Paul Krugman: What will globalization look like after the crisis ?

[LogicalFlawDetector]

The way to phase out negative impacts of globalization is by nationalizing healthcare? What about increased investments, competition, and programs like the Earned Income Tax credit?

[islandmuffin]

The peer-reviewed research was published in May 2010 issue of the Econ Journal Watch (EJW), edited by Daniel B. Klein.

Seven Nobel laureates are members of the EJW Advisory Council.

[marsCubed]

@seahawks78,

It is the exact opposite.

The party is the bubble and trickle down.

What it has led to is neglect of investment.. it was hype which kept promising that profit would become wealth production.

Unless countries invest in manufacturing, skills, infrastructure... in the years to come all there will be us uneducated unhoused broom pushers.

In Japan, during their 'slow down' unemployment did not rise, they invested in education and even increased pensions.

They are primed for recovery.

[marsCubed]

One cannot run an economy on bonuses, all it has done is increase inequality.

It's most striking feature is sheer neglect, bought politicians and ranting market religious nuts.. wishing the party would go on and on by dispossessing the population of their houses...

It will cripple the USA if it is not held at bay.

Manure is no good all in one spot. in fact it stinks.

[ihatekhomeini]

Actually what happened in Japan was wages was cut dramatically, and for the first time after the war they have a huge homeless and poor population. Relative poverty in Japan is 17%, and full-time employment is 20% of the workforce. It is recovering, very slowly, but by reducing the living standards of the middle class and the poor. They are just following the regular neoliberal approach, and will create another crisis in the future that will have an even worse effect.

[marsCubed]

@ihatekhomeini

LOL you suggest that only 1 in 5 Japanese is in employment and expect anyone to take you seriously?

Japanese unemployment is at 4.9%‎.

Japan has people called NEET who prefer not to work.

'Relative' poverty is the term you had to use too I see. In Japan an apartment is provided, free food, healthcare, education etc, and employment opportunities through various networks.

Your argument is a sham.

Japan even introduced Art into the science curriculum.. how brilliant is that?

[marsCubed]

@Ihatekhomeini

Put simply; economies do themselves no favours with inequality or poverty.

Perhaps in the Victorian era it was the case that driving humans into desperation provided a pliable subservient workforce.

Today it is a recipe for disaster.

broom pushers.

Robots require skilled, intelligent and flexible engineers and designers, communicators and managers.

Manufacturing is distributed, so are skills; at all levels.

Making a nicer planet for all is the best motivator.

watch?v=V_lSEDa2BfQ

[ihatekhomeini]

@marsCubed Art is part of curriculum in all Scandinavian countries. What I said was that only 20% of the workforce are full-time employees. If you can't read properly don't bother writing back. Yes, the term relative poverty has to be used, and it is pretty high in Japan. If you follow Japanese news, as you probably don't, you would have known that there have been many demonstrations lately by people without any place to live. The number of houseless people in Japan is growing.

[Ramaswami07]

Obama has one of the most intellectual and forward thinking cabinets in the last 30 years. Why Paul Krugman is not in there I will never know

[uru86]

The banks and Wall St. don't want him there.

[Lingerfoot]

Does Mr. Krugman study Austrian Economics like Peter Schiff? Peace!

[nuumskee]

The Bankers don't like him.

[Moragauth]

Indeed, why is he not there with the other charlatans?

[shanemacc]

@Ramaswami07 he's too smart for politics - politics in the US are dominated by people who are more concerned about their egos

[LogicalFlawDetector]

@Ramaswami07

Like who, Christina Romer, Larry Summers etc? 

[UtubeMyAccountName]

"It's an evolutionary change"  No, it is a change driven by politics, not economics.

[ScottieMac1985]

@UtubeMyAccountName Cheap labour is a political factor? How?

[UtubeMyAccountName]

Unemployment insurance, workers compensation, health insurance mandates, social security, medicaid, medicare, safety regulations, the minimum wage, etc...

It costs the average midsized employer who pays an employee say $25/hour, an additional $27/hour per employee in all of these govt mandates.

Most employees are not aware that their employer must pay the govt MORE to employ them, than they get paid themselves. And then they still have all the various taxes to boot.

cont...

[UtubeMyAccountName]

How could cheap labor NOT be a political factor?

If a company moves to a country with no labor laws they can cut the cost of production by 70 to 90%. At this point even with the freight costs they are still well below the cost of production in the US.

[ScottieMac1985]

So I guess you see the labour market as a race to the bottom? who can work for the east amount of money performing the worst, most labour intensive job, and you'd like to see America a nation of unsafe super sweatshops sewing shoes and factories stamping out plastic crap.

I see it differently; I see the labour market in the developed world as a race to the top. I'd sooner see my country as a nation of graphic designers, insurance underwriters and IT consultants.

cont...

[ScottieMac1985]

Universal safety standards and minimum wage protections do contribute to making the US more like my vision of offices and sophisticated services, but it is more the Chinese willing to work for fifty cents an hour that has prevented the US from becoming a sweatshop archepelago

[UtubeMyAccountName]

@ScottieMac1985, you asked me how cheap labor was a political phenomenon, and I explained it.

I don't want to see people used as slave labor anymore than you do, but the very things you think of as "protections" are harming the working man, and small non-corporate business.

I couldn't possibly explain free market theory to you in a youtube post, but I will suggest something for you to read:

Economics in One Lesson, by Henry Hazlitt. It's as basic as it gets.

[ihatekhomeini]

Hazlitt? He is a journalist with no knowledge of academic research. His books are terrible, and written in a state of denial.

A completely free market is impossible, simply because you need a police force to keep workers from uniting and creating unions. That police force will eventually get in the hands of the corporations, who then will create a system that exploits workers. I'd rather have a system where workers are protected, rather than corporations.

[ihatekhomeini]

by regulating the labor market you can create cheap labor, like in China. The state controls the biggest labor-union, and thus can dictate labor standards. Another political factor in labor is how the state regulates the influx of laborers to the cities.

[UtubeMyAccountName]

"by regulating the labor market you can create cheap labor..." Exactly!

That is why an UN-regulated FREE MARKET is beneficial to labor. I thought you were arguing AGAINST my point.

You don't like Hazlitt fine, try Adam Smith, Carl Menger, Ludvig von Mises...

Also your argument about his education is meaningless. Everything, and I do mean EVERYTHING, taught BY academics was first taught TO academics.

Next, governments (police) DON"T prevent unions, they enable them. Unions HURT labor.

[ihatekhomeini]

how does unions hurt labor? If you look at countries with strong unions, like Scandinavian countries, Germany, France and Austria the working class are much better of than countries where there are few or no unions, or where the unions are controlled by the state. China, where there are no unions (because the state has created and controls unions, its just a regulated quasi governmental organization) the working class are extremely poor. Labor in US had its best conditions during the 30s.

[ihatekhomeini]

And why where the conditions best during the 30s. Because unions where large and independent. Today the working class in the US have declining wages and their conditions are getting worse because of the union busting and less autonomy to unions.

Adam Smith based his ideas on his thinking, not on empirical research.

What do you mean by things are taught to academics? Do you mean academia? Researchers? These are the people who gather information, who do research.

[ihatekhomeini]

Who do you mean teaches academics? Researchers are the ones who do research. When it comes to Hazlitt, he just based his ideas on poor research. Like so many right-wing think thanks, and populist economists do.

[UtubeMyAccountName]

Lots of stuff to cover;

Unions hurt profits, this hurts labor. As in the form of job security, opportunity for advancement due to the companies expansion, money for research to reduce the cost of production and improve the quality of the product, which reduces its cost while at the same time increasing its value, which aids not only labor but the consumer as well.

As far as wage increases, you need to address the role of inflation on the purchasing power of a currency to accurately

...cont

[UtubeMyAccountName]

cont...

gauge the harm done to labor in the form of salary and wages. And this phenomenon INFLATION is caused by government, not private industry, so they cannot legitimately be held accountable.

The standard of living in most of the countries you mentioned has declined steadily since their heights. At the apex of their economic health, it only required ONE person to work a 35 hour or less workweek, to take care of an entire family.

...cont

[UtubeMyAccountName]

cont...

Now with both parents working 60 - 80 hour workweeks, many families can still not make ends meet without going into massive debt.

How is this an improvement in the standard of living?

Have you ever actually read The Wealth of Nations.

His conclusions were drawn from observing those practices that had been productive and unproductive throughout history. That is the definition of research, so I don't know what you're talking about with this he didn't do any research.

[UtubeMyAccountName]

p.s.

Everything taught in schools at every level, is a discipline that was created outside of academia, usually in the private sector, and sometimes (rarely) in the public sector.

ex.

aviation, space flight, engineering, language, computer science, cooking, music, etc. etc. etc. Every discipline taught in schools originates OUTSIDE of the education system.

EVERYTHING.

[ihatekhomeini]

The last comment is flat out wrong. As is most of what you write. Most of the research laying the foundations for what the private sector does comes through the military in the US, which is public.

[UtubeMyAccountName]

I don't know if you're in college, or are going to college in the future, but when/if you go, take the time to ask your professors about the pioneers of their discipline. If they're honest, ALL of them will tell you the name of a person or persons NOT affiliated with academia. This isn't even any sort of a secret.

"Most of the research laying the foundations for what the private sector does comes through the military in the US..." HUH?!

Like what? ...besides the internet.

[ihatekhomeini]

Name one discipline that was created by the so called free marke. I'm just going to take some from the top of my head. Pioners within sociology were Comte, Durkheim and Marx. They where part of Academia. Pioners of psychology: Freud and Jung both academia. Most groundbreaking work in physics are within academia, just think of Bohr, Einstein.

[UtubeMyAccountName]

Sociology and psychiatry originate in the slave trade and exploration, NOT academia. It was the collected data of better than 400 years of observing and experimenting with the best method of gaining and maintaining control over other human beings. As well as the observation of native populations and cultures which had developed cultures in isolation so different and yet so similar each from the other. As far as NB and AE, the discipline they mastered did NOT originate with them or academia..

[UtubeMyAccountName]

..., but men such as Isaac Newton and periods like the Hellenistic, where free thinking philosophers, made observations of the physical world.

[ihatekhomeini]

Please refer me to a book that has done some serious research into your claims. Psychology as has a history before the pre-socratic era, but it was developed as a distinct academic discipline with Freud and Jung. Some of the data might have been carried out by slave traders and exploration, but facts are dime a dozen. It's theories that count in academia, not the data collection itself. Both Jung and Freud did their own research, that was funded by the state.

[ihatekhomeini]

Military and universities do research that lay the foundations for future inventions. Besides the Internet, which is a pretty huge invention that the private sector did not want to invest in to begin with, there are several other examples. Just take quantum mechanics and the CERN project. This is a public project, and much of their findings lay the grounds for things like GPS, nano technology and the whole intel boom.

[UtubeMyAccountName]

The military develops several technologies to aid them, almost all if these originate in the private sector. As you say CERN. which is basically a nuclear physics project. We already know the origin of physics. As far as the GPS perhaps you have heard of Nikola Tesla, and Daniel Colloden. nano tech; Richard Feynman a physicist., and the microprocessor a pure invention of private industry. These technologies have been ADAPTED by the military NOT invented

[ihatekhomeini]

It isn't black and white like you free market libertarians portray things. The free market can function up to a certain extent, and it does produce immence wealth. But it creates problems as well that the market can't solve. The biggest problem with the free market is what is called externalities. The public are always forced to deal with these externalities, like for instance pollution.

[UtubeMyAccountName]

What makes you say the free market system can't handle these 'externalities', what is your proof of this assertion. as far as pollution is concerned, most of the effective means of dealing with it HAVE come from the private sector.

[ihatekhomeini]

Externalities are things that the private sector has no interest in doing,simply because there is no profit. You just say most effective ways of dealing with pollutions comes from the private sector, but do you have any empirical evidence? The private sector may do some of the cleaning, or put in effect efforts in curbing pollution, but only if the public puts pressure on them, and pay for the costs.

[UtubeMyAccountName]

There are private companies that have developed a means to turn organic waste into energy.  Look it up.

...and all on their own dime; no public pressure OR support

[Moragauth]

Look up Hans Hermann Hoppe and Walter Block's writings on "externalities" and "public goods". Mises too while you're at it. They explode this fallacy masquerading as economic theory, i.e. masking for socialism.

[ihatekhomeini]

when it comes to externalities a simple empirical study will show how the private market never handles these well. Take countries, like Bolivia and India, who privatized their water resources, and compare that to countries like Norway and Holland who have publicly owned water. The former has huge problems with water pollution, while the latter has had minimum of pollution. Reason is, like in India, corporations don

[UtubeMyAccountName]

Here in the U.S. we have both public and private water sources; and you know what, private water is cheaper AND cleaner.

[ihatekhomeini]

*don't care if they pollute, because they know they don't need to clean it up. Like the Coca Cola scandal that killed hundreds of people because they contaminated the ground water in an Indian village. Would never happen if the water was publicly owned, and there were regulations to prevent companies from pouring their waste into it.

[UtubeMyAccountName]

"Would never happen if the water was publicly owned,..."

...again, CC scandal notwithstanding, what proof do you have of this?

Do you know how many more scandals have been uncovered in the public sector than the private sector here in the U.S. percentage wise? It almost 4 to 1

[WadeBlazingame34]

Paul Krugman is the frickin' man. Enact his proposals POTUS Obama!!