Greg Mankiw Explains Why Voters Oppose Free Trade And Globaiization

Greg Mankiw has published one of the most popular economics text books and he teaches students at Harvard the virtues of free market economics.  The New York Times provides him with many opportunities to sell his version of political economy to its readers.  According to Mankiw we live in the best of all possible worlds as we move closer to an idealized free market economy.  Not surprisingly, Mankiw is distressed by polls which show that the majority of Americans do not share his views about free trade and globalization, which he conflates with free trade.  In this article Mankiw explains why voters do not share the beliefs about free trade and globalization that are held by most economists.

Mankiw's explanation for voter apathy about free trade and globalization is, like  his treatment of economic ideas in his textbooks, short and sweet.  He cites a study which shows that opinions about free trade are colored by cultural factors which bias their views on free trade. Three cultural factors influence their opinions.  They are isolationists, nationalists and tribal in their thinking.  Consequently, they fail to appreciate the rationale used by many economists to justify free trade and globalization.  Mankiw also argues that they are less well educated than voters who support free trade and globalization.  His solution to voter apathy about free trade and globalization is to provide more of them with a better education.  Voters who read his textbooks will be stronger supporters of free trade and globalization.

The comments that follow his article come primarily from highly educated readers of the New York Times.  One may not agree with all of Mankiw's critics, but its clear that concerns about free trade and globalization are not exclusively held by the poorly educated.  There are lots of problems with free trade and globalization (which is not the same as free trade) that go well beyond the treatment of these issues in economic textbooks.  Things don't always turn out the way it is imagined by economists like Mankiw who greatly simplify reality in introductory textbooks.

A large number of voters are less sophisticated about trade and globalization than economists like Mankiw, but many who do not share his assumptions, and that includes many top economists, who have good reasons to be concerned about free trade. Moreover, globalization  has grown faster than the ability of nation states to deal with its consequences. 

The New Prime Minister In Britain Sounds Like Bernie Sanders

Theresa May replaced David Cameron after his bet on the EU referendum failed.  In her first public statement, after accepting the Queen's request that she form a new government, she issued a statement that was very strange coming from a Tory Prime Minister.  She raised several issues about social justice that are almost identical to those raised by Democrats in their convention.  She then focused her attention on the plight of the middle class.  They are barely getting by and they are worried about job security and what the future holds for their children.  The Tory government under Cameron and Osborn was focused on "fiscal responsibility".  To them that meant lowering taxes, primarily for the rich, and cutting government spending in order to run a budget surplus.  Tory austerity programs are good for the advantaged and bad for those in need.  May will focus her attention on creating more opportunity for those who have not been lucky enough to have had wealthy parents.  She has also turned her attention to the current rules of capitalism in the UK which provide economic rents to those who have set the rules.  It will be interesting to see whether a Tory Prime Minister can alter the rules of the game in Britain.  She has taken an important first step.  She realizes that capitalism does not operate in a vacuum.  Governments set the rules which determine the form of capitalism that operates in a nation and that the rules have been set to favor the advantaged in Britain.

David Brooks Compares The GOP And Democrat Conventions

David Brooks claims that the Democratic Party has captured the summer by putting on a superior convention.  He explains how Trump has saved the Democratic Party.  Lots of bad things happened under Obama but they were able to mask them by looking much more organized than the convention put on the "Chaos Candidate" who captured the GOP nomination.

Brooks was especially displeased because Trump gave the Democrats an opportunity seize themes that had defined the GOP in the past.  They offered an optimistic view of the future. They also identified their party with middle class values. They also presented themselves as the patriotic party, capable of self rule, versus the GOP which required rescue by a savior.  The left wing fringe of the Democratic Party also was less menacing than the lunatic fringe of the GOP base captured by Trump.  Brooks blamed many Republican leaders for remaining silent while they gave their party away to Trump.

Brooks closed by asking whether it really mattered that the Democrats won the convention battle.  He suggested that the country may have changed so much that what used to win elections no longer works.

Michael Bloomberg Explains Why He Will Vote For Hillary

Michael Bloomberg is a self made billionaire and one of the richest people in the world.  He is not a Democrat or a Republican; his is an independent but he will vote for Hillary.  He made his case against Donald Trump in this speech at the Democratic convention.  He argues that Trump cannot be trusted as a business person and that he is not morally or psychologically fit to lead our nation.

Bill O'Reilly Tells Us That Slaves Who Built White House Were Well Fed

Bill O'Reilly is provided with a platform on Fox News that gives him an opportunity to color events in ways that pleases Fox viewers.  This is good for business, and his coloring of events has helped to transform the Republican Party into the Trump Party.  Michell Obama delivered a powerful speech at the Democratic Convention that illustrated the progress that has been made in the US.  She and her children live in the White House that was built by slaves.  A nation that condoned slavery elected a black president.  Bill O'Reilly was not happy with the First Lady's version of progress.  He told his audience that the slaves were well fed while they built the White House.  Slavery was not so bad after all in O'Reilly's version of history.  Of course, O'Reilly has the freedom to create his own history if it is good for business and his politics.  The real history of the use of slaves to build the White House is quite different from O'Reilly's invention which deflates the progress that Michele Obama intended to convey. 

A Brief History Of A Political Party That Paved The Way For Donald Trump

A conservative intellectual, who campaigned for Marco Rubio, explains why Donald Trump is the logical heir to Republican Party.  The conservative ideals of the Republican Party are no longer the core ideas that inspire the voters who voted for Donald Trump.  The process began with Barry Goldwater's response to the civil rights movement, and it became more visible with Richard Nixon's Southern strategy.  The Republican Party's "moral majority" was built upon a foundation of white nationalism.  Donald Trump understood this better than his primary campaign opponents who based their campaigns on core conservative ideals that primary voters identified with the GOP establishment.  Trump's victory over the GOP establishment candidates spells the end of a political party based upon traditional conservative ideals.  It is doubtful that this process can be reversed.  We need a center-right political party that reflects conservative ideals, but it is unlikely that a political party that has been captured by Donald Trump will be that party.  Many conservative intellectuals recognize what has happened and they are proposing ways to return the Republican Party back to its core conservative ideals.  However, they can't win national elections without the voters captured by Trump.  Conservative intellectuals are late to the game.  They refused to recognize what was happening in the Republican Party until Donald Trump took it away from them.

Will Carbon Emissions Fall As Per Capita GDP Rises?

The Kuznets curve was used to argue that income inequality would decline after absolute income reaches an inflection point.  It has been discredited by the recent trends in the growth of income inequality.  It has been revived today to argue that carbon emissions will fall as a nation reaches an inflection point in per capita GDP.  This article provides a critique of the use of an environmental Kuznets curve which tells us that carbon emissions will fall as a nation gets richer.  Economists love to plot curves to explain complicated relationships between variables.  Unfortunately, there is no reason to believe that carbon emissions will fall after we reach an inflection point in per capita income.  There is nothing that would allow us to determine the inflection point. And there is little reason to believe that an inflection point exists.