Have we reached the end of globalization

Link to article: CNN


From 1998 to 2007, global trade has increased twice the pace of the global economy. We sitting inside our home in American Fork Utah, watching a European program on our Japanese television, while talking on our Korean phone. But in the last two years global trade has dropped significantly. The article suggests that we are heading in a direction that minimizes globalization for us.

I think globalization will continue. We will continue to develop new technologies across the world that we want and need and I don't think will stop anytime soon. The article did suggest however that we could advance in technology in a way where we wouldn't need to buy products from other countries, like a 3D printer for example. Instead of going to a store and buying a product you could just print out what you need. I don't see that in the near future but who knows, I'm sure my grandpa our technological advances like the 3D television, iPhones, ever in his future.

There are some political roadblocks that are the reasons for the drop on global trade. Anti-trade policies are the highest they've ever been since the 2008 financial crisis. Protectionism is also on the rise. Globalization/trade has been very beneficial, especially for the poor in a faster, growing global economy. The World Trade Organization has made some efforts to cut the "red tape" between countries and promote global trade. Politicians can help influence globalization by increasing global trading efforts.

No, Rand Paul, There's No Reason to Cut Unemployment Benefits

Link to article: The Atlantic


This article is of economist Rand Ghayad's reply to Rand Paul's citation of him to support Paul's claim that unemployment benefits should be cut. Rand Paul says, "that the longer you have it [unemployment benefits], that it does provide some disincentive to work and that there are many studies that indicate this." He then refers to Ghayad's work to support his claim. Ghayad subsequently replies that in fact his work implies the exact opposite.

In another paper Ghayad had authored in collaboration with a cowriter William Dickens, he had said that the longer someone is unemployed, the lesser chance a company will hire them. Ghayad believes Paul came to the conclusion that extending benefits will hurt the chances of unemployed people because they will choose to stay unemployed longer. That is why Paul cites Ghayad to support his claim. But Ghayad does not support Paul's claim, and refutes it by saying that just because companies discriminate against the long-term unemployed does not mean that long-term benefits are to blame for it. Ghayad goes on to explain that long-term unemployment isn't caused because people prefer getting benefits but that long-term unemployment is caused because there still isn't enough jobs.

I agree with Ghayad, the majority of long-term unemployed people aren't in their situation because of extended long term unemployment benefits, its simply because cant get a job. Once you become unemployed for a long time the chances of getting a job considerably diminish. Companies don't want to hire people who have been unemployed longer than 6 months. You obviously aren't getting paid when unemployed so you have little resources to go look for a job across the country let alone across your own state. Lastly, there are just not enough jobs still, especially in certain occupations where getting a job is near impossible. Getting a job is hard, and finding a supporting job is even harder. This is why people stay unemployed. So no Rand Paul, there is no reason to cut unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed. The long-term unemployed are the ones who especially need the benefits to go and get a job. Once they use their benefits to go get a job they wont need the benefits anymore. This means less people unemployed which also means less people needing unemployment benefits, and thats a win-win.