> ..Economists, who have prospered mightily over the past half century, might fairly be accused of having a vested interest in capitalism as it currently operat

> ..Economists, who have prospered mightily over the past half century, might fairly be accused of having a vested interest in capitalism as it currently operates. > Without an analysis of power, it is hard to understand inequality or much else in modern capitalism. > After economists on the left bought into the Chicago School’s deference to markets—“we are all Friedmanites now”—social justice became subservient to markets > ..We have largely stopped thinking about ethics and about what constitutes human well-being. We often equate well-being with money or consumption > currently approved methods, randomized controlled trials, differences in differences, or regression discontinuity designs, have the effect of focusing attention on local effects, and away from potentially important but slow-acting mechanisms that operate with long and variable lags > today large corporations have too much power over working conditions, wages, and decisions in Washington, where unions currently have little say compared with corporate lobbyists. > Economists’ enthusiasm for technical change as the instrument of universal enrichment is no longer tenable (if it ever was). > [I] am even skeptical of the claim..that globalization was responsible for the vast reduction in global poverty.. I also no longer defend the idea that the harm done to working Americans by globalization was a reasonable price to pay for global poverty reduction