Skip Navigation
Matthew Yglesias

Matthew Yglesias - Matthew Yglesias is a fellow at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
More

Matthew Yglesias is a fellow at the Center for American Progress. His first book, with the working title Heads in the Sand: Iraq and the Strange Death of Liberal Internationalism, scheduled to be published next spring by John Wiley and co., deals with the Democratic Party's struggle to find a post-9/11 foreign policy, focusing primarily on the rise and (hopefully) fall of the liberal hawk movement.

Previously, he was a staff writer at The American Prospect and an Associate Editor at TPM Media, where he contributed to the group blogs Tapped and TPMCafe. His main blog, now at The Atlantic, has existed in various forms since the dark ages of the blogosphere in January 2002.

His writing has appeared in The Guardian, Slate, The New Republic, and The Washington Monthly, and he is a regular on BloggingHeads.tv and makes the occasional radio or television appearance.

Desperately out of touch with the American mainstream, Yglesias was born and raised in Manhattan and studied philosophy at Harvard where he was editor in chief of The Harvard Independent, a campus alternative weekly.

His latest writings can be found on the Matthew Yglesias blog.

Bad Questions

By Matthew Yglesias
Jun 8 2008, 6:29 PM ET Comment

I was trying to look something up about public opinion on trade issues, and particular recent trends in opinion, and saw this paragraph in a Public Agenda survey:

Attitudes have also become more negative about international trade. In previous rounds of the Index, the public showed great uncertainty over the benefits of trade—fully half said they were unsure who benefited more from trade, the United States or other countries, compared with about one-third who thought other countries benefited more. Now roughly as many say other countries benefit more (42 percent) as are unsure (41 percent). Only 14 percent think the United States benefits more from trade.


That's just a terrible way of looking at the situation. My read of the way the world works is that the United States has a much larger economy than do most countries. Consequently, trade is just a much bigger deal for other countries than it is for the United States. For example, if all US-Canadian trade ceased that would be terrible for us but much worse for the Canadians. Consequently, I'd say that other countries benefit more from trade than the United States does. If the world ever shifts to autarky, that'll suck for everyone, but it'll suck less for us than it does for, say, tiny subarctic Iceland.

But that's not me having a "negative attitude" about international trade. But in Public Agenda's conception of how trade works, it seems to be a zero-sum activity such that if some other country benefits more from trade than we do, then we're getting ripped off.

Presented by

More at The Atlantic

Hooray for Liberty: The Church Has Lost the Contraception Fight The Church's Loss Is Liberty's Gain
Politics Q&A: Senator Rand Paul Q&A: Senator Rand Paul on His Father
A Hauntingly Beautiful Zombie Love Story A Beautiful Zombie Love Story
The GOP Primary Is Badly Wounding Mitt Romney The GOP Primary Is Badly Wounding Romney
Mutts Mobilize in Midtown Against Mitt Mutts Against Mitt

Join the Discussion

After you comment, click Post. If you’re not already logged in you will be asked to log in or register.
blog comments powered by Disqus
Special Report
Submit Your Photos of America at Work AP Submit Your Photos of America at Work
Send us your images of friends, family, and neighbors on the job. We'll publish the best. Read more ›

Just In

View All Correspondents

The Biggest Story in Photos

Valentine's Day 2012

Feb 14, 2012

The Atlantic Wire

what matters now in politics
Last Update: 7:00 PM

Subscribe Now

SAVE 59%! 10 issues JUST $2.45 PER COPY

Facebook

Newsletters

Sign up to receive our free newsletters

(sample)

(sample)

(sample)

(sample)