Kenny Yim ’09 has a commentary on globalization in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. The whole piece is a bit of a mess. The best that I can come up with for a thesis paragraph is this:

As Americans get lost in “Lost” and personal esoteric interests such as military history, Chinese and Indians are working the abandoned service and manufacturing jobs. We’re reducing global poverty — in China, the 9.9 percent GDP growth from 1992-98 has brought poverty down 8.4 percent — but it hasn’t happened out of some moral righteousness or direct inclination to. It happened because we’re too lazy to stop it and passed it off as U.S. good will.

This is so confused it is is hard to know where to start. Which “abandoned service and manufacturing jobs” is Yim talking about? Industries rise and fall. Companies start and fail. Jobs are created and destroyed. Many jobs that used to be done in the US are now done elsewhere, but no one really “abandoned” those jobs.

Yim claims that “we’re reducing global poverty,” but just who is this “we” that he is referring to? “We” are not making China and India wealthier. The people in China and India are, overwhelmingly, doing that for themselves. Our main contribution has been to demonstrate that free markets lead to wealth and to encourage the growth of free trade. Moreover, the proponents of free markets and free trade do believe in the “moral righteousness” of their cause. Freedom is good both for both moral reasons and because it generates wealth.

All in all, a disappointing effort.

Print  •  Email