Eduardo Porter, writing in the New York Times, says we need policies to help adjust to, not fight against, economic globalization.
In the Financial Times, Jared Bernstein argues that our chief tax problem is lack of revenues, not lack of progressivity.
The Porter analysis is an empty exercise.
First of all, the argument that globalization is irreversible. That assertion is not an appeal to science or history, but a false and sentimental appeal to nature. (It is this way because it must be this way…) Globalization has gone through cycles before. An analysis that does not acknowledge and investigate this history is falls into the category of propaganda for current conditions (and elites).
Second of all, the notion that education will cure us is highly dubious – and again, it is asserted, not argued. The data doesn’t support that our workforce/jobs problem is education.
Third, the notion that international agreements will protect our middle class – this is to laugh. All over the world governments scurry and plot to protect their middle class. They will hardly be good faith participants in this sop to American political discontent. The reason we don’t try to protect our jobs is not economics but simply the lack of representation in our political system of non-elite actors and communities. Our system is corporate dominated and they make their dime from driving down labor costs. Welcome to the New World Order. It hardly needs an apologia from the likes of you, but hey. Thanks for trying.