Talk:Peterson Institute for International Economics

Criticizing Trump

The Peterson Institute was in the news for publishing a critiqe of Donald Trump's policies against free trade, calculating the number of American jobs that would be lost if Trump's policies were enacted. I don't have time right now to follow this up, but there are stories about this in almost every major news publication that covers U.S. domestic or foreign policy. --Nbauman (talk) 21:51, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I, and others, await your suggestions for article improvement. – S. Rich (talk) 05:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

My first priority is for this article to comply with the Wikipedia guideline WP:NPOV and include critics of the Peterson Institute. Once that's done, it would be nice to include their Trump policy, since for many readers that would be a favorable stand by the Peterson Institute. I was suggesting that to those who are looking for favorable things to write about the Peterson Institute. But first things first. --Nbauman (talk) 14:28, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

No, not every single article requires a criticism section. This is a highly respected economics think tank that usually has its research peer-reviewed by third party economists. You can't just add a criticism section and source it to amateurs writing in newspapers. Jonathan f1 (talk) 21:32, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Here we go again..

The encyclopedia is supposed to represent mainstream views on economics, not fringe or populist commentary in newspapers. We know where economists stand on free trade because we have surveys and polls indicating near-unanimous support[1]. Thus criticism is completely unwarranted here.

And no Ross Perot wasn't right about free trade. Trade liberalisation, as a general rule, has almost no effect on employment levels in the economy: trade adds jobs to the export sector, subtracts some jobs in import-competing industries, but does not have any significant effect on normal job churn. In nearly 30 years, NAFTA-related job loss has been calculated on the order of 4 million: to put that into context, the US economy experiences more (involuntary) job separations in one business quarter, in an abnormally stable business cycle[2].

And the belief that, without NAFTA or China's ascent into the WTO, dinosaur industries like steel or aluminum manufacturing would've kept all their jobs in the US is patent nonsense.

I'll be opening up an NPOV talk section soon, as I am not expecting any serious feedback here. Jonathan f1 (talk) 20:42, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to inclusion of criticism of the group, but Rattner's op-ed appears to be massively overweighted here. I say "appears" because maybe the piece is widely discussed in reliable sources and I'm just unaware. As it is, the overlong paragraph coupled with the Free Beacon-sourced lines make for a poor section. I favor removal while we discuss a better way to include criticism. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:04, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

The main issue with Rattner (other than the fact that he's not a reliable source for economics and has ties to the auto industry) is that the statement quoted in this section is a straw-man argument. No reputable economist, either in academia or at the Peterson Institute, advocates for trade liberalisation without any assistance for workers affected by these policies. Read some of the comments in the survey I linked: an economist from Northwestern, for example, writes that, "This needs more nuance: most people win [from trade], and the winners gain a lot. But there are losers from trade who have not in fact been compensated."

The PIIE has never advocated for trade without any assistance. Here's Adam Posen, head of the institute, writing about this in Foreign Affairs[3]. Here Posen is not only arguing for a more liberalised trade policy, but he's also calling on the federal government to spend a half a point of GDP on social welfare.

But here is the thing (and this is crucial): Posen is not simply saying that only workers who lose their jobs to trade (a relatively miniscule number of people) should be compensated. He's saying that there is no social safety net in the country, and that any American who loses a job, for whatever reason, should have basic financial security.

This is a perfectly reasonable position and one that's consistent with the views of most economists.

If there is legitimate criticism of the PIIE published by reputable sources, of course I do not object to that. But as it stands right now, the criticism section isn't actually criticising the PIIE, but is attacking the PIIE's position on international trade. Jonathan f1 (talk) 23:51, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

This isn't the place to present arguments for or against a certain policy stance. Your opinions on NAFTA and the like don't affect the article. With that said, you are correct regarding NPOV. Putting content in an article specifically to criticize it should be done sparingly, if ever. I would support removing the content under the criticism section; Steven Rattner's opinions (and the opinions of editors that agree with him) shouldn't affect the article either. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:12, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I did not post a personal opinion about NAFTA. The poll again[4]. Second question:

"On average, citizens of the U.S. have been better off with the North American Free Trade Agreement than they would have been if the trade rules for the U.S., Canada and Mexico prior to NAFTA had remained in place."

85% agreement with this statement. Ignoring the 10% who didn't answer, it's closer to 95% agreement that NAFTA generally had a positive effect on the US economy.

This is a clear and straightforward consensus. The only one posting personal opinions about NAFTA is the editor (or editors) who cited Rattner. Jonathan f1 (talk) 18:46, 11 November 2022 (UTC)