Yes. You responded so rapidly that I couldn't revise fast enough! I decided that the additional factors were too numerous to mention, especially when you get into those that have only a secondary effect. So I fell back on pointing to two good sources for additional information. Certainly the decline of union power is one of those additional factors. It might not be too much of a stretch to summarize by saying that the decline of the middle class has been due to America's failed experiment with supply-side economics (also known as "trickle down"). We still have one large segment of the political spectrum that continues to champion supply side concepts despite dismal performance; the metric being the affect on the economic strength of the American Middle class.
Liberals - Why do you support Globalism?
- Thread starter achilles28
- Start date
"The reason is that economic growth and national income are almost entirely determined by a factor that is decided at home, namely the amount of bank credit created for productive purposes."
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-...and-why-answer-may-change-how-you-vote-brexit
Investment in productive assets is the only way to growth. Investment that is rewarded with profits. Otherwise known as supply side economics. Demand side, spread the wealth obama/venezuala economics has never done anything but destroy economies. It's a fool's errand. Yet it's still being peddled even after it's destroyed too many countries to count.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-...and-why-answer-may-change-how-you-vote-brexit
Investment in productive assets is the only way to growth. Investment that is rewarded with profits. Otherwise known as supply side economics. Demand side, spread the wealth obama/venezuala economics has never done anything but destroy economies. It's a fool's errand. Yet it's still being peddled even after it's destroyed too many countries to count.
What is curious about this post is that is conflates investment and profits with supply side economics. The problem with this thinking today is exactly the same problem with this thinking in the 1980s. It assumes supply-side stimulus is a superior way to encourage investment growth and profits. This was excusable in the 1980s before decades of supply-side economics had been tried out. Today, however, this kind of thinking is inexcusable; yet a surprising number still cling to it. It is as though the 21st century believers in what economist Quiggan has called "Zombie Economics" were entirely cut off from reality. It is understandable how the very few who have profited mightily from supply-side economics would champion the supply-side, whether they understood it or not. But it is sad to see so many who have been hurt by such ignoble and ineffective economics still believing it will help them, and a little disturbing too.
Both Supply Side and Demand Side economics have to do with how best to stimulate investment, profits and growth. These two schools of economic thought have nearly identical goals! They are opposite in approach however.
Supply side economics encourages investment in new supply. Even the name says so.
Demand side economics encourages consumption. Even its name implies that. As to whether it has a derivative effect of encouraging investment, it should be obvious from the points in time that it is recommended by leftist economists as to whether that is true. When there's been a credit boom and a great deal of malinvestment that should properly be liquidated, that seems to be just the time that they think demand side economics is appropriate. To prop up malinvestment so it will not have to be liquidated. Kicking the can, attempting to eliminate the business cycle, propping up cronies, are other ways to describe this fraudulent brand of economics.
Globalism is already happening, has happened. We won't be able to put the genie back in the bottle.
That said, you are correct that there are losers. We need to think about/help/retrain the losers. There is no way the highly developed western world, with its labor laws, safety nets, and heavy environmental and compliance regulations on businesses, can compete with the developing world on the cost of labor. You can't stop or change globalization by putting up walls and tariffs and trying to shut out the outside world. The industrialized world is not competitive on costs of labor. We need to find other ways to compete: ingenuity, efficiency, specialization, synergy. Our problem is that we aren't even attempting to bring everyone in our society along so that they may participate in this new world. We aren't educating them properly in the primary and secondary schools. We have a lot of social problems that prevent people from participating or bettering themselves because of poor nutrition in childhood, drug abuse, fetal alcohol syndrome, disabilities related to years of inadequate health care, and so forth. We aren't addressing the root causes of these.
I'm thinking back to some of the jobs I had in college 40+ years ago, none of which exist any more: telephone exchange operator (plugging and unplugging cords and wires), manually filling out forms for tests ordered in a medical laboratory, checking packages in a truck against a physical list, checking inventory for an importer. So, I am a "loser" as well. Where would I be if I were still sitting around griping about this?
That said, you are correct that there are losers. We need to think about/help/retrain the losers. There is no way the highly developed western world, with its labor laws, safety nets, and heavy environmental and compliance regulations on businesses, can compete with the developing world on the cost of labor. You can't stop or change globalization by putting up walls and tariffs and trying to shut out the outside world. The industrialized world is not competitive on costs of labor. We need to find other ways to compete: ingenuity, efficiency, specialization, synergy. Our problem is that we aren't even attempting to bring everyone in our society along so that they may participate in this new world. We aren't educating them properly in the primary and secondary schools. We have a lot of social problems that prevent people from participating or bettering themselves because of poor nutrition in childhood, drug abuse, fetal alcohol syndrome, disabilities related to years of inadequate health care, and so forth. We aren't addressing the root causes of these.
I'm thinking back to some of the jobs I had in college 40+ years ago, none of which exist any more: telephone exchange operator (plugging and unplugging cords and wires), manually filling out forms for tests ordered in a medical laboratory, checking packages in a truck against a physical list, checking inventory for an importer. So, I am a "loser" as well. Where would I be if I were still sitting around griping about this?
You live in a world of books and theory.
Japan and China built economic superpowers from our manufacturing jobs. What does that tell the rational lay person about the size of wealth our manufacturing industry creates?
Japan was willing to do something we weren't: make quality products. Back in the 70s, everyone wanted to buy a Panasonic TV or a Honda. The American equivalents did not measure up. This has changed. Japan has changed, too.
I don't consider China an economic superpower. It's just a very big place. In terms of the majority of its people, it is still a very poor country. Corruption and repression are rampant, and will hold China back.
I don't consider China an economic superpower. It's just a very big place. In terms of the majority of its people, it is still a very poor country. Corruption and repression are rampant, and will hold China back.
You have left me with no doubt whatsoever that I read many books and papers dealing with economics that you don't.
It is my opinion that the U.S. middle class is not doing as well is it could economically not because of globalization, trade, and immigration, but instead because of what we are doing to ourselves. By that I don't mean to suggest that changes in our trade and immigration policies are not needed. They are. We need to look elsewhere, however, to understand why the American middle class is shrinking, wages in constant dollars are declining, and many are mired in poverty.
Last edited: