I gave Daron Acemoglu the respect today of reading the Table of Contents to his Work in progress, Introduction to Modern Economic Growth. Now you, he, and I realize I should read the entirety of it; only I know the relative probability of that occurrence, the book reminding me of my undergraduate Calculus text. Still, the Six pages of the Table of Contents introduces a wealth of information and Models, some of which the energetic author might have had some difficulty in establishing integrating relationship betwixt them. I hope Daron has planned at least a 3-Semester program for its use as a Text. I will leave it to my Readers to decide how much of the material is necessary for their own achievement.
Dani Rodrik takes on Austan Goolsbee for sloppy reasoning about the effect of globalization on Income. Dani is correct about the Margin call, but I find greater error in Austan’s reasoning. Goolsbee suggests 60-70% of the domestic of the economy faces no international competition. He discusses basically filled Labor categories, and ignores the downsizing of the Manufacturing sector, which is the traditional labor-intensive sector employing unfit Candidates for the aforementioned labor categories under press of full employment in these sectors. Goolsbee doesn’t understand that Living Standards cannot rise significantly without expansion of these labor-intensive Trades.
George Will Op-Ed should be read by All, before considering the totality of Goolsbee’s position. My position states that vastly increased Education Funding stands as irrelevant under the compression of full employment in the labor sectors supplied by Education. Simple supply of Educational attainment to labor elements will not grant higher Incomes; One had to live through the labor markets of the late 1970s and early 1980s. Allowing Production advantage to flow Overseas simply to feed the higher Incomes in the fully-employed sectors will not advance the Living Standards of the total Labor market. lgl