Critics of globalization --- there are asymmetries, not just similarities, both economic and political between different elements of globalization such as trade, short-term capital flows, investments foreign direct flows, short-term capital flows, international flows of humanity and the diffusion of technology, but most critics focus, as I will, on the first two --- they divide essentially into two camps: those who are (conventionally ) concerned about its social implications; and those who fear (increasingly) its economic consequences. Early critics cut the divide between the North (rich country) and the South (poor country), although many NGOs who share these views tend to be more in the North. The latter are mainly found in the North (the rich countries), especially large ones like the United States, France and Germany. I addressed the many social concerns in my 2004 book, In Defense of Globalization, when I went to Seattle for the November 1999 WTO conference and a sad Woodstock event erupted, most of which consisted of protests by groups who seemed to think that Free Trade was an evil doctrine (relative to what we considered social goals) and the WTO its church. To put it in the language of Tony Blair and Bill Clinton, both discredited in their respective countries for different reasons, globalization does not have (or need) a human face. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get Original Essay I have systematically examined various concerns and concluded instead that globalization has a human face, which overall advances rather than also recedes the social agendas. Take for example the effect on pay inequality for women in specific jobs even when they have the same qualifications as men. When competitive pressure intensifies, as it does with traded goods, the ability of businesses to indulge in the prejudice-driven payment of higher wages to men just because they are men will be squeezed out. As it happens, U.S. data shows just that: Over a recent 20-year period, pay inequality for women has declined faster in traded sectors than in non-traded sectors. Trade clearly helped. Furthermore, while I also address many other issues raised by environmental critics of trade in my book, I would like to consider here the belief of some NGOs who remain staunchly opposed to trade and their argument that we should go “local” and buy from nearest home because CO2 emissions are considerable in international trade. But then the British agency DFID (Department for International Development) commissioned a study comparing the price of cut flowers from Africa and Rotterdam. It turned out that the total CO2 emissions of the Rotterdam flowers were worse because the greenhouses in which they were supposed to be grown also emitted a lot of CO2! I dare say that the certainty with which many have embraced social criticism has fallen, perhaps because their case has been examined by me and some others and found wanting. But now many of us, in any case, are worried less about these social issues and more about the idea that trade with poor countries is keeping their real wages low. They would like to close the door as much as possible to trade, to outgoing investments by companies and to the incoming flow of unskilled labor. Therefore, if one follows the recent presidential debates among the Democratic contenders for the highest office, everyone must accept the unions' fear that trade hascut their wages: after all, labor is the Democrats' main constituency. But when you consider the evidence for this fear, it is terribly weak. Many recent studies, conducted among others by Robert Lawrence of Harvard and Robert Feenstra of UC Davis, demonstrate that trade is not a culprit. My empirical work from a few years ago shows that, in fact, trade may have moderated, not accentuated, the decline in real wages that appears to follow an inexorable and acute technical change aimed at saving labor. However, the misattribution of blame on trade persists, to the point where my distinguished student Paul Krugman, a passionate opponent of President Bush (who happens to be very good on trade) and immigration, has decided to retreat to the position that trade “may” have hurt wages, although it is unable to produce any real evidence to support the existence of a negative effect. Unfortunately, even The Economist, long a supporter of free trade, fell victim to this fallacy last year and devoted a cover story and three pages to suggesting that the working class was a "loser" from globalization, yet once without any proof whatsoever. , although his latest Economic Focus article on Krugman (the quality of whose work on this topic hardly merits attention) was a little more sceptical. I should add that, on illegal immigration, while the unions were enthusiastic about the sanctions on employers and in solidarity with the tough fight against illegal immigrants, their position has changed in recent years. Of course, if you believe (as they do) that trade with clandestine poor countries lowers real wages, then the influx of unskilled labor is a direct way of lowering wages just as trade is an indirect way of doing so. Largely because of an intuitive understanding of this parallel, which trade theorists have systematically explored, trade protectionists were also immigration restrictionists, and free traders were for freer immigration, when discussions in Great Britain in 1904 Britain the British promulgation of the first national immigration restrictions. Great Britain. The changed attitude of American unions represents a changed appreciation of two facts: it is not possible to really control illegal immigration; and, if so, it is better to turn them into lawyers through an amnesty and make them join unions and support better wages. The Roman Catholic Church, of course, sees in the amnesty of many Hispanics the prospect of full churches, so that altruism and self-interest point in the same direction! And so we have a strange situation: in general, Democrats hate trade but will vote for immigration; Republicans love trade but are alarmed by immigration. But there also seems to be a general susceptibility in the American media to the strange view that consensus among trade economists on the virtues of free trade has collapsed. Among the economists cited “on the other side” is the macroeconomist Alan Blinder (whose argument boils down simply to the fact that we now have more tradable goods and therefore the need for adjustment assistance has increased, an argument which belatedly brings him into the free-market fold), Paul Krugman (with his “maybes” and other ambivalences that appeal to faithful democrats) and Paul Samuelson (whose famous article of a few years ago argued that, in a global economy, exogenous changes could reduce gains from trade but that a protectionist response would only make things worse). I have already debunked the claims about the loss of consensus on free....