« John From Cincinnati Blogging | Main | The Trouble With Engagement Rings »
June 11, 2007
Sebastian Mallaby is More Serious Than You
It's rare that I both agree with the basic thrust of an op-ed, and simultaneously find it utterly infuriating. So someone give Sebastian Mallaby the shiny new toaster oven and paisley luggage set, as he's penned just such a column. The actual points are, basically, good. Republicans engage in demagoguery on immigration and health care. Indeed they do. But the writing. Oh, the writing.
"It isn't just Democrats who flunk Globalization 101," says Mallaby. A sentence later: "Anyone who understands Globalization 101..." Who, exactly, is teaching Globalization 101? Is it Sebastian Mallaby? Greg Mankiw? Thomas Friedman? Dani Rodrik? Joe Stiglitz? Alan Blinder? What's on the syllabus? We're never told. But Mallaby, from his perch atop an op-ed page, is perfectly confident assuming shared knowledge in something called globalization 101.
Later we get, "the Republican Party, which prides itself on understanding globalization when it comes to capital flows or trade..." No it doesn't. The Republican Party doesn't wander around modeling currency movement. It advocates for corporate interests who derive economic benefit from unfettered capital flows and unlimited access to foreign markets. They may be right to do, they may be wrong to do, but there's no team of econometricians cranking out policy prescriptions deep in the RNC headquarters. Instead, there are corporate donors, and their checks, and their policy preferences.
And in closing, Mallaby gives us this gem: "In the 2004 election, the Kerry-Edwards ticket forfeited its claim to economic seriousness by opposing trade deals such as the Central American Free Trade Agreement." The medal of economic seriousness is, presumably, awarded by Sebastian Mallaby, in consultation with the editors of The Economist, Thomas Friedman, and the first three hours of an Economics 101 textbook on tape. I was not aware, however, that so much of the judging relied on support for a trade deal that retained American tariffs on sugar and textiles, reinforces pharmaceutical patents, and protects the MPAA. I guess that's why I've never been invited to the awards ceremony.
June 11, 2007 in Economics | Permalink
Comments
For scum like Mallaby, the only thing he needs to know when declaring someone 'serious' or not is if they agree with the Washington consensus and the opinion of America's elite. Thats all anyone in the media cares about, giving the rich what they want and telling the rest of us to go fuck ourselves. The war in Iraq and the actions of the media over the past 7 years have left me no choice but to conclude that elite theory is right, and that something drastic will probably have to be done about it.
Posted by: soullite | Jun 11, 2007 11:07:18 AM
Agree with soullite but think he may have been too polite. Or "shrill", yeah, I mean "shrill". Damned shrill liberal bloggers.
/meta
Posted by: Whispers | Jun 11, 2007 11:53:32 AM
Apparently they don't teach the theory of second best in globalization 101.
Posted by: P O'Neill | Jun 11, 2007 12:02:06 PM
Soullite,
Nothing concrete will ever happen until we take to the street with torches and pitchforks.
Posted by: Joe Klein's conscience | Jun 11, 2007 12:03:26 PM
Ezra, you can't take Globalization 101, yet. Pompous Assery 101 and Self Importance 201 are prerequisutes.
As an aside, Sebastian Mallaby, judging by his online photo, has raised the Moustache of Understanding with the Forehead of Seriousness
Posted by: AJ | Jun 11, 2007 12:37:09 PM
Well, in the closing Mallaby could have gone with the trope he established and said that Kerry-Edwards "flunked Globalization 101."
Not sure we should be grateful for this or not.
Posted by: Kit Stolz | Jun 11, 2007 1:27:30 PM
Joe, Tacitus said that at night, a dagger was worth a thousand swords at dawn. Given a riot or a revolution, they would have time to marshall their resources to counter our own. Take them without warning, in the beds where they sleep, and even the the most powerful man may as well be a baby. Fear is a deadly thing, it makes men stupid and irrational. Put fear into them and they will do the rest themselves.
Posted by: soullite | Jun 11, 2007 1:34:44 PM
People opposing so-called free-trade deals are not serious about economics?
Perhaps it's 'cause I'm a scientist of some sort, but it seems ter me that the proof is always in the pudding. Do trade deals make economic sense? Well, what's the record like? How much has NAFTA helped Joe and Jane Sixpack?
For that matter, how much does "free-trade" really help developing countries? Seems ter me like (with the exception of Britain 'cause it was first) just about every developed country developed behind a wall of tarrifs.
I'm no protectionist (I love being able to get summer fruit in the winter due to trade with Chile, e.g.), but not all free-trade deals are good for all parties involved. It's really the likes of Mallaby who are unserious as they ignore actual economic data.
Anyway, if it's irrational for people to oppose free-trade and immigration for economic reasons, what does that say about an economic theory based on the assumption that people are rational economic actors ... anyone? Mallaby? anyone?
Seems ter me, Mallaby and friends are the ones who are not serious about economic issues ... unless by that they mean serious about protecting the new global feudalism ...
Posted by: DAS | Jun 11, 2007 3:45:05 PM
i am studian the glowballsizatoin!
Posted by: joejoejoe | Jun 11, 2007 4:33:53 PM
Ezra,
Just like Republicans have an irrational knee-jerk reaction to immigration, Democrats act with the same hatred towards capitalism, liberalization, and trade. That is why we say they are clueless about Globalization 101: You can't even have a real debate with Democrats on these issues.
Posted by: Jason | Jun 11, 2007 4:52:18 PM
Just like Republicans have an irrational knee-jerk reaction to immigration, Democrats act with the same hatred towards capitalism, liberalization, and trade. That is why we say they are clueless about Globalization 101: You can't even have a real debate with Democrats on these issues.
Right. Which is why Bill Clinton was such a vociferous foe of NAFTA.
I mean, Jesus, if you're gonna crank out disinfo, could you at least try to make it not laugh-out-loud funny? Otherwise, we're gonna have to outsource the GOP shill work to India. I'm not even sure what I think about NAFTA, 15 years or so on. But your remark is blatantly idiotic and untrue.
Posted by: sglover | Jun 11, 2007 5:00:43 PM
"Ezra, you can't take Globalization 101, yet. Pompous Assery 101 and Self Importance 201 are prerequisites. As an aside, Sebastian Mallaby, judging by his online photo, has raised the Moustache of Understanding with the Forehead of Seriousness" [AJ]
LOL. Gotta laugh to keep from cryin'...
Posted by: Detroit Dan | Jun 11, 2007 5:35:36 PM
The democrats have their roots in socialism and the goal of redistribution one group’s wealth to another as they seek to make the world economically equal for the masses. They also want a one-world government so they can achieve this goal all over the planet.
The republicans want globalization because it makes massive profits for corporations as they cross fiat currency markets. It’s free money for doing nothing but moving your business to a new location. They also want one-world government that is dominated by corporate interests, just like the United States is.
I have a problem also when people who justify free trade use the ideology of socialism. A lot of times the response is people are poor in these countries so corporations will raise them up, even though they attempt to drive wages down and care less what horrible rules are in place. They tell us we should be grateful we have flush toilets and an AC unit on our house; these people don’t have anything after all. A free trader justifying trade based on socialism, the redistribution of wealth, scares me. They sure wouldn’t like it if I wanted to redistribute their personal income to someone in a foreign country. I mean, where is the reward of going to work if you can’t afford to pay the bills in our market?
The major problem I have with this version of “free trade” is that it really should be called “corporate trade”. It might even be a form of mercantilism, which is bad news for everyone if it is. If it were real free trade, like we see in the United States over state borders, I could speak to a guy in China to buy products at his prices. Instead as an American I am forced to buy from the corporations at our market prices. Now if it were true free trade, where I could buy at Chinese prices and skip the corporate schmucks I might be more supportive, but right now we are just being ripped off and it may cost us our economy and the very least our standard of living will fall to match the foreigners we trade with.
Posted by: Globalized | Jun 11, 2007 9:28:39 PM
I am a little confused as to whose throat I am suppose to slit tonight.
Posted by: Clara Fication | Jun 11, 2007 9:47:43 PM
Hey look, Globalized (and others) justified Mallaby's remark on Democratic cluelessness on Globalization.
Posted by: Jason | Jun 12, 2007 1:03:28 AM
"Hey look, Globalized (and others) justified Mallaby's remark on Democratic cluelessness on Globalization." [Jason]
Right-wingers love unfettered capitalization, as it cleverly alludes to a deeper love of unfettered capitalism.
Posted by: J.D. | Jun 12, 2007 11:16:43 AM
Global Free Trade is just dumping through cheap labour.
Posted by: Archie | Jun 12, 2007 4:21:46 PM
Jesus, if half of you had met Thomas Paine or Samuel Adams, I think you'd have run in terror. Some reals Sons of Liberty here. You're supposed to be liberals, the embodiment of the enlightenment and defenders of liberty. Most of you would have sooner shit yourselves then risk putting your lot in with them. You'd call them terrorists, and say that no sane human resorts to their tactics. When you wonder how America got to this point, take a good long look in the mirror. Might we not have acted differently after 2000? You had to know then what kind of man Bush was, that he was that eager to assume power. We all sat on our asses pretending we didn't know what the Republican were. Many of you still pretend they aren't a threat to democracy. Not just human rights and civil liberties, but Democracy itself. If we make the same choice next time, this country is over and will be as much our faults as it is theres. We won't get lucky enough for the next guy to be this inept and stupid.
Posted by: soullite | Jun 12, 2007 10:35:24 PM
Jason, sorry that the Democratic party doesn't give the elite everything it wants. Truly, the do seem to be working on that.
Posted by: soullite | Jun 12, 2007 10:38:06 PM
The democrats have their roots in socialism and the goal of redistribution one group’s wealth to another as they seek to make the world economically equal for the masses. They also want a one-world government so they can achieve this goal all over the planet.
Posted by: Globalized | Jun 11, 2007 9:28:39 PM
That's not even remotely true. The Democrats are historically neutral on the capitalism - socialism divide. Different economic policies are called for under different circumstances. Most recently the Congressional Democrats have been very accomodating to American Corporations but unlike Republicans they are not deluded enough to think that it is some sort of universal virtue to behave that way; they know it's a choice, and one that can change. What you are describing in the section I quoted is properly called Communism, and that is not the voting record or the electoral platform of the Democratic Party of America or any of the state parties. Unless you confuse Universal Health care as communism in which case I would say you have learned to think like an ideologue.
As for world government, that's just a weird claim. Right up there with bigfoot and UFO sightings. Do you know what the United Nations is and how it works? The UN is the slave of the World's governments, not the master, this is especially true since 5 nations have veto power: China, France, England, USA, and Russia. How something as constrained and limited as the UN is supposed to "rule the world as per the goals of the Democrats" is beyond imagination.
But what do I know, I like Opera.
Posted by: Northern Observer | Jun 13, 2007 4:24:06 PM
There were no fewer than three classes taught at Columbia University last semester named "Globalization".
So, you know, take your pick.
Posted by: matt | Jun 14, 2007 11:53:15 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.
