Doing nothing will not reduce inequality.

"US President Donald Trump is about to make a policy mistake," writes Professor Kaushik Basu. Trump wants to increase taxes on imports of foreign goods, restrict inflow of foreign workers, by restricting immigration, and reduce outsourcing. This will hurt countries in Latin America, Africa and Asia, but, "This is not the way to help the US working class today," he writes. The main problem is robotics and Artificial Intelligence. "From 1948-94, employment in the manufacturing sector fell by 50%, but production rose by 190%." Manufacturing based on robots and AI cost a lot to set up but running costs are very low because robots do not have salaries or medical bills, can work 24/7, without breaking labor laws, and produce perfect results every time, removing waste. That being the case US companies should be manufacturing as cheaply in the US as they do in China. So why the outcry against Trump? Because global elites have gained from the present system, writes Anantha Nageswaran. "That is, the problem is not so much that the 'global citizens' really had a trans-national and global agenda but that it was a fig leaf for for personal and narrow group aggrandizement," he writes. "Globalization of tax evasion -- elites relocate not just their production but their identities to where they are taxed the least -- is a major problem." So it is all for black money. Not much different from India, is it? Professor Dani Rodrik makes the case that a 'global citizen' has no responsibility or accountability and, hence, does not mean anything. "While some forms of targeted protection may be able to play a role in supporting US workers, neo-protectionism is not the answer," writes Basu. "And it would not just be ineffective, it would do substantial harm." How do you know? Professor Barry Eichengreen wrote that economic models are good at explaining complex problems but polices must be based on facts, not theories. Professor Noah Smith found that most of economic teaching in Econ 101 is probably wrong. Increasing minimum wage does not result in reduction of workforce in the short term and welfare payments do not increase laziness in society. Even the theories of the great Milton Friedman do not stand up fully when examined against research data. Rodrik makes the common sense suggestion that one economic model cannot fit every country. Climate, culture, political integrity and where in the world a country is situated will determine its economic growth. "Moreover, real wages have been stagnant for decades; the real median income is the same today as it was in 1998," writes Basu. The income of the poorest 20% has decreased from 1973 to 2014, while the income of the richest 5% has doubled. Surely, every reason to try something new?