I wish FT/Harris had set up those graphs in a better way. The color scheme, the switching "Not sure" with "No," and other factors make it difficult to quickly get a sense of the data.

I thought the most interesting trends were Germans' impression of globalization and UK & US' sense on opportunity (at least relative to everyone else).

"There is support, clearly, for some really stupid policies."

Yes. Although even in the U.S. at least those who believe globalisation is having a negative effect (~40%) are still a minority.

And given the tendency to demagogue over high gas prices, will politicians really think voters will be happy with anti-trade policies that raise the cost of Toyotas and goods and Walmart? Or will politicians rail against globalization, offshoring, fat-cat CEOs, etc but then enact only symbolic measures and leave well enough alone on trade? It's looking like that's about the best we can hope for.

The focus of public attention on CEO pay is further evidence that the "left/right" division in developed countries today is not between labor and capital, but between labor and management -- the triumph, I suppose, of Djilas over Marx.

Dear Dan, sometimes when I read your blog I feel humbled by your understanding of "how the world works." At other times I disagree, but get your point. Reading this entry, I could not believe that you appear so out of step with what you call public sentiment. The gross incomes of "evil capitalist pig-dogs" are not ammunition for leftist dreamers. They are not manufactured into Marxist metaphors. They are actual representations of a greed that is culturally destructive. In short I think you have ivory towered yourself into a defense of "evil capitalist pig-dogs" who when finished with you will grind your bones for their children's birthday cake. ben

Wooof !

Sadly, Dan seems to be joining the "peasants are stupid" school of economics.

The peasants may not have PhDs but certainly have a lot of common sense and the ability to understand when the game is rigged.

The real problem is that a relatively few people own the government, and the increase is income equality shows I'm a Reagan Republican, not some whack job socialist).

Globalization will move ahead, the only question is

"how do we handle the transition?"

Sneer at the peasants long enough and the peasants will send more Sherrod Brown-types to Congress.

According to Fortune Magazine, there was a sort of under the table agreement in the Blackstone IPO so that the PUBLIC shareholders will pay the capital gains taxes for some of the senior execs.

Any ethics questions here? Or just the elite getting their due?

So the best response to the public support for "really stupid policies" is to vote for the party most likely to enact those really stupid policies? This doesn't make any sense to me, but I'm not a professor.

Dan -- openness to int. trade may be the wrong measure. private equity took advantage of global demand for debt to fund their big equity purchases, so they have been among the big winners of the particular kind of globalization that we have experienced (one increasingly defined by big financial flows from EM governments to the US and Europe). Hedge funds have also profited from a series of trends linked to the emergence of EM governments as a supplier of global liquidity. So it strikes me at least that looking only at goods and services trade misses the point. EM government demand for debt has at least as significant impact on the global economy, and on the size of the paychecks of certain winners.

So, blue collar, anti-trade rust-belters are right because they say they're right? Since when has public opinion been so accurate and fact-based?

Or, are they perhaps suffering from imperfect information to such an extent that it leads to (gasp) "policy failure"?

You're right. It's inconceivable. Most blue collar people I know have the in's and out's of international economics pretty much down pat.

Actually, ben, Drezner's remarks are a good reflection of the level of understanding he brings to pretty much *every* issue he discusses, which is why I practically never bother to visit this blog.

"I can't dispute the rising resentment about rising inequality -- but that doesn't mean that the resentment has acquired the correct target (I don't think there is a clear target, but that's a topic for another day). There is support, clearly, for some really stupid policies."

So instead of resenting those who benefit from and support inequality, they should be getting upset at whom? The people who oppose it? The sky gods?

Those who benefit from inequality are politicians. In "faux facsimile"'s mind, CEOs meet in Masonic lodges, brandy in hand, laughing through their oiled moustaches over how next to screw over Stalwart Worker. It just ain't so.

The CEOs, as a rule, are non-political rich who don't benefit from inequality as such. If they are THAT rich then they can afford to pay the household help. Some CEOs rely a bit more upon cheap labour but even those CEOs know that machines are better. In the long term even they'd benefit from less inequality. Look what washing machines did for women.

Also, remember that power and adulation are substitutes for wealth; if you shake down the CEOs for cash then they will become advocates for trendy causes, ranging from the silly to the destructive.

Lastly, we're not going to get rid of income inequality as long as IQ remains (1) genetic and (2) permanent. (1) has been true since the first worm evolved a brain. (2) will remain true for perhaps a decade and then we will have genomic and computational solutions. Until then, get used to this: 50% of the population is below average.