Rating: 
Summary: A great book -- no matter what twits think
Review: Another reviewer has mentioned that Krugman doesn't take into account that comparative advantages can change over time -- viz, that countries can actually create advantages. He cites Japan's auto industry as an example. Granting for the sake of argument that Japan, Inc. was good at creating certain industries in which it did well, I note a few flaws with his argument. 1) It's kind of outdated to point to Japan as an exemplar of superb economic policymaking. 2) Japan gave up many other things in order to "create" their advantages. 3) Competition in the long run improved the American auto industry. 4) It would be ridiculous to think that Krugman doesn't know about the impact of governments creating advantages in certain industries -- HE INVENTED THAT THEORY!!! (An oversimplification, obviously). Go back and read about the new strategic trade theory -- that's exactly what he's talking about.
Rating:
Summary: A great book -- no matter what twits think
Review: Another reviewer has mentioned that Krugman doesn't take into account that comparative advantages can change over time -- viz, that countries can actually create advantages. He cites Japan's auto industry as an example. Granting for the sake of argument that Japan, Inc. was good at creating certain industries in which it did well, I note a few flaws with his argument. 1) It's kind of outdated to point to Japan as an exemplar of superb economic policymaking. 2) Japan gave up many other things in order to "create" their advantages. 3) Competition in the long run improved the American auto industry. 4) It would be ridiculous to think that Krugman doesn't know about the impact of governments creating advantages in certain industries -- HE INVENTED THAT THEORY!!! (An oversimplification, obviously). Go back and read about the new strategic trade theory -- that's exactly what he's talking about.
Rating: 
Summary: It's What Culture Is All About
Review: Bravo Paul Krugman. Can the "Just do it" mind set ever understand the issues you raise? Thank you for showing us that solid, basic theory is required to solve certain problems. Thank you for chastising those who would face theoretical problems without training (amateurs?). Throughout your intelligent book, I was reminded of Pascal's thought on limping minds: "A man with a limp in his leg recognizes that he is limping; yet a limping mind believes that it is others that limp along, which makes it all so doubly infuriatng." Please continue your very socratic exposé of those who hate that mark of a cultured mind: to know the limits of theory, yet also its power.
Rating:
Summary: Awesome book
Review: I am no expert on economics, having only taken basic classes in college, but Paul Krugman SEEMS right in his book "Pop Internationalism." Krugman, the op-ed columnist for the New York Times and Slate magazine and also a professor at Princeton University, published this collection of essays, articles, and speeches back in 1996.Perhaps the publishing date brings about the only weakness, as much of the talk seems less appropriate for today's economy. But the reviews of old topics like NAFTA and the Eastern economy is still good information, and presented clearly and concisely.
Krugman put this collection together to inform people of the latest trend of beliefs in international economics, a trend that is dead wrong in Krugman's eyes. And so we have his term of "pop internationalism." The basic idea of pop internatiolism is that the U.S. does not depend on international trade as much as the "experts" portray. Very little of our GNP is actually in exports, and we are seemingly doing just fine as the world market becomes more "global." Krugman is so concise in this point that many of the essays actually repeat the point over and over. This is okay though (at least for me), because I understood it better reading it again. The book is a quick read, and is divided into four secions: A Zero-Sum World, Economic Theory -- Good and Bad, The Emerging World, and Technology and Society. As far as Krugman being correct in his economic thinking, get back to me after I read some of the "pop internaitionalism" literature from the likes of Reich and Thurow.
Rating: 
Summary: pop internationalism is pop economics
Review: If one takes what the mass media says seriously the case for free trade is open and shut - so much so that they never explain why free trade is so advantageous nor why protectionist measures so harmful. Of course, there must be at least some intellectual underpinnings to the theory of free trade. Hoping to find a good exposition of them I read Pop Internationalism of Paul Krugman.. My first disappointment came from finding out that Pop Internationalism isn't a book at all but a collection of previously written essays. This is bad for two reasons. First, because each essay is self contained and only about 15 or so pages Krugman never gives much depth to any of his ideas. The result is that there just isn't much intellectual meat here.. Krugman, like many, make much of free trade being beneficial to all countries that participate in it. And that it is true as long as we take it as a given what countries produce. However, what a country has a relative advantage in isn't something preordained but is something that can change over time. The industries in which a country is more efficient can change over time either through market forces or some form of industrial policy. For example, in the early 1960s Japan did not have an auto industry; by 1980 it had a "created" advantage in that vital industry. It developed such an advantage that it the US had to resort to protectionist measures ("voluntary export restraints") to save its automobile industry. The bottom line is that countries do compete - they compete to dominate in high value added industries that can offer high wage jobs to their citizenry. Indeed, in one of his essays Krugman finally admits that "created" advantage may have passed "comparative" advantage in importance. Later Krugman states: "Ricardo's 1817 discussion of comparative advantage showed, however, that trade between two nations ordinarily raises the standard of living of both nations, even if one must compete on the basis of low wages". Personally, I am not a big fan of competing on the basis of low wages. Yes, we will always have something to trade. The kind of analysis that Ricardo, and Krugman, engage in just show us that markets work but they never fully discuss the assumptions that are being made. For example, in a labor market there will never be unemployment (except "frictional" unemployment) if the markets are unencumbered by such things as minimum wages. If a person is willing to work for 50 cents and hour they will find employment in the U.S. - but I don't think any American worker who is worried about losing his/her job will take much comfort from that fact. Again, the question is not do markets work or not (they do), the question is what will our standard of living be. Krugman also insists that all accounts balance (S - I = X - M) and so they do. But again, what are the consequences. Mr. Krugman's equation tells us, for example, that U.S. trade deficits are financed by foreign investment in the U.S.. This may seem benign but what it means is that other countries are buying American assets and the interest and profits accruing to those assets will go to other countries thereby reducing American income. Don't worry, Mr. Krugman says, U.S. net foreign debt is small. Now that U.S. trade deficits are over the $400 billion/year mark I suspect it won't remain small for long. Of course, the trade deficit WILL correct itself over time and the foreign debt will also be corrected. But they will be corrected with a lower standard of living. This is so for two reasons 1) because crucial high wage industries such as automobiles, airplanes, and machine tools may be irreparably harmed and 2) because debt, as people with credit card balances know, is always paid with interest. So what Mr. Krugman says is true but it does nothing to undermine the argument that free trade, such as it is, is more deleterious than helpful. Another low point in this book is that Krugman [makes] what, to me, is one of the most pernicious theories of modern economics, that all sectors of the economy are equal with the manufacturing sector being no more important than the service sector. I'll believe that when I see a high-income country with a backward or non-existent manufacturing sector - to date none exist (and please, oil riches don't count). To use one of Krugman's examples, highly paid barbers only exist in industrialized countries. So...Krugman's assertions come down to the following: adverse trade relations will not lead to economic collapse but may lead to lower wages and hence a lower standard of living; that comparative advantage may indeed have been superseded by "created advantage"; capital outflows and being a debtor country could be a problem depending on their scale. Well, no kidding Mr. Krugman. As if most of us didn't know those things all along.. Ironically... Mr. Krugman concedes, in one page, the correctness of Thurow's central arguments. Don't believe me? Re-read page 98. By the end of this book I found myself not having learned much about the intellectual case for free trade; save that maybe it doesn't exist. And maybe that is why most pundits and academics assert that the case for free trade is so obvious as to not be worth discussing: once they have to actually make the case for free trade the case doesn't seem nearly so strong. I did, however, learn one thing from Pop Internationalism - economists can indeed writ
Rating:
Summary: Krugman and Competition
Review: Paul Krugman is an intellectual economist with a rebllious streak. In "Pop Internalionalism" Krugman denounces ideas by some of the most well known and respected economists of the 20th century. Krugman uses a plethora of statistics to prove his point.
Krugman tries to prove that there is no economic competition between nations, or if there is it is nominal. His theories are alway well thought out and expressed but it difficult to believe everything he says. He tries to write for the common man, and is writing is very well expressed, intelligent, yet readible by most. It is easy for one to find themeselves rereading paragraphs if he/she does not have a strong understanding of international trade and national business.
Some may say that he is ahead of his time, others may say that his theories are rediculous, but I'll just say he is worth reading.
Rating:
Summary: Krugman and Competition
Review: Paul Krugman is an intellectual economist with a rebllious streak. In "Pop Internalionalism" Krugman denounces ideas by some of the most well known and respected economists of the 20th century. Krugman uses a plethora of statistics to prove his point.
Krugman tries to prove that there is no economic competition between nations, or if there is it is nominal. His theories are alway well thought out and expressed but it difficult to believe everything he says. He tries to write for the common man, and is writing is very well expressed, intelligent, yet readible by most. It is easy for one to find themeselves rereading paragraphs if he/she does not have a strong understanding of international trade and national business.
Some may say that he is ahead of his time, others may say that his theories are rediculous, but I'll just say he is worth reading.
Rating:
Summary: Economic doomsday prophets, hold on to your seats.
Review: So you think that the Japanese and Koreans will eat us alive in the international trade arena, that in a few years all US jobs will move south of the border, or that we must protect our capital stock to prevent our prosperity to flow elsewhere in the world. Well, think again. With simple national accounts and basic trade theory, Krugman warns us against the doomsday prophets of international trade who fuel the paranoia of competitiveness in the open economy. It may not be fashionable in academic circles (specially around Lester Thurow and Robert Reich, against whom Krugman takes a particularly nasty swing), but the truisms of Ricardian economics still hold valid: Trade balances in the medium term, and we'll be just OK. Just think about comparative advantage, a concept pop internationalists have apparently forgotten about.
Rating:
Summary: NAFTA-boosting "liberal" hack
Review: The joke here is that Krugman is convinced he can write. He ends his little intro with the smug assertion that "maybe economists can write after all," offering himself as proof. (Krugman cannot write well, but he has mastered the clumsy, undistinguished style of a bad lit professor---the kind of tenured mediocrity that dominates academic publishing---an accomplishment he's very proud of. To use his own favorite "emphasizing" gimmick: Krugman stinks---full stop.)
The punchline is that shortly afterward, The New York Times hired him. It was a match made in middlebrow heaven.
As far as the economics go, he's pro-NAFTA and pro-"free trade" just like all establishment economists, and completely unwilling to critique the real forces at work in international markets. Don't waste your time.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent Intro to Trade Theory
Review: This collection of essays written by Krugman from the early to mid-1990s are an excellent source of clear thinking on international trade. They also represents what seems like a "pet peeve" to Krugman, namely, the constant reference by academics and laymen to international trade as a win-lose situation in which the United States has much at stake. Krugman spends most of the essays repeating a very important theme: international trade is not a zero sum game and thinking of nations engaged in international trade as corporations writ large leads to serious errors. He disabuses the likes of Robert Reich and Lester Thurow, who falsely warn of the "dangers" of the U.S.'s lack of "competetiveness," by using the classical economic analysis of David Hume and David Ricardo and simple empirical analysis. Krugman reiterates Hume's idea that a trade imbalance--importing more goods and services than you export--is an inherently self-correcting process that tell us little about the economic health of a given nation. He also crunches a few numbers to show that even if the worst of what "pop internationalists" think to be true becomes so, the U.S. will only lose a relatively trivial amount of jobs to cheaper third-world manufacturers. Ricardo's principle of comparative advantage is also pounded by Krugman over the head of the reader, and for good reason I think, to show that all nations as a whole will be better off with increases in world trade, although certain sectors (such as low-skilled in the U.S.) will need to adjust over time. He also blames U.S. domestic policy and and internal economic problems, such as low productivity growth, for economic ills that are genuine. Krugman's overall theme is that free trade is the best long-run solution of the economic health of all nations, especially developing ones. However, Krugman (to his discredit in my opionion) is not a complete free trader as he hints at how "strategic trade theory" may be able to help a nation be better off in principle, but admits it is diffcult to do so in reality. This book is also a good test case of economic sociology: showing how different the public's perception of what is going on in the economic world is from the truth. Krugman constantly cites statistics showing that other nations pose no economic threat to Americans at all, and how politicians and the sloppy economists referred to above are literally making a fuss over nothing. He uses NAFTA as a case in point. A witty and clear writing style is used throughout. It is somewhat dated since the essays were written during the recession of the 1990s.
|
