Calling DU economists & others: I'm researching the rise of pro-free-trade shills in the media

[brentspeak]

Specifically, just how the Thomas Friedmans, the Sebastian Mallabys, the Lawrence Kudlows, etc. got their soapboxes on national TV and newspapers. Did a bunch of corporate boards of media conglomerates hold a series of power lunches, and then make the decision to put as many neoliberal pro-free commentators as possible in front of the camera and in the lead op-ed spots?

Anyone here know any specific details, names, books to read, etc.? Thanks.

[dmallind]

1. Well I'm not sure I qualify

with just an undergrad in econ and an MBA, but the problem you may have is that the large majority of economists are "free trade shills" (which by the way signals you probably aren't too keen on constructive input about why, but I'll give it a shot). Sure you can get economists - even highly respected ones - who are still fans of protectionism, but then you can get climatologists who don;t believe in human caused global warming and biologists who support creationism too. The majority don't, and the same applies here.

What people forget about economics, especially macro, is that it is by definition an impersonal study of aggregates and averages. By that I mean it takes little account of the standard of living of, say, relatively highly paid North Carolina textile workers when deciding whether free trade in textiles is beneficial. Instead it looks at the cost in real terms of textiles for consumers as a whole, and the efficient allocation of resources in the textile trade. So if we can all buy cheaper shirts in real terms, and shirts are being produced with the lowest investment of resources, then that little section of our standard of living and that little microcosm of trade has benefited, regardless of how many $15 an hour jobs in NC are replaced by $15 a week jobs in Bangladesh.

This article probably explains it better than I could, but this is one area where experts (I'm not really one, but I know enough to see why) are going to agree to piss you off quite consistently.

In short, the reason it's normal for syndicated econ correspondents to support free trade is because most economists do. It's not like they had to hunt for the "shills" in some back room plot - in fact they would be much more likely to have to do that to find respected experts who are NOT "free trade shills". Ironically, the old joke about economists and consensus has its exception the very subject that you think is so artificially created.

Now remember what you may think free trade is, or entails, or why it happened, is not what the majority of economists think. Where you may see a deliberate attempt to break up labor, economists see efficient allocation of resources. Where you may see exploitation of LCC populations, economists see a way to move from subsistence living to productive employment. Where you may see a race to the bottom for corporate profits, economists see an increase in standard of living overall. Where you may see an attack on the US working class, economists see relative advantage and the benefit of low cost imports.

http://www.stlouisfed.org/news/speeches/2004/06_15_04.html

[brentspeak]

2. Well, thanks for the response, but I think it's clear that the media wants free-trade propaganda

With the exception of CNN, which has Lou Dobbs, and has done a series of reports on the ill effects of outsourcing, almost the entire mainstream media packs its editorial staffs with pro-globalization advocates. For instance, Thomas Friedman, who is not a trained economist, was given, and continues to be given, major space in the NYTimes editorial pages to propagate his pro-free-trade views. The entire MSN financial "expert" staff is practically one giant pro-cheap-labor PR firm -- but these so-called MSN "experts" aren't academic economists; they're fund managers and investment gurus who stand to make a lot of money in a world full of cheap laborers.

On a side note: are you likening economists who don't advocate free-trade policies to biologists who believe the earth is 6,000 years old? Maybe I misunderstood your point.

[dmallind]

3. Close, yep. But not quite.

Again the article says it better than me - the benefits of free trade are less direct and less easily demonstrated than the Lou Dobbs screed (and I suspect he's merely riding a wave of populist sentiment here). That does not mean they don't exist. Saving the jobs of the NC textile workers not only makes shirts more expensive for us, but it also loses jobs for those in industries which must now pay more buying high-priced textiles, and jobs in the consumer textile trade as fewer people buy fewer shirts, and moreover also loses jobs (and production) that could have been created by investing those same resources in more efficient pursuits.

The very core concept of economics has been for hundreds of years that the most efficient allocation of resources - producing more goods for which demand exists, or producing them at a lower cost - is the sine qua non of an effective economics system. Even centralized economies had the same goal, but merely a different (And misguided) mechanism to achieve it - one of specialization, standardization and mass production guided by a central authority, rather than trillions of individual transactions.

So an economist who does not want the most efficient allocation of resources may not be quite the same as a biologist who says the earth is 6000 years old, because that includes a lot of physics and geology that needs to be dismissed too, but it would be the equivalent of a biologist who says they are not convinced that natural selection is the best theory to explain speciation, and that we might want to consider intelligent design as a useful alternative.

Again be very careful to understand I'm talking about the economic concept of free trade, minimally encumbered with quotas and tariffs and restrictions. I'm not talking about specific free trade agreements in detail. You are going to get some diverging opinions amongst economists on whether NAFTA and CAFTA and GATT etc are maximally beneficial or could be improved, or whether they distribute benefits most equitably or efficiently, etc. You just are going to see very very little divergence of opinion on whether free trade in some general form is a good idea or not. That really is very akin to asking biologists whether they object to the idea of evolution. I'd venture to say most of the opinion is that these agreements are not free enough rather than that they are too free, but that's another topic, and one on which my semi-informed opinion is likely to be closer to yours than the consensus amongst experts.

[brentspeak]

4. No, it's been proven that NOT saving the textile jobs has cost even more jobs

(Let me just say that my argument isn't with you, but with the free-trade economists whose ideas we're discussing).

Those North Carolina textile factory towns whose factories have moved overseas? They are mostly ghost towns today. Much of the local business centered around those factories: everything from distributors to downtown diners. Without the factories, distributors have no clients; without a thriving main street, downtown diners don't have a whole lot of customers. And on and on.

The same thing has happened everywhere else in the USA where manufacturing has packed-up-and-left: entire local economies have disappeared, gone forever.

As for the price of shirts (and other things): prior to the advent of globalization (starting in the late 1970's), it wasn't as if shirts, and goods in general, were priced beyond the means of the average consumer or small business, anyway. In fact, there's no evidence at all that the savings to make today's made-in-China crap (just as a for instance) is passed onto to the customer in the first place (or even the last place, considering how shoddily-made cheap-labor-made products have proven to be).

So much for the economist egg-heads' ideas. All the fancy mathematics and arcane calculations in the world doesn't change the awful truth: "free trade" is a bust -- except for those as the very top who profit from cheap labor. Today, "free trade" is simply a PR-marketed scam.

[dmallind]

6. Well really your argument is with me too, but no biggy

You see you're STILL looking at individualized impact. Even if an entire town is crippled, a macroeconomist will look at the overall GDP, price of goods in real terms, and effect on standard of living on a national and indeed global basis. Economics in this context doesn't care about displacement or distribution. Closing down those NC textile mills certainly hurt the towns, and possibly even hurt the state, but did not hurt the nation or the world.

Economics is heartless and impersonal. This does not mean economists are, but the equations they solve certainly must be. It's perhaps not a nice way to look at things, but it's the one that works if we want to consider economics rather than personal finance.

[northzax]

8. and created those economies in other places

The textile jobs left South Carolina and Maine and went to Vietnam and Cambodia, where they employ Vietnamese and Cambodians. Don't like it? don't buy it.

For instance, with the exception of my socks, every item of clothing I am wearing right now is US made (and I have no idea on the socks, but I cannot guarantee it) my t shirt and boxers are from LA (American Apparel) my khakis from Pennsylvania (Bill's Khakis) shoes are from Maine (Sebago) Of course, every single item could have been cheaper (do I need $97.00 khakis or $30 tshirts? of course not, but I am willing to pay it sometimes.) of course, the $50 I could have saved on my khakis I could have spent somewhere else in my neighborhood, but I didn't, so it's all a toss up. I prefer to buy union made stuff, and I have the financial luxury to walk the talk, most people don't want to spend $100 on khakis, after all.

I challenge you to go an entire year and only buy US made products. it is possible, it's not easy, but in 95% of cases, it is possible. you will spend more money, of course, but if the market exists, and is thriving, people will fill it. Give away everything you bought last year made outside the US and replace it with US-made alternatives. I am not saying everything you buy must be US made, but start with clothing. Use the Intenet, find US made alternatives for every item of clothing you buy. If all Vietnam offers is cheaper prices, pay more for the US option. Seriously, it can be done for almost everything, and if there is a market for it, it will continue to get better. If there are a million pairs of jeans sold every year based solely on the "Made in the USA" label, others will get into making jeans in the US. no matter how tempted you are to buy something at the GAP, or Banana, or J.Crew, or Victorias Secret, or whatever, don't buy it, find a US alternative and buy that. Turn the free market back onto creating US jobs. That is all you have to to, well, you and ten million other people. Don't use price as your object, use location of manufacture. It's very simple. Think you can do it? or would you rather have the government do it for you through tariffs?

[KoKo]

5. Google "Reagan, Supply Side Economics" and you will see names

come up. Most of them got their power during Reagan and they never lost it. The names will clue you and some will ring a bell. Good luck!

[Robbien]

7. Banana Republicans by Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber

If you want a book to see how it all happened and the institutions behind it, and you want a good read

I highly suggest this book
http://www.prwatch.org/books/bananas.html

[brentspeak]

9. more kick

:kick:

(Thanks to those who've responded so far. :thumbsup: )