This is how he frames the discussion. He frames it as a struggle between big and bigger US businesses and smaller US businesses, but it is only about businesses in the so called United States economy.
Having set this fairytale stage, he impugns big and bigger so called US businesses for absorbing or eliminating smaller US businesses.
He claims that this bad action on the part of these big US businesses is a big reason why there is slow income growth for most so called American families (US families only), and why there is soaring inequality, here (not, also, elsewhere; that kind of big and bigger global inequality topic he leaves for later, or for Piketty, or Krugman). He's only talking about so called US economy inequality and slow growth.
He claims that this bad action on the part of these big US businesses is a big reason why there is slow income growth for most so called American families (US families only), and why there is soaring inequality, here (not, also, elsewhere; that kind of big and bigger global inequality topic he leaves for later, or for Piketty, or Krugman). He's only talking about so called US economy inequality and slow growth.
Try to figure out, from what I said recently on this topic, what kinds of things are wrong, also, with these additional aspects of Leonhardt's updated, or further elaborated, account.
No comments:
Post a Comment