Mounting critsism of Globalization by leading Economists

[Zebo]

This is a very indepth article however I think it highlights and explains when comparing reality and theory of Globaliztion, they are far apart. All the critizism of globalaztion are coming true and each one os proven in his article: Namly

1. The effect on the environment due to the over-consumption/throw-away model of most developed nations not allowing for much sustainable development.

2. Taking away influential decision-making from publicly elected governments to privately owned corporations.

3. Specific policies such as structural adjustment are criticized for undermining national sovereignty.

4. More poverty in third world

5. The stability of jobs, would also continue to fall as less regulation means that corporations can easily move from country to country in search of cheapest costs (and labor forces are often very expensive).

6. Only the wealthy nations will benefit, while the poorer ones will suffer the most in this. It will not just be poor people from developing nations, but poor people in industrialized countries too. For example, corporations are able to be freer to move around and avoid substantial taxes.

7. The way that the global financial system is structured benefits the 'core', compared to the 'periphery'. George Soros for example, is worth quoting at length:

8. Inequalities and gaps between those who have and those who do not is already shown to be rising in these early years of globalization.

9. Small Busineses being destroyed

And many many more all backed up by real statistics and leading economists.

Stiglitz, 58, is hardly the first person to accuse the IMF of operating undemocratically and exacerbating Third World poverty. But he is by far the most prominent, and his emergence as a critic marks an important shift in the intellectual landscape. Only a few years ago, it was possible for pundits to claim that no mainstream economist, certainly nobody of Stiglitz's stature, took the criticism of free trade and globalization seriously. Such claims are no longer credible, for Stiglitz is part of a small but growing group of economists, sociologists and political scientists, among them Dani Rodrik of Harvard and Robert Wade of the London School of Economics, who not only take the critics seriously but warn that ignoring their concerns could have dire consequences. In his new book, Globalization and Its Discontents (Norton), Stiglitz argues that many of the complaints voiced by protesters in recent years -- that IMF structural adjustment programs have caused widespread suffering; that free-trade agreements mainly benefit the rich; that privatization has proved disastrous in many countries -- have a solid basis in fact. Unless the rules of global capitalism are radically altered, he warns, the gap between the world's rich and poor, and hence the social conditions that have fueled instability in places like Pakistan, will not go away anytime soon.

... Asked once what developing countries should do with the annual reports the IMF prepares on member nations, Stiglitz recommended "picking it up, saying 'thank you very much' and dropping it straight in the garbage can."

... To some degree, the mounting criticism from Stiglitz and other quarters has had an impact. IMF officials recently acknowledged the potential risks of capital market liberalization, and both the IMF and World Bank have begun speaking more openly about debt relief and poverty reduction. But while the rhetoric has changed, Stiglitz maintains that a doctrinaire ideology of "free-market fundamentalism" continues to shape policy. The IMF and World Bank are pushing developing countries to privatize their pension systems, for example, which is highly controversial in the First World. The IMF demanded fiscal austerity in Argentina, where unemployment had reached 20 percent and, in December, sparked riots that led to the government's collapse. It preaches the gospel of free trade to developing countries--even though most Western countries built their economies by protecting certain industries and continue to subsidize some domestic producers. The blind push to privatize and deregulate has not only failed to fuel sustainable development, Stiglitz contends, but reflects an idealized vision of how markets function that neither economic theory nor concrete experience supports.

... Stiglitz has done more to damage the IMF's reputation than any other living economist.

Link


Then why won't the press report it? and why do the only show pro-globalizaion pundits to feed your mind?

Again another very long and detailed article

 

[Orsorum]

If it's the Stiglitz I know, dayumn.

 

[lozina]

I always knew globalization was just a euphemysm for corporate self-interest domination, but this article is a gold mine of points to back that up.. I need to print this out and read it in it's entirety over a cup of coffee.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: lozina
I always knew globalization was just a euphemysm for corporate self-interest domination, but this article is a gold mine of points to back that up.. I need to print this out and read it in it's entirety over a cup of coffee.

Unfortunatly the article provides so many links to credible statistics, stories, and governement fiquers printing it out will loose some it's damning references

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

It's not hard to troll for an economist who is willing to disregard basic economic premises and produce a paper, predicated on statistics that further his argument, to advance a proposition he held dear before he studied economics. I would consider the source of the article, what their goals are, the economists the cite, the statistics they use, methodology, et al....ever read some of the garbage liberal so-called economists in CA write about the reasons California needs more regulations in the energy markets and their proposed remedies to the economic crises?

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
It's not hard to troll for an economist who is willing to disregard basic economic premises and produce a paper, predicated on statistics that further his argument, to advance a proposition he held dear before he studied economics. I would consider the source of the article, what their goals are, the economists the cite, the statistics they use, methodology, et al....ever read some of the garbage liberal so-called economists in CA write about the reasons California needs more regulations in the energy markets and their proposed remedies to the economic crises?

... care to direct me to a link, links, and/or academic papers? JSTOR is a good source if you're thinking of specific journals.

 

[Zebo]

Joseph Stiglitz is not jusy anybody, he is the former Chief Economist of the World Bank, former Chairman of President Clinton's Council of Economic Advisors and Nobel prize winner.

Furthermore you have no clue that mainstream economists like him use scientific method instead of a pre-scientific approach that shuns real-world data, based purely on logical assumptions, "source of the article", "what their goals are". Thier goals are simple; to find the truth and have it peer reviewed and accepted by other professionals. Bias make zero differnece to them... this is much better suited to Fox news, politics and religion. I think it's scary people don't understand how science works. If he based his his science on assumpitons and political idealogy as you described he would be relegated to a hole in the wall at auburn university with zero credibity among his peers like the Austrian School of economics. Not a Nobel Laureat.

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
It's not hard to troll for an economist who is willing to disregard basic economic premises and produce a paper, predicated on statistics that further his argument, to advance a proposition he held dear before he studied economics. I would consider the source of the article, what their goals are, the economists the cite, the statistics they use, methodology, et al....ever read some of the garbage liberal so-called economists in CA write about the reasons California needs more regulations in the energy markets and their proposed remedies to the economic crises?

... care to direct me to a link, links, and/or academic papers? JSTOR is a good source if you're thinking of specific journals.

Sure, when time permits...thanks for pointing out JSTOR, but that's too funny...I'll link some of my working papers when I am finished working, too...ask the moderators to post my IP and you'll figure out what I do for a living, sir. And though I am not an economist who researches energy markets, I am, however, an economist who works with international investment data on a daily basis. Once my papers clear internal peer review, they are then sent to our Board of Visitors (from various facets of academia); guess when they go next?

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
Sure, when time permits...thanks for pointing out JSTOR, but that's too funny...I'll link some of my working papers when I am finished working, too...ask the moderators to post my IP and you'll figure out what I do for a living, sir. And though I am not an economist who researches energy markets, I am, however, an economist who works with international investment data on a daily basis. Once my papers clear internal peer review, they are then sent to our Board of Visitors (from various facets of academia); guess when they go next?

I have no doubt that you are a highly intelligent, accomplished economist. Hell, half the posters on this board are ex-combat military officers.

I myself am an accomplished economist, accountant and lawyer, mostly dealing with international finance and criminal law. P right. This is my dream for the future, at least. Just a lowly econ undergrad)

I would love to read some of your articles if you ever feel like PM'ing me a link or emailing me.

Shalom!
Nate

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: Zebo
Joseph Stiglitz is not jusy anybody, he is the former Chief Economist of the World Bank, former Chairman of President Clinton's Council of Economic Advisors and Nobel prize winner.

Furthermore you have no clue that mainstream economists like him use scientific method instead of a pre-scientific approach that shuns real-world data, based purely on logical assumptions, "source of the article", "what their goals are". Thier goals are simple; to find the truth and have it peer reviewed and accepted by other professionals. Bias make zero differnece to them... this is much better suited to Fox news, politics and religion. I think it's scary people don't understand how science works. If he based his his science on assumpitons and political idealogy as you described he would be relegated to a hole in the wall at auburn university with zero credibity among his peers like the Austrian School of economics. Not a Nobel Laureat.

That's one of the reasons I mentioned him. Coauthor of one of the most influential (and the most often cited) economics papers written in the last century.

 

[Tom]

Interesting points in the original post.

I think the problem isn't globalization per se, but the failure of nations to prevent the formation of large international corporate monopolies. In many ways these businesses have greater power in the world than nations do, and by design corporations are only interested in what is best for their owners at the expense of everything and everyone else.

 

[Dragnov]

Didn't people whine about this already... say... back when Japan was industrializing.

Then they said it again when Korea and Taiwant were industrializing.

Then they said it again when Malaysia and Singapore were industrializing.

Now its China and India...

Heck, I bet people will still be whining when Africa comes along in say, about a billion years?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
It's not hard to troll for an economist who is willing to disregard basic economic premises and produce a paper, predicated on statistics that further his argument, to advance a proposition he held dear before he studied economics. I would consider the source of the article, what their goals are, the economists the cite, the statistics they use, methodology, et al....ever read some of the garbage liberal so-called economists in CA write about the reasons California needs more regulations in the energy markets and their proposed remedies to the economic crises?

... care to direct me to a link, links, and/or academic papers? JSTOR is a good source if you're thinking of specific journals.

Sure, when time permits...thanks for pointing out JSTOR, but that's too funny...I'll link some of my working papers when I am finished working, too...ask the moderators to post my IP and you'll figure out what I do for a living, sir. And though I am not an economist who researches energy markets, I am, however, an economist who works with international investment data on a daily basis. Once my papers clear internal peer review, they are then sent to our Board of Visitors (from various facets of academia); guess when they go next?

Re. trolling for economists, how true. For example:

The Rise of Supply-Side Economics

The central concept of supply-side economics is that tax cuts cause economic growth. Tax cuts allow entrepreneurs to invest their tax savings, which creates higher productivity, jobs and profits. This, ironically, allows the entrepreneur and his new workers to pay even more taxes, even at lower rates.

The supply-side idea is a simple one, and makes a popular political message. However, it is interesting to note that mainstream economists -- even conservative ones -- almost universally reject supply-side theory. In the early 80s, the influential and multi-partisan American Economics Association had 18,000 members. Only 12 called themselves supply-side economists. In American universities, there is no major department that could be called "supply-side," and there is no supply-side economist at any major department. This is significant, because academia in the 70s was dominated by conservative economic theory, and conservative economists normally welcome any ideas that make the case against government intervention. The fact that they scrutinized supply-side theory and rejected it wholesale gives eloquent testimony to the theory's bankruptcy. When candidate George Bush called it "voodoo economics" in the 1980 presidential campaign, he was doing so with the full backing of America's economic community.

Many people are surprised to learn that "conservative" does not necessarily equate to "supply-side" economics. The difference lies in spending. Mainstream conservative economists generally believe that tax cuts should be accompanied by spending cuts -- that is, fiscal responsibility. Supply-side economists believe that taxes should be cut -- period. Spending cuts and deficits, they believe, are not important considerations. The 1980 supply-siders claimed that the growth resulting from tax cuts would be so great, and the total tax collections increased so much, that America would simply outgrow its deficits. This did not happen, of course.

[ ... ]

I realiize this is a bit off-topic for this thread. I thought it was appropriate since it helped support your premise re. economists. There are some differences, however. As Zebo points out, "Joseph Stiglitz is not jusy anybody, he is the former Chief Economist of the World Bank, former Chairman of President Clinton's Council of Economic Advisors and Nobel prize winner."

Reagan didn't aim quite as high when he went "trolling" for economists. From the same link:

Who were the 1980 supply-siders? The following is my summary of Paul Krugman, one of the world's top economists, who gives an excellent account of their rise in his book, Peddling Prosperity. The supply-siders were what many have called "cranks," or people who stand outside the scientific mainstream and hurl accusations of basic stupidity and corruption at the entire scientific community. Cranks are people who are cut off from their academic colleagues, who neither argue before scientific conferences nor write for peer-reviewed journals. Instead, they speak before groups they themselves organize, and write for publications they themselves edit.

An unusually high percentage of supply-siders were not economists at all, but journalists with no formal training.

As far as I know, Stiglitz doesn't moonlight as a journalist. He'll have to rest on his exceptional credentials as an economist.


Anyway, I'm glad this is finally getting attention from someone with authority. I don't know what to do about it, but getting attention is a good start.

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: Orsorum
I myself am an accomplished economist, accountant and lawyer, mostly dealing with international finance and criminal law. P right. This is my dream for the future, at least. Just a lowly econ undergrad)

I would love to read some of your articles if you ever feel like PM'ing me a link or emailing me.

Shalom!
Nate

Will do...I'll PM you a few I have, then locate the working papers I read on the CA energy mess from a few years back.

For what it's worth, I am not sure what you intend on doing with your undergraduate economics degree, but we're hiring about 50 more economists over the next two years...I'll PM you the link to my agency's website

I used to work for the USDA?s Economic Research Service (if your politics coincide with their agenda, that?s a good place for economists)?I?ll link you a study I did for them a couple years back on the nutritionally improved food markets I talk a lot about Doritos and the like in the ?salty snack market?. Needless to say, I gave that gig up for a real job in the macro arena.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
It's not hard to troll for an economist who is willing to disregard basic economic premises and produce a paper, predicated on statistics that further his argument, to advance a proposition he held dear before he studied economics. I would consider the source of the article, what their goals are, the economists the cite, the statistics they use, methodology, et al....ever read some of the garbage liberal so-called economists in CA write about the reasons California needs more regulations in the energy markets and their proposed remedies to the economic crises?

... care to direct me to a link, links, and/or academic papers? JSTOR is a good source if you're thinking of specific journals.

Sure, when time permits...thanks for pointing out JSTOR, but that's too funny...I'll link some of my working papers when I am finished working, too...ask the moderators to post my IP and you'll figure out what I do for a living, sir. And though I am not an economist who researches energy markets, I am, however, an economist who works with international investment data on a daily basis. Once my papers clear internal peer review, they are then sent to our Board of Visitors (from various facets of academia); guess when they go next?

So where is your IP coming from?

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Re. trolling for economists, how true. For example:

The Rise of Supply-Side Economics

I agree, sir; both sides of the political spectrum do this. Do you think Democrats in Congress have the proverbial 'supply-siders' cranking out econometric modeling for them? Republicans take no exception. That, my friend, was my only point. I was not trying to discredit his article whatsoever. I merely asserted that you should always check the source before you take what you read as gospel.



...and always remember, "An economic forecaster is like a cross-eyed javelin thrower: they don't win many accuracy contests, but they keep the crowd's attention."

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
I agree, sir; both sides of the political spectrum do this. Do you think Democrats in Congress have the proverbial 'supply-siders' cranking out econometric modeling for them? Republicans take no exception. That, my friend, was my only point. I was not trying to discredit his article whatsoever. I merely asserted that you should always check the source before you take what you read as gospel.

Fair enough. Thanks for clarifying. Sorry I misconstrued your intent.

...and always remember, "An economic forecaster is like a cross-eyed javelin thrower: they don't win many accuracy contests, but they keep the crowd's attention."

I like that. Perhaps it's different to professionals, but to lay people, listening to all the competing economists makes one wonder if they couldn't make the grade as weathermen. So many predictions, so little accuracy.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
I agree, sir; both sides of the political spectrum do this. Do you think Democrats in Congress have the proverbial 'supply-siders' cranking out econometric modeling for them? Republicans take no exception. That, my friend, was my only point. I was not trying to discredit his article whatsoever. I merely asserted that you should always check the source before you take what you read as gospel.

Fair enough. Thanks for clarifying. Sorry I misconstrued your intent.

...and always remember, "An economic forecaster is like a cross-eyed javelin thrower: they don't win many accuracy contests, but they keep the crowd's attention."

I like that. Perhaps it's different to professionals, but to lay people, listening to all the competing economists makes one wonder if they couldn't make the grade as weathermen. So many predictions, so little accuracy.

this site simply is dead on RE scientific method with regaurd to econ , it's no mythical matter of opinion like people to make fun of economists for... it's a real science. John.. pay particular attention to inductive vs. deductive. It's a common mistake for begining researchers who are still trying to get published. What's your credentails if you don't mind me asking?

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
It's not hard to troll for an economist who is willing to disregard basic economic premises and produce a paper, predicated on statistics that further his argument, to advance a proposition he held dear before he studied economics. I would consider the source of the article, what their goals are, the economists the cite, the statistics they use, methodology, et al....ever read some of the garbage liberal so-called economists in CA write about the reasons California needs more regulations in the energy markets and their proposed remedies to the economic crises?

... care to direct me to a link, links, and/or academic papers? JSTOR is a good source if you're thinking of specific journals.

Sure, when time permits...thanks for pointing out JSTOR, but that's too funny...I'll link some of my working papers when I am finished working, too...ask the moderators to post my IP and you'll figure out what I do for a living, sir. And though I am not an economist who researches energy markets, I am, however, an economist who works with international investment data on a daily basis. Once my papers clear internal peer review, they are then sent to our Board of Visitors (from various facets of academia); guess when they go next?

Disneyland?

 

[Dari]

no one said that globalization was going to be the Second Coming. There is a give and take. But, if I may ask you and mister stiglitz, which is better: Globalization in which man is liberated from artificial constraints and where free-thinking flourishes and democracy isn't that far behind; or protectionism (as we saw in the 19th century) where protectionism, socialism, and warring nations put a choke-hold on man and his potentials?

Those that think that protectionism and regulating market forces is a good idea, take a look at 19th century europe, where there was a new war every hour on the hour.

If anything, we need to unleash globalization to full effect. That can save globalization in its current form, where special interests can stymie growth and other potentials of man. A truly capitalist global economy where each market is self-regulated (without any political interference) and corruption and collusion severly punished. In this world, everyman can realize his potential.

I have had visions for a better tomorrow where where:

Government provides very basic services.

Laws are highly progressive and ever-changing

Government is banned from competing against the private sector.

Minimum wage is abolished.

All tariffs are abolished and taxes are limited to a maximum of 8%

A borderless world where migrants can easily move about.

Unions in any form are abolished.

Transparency is King.

Regulation is carried out by independent agencies.

among other things...

 

[Ferocious]

Originally posted by: Dari
no one said that globalization was going to be the Second Coming. There is a give and take. But, if I may ask you and mister stiglitz, which is better: Globalization in which man is liberated from artificial constraints and where free-thinking flourishes and democracy isn't that far behind; or protectionism (as we saw in the 19th century) where protectionism, socialism, and warring nations put a choke-hold on man and his potentials?

Those that think that protectionism and regulating market forces is a good idea, take a look at 19th century europe, where there was a new war every hour on the hour.

If anything, we need to unleash globalization to full effect. That can save globalization in its current form, where special interests can stymie growth and other potentials of man. A truly capitalist global economy where each market is self-regulated (without any political interference) and corruption and collusion severly punished. In this world, everyman can realize his potential.

I have had visions for a better tomorrow where where:

Government provides very basic services.

Laws are highly progressive and ever-changing

Government is banned from competing against the private sector.

Minimum wage is abolished.

All tariffs are abolished and taxes are limited to a maximum of 8%

A borderless world where migrants can easily move about.

Unions in any form are abolished.

Transparency is King.

Regulation is carried out by independent agencies.

among other things...

Talk about naive.

Read a little history wont you.

We are talking about humans not robots.

Some socialism is absolutely necessary to maintain order and balance.

Pure capitalism can never possibly work. Never.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Ferocious

Originally posted by: Dari
no one said that globalization was going to be the Second Coming. There is a give and take. But, if I may ask you and mister stiglitz, which is better: Globalization in which man is liberated from artificial constraints and where free-thinking flourishes and democracy isn't that far behind; or protectionism (as we saw in the 19th century) where protectionism, socialism, and warring nations put a choke-hold on man and his potentials?

Those that think that protectionism and regulating market forces is a good idea, take a look at 19th century europe, where there was a new war every hour on the hour.

If anything, we need to unleash globalization to full effect. That can save globalization in its current form, where special interests can stymie growth and other potentials of man. A truly capitalist global economy where each market is self-regulated (without any political interference) and corruption and collusion severly punished. In this world, everyman can realize his potential.

I have had visions for a better tomorrow where where:

Government provides very basic services.

Laws are highly progressive and ever-changing

Government is banned from competing against the private sector.

Minimum wage is abolished.

All tariffs are abolished and taxes are limited to a maximum of 8%

A borderless world where migrants can easily move about.

Unions in any form are abolished.

Transparency is King.

Regulation is carried out by independent agencies.

among other things...

Talk about naive.

Read a little history wont you.

We are talking about humans not robots.

Some socialism is absolutely necessary to maintain order and balance.

Pure capitalism can never possibly work. Never.

try it before you knock it.

 

[freegeeks]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Ferocious

Originally posted by: Dari
no one said that globalization was going to be the Second Coming. There is a give and take. But, if I may ask you and mister stiglitz, which is better: Globalization in which man is liberated from artificial constraints and where free-thinking flourishes and democracy isn't that far behind; or protectionism (as we saw in the 19th century) where protectionism, socialism, and warring nations put a choke-hold on man and his potentials?

Those that think that protectionism and regulating market forces is a good idea, take a look at 19th century europe, where there was a new war every hour on the hour.

If anything, we need to unleash globalization to full effect. That can save globalization in its current form, where special interests can stymie growth and other potentials of man. A truly capitalist global economy where each market is self-regulated (without any political interference) and corruption and collusion severly punished. In this world, everyman can realize his potential.

I have had visions for a better tomorrow where where:

Government provides very basic services.

Laws are highly progressive and ever-changing

Government is banned from competing against the private sector.

Minimum wage is abolished.

All tariffs are abolished and taxes are limited to a maximum of 8%

A borderless world where migrants can easily move about.

Unions in any form are abolished.

Transparency is King.

Regulation is carried out by independent agencies.

among other things...

Talk about naive.

Read a little history wont you.

We are talking about humans not robots.

Some socialism is absolutely necessary to maintain order and balance.

Pure capitalism can never possibly work. Never.

try it before you knock it.

in the beginning of the 1900 the industrial countries of that time were much more capitalistic (sp?) then nowadays. We had 14h working days, child labour etc...

no thx

I can see your point that overregulation is a bad thing but capitalism in its "pure" form like you advocate is a monster