Well you brought him up when you thought he agreed with you. Why did YOU bring him up?You brought him up, not me. Righties love growing inequality, this is your dream. He is stating it has been more disruptive than they expected. He would also tell you tariffs are disruptive, look at the steel layoffs.He is not someone I ever reference, you lie again.So, the guy that took 30 years to notice that by the 90s, the policies he had pushed, since the 70s, failed,
he thinks the worsts is past US now?
Well, color me reassured.
NOT!
And of course, once again you dodge the point, and just move on to your next attack.
This economic, who I think is one of the ones you cited in the past, admits the problems, I was pointing out, these last few months.
THe problems that, before this, you were blaming on everything else, when you weren't pretending to be unaware of them.
AND puts the cause on the policies of globalization, to a great extent, just like I said.
You going to defer to his authority now?
Rhetorical question. I know you will just move on to your next attack,
Willy.
![]()
Again, he doesn't agree with you. He is not for tariffs. You lose again.
1. I asked if he was one of those you referenced. And you call me a liar for asking a question. Once again, you are playing dishonest games.
2. My point was that he agrees on the problem and the connection to globalization. ONce again, you dodge my point, and just move on to your next attack. Willy.
3. This guy admits that he took 30 years to notice that the results were not what he expected. Why the fuck should we listen to him now?
1. And you called me a liar for asking if he was one of the ones you referenced. Willy.
2. "more disrupted than expected"? Yeah, this is after decades and millions of lost jobs, and he is admitting that his advice was wrong, and resulted in untold pain and suffering. See past the spin.
3. Yes, he would. But why the fuck would we listen to this loser, who just admitted that his life work was a fuck up?
I clearly stated why I brought him up. It was the point we have been discussing for weeks. It was the point you cut from the top of this thread post so that you could pretend to be confused about what the point was.
Willy.
The point is that unbalanced trade is at least a big part of, if not the primary cause of the wage stagnation we have seen over the last 50 years.
You ignored that, pretended to be confused about that, even though it has been the crux of our disagreement for weeks, and even though I specifically said that was why I brought him up,
and without a single hint of addressing it, like Wally did, "ok", you immediately moved on to your next line of attack.
Ask yourself this, if by some magic, I nailed you down and you admitted that trade was a major cause of wage stagnation,
would you next time the issue came up, start over at the beginning of your circular argument, pretending that never happened?