Not only does an 84% growth rate not represent a quadrupling,but how does growth in Mexican GDP from 1987-1994 have anything to do with NAFTA?

As an economist recetnly on the job market, it seems more than a little strange to say I didn't face considerable international competition. The competition is limited by requiring that Ph.D.'s be from U.S. and a limited number of foreign schools, but if the proportion of international students in those schools is very high now. And for run of the mill econ jobs (i.e. not Harvard) the competition has been expanded because the large number of quality int'tl students means that there are quality economists coming out of lower level schools. Lots more competition in general.

Economics is a pretty internationally competitive profession.

The New York Times editorial page is guilty of this, too. The proposed solution to this issue that the Times offers is the typical one: build a more robust social safety net for the less-educated to fall back on. This, of course, completely misses the point, and ignores the fact that the costs of "free trade" are experienced not only by American workers, but also by the workers of nations with whom we "freely" trade. The awful labor standards and low (shall I call them exploitative?) wages in effect in other countries should give anyone who wishes to trade with such countries "freely" some pause. The quality of these peoples' lives matter just as much (if not in some cases more) as the quality of American peoples' lives, and we should be concerned to improve the labor laws in these countries, before we turn to the SECONDARY goal of fueling economic growth.

There is a difference between Mexico and other countries such as China, in that better economic conditions and employment in Mexico should discourage illegal immigration, which is certainly a detriment to the lower end of the US workforce.

Not that either Obama or the WaPo seem to be aware of this.

...seems more than a little strange to say I didn't face considerable international competition. The competition is limited...

Limited vs. unlimited sounds kinda protectionist to me. But then I'm not an economist.

So we can all agree one way to substantially reduce the costs of healthcare is to open it up to foreign competition? Of course the FDA and AMA will fight to the death to hold onto the monopolies they protect for big pharma and doctors.

The power of the AMA and big pharma is so great that their protections don't even count as "protectionism" in the Post and other great news outlets. We have an uphill struggle here.

Faor many years I've been puzzled every time I see an article like that -- especially one that quotes big-name economists -- how anyone can speak of "free trade" in an environment where Asian nations manipulate their exchange rates to keep their currencies so undervalued that they have had to accumulate literally trillions of dollars in reserves to absorb the dollars paid for their exports.

Even if Mexico's GDP had more than quadrupled since 1987, what does that necessarily do for the average Mexican? If it isn't being at least somewhat equitably distributed - and we know it wouldn't have been - how is the average Mexican better off?

Everytime Carlos Slim, the world richest man and a Mexican, enters a room, the average worth of each person in the room goes up if you are calculating such meaningless statistics. When he leaves the room, there's not a peso more in anybody else's pocket.

Thank heavens you're posting in blogland, Dean.

More straight talk is needed from others.

Economist and CrazyQat,

In private conversation Dean will admit that the degree of protectionism for professional economists in the US is not remotely of the same order of magnitude as that for lawyers, doctors, and accountants, although there is a small amount of it. He just likes to keep us on the list to try and embarrass the more thoughtless of pro-free tradign economists.

Regarding NAFTA, most observers are really clueless as to its problems. Dean does get it that it is not all that important in terms of affecting wage issues for low wage workers in the US, and there has been little to no net job effects of it in the US.

Ironically, the biggest problem with NAFTA has been the unfair tilt to the US in the corn industry, where we get to subsidize and the Mexicans don't. This has had a negative effect on US workers because lots of poor Mexicans have been tossed out of the corn sector, lowering industrial wages in Mexico and stimulating migration to the US. Of course, one hears no discussion of this from any side of the political spectrum.

There is another problem with the cry for renegotiating NAFTA that has been coming from all the Dem candidates, especially in light of the previous point and the fact that the US is violating the treaty on several fronts with both the Mexicans and Canadians as it is right now. This is the Dem version of arrogant American unilateralism of the sort that Bush has pulled, pulling out of previously signed treaties he does not like. Makes the diplomatic word of the US worth s#@&. We are violating a treaty that is already unfair to Mexico and we are going to go in and demand a renogiation. Sheer imperialistic arrogance of the worst sort.

Yeah, Barkley is on to me. The protections enjoyed by economists are much less than the protections enjoyed by doctors and lawyers and other licensed professionals, but they are still non-zero.

Reagan is, was and may forever be the problem.

We need to get past the idea that non-college educated means low skilled. Many high skilled, high tech jobs require plenty of training for years, and licenses, and carry a lot of responsibility. These jobs are being lost.

An example: aircraft mechanics, whose jobs involving routine maintenance are being outsourced to countries with lower wages.

Well, we know that non-zero means zero, to at least one economist. Remind me not to get financial advice from economists who believe that.

Barkeley

Do you have some links about all the ways the US is violating NAFTA?

I've heard NAFTA is mainly an investment protection scheme. What would a treaty look like that actually is helpful to avg people, here and in Mexico?

Sorry for mangling your name Barkley.

anton,

Some quick googling will show problems regarding trucking and workers' rights between the US and Mexico, with Mexico complaining about the US. There was a ruling against the US in 2001 on the trucking issue, but there are new efforts to undo it. US has also violated rights of Mexican workers.

Between US and Canada there have long been problems over lumber.

"Economics is a pretty internationally competitive profession."

I'm inclined to agree with this AND this is WHY the field is becoming so universally ideologially distorted that its losing credibility.

Thus, the Post editorials on trade and countless other distortions, promoted as the Gospel Truth.

MAXIDEX WARNING

I had eye surgery and in the post-op pack was MAXIDEX(dexamethasone) drops by ALCON LABS.

Two days later I was BLIND

Use Google and enter EPOCRATES MAXIDEX to verify