I cannot argue with the economics: our financial woes arise from financial markets, and not some inherent lack of "competitiveness." If, that is, anyone is to give any credence whatsoever to Ricardo et al. regarding comparative advantage (cf., Obama and pols, to "absolute" advantage) But they don't teach econ to college kids anymore -- even the Ivy League kind, apparently.
What Krugman misses in this piece, however, is that not only do our financial woes arise from financial market shenanigans, it is these very markets that will stand behind Obama's America, Inc. platform -- a platform that encourages the slashing and exporting of jobs.
Specifically, I'm talking about this part:
But isn’t it at least somewhat useful to think of our nation as if it were America Inc., competing in the global marketplace? No.
Consider: A corporate leader who increases profits by slashing his work force is thought to be successful. Well, that’s more or less what has happened in America recently: employment is way down, but profits are hitting new records. Who, exactly, considers this economic success?
Still, you might say that talk of competitiveness helps Mr. Obama quiet claims that he’s anti-business. That’s fine, as long as he realizes that the interests of nominally “American” corporations and the interests of the nation, which were never the same, are now less aligned than ever before.(emphasis added)
Who, indeed? benefits if jobs are sent overseas?
"Greedy corporate executives!"
-- the kneejerk liberal response.But why, I ask, would greedy corporate execs make a ton of money if jobs were shed????
Their stock options. Which balloon in value as the short term share price rises.
Why do execs get stock options?
To incentivize them to do everything possible to raise share price over the short term.
Who wants to incentivize them?
The financial markets.
Big fat investors.
Goldman. Who's got its hands on both sides of every transaction -- and not just the "proprietary trading" kind.
