Friday, November 28, 2003

Posted here Friday, November 28, 2003 at 6:13:52 PM     The cause of the "terrorists" is, I think, pain at the experienced cultural economic and power levels as they see their societies, lives, and comrades denied a place in the world. The danger is that those opposed to the current drift will multiply, even within the US. Is a softer policy possible without appearing weak (I am not talking about an ideal softness, filled with diplomatic skill, but the kind of softness we could mobilize. As we were reminded of Hampton-Turner's view that American diplomats are 5 in skill level talking with 6 and 7's in other countries. The tendency will be, instead of talent we can't find, to turn to repressive measures. But the underlying emotional situation is very fluid and who knows. ********

Posted here Friday, November 28, 2003 at 6:07:22 PM     We face a situation that ordinary literate English is fading as a medium. Some of what replaces it is nothing - just less. Some of what replaces it is social science thinking from the 50's and 60's, with its easy epistemology and moderate behaviorism and quantification. Other strains come in, such as described in ********

Analysis of Krugman's op ed Posted here Friday, November 28, 2003 at 9:59:43 AM     What Krugman has to say about the positive effects of globalization is worth critiquing. But in the mid-1970's, development economics was just too depressing to pursue. Indeed, it might as well have been called non-development economics. No third world nation had made the transition to advanced-country status since 19th-century Japan. Circa 1975 it seemed that the club of nations with decent living standards was no longer accepting new members. Now we know that the club isn't that exclusive, after all. South Korea and several smaller Asian economies have made a full transition to modernity. China is still a poor country, but it has made astonishing progress. And there are signs of an economic takeoff in at least parts of India. I'm not talking about arid economic statistics; what we've seen over the past generation is an enormous, unexpected improvement in the human condition. How was this improvement achieved? Whenever I give talks about my latest book, someone asks whether I still believe in free trade. The answer is yes — not because I have any fond feelings about multinational corporations, but because every one of those development success stories was based on export-led growth. And that growth is possible only if rising economies can expand into new markets. Some critics of globalization seem to be nostalgic for the era before the big growth in third-world exports of manufactured goods. I'm not, because I remember the way that era really felt, our despair over the possibility of development. comment: more later this afternoon. ********