤仪
超声波探伤仪
google排名
网站设计
网站设计
多媒体
条码打印机
条码打印机
光盘刻录
光盘刻录
光盘制作
光盘制作
光盘印刷
光盘印刷
呼叫中心
电话交换机
交换机
熊猫人
熊猫人
熊猫人
熊猫人
熊猫人
熊猫人
熊猫人
熊猫人
熊猫人
赵半狄
赵半狄
赵半狄
赵半狄
赵半狄
赵半狄
赵半狄
赵半狄
赵半狄
赵半狄
赵半狄
赵半狄
赵半狄
赵半狄
赵半狄
康王
康王
康王
康王
赵半狄
赵半狄
牙周炎
多媒体
world of warcraft power leveling
四环素牙
wow power leveling
SFP
SFP
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
北京搬家公司
北京搬家公司
北京搬家公司
北京搬家公司
北京搬家公司
北京搬家公司
北京搬家公司
北京搬家公司
北京搬家公司
北京搬家公司
北京搬家公司
北京搬家公司
北京搬家公司
北京搬家公司
北京搬家公司
翻译公司
翻译公司
翻译公司
翻译公司
翻译公司
翻译公司
翻译公司
翻译公司
翻译公司
翻译公司
翻译公司
翻译公司
翻译公司
翻译公司
翻译公司
翻译公司
翻译公司
翻译公司
翻译公司
翻译公司
翻译公司
翻译公司
翻译公司
翻译公司
翻译公司
翻译公司
翻译公司
翻译公司
翻译公司
翻译公司
翻译公司
翻译公司
翻译公司
翻译公司
翻译公司
翻译公司
翻译公司
翻译公司
翻译公司
翻译公司
翻译公司
翻译公司
翻译公司
翻译公司
翻译公司
翻译公司
翻译公司
翻译公司
翻译公司
翻译公司
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
Posted by: wslmwps at Aug 11, 2007 3:00:34 AM
liqingchao 07年8月14日
google排名
google排名
wow gold
wow gold
powerleveling
powerleveling
wow gold
wow gold
powerleveling
powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
wow power level
wow power level
world of warcraft powerleveling
world of warcraft powerleveling
world of warcraft power leveling
world of warcraft power leveling
china tour
china tour
hongkong hotel
hongkong hotel
beijing tour
beijing tour
翻译公司
翻译公司
上海翻译公司
上海翻译公司
北京翻译公司
北京翻译公司
北京搬家公司
北京搬家公司
鼓风机
风机
风机
货架
光盘刻录
光盘刻录
光盘制作
光盘制作
光盘印刷
光盘印刷
红外测温仪
红外测温仪
超声波测厚仪
超声波测厚仪
超声波探伤仪
超声波探伤仪
频闪仪
频闪仪
涂层测厚仪
涂层测厚仪
电火花检测仪
电火花检测仪
google排名
仓库
仓库
仓库出租
仓库出租
物流园区
物流园区
集团电话
集团电话
四环素牙
口腔常识
口腔常识
口腔医生
口腔医生
网站设计
网站设计
多媒体
监控
监控
监控系统
监控系统
门禁
门禁
门禁系统
门禁系统
搬家公司
搬家公司
条码打印机
条码打印机
牙周炎
牙周炎
牙周炎
多媒体
world of warcraft power leveling
四环素牙
wow power leveling
SFP
SFP
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
北京搬家公司
北京搬家公司
北京搬家公司
北京搬家公司
北京搬家公司
北京搬家公司
北京搬家公司
北京搬家公司
北京搬家公司
北京搬家公司
北京搬家公司
北京搬家公司
北京搬家公司
北京搬家公司
北京搬家公司
翻译公司
翻译公司
翻译公司
翻译公司
翻译公司
翻译公司
翻译公司
翻译公司
翻译公司
翻译公司
翻译公司
翻译公司
翻译公司
翻译公司
翻译公司
翻译公司
翻译公司
翻译公司
翻译公司
翻译公司
翻译公司
翻译公司
翻译公司
翻译公司
翻译公司
翻译公司
翻译公司
翻译公司
翻译公司
翻译公司
翻译公司
翻译公司
翻译公司
翻译公司
翻译公司
翻译公司
翻译公司
翻译公司
翻译公司
翻译公司
翻译公司
翻译公司
翻译公司
翻译公司
翻译公司
翻译公司
翻译公司
翻译公司
翻译公司
翻译公司
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
Posted by: wslmwps at Aug 14, 2007 4:06:09 AM
吴尊
阿穆隆
林志玲
尚雯婕
大人物
王睿
Mac DVD Ripper
火狐浏览器
Firefox浏览器
Posted by: hoojk at Dec 2, 2007 10:41:12 PM
大家好,我是臺灣人,從臺灣一個人搬家來到美國,環境很陌生,感覺很孤單。以前在臺灣幾家知名的徵信社工作過,我是一個優秀的徵信工作者,希望早點找到適合自己的工作。希望通過貴站,認識更多的朋友。
Posted by: 謝文豪 at Apr 1, 2008 10:58:32 PM





