Arancha Gonzalez Quotes

It's well proved economics that if a country which is rich and a country that is poor come together in global trade, sooner or later the standard of living of the poor country will go up towards that of the rich country.

My overall message for labor members is... that we understand that the benefits of trade are clear, but the disruption and the dislocation are painfully concentrated and we can't ignore them.

Trade reform has also been linked to increased income disparity as skilled workers have captured more benefits from globalization than their unskilled counterparts.

When you liberalize trade, benefits go to capital and away from labor.

Wild globalization has helped some people much, but has hurt most.

The factory work that lifted millions out of poverty in places like China and Vietnam probably did cost some workers in North Carolina and Wallonia their jobs.

In many societies the domestic social costs of adjustment to changing patterns of comparative advantage are believed to outweigh the advantages of further trade liberalization.

Our society is intertwined with the economy that we've built, which is a fantastically complex system. I hope that my writing about it might do some good, but that's not why I do it.

Since NAFTA was put in place, Mexico has lost 1.9 million jobs and most Mexicans' real wages have fallen.

The negative side to globalization is that it wipes out entire economic systems and in doing so wipes out the accompanying culture.

If we are to garner sustained U.S. domestic support for future trade agreements, we have to make sure those Americans who have suffered as a consequence of past agreements have an effective social safety net, adjustment assistance, opportunities for retraining and new job creation that enables all Americans to thrive.

On the contrary, the characteristic element of the present situation is that economic questions have finally and irrevocably invaded the domain of public life and politics.

Capitalism has only hurt Latin America.

We are on pace this year to have a trade deficit that is larger than $800 billion. We have never faced that before, but we continue to put forward trade agreements like these that leave us naked to competition that is neither free nor fair.

To have to claim that … workers were impoverished by globalization … you have to forget that those workers were even poorer before the new exporting jobs became available and ignore the fact that those who do not have access to the global markets are far worse than those who do.

We have come to the point where a new machine invented in England deprives millions of Chinese workers of their livelihood within a year's time.

The developing countries are scared out of their wits now, because they don’t understand what they’re being forced to sign. The agreements are going way outside the trade issues and involve a helluva lot of things like your access to oil, your access to intellectual property and capital controls…. When I looked through the investment agreements, it was worse than reading my insurance policy for the fine print. I couldn’t make anything out of it, and I’m a reasonably informed person, a pretty smart economist as they go.

It’s much better than shutting down trade to help people adjust to the effects of trade.

Economics is a very dangerous science

Never trust an economist with your job. Learn about economics yourself. And make up your own mind about what might protect your job-and what might destroy it.

If you want your country to be competitive in the 21st century economy, a big financial sector is fundamentally bad news.

The benefits of trade diffuse across the economy, but the cost of trade are concentrated.

There was a brief moment, after Haiti's 2010 earthquake, when even Bill Clinton recognized what had been done to Haiti in the name of 'free trade': the destruction of local markets and rice production.

The people are rejecting so-called free trade and globalization that the elites presented as a positive thing.

Globalization and trade liberalization were supposed to make us all better off through the mechanism of trickle-down economics. What we seemed to be seeing instead was trickle-up economics, accompanied by a destruction of democratic politics, as we moved ever closer to a system of 'one dollar, one vote' as opposed to 'one person, one vote.'