3 ms·
Same with Bush. I recall reading that he grew government almost as much as LBJ. I suspect that both Cruz and Trump would do likewise, maybe more than Clinton o
by api 11y ago
Same with Bush. I recall reading that he grew government almost as much as LBJ.
I suspect that both Cruz and Trump would do likewise, maybe more than Clinton or even Sanders. Trump in particular I predict would be a big spender.
But this misses the point. The part of neoliberalism that isn't working is free trade. It's turned into a way for domestic corporations to leverage foreign authoritarian regimes and their oppressed populations as a sink of cheap labor. It's becoming clear that the reciprocal side of free trade may never come as states like China won't allow it, which makes it just a unilateral liquidation of the American worker and American industry.
I am absolutely for free trade with free people but that rhetoric has been used to sell something much different.
- entee 11y agoI think a great many people who would consider themselves Keynesians are rather pro free-trade. I'm thinking here of Paul Krugman who despite have recently backed off saying trade is universaly good has been very much pro free trade. It's also not at all clear that free trade is the primary culprit in the decline of manufacturing labor. Robots are way cheaper over the long term than are even abused sweat-shop workers. Krugman acknowledges that trade as universally positive is a bit wrong, but even so doesn't think protectionism is necessarily the correct solution. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/28/opinion/trade-labor-and-politics.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/28/opinion/trade-labor-and-po...
- ArkyBeagle 11y agoExactly. This being said, the poor huddled masses of the authoritarian regimes generally get a little bit freer and have an improved standard of living because of it, generally.