|
Almost no one is opposed to globalization, per se. We are opposed to globalization that drags down worldwide avearge income, and traps people in subsistence lifestyles, paying people 5cents of every $ of value they create, and then boasting about they should be happy they aren't dead. The article doesn't even make sense! He's actually arguing that low wages are better than zero wages, while low wages are also better than high wages, and that the wealth creation whose impact he boasts about isn't even having a subsantial impact! > First of all, even if we could assure the workers in Third World export industries of higher wages and better working conditions, this would do nothing for the peasants, day laborers, scavengers, and so on who make up the bulk of these countries' populations. At best, forcing developing countries to adhere to our labor standards would create a privileged labor aristocracy, leaving the poor majority no better off. He doesn't even think to consider that, for example, a tax+entitlements scheme, that every civilized nation has, could stave off this "labor aristocracy". Nor does he explain why a Western labor aristoracy is OK, but an Eastern labor aristocracy is not. The article is thin logically-bankrupt apologetics. Krugman himself has walked back his old claims, he calls it "hyper-globalization" (~5minute mark).
https://www.ubs.com/microsites/nobel-perspectives/en/paul-kr... |
Can you transcribe exactly what support your extreme claims (without taking it out of context from where Krugman said he supports globalization and why he do that.)
Did Krugman EVER talk about any other way of countries to start getting rich and going towards becoming nice societies (democratic, high education, taking care of people, etc)?
If he can show that, I'd guess he'll get another Nobel... at least. :-)
(Krugman discussed income inequality inside societies a bit, not relevant here. And a bit about US politics.)