It's a global wave, it started with the Arab uprising, then Greece, United Kingdom, Italy, South Korea, New Zealand and even Canada. So no surprise it happened in the USA, no longer "Same Ole, Same OLE" The people want change at all cost.Trump will surprise all, one month after election, his support has increased, the old book of Capitalism is in the garbage, try a bit of socialism.

This guy might be some qwack economist. The world has drastically changed since the end of World War 2, technologically, and by more integration through globalization.

This means that some trade agreements will have to be reworked and renegotiated, rather than torn up and thrown out. Even Trump is not as stupid to believe that such bilateral and multilateral agreements can be discarded because our interdependent work makes us all losers.  It comes down to the interests of member states and their negotiating power and their willingness to tweak what already exists so that no state is getting what can be perceived as a "free ride". 

I know this much because I am currently reading a very good book by a NYT reporter...Friedman's The World is Flat.

VishMahabir posted:

This guy might be some qwack economist. The world has drastically changed since the end of World War 2, technologically, and by more integration through globalization.

This means that some trade agreements will have to be reworked and renegotiated, rather than torn up and thrown out. Even Trump is not as stupid to believe that such bilateral and multilateral agreements can be discarded because our interdependent work makes us all losers.  It comes down to the interests of member states and their negotiating power and their willingness to tweak what already exists so that no state is getting what can be perceived as a "free ride". 

I know this much because I am currently reading a very good book by a NYT reporter...Friedman's The World is Flat.

Harvard University’s Oliver Hart, who won the 2016 Nobel economics prize together with Bengt Holmström of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology for laying the groundwork for contract theory, said Trump’s proposals on trade would also hurt the world’s largest economy.

What you saying VM,

Oliver Hart is a quack.

Django posted:

VishMahabir posted:

This guy might be some qwack economist. The world has drastically changed since the end of World War 2, technologically, and by more integration through globalization.

This means that some trade agreements will have to be reworked and renegotiated, rather than torn up and thrown out. Even Trump is not as stupid to believe that such bilateral and multilateral agreements can be discarded because our interdependent work makes us all losers.  It comes down to the interests of member states and their negotiating power and their willingness to tweak what already exists so that no state is getting what can be perceived as a "free ride". 

I know this much because I am currently reading a very good book by a NYT reporter...Friedman's The World is Flat.

Harvard University’s Oliver Hart, who won the 2016 Nobel economics prize together with Bengt Holmström of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology for laying the groundwork for contract theory, said Trump’s proposals on trade would also hurt the world’s largest economy.

---

What you saying VM,

Oliver Hart is a quack.

He might be smart to win his Nobel Prize with his Contract Theory, but I was referring to his naivity believing that any government can simply throw out established multilateral and bilateral (although these may be easy to rework) arrangements. This is the reason why the UN constantly engages country to reconsider previous arrangements, whethr they be on climate change, human rights, the concept of democracy, or "ownership" of Antarctica, etc. The world does not work this and this guy is not including the political implications of such a move. ..he is simply looking at things through an economics lens...this makes his statement suspect and questionable. 

VishMahabir posted:

This guy might be some qwack economist. The world has drastically changed since the end of World War 2, technologically, and by more integration through globalization.

This means that some trade agreements will have to be reworked and renegotiated, rather than torn up and thrown out. Even Trump is not as stupid to believe that such bilateral and multilateral agreements can be discarded because our interdependent work makes us all losers.  It comes down to the interests of member states and their negotiating power and their willingness to tweak what already exists so that no state is getting what can be perceived as a "free ride". 

I know this much because I am currently reading a very good book by a NYT reporter...Friedman's The World is Flat.

I am with you on this.  Somebody need to take away this dude's Nobel prize.

VishMahabir posted:

 

but I was referring to his naivity believing that any government can simply throw out established multilateral and bilateral (although these may be easy to rework) arrangements.

 

“The idea of tearing up trade agreements or imposing tariffs is not a good way forward, so I’m worried about that,” Hart said in an interview in Stockholm on Wednesday. “Maybe it is all talk. It would be bad for the world economy and it would be bad for the U.S. to proceed along those lines.”

Hart said a better approach would be “to find other ways to help the people who have been left behind by globalization.” These would include training programs and income redistribution, he said.

“But trying to bring back jobs that have been lost, it’s an extremely inefficient and expensive thing to do,” Hart said. “So we should be looking at other ways forward. I don’t think the rich should be paying less in tax, they should be paying more, in my opinion.”

The above is what Hart said about Trump ideas.

Django posted:

VishMahabir posted:

 

but I was referring to his naivity believing that any government can simply throw out established multilateral and bilateral (although these may be easy to rework) arrangements.

 

“The idea of tearing up trade agreements or imposing tariffs is not a good way forward, so I’m worried about that,” Hart said in an interview in Stockholm on Wednesday. “Maybe it is all talk. It would be bad for the world economy and it would be bad for the U.S. to proceed along those lines.”

Hart said a better approach would be “to find other ways to help the people who have been left behind by globalization.” These would include training programs and income redistribution, he said.

“But trying to bring back jobs that have been lost, it’s an extremely inefficient and expensive thing to do,” Hart said. “So we should be looking at other ways forward. I don’t think the rich should be paying less in tax, they should be paying more, in my opinion.”

---

 

The above is what Hart said about Trump ideas.

 

Like I said, trade arrangements, or arrangements like NAFTA may have to be reworked and revised.

I agree that tariffs are never a good thing because nations can retaliate, albiet this is becoming much more difficult for the industrialised countries to do because their economies are much more interdependent, and these governments are generally more likely to abide by established norms that falls under free trade arrangements. Developing countries tend to use tariffs to protect their infant industries, and those that dont, or cant, generally feel the brunt of the capitalist world economy.  Most economists will agree that the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, which contributed to the Great Depression reveals the effects of imposing tariffs.  

Hart said a fiscal spending spree like the one Trump is proposing could be good for the economy, especially if it focuses on infrastructure. But evidence to date suggests the real estate mogul is likely to make some unorthodox deals in an effort to achieve his goals, according to the Nobel laureate, who is in Stockholm this week to receive the award he won in October.

“I think we do need improvements in infrastructure, and there’s a lot that could be done. But whether it’s done in the best way is another matter,” he said. “The way he’s planning to carry it out, it sounds as if it could amount to some sweet deals for companies, rather than getting the infrastructure we need.”