LIBERACE AND THE SUDDEN CRISIS OF CORPORATE GIGANTISM NOT GLOBALISM

Corporate giants are now suddenly hurting the so called economy. One doesn't know which economy Liberace means.  If he meant the global economy, it would be hard to claim, and Krugman would call him out on this, that corporate gigantism has been hurting the global economy. In fact, Krugman would doubtless claim that the contrary has been true instead. Liberace points out, now, 30 or so years later, that Reagan had stopped data on industry market share.  Maybe the NYT called them out on that at that time, maybe not. Liberace now claims that that is one reason the country, and by implication, as far as I am concerned, the media, has turned a blind eye. What are the other reasons. He just mentions one..... Many people now, he says, don't realize how big these bitches have become. Well then, what was the role of a free press here in the first place, back in the mid 80s? I thought it was the avowed job of the NYT to call Presidents to account for stuff like this. The implications, year in year out since 1985, must have been apparent to their team of crack economists, among whom was Paul Krugman.

Liberace says he wrote a column, only a few months ago, funnily enough, contrasting job growth gigantism versus localism.

Now, it is supposedly a crisis of corporate gigantism.

What is the real crisis, the real source of Liberace's so called Gigantism Crisis? The NYT pet LIEO ideology: Globalization.

Liberace can't call out globalization because the NYT has relentlessly promoted it since the beginning really.....since Woodrow Wilson really.

So, corporate gigantism is a code word for the taboo globalization, so NYT can criticize its own globalization, like everyone else is, without saying its name.

This is also why Brooks is suddenly a nationalist of a peculiar stamp.

DO THE OTHER COUNTRIES, WITH BETTER FEDERAL STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, JUST HAVE BETTER JOURNALISTS?

This post is dedicated to Paul Krugman.