Posted by
MichaelC on Thursday, February 15, 2007 1:22:41 PM
The leftist media has a very interesting habit when they (occasionally as may be) decide to forgo cynicism, criticism, and hyperbole, and actually
tackle (or attempt to tackle) an interesting subject. That habit, simply put, is to ask a bunch of questions which are easy to answer. (The fact that they ask such questions infers that they themselves believe them to be
difficult to answer, thus exposing their intellectual vacuousness.
In The Nation today, Eric Alterman wrote an
article that did not disappoint. His last paragraph asked a number of questions, easy to answer, but evidently difficult for him and others on the left:
.....My question is this: Why does the opinion of
the majority of the country get nothing but contempt in public
discourse? Are Americans who question the dogma of "free trade" merely
"duped by knaves like Pat Buchanan," as Friedman insists? Why are the
arguments of economists like Frank Taussig, Dani Rodrik, Dean Baker and
the folks over at the Economic Policy Institute considered beyond the
bounds of rational debate?
Well, nothing should be beyond the bounds of rational debate, including whether or not Global Warming is scientifically valid or not. However, in this case, the overwhelming consensus (see the parallel to the GW debate, again) is that any country that declares unilateral protectionism will put themselves into an economic disaster zone.
Imagine, if you will, if tomorrow the US decided to tariff garments from overseas. Raise the prices of the garments in question, American business will respond with domestic production, increasing employment, increasing the tax base........what's not to like, eh?
The cost of the garments, that's what. Overseas manufacturers lose their ability to undercut domestic production. However, domestic production, with no need to match price with a lower cost manufacturer, is able to charge whatever they will, up to the point where the foriegn manufacturer finds sufficient profit as to re-enter the market.
Long story short -- see how much you like paying eight dollars apiece for your Jockey shorts. That's eight dollars APIECE, not for a three pack.
Of course, the inherent bias of the
economics profession is one answer. But so too, I fear, are the results
of globalization, which are largely great for the rich but not so hot
for those holding on to their livelihoods by a rapidly fraying thread.
Here we have an example of critical myopia. Globalization has lifted tens of millions of people out of abject poverty, doubling, tripling their standards of income, sometimes as much as a factor of ten or more. On the other hand, there have not yet been any deaths of starvation in the U.S. reported as a byproduct of globalization. Globalization has stilled the march of American standards of living forward, for the moment, but statistics don't show much, if anything, in the way of receding standards.
Did Johnny really need that iPod?
A report issued by the American Political Science Association in 2004
titled American Democracy in an Age of Rising Inequality
noted, "Skewed participation among citizens and the targeting of
government resources to partisans and the well-organized ensure that
government officials disproportionately respond to business, the
wealthy."As a result, less-advantaged Americans "are so absent from
discussions in Washington that government officials are likely to hear
about their concerns, if at all, from more privileged advocates who
speak for the disadvantaged. Politicians hear most regularly about the
concerns of business and the most affluent." This is true in terms of
indirect as well as direct influence. Wealthy people and their
corporations own newspapers and fund think tanks, public affairs
television, university chairs, advertising campaigns, lecture series
and the like. Ordinary people do not. With few exceptions, these same
organizations and institutions represent the views of the wealthy and
well connected.
The clear point to this section seems to be that politics responds to the rich over and above the ordinary. Hm. And......how is it that Mr. Alterman considers this revelation to be news?