>Seth & Doug can speak for themselves. I said
>NOTHING about the effect of progressive groups
>on improvements for low-income workers. I said
>the improvements for low-income workers, such as
>they were, could not be important explanatory
>factors in the economic boom, contrary to your
>assertion. I will not review my arguments,
>unless somebody begs me to.
Max, we don't have to go round and round, but you still illustrate the point I made that liberals seem determined to make the argument that improving the economic condition of lower-income workers does nothing significant for the overall economy.
You have the right of course to have that opinion, but I find it amazing that folks are so determined to make that argument. For decades, liberal economic folks argued that bottom-up demand-side economics meant that helping lower-income workers was a good way to help the overall economy. Now, you reject that argument as absolutely unlikely.
Noting that change in liberal economic thinking was my point.
-- Nathan Newman