Globalization is good

OP-ED: "Rx for Global Poverty," by Robert J. Samuelson, Washington Post National Weekly Edition, 2-8 June 2008, p. 30.

21-member Commission on Growth and Development comes up with 5 characteristics of growing economies:

1) Openness to global trade and FDI
2) Political stability but not necessarily democracy; a gov committed to growth
3) High savings
4) Sensible gov spending and inflation control
5) A willingness to let markets allocate resources

Samuelson's upshot?

Globalization works.

Telegraph took 90 years to spread, but cellphones only 16--thanks to globalization.

Clincher:

Globalization has moral as well as economic and political dimensions. The United States and other wealthy countries are experiencing an anti-globalization backlash. Americans and others are entitled to defend themselves from economic harm, but many of the allegations against globalization are wildly exaggerated. Today, for example, the biggest drag on the U.S. economy--the housing crisis--is mainly a domestic problem. By making globalization an all-purpose scapegoat for economic complaints, many "progressives" are actually undermining the most powerful force for eradicating global poverty.

Can't say it better.

Comments

[JFRiley]

All great comments Tom, thanks. But I suspect most of the readers on this forum are of like mind, or at least close to it. What are our options to keep the Dems from derailing Globalization if they win? As I've said before I may go Dem this year just for the universal goodwill towards the US it will bring, but their populist anti-globalization stance has me worried. Unless that was all a primary election issue and now that were into the general they will swing to the right.

[stuart abrams]

I am hopeful that on trade, an Obama Administration would follow John Mitchell's adage: "Watch what we do, not what we say." Obama's two top economic advisers, Austan Goolsbee and Jason Furman, are serious free-traders. In fact, the announcement about Furman's role is causing consternation among "leftist" protectionists because of his favorable writings on the Walmart business model (see article in today's NYT Business Section). For the most part, Obama has not cozied up to "progressive" economists, as demonstrated by the generally adverse tone of Paul Krugman's writings about Obama. Standing up to this pressure is a huge challenge to Obama. Obviously protectionism is out of the question, but on the other hand, globalization is going to have a lot of problems if the American middle class is uncomfortable with it - it's going to be a tight-rope act. I have a feeling that Obama may have an FDR-like Presidency by surrounding himself with lots of advisers of radically different views, and then cherry pick ideas from each of them to come up with an eclectic policy approach.

[Anonymous]

stuart: that story's in the q for tomorrow

[Constantina]

Great comments Barnett. I agree with Stuart on this as well. As a reader who is a Democrat, and being in the middle of it all, ( for DNC & NJDSC) and on the barnett frequency with this topic, I don't believe that the democrats whole heartly have a " populist anti-globalization stance" Maybe I'm seeing things differently here on the ground level. When I am in constant contact with democrats alike. Maybe I'm not a traditional dem.

[Louis Heberlein]

Part of the reason we had too much investment and jobs bulging in our housing market was that it was considered a 'safe' domestic reaction to the loss of such domestic opportunities due to globalization. Originally that was true, but the gurus stopped watching the situation.

Being for globalization should not mean leaving our brains at the bar with our martini. That automatic view is a form of ideology, or as Napoleon said, just "practice without (understanding) principle. If we really think about the principles involved in effective globalization, we are more likely to select better adaptations to it.

Unfortunately, our politicians and media too often quote short segments from research and analyses books and articles rather than read and think about the whole process.

[aditya]

But why should the U.S be opposed to globalization? After all it does have a lot to gain. Two major areas have been trade and the ability to outsource. What do you think?