Krugman Raises White Flag on Trade, admits his “free-trade” cheerleading was mostly garbage

[Cheese Sandwich]

The Times columnist made his name by ridiculing critics of globalization. Now he admits that “free-trade” cheerleading was mostly garbage.

By William Greider in The Nation

The working-class voters of Michigan put a big dent in Hillary Clinton’s campaign, but they also body-slammed celebrated economists like New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, who made his name by relentlessly ridiculing critics of globalization like myself.

Anti-trade anger was the decisive issue that gave Bernie Sanders his victory in the Michigan primary. In the aftermath, Krugman decided to raise the white flag of surrender.

The Nobel Prize–winning economist now admits in a column and blog that the orthodox case he championed for “free trade” globalization was mostly garbage. Now he tells us. On a point of personal privilege, I claim the right to hoot derisively.

I am among the supposedly misguided reporters who didn’t major in economics but wrote critically about what we saw unfolding in the “manic logic of global capitalism” (the subtitle for my book One World, Ready or Not, which Krugman dismissed as “a thoroughly silly book”). The multinationals were colonizing the world while systematically draining America of manufacturing and the core jobs of our broadly shared prosperity. Meanwhile, the globalizing companies brutishly exploited the low-wage peasant workers in their new factories in Asia.

The professor stomped hard on my reporting, so naturally I took it personally. But his belated confessional should be understood as a meaningful indicator of economic orthodoxy in collapse.

The facts did not fit the professor’s theory. Yet influential voices like Krugman grossly misled the nation’s political debate for a generation. He was the bell cow for a herd of ambitious young academics who mimicked his sharp-tongued style and worshiped at the same shrine of macroeconomics that’s now a shambles.
...

more: http://www.thenation.com/article/paul-krugman-raises-the-white-flag-on-trade/

[amborin]

1. in today's ny times, Jared Bernstein has op ed about all the negative effects of free trade:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/14/opinion/the-era-of-free-trade-might-be-over-thats-a-good-thing.html?ref=opinion

[Baobab]

14. Clinton trade deal is the real reason US health care is so thoroughly broken-

And one of several currently pending trade deal is trying to globally privatize education... irreversibly - Definitive proof here:

http://www.eua.be/Libraries/publication/EUA_Statement_TTIP.pdf?sfvrsn=2 Read it!

---------------

The following is just an excerpt from a paper at

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.405.5725

about International Trade Law and U.S. Health Reform


What the GATS Rules Require

Broadly speaking, there are three “tiers” of GATS rules affecting health care.
The first tier of rules, General Obligations and Disciplines, apply equally to all
service sectors of all WTO member countries, regardless of whether those sectors
are committed in a country’s schedule or not. The second tier, Specific Commitments, apply only to those sectors that a country commits to its schedule.

These rules are more far-reaching, and members were given the opportunity to write
any exceptions or limitations to them into their schedules. Finally, under GATS
Part III, Article XVII, WTO member countries are allowed to negotiate a third
“tier” of rules to govern their commitments above and beyond the underlying
Specific Commitments rules that normally apply. Citing this provision, the United
States has inscribed its Financial Commitments schedule with the “supplemental”
rules of the Understanding on Commitments in Financial Services. These rules
apply in addition to the underlying GATS Specific Commitments rules on
Market Access and National Treatment



General Obligations and Disciplines. These rules apply to all service sectors of
all WTO member countries, regardless of whether or not the sectors have been
committed to a nation’s schedule. While these are generally the least controversial
provisions, several may have serious implications for reform or regulation of
the health sector (4).

Most-Favored-Nation Treatment: This provision requires a member to give
service suppliers of any other WTO member no less favorable treatment than it
gives service suppliers of “any other country” (4, Art. II).

Prohibition on New “Monopolies”: This provision requires that if a country
grants new “monopoly rights” regarding the supply of a service covered in its
schedule, the country granting the “monopoly” must enter into negotiations to
provide compensation to any other member adversely affected by it. If an agree-
ment is not reached, the affected member may refer the matter to arbitration, and
the “monopoly” may not go into force until the compensation required by the
arbitration has been made. The term “monopoly rights” is not defined anywhere
in the agreement (4, Art. VIII).

“Disciplines” on Domestic Regulation: In sectors where no commitments
have been undertaken, the GATS states that a special Council for Trade in Services
shall develop “disciplines” that assure that qualification requirements and proce-
dures, technical standards, and licensing requirements for the provision of services
are “not more burdensome than necessary to ensure the quality of the service.”
Regarding sectors in which commitments have been undertaken, however, it
is unclear whether such a “necessity test” is already in force (4, Art. VI).

Specific Commitments. These rules apply only to service sectors that members
have volunteered to submit to the rules by inscribing them in their schedules.
Members were also given an opportunity to reserve specific exceptions to the
rules during the negotiations of their schedules. Rules in this section fall into two
broad categories, Market Access and National Treatment.

Market Access: The rules in this section are aimed at preventing governments
from limiting the number, type, form, or size of foreign service suppliers in their
markets or intervening to affect or regulate the way the firms provide the service.

Examples of prohibited measures include (4, Art. XVI):

Limitations on the number of service suppliers

Limitations on the total quantity of service output

Requiring a specific type of legal entity (e.g., nonprofit)

Limitations on the “total value of service transactions or assets”

National Treatment: This set of rules requires that foreign service suppliers
receive, “in respect of all measures affecting the supply of services,” the same
treatment that a nation gives to its own service suppliers. It is easy to think of
situations in which a country may want to shape policy to favor domestic industry
over foreign operations, but the GATS rules go even farther than these require-
ments.

Under the National Treatment rules, any measure that modifies the conditions of competition in favor of a domestic supplier is a GATS violation. In other words, even if a policy has no intent to discriminate against foreign service
suppliers—indeed, it can be totally unrelated to service provision at all—if it
has the effect of disadvantaging them, it is potentially a violation of the GATS
(4, Art. XVII).

Special Rules for Health Insurance. The United States committed health insurance
to its schedule under the Financial Services section. Two special sets of rules
apply to commitments made under this section. The first is the Annex on Financial
Services, a unique set of constraints that apply to all commitments in financial
services, no matter what nation makes them. The second is an even more expan-
sive Understanding on Commitments in Financial Services, a set of extreme
liberalization rules that are an optional “attachment” to commitments in finan-
cial services that the United States has chosen to take. These rules go so far in
constraining governments that only developed countries have signed on to them.
The Annex on Financial Services: Most financial services are related to banking
and investment, hence the Annex provisions pertain mostly to them. One provision
in particular is significant in assessing the impact of the GATS on health care:

• Subjection of “Public Entities” to GATS Rules: Normal GATS rules make an
exception for government services and procurement (with significant limita-
tions). The Annex specifically states that if a nation allows domestic service
suppliers to compete with “public entities,” those entities are subject to
GATS rules. This will have significant implications for Medicare, as we will
see (4, Annex on Financial Services, §1(b)(iii)).


The Understanding on Commitments in Financial Services: The most far-
reaching document in the GATS, the Understanding binds signatory nations to
an extreme level of financial services liberalization. The commitments undertaken
by signatories to the Understanding include:

• The “Standstill” Provision: The signatories pledge that any exceptions to
the commitments they have made are limited to existing measures. The
implications of this vaguely worded provision are not entirely clear. Some
commentators believe that the signatories bind themselves to never enact a
limitation on their commitments in the future that was not in effect when
the Understanding was inscribed in their schedule. In effect, the level of
privatization at the time of the implementation of the Understanding is
“locked in” (5).

• New Financial Service: Signatories pledge to allow foreign firms to offer
any new financial product in their territory, as long as another WTO member
offers it (5, Art. B(7)).

• Domestic Regulation: Signatories pledge to “endeavor to remove or limit
any significant adverse effects” on foreign investors of any laws that “affect
adversely” the ability of foreign firms “to operate, compete, or enter” the
domestic market (5, Art. B(10)).

[amborin]

20. this would be a great OP

[840high]

75. yes +1

[daleanime]

34. Definitely......

OP.

[Ruby the Liberal]

70. Thanks for posting this

Bookmarked to read in full.

[hedda_foil]

81. Thanks for the Jared Bernstein article. It really should be an OP.

[rhett o rick]

2. No Shit! " “free trade” globalization was mostly garbage." How can he say that while we

are being told daily that free trade (NAFTA and the TPP) will bring prosperity. Yes some among us will support Obama and Clinton's positions that will lose more and more American jobs and at the same time keep min wages down. WAKE UP AMERICA the Free Traders are killing our economy, killing our Democracy while the Clinton supporters play their fiddles.

[Ferd Berfel]

35. Good Article to lay on the DLC, Third Way "Dems" here that have been defending it

Gee, The Reality based community wins.

Wonder what Krugman's Faustian Deal was?

[rhett o rick]

69. No amount of proof will shake their loyalty. The reason they refuse to discuss positions on

issues is that they don't care. They are willing to risk losing the General because of their loyalty. That's exactly the attitude the Oligarchy loves. If we want to solve the problems of poverty we must fight that loyalty to the Big Money. How can Democrats justify supporting Goldman-Sachs?

[Baobab]

71. Money - i.e. the revolving door..

Cushy think-tank jobs lobbying for the industries that used to be regulated, before the FTAs.

Please read:

http://www.ciel.org/news/fast-tracked-trade-deals-rush-us-toward-a-toxic-partnership/

http://www.ciel.org/news/leaked-ttip-draft-for-chemicals-sector-reveals-a-toxic-partnership/

http://www.ciel.org/Publications/PublicServicesScope.pdf (this is the core definition thats used in ALL THREE NEW TRADE DEALS to attack public services.. guess what, all the services we see as public, dont qualify.. they only qualify if they are completely free. All the rest must gradually irreversibly be privatized.

thats called "progressive liberalisation" Google must be getting a lot of searches on that phrase now because they set up a special definition page about it. just ignore that and keep on digging, you'll find a LOT of documents from the Third World that show that part of it is really a trade of jobs in developed countries, for markets.

[AzDar]

3. Utterly DESPICABLE. Lives, livelihoods, entire industries and communities destroyed by these LIARS.

[roguevalley]

39. a nobel, a big salary, dinner with the big shots, he sold out to his ego

[Jefferson23]

4. K&R

[Triana]

5. "free trade" is definitely crap.

Posted a really good article on that yesterday - it's worth reading - provides LOTS of info useful to explaining to idiots who don't grok what a disaster FTAs are:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027682226

[TexasBushwhacker]

82. There's really no such thing as "free trade"

We have a highly regulated system of global trade, and the regulations benefit big business at the expense of the workers.

[Triana]

83. +1 n/t

[Jarqui]

6. There were people who said this in the 80s when Reagan and Bush

started looking at free trade and NAFTA. Fact was, when they told Bush, he backed off - became much less enthusiastic.

Clinton came in, I guess he listened to people like Krugman and didn't really study the issue like the Bush Republicans did because he moved quite quickly on it.

Ross Perot covered it a way most folks could understand

[bonniebgood]

96. My first vote was for Perot and not Clinton, I will vote for Ahole Trump in order to

send the clintons to the dust bins of history like the bushes.

[99Forever]

7. ....

[m-lekktor]

8. Krugman is another 'He Who Can't Ever Be Criticized" so this is a shocker!1 (not)

many of us knew this all along.

[Phlem]

100. yep.

I don't have an economic degree, I just felt the pain.

Krugman can blow it out his @ss.

[FlatBaroque]

9. I have learned, over the past 12 to 15 years, to trust absolutely nothing that comes from

the mainstream press. Their main purpose is to keep the citizenry in the dark and to mislead everyone about anything important.

[TheFarS1de]

10. No harm , no foul .....

They don't care as there are no repercussions , we all just move on . Them a lot wealthier and the rest a larger burden .

[FlatBaroque]

11. Nate Silver - buh bye, Krugman - so long. I love this election cycle. /

[villager]

53. Are you 99% sure about that?

[FlatBaroque]

56. within one standard deviation.

[Fast Walker 52]

92. ha!

[Fast Walker 52]

93. it's crazy, right?

[Betty Karlson]

12. And when will he disavow Clinton and her "golden standard" for the TPP

which we all know she is itching to support again?

[Armstead]

13. Their misguided arrogence goes a lot farther

For sone of us, Bernies campaign is about payback andtrying to dislodge the stranglehold of Corporate Lackeys like Krugman and Clinton

They were wrong then, but successfully told critics ti shut up.

Now we're speaking up again through Bernie...and the Oligarchs don't like it

[Cheese Sandwich]

16. Their whole game is selling horrible policies to benefit the 1% and then saying oops 20 years later

It's getting old. People are seeing through it.

[Armstead]

17. Correction....

They say "Ooops. Let's do it again."

[Raster]

15. Too late for all those lost jobs in Michigan, eh, Mr. Krugman?

"Krugman’s meanspirited put-downs of people who disagree with him suggest we think of him as the Donald Trump of academic economics. The professor might demonstrate a little humility by publishing a correction in The New York Times. Alas, too late for the angry workers in Michigan who voted for Bernie."

WHAT. ELSE. MIGHT. YOU. BE WRONG ABOUT?

[SoapBox]

18. Day late and Dollar short, Mr. Dumbass.

Idiot...and shiller.

[Mbrow]

19. K&R Thank for posting

Got to love some William Greider! been reading him for years and got to meet him, great guy in person as well.

[ieoeja]

21. I disagree with this author's critique of Krugman's article.

Krugman wrote that most others arguments supporting free trade were garbage, not his. He said most outspoken supporters used faulty data, exaggerated the benefits, etc.

The closest he came to disavowing his own argument was admitting that free trade was gamed to create outsized inequality in the results of free trade. He said globalization itself is still a good idea. Krugman wrote that it was in the way it was handled.

[spooky3]

72. Exactly.

[zipplewrath]

102. Yeah, the author is projecting

Even in the direct quote, Krugman basically states the hope that HE didn't over state the facts as much as the people he was criticizing. He's basically suggesting that OTHER's arguments were overstated. But in the end he is suggesting that the worst isn't as bad as everyone was declaring, but that the benefits aren't as much as were asserted either.

I'm afraid that from my point of view then, I'd have to ask why we should have been pursuing free trade to begin with at all. I can understand "normalization of trade" between specific countries or regions. But basically it would be about "regulated" trade.

[rhett o rick]

106. But of course it's the way it was handled. It's always the way it's handled. Those objecting are

doing so because they know that it will be "handled" to exclude the lower classes.

[retrowire]

22. lol i remember when I was being lectured to give respect to Krugman by some DUers... nt

[AlbertCat]

23. Quite frankly...I dunno what "FREE trade" is. Does it even exist?

How can there be a "free" market if companies and corporations get special deals re regulations, fees, taxes...etc. That's not "free".

Real "free' markets would seem to dictate that if your company cannot survive without special perks, then it shouldn't survive. Right?

[Hoyt]

24. I hate it when some blogger can't read. Krugman: "Mr. Sanders is demagoguing the issue."

Like most complicated issues there are many facets. The blogger skirts the other things Krugman said. I can only post 4 pargraphs, so try these"

"The second is that protectionists almost always exaggerate the adverse effects of trade liberalization. Globalization is only one of several factors behind rising income inequality, and trade agreements are, in turn, only one factor in globalization. Trade deficits have been an important cause of the decline in U.S. manufacturing employment since 2000, but that decline began much earlier. And even our trade deficits are mainly a result of factors other than trade policy, like a strong dollar buoyed by global capital looking for a safe haven. . . . . . . .

And yes, Mr. Sanders is demagoguing the issue, for example with a Twitter post linking the decline of Detroit, which began in the 1960s and has had very little to do with trade liberalization, to “Hillary Clinton’s free-trade policies.” . . . . . .

"Yet what the models of international trade used by real experts say is that, in general, agreements that lead to more trade neither create nor destroy jobs; that they usually make countries more efficient and richer, but that the numbers aren’t huge; and that they can easily produce losers as well as winners. In principle the overall gains mean that the winners could compensate the losers, so that everyone gains. In practice, especially given the scorched-earth obstructionism of the G.O.P., that’s not going to happen. . . . . .

"And anyone ragging on about those past deals, like Mr. Trump or Mr. Sanders, should be asked what, exactly, he proposes doing now. Are they saying that we should rip up America’s international agreements? Have they thought about what that would do to our credibility and standing in the world? . . . . .

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/11/opinion/trade-and-tribulation.html?_r=0

[Armstead]

27. It was wrong to exacerbate existing problems by forcing "free trade" on us

Period. End of Story.

[Hoyt]

30. I think if we can partnership with other nations, we are a stronger country and world. Isolating

Isolating ourselves -- as essentially the world's 1%ers -- will do nothing to help the world prosper.

[Armstead]

32. No one is talking about "isolating" the US

But there are ways to participate in the global economy...and there are ways.

And we've been doing it the wrong way.

[Hoyt]

37. Will be glad to hear what Sanders says is the right way when he stops ranting and gets down to facts

Like Krugman says, what's he gonna do, renege on decades of treaties?

[Armstead]

42. This is a position paper of the Progressive Caucus

It basically reflects Sanders views on principles that trade agreements should follow.


http://cpc-grijalva.house.gov/uploads/Principles%20for%20Trade%20-%20FINAL%202015.05.051.pdf

[Hoyt]

48. So what is he going to do with all the ones we already have? Even the ones pending. Oh, well,

you can't trust us Americans. Sorry, that ain't smart except in Sanders' fantasy land.

[Armstead]

63. Okay I give up

Rational non sarcastic discussion not possible

(and yes I contribute my own share of sarcasm, but in response)

[senz]

87. So how do you like chapter 11 of NAFTA?

[senz]

86. Bernie Sanders doesn't "rant." He talks in facts. Guess you've never heard him.

[Kip Humphrey]

40. worn out either/or neoliberal false meme meant to scare and confuse - cut it out!

[Hoyt]

41. Sorry, we've taken more than our share of the world's wealth and resources to up and leave the game.

[Kip Humphrey]

45. no one ever said it would be easy... nor impossible.

[Hoyt]

46. The platitudes are killing me.

[JDPriestly]

54. We need trade, but we do not need the trade agreements that prevent us from

being able to manage our currency or maintain our industry.

And we do not want "free" trade to prevent us from having single payer, Medicare for all health insurance or other government programs such as a government program that insures that our water is safe and clean and that we are not dependent on fossil fuels as the environment worsens. That's what the proposed trade agreements apparently may require.

We have to rewrite our existing trade agreements to insure the safety of the environment and a balance between our dependency on the rest of the world and our self-sufficiency.

Right now, we are far too dependent on what is going on in other places in the world.

A bunch of religious extremists in Syria and Iraq, and our entire economy and world trade is placed in jeopardy so we think we have to step in and put out the extremists' fire. I do not like religious extremism of other violent extremism of any kind, but we need to be more self-sufficient so that we do not have to fight a war every time some would-be prophet in some country far away decides to kill everyone who disagrees with him.

We enforce these trade agreements. That's why we have been involved in so many wars that have nothing to do with us.

We protect the sea lanes, the ocean waters that permit the transport of manufactured products from poor countries to the wealthy ones. That is costing us a lot of the money in our military budget. At the same time, we are not benefiting in terms of creating wealth that can be taxed to pay for that military budget because of the lost industry in America.

It is all too easy for a company that produces its computers in Asia to buy a small company in, say, Ireland, a small country that does not pay for the huge military that we in America pay for, put its money in that other small country and leave the bills for the safeguarding of the oceans and international commercial space in which that company makes its money from "free" trade to America -- a country with diminished industrial capacity and a huge trade deficit.

This makes utterly, utterly no sense. It places an impossible burden on American taxpayers.

It is unsustainable. I want my grandchildren to have a viable country to live in -- both economically and environmentally.

And our trade policies, these trade agreements are destroying the likelihood that the US will still be viable when my grandchildren are my age.

France was once a great power. It spent too much money fighting England and later trying to manage distant colonies. War. War. War. The price of these wars for us is the likelihood that, as a nation, we will become impoverished.

When a nation becomes impoverished, as France dis at one time, those at the bottom of the food chain become desperate and rise up.

Our foolish trade policy is leading us toward that end.

We need to be wiser about.

The choice is not "free," unfettered throw-away trade policy or no trade policy.

The best trade policy is a realistic, balanced trade policy in which we protect our interests, do not put imperialistic goals first, but rather prioritize a responsible domestic policy and do what we can to promote peace in the world as well as a healthy environment.

"Free" trade will eventually cost us our country. It's got to end. It's really not "free" for the American people. It is only "free" for the corporations.

[Marr]

77. Who do you think you're kidding with that nonsense?

No one structures their economy to be a charity machine to the world-- nor should they. Stable, functional economies protect the interests of their own labor force as well as those of capital. That's not isolationism.

You sell this 1%er shit as if it's a matter of altruism. It's absurd.

[Populist_Prole]

88. Excellent response

Response to the crafty, weasel-worded defense of the comfortable class glibly throwing the afflicted class under the bus to show the world what lofty minded do-gooders they are.

[Hoyt]

89. That's called Nationalism. We will be a poor country trading among ourselves, not to mention

Last edited Tue Mar 15, 2016, 07:20 AM - Edit history (1)

hated universally around the world.

[Marr]

97. Economic colonialism is not about altruism. People aren't nearly as moronic as you

seem to think they are.

[Armstead]

31. And if you think Willoam Greider is a "blogger" you don't know shit

He's been one of the most astute investigative reporters and analysts around for decades

[Hoyt]

33. Don't care who he is if he can't read/comprehend. I guess his audience must be pretty dense.

Didn't even look at the author because I had already read Krugman's piece, and it was nothing like Greider says.

[Armstead]

36. If you had happened to come across his writings outside the campaign framework...

you'd probably admire him.

Columnist for The Nation and...

http://www.thenation.com/authors/william-greider/


William Greider, a prominent political journalist and author, has been a reporter for more than 35 years for newspapers, magazines and television. Over the past two decades, he has persistently challenged mainstream thinking on economics.

For 17 years Greider was the National Affairs Editor at Rolling Stone magazine, where his investigation of the defense establishment began.

He is a former assistant managing editor at the Washington Post, where he worked for fifteen years as a national correspondent, editor and columnist. While at the Post, he broke the story of how David Stockman, Ronald Reagan’s budget director, grew disillusioned with supply-side economics and the budget deficits that policy caused, which still burden the American economy.

He is the author of the national bestsellers One World, Ready or Not, Secrets of the Temple and Who Will Tell The People. In the award-winning Secrets of the Temple, he offered a critique of the Federal Reserve system. Greider has also served as a correspondent for six Frontline documentaries on PBS, including “Return to Beirut,” which won an Emmy in 1985.

Greider’s most recent book is The Soul of Capitalism: Opening Paths to A Moral Economy. In it, he untangles the systemic mysteries of American capitalism, details its destructive collisions with society and demonstrates how people can achieve decisive influence to reform the system’s structure and operating values.

Raised in Wyoming, Ohio, a suburb of Cincinnati, he graduated from Princeton University in 1958. He currently lives in Washington, DC.

[n2doc]

64. What Credibility? What Standing?

Perhaps we should stop digging ourselves deeper into the trade hole we are in and not approve the new trade scam agreements first. But then that might piss off some oligarchs and multinationals using 'trade' as a way to scam a bit more profit by changing the rules in their favor. Easier than real innovation.

If we want to improve our credibility and standing the first thing to do might be to actually follow international law and stop waging war against countries that we are not officially at war with and who do not represent any credible threat to us.

[senz]

85. Are you calling William Greider "some blogger?"

[ljm2002]

104. "some blogger"...

...surely you're joking?

You think William Greider is "some blogger"??

[Jack Rabbit]

25. "economic orthodoxy in collapse"

Got that, everybody (especially you folks residing in Camp Weathervane). That's neoliberalism (aka Reagonomics, supply side economics, trickle down economics or really fucked up economics) he's talking about.

Take the resto of the day off, oligarchs. We, The People have got this.

Welcome to the age of Democratic socialism.

[SammyWinstonJack]

58. +1000000.

[bbgrunt]

26. Wm Greider is one of the most honest and lucid writers ever! Mr. Krugman

has worn out his welcome as an opinion shaper of economic policy.

[Armstead]

29. Yes! He was calling bullshit from way back. Krugman is a dwarf compared to him.

[Hoyt]

52. Yet, he doesn't get essence of what Krugman said, including, "Mr. Sanders is demagoguing the issue."

[turbinetree]

28. This is a very good piece about what America is when it comes to being a non-sovereign country.....

from these trade deals.........................................


• Subjection of “Public Entities” to GATS Rules: Normal GATS rules make an
exception for government services and procurement (with significant limita-
tions). The Annex specifically states that if a nation allows domestic service
suppliers to compete with “public entities,” those entities are subject to
GATS rules. This will have significant implications for Medicare, as we will
see (4, Annex on Financial Services, §1(b)(iii)).



My Medicare and millions of others that are on this program, that paid, and are paying into this program is / or trying to be overseen / handed over by and to a foreign body, that was not elected by me or you to represent me / you and millions of others in the present or in the future, ------------------------------and this is the question that I would ask, right there, why did you support NAFTA and at one point support the TPP


I wish I was a town hall debate to see what the response would be


Honk--------------------for a political revolution Bernie 2016

[elleng]

38. ' economic orthodoxy in collapse.'

[86derps]

43. At least

At least he is willing to recognize he had it wrong. That's a good start.

[Jemmons]

44. There is no greater violence than poverty.

As an economist you are supposed to justify the absurd and evil system in which anyone with enough money can extract wealth from people with less resources. How they think that they can dress up that kind of work as science is beyond me. Nothing in economics has any resemblance with real science.

[jwirr]

61. Thank you - There is no greater violence than poverty. Have

never heard it described better.

[Recursion]

73. And the past 20 years have seen the largest reduction in global poverty in history

That's Krugman's usual point on this.

[Jemmons]

95. Yes, but in no way, shape or form thanks to economists who are trained to obfuscate the realities

that ordinary humans are forced to live with. The dogma about trade deals is just one example and there are many more. There is no real science which is tasked with making a field of study as hard to understand as possible and as divorced from realities as possible.

As an economist it is not brilliance, insights or breakthroughs that will promote your positions: If you can make a halfway convincing argument for social injustice you become a hero for the oligarchs. If you have a tint of honesty and sway the discourse a bit towards the truth you become a global hero and are in line to pick up a nobel price whenever that slot is not taken by some high priest of the church of gold.

And dont tempt me to write what I really think about Krugman.

[cyberpj]

47. I'm so tired of people 'making mistakes", "misspeaking" etc. Most of us know what it really was. nt

[Octafish]

49. This makes me so sad, for what might have been had he told the truth sooner.

My Detroit

 I am among the supposedly misguided reporters who didn’t major in economics but wrote critically about what we saw unfolding in the “manic logic of global capitalism” (the subtitle for my book One World, Ready or Not, which Krugman dismissed as “a thoroughly silly book”). -- William Greider

Better late than never, at times.

[Broward]

50. I hope he raises the white flag on Hillary next.

I won't hold my breath though.

[bhikkhu]

51. I've never found him mean-spirited, but its good to find an economist admitting error

...that's how people learn.

Most economists have been wrong about most things, if you follow the news the past few decades. Too many of them are indoctrinated into "standard textbook theory" during the degree process and never get past it, instead relying on "special circumstances" arguments as to why the theories so seldom work out in practice. Krugman, at least, seems to have an open mind and a decent memory.

[Jemmons]

59. This could be a rare case of truth seeking and soul searching. But isnt it a lot more likely that he

is actually just prompted by the realization that the next prez (if either Sanders or Trump win) is going to reverse the trend that he has been glorifying for decades.

As an economist you are supposed to justify the absurd and evil system in which anyone with enough money can extract wealth from people with less resources. How they think that they can dress up that kind of work as science is beyond me. Nothing in economics has any resemblance with real science.

[Skwmom]

55. Oh, please He just realizes Americans aren't buying his b.s. any longer. There were plenty of

people who spoke out against them because they were not blinded by greed.

They really think Americans are stupid.

[Populist_Prole]

57. That's it exactly, I believe

Last edited Tue Mar 15, 2016, 05:09 AM - Edit history (1)

At best, this "non-pology" from him is more along the lines of a weasely "mistakes were made" or "I'm sorry you're offended".

He's corporatist through and through. he's just dismayed his narrative isn't winning the day.

[Skwmom]

65. They have been pushing the TPP. Who in the hell does he think he is fooling?

[Enthusiast]

60. Kicked and recommended to the Max! Thank you, Cheese Sandwich!

[Dont call me Shirley]

62. The more apt term for "free trade" is Pay-to-Play.

[Cheese Sandwich]

66. That's about the size of it.

[Peace Patriot]

67. Why isn't it called FAIR Trade?

Because "Free Trade" is, and always has been, the same thing as plunder.

And it has never been "free." It was monopolies plundering everybody when the British Empire did it. It is monopolies plundering everybody now that our oligarchs are doing it. And both backed by military power.

Free Trade: plunder.
Fair Trade: a decent deal for everyone.


Ieoeja writes (above):

The closest (Krugman) came to disavowing his own argument was admitting that free trade was gamed to create outsized inequality in the results of free trade. He said globalization itself is still a good idea. Krugman wrote that it was in the way it was handled. --my emphasis

Now I ask you: WHO was "handling" it? Paul? You there? WHO was "handling" it and ensuring that it would create "outsized inequality"? Who started it, big time? Who set it up? Who betrayed workers and the environment in every negotiation? Who sold away our sovereignty over our own laws? WHO?

But this "it"--"Free Trade"--is badly misnamed. It should be called "Free trade for the rich." And the reason it isn't called "Fair Trade" is that it ISN'T fair, in any way. "Free Trade" is, inherently, by definition, monopolistic, violent plunder, designed to make the rich into the uber-rich, who know no rules and no laws.

That is exactly what it has done. That is exactly what was intended.

Myself? I love a marketplace. I think that love of the variety of goods and people in a true marketplace is in our DNA. We would be deprived and impoverished, deep in our souls, without the fun, and creativity, and human interaction of the Marketplace. I love trade. All indigenous people love trade. I love small, local businesses that provide good, personal service and support their communities.

I also think capitalism is a necessity--pooling funds for projects of general benefit--but the predatory capitalism that we see now is the antithesis of general benefit. It assaults the common good everywhere, here and in other countries. And our economy badly, BADLY needs to be re-balanced with a strong measure of socialism and care for the common good, because what we are heading for--and what we already saw a harbinger of in 2008--is chaos--no economy at all, just predators and the preyed upon.

"In the way it was handled," my ass! The Clintons are thriving among the predators because they created a predator-friendly economy and called it "free." At least with Reagan, we all knew what "trickle down" meant. But the Clintons went further and created the Big Lie to cover all that "free stuff" for the very rich.

[merrily]

68. I hope he admits his pro-Clinton campaigns against Obama's supporters and Bernie's supporters are bs

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/11/opinion/11krugman.html?_r=0

(article by Krugman about allegedy bad supporters of Obama, posted on a thread about an article by Krugman about allegedly bad supporters of Sanders http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1280&pid=104509)

A perfect example of "same shet, different day."

My personal opinion is that Krugman parrots a lot of Clintonite memes about the economy and many of them bs as well.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

74. "...a meaningful indicator of economic orthodoxy in collapse."

America, where slave labor is considered to be normal.

[pkdu]

76. What a complete rewriting of what Krugman actually wrote ..completely laughable response to butthurt

criticism of his book by Krugman,

[scottie55]

78. Banish Krugman To Working At A 7-11 For Minimum Wage Till He Is 90

So many of the people's jobs went to China because of the policies he, and his oligarch loving economic traitor assholes pushed, that's what they had to do.

Remember, the media always fails up.

The more wrong you are the more time you get in front of the cameras.

The oligarchs like it that way.

Payoff, not payback.

[Major Hogwash]

79. Of course, this will go in to his permanent record.

And will probably haunt him the rest of his life.

[Buzz cook]

80. The article takes the Krugman quote out of context. The Nation article is lying.

Last edited Tue Mar 15, 2016, 02:32 PM - Edit history (1)

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/03/09/a-protectionist-moment/?module=BlogPost-ReadMore&version=Blog%20Main&action=Click&contentCollection=Opinion&pgtype=Blogs®ion=Body#more-39637

In the sentence directly following the quote Krugman makes it clear that he's referencing others, not himself. Grieder would have had to have read that sentence and known that he was taking Krugman out of context.

At one time I generally trusted most of the media. Time has taught me to not trust anyone in the media.

[OnyxCollie]

84. It's what happens when one refuses to accept GREED and FRAUD into their models. nt

[Amimnoch]

90. I'll probably be roasted here, but I feel globalization is great, but has been horribly mishandled.

There are a lot of great benefits to a global market.
On a global scale, globalized economies reduce overall world poverty.
Impact from market crashes, and down trends as a result of catastrophes (natural or man made) can be reduced.
Economies that are interdependent on each other are less likely to wage war on each other.
Overall costs of goods go down as a result of increased competition.

As a few examples, where would the auto industry be today without the agreements with Japanese manufacturers? That market DESTROYED a TON of auto manufacturing jobs here, but everyone.. in the world.. who has a car has benefited. Japanese innovation has driven technological advances, gas efficiency (US and European car manufactures from before the 80's was NOT at all focused on gas efficiency, cost efficiency, or technological innovation).

Anyone remember the 80's? China was a completely closed off economy, and the "red thread" was much higher than it is now. The Chinese economy has grown into its own world power status. Their cities are bustling, and the more they have opened their market the more their people have benefited.
Sea ports have grown tremendously creating a ton of new jobs both at the ports, manufacturing the ships that transport goods, operating the ships that transport the goods, and maintenance positions to maintain the ships/shipyard/port equipment that are required to keep these transports running.

That's the rosy picture.

The biggest failure we have made with it is not doing anything to prepare for these deals and take care of the people here at home that these deals adversely affect. Where were the programs to help those who lost their jobs in manufacturing transit to the new jobs being created with preference? As product and product parts workforce's were reduced, where were the programs to get them cross-trained to the new jobs with government incentives to hire them on? Government assistance with training? Government assistance with relocation? Where was the government assistance in getting alternative markets to come into areas that were destroyed by these agreements to provide new and comparable employment opportunities? This is where they failed, and the establishment wouldn't be getting the push back they are now if they'd handled their business in a responsible way.

IMO.. Hillary has it wrong about accepting TPP. Bernie has it wrong about wanting to just block TPP.

Put TPP on hold. Get a comprehensive impact to labor analysis by an independent and sympathetic group. Tie a comprehensive relocation, education, enhanced and extended unemployment plan for any affected by reductions and corporate reach out (incentive package for alternative businesses to provide comparable employment/benefits to displaced workers) to the bill that approves TPP.

I also think we're quickly reaching a time where the entire economic model needs to be completely reexamined. Since the beginning of civilization, people have been measured by their "value" as a contributor and material holdings. From the Neolithic revolution where a person who had the most crops, or the most goats was the most influential to today's global market barons humans have placed status, and privilege on these people. Since that time though, there has been an almost constant progression of invention and innovation to reduce the number of people it takes to make the products that make the civilizations. With today's automation and the extremely fast advances of technology, even without globalization, Corporations are making the things we buy with fewer.. and fewer.. and fewer people. There are machines to even build the machines now. 3D Printing.. automation.. robotics.. computers designing the next generations of computers.. etc.. Information at a few strokes of a keyboard that wasn't available to the most proficient of researchers with access to the best libraries just a couple of decades ago.. It's time to start steering away from the entire model of those with the most deserve the most respect and privilege. We need to start working towards the mentality that it's okay to have jobless people in society. Why does everyone HAVE to have a job in this day? What's so bad about someone who's been injured on the job enjoying a comfortable life, with shelter.. with transportation access.. with electricity and food? Why is there a fucking stupid law being passed that wants to deny people on food stamps access to steak or lobster (Like they REALLY could afford it in the first place, but I digress)..

Also, don't mistake this long winded rant of opinions as a 100% endorsement of Capitalism either. Overall, I think Capitalism has been one of the more successful models, but the US, like most, seems hellbent on picking a model and sticking with it. Why not evaluate all areas of the market and adjust each area with a critical eye, and pick the model that produces the best results for the most people??

For example (and more of my own opinion):
Technology, engineering, architecture, manufacturing.. I think these work best with the capitalist model. Continued regulation to ensure fair and public beneficial practices.

Financial markets - socialize the hell out of them. I LOVE Bernie's idea of implementing banking services at post offices. Using money.. to make money.. since the dawn of time this model has produced nothing but abuse.

Oil/gas/energy - Socialize completely. Regulate prices. Expand BSEE to have their people on every facility, and having the final OBJECTIVE word on operations. I'd recommend we move, not in the direction of Venezuela, but in the direction of Argentina as a model. They never suffered from high gas prices due to their method of price fixing, nor did they suffer shortages. They also aren't losing tons of jobs in their gas sector as a result of the market downturn.

The combined focus needs to be on what is best for the people of the US, with focus on what do those with the least have access to, and on the global market and what our policies can do to make the WORLD a better place.

[zipplewrath]

107. Sorry

You're advocating something closer to "free trade".
I'd advocate something closer to "regulated trade".
Economies are complex and the point shouldn't be to try to make each country have the same economy.
The point should be to regulate trade so as to not give one country or region and advantage purely based upon the structure of their economy. Countries with strong "safety nets" shouldn't have to "compete" with countries that don't.
Countries shouldn't have to run their environmental programs to satisfy investors.
Countries shouldn't have to worry about running their health care programs to satisfy the multinationals.
And labor unions shouldn't have to worry about competing against themselves across borders.

[BlueStateLib]

91. Krugman: Trade and Tribulation

And yes, Mr. Sanders is demagoguing the issue, for example with a Twitter post linking the decline of Detroit, which began in the 1960s and has had very little to do with trade liberalization, to “Hillary Clinton’s free-trade policies.”

And anyone ragging on about those past deals, like Mr. Trump or Mr. Sanders, should be asked what, exactly, he proposes doing now. Are they saying that we should rip up America’s international agreements? Have they thought about what that would do to our credibility and standing in the world?

The larger point in this election season is, however, that politicians should be honest and realistic about trade, rather than taking cheap shots. Striking poses is easy; figuring out what we can and should do is a lot harder. But you know, that’s a would-be president’s job.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/11/opinion/trade-and-tribulation.html?_r=0

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

94. Good job, Cheese! I love PK but never cared for his Nobel Prize Award winning thoughts on trade

Love his work on Depression Economics and Conscience of a Liberal. He needs to get back to his roots. Good on him for eating crow.

[Nitram]

98. I call BS! Anyone whoe saw a white flag in that column has reading comprehension problems.

The column criticizes extremists on both side of the protectionist issue. Krugman points out that free trade agreements are not a simply good or bad, but a complex mix of trade-offs. He criticizes Sanders for over-simplifying, and he criticizes free-trade zealots of over-simplifying. And I accuse the OP of vastly over-simplifying. Read Krugman's original column and decide for yourself without the huge spin this OP throws in.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/11/opinion/trade-and-tribulation.html?smid=tw-share

[Phlem]

99. Free Trade is complete BS

for everyone except the few at the top.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

101. Doubt he's going to be a champion for the little guy.

[saidsimplesimon]

103. I will no longer defend Paul. He is yoyo.

[snowy owl]

105. Same here. Krugman disappointed me.

He was always on my list of really smart people. Now, I don't know. Very disappointing.