Not to mention that his argument only works if we conveniently forget how "globalization" has been, for previous decades, the rallying cry of those seeking to rip apart the welfare state, destroy unions, and so on. I didn't hear Brooks and company complaining when "globalization" was good for conservative policies.
This is quite a bad column. Brooks says things like "90 percent of fixed investment is domestic" -- a meaningless statement unless one defines "domestic". He says the U.S. share of global manufacturing output is up slightly since 1980 -- so what? The more important point (as he immediately goes on to note) is that manufacturing everywhere is becoming less labor-intensive. The solution? Brooks apparently thinks everyone should become "symbolic analysts," to recycle Robert Reich's phrase of some years ago. Is this really feasible or sensible?
Commenting by HaloScan.com
