Well, if you were a trade economist by, er, trade, then that seems like a remarkably logical way of evaluating the candidates.

Personally, I really doubt that the EPI are doing the economics for team Clinton (if they were she’d probably have my hypothetical vote). However, I think you’re right about Krugman supporting the overall policy package on the balance of certain key components (like health). For what it’s worth though, Krugman is one of the group of economists who have recently starting arguing that globn., while good for developing countries, is harming working class America*. He’s blaming China not NAFTA, of course. But I think the point still stands – and that Bhagwhati is wishing away the side of the ledger he doesn’t like.

Or, to put it another way, would ‘protectionism’ really have such resonance amongst the voters of Ohio if global trade really was a win win for them.
__________________________

*this is a big simplification of his argument, sorry. I gotta run to take a class. But I think you know what I mean.

cheers

Terence

And yes, when it comes to trade policy, the EPI does suffer a serious credibility gap. Just ask the former student, Paul Krugman, who’s taken them to task on it several times in the past.

Which, given Krugman’s support of Clinton, would suggest one of two things: the EPI really isn’t running Clinton’s economics shop; or Krugman thinks that, on balance, their policies are more good than bad.

You tell me, Notsneaky.

Its not every economist that carries on this way but it does not exactly appear to be bad for one’s career to do so.

Same thing happens in Architecture, you get ahead by designing pretty buildings, not buildings that actually work well.

Obama has suffered a significant political setback as a result of this, the Clinton campaign are using it as evidence that he might not be quite the straight talker he presents himself as. And you can be sure that the McCain people will do the same.

Neither does Henry – he remarks on Bhagwati’s (relatively) genial tone. Maybe P. O’Neill has put his finger on the reason: Bhagwati believes that PTAs foster protectionism and he won’t shed any tears for Nafta. If so he is being reasonably consistent, but Henry will need to examine the issues closely if the BBPI is not to mislead him.

Bhagwati is quite a snob though, isn’t he? As if the managers of a political campaign would boast about having a highly reputable professional economist on their team. Even when they actually do have one they usually go out of their way to disown the poor sod. Quite right too – Lloyd George had Keynes on his side in 1929 and what did he get? A memorable pamphlet. And look what Alan Walters did for Mrs Thatcher. These guys are ballot-box poison.

Could this be the same Jagdish Bhagwati who has slammed such deals as “termites in the trade system”, since (as that incarnation of Bhagwati correctly points out) they are actually preferential trade deals that give special benefits to some countries and thus divert trade from the most efficient partner?

One of his arguments for why Hillary is more protectionist than Obama is so weak—
Fourth, while Mr Obama’s anti-Nafta rhetoric is disturbingly protectionist, as is Mrs Clinton’s, remember that this is also strategic. If both are anti-Nafta in the campaign now, her opposition is reinforced because she carries the burden of having supported her husband in backing it.

Since Bill supported it, she has to be more against it? Isn’t the usual complaint about Bill and Hillary that it will be Bill running the show?

It will be truly miraculous if the BBPI can surive the volatility in its underlying driver.

Ask not for whom the Bhagwhati tolls.

And yes, when it comes to trade policy, the EPI does suffer a serious credibility gap. Just ask the former student, Paul Krugman, who’s taken them to task on it several times in the past.