Paul Krugman is a mixed-economy economist. He's for regulated capitalism with a splash of welfare state. His heart leans in the right direction relative to the vast majority of laissez faire advocates.
In his recent op-ed, Paul pretty much says that lower skilled and lower educated Americans are hurting because the U.S. is obtaining more and more of its goods from third-world nations where wages are a couple of dollars a day, if that.
Here's the article: "Trouble With Trade," by Paul Krugman. The New York Times. December 28, 2007.
No article can cover it all, but Paul is wrong that the better educated people aren't starting to hurt too by the importation of workers from especially India. Paul also doesn't mention that the wages in those third-world nations are worse than slave wages in most cases and that the markup on the goods is astronomical thereby allowing the middlemen and women to gouge at both ends.
The trouble with trade includes all the occupation safety and health problems, all the environmental damage, the global warming increased by long-distance shipping, and on and on and on.
Of course, no article by a leading mixed-economy economist is going to go by unaddressed by the invisible hand.
Here's a good example: "Perspective on Trade," by Don Boudreaux. Cafe Hayek.. December 29, 2007.
Now, Paul is negatively criticized for not being an orthodox libertarian capitalist whose position is that capitalist economics automatically finally finds the best path of least resistance to material prosperity. It's akin to necessity and greed being the twin mother's of invention and salvation. What it does is completely hate and therefore ignore the result of unbridled cooperation rather than competition. For these people, the military and police exist to stop anyone becoming successful via cooperation, egalitarianism, community property, and all things unselfish. Their law is "Be Selfish or Else!"
The trouble with trade is that it stymies giving and sharing. Trade is for profiting off your siblings. Giving and sharing is for benefiting them instead. Which do you think is the righteous spirit? Which do you think can best run the house, which is what the economist is supposed to know how to do? To the libertarian capitalists, systemic unemployment is just a law of economics. Actually, it's only a law if you're hardhearted, which means it's a falsehood. The real law of economics is softheartedness.