Re: ``globalization'' and poverty

["James R. Olson, jr." <jhavok@xxxxxxxx>]

At 03:18 PM 05/03/2001 -0400, you wrote:

>Note that Friedman did not say that all opposition was
>ill-intentioned, he said it was also ill-informed.

He said it was "ill informed being led around by the ill intentioned."

>a sensible stance?  This is a complicated question, because it depends
>on what you think the alternative outcomes or available ammendments
>might be.

Wellstone mentions an alternative bill which had the support of the people
he listed, who Freidman calls the "anti-globalization gang."

>Where did the bulk of the opposition come from?  Well, where would we
>guess without knowing anything more than that the bill makes it easier
>for African nations to export textiles to the US?  The US textile
>industry, of course.  And if we look at a CRS report
>  http://www.cnie.org/nle/econ-36.html
>we find that is indeed the case.

It's true that the textile unions were opposed to the bill, and no doubt
the textile industry, but that doesn't mean, as I demonstrated, that they
were the only opposition.

I have to wonder why textiles in particular were chosen as the industry of
focus.

>  http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c106:1:./temp/~c10660LzYr:e10122:

Sorry, that search wasn't saved...

>One last point: you suggest that in the absence of concrete evidence
>we should avoid Friedman's optimism about the welfare consequences of
>the trade increases he documents.  But we are always thrown on our
>best judgment given the available evidence, and what we have in this
>case certainly does not suggest a pessimistic assessment.

Based on my best judgement, the questionable arguments that Friedman uses
elsewhere, both in the article and in other writings, justify extreme
skepticism about any of his statements.