Dani Rodrik – From Globalization To Hyper-Globalization and Back

I follow many economists, I even follow some economists' derivations and computations, I still can't catch up with Dani one hundred percent when I read his books. What a wonderful mind! Need more economists like him.

Warning to anyone listening using headphones: The speaker strikes the microphone multiple times during the lecture while talking with his hands.

Although I found the description of the trilemma was spot-on, I thought the focus on putting "the firm" at the centre of improving outcomes & development of workers, extremely dissatisfying. As other commenters have highlighted and multiple audience members questions eluded to; to somehow think that by simply "opening a dialogue" with "firms" that they'll behave better in any meaningful manner is, in my opinion, magical thinking. Firms' overriding functions are to make profits and sustain their existence(and they will hire and fire staff as needed, as long as the firm survives in name and the owners keep their shirts); they tend only to behave morally when there is a) competitive advantage b) they'll be punished by a loss of profits or reputation c) forced by legislation.

I love Dani!

1:19:50 debunking Third Way delusions about the impact of unfettered trade on the lives of workers in developing nations

The problem with globalization is it stands on an unsound financial base. The health of a nation is based on its gDP which is based on debt. The welfare, culture and community is not taken into account.

I wonder what the result would be if this is applied to South Korea, Malaysia, Thailand, Philippines, Indonesia from 1998 onwards.

BANG BANG BANG

Classical Economics is great so long as it talks among itself.......and ignore interest

At 1:06:00 the moderator gave an answer that was flat out wrong, he attributes CEO's ultimate pursuit of maximizing shareholder value to the decay of morality within it's system and uses the example of the difference of morality of corps from the 50's and 60's as being "morally better". This is simply and absolutely false, if by that logic, then corps before the Great Depression from 1910-1920 would have be even more moral and good, but we know now that they had even more avarice then current corps. That's his first mistake, the logical fallacy of a decay of business ethics and morality, and he misses the main point that the singular apex function of all business is to make profits, that "maximizing shareholder value" is the feature and not bug of the entity. It is either ignorance or disingenuous to suggest otherwise. I'm surprised Rodrik did not counter this argument as it is obviously untrue. Corps are not evil nor are they good, they simply pursue the ultimate goal of profits and evil/good is simply a byproduct, unfortunately. Two, the reason for the better morality of corps in the 50-60's was because there was more federal regulations, coming out of the Great Depression the rules and regs put forth by the FDR admin broke up banks, jailed bankers and cracked down, the corps had no choice but to comply and be on their best behavior, and guess what happened, sustained prosperity, economic growth, and raised income distribution through all income brackets. The 50-70's had the strongest regulations at any time, and the erosion of those safeguards started in the late 70's up to our present day, hence the lack of morality today. The corps in the 50-60's didn't act morally because they were more moral, it was because there were strong, punishing consequences if they stepped out of line, the gov/people created and defined their "morality", not the corps themselves. The moderators answer is extremely dangerous because this narrative absolves the corps and CEOs of their greed and wrongful actions. I know he's a journalist, and has said that he talks to alot of CEOs, but he didn't have to drink the Kool-Aid

👆 hm very nice

He seems confused. The means by which "globalism", aka multinational investor interests, has damaged public interests far and wide, as scapegoats, yet he defends "globalism" as a concept, just nothing like what currently exists. ???

I feel that the person who buys stock is in the same catagory as the person who buy a lottery ticket they both hope to win big some will win and some will lose and each should have no more right s than the other and furthermore neither should be able to deduct there losses. The gambler has not right to run the casino nor should the person who purchases stock have any say in running the company. although he may sell his stock which is more than the gambler can do with his losing ticket. also The gambler and the stock holder should be taxed at the same with no deductions for losses.