Could not agree more re the need to deal with business leaders and major corporations on the trade and manufacturing issues. Did you see my article on Jamie Dimon and the banks? I attack the leading economists because they provide the rationale that justifies the destructive acts and policies of the banks and big industries.
Will definitely read it. I just found you on Substack. Believe it or not I first began following you while working for the Japanese Consulate in Portland. My first CG was a big fan of yours and we had long discussions about articles written by you or about you.
While I have been a fan of yours for more years than I will admit, and I agree with you completely on the need to bring manufacturing back to this country, at least with regard to Krugman and Rampall, I don’t see them promoting China to the extent you suggest.
Frankly more than attacking the economists and op-ed folks in this country we should be going after the millionaire/billionaire CEO’s and Chairs of American corporations (really multinationals), their tunnel vision of providing solely for their stock holders (and of course their bottom lines) rather than the national interest and their workers. Every Republican administration has lowered taxes on the very people who are much more responsible for hollowing out our manufacturing sector. Instead of blaming Paul Krugman who writes a column, perhaps we should be blaming Jaime Dimond and all the hedge funds who buy up manufacturing companies then close them down and write off their “loss.”
Our tax system needs to be restructured so that the Mark Cubans, Elon Musks and Jeff Besos PAY TAXES and their companies pay taxes. I live in a rural area dependent on logging. A few years ago a hedge fund bought a fully functioning sawmill that provided 500+ jobs. A few months after buying it, they closed it and declared a loss. Thankfully a few years later it was purchased by a group of employees and is back producing.
It’s not the economists or op-ed writers who’ve caused our problems. It’s the CEOs, boards, banks and hedge funds who we should be blaming!
Well done Clyde. Now for those debates and the challenge you issued below: a healthy democracy would have them, but what are, exactly, besides writers like yourself, the institutional forces for dissent? A good labor movement might have broadened, not reduced the scope of bargaining beyond wages and benefits, but American management would have none of that, of course, except measures inside the firm to increase co-operation and producticity. Of course. But what I mean is a healthy labor movement asking exactly the questions which you say our leading economists, like Krugman and Summers, don't. Was it the old business leadership inside manufacturing or the economists singing globalization who had the greater influence? Tough to answer, but I think that economists at Harvard, Yale, MIT, U of Chicago, Stanford and U of C Berkeley had an enormous influence, so I would disagree a bit with Miz below.
And I do recall one academic, Mark Blyth of Brown (more an economic historian that a Krugman type "modeler"), and one economic journalist with the Financial Times, Rana Foroohar who were very sceptical about the ability of American to take your root, doing so on cost structures vs SE Asia, India primarily. But they needed to h ear your central point of scale of production, which is very well taken.
Good one, Clyde! I share the historical perspective, agree with your reasoning, and suspect that not all the economists you mention would disagree. Another piece of the picture: Income tax reform, making the obscenely wealthy pay taxes on a fair share of their income, and corporations on profits, would generate enough revenue to reduce inequality by expanding basic public services and education, repairing and improving infrastructure, and bringing vital utilities (energy, transportation, communications) back under federal regulation (or better, control) so as to be able to mobilize them in the event of attack (outright or covert) by hostile dictatorships. How many millions does it really require to have a healthy, pleasant, satisfying life? Why don't top executives ever reduce their own bloated salaries and perks to enable their employees to flourish? One more thing: At our age, we don't need to buy more stuff we don't need with money we don't have. Everything I like in a store is like something I already have. And don't get me started about ugly fashions coming back! All best to you and your nearest & dearest.
Could not agree more re the need to deal with business leaders and major corporations on the trade and manufacturing issues. Did you see my article on Jamie Dimon and the banks? I attack the leading economists because they provide the rationale that justifies the destructive acts and policies of the banks and big industries.
Will definitely read it. I just found you on Substack. Believe it or not I first began following you while working for the Japanese Consulate in Portland. My first CG was a big fan of yours and we had long discussions about articles written by you or about you.
Yes, I am with you all the way. Stay tuned.
That is nice to hear. Where are you now and what are you doing? Send me an e mail address, Best, Clyde
While I have been a fan of yours for more years than I will admit, and I agree with you completely on the need to bring manufacturing back to this country, at least with regard to Krugman and Rampall, I don’t see them promoting China to the extent you suggest.
Frankly more than attacking the economists and op-ed folks in this country we should be going after the millionaire/billionaire CEO’s and Chairs of American corporations (really multinationals), their tunnel vision of providing solely for their stock holders (and of course their bottom lines) rather than the national interest and their workers. Every Republican administration has lowered taxes on the very people who are much more responsible for hollowing out our manufacturing sector. Instead of blaming Paul Krugman who writes a column, perhaps we should be blaming Jaime Dimond and all the hedge funds who buy up manufacturing companies then close them down and write off their “loss.”
Our tax system needs to be restructured so that the Mark Cubans, Elon Musks and Jeff Besos PAY TAXES and their companies pay taxes. I live in a rural area dependent on logging. A few years ago a hedge fund bought a fully functioning sawmill that provided 500+ jobs. A few months after buying it, they closed it and declared a loss. Thankfully a few years later it was purchased by a group of employees and is back producing.
It’s not the economists or op-ed writers who’ve caused our problems. It’s the CEOs, boards, banks and hedge funds who we should be blaming!
Well done Clyde. Now for those debates and the challenge you issued below: a healthy democracy would have them, but what are, exactly, besides writers like yourself, the institutional forces for dissent? A good labor movement might have broadened, not reduced the scope of bargaining beyond wages and benefits, but American management would have none of that, of course, except measures inside the firm to increase co-operation and producticity. Of course. But what I mean is a healthy labor movement asking exactly the questions which you say our leading economists, like Krugman and Summers, don't. Was it the old business leadership inside manufacturing or the economists singing globalization who had the greater influence? Tough to answer, but I think that economists at Harvard, Yale, MIT, U of Chicago, Stanford and U of C Berkeley had an enormous influence, so I would disagree a bit with Miz below.
And I do recall one academic, Mark Blyth of Brown (more an economic historian that a Krugman type "modeler"), and one economic journalist with the Financial Times, Rana Foroohar who were very sceptical about the ability of American to take your root, doing so on cost structures vs SE Asia, India primarily. But they needed to h ear your central point of scale of production, which is very well taken.
Good one, Clyde! I share the historical perspective, agree with your reasoning, and suspect that not all the economists you mention would disagree. Another piece of the picture: Income tax reform, making the obscenely wealthy pay taxes on a fair share of their income, and corporations on profits, would generate enough revenue to reduce inequality by expanding basic public services and education, repairing and improving infrastructure, and bringing vital utilities (energy, transportation, communications) back under federal regulation (or better, control) so as to be able to mobilize them in the event of attack (outright or covert) by hostile dictatorships. How many millions does it really require to have a healthy, pleasant, satisfying life? Why don't top executives ever reduce their own bloated salaries and perks to enable their employees to flourish? One more thing: At our age, we don't need to buy more stuff we don't need with money we don't have. Everything I like in a store is like something I already have. And don't get me started about ugly fashions coming back! All best to you and your nearest & dearest.
You are exactly right in your comments. Many thanks for reading my newsletter.