Participant | University | Vote | Confidence | Comment | Bio/Vote History |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
MIT | Agree | 8 |
Economists often understate short-term employment costs, which are significant and unequally distributed, but probably less than benefits. |
Bio/Vote History |
|
Harvard | Strongly Agree | 10 | Bio/Vote History | |
|
Yale | Strongly Agree | 9 |
Gains and losses are not spread evenly. Retraining programs are an important part of trade policy. |
Bio/Vote History |
|
Berkeley | Agree | 7 | Bio/Vote History | |
|
MIT | Uncertain | 8 |
Not sure how to compare the gains to consumers with long run effects on employment. They might both be positive! |
Bio/Vote History |
|
Harvard | Agree | 4 | Bio/Vote History | |
|
MIT | --- | --- |
--- |
Bio/Vote History |
Joined 11/2013 | Uncertain | 5 |
we don't know how much of the growing inequality has been due to trade. Trade is good for the world, but not always for rich country labor. |
||
|
Chicago | Agree | 3 | Bio/Vote History | |
|
Princeton | --- | --- |
--- |
Bio/Vote History |
Joined 11/2013 | Agree | 6 | |||
|
Harvard | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Yale | Strongly Agree | 8 | Bio/Vote History | |
|
Princeton | Agree | 7 | Bio/Vote History | |
|
Harvard | Agree | 6 |
Note that not everyone is better off. |
Bio/Vote History |
|
Princeton | Uncertain | 3 | Bio/Vote History | |
|
Stanford | Agree | 3 |
The "gains" are positive a general additive sense, but that does not avoid costs to some. |
Bio/Vote History |
|
Berkeley | Agree | 1 |
Consider any tribe or group that was isolated from trade for centuries to see the long run results of autarky |
Bio/Vote History |
|
Berkeley | Agree | 6 | Bio/Vote History | |
|
Stanford | --- | --- |
--- |
Bio/Vote History |
Joined 11/2013 | Agree | 7 | |||
|
Yale | Strongly Agree | 8 | Bio/Vote History | |
|
MIT | --- | --- |
--- |
Bio/Vote History |
Joined 11/2013 | Strongly Agree | 9 | |||
|
Yale | Agree | 10 |
General message of trade theory. But the question is how long the "long run" is. |
Bio/Vote History |
|
Harvard | Strongly Agree | 5 | Bio/Vote History | |
|
Chicago | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Chicago | Strongly Agree | 7 |
Trade creates tremendous benefits but causes substantial job losses Do current policies fully compensate displaced workers? Probably not |
Bio/Vote History |
|
Stanford | Strongly Agree | 8 |
liberalization has such large long-run benefits that it can fund short-run dislocation assistance |
Bio/Vote History |
|
Harvard | --- | --- |
--- |
Bio/Vote History |
Joined 11/2013 | Strongly Agree | 10 |
There is robust economic theory telling us that the overall gains from trade for any country are likely to be substantial. |
||
|
MIT | Agree | 8 | Bio/Vote History | |
|
Stanford | Strongly Agree | 10 |
The world's endowment is allocated more efficiently under free trade, making the avg person better off. Individuals may face adjustmt costs. |
Bio/Vote History |
|
Berkeley | --- | --- |
--- |
Bio/Vote History |
Joined 11/2013 | Strongly Agree | 10 |
Aggregate gains from trade. |
||
|
Stanford | Strongly Agree | 9 | Bio/Vote History | |
|
Chicago | --- | --- |
--- |
Bio/Vote History |
Joined 11/2013 | Strongly Agree | 8 | |||
|
Chicago | Agree | 9 |
Description of the gains is right, and long run employment might be higher too. We can try to compensate short run job losers. |
Bio/Vote History |
|
Stanford | Strongly Agree | 8 |
Jim Feyrer has some ingenious papers finding evidence of income gains from trade. -see background information here |
Bio/Vote History |
|
Stanford | Agree | 8 |
Estimates used by CEA of the effect of complete free trade are as large as $500 billion per year - enormous even if off by a scalar. |
Bio/Vote History |
|
Stanford | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Harvard | Agree | 7 | Bio/Vote History | |
|
Yale | Agree | 8 | Bio/Vote History | |
|
Berkeley | Agree | 8 | Bio/Vote History | |
|
Princeton | Agree | 6 |
I agree with the statement as worded. There could be other, less desirable, impacts as well. |
Bio/Vote History |
|
Berkeley | Agree | 5 | Bio/Vote History | |
|
Yale | --- | --- |
--- |
Bio/Vote History |
Joined 11/2013 | Agree | 8 |
It's always difficult to quantify "much", but the long-run direction is clear. |
||
|
Princeton | Strongly Agree | 9 |
Gains are sufficiently large to finance the compensation of workers in loosing sectors. |
Bio/Vote History |
|
MIT | Strongly Agree | 9 |
If that's not right, almost all of economics is wrong. |
Bio/Vote History |
|
Berkeley | --- | --- |
--- |
Bio/Vote History |
Joined 11/2013 | Strongly Agree | 10 |
Evidence on this is overwhelming. Question suggests short-term adverse effects on employment, but why, and where? |
||
|
Chicago | --- | --- |
--- |
Bio/Vote History |
Joined 11/2013 | Agree | 8 |
In theory the workers who lose their jobs can be compensated by the consumers who gain. In practice this often does not happen. |
||
|
Princeton | Agree | 7 | Bio/Vote History | |
|
Harvard | Agree | 5 | Bio/Vote History | |
|
Chicago | Agree | 8 |
Nevertheless, there are winners and losers. Trade does not make everybody better off, and a good policy should take this into account. |
Bio/Vote History |
|
Chicago | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Yale | Agree | 7 |
This needs more nuance: most people win, and the winners gain a lot. But there are losers from trade who have not in fact been compensated. |
Bio/Vote History |
|
Chicago | Agree | 6 | Bio/Vote History | |
Participant | University | Vote | Confidence | Comment | Bio/Vote History |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
MIT | Agree | 1 | Bio/Vote History | |
|
Harvard | Strongly Agree | 10 | Bio/Vote History | |
|
Yale | Agree | 7 | Bio/Vote History | |
|
Berkeley | Agree | 5 | Bio/Vote History | |
|
MIT | Agree | 6 |
NAFTA was small potatoes relative to rising China trade. My hunch is that both costs and benefits were modest. |
Bio/Vote History |
|
Harvard | Agree | 3 | Bio/Vote History | |
|
MIT | --- | --- |
--- |
Bio/Vote History |
Joined 11/2013 | Agree | 7 |
NAFTA is a rather unique trade intervention since it involved the main source of immigrants. |
||
|
Chicago | Agree | 3 | Bio/Vote History | |
|
Princeton | --- | --- |
--- |
Bio/Vote History |
Joined 11/2013 | Agree | 3 | |||
|
Harvard | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Yale | Strongly Agree | 10 | Bio/Vote History | |
|
Princeton | Agree | 5 | Bio/Vote History | |
|
Harvard | Agree | 6 | Bio/Vote History | |
|
Princeton | Uncertain | 3 | Bio/Vote History | |
|
Stanford | Agree | 4 |
On "average" is an important qualifier. |
Bio/Vote History |
|
Berkeley | Uncertain | 1 | Bio/Vote History | |
|
Berkeley | Agree | 6 | Bio/Vote History | |
|
Stanford | --- | --- |
--- |
Bio/Vote History |
Joined 11/2013 | Agree | 4 | |||
|
Yale | Strongly Agree | 8 | Bio/Vote History | |
|
MIT | --- | --- |
--- |
Bio/Vote History |
Joined 11/2013 | Agree | 8 | |||
|
Yale | Agree | 9 |
See my answer to question A. However, short- and medium-run effects of NAFTA, especially on employment and wages in the US, unclear. |
Bio/Vote History |
|
Harvard | Strongly Agree | 5 | Bio/Vote History | |
|
Chicago | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Chicago | Strongly Agree | 7 |
True for the average but complicated issues of social welfare functions here. better compensation for folks who do not gain might help |
Bio/Vote History |
|
Stanford | Agree | 7 |
Not to mention benefits to Canadians and Mexicans! We should take a global perspective. |
Bio/Vote History |
|
Harvard | --- | --- |
--- |
Bio/Vote History |
Joined 11/2013 | Agree | 7 |
A partial movement toward free trade is harder to evaluate. |
||
|
MIT | Agree | 8 |
The question is about averages. Distributional income and employment effects hard to measure, but probably significant. |
Bio/Vote History |
|
Stanford | Strongly Agree | 8 | Bio/Vote History | |
|
Berkeley | --- | --- |
--- |
Bio/Vote History |
Joined 11/2013 | Agree | 10 |
Some lose but we gain on net. |
||
|
Stanford | Agree | 8 | Bio/Vote History | |
|
Chicago | --- | --- |
--- |
Bio/Vote History |
Joined 11/2013 | Strongly Agree | 8 | |||
|
Chicago | Agree | 7 | Bio/Vote History | |
|
Stanford | Strongly Agree | 7 | Bio/Vote History | |
|
Stanford | Agree | 7 |
Although difficult to estimate, there is little evidence of negative effects of NAFTA and the positives are obvious. |
Bio/Vote History |
|
Stanford | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Harvard | Agree | 8 | Bio/Vote History | |
|
Yale | Agree | 8 | Bio/Vote History | |
|
Berkeley | Agree | 8 | Bio/Vote History | |
|
Princeton | Agree | 6 |
Such is the result of much of the empirical literature. |
Bio/Vote History |
|
Berkeley | Agree | 3 | Bio/Vote History | |
|
Yale | --- | --- |
--- |
Bio/Vote History |
Joined 11/2013 | Agree | 8 | |||
|
Princeton | Strongly Agree | 8 |
This is true about the average. |
Bio/Vote History |
|
MIT | Agree | 6 | Bio/Vote History | |
|
Berkeley | --- | --- |
--- |
Bio/Vote History |
Joined 11/2013 | Agree | 8 |
Seems very likely, but distributional impact is a possible concern. |
||
|
Chicago | --- | --- |
--- |
Bio/Vote History |
Joined 11/2013 | Strongly Agree | 8 |
The majority of citizens are better off. |
||
|
Princeton | Agree | 6 | Bio/Vote History | |
|
Harvard | Agree | 4 | Bio/Vote History | |
|
Chicago | Agree | 7 |
But the gains have probably been very small. |
Bio/Vote History |
|
Chicago | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Yale | Agree | 3 | Bio/Vote History | |
|
Chicago | Strongly Agree | 6 |
The key word is on average: there are large distributional effects. |
Bio/Vote History |