"I guess if the professor of economics at Harvard (hardly a right-wing economics department) advised the US govt than he must also be a fundamentalist and therefore evil.

I am not surprised that 'some (anonymous) people' complained about the advice. That the forecast of job growth was below the realized outcome is neither surprising nor proof that outsourcing was the main cause.

Wikipedia has an obligation to present both sides of an argument, even if one side is nameless. Similarly, I feel the need to present opposing views in this forum. I do so anonymously because I do not have the time to make an account. I would hardly call myself a 'fundamentalist', though I am not sure what the implications of this title are in this instance. My views are inline with professional views and can be proved to be correct with mathematics of the most extreme kind.

Some policies may have ramifications in the short run. If they have much, much greater benefits over the next few years, should they not be implemented?

Such policies are hard to implement since politicians have to maximise popularity within a three year term. But reforming policies such as FTAs that have long term benefits are the most important."

Professor Mankiw was chairman of President George W. Bush's Council of Economic Advisors, official economic advisor to then-governor Mitt Romney's political action committee and economic advisor to his presidential campaign. If that is not right-wing enough for you, he is currently a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

When Mankiw said that out-sourcing of jobs by US companies is "probably a plus for the economy in the long run", how long a run is he contemplating? The US is now in recession, though Bush is still in denial about that, as a direct result of the sub-prime loans debacle. How many of those thousands of home loan defaulters were victims of the out-sourcing of their jobs? Is it a mark of a good economist to say recession is "a plus for the economy"?

I am not sure what extreme mathematics look like but if it is the kind that underlies extreme corporatist economic policies then you may well be in line with such professional views.

The benefits "over the next few years" of out-sourcing jobs will not accrue to to those who have lost their jobs and in many cases their homes as well, they will accrue to the board members of the out-sourcing corporations.

2  out of 2 found this valuable. Do you find this valuable? Do you?