Globalization Again.

Kash, also known as Angry Bear, has a great post on globalization, or as he calls it, economic integration.

One last word about the field economics in general. I realize that some of you are disappointed that I agree with the orthodoxy by thinking that international economic integration is generally a good thing, despite the fact that I call myself "liberal". And I realize that some of you think that economists are all simply brain-washed when it comes to international trade. But I would like to ask you to give me, and other economists, a little more credit. We have no incentive to simply follow a �party line�, and we have every incentive to come up with a convincing counter-argument; recognition in the field comes not from repeating orthodoxy but rather from overturning it, after all. Furthermore, anything that any economist says or writes is immediately subject to vicious and relentless criticism from the rest of the profession � that�s how all academic professions work.

So if the vast majority of economists agree about something, it�s not because we are simply turning off our brains (and analytical power) on that one subject. It�s because the theory and evidence on the subject are convincing, and have withstood relentless efforts to debunk it. In general most economists think economic integration is a good thing, not because it�s convenient to do so, but because the work of thousands of extremely smart people working over decades has convinced us that it usually is.

That doesn't mean that economic integration is ever painless, or always good. But I would also say the same thing about technological progress. And just as is the case for technological progress, I also think that in general, it's more good than bad.

You need to go and read the comments section to see what a furore this has set off amongst the economically illiterate (there’s actually one guy ocmplaining that Pat Buchanan is not a Democrat and another using Counterpunch as a valued source). How dare someone support free trade and be a liberal? As Kash points out, (It’s like being a liberal and supporting Newtonian physics as a workaday approximation, being a conservative and acknowledging evolution) these things are simply true and one’s philosophical position does not change that.

H/T Marginal Revolution.