Responding to Boulder's silliest Limousine Libertarian
6/21/2008 - 7:30pm
I'm breaking protocol by responding to Boulder's very own Ross Kaminsky. The protocol is that I have a general rule of not responding to Limousine Libertarians - you know, stock speculators who live in wealthy enclaves and tell us all that we should ignore the working class and let them eat cake.
But I just had to respond to this hysterical screed, that reads a little less coherently than the Unabomber's manifesto. Mr. Kaminsky cites this chart as proof that NAFTA-style trade pacts are good for workers' wages. Somehow, he ignores the fact that what this chart shows is workers wages not yet recovering their 1980 value...in 2008. In other words, as evidence that NAFTA-style trade policies supposedly work for workers, this person is actually citing a chart that shows workers wages have been decimated to the point of not yet recovering their value from almost 3 decades ago - that is, a chart showing NAFTA has helped severely hurt workers by keeping their wages down. Welcome to the truly insane, isolated, insulated and wholly elitist worldview of Boulder's loudest - and silliest - Limousine Libertarian.
Also, I might add that Mr. Kaminsky claims "the left is so dramatically unsuccessful in winning elections by running against free trade." Hmm...last I checked Democrats won control of Congress because fair trade candidates defeated incumbent Republicans in Republican-leaning districts by campaigning against NAFTA-style trade policies.
A suggestion to Limousine Libertarians like Mr. Kaminsky: Take a break from snowboarding at lavish Colorado resorts, take a few minutes off from kibitzing with fellow elites on the floor of the stock exchange, and actually spend, oh, 5 minutes on Google before putting pen to paper (or keyboard to blog post, if you will). You might discover those pesky things called facts. And if you have a few hours on your hands, you might think of picking up Cambridge economist Ha-Joon Chang's book "Bad Samaritans" and brush up on your economic history - you'd learn a thing or two about how the American economy you worship so much was built into a powerhouse through fair trade policies - not through NAFTA-style policies.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
More of this tedious bore
What the heck is the argument here? That NAFTA killed wages? The chart does not bear that out. I would argue that the chart is quite weak. It shows a 2% decline in wages between 1980 and 2008. But what does that really mean? Somehow this shows that NAFTA is bad? Come on. Does it really show that?
We also have RyeCatcher stating that globalization is good but some indetreminate millions are suffering. Your kidding right? Of course there are millions suffering in the world today. But to blame it on globalization is a tragicaly simplistic argument. Millions of North Koreans are suffering. Did globalization cause that?
The idea that somehow globalization causes misery is just an opinion. One that NO serious economist shares with you. (Paul Krugman long ago ceased to qualify as serious.) You are of course entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts. The facts do not support either Sirota or Ryecatcher.
This is my problem with blogs and why I do typically read or get into these discussions. They are like bar room arguments where two people argue whether a Catfish Hunter fastball is better than a Nolan Ryan fastball. But in this case you have a large audience and you are arguing more consequential points. Points that woefully uninformed people, some of whom vote, will take as fact. This is sad. Voters should study and inform themselves. But they don't and you guys fill in for "reasoned debate".
Trying to boil down your respective arguments to pithy ad hominem attacks by using data and charts in ways they were never intended leaves all of you looking silly. That BLS chart is completely unable to make either point. It was not created for that. By basing their arguments on the BLS chart Rossputin and Sirota are both engaged in post hoc ergo propter hoc argumentation. And they are doing it with very weak data.
I suggest that a bit more effort and study be put into your argumentation. (No Sirota, your book does not count. Anecdotal evidence does not make a credible argument.)
Sirota needs to address how workers are in fact worse off. Perhaps there is a 2% decline in wages. But is this in all wages? All quintiles of wage earners? How does that 2% affect wage earners when the real cost of living is lower and much better than it was 28 years ago. (Before any of the readers sound off on this I suggest you bone up to really know your subject lest you come off the fool.) Just announcng that NAFTA is bad does not make it so.
It would be nice if Sirota and Rossputin would argue the empiracle data. Get into a reasoned debate with the facts laid out. All this bashing each other comes off as two tots in a sandbox grousing about whose father can beat up who.
More tedious bore Max.
Max. May I suggest you put more effort and study into your argumentation. Why do you bother to post here if you're above the fray as you imply. You should stick to what you know, Nolan Ryan fastballs rather than wallow in blogs with "woefully uninformed voters" bashing each other like "tots".
The vast majority of people in advanced as well as developing countries are missing out on the benefits of globalization. You claim the facts do not support Sirota or Ryecatcher. No serious economist shares our doubts about the benefits of globalization you righteously proclaim.
The IMF World Economic Outlook for 2007 says the trend of outsourcing and offshoring is increasing vulnerability of jobs and wages in many developed nations. Income equality is on the rise inside most countries. In the US GDP growth over the last ten years has gone mostly to the top 10% earners while lower skilled workers earn 30% less than in 1970.
Larry Summers former World Bank chief economists and former Treasury Secretary expressed the need to share the benefits of globalization more fairly in order to prevent protectionist tendencies in countries suffering the ill effects of income inequality. Wouldn't you agree Max that losing your job and family benefits to outsourcing is a source of misery to thousands of workers here in the US.
Any one can access this information on the Global Policy Forum website even those of us who are "woefully uninformed" voters Max.
Surprise! More misinformation from Kaminsky
As Sirota's post reflects, Kaminsky has a history of presenting what he considers "evidence" to support his screeds, and attempting to mislead the reader by claiming that such "evidence" says A, when to even the casual reader it clearly says B.
Here's another example, from one of his "articles" claiming to debunk the Denver Post's series exploring the ties between Bob Schaffer and Jack Abramoff. Here, Kaminsky claims that a piece of documentary evidence showing such ties does not say what it literally says in black and white. Go figure:
http://colorado.mediamatters.org/items/200806130002
Bill Menezes
Editorial Director
Colorado Media Matters
Illiterate
I was amazed when I read Sirota today. Instead of a well reasoned argument clearly laying out the facts for all to see and making a succinct and pithy argument, Sirota gives us ad hominem attacks. Sad really.
If the arguments put forward by Rossputin were so weak then I would have thought Sirota could easily rufute them. Instead he makes up yet another reason for the democrats victory in 06. (They did nothing special. Parties of sitting presidents in their second term lose seats in the mid-term elections. This is clearly demonstrated by a modest historical analysis. The exception being Clinton who was so precocious that he did it in his first term. As I expect Obama will as well.)
The support for Rossputins argument are clearly laid out. I am posting two links to very readable reports written by the Federal Reserve on the subject. Amazingly the economist wrote interesting and understandable articles that cover these very topics. This should help any interested person see the facts in these arguments with far more clarity.
http://dallasfed.org/fed/annual/2005/ar05.pdf
http://dallasfed.org/fed/annual/2002/ar02.pdf
http://dallasfed.org/fed/annual/2007/ar07.pdf
Rossputin Illiterate???
Max implies Sirota is illiterate. He rests his argument with proofs from the Dallas Federal Reserve's annual statements and glowing commentary from the Dallas Fed. chief Richard Fisher. The charts and graphs paint a glowing picture of the miracle of globalization and its positive outcomes for the economies of the world. Fine and dandy Max. What the numbers fail to show is the underlying misery and suffering created by globalization. Sirota has a point. Globalization is beneficial to the world economy but not without consequences to the millions of workers without the means to compete.
"Free markets are good. But they are not the solution to all problems". ( Former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin from his book "In An Uncertain World".) In my opinion Rossputin's arguments are not clearly laid out and he is certainly capable of "ad hominem attacks". I hardly consider David Sirota illiterate. He makes a valid point that Rossputin and Max fail to understand in their rush to judgement.
sirota
new york times on sirota:
"... the end product too often reads like the work of a high school newspaper editor going through his Marxist or logical positivist phase: to the author it speaks of revolution; to the reader it resonates immaturity."
Are You Looking At The Same Chart?
So I opened your chart something is interesting and you can clear it up.
In 1994 (when NAFTA was enacted) the average worker was making roughly $260 1982 dollars. In 2008, they are making $280.
That is not a huge increase, but when you look at that chart you can see that from 1980-1991 these wages were in a free-fall. It's not that huge of a jump to say that NAFTA is at least part of what has sent wages back up.
And what relevance does what workers were making in 1980 have with NAFTA? Wages were declining long before NAFTA was enacted. And since NAFTA have increased.
Additionally, can we see this same chart for the jobs that were added to the American economy because of NAFTA? I would imagine that those increases offset any loses that can be attributed to NAFTA, even though the chart seems to indicate a rise in wages.