ABSTRACT
As a profession, economists have been quite unified in their responses to the disquiet caused by globalization in general and free trade in particular, a disquiet that has been vociferously expressed in the streets outside several recent meetings of Bretton Woods Institutions and similar ceremonies, but also expressed in circles that economists cannot so lightly dismiss. Within broad outlines, economists just know that globalization is a good thing because, as Adam Smith and especially David Ricardo taught, free trade benefits even countries that are not very good at anything. Most economists also believe that despite the prevalence of inequality, economic growth directly benefits the less fortunate in the global society, if perhaps only in the long run of our sweet reward. At the very least, global economic growth will generate more wealth, making it easier to take care of the less fortunate. The problem with globalization, then, is essentially political: people do not know what is good for them. In such circumstances, a number of prominent economists have maintained that the task for government and enlightened people of good will is to educate the people. (While markets should be used for so much, this particular task should not be left to the market.) Otherwise, it is just possible that the integration of the global economy achieved through such patient effort over the years since World War Two may be undone, as the economic integration achieved in the late
nineteenth century was destroyed by World War One. Such, at any rate, appears to be the orthodox position among economists, presented with the confidence of clergy who are sure that they understand what is right.
