2016 Postmortem

pampango

(24,692 posts)

83. This graph from Krugman shows the extent to which the poorest 70% have benefitted.

Fri Mar 25, 2016, 04:20 PM

Mar 2016

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/01/01/recent-history-in-one-chart/

It is certainly true that the global poor started from an extremely low level of income. I'm not sure how you get someone who is at an extremely low level of income to say a Western level of income in just a few years. The graph shows that progress has been made though much remains to be done.

The incomes gains of much of the global poor over the past 25 years is a good thing. What would make it better is if it came at expense of the global 1%, not from the Western middle class.

... the actual circumstances of those workers and the proximate causes of exactly why the increases occurred ...

Agreed. The income gains of the poorest 70% may have nothing to to with trade (free or otherwise). If that is the case it is important that we understand what did cause the gains (or what combination of factors), so that we do not short-circuit those gains in the future.

One point is that FDR believed that promoting international trade after WWII was key to spreading prosperity. He may have been wrong about that but it is not outside the realm of possibility that he was right.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

118 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

You can't have economic justice without redistribution. Free trade has helped hundreds of millions [View all] hill2016 Mar 2016 OP

Is this a joke? SHRED Mar 2016 #1

which part? hill2016 Mar 2016 #2

Biggest Lie perpetrated on the American Worker FreakinDJ Mar 2016 #101

Gist of OP: Sanders=American Socialist; Clinton=Global Socialist, sacrificing Americans for world! TheBlackAdder Mar 2016 #114

Yes. daleanime Mar 2016 #3

That explains our vanishing middle-class. dogman Mar 2016 #6

the US middle class IS THE top hill2016 Mar 2016 #15

And shrinking. dogman Mar 2016 #21

This is doubletalk. raging moderate Mar 2016 #80

We are seeing what's behind the curtain senz Mar 2016 #72

hard to tell sometimes GreatGazoo Mar 2016 #10

Clinton should definitely campaign on all those jobs she wants to keep sending to other countries. phantom power Mar 2016 #117

Third Way bullsh*t. Take your republican stances somewhere else. RiverLover Mar 2016 #4

Here-here Kittycat Mar 2016 #9

It's a bit rampant in the HRC side... SHRED Mar 2016 #14

I don't think they're a HRC supporter. PyaarRevolution Mar 2016 #47

Third Way, my ass. This is all-out corporatism. senz Mar 2016 #67

Take a close look Fairgo Mar 2016 #87

Yes. I know exactly what you mean. senz Mar 2016 #90

Wish we could rec posts - TY senz! and I'm bookmarking the post. n/t ebayfool Mar 2016 #104

It has provided slave labor jobs WDIM Mar 2016 #5

Wow. revbones Mar 2016 #7

I want a President of the United States, not a President of the World. Bread and Circus Mar 2016 #8

The corporate world SHRED Mar 2016 #11

economic justice knows no boundaries hill2016 Mar 2016 #12

The jurisdiction of the US presidency DOES have boundaries - the US. closeupready Mar 2016 #25

Sadly, the proven "bottom up" model for redistribution that the left has always endorsed ... 1StrongBlackMan Mar 2016 #29

We are supposed to be a representative democracy. Bread and Circus Mar 2016 #39

What the hell are you talking about? n/t 1StrongBlackMan Mar 2016 #48

Things you should understand but apparently act like you do not Bread and Circus Mar 2016 #49

Like what? Be specific. n/t 1StrongBlackMan Mar 2016 #59

Sorry but world economic justice is not the role of the President. Bread and Circus Mar 2016 #35

Hmmm.... revbones Mar 2016 #82

Neoliberalism is the opposite of economic justice AgingAmerican Mar 2016 #93

I'd settle for an old-fashioned Democrat senz Mar 2016 #68

Don't expect anything resembling economic logic from Hillary bashers. DanTex Mar 2016 #13

So NAFTA and CAFTA were good for the USA working-class? SHRED Mar 2016 #18

NAFTA and CAFTA has resulted hill2016 Mar 2016 #23

So you are openly pro-NAFTA/CAFTA. How about TPP? senz Mar 2016 #70

Protectionism will kill our exports and raise consumer prices. The trading world is now global. Trust Buster Mar 2016 #16

Giving "protectionism" a bad name is rightwing SHRED Mar 2016 #24

Nonsense. Digitalization and large container ships have shrunk the world. Protectionism has Trust Buster Mar 2016 #31

Yeah...right SHRED Mar 2016 #37

Your video did not answer the seminal question in my mind. Trust Buster Mar 2016 #69

NAFTA slowed the job loss to mexico BlueStateLib Mar 2016 #103

Thank you. I enjoyed reading your link. It is as I expected. A much larger issue was involved. Trust Buster Mar 2016 #111

We grow internally and adapt the market Kittycat Mar 2016 #30

You meant FAIR trade, right? GreenPartyVoter Mar 2016 #17

Nah...that's not what they meant SHRED Mar 2016 #20

Apparently not. *sigh* GreenPartyVoter Mar 2016 #26

Wish in one hand... nt Chezboo Mar 2016 #44

Only a DINO would support NAFTA SHRED Mar 2016 #19

The actual researched numbers on how many jobs NAFTA really cost the US has debunked much Jitter65 Mar 2016 #109

And it affords suicide nets. Wilms Mar 2016 #22

Perfect response! GreenPartyVoter Mar 2016 #27

Fucking A !!!!! SamKnause Mar 2016 #33

+10000 farleftlib Mar 2016 #54

Omg - you're joking? nt. polly7 Mar 2016 #28

No, polly. I think we're seeing the truth here senz Mar 2016 #66

It is amazing that someone can be so totally clueless, unless SamKnause Mar 2016 #32

Hey folks, either a troll or further proof of right-wing infestation. Broward Mar 2016 #34

It's amazing this post is allowed to stand SHRED Mar 2016 #42

Setting aside DU for a moment, it's amazing Broward Mar 2016 #45

In the bigger picture...yes. SHRED Mar 2016 #46

Free trade does the opposite of redistribution AgingAmerican Mar 2016 #36

Post removed Post removed Mar 2016 #38

. mmonk Mar 2016 #40

But i thought Bernie was all about "redistribution." Even when Hillary supports same ideas as BS Jitter65 Mar 2016 #41

NAFTA and CAFTA are indeed "redistribution" plans SHRED Mar 2016 #43

All the "dems" rushing agree and endorse your RW economic talking points reveal themselves whatchamacallit Mar 2016 #50

Thanks to NAFTA, Conditions for Mexican Factory Workers Like Rosa Moreno Are Getting Worse polly7 Mar 2016 #51

thank you SHRED Mar 2016 #56

You're very welcome, SHRED. Sad as all this is. nt. polly7 Mar 2016 #57

Rosa's story breaks my heart. closeupready Mar 2016 #61

Except that factory moved in the 1980s Recursion Mar 2016 #98

Mexican Maquiladora factories have been around since 1964 BlueStateLib Mar 2016 #100

Right, but LG built that particular one in IIRC 1987 Recursion Mar 2016 #105

OP Fixed... HumanityExperiment Mar 2016 #52

free trade=free slavery felix_numinous Mar 2016 #53

You dont read much, do you. bunnies Mar 2016 #55

Bullshit. Prove it with links and documentation. SHRED Mar 2016 #58

Well, thank god free trade appears to be one way under NAFTA. VulgarPoet Mar 2016 #60

The redistribution has been from the poor and middle class to the rich angstlessk Mar 2016 #62

IIRC, An interesting point about the poverty numbers is... kristopher Mar 2016 #64

Provided jobs my ASS. Provided slave labor that feeds America's obsession with consumerism. phleshdef Mar 2016 #63

LOL, looks like the globalists are trotting out the old "protectionism is racist" BS. Odin2005 Mar 2016 #65

I'm convinced that you're a performance artist. lumberjack_jeff Mar 2016 #71

I sure hope you are correct TheSarcastinator Mar 2016 #73

The poorest 70% of the world's population has seen impressive income gains but pampango Mar 2016 #74

"The poorest 70% of the world's population has seen impressive income gains" kristopher Mar 2016 #75

This graph from Krugman shows the extent to which the poorest 70% have benefitted. pampango Mar 2016 #83

I think FDR was correct. kristopher Mar 2016 #84

What is 'fair trade' and what is 'free trade'? Do we get to 'fair trade' through negotiated pampango Mar 2016 #86

Fair trade prioritizes domestic workers' rights and the health of the middle class. kristopher Mar 2016 #88

I would add that fair trade prioritizes ALL workers' rights, not just pampango Mar 2016 #91

Nope. kristopher Mar 2016 #92

If FDR has 'seen it differently', he would have acted differently and not proposed the ITO which was pampango Mar 2016 #96

I'm not in the mood for this kind of hair splitting kristopher Mar 2016 #97

"... if it's win-lose something needs to guide the decision making." That's the difference. pampango Mar 2016 #99

I'm sorry but that is nonsense kristopher Mar 2016 #113

I "injected" Trump because he is the antithesis of FDR: a unilateralist vs an internationalist. pampango Mar 2016 #116

This isn't responsive to my point. kristopher Mar 2016 #112

My definition of free trade is like that between American states or France and Germany. pampango Mar 2016 #115

Free trade is bullshit, doesn't exist, kinda like self regulating capitalism LOL Jackie Wilson Said Mar 2016 #76

Certainly provided jobs for people who make suicide nets! basselope Mar 2016 #77

What is 'free trade' to you? elleng Mar 2016 #78

At this point, you'll just make up any old bullshit and pretend to believe it. arcane1 Mar 2016 #79

Someone should just rejoin Republican Party. HooptieWagon Mar 2016 #81

^^^ THIS ^^^ senz Mar 2016 #85

And you need income taxes around the world so that the profits of all that trade go applegrove Mar 2016 #89

"provided jobs where previously the best jobs were in rural subsistence farming"? Cheese Sandwich Mar 2016 #94

Haha! Another Anti-Protectionist, wanting to devalue the US to help other countries. How American? TheBlackAdder Mar 2016 #95

you are so wrong! Cobalt Violet Mar 2016 #102

NO ONE is against trade. Trade is a good thing and has happened since the beginning of civilization glowing Mar 2016 #106

Everyone seems to like trade in principle. Fewer like it in practice. pampango Mar 2016 #110

As a person who owns a small manufacturing business Sky Masterson Mar 2016 #107

There's a reason they put child-proof caps on those bottles. Fuddnik Mar 2016 #108

OP what are you using for reference or source for that statement? What I have read is the gains Todays_Illusion Mar 2016 #118