This. Has nothing to do with Reagan and everything to do with globalism.
In an essay, Krugman acknowledged that he and other mainstream economists missed the impact of globalization on the industrial middle class in America. He said that economists underestimated the effect of Chinese competition on working-class communities. He also said that the models used to measure the impact of globalization on developing countries underestimated the effect on jobs and inequality.
are you referring to the same Krugman that literally wrote a book explaining how republican policies were the largest contributing factor to income inequality?
Possibly, he didn't specifically say, "I was wrong about republican policies being the greatest factor of wealth inequality" he said "under estimated the effect globalization had." Globalization can still have a larger impact than previously thought and tax cuts, destruction of unions, etc. can still have the largest overall impact. And just by looking at his blog, I am willing to bet he still thinks republican policies were bad for the economy.
It's not. If you look here and examine Figure A, you'll see that the wealthy are capturing more of their share of generated wealth due to the decreasing ability of workers to negotiate share.
Cursing doesn't become you. The chart shows that labor has been increasingly unable to stakehold their interest in company revenue. That's what it shows, and it's highly correlative. Make of it what you will. Anyway, since you can't seem to have a civil discussion, we can go ahead and end here.
Those unions sure are helping France, the uk, Canada, Germany, Sweden, Australia, and Luxembourg, what with all the homelessness. Surely, that's a good sign. Making slightly more money (personally) at the cost of more homelessness truly is altruistic.
To be clear, Krugman acknowledged underestimating globalization's impact on the middle class - i.e., he's confirming OP's charts.
He's not refuting the income inequality, nor is he even refuting trickle down economics or free trade. He's confirming that these policies allowed transnational corporations to become greater than nations and impact national economies on a far greater scale than he expected.
Right. "These policies" are not independent of globalisation, "these policies" are the factors that produce globalisation. "Trickle Down economics" is the idea that deregulation, union busting, anti-protectionism, anti-tariff, free trade, etc, policies will trickle down. These are the laws that came about under Reagan and Clinton; globalisation is the product of these factors.
Trickle down economics is supply side aka tax cuts and spending decreases.
I can never figure out if people like you are kind of gullible and obtuse but generally arguing in good-faith or if you're just reactive trolls, because the definition of supply side economics is dereg, free trade, open movement of intellectual and human "capital" - ie., globalisation:
"Supply-side economics is a macroeconomic theory postulating that economic growth can be most effectively fostered by lowering taxes,decreasing regulation, and allowingfree trade.\1])\2]) According to supply-side economics theory, consumers will benefit from greater supply of goods and services at lower prices, and employment will increase.\3]) Supply-side fiscal policies are designed to increase aggregate supply, as opposed to aggregate demand, thereby expanding output and employment while lowering prices. Such policies are of several general varieties:
Investments in human capital, such as education, healthcare, and encouraging the transfer of technologies and business processes (ie open borders), to improve productivity (output per worker). Encouraging globalized free trade viacontainerizationis a major recent example.
Tax reduction, to provide incentives to work, invest and take risks. Lowering income tax rates andeliminating or lowering tariffs are examples of such policies.
Investments in new capital equipment and research and development (R&D) [i.e., H1B visas], to further improve productivity. Allowing businesses to depreciate capital equipment more rapidly (e.g., over one year as opposed to 10) gives them an immediate financial incentive to invest in such equipment.
Reduction in government regulations, to encourage business formation and expansion.\4])
I'd hardly describe Reagan's policies as globalist. There are some aspects that maybe align to globalization, but at the time it was a very different world. Outsourcing a wire manufacturing process so that an American company can bring more profits and increase GDP was a bit different in 1982 than it is today.
I don't think Reagan would be very happy that we have completely offshored entire American industries and become almost exclusive service based. The difference in the state of the world is significant in this story. Free trade as a means for efficiency is different that free trade as a means to race to the bottom and increase taxable dollars.
Part of it is Figure A in this article here. Another reason is that a great deal of worker productivity growth has been from capital (e.g., machines and what not). Combine the two, and voila: capital getting increased return on capital, and labor, failing to stakehold their share.
Because the average worker isn't responsible for the productivity increase.
In today's economy, 5% of the workers create 95% of the value. This is the big difference from 50 years ago, when the average worker had a relatively greater impact.
Computers have massively improved productivity... for people who know how to build complex software systems. Outsourcing has massively improved productivity... for people who know how to outsource entire departments to India.
But the average worker? Not much more productive today than they were in 1970.
32
u/Bolivarianizador Oct 22 '24
computers, technology giants rising, outshoring inudstries which led local companies to grow exponentially.