Can Trade Bring Poverty(翻译稿).docVIP

Can Trade Bring Poverty? Mises Daily: Friday, December 24, 2004 by Robert P. Murphy Recent developments in the global economy—specifically, higher skilled foreign workers, lower costs of capital movement, and improved communications—have apparently undermined the case for free trade, one of the most bedrock conclusions of orthodox economics. In previous articles (1 and 2) I have restated the case in light of the specific concerns raised by economist Paul Craig Roberts. In the present essay, I want to focus on a convenient ambiguity in the new attack on trade, epitomized in a recent piece in Business Week. Aaron Bernsteins story, Shaking Up Trade Theory, starts out accurately enough: Ever since Americans began fretting about globalization nearly three decades ago, economists have patiently explained why, on balance, its a boon to the U.S. Bernstein goes on to say, Now this long-held consensus is beginning to crack. If this were the extent of their complaints, the critics would have a point: it is theoretically possible for a country (particularly a small one) to lose from globalization, and admittedly this is something that most economists (including me) probably wouldnt have considered until the critics brought it up.[1] However, Bernstein (and just about everyone else who writes on this subject) conflates this correct proposition with the entirely different claim that somehow the trends of globalization undermine Ricardos[2] law of comparative advantage and hence the case for free trade. In Bernsteins words: The central question [Nobel laureate Paul] Samuelson and others raise is whether unfettered trade is always still as good for the U.S. as they have long believed. Ever since British economist David Ricardo spelled out the theory of comparative advantage in the early 1800s, most economists have concluded that countries gain more than they lose when they trade with each other and specialize in what they do best. Today, however, advances in telecommunicat