Leonhardt Fallacy, Mr Flatly Wrong, see also Ferguson's Folly British liberal Empire income convergence
PK blames Trump and Republicans for the sorry plight of the poor and hungry here. (Now, he's not talking about the economists' poor or hungry billions elsewhere....he's just talking about those relatively few poor and hungry here.)
Nothing more cynical and misleading can hardly be imagined from Mr Liberal Globalization.
While he is right about something being obscene here with Trump, the obscenity crosses the political aisle.
Reducing incentives for the poor, the more respectable side of Republicanism is no less ridiculous than Democratic arguments for globalization based on other criteria, which I need not enumerate here but which are also numerous, see eg Work of Nations for one account of the Democratic rationale for globalization.
Piketty (Krugman's Pet) wants to 'solve' global inequality with more globalization income convergence too, not merely (Keynesian) income redistribution. Don't kid yourself. Rodrik, dittohead, a kinder gentler globalization, f---head.
While he is right about something being obscene here with Trump, the obscenity crosses the political aisle.
Reducing incentives for the poor, the more respectable side of Republicanism is no less ridiculous than Democratic arguments for globalization based on other criteria, which I need not enumerate here but which are also numerous, see eg Work of Nations for one account of the Democratic rationale for globalization.
Piketty (Krugman's Pet) wants to 'solve' global inequality with more globalization income convergence too, not merely (Keynesian) income redistribution. Don't kid yourself. Rodrik, dittohead, a kinder gentler globalization, f---head.
Why are they poor, here, in the first place, after all, and why are there so many of them, and why is the number growing?
What does what Krugman and Trump both call welfare actually do for these systemically poor unemployed citizens?
It temporarily staunches so called economists' externalities resulting from Krugmanesque globalization policies, for which there are no longer any alternatives, policies long approved by both Democrats, like Krugman, and Republicans alike.
If you impose stringent new work requirements, you have to give these poor bastards enough, but barely enough, work to do that would replace the lost welfare subsidies long made necessary under globalization welfare. You would have to unemploy illegal Mexicans (lost global welfare) and try to force employers to employ these American erstwhile food stamp recipients instead. How well do you all think that would work?
Either way, it is just another milestone on the way to what I have described as global average annual income convergence, at, say, $500 per year, which would also, under economists' Mickey Mouse models, maximize global economic welfare, the economists' ultimate twin El Dorado.
To Democratic globalists like Reich, Gates, and Krugman, I say: Why are you willing to impoverish America's lower 99% by benefitting the world's 100%?
You must know, but maybe you only occasionally sense it, smell it, that the last, the very last, thing they would ever do is to thank you.
You know the answer.
The 2 million people denied food aid should be offshored to sites where both food and labor are cheaper, say Mexico, rather than be allowed to starve to death here. Trump can cut a deal to make a somewhat lower wall in exchange for accepting 2 million poor American economic refugees.
It is called economic convergence, and the free movement of labor, which Ferguson exalts, as an ideal first brought to us by the British Empire.
Who really needs Keynesianism when you can simply offshore your poor? Who really needs Keynesianism if, as Kindleberger said long ago, the nation state is already quite obsolete?
If they can't make it in coal country, offer em offshoring to where there is more coal and lower living costs!
Krugman believes that in the end there is no policy justification for the attack on food stamps.
There are several good ones. I will give you one: subsidizing the poor here runs counter to global production and income convergence trends much loved by all economists.
If labor is too expensive here, it needs to go out of business vis a vis lower labor cost labor sources. That is what has long been happening, and that is what is rendering all levels of wages in the West too high, even with higher levels of productivity.
Subsidies do not make higher labor cost workers more competitive, but rather are a symptom of uncompetitive labor costs. The global economy is no longer one which will have a cyclical upturn putting poorer people back to work at full employment at their former wage.
His last paragraph, petty cruelty rather than a principle of government....
Krugman's invisible hand has itself been the principle of government, on a global scale, most responsible for the cruel Hobbesian state of nature state of affairs of the poor here which he decries and accuses Trump of worsening.
Trump didn't put 40 % of the population at or near the poverty level. He's only been in office a year.
Obama did almost nothing for the poor. Almost no Presidents ever have.
To Democratic globalists like Reich, Gates, and Krugman, I say: Why are you willing to impoverish America's lower 99% by benefitting the world's 100%?
You must know, but maybe you only occasionally sense it, smell it, that the last, the very last, thing they would ever do is to thank you.
You know the answer.
The 2 million people denied food aid should be offshored to sites where both food and labor are cheaper, say Mexico, rather than be allowed to starve to death here. Trump can cut a deal to make a somewhat lower wall in exchange for accepting 2 million poor American economic refugees.
It is called economic convergence, and the free movement of labor, which Ferguson exalts, as an ideal first brought to us by the British Empire.
Who really needs Keynesianism when you can simply offshore your poor? Who really needs Keynesianism if, as Kindleberger said long ago, the nation state is already quite obsolete?
If they can't make it in coal country, offer em offshoring to where there is more coal and lower living costs!
Krugman believes that in the end there is no policy justification for the attack on food stamps.
There are several good ones. I will give you one: subsidizing the poor here runs counter to global production and income convergence trends much loved by all economists.
If labor is too expensive here, it needs to go out of business vis a vis lower labor cost labor sources. That is what has long been happening, and that is what is rendering all levels of wages in the West too high, even with higher levels of productivity.
Subsidies do not make higher labor cost workers more competitive, but rather are a symptom of uncompetitive labor costs. The global economy is no longer one which will have a cyclical upturn putting poorer people back to work at full employment at their former wage.
His last paragraph, petty cruelty rather than a principle of government....
Krugman's invisible hand has itself been the principle of government, on a global scale, most responsible for the cruel Hobbesian state of nature state of affairs of the poor here which he decries and accuses Trump of worsening.
Trump didn't put 40 % of the population at or near the poverty level. He's only been in office a year.
Obama did almost nothing for the poor. Almost no Presidents ever have.
No comments:
Post a Comment