If you read the leftwing blogs, you’ll find a lot of interesting stuff about how the economy may have entered new territory where the usual landmarks of success and failure are no longer as reliable. Wages are stagnating despite increases in productivity, income inequality is widening in ways unseen before etc. I’m skeptical about some of it, intrigued by some of it, and in need of reading more before I make up my mind about the rest of it. If you want a really excellent primer on the nature of the debate and the issues involved from a liberal perspective, Jonathan Chait’s piece in the latest New Republic can’t be beat (Sub req’d).

My own two cents so far is that globalization has put labor markets at an unprecedented disadvantage and in important respects labor has been commodified. Hence the growing ranks of the super-rich are a bit like the so-called “robber barons” of the 19th century who benefitted enormously from the savings they delivered to the entire society. The problem: real commodities — wheat, wood, oil — don’t suffer when their prices drops. Metaphorical commodities — i.e. working folk — do suffer when their prices drop. I don’t pretend that this is a new insight or that it explains everything. Nor do I agree necessarily with the left’s intended solutions or analysis. But, I think the key point here is that no one is sure what’s going on including, to his credit, Chait. And I am surely more skeptical of the the doom-and-gloom which runs through a lot of the debate.

Anyway, I need to do more homework, so if anybody sees anything from free-market economics types directly addressing the issues in the Chait piece or this new argument generally, I’d appreciate it if they could send me a link or a head’s up. I’ve got plenty from the other side of the argument already.