Oh bloody hell he’s annoying me now. In the course of an insanely annoying piece of Globollocks (summary: Mexico went through hell to get ready for NAFTA and ended up hardly benefiting, so now what it needs is more neo-liberalism and what a shame it is that they aren’t able to impose it from above like the Chinese!), Thomas “Airmiles” Friedman[1] manages to come up with this gem.
“While China and India each send tens of thousands of students to be educated abroad every year in science and engineering, particularly in the U.S., Mexico sends just 10,000”
Could anyone tell me why this might be the case? Anyone? Bueller?
Population estimated as of June 2003, from the CIA Factbook:
Mexico: 104,907,991
China: 1,286,875,468
India: 1,049,700,118
In other words, taking Friedman’s assertions at face value and assuming that “tens of thousands” means “less than one hundred thousand”, it looks like Mexico sends a higher proportion of its population overseas to study than China or India. Quite why this might be considered an interesting statistic escapes me, by the way, apparently it’s also possible to learn engineering in Mexico these days. But in any case, what the hell does he think he’s playing at trying to argue on the basis of raw numbers for massively different population sizes, and why does the New York Times let him get away with it? Someone needs his lounge access gold card shreddded.
[1] Yes yes I know, the nickname “Airmiles” was originally coined for Kristof rather than Friedman[2]. But they’re more or less interchangeable anyway.
[2]Friedman was scheduled for the name “Even More Airmiles”.
{ 33 comments }
Matthew 04.01.04 at 3:06 pm
Incidentally I just read that the second biggest source of foreign investment to Mexico was… money sent back to the homeland by those who emigrated to richer western countries.
I think this sums up the success of schemes like NAFTA.
Matthew2 04.01.04 at 3:08 pm
Shssh! Don’t let Friedman know both China and India have over a billion people. He’ll never stop going on about it.
Ophelia Benson 04.01.04 at 3:32 pm
Isn’t he annoying. Isn’t he just really annoying. He’s been annoying me for years.
Chuchundra 04.01.04 at 3:48 pm
He should stick to commenting on the Middle East, where I think he has some valuable insights. His globalization columns have been pretty uninspiring.
praktike 04.01.04 at 4:20 pm
I think there’s a cultural problem among editorial boards … old reporters trying to be wonks, and it won’t fly.
Mooser 04.01.04 at 4:22 pm
I thought, I wished, I hoped, Friedman is retiring as I read at:
http://enduringfriedman.blogspot.com/
Guess I get my disappointment for the day early. Go, Tom, Go… far away.
Kevin Carson 04.01.04 at 4:36 pm
Friedman’s barely-concealed envy of regimes that can impose “free markets” from the top down is just more evidence that what he calls the “free market” has little to do with free markets.
After all, he’s the guy who said a few years back, in one of his lapses into frankness:
“For globalism to work, America can’t be afraid to act like the almighty superpower it is…. The hidden hand of the market will never work without a hidden fist–McDonald’s cannot flourish without McDonnell Douglas, the designer of the F-15. And the hidden fist that keeps the world safe for Silicon Valley’s technologies is called the United States Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps.”
In Tom Friedman’s world, “free trade” means massive U.S. government and World Bank subsidies to the export of capital (e.g., support for infrastructure projects in the Third World without which western investments wouldn’t be profitable), and enforcement of international patent law monopolies. “Free markets” here at home means infrastructure subsidies by which the state underwrites the distribution costs of an overcentralized economy, an almost entirely state-funded R&D process, and cartelization of industry by patent.
In other words, not the free market at all, but capitalism–an entirely different thing.
rea 04.01.04 at 4:38 pm
A quibble, I know, but Mexicans who come to the US to study aren’t exactly going “overseas.”
:)
Hack 04.01.04 at 5:11 pm
Friedman’s reasoning here is positively Kausian.
Lynne 04.01.04 at 5:11 pm
I would think free trade was wonderful if it wasn’t run by a bunch of corporations interested in global dominance for themselves and serf status for workers.
Having a big American corporation come into your country and write their own ticket (as they do here) condems workers to being hitched to their post. Wouldn’t it be better for the World Bank to have a small business division and give money to educated natives (and every country has educated people) to set up their own business?
Of course, this might lead to real competition for corporations.
Is it true that Marx said that labor would always be at a disadvantage in capitalism because capital would always flow to the lowest wage country, so living standards would never increase that much and we would be locked into dog eat dog competition all the time?
Isn’t this what is happening now?
mario 04.01.04 at 5:41 pm
whoa!
When did India get that big?
Last I heard they were at 600 mil or so.
Have to get out more, I guess.
lerxst 04.01.04 at 5:56 pm
Well at least he didn’t coin some stupid phrase like the “terrorism bubble” or the “arab basement”.
As an economist, I find that this kind of innumeracy is so rampant that I don’t even find it that startling or unfortunately that upsetting.
In my mind his real crime is getting carried away with his emotion of the week/month/year when he’s talking about complicated foreign policy issues.
Russell Arben Fox 04.01.04 at 5:57 pm
Kevin: right on.
Lynne: Yes.
phil 04.01.04 at 5:59 pm
Rea: maybe they go to Hawai’i.
cynic 04.01.04 at 6:17 pm
whoa there guys – freidman has a point, even if he does it in a stupid ass way: to wit –
if bill gates and i both contribute the same % of our net worth to charity, who influences the charity more?
if India and mexico both contribute the same % of their workforce to the ‘global call center marketplace’, who determines the price of this resource?
what friedman should have said:
to effectively compete with India, Mexico has to ensure that a much larger proportion of their population is highly skilled and speaks fluent english
i saw a really alarming statistic the other day:
only 49% of fourth generation americans of mexican descent have a high school degree v 80% for the overall population.
Something is missing here. Your grandfather was an American Citizen and there is only a 50-50 chance you got beyond high school?
John Isbell 04.01.04 at 6:18 pm
“and why does the New York Times let him get away with it?”
Q: Does he or does he not provide hours of amusement?
I rest my case. Kind of the NYT, though.
Steve 04.01.04 at 8:01 pm
Quite why this might be considered an interesting statistic escapes me, by the way, apparently it’s also possible to learn engineering in Mexico these days.
It’s not about learning engineering, silly…it’s about improving themselves by exposure to our infinitely superior culture and political system! Remember the Friedman credo:
1) America is superior to every other country in every way.
2) All other people want to be exactly like Americans.
3) People in other countries who deny wanting to be exactly like Americans are either lying or just jealous.
isaac butler 04.01.04 at 8:06 pm
I linked here from Atrios, actually I had just published a piece on the numerical problems in Friedman and the fallacies of his larger argument, so this is a great bit of serendipity.
If you’re interested in reading it:
http://parabasis.blogspot.com
Brey 04.01.04 at 8:11 pm
I keep waiting for the Friedman article on how the continual shift to new labor markets creates downward pressure on the US standard of living. Not because I’m necessarily believe our standard of living should be off the table. But, because it’s the glaring omission that renders most of his commentary inane.
ogged 04.01.04 at 8:12 pm
Mario, according to this graph, India was around 600 million in 1976. What are you, a shut-in?
Elaine Supkis 04.01.04 at 10:28 pm
Friedman is a Republican and all Republicans want dictators.
Bush said himself, it would be easier if he were a dictator, heheheh.
belaborer 04.01.04 at 10:30 pm
When the FriedMan speaks of globalization, he’s a big, mustachioed dolt. When he does his neocon schtick he is absolutely unbearable. He’s perhaps dangerous enough to warrant strangulation. For the children.
John S 04.01.04 at 10:42 pm
dd, it’s extraordinary a pedant like you can misrepresent an argument so outrageously when it’s posed by someone you don’t like. You paraphrase Friedman as saying about Mexico “…what a shame it is that they aren’t able to impose it (neo-liberalism) from above like the Chinese!” Read the article again. He writes quite clearly: “The old autocratic Mexico could have ordered these reforms from above. That’s how China still does it, giving Beijing an advantage now that it will pay for later.” That’s right, “… it will pay for later.” Doesn’t sound like the uncritical admirer of totalitarianism you make him out to be.
John S 04.01.04 at 10:47 pm
matthew,
“Incidentally I just read that the second biggest source of foreign investment to Mexico was… money sent back to the homeland by those who emigrated to richer western countries.
I think this sums up the success of schemes like NAFTA.”
er, so?
John S 04.01.04 at 10:54 pm
lynne,
“…capital would always flow to the lowest wage country, so living standards would never increase that much and we would be locked into dog eat dog competition all the time?
Isn’t this what is happening now?”
No. About 80% of foreign investment flows go from one developed country to another. If anything, the trend has been for that ratio to get bigger.
And US living standards are much the same as Bangladeshi ones are they?
Zizka 04.02.04 at 4:37 am
Unfortunately, I think that Friedman is a Democrat.
The good thing about Friedman is that he’s not a Likudnik. He doesn’t egg the Israelis on the way so many conservatives and neoliberals do.
My favorite pieces of his: “Give War A Chance” (self-explanatory), and an early-nineties piece saying that: Reagan busted air traffic controllers –> that freed up investment capital at labor’s expense –> led to enormous tech innovation –> led to unprecedented military power –> saved the world. Thank you Ron!
Lynne 04.02.04 at 4:46 am
Capital didn;t flow to those parts of the world because they were unavailable for investment due to a communist type government. I am saying now that they are availale for investment, will Marx’s theory come true?
adi 04.02.04 at 8:16 am
umm as they say … long time lurker first time poster.
Having been an Indian bachelors
student in the USA for 3 years now and highly involved in student activities , i have to say that there are far fewer international students coming in to the country than there used to be. i happened to start college a week before the 9/11 tragedy and was devastated by it and also the response to it. the subsequent patriot act and restriction on visas greatly reduced the number of my compatriots coming over here to study. now they have to either pursue more expensive (read european) or slightly less recognized (australasian ) education programmes.
adi 04.02.04 at 8:18 am
sorry if my post doesnt make any sense…. i’m still learning how to organize my thoughts more effectively
john s 04.02.04 at 8:44 am
lynne, generally speaking, the ex-communist countries all became capitalist about 14 years ago, yet capital flows across borders have increasingly been between rich, developed countries. China is communist yet still gets loads of foreign investment.
Think too about the consequences of what you suggest is going to happen to capital flows: that it will flow to the countries with the lowest wages. Well, for starters, the lowest wage countries have few cars because few can afford them. If US wages dropped to Bangladeshi levels it would be goodbye Detroit. Similarly, airlines, IKEA furniture shops, etc.
You may think it’s entirely logical to assume that capitalism is driven to seek the cheapest production site; actually, that’s too simplistic. Capitalism also needs to have demand to be able to sell things. It’s capitalism’s dilemma – drive wages to subsistence levels and you won’t be able to sell a thing.
Jeremy Osner 04.02.04 at 1:41 pm
John S — One potential solution to this dilemma is Wal-Martization; if merchandise becomes continually shoddier and less expensive, I reckon quality of life could fall more slowly than wages. (I do not mean to suggest that wages or quality of life in the US are currently falling. Just putting it out there as a plausible scenario.) This could it seems to me have a similar effect to gradually increasing the heat under the pot of water that the frog is sitting in; that no-one notices the decline until the bottom has actually fallen out.
Sandriana 04.02.04 at 9:23 pm
John S:
You say “…drive wages to subsistence levels and you won’t be able to sell a thing.” Of course it’s possible, why do you think personal indebtedness has risen so astronomically?
john s 04.02.04 at 10:29 pm
Come on Sandriana. Do you really believe US wages are generally no better than subsistence level?
Comments on this entry are closed.