Re: Is free trade fair trade?
David Dollar: As I said, I consider myself to be a pragmatic progressive because I would be in favor of significantly more public spending on education for example in the United States. But the pragmatic adjective means we have to be smart about how we do that. There are cases where we spend a lot of money and we don't get much result. So I think we need to look at what would actually lead to better educational outcomes in inner cities, for examples, and different kinds of communities in the U.S. But I would be in favor of spending a lot more on education. I would be in favor of some kind of national health system. I know this is controversial and I'm not the best expert to design the details, but I do think the United States could learn from other countries that have more successful systems that provide health insurance to more or less the whole population. So I think there are things you can do with health and education that would cushion a lot of families from some of the shocks that come with globalization. I'm also a fan of progressive taxation. Frankly I can get into the specifics of U.S. tax policy. As a World Bank official it 's not really my role; but I feel comfortable saying that I believe in progressive taxation. I think if a country has very good institutions . . . you know, good institutions, and property rights, and good educational system, I think you can have progressive taxation and you don't t have to worry that all your rich people are gonna leave because your country is actually a very nice, productive place to operate. So I think if the U.S. continues to strengthen its basic institutions, I don't think a lot of people will leave if tax rates go up modestly. So I would be in favor of using . . . These are your basic fiscal tools. How do you raise tax revenue? And then what public goods do you spend it on? I think that we can do a lot. I think any rich country can do a lot to make people's lives better and cushion some of the shocks of globalization, and i am completely in favor of that. Some of my critics caricature me as being something of a neoliberal, and I completely reject that. I think the free trade idea is a classic liberal idea, and I associate it with progressives going back a long way. So I don't see how cutting your economy from the rest of the world is a progressive idea when, from the point of view from the U.S., most of the rest of the world is poor. They wanna trade with the U.S. They want to come to the U.S. They want investment from the U.S. I don't see how cutting U.S. off from the poor world is in any way to progress an agenda.
Recorded on: 7/3/07
Dollar talks about making globalization more equitable.
Swipe right to make the connections that could change your career.
Swipe right. Match. Meet over coffee or set up a call.
No, we aren't talking about Tinder. Introducing Shapr, a free app that helps people with synergistic professional goals and skill sets easily meet and collaborate.
Research by neuroscientists at MIT's Picower Institute for Learning and Memory helps explain how the brain regulates arousal.
The big day has come: You are taking your road test to get your driver's license. As you start your mom's car with a stern-faced evaluator in the passenger seat, you know you'll need to be alert but not so excited that you make mistakes. Even if you are simultaneously sleep-deprived and full of nervous energy, you need your brain to moderate your level of arousal so that you do your best.
A disturbing interview given by a KGB defector in 1984 describes America of today and outlines four stages of mass brainwashing used by the KGB.
- Bezmenov described this process as "a great brainwashing" which has four basic stages.
- The first stage is called "demoralization" which takes from 15 to 20 years to achieve.
- According to the former KGB agent, that is the minimum number of years it takes to re-educate one generation of students that is normally exposed to the ideology of its country.
When these companies compete, in the current system, the people lose.
- When a company reaches the top of the ladder, they typically kick it away so that others cannot climb up on it. The aim? So that another company can't compete.
- When this happens in the pharmaceutical world, certain companies stay at the top of the ladder, through broadly-protected patents, at the cost of everyday people benefitting from increased competition.
- Since companies have worked out how to legally game the system, Amin argues we need to get rid of this "one size fits all" system, which treats product innovation — "tweaks" — the same as product invention.
SMARTER FASTER trademarks owned by The Big Think, Inc. All rights reserved.