Americans, how sure are you it is not Mr. Jones that you should blame?

The fundamental driver of the unease with globalization is the reduction of the share of decent salaries paid in the gross global production (GGP) and since “decent salaries”, whatever that means, has almost exclusively to do with the developed world, there is a growing grumbling in the western world that this globalization thing might not have been such a bright idea after all.

Clearly, if an American holds that the world has to stop growing, immediately, so that he can go back to his 2 dollar per gallon of gas, he has a point, though he would also have to explain what to do with a paralyzed world.

Devesh Kapur, Pratap Mehta and Arvind Subramanian, “Is Larry Summers the canary in the mine?, May 14, worry that American liberal intellectuals might now team up with Lou Dobbs and produce a pure local US knee jerk reaction, which would be both dangerous and unproductive for the whole world, instead of teaming up with them in finding some valid solutions for all. They are very right about that.

Americans should know that when you build an isolation wall the worst part is how difficult it is to be 100% sure that you got stuck on the right side of it and so, before shutting themselves out, they would de well trying to get at the root of who are really capturing a larger share of the GGP, since besides from those obviously benefiting from the commodity boom, one of the culprit might even be their next door neighbour, Mr. Jones.

Supernanny as a super decent jobs generator

Sir it is fascinating how different you read things depending on what you are looking for. Being convinced that the capability of generating decent jobs is the glue that holds society together and that the harshest scarcity the world now confronts is the lack of decent jobs, what most attracted my attention in Tim Hartford’s “Supernanny insists that you have the right to opt out” October 26, had nothing to do with libertarian philosophical issues but more with the pragmatic job opportunities that a really proactive Supernanny could help to create.

For instance Harford mentions a smoking permit that would require a doctor’s signature, which essentially signifies a job opportunity. Although I could discuss whether the smoking permit should instead of a doctors signature require an economist to approve it instead to attest to the need of reaching an equilibrium between the individual’s and the society’s utility functions, what most struck me was the job generating capacity a really proactive Supernanny could have, especially if he wants to take advantage of our current technological advances.

For instance using Skype Supernanny should make it obligatory to consult daily with an expert if the chosen tie really matches the shirt. Live on line checking on whether we are brushing our teeth correctly should also be able to generate some very decent and useful teeth brushing supervisors jobs. Now as we of course do not want to impose too much on the personal freedom of choice of people one could also auction out a certain number of permits that would allow to smoke, to wear unmatched ties and to sloppily brush your teeth.