Opinion

Chrystia Freeland

The economy’s ‘China Syndrome’

Chrystia Freeland
Feb 2, 2012 23:00 UTC

Mitt Romney’s thumping victory in the Florida primary this week is bringing us closer to a Romney-Obama face-off in the autumn. While we do not know for sure if Romney will clinch the Republican nomination, if he does, we can already say what the central question in November will be: Is the United States one nation under God, or has it become a country where the government needs to secure a better deal for the 99 percent?

We know Romney’s view. In a television interview last month, he explained: “When you have a president encouraging the idea of dividing America based on the 99 percent versus 1 percent — and those people who have been most successful will be in the 1 percent — you have opened up a whole new wave of approach in this country which is entirely inconsistent with the concept of one nation under God.”

Meanwhile, in his State of the Union address, the president opted explicitly for the 99 percent perspective. Restoring their fortunes is “the defining issue of our time,” he said. “No challenge is more urgent. No debate more important. We can either settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well, while a growing number of Americans barely get by, or we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, and everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules.”

The Obama analysis gets a lift from “The China Syndrome,” a recent paper on the impact of trade with China by a powerful troika of economists: David H. Autor, David Dorn and Gordon H. Hanson. The empirical study, which was cited in an important speech on inequality a few weeks ago by Alan Krueger, chairman of the president’s Council of Economic Advisers, is particularly significant because it marks a shift in consensus thinking in the academy.

In the debate about the causes of growing income inequality, U.S. economists have tended to opt for technology as the driving force. Indeed, in his remarks, Krueger referred to a survey he did of those economists, who overwhelmingly cited technological change as the most important factor.

Shaping globalization with Joseph Stiglitz

Chrystia Freeland
Dec 6, 2010 17:08 UTC

Columbia University economist Joseph Stiglitz is #30 on Foreign Policy’s list of the 100 Top Global Thinkers of 2010. Stiglitz told Chrystia that his big idea is “globalization is something that has to be shaped.”

For much of recent history, special interests have driven the globalization agenda, he says. One of the primary obstacles to completing the Doha Round of free-trade negotiations is the billions of dollars of subsidies the U.S. showers on about 25,000 American cotton farmers, a policy that impoverishes more than 10 million cotton farmers in Africa and that has been judged as a violation of WTO rules.

Despite globalization’s shortcomings, Stiglitz does not believe it is to blame for the hollowing out of America’s middle-class. Increases in productivity and technological changes have reduced the demand for the unskilled labor. “The real failure of public policy,” Stiglitz says, is that “it hasn’t responded effectively to the driving forces of technology and globalization.”  Stiglitz argues that by lowering barriers to trade while failing to invest in health care and education, America has resigned itself to having a middle class that lacks the skills to compete in the global economy.

Video: The next big ideas of six financial luminaries

Chrystia Freeland
Dec 1, 2010 15:49 UTC

In conjunction with her essay in Foreign Policy‘s Top Global Thinkers issue, Chrystia interviewed six of the financial luminaries that made the list:

MIT’s Daron Acemoglu, Yale’s Robert Shiller, PIMCO’s Mohamed El-Erian, Columbia’s Joseph Stiglitz, the University of Chicago’s Raghuram Rajan, and NYU’s Nouriel Roubini.

Reuters and Foreign Policy will be showing these interviews over the next coming days.  This one is a compilation of the above six global thinkers.

  •