Pretty sure you meant gist not jest, but in any case, not sure I'm following how what you're saying conflicts with Krugman.youthathletics wrote: ↑Wed Feb 28, 2024 2:55 pmHave had some in depth conversations over this very topic, for years, and often with afan.Seacoaster(1) wrote: ↑Wed Feb 28, 2024 2:14 pm Seacoaster(1) » Wed Feb 28, 2024 2:14 pm
Good column by Krugman in the Times. If you can put aside your prejudices about the publication and the author, you'll see a pretty enlightening article -- and the stuff a fan has harped on for years and years:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/26/opin ... oters.html
....
To start, I believe it has little to nothing to do with white, rural, or even technology.....but hold that thought.
My sense, is that this snowball started building after the winddown from the manufacturing/spending boom post WWII, and the hangover never fully settled until the DOT.COM boom under Clinton. Everything post wwII was what we now call "small business', only it was rural farming, main street farm to table living Then marketing and consumerism begin to really creep in, families started the 'competing with the jones' mentality....things were going just swell; the two houses and picket fence life. Then bottom dropped out again in the 70's and 80's, as we began importing a ton of crap we didn't really need from overseas...and things we did need, came a bit cheaper...flyover America was still in a somewhat decent spot.
As consumerism ramped up, so did big box, putting more demand on fly-over/small town America famers. What was once a small sustainable farm for tobacco, corn, wheat, soy, cotton, etc. for the demands of their time, were now faced with not being able to produce the yield of the consumerism.....In comes, Big AG, to save the day...... gobbling up mom and pop farms, after leasing them high dollar equipment and high tech to gain more yield....but then came a time pay those bills and it did not bear fruit; rubbing two nickels together and lobbying congress for help.
Talk about dignity, IMO it was pulled out from under them like a rug....they were just fine up until the demands put upon them were falsely created in the name of consumerism and following the money from major manufactures of widgets. Walmart was famous for this...... they'd sell your product, then ask for a guarantee of x more than you were capable. You'd tool up to meet that commitment then they give you the Heisman and move on to someone else; your doors are not shut, struggling.
I could go on further, but you get the jest.
I personally think it is a weak argument by Krugman, trying to find a way to spin a web of something else Trump is responsible for, rather than understanding history of the last 60+ years. He certainly has nice subject to discuss, but missed the mark, IMO.
This is a brief read and I believe Sarah Pruitt could teach Krugman something: https://www.history.com/news/post-world ... om-economy
I just read Krugman's piece (I haven't read some of the works he cites) and I read the short piece you provided. I don't see the conflict.
Pruitt describes the post WWII era fine, IMO. I found her "the pessimists were proven wrong" quite correct, indeed pent-up demand and tremendous federal spending on infrastructure and direct support programs like the GI Bill fueled that demand. I realize that you have a great deal of disdain for "consumerism" but that's what capitalism thrives upon. Unless you're saying you are anti-capitalist, that's the economic reality.
Krugman is saying that within that economic system construct, technology adapts and innovates to meet and even create demand, quite creatively and productively, but not without creating losers and winners, and that process can create enormous societal stresses.
Innovation and technology come in all sorts of different shapes and sizes. Obviously big AG is hugely more efficient at producing mass food than are small farmers; that's an economic reality...what you left out is that our politicians have also funded Big AG hugely, Big Corn, Big Sugar, Big Meat being the beneficiaries...and at big societal cost...yes, the loss of small farm, fresh food to table, etc but also the healthcare costs of advantaging high carb, highly processed foods over fresh whole produce and with enormous environmental and climate costs.
Yes, the innovation of retail ala Walmart has created massively more efficient low cost retailing meeting consumer demand better than the mom and pop independents. And online and overnight is creating destruction of previous retail models further. This all "technology". It provides low cost goods, but it has all sorts of societal costs in exchange, winners and losers.
Likewise, technology has produced tremendous 'winners' in areas with high aggregate population with high educational attainment. People aspiring to be such winners shift to live in those regions. And others build businesses and work in businesses that support those populations. Krugman points out that it's very difficult now for new arrivals to find adequate housing prior to their own higher income achievement...so, there's some friction to doing so. He critiques 'blue" cities and states for not making it less hard to come and join the better opportunities.
Krugman is focused specifically on the dignity question, though there are other important societal costs such as those I mention.
Krugman might say, or I would definitely say: that's why we need, smarter government policies, as simply providing massive wealth transfer from wealthier, more productive more urban regions to low producing rural regions doesn't address the core issue of the dignity of work.
I don't see that as in core conflict with Pruitt's take on what happened post WWII.
As to the white, rural and technology, I think it's quite clear that technology in all its forms of innovation only gain traction if they produce value appreciated by the market for goods and services and it's quite clear that the technology innovations have produced lots of rural output but support very few jobs in region. Factual.
As to "white", while there's lots of diversity in rural regions, those in the working class, whether farmers, merchants, blue collar manufacturing, etc who used to be on the positive end of the regional social strata were predominantly...white. But unemployment is a big social leveler and not in a good way. There's a lot of resentment about that loss of social status differential. So, with the ready access to (technology) cable news and radio etc that seeks to stoke these resentments as part of their business model, the comparison is not just with the social strata within their little town or region but rather with the big city life...with all its high income, education, and yup, diversity... on stark display to them.
I don't read Krugman blaming any of this on Trump nor would I. He says Trump is a "huckster who offers little other than validation for their resentment." Correct, he's a con man and wannabe authoritarian using these folks for his ends, not theirs. But he didn't cause their troubles, he's just taking advantage of them.
And the ramifications are potentially very serious.
Bemoaning consumerism or even globalism seems to me to be a bit of flat earth wishful thinking...IMO, we need to evolve our policies to address our evolving realities, and yes, with a big emphasis on the dignity of work.
