[simonh]

I think I have a bit more of a globalist perspective. I understand that incomes in the West have stagnated, but hundreds of millions of people across the world have risen out of poverty. It helps that my wife is Chinese and I've seen first hand the incredible transformation of that country. Looking at the world as a whole, the situation for the majority of the population is vastly better now than it was back in the 70s and 80s. It's almost miraculous.

Could the West have done anything different to preserve or advance worker incomes? I really don't think so. In theory all those manufacturing jobs in China could have been kept in the US or Europe, but I don't think that would actually have made anyone better off. The goods produced that way would have cost a lot more, to the workers as well as everyone else. Trade barriers are a conscious decision to make your economy less efficient and raise costs for all of the population in order to subsidize a few. It's not as if everyone working in manufacturing in the West became unemployed either - unemployment is no higher than it was in the 80s and the employment rate is actually higher.

As for the crash in 2008, yes it sucked but I believe it was inevitable. Where was the political pressure to reduce mortgage lending before 2008? Where was the popular pressure to reduce mortgage relief and reign back loans to home buyers that would have prevented the sub-prime crisis? There wasn't any. Instead all the popular and political pressure was on relaxing loan criteria, opening up access to 105% mortgages and expanding access to credit. The banks were doing exactly what the people and their elected leaders were demanding that they do. That doesn't excuse any wrong-doing or relieve anyone of responsibility for their actions, but lets be realistic. All the popular pressure was leaning hard towards boosting the credit bubble and an eventual collapse. Bank leaders should have better managed their portfolios and more responsibly managed their risks, but that would have at best delayed the inevitable.

So yes, the Dick "Deficits don't matter" Cheney attitude cost the USA a lot and exacerbated the bubble and it's collapse, but the wars are really a footnote to the overall economic picture at the 30 year level. The global economy and expanded and diversified. We live in a world with dramatically less poverty than 30 years ago. In 1981 52% of the world lived in poverty, now it's 22%. That's a stunning achievement.

[Gibbon1]

> I think I have a bit more of a globalist perspective. I understand that incomes in the West have stagnated, but hundreds of millions of people across the world have risen out of poverty.

This line is pure propaganda. And you've internalized and are now repeating it as your own.

[simonh]

I've physically, personally seen it happen.

[Gibbon1]

The propaganda contains a false assumption. That for people in China to not be totally poor the working/middle class in the US need to regress economically. Note the very wealthy got wealthier at the same time incomes stagnated for everyone else. And economic security declined.

It's propaganda.

[simonh]

> That for people in China to not be totally poor the working/middle class in the US need to regress economically.

I clearly, explicitly stated that I don't think that's the case.

I don't think the rise of China has really cost much in the way of working/middle class incomes. I think that's largely due to increasing automation, but rising inequality is certainly part of the equation.

[Gibbon1]

> I don't think the rise of China has really cost much in the way of working/middle class incomes.

This contradicts your original statement.