frankel64_Tom Williams_Getty Images_Trump

بريكست وترامب والمحرومون بسبب العولمة

Jul 14, 2016 Jeffrey Frankel

كامبريدج- يوجد حدثان سياسيان يحظيان بالإهتمام العالمي هذه الإيام- تصويت المملكة المتحدة للخروج من الإتحاد الأوروبي وحملة دونالد ترامب الرئاسية في الولايات المتحدة الأمريكية – علما أن هناك الكثير من الأشياء المشتركة بينهما فأكثر من نصف الناخبين البريطانيين بقليل إختاروا "بريكست " أي الخروج من الإتحاد الأوروبي وهي نتيجة ألقت بضلال ثقيلة على النظام السياسي في بريطانيا والآفاق الإقتصادية فيها وربما فهم التشابه بين الحملتين سيساعد الناخبين الإمريكيين على تجنب إتباع مسار مماثل في نوفمبر.

إن أحد أوجه الشبه هو إنه تم الإستخفاف بكلتا الحملتين وخاصة من قبل الخبراء والشخصيات العامة وكما تم إستبعاد إحتمالية خروج بريطانيا من الإتحاد الأوروبي في البداية فإن قلة من النخب السياسية من الجمهوريين والديمقراطيين على حد سواء أخذوا مسعى ترامب للفوز بالترشيح الجمهوري على محمل الجد.

إن من أوجه الشبه الأخرى هي إن كلتا الحملتين إستندت إلى حد كبير على وعود سخيفة وغير قابلة للتصديق ففي بريطانيا طمأن القائمون على حملة "الخروج" الناخبين بإن بريطانيا يمكن أن تحافظ على حرية الوصول للسوق الموحدة بعد الإنسحاب من الإتحاد الأوروبي وفي الوقت نفسه الحد من دخول العمال الأوروبيين لبريطانيا كما أعلنوا أيضا أن 350 مليون جنيه إسترليني (465 مليون دولار أمريكي ) التي من المفترض أنه يتم إرسالها إلى الإتحاد الأوروبي كل أسبوع سيعاد تخصيصها لمؤسسة الصحة الوطنية التي تعاني من نقص الأموال .

We hope you're enjoying Project Syndicate.

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Already have an account? Log in

Support High-Quality Commentary

For more than 25 years, Project Syndicate has been guided by a simple credo: All people deserve access to a broad range of views by the world's foremost leaders and thinkers on the issues, events, and forces shaping their lives. At a time of unprecedented uncertainty, that mission is more important than ever – and we remain committed to fulfilling it.

But there is no doubt that we, like so many other media organizations nowadays, are under growing strain. If you are in a position to support us, please subscribe now.

As a subscriber, you will enjoy unlimited access to our On Point suite of long reads and book reviews, Say More contributor interviews, The Year Ahead magazine, the full PS archive, and much more. You will also directly support our mission of delivering the highest-quality commentary on the world's most pressing issues to as wide an audience as possible.

By helping us to build a truly open world of ideas, every PS subscriber makes a real difference. Thank you.

Subscribe Now

Jeffrey Frankel

Writing for PS since 2000
166 Commentaries

Jeffrey Frankel, Professor of Capital Formation and Growth at Harvard University, previously served as a member of President Bill Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisers. He is a research associate at the US National Bureau of Economic Research, where he is a member of the Business Cycle Dating Committee, the official US arbiter of recession and recovery.

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 33 in all 33 Comments on this article

Gregorio Bustos Aug 31, 2016

I also believe that globalization is unstoppable. Likewise, I think that governments are clueless about how to act to support the economic sectors or regions that are not doing well, because their competences are no longer valid in an open globalized economy. The world is going through a new redistribution of core competences or competitive advantages. In that new distribution, governments must be ready to define for each region, the world top-leading economic sectors and invest in transitional budgets to redefine skills and competences. That way, countries can find a better equilibrium among prosperous already "globalized" regions and "in-transition" to be global top-performers regions, avoiding, as much as possible, social differences, and therefore elections outcomes that only go against progress and prosperity.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Dominique Croteau Jul 18, 2016

"Perhaps understanding the parallels between the two campaigns will help US voters avoid taking a similar path in November."

The problem is that most of pro-Trump voters are not the kind to get knowledgeable about societal or international issues and not likely to be reading an article posted on Project Syndicate.

The current election race in USA is demonstrating the failure of democracy as we practice it. Letting people decide who should lead them does NOT give the most efficient results. As an example: The fiercest opponent of Obama-care were those who actually needed it the most. Unfortunately, many Americans would rather stay poor than have better social benefits because they continue to aspire to their so-called "American Dream", which is just that...a dream.

All the political analysis of this world will not be sufficient to avoid the catastrophe of Trump as POTUS simply because his proponents couldn't care less about facts. They are controlled through emotional manipulations not unlike North Korea is brainwashing it's own poor people.
- Jeffrey Frankel Jul 24, 2016
  
  To Dominique Croteau:
  The target audience I have in mind is not only, and not even primarily, "pro-Trump" voters. If one were to judge the Project Syndicate readership by the comments that are posted on columns by me and others, many of them criticize Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama from the left. As they have in the past with Kerry, Gore, and Bill Clinton.
  Ralph Nader and his supporters in 2000 claimed that there was no difference between Gore and George W. Bush. Gore "lost" in Florida by 537 votes. That was 1/2 of 1 % of the votes that Nader got in Florida, and was a much smaller percentage of those who did not bother to vote at all.
  I'd feel much better if the critics (among American citizens) who comment on my column would start by mentioning that they plan on turning out to vote, and to vote Democratic.
  JF
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
John Lock Jul 18, 2016

I really regret that so much of the discussion post Brexit has been around the term globalisation. Yes, this reflects the apparently large role of immigration in the Brexit vote, but to my mind globalisation is only a fraction of the picture. I would say that neoliberalism is a much more comprehensive target, since globalisation (in its modern form, rather than as a continuum of very old historical trends) is really just a part of the toolset of neoliberal ideology. Those here who mention the parallel effects of 'trickle down economics' are, I suppose, of a similar mindset. Neoliberalism, incorporating 'free trade', i.e. modern Globalisation, free markets ('limited regulation'), monetarism and supply-side economics, small government, unregulated electoral donation in the guise of free speech etc etc. These are all the parts of the neoliberal toolbox, and all contribute to the overreach of the elite class, or whatever you want to call those that actually drive policy formation (through the establishment and funding of think tanks as far back as the 60s, the funding of political parties, the ownership of media etc etc). Neoliberalism is a self-consistent, multifaceted ideology that has produced a coherent, largely self-assembling strategy that must be considered and countered as a whole. As a specific example, although NAFTA was introduced in the mid 90s, median wages had already been stagnant since ~1980, largely due to the implementation of neoliberal tools other than globalisation/free-trade. Hence, reversing free-trade (where it actually refers to the absence of tariffs, as opposed to legislative carve-outs and extra-judicial 'legal' mechanisms for stateless multinationals) is a fools errand, and ultimately, one that will punish those in the world still suffering most acutely. Failure to grapple with neoliberalism in its totality and at its ideological roots (Hayek, Friedman, Rand), will not do much to address the inequities that are eating Western democracies from the inside out.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Timothy Burke Jul 17, 2016

"We can take globalization as a given, and adopt measures to help compensate those who might naturally lose out."

Or we could just have a revolution.
- John Brian Shannon Jul 21, 2016
  
  Hi Timothy,
  
  Spot on. Yes, it will be one or the other.
  
  Cheers, JBS
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
David Morgan Jul 16, 2016

The author must be living in cloud cooko land if he thinks that business and governments will give away more money than they absolutely must to keep the working classes or should I say the new unemployed happy. I live in a beautiful part of Wales happily retired with a decent pension and disability benefits due to a nasty accident, however I had to travel the world for work. But now I enjoy my retirement as the environment is much nicer without the coal mines and steelworks. Selfish that, however is human nature.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Charles Van Schilt Jul 16, 2016

First off the world has always been in some form of a globalized trade system. In other words we have always had trade between other countries and no one is saying we shouldn't have world trade between nations. In the early 1960s and 1970s their were tariffs and quotas to protect local companies against predatory practices of large corporations, dumping products on other people markets is one example. The philosophy was that all countries should be able to manufacture their own goods and provide well paid employment to many of their citizens so that we didn't need to rely solely on outsiders. But the current form of globalization has been and will continue to be destructive to the majority of citizens benefiting only a small minority throughout the world because the current form has been created by free trade agreements which were put together by corporate lawyers to satisfy corporate interests to maximize profit, nothing else. At one time we believed that corporate interests were aligned with the interests of nations and their citizens but as we have seen this is not the case since we have seen stagnated wages and rising inequality under the current system. This global system has created massive concentrations of industries in manufacturing, energy, food production, grocery stores, and etc. This has led to monopolization of industries and the destruction of our environment. Now corporate power essentially controls the world. This imbalance of power needs to be corrected otherwise the world will devolve into chaos which we are all ready seeing the early signs of. So the only logical way out is for countries to renegotiate their free trade agreements which should include at the table capital, government, labor, and environmentalists. The externalities created by the effects of industry on the world have now become destructive which if left as they are will destroy the world we live in. This will of course require that money in politics be eliminated or vastly reduced otherwise it will undermine all attempts at progressive change. So unless the current elites start to change the system the potential for Brexit's, Trump's and other tyrant's will become more likely. The choice is really in the hands of those who run the system. All I can say to that is what Pierre Trudeau suggested that 'the world will unfold as it will,' and we need to contend with whatever comes.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
ROHIT CHANDAVARKER Jul 16, 2016

Globalisation is created many ills but has also unleashed significant gains. Unfortunately, the crisis in US is structural & seems intractable given the deep fissures among Rep. & Dems. Free movement of capital & labour ushered in global growth but also widened the chasm between the haves & have nots. Immigration seems to be a hot button & citizens across nation states view this with scepticism & trepidation. Politicians like Trump have been quick to grasp this grouse. The US additionally has foreign policy imperatives leading to further angst. One might recall that the industrial revolution & the internet boom were products emerging from US & Europe. Yet today one finds most of these pioneering innovations mastered by other countries so much so that the initiators have been left far behind. One underlying common thread for these revolutionary ideas has been the quality of skill sets that produced these phenomenal advances. Can the US pride itself on superior intellect in underrated & unheralded sectors? Global integration helped countries like China & India to emulate & then master these ideas & innovations, while the blue collar jobs were taken up by African Americans & Hispanics. This left the home grown American at a loose end. A prolonged degrowth exacerbated the situation. Jobless growth & lack of gainful employment has resulted in backlash against the system. To add to these woes is terrorism & its deleterious effects.
The incoming President needs to focus on the unglamorous aspects like education, skill development & innovation. Once the building blocks are in place, animal spirits are bound to follow. One barely cares to understand that immigrants have enriched US immensely but the average American is oblivious to this fact so long as he is not gainfully employed.
Education & not guns is the answer. The US has to focus on developing skills not shotguns. Concentrate on productivity not pistols & care for the left behind not pander to the haves.
Ironically, the US has Big Pharma yet grappling with health benefits & insurance to the disadvantaged.
Trump might care to ponder on the fact that walls create divisions & bluster creates enemies.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Norm Winn Jul 15, 2016

A few months ago, I read an article that discussed the approximate 7.4-8.5 million jobs permanently lost in the US since 2000. The author's research showed approximately 1M lost jobs were attributable to NAFTA, and another approximately 2M jobs were lost as a result of the US trade imbalance with China (not through a free trade agreement). That's 3M of the total. The remaining 4.5-5.5M lost jobs were due to TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION, primarily within the areas of manufacturing, robotics, and smart networks. The article went on to estimate another 40M jobs will be lost over the next 2-3 decades as technology improves in the hospitality, services and administrative sectors. THESE ARE NOT TRADE RELATED LOSSES, but loses related to US companies being able to do more with even fewer employees. I grant we could probably do a much better job of negotiating trade deals, but exactly how will protectionism and tariffs remedy this trend?
- Steve Hurst Jul 16, 2016
  
  Perhaps you should ask JF how he proposes to 'compensate' those who lose out in this march forward, because that is the whole basis of his proposition, that the Have-notters can be glad handed by the diminishing number of Haves. The figures do not look kind to me.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
dingle berry Jul 15, 2016

"...[H[elp compensate those who might naturally lose out." Will never happen. Does anyone need reminding how computerisation was supposed to lead to a shorter working week, more holidays, earlier retirement and more more leisure time in general? Instead the elites reaped all of the benefits and for workers the opposite happened. The only workers with more leisure time were the growing numbers of unemployed.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Steve Hurst Jul 15, 2016

Simple Simon met a pieman,
Going to the fair;
Says Simple Simon to the pieman,
Let me taste your ware.
Says the pieman to Simple Simon,
Show me first your penny;
Says Simple Simon to the pieman,
Indeed I have not any.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Petey Bee Jul 14, 2016

I know it's more comfortable to "look forward" to building a brighter future than to "look backwards" at the mistakes that were made, but you really do need both.

Given that (1) 20%+ of the US population was directly harmed by globalization, based on data series of household wealth vs income percentile, and (2) that this is a sizable enough group to make for a "politically fragile" situation, we have more than enough motivation.

So with newfound courage, let's look backwards here. To see what more we can learn about how US politics has generated the present situation in terms of a less-than-equitable implementation of "globalization".

In the US, which of the 2 major parties was it who championed globalization, and NAFTA specifically (remember, politics!)?

Answer: both of them. Bill Clinton was a huge promoter of NAFTA, making exactly the kind of unrealistically rosy promises of bigger pie pieces for everyone. And GHW Bush also was for NAFTA. Fortunately, the third Bush has been removed from the menu already.

Both parties have crap reputation, and frankly deserve it.

So should this group of voters, who are now 20 years older and a whole lot wiser when it comes to hearing promises about the benign nature of globalization - should this group of voters be expected to choose Clinton? Get real. The best you can do is persuade them to vote for a third party. Incidentally, a third party is the only chance the country has of ridding itself of the dynamic duo of "oops I didn't see that coming" which are the R and D parties.
- John Brian Shannon Jul 21, 2016
  
  @ Steve
  
  Yes, I think as you on this, Steve.
  
  People ordering more of the same in an attempt to fix the problem, is painful.
  
  We need a fresh look at globalization, and some amount of protectionism is already hiding in plain sight.
  
  If we look back to when the U.S. economy was growing, it isn't too hard to locate the day the 1% was created. (That 1% that presently owns more than half of the world's wealth, leaving the other half for 7.2 billion people to live on) Also worth noting, is that unchecked, by 2030 the 1% will own 75% of the world's wealth -- leaving only 25 % for 8 billion people to share...
  
  The word catastrophe doesn't begin to cover it.
  
  Nobody seems to be listening.
  
  The problem is now too big to fix (some politicians and some elites think) and anyway, it's easier to just sit on their hands.
  
  As always, very best regards, JBS
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Petey Bee Jul 16, 2016
  
  Good stuff.
  
  @J Frankel
  
  To begin with, my point was that NAFTA was conceived and negotiated under Bush, ratified under Clinton and promoted enthusiastically by him, with the consequences of it, and of globalization in general, kicking in shortly thereafter. So it is NOT something that sets Clinton apart from the Republican mainstream.
  
  And if you take the position that globalization has caused a certain amount of harm which we are now in the process of admitting, as you did, then Clinton and Bush go down together on that issue.
  
  It was upon the bursting of the late 90's bubble that the price was paid, and that happened almost immediately upon Clinton's exit. The time lag. Americans typically stay in jobs 4-5 years, and it is when changing jobs that your life situation typically gets better or worse. NAFTA was ratified in 1994...
  
  There are a ton of other factors too, I'm not denying those. Demographics, declining union membership, declining associated salary differential, declining associated bargaining power, this went back to the 80's or more. And of course technological change. Also the widespread adoption of 401k's, which had side effects both good and bad, creating big political price for any stock market dips and thus encouraging more bubbles. And I'm sure some other things the Clinton and Bush administrations can take credit for, in retrospect.
  
  As far as the "left-behind" block of voters goes though, the eager embrace of globalization by policymakers is not one of them.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Steve Hurst Jul 15, 2016
  
  @John
  
  You are quite correct and the social issue for the West is fundamental
  
  As globalisation stands it is essentially based at its core on shipping commodities to the West and offshoring manufacturing from the West to exploit lower labour costs. As the West capacity for consumer goods and commodities stalls due to impoverishment and flattening population growth versus a forecast near term doubling of populations elsewhere the model fails. It can do nothing but fail
  
  It is a laudable aim to increase global prosperity but the whole excercise is inherently unstable. Consider two countries, selected simply because they are large. Nigeria - curently half the population are without electricity, the population in the next 30 years is expected to double to the size of the US population. What volume of commodities would be needed to support this population and its economic uplift and where would they be shipped to. Then there is India where 2/3rds of the population have not even heard of climate change as a concept and part of the country is have a repeated and growing drought threatening rural subsistance farming. Population again growing and traditional craft activities such as weaving now undermined by goods from further East. How much do they need to export to grow
  
  Perhaps taking a look at China and its trade behaviour helps. No not really - Steel dumped everywhere for example - or how about the EU request that air transportation should be subject for the first time to a fuel levy to stunt geometric rate expansion in activity with the associated pollution issues - Attemot denied by China quoting World trade agreements
  
  Protectionism is here, that was the basis of Brexit and the same trend is present on mainland Europe, it is present in the Trumplican movement. Denying its presence is pointless and denying that it a response to the very real impact of globalisation is pointless
  
  Whenever I hear claims more of the same is the answer when the same got us here I feel a chill
  
  From the fist Ghostbusters -
  Dr. Egon Spengler: Sorry, Venkman, I’m terrified beyond the capacity for rational thought.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- John Brian Shannon Jul 15, 2016
  
  Hi Jeffrey,
  
  Re: Your response to Petey Bee;
  
  "OK, let’s take a look back – but into actual history, as opposed to myth.
  
  "There has only been one half-decade since the 1970s in which strong US growth was widely shared across the population. That was 1996-2000, under Bill Clinton, immediately after NAFTA went into effect." -- Jeffrey Frankel
  
  So you're saying that since 1997 (when globalization began in earnest) that there has only been 1/2 decade in which, "strong US growth was widely shared across the population." (?)
  
  >>>I've the greatest respect for you, Jeffrey, but that *isn't a compelling case for globalization* regardless how many elites have thereby benefited.<<<
  
  As it relates to the bottom two economic quintiles and the shrinking middle class (see my FORTUNE MAGAZINE link further down on this thread) globalization is improving their lives... exactly how?
  
  It seems that Neil Irwin of, "You Can’t Feed a Family With G.D.P." fame was ahead of his time when he published his prescient article in the New York Times on SEPT. 16, 2014.
  
  Globalization is *indeed* great for GDP, and great for the 1% and possibly great for the top 2 economic quintiles -- but for everyone else in developed countries, it's a drag.
  
  If we don't address it now, the social construct will fail accordingly.
  
  Neil Irwin on Twitter: @Neil_Irwin
  
  Cheers, JBS
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Steve Hurst Jul 14, 2016
  
  @Jeffrey
  
  re yr response to Petey
  
  The impact of sloppy money (piped from the East, as gains from trade imbalance with the West) only really showed up post 2000, as did the rampant move of economic activity Eastwards. Any gain that occurred prior to that has been completely destroyed. Furthermore the roots of the bubble that lead to the Crash are quite clearly a result of globalisation, which induced the trade imbalance. I am not suggesting that globalisation could have been managed or avoided, but the mantra it has been beneficial is questionable. In the US food stamps have doubled to 45 million, in what way is this an economic pie people are sharing, they are eating humble pie instead
  
  Regards
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Ott Toomet Jul 14, 2016
  
  Whatever the percentage of US population harmed, you should also look at the emerging middle class in Mexico, China and elsewhere, in the places where "western jobs" are going. Even if inequality increases inside of the countries, it may still fall worldwide.
  
  I haven't seen any statistics though.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Jeffrey Frankel Jul 14, 2016
  
  Petey Bee,
  OK, let’s take a look back – but into actual history, as opposed to myth.
  There has only been one half-decade since the 1970s in which strong US growth was widely shared across the population. That was 1996-2000, under Bill Clinton, immediately after NAFTA went into effect. The record-length economic expansion did not only benefit the rich. During this unique period, workers received their share of productivity growth in the form of higher wages, unemployment declined to 3.9%, minorities benefited, the poverty rate fell, etc., etc. I can’t claim that NAFTA caused all that. But those are real numbers -- unlike the claims of all those trade critics who think they “know” that American workers got screwed by NAFTA.
  JF
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
koen van peteghem Jul 14, 2016

a lot of the rebalancing of offshoring was expected to come from rising wages in the new economies . This does not happen at the pace needed. Initially, all of us took the benefits with growing living standards. It is now, that the offshoring has reached the current level that the bill for all that cheap stuff is being presented. Still , automation will beat globalisation as destroyer of jobs ( read self esteem, purpose, ... ) at blistering rate... so to solve the drawback of offshoring, perhaps better to look at the cost of automation. Pe : the autonomous truck.. What do we offer all the drivers? because those jobs are gone forever... in the end , Communism V2.0 could be what will save us...
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
John Brian Shannon Jul 14, 2016

Hi Jeffrey,

Democracy is a messy bit of business, isn't it?

When voters aren't happy with the status quo, they vote for change. But when things are working in their favour, they tend to reelect their politicians.

So, is that "tilting at windmills"?

Rather, I call that democracy in action. The people's needs and wants aren't being met -- therefore they vote for change. The very nature of democracy, in one sentence!

Messy as democracy can be, and as inconvenient as it can be (for elites, anyway) democracy beats communism, and it certainly beats plutocracy which is the eventuality of mature democracies.

Of course, communist systems eventually (and more absolutely) fail, but due to kleptocracy or oligarchy.

With all of that said, prolonging our experiment with democracy (by focusing on meeting the needs and wants of citizens) seems the best route, as opposed to focusing on meeting the needs and wants of the elites -- the very definition of plutocracy.

In order to forestall revolution, or at the very least, civil disobedience (on the scale of #OWS, the Vietnam War protests, civil rights movement, etc) we should try to prolong our democratic experiment.

And in order to do that, we must begin to focus on meeting the needs and wants of normal citizens *with far less emphasis on meeting the needs and wants of the elites*.

I'm not at all certain that will happen, however; Unless sufficient 'pain' is induced, the elites will have no reason to 'give up' a 'world made for them'.

To wit; How many heads have rolled in Brussels, for losing the UK?
To wit; How many people have been sent to prison for illegal activities related to causing a global financial meltdown?
To wit; How many jobs have left North America for Asia, even as corporate welfare rates are at all-time highs when measured decade-by-decade?

I could go on...

Unless we can co-opt the elites into making the necessary changes so that ALL citizens can benefit, the West is heading down a similar path to the former Soviet Union of 26 or 27 years ago.

Whether globalization is the problem, or whether the blame lies with the (de facto) trickle-up economic model -- something *isn't* working for citizens -- and until it is, expect more 'Brexit' type results.

Brexit is merely the first loss in the non-addressed scenario.

***MAKING IT WORK FOR THE BOTTOM TWO ECONOMIC QUINTILES IN THE WESTERN DEMOCRACIES*** is what it's going to take to prevent a social construct breakdown that could be as catastrophic to the West as the end of the Soviet Union was to communism.

(Soviet worker's favorite quote, in the few years prior to the breakup of the Soviet Union) "As long as they pretend to pay us, we will pretend to work."

Sound familiar?

For those whom that doesn't sound familiar, you live in an ivory tower.

If it does sound familiar, what are you doing about it?

That's the $64,000 question.

Nobody is doing anything about it. And that's everything!

Finally, the voter is never wrong. No matter what, (and no matter how inconvenient it can be for elites) democracy is the best form of government.

But it is the elites who must adjust to voter decisions -- not the other way around.

Once we understand that, we will begin to address and solve the problems of the (very unhappy) bottom two economic quintiles and their upstream compatriots concerned about the democratic deficit, the effects of globalization, and the trickle-up economy, *all of which have been allowed by the elites* to cause inequality.

Thank you for posting your brilliant essays here at ProSyn, Jeffrey.

As always, very best regards, JBS
- Steve Hurst Jul 14, 2016
  
  @John
  
  Yes that is about it
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- John Brian Shannon Jul 14, 2016
  
  Related Article -- Short Excerpt:
  
  The death of the middle class is worse than you think -- Fortune
  
  "From Brexit to Donald Trump, if there’s anything that current events tell us, it’s that the man on the street is angry and wants change.
  
  "A new report from the McKinsey Global Institute, with the chilling title “Poorer than their Parents: Flat or Falling Incomes in Advanced Economies,” shows just why this is the case...
  
  "...The report found that as much as 70% of the households in 25 advanced economies saw their earnings drop in the past decade. The study tracked income brackets, not individual households, from 2005 to 2014. That compares to just 2% of households that saw declining incomes in the previous 12 years.
  
  "The authors estimate that this means that “while fewer than ten million people were affected [by flat or falling incomes] in the 1993-2005 period, that figure exploded to between 540 million and 580 million people in 2005-2014.”
  
  "To put it bluntly: A huge swath of the world’s population, one that had been taught to expect their material wealth to growth through their lifetimes and across generations, has learned that this promise was a lie. No wonder voters in the rich world are being seduced by radical politics and specious solutions to their economic problems." -- Fortune
  
  http://fortune.com/2016/07/13/middle-class-death/
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Steve Hurst Jul 14, 2016

Fresh from the economic bakery more economic pie for us not to share about.

'We can take globalization as a given, and adopt measures to help compensate those who might naturally lose out.'

Really, how is this largesse going to be enabled. It you hadnt notice the economic pie has been shipped elsewhere, how are you suggesting this is shipped back. How does distributing home tax revenue to the dispossessed help, its simply domestic welfare bill growth. And if you think the economic pie shipping overseas has ended then think again, a 1:10 labour cost and a 10cents per Kg shipping cost will keep it going. Digital service are not location compromised. Next will be physically shipping patients to overseas locations for surgery

There is nothing substantial proposed, absolutely, its all very last millennium mindset
- Steve Hurst Jul 14, 2016
  
  To Jeffrey
  
  Last data I saw said that real wages for the majority have declined decade upon decade in the West. Further that the income of the middle class as a group has also declined decade upon decade, that the headcount of the middle class has also shrunk at the same time. As the population has been growing in that period the GDP has to grow to stand still so it is the relativity of the growth that is the question. The figures simply do not add up. There is no bigger pie, futhermore debt has skyrocketed in that period. Yes inequality has risen but that does not answer what is going on
  
  The whole approach to globalisation is written into UN agenda 21 which is last millennium stuff. Repeating the message globalisation is good depends where an individual is in the pantomime. Globalisation is not controlled, not managed, and is not manageable
  
  I do not have a problem with obamacare concept and do not use it because I am in the UK. Obamacare is needed IMO to address the high prescription drug costs in the US. I can assure you there has been discussion about offshoring surgery due to cost here, put to one side for now due to public adverse reaction - but it will return as an issue with an aging population
  
  The Brexit vote in the UK is primarily a response to globalisation impact not migration and unless steps are taken in the EU - which they appear to be incapable of doing - then the same drift will occur in the rest of the EU
  
  All of this is before robot AI comes on stream with something in the region of a 30% impact in whole or part on jobs. It is highly unlikely there is the tax revenues to provide compensation the way you suggest. All that is left is protectionism so the degree of protectionism is the question, it will happen. As has been shown in the UK with the Brexit vote the majority feel thay are the 'have nots'. Are seriously proposing that the majority are compensated, the figures are not viable
  
  Regards S
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Jeffrey Frankel Jul 14, 2016
  
  To Steve Hurst:
  Your comment seems to imply that the domestic country as a whole loses from trade, which ships money to foreign countries. No. Just because trade helps the foreign country overall does not mean that it hurts the domestic country overall. US and UK GDP have been increasing. Yes, it is important to acknowledge that there are domestic losers in addition to the domestic winners, but it is also important to realize that the larger pie allows the possibility of compensating the losers.
  Finally, contrary to your last sentence, such American policies as universal health care (toward which Obamacare is a huge step forward) are substantial and very much “21st-century,” not “last millennium.”
  JF
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Jose araujo Jul 14, 2016

I'm sick of this fallacies.. You create a false cause and effect, (globalization), which allows you to attack the premise...

I know the tabloids like catchy phrases and must dumb down the speach, but please Globalization.....
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Jose araujo Jul 14, 2016

The lack of empathy and concern for the growing inequality has nothing to do with Globalization. The growth of social Darwinism and neo-classic ideas, the stress on lower wages, has nothing to do with Globalization.

The growth of impunity where a class that dilapidated immense wealth, the constant bankruptcies trillions of Euros on imparities, and yet its the common people that is being accused of living above their means, that ends paying the bill and losing its jobs….

After the technical revolution we are witnessing, we are lacking the social revolution that followed along the industrial age.

It’s not the Globalization we are against it’s the tyranny. We have nothing against globalization, and please don’t compare Trump to Brexit. If Labor or the Tories had led the Brexit the results would be a massive no to Europe
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
stephan Edwards Jul 14, 2016

We keep hearing this, compensation for the loosing majority is never going to happen PERIOD. The winners like the current situation just fine. The economics premise that the pie will increase infinitely is a load of bovine fecal matter. If the pie is so infinite why do we hear the famous "We have to cut taxes on job creators, it wont effect social services at all the economy will just grow and grow. 2 weeks later we hear "Tax receipts are much lower then anticipated and county medical services for the poor and middle class will be have to be cut 40%. The ever growing economic pie theory is BS and misleading at best, at worst all the growth goes to a small handful .

You conclusions are pie in the sky by and by. The Congress Republican or Democrat would not and will not adopt a single measure to compensate the losers if the 82nd Airborne was holding them at gun point. The donors holding the leashes firmly attached to their..... bal I mean collars like the current situation very well thank you.
- stephan Edwards Jul 15, 2016
  
  Even when the democrats have a majority lots of speeches are made but nothing is actually passed. When they are in the minority the compromises passed benefit the donor class not the working class. Both parties act to benefit the big donors which is their primary and nearly only interest.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Jeffrey Frankel Jul 14, 2016
  
  To Stephan Edwards:
  You complain that proponents of free trade also make fiscal promises that they don’t keep (big tax cuts that turn out only to help the rich). I would agree that this has described Republican politicians very well, ever since Reagan. But it does not apply to the Democrats. Thus your complaint proves my point.
  Contrary to what you say, Democratic congressmen have consistently voted for Obamacare, infrastructure spending, a more progressive income tax system, Trade Adjustment Assistance, expanded Earned Income Tax Credit, extended unemployment insurance, etc., etc. More of these things would have passed, if they had received political support by critics on the left like those who comment on Project Syndicate op-eds!
  JF
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/Zpwp7fTar

Cookies and Privacy

بريكست وترامب والمحرومون بسبب العولمة

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Support High-Quality Commentary

New Comment

Email this piece to a friend

Contact us

Log in/Register

Cookies and Privacy

بريكست وترامب والمحرومون بسبب العولمة

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Support High-Quality Commentary

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification