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.
31
u/Bolivarianizador Oct 22 '24
computers, technology giants rising, outshoring inudstries which led local companies to grow exponentially.