The strong have taken advantage of globalization.

"Consider the Trump administration's reporting on poverty in the US. It seems that the baseline numbers produced by the US Census Bureau are (so far) intact, but there has been a flurry of misinterpretations that go beyond the usual partisan spin," wrote Prof Angus Deaton. The problem, according to Deaton, is that "traditional metrics, which measure income," have been abandoned in favor of consumption. "Consumption is arguably (but only arguably) superior to income as a welfare measure, but it is unclear how many of the very poor participate in a burdensome and intrusive survey that has a 40% non-response rate." A report by the United Nations Special Rapporteur, at the invitation of the US government, "includes tent camps on the streets of Los Angeles, yards awash in untreated sewage because local authorities refuse to supply services, and the widespread use of fines and confiscations levied on poor people that many towns and cities are using to finance themselves." According to the Census Bureau 39.7 million were poor in the US in 2017, which is 12.3% of the population, wrote Prof S Pressman. "In the US, child poverty rates surpassed 20 percent for several decades", when $1 spent on reducing child poverty yields $7 in the future. This is all the more galling because, "In the most unequal of all advanced economies, millions of struggling American families and future generations are paying for tax cuts for billionaires," wrote Prof J Stiglitz. A real definition of poverty should not depend only on wealth but also include "how secure people feel -- in their homes, their health, and their jobs", wrote N Smith. By this measure poverty level will be much higher. With a nominal GDP of $20.658 trillion and per capita GDP of $56,824 how can there be so much poverty in the US? Because, according to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), decades of globalization have made the global economy resemble that before World War I, with "unrestrained monopoly power, and financial speculation, leading to obscene inequality and frequent booms and busts". So, not Trump's fault after all. Prof Thomas Piketty became famous for his book "Capital in the Twenty-first Century" which highlighted concentration of wealth in the top 1%, which is then passed down as inheritance. Returns on capital are much greater than returns on education because wages are not increasing, so there should be higher taxes on profits, wrote Prof P Krugman. Increasing productivity with higher rewards is more inclusive than redistribution by higher taxes on the rich, wrote Prof R Hausmann. If globalization is responsible then Trump is surely right to be protectionist. That will be completely unacceptable to liberals.