the "culture" of small town pennsylvania (4.00 / 3)

I agree that the appropriate response from progressives here should be to refocus back to reality -- the actual issues that Obama is standing for.

I don't particularly think that hammering the culture of small towns is going to help matters, but I wanted to bring something up that struck me today. In particular, it is currently OK -- in fact, more than OK, it's encouraged -- to talk about the cultural problems of black America. To talk about how lazy black people are, how the kids are out of control, all of that -- a la Bill Cosby. You can make a mint these days going on television and saying that the "real" problem is not government policy (or lack thereof) or economics or whatever, but the people themselves.

So it's telling -- though hardly surprising -- that when the tables are turned, ever so slightly, and Obama suggests that "small town" Pennsylvania has got some cultural problems too, he is an out-of-touch elitist. I don't think politicans should be in the business of blaming culture, or even trying to "fix it" -- they are politicans who invent new laws and projects, not Gods or experimental sociologists, by the way.

---

by: sdedeo @ Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 16:43:38 PM CDT

Excellent Point Re Whose Culture We're Allowed To Mouth Off About (4.00 / 1)

Beyond that, though, it's not that they should say nothing about culture.  After all, government succedes by taking all factors into account.

You bring jobs into an area, and you improve the culture.  That's pretty much a given.  You take them away, and you wreck it.

But this talking about culture in a vacumm shit, that's definitely got to stop.

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 16:55:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

yes that is true (0.00 / 0)

I was a bit too strong. The "Cosby Types" though take the primary problem to be the culture -- i.e., "nothing will work because they're so screwed up" is the essential point. A caricature, of course -- but the essence of the appeal to the right. On the other hand, I agree that "smart" policy will lead to healthier cultures -- just not that cultures can improve without better investment, better social programs, better and juster economic practice -- etc. etc..

---

by: sdedeo @ Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 18:09:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

None of this is seperate.... (0.00 / 0)

They are all parts that make up the whole.  There is personal responsibility.  There is opportunity or lack of it.  There is frustration and sometimes anger that manifests itself in a litany of complaints about the symptoms because there is no ability to diagnos and prescribe the cause.  

It is important not to name call and not to over simplify and seperate.   I don't think Obama has a clue, and I do think HRC is bait and switch.   I think Bob Oak is right about jobs, the impact of "illegal" immigration, and the oblivious and elitist attitude of DC insiders to the destruction they have brought on this country and the working man through trade pacts that are anything but free.   This is the American trickle down economy.   Bear Sterns gets a gusher of millions, and the little guy gets a trickle of dimes.  

...once you're willing to say whatever it takes to win, you lose. ~~Dean

---

by: dkmich @ Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 04:51:32 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

agreed (4.00 / 1)

These identity politics obfuscates the real economic injustice going on.  

Just a minor thing, I watched some investigative report talking about new teachers getting burnt out quickly in teaching inner city schools.  

Well, one segment showed this new teacher having a class of 39 12 year olds.  On and on the documentary droned, focusing in on this teacher's erosion into resentment and low morale. Yet,  the answer was right there, staring right at you on the video tape.

39 12 year olds from dysfunctional, poverty stricken families where the parents to survive economically were working 3 jobs, thus never home.  39 12 year olds, acting out, raging hormones....chaos.

39 kids at age 12.  

You could see on the video tape, right there, in reality No way in hell could that teacher reach those kids or have an influence.  That's just too many students.  There was simply not enough time to even get to know them, never mind focus in on influencing those kids.  8 hrs/39 kids = 12.3 minutes per kid, each day.  No way in hell to have any influence in their lives or to actually teach them.

Such an obvious thing, but never even mentioned during the whole report.

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist

---

by: Robert Oak @ Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 17:34:43 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I Haven't Really Looked Into This (0.00 / 0)

But I've heard that in some (many? most?) European countries, they spend more money per capita on students from poorer backgrounds, on the theory that they don't have as strongly supported a learning environment at home, and in their culture generally, so they need an enhanced educational setting, just to bring them up to even.

Here, we go with the Bible--"Them that's got shall get, them that's not shall lose." (Billie Holiday translation).

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 17:52:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

sure seemed insane to me (0.00 / 0)

I forgot they were rotating the students out per period so that was something like 39*4 or so different classes.  Well, getting some adult attention, some support, role models help seems fairly common sense.  Maybe someone who really knows K12 will write some posts.

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist

---

by: Robert Oak @ Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 18:50:32 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

one thing i find reading "teacher narratives"... (0.00 / 0)

is that the teachers do complain about more than "just money". Sadly, the problems with our educational system are "holistic" and not just the sum of little things (leaking roofs, etc.)

I certainly think that we need to do more than just "put money in the system" -- we do need better ideas about how to help teachers teach. There was an interesting article in the Atlantic about the problems caused by local funding and how better to get both equality in schooling resources while allowing for experimentation and local innovations.

---

by: sdedeo @ Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 19:04:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Let's Just Be Clear (4.00 / 1)

US Suburban public schools are about as good as any schools on the planet.  Comparable to South Korea and Japan.  Also, there are entire states--Iowa comes to mind--whose statewide averages put them in the top international echelon.  So money (in the first case) and relative social stability (of which strong support systems, like PTAs, are born, in the second) are certainly huge factors.

Better ideas? Sure! Here's one: Spend more money!  Make kids feel valued by actually valuing them!

I believe it was Fortune magazine back in the 1990s that said it was a waste of money for folks to be sending their kids to private schools in such a situation.  I don't know, maybe it was Money magazine.  Either way, t'warn't Workers Daily.

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 19:19:03 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yes, this should be pointed out (0.00 / 0)

after going to high school and college in the midwest, I was absolutely floored at the low quality of incoming college freshmen at what is supposed to be the flagship institution of the state of Texas.  

It is absolutely astounding how awful the investment in schooling is down here--the students are trained to be obsessed about high stakes testing and grades.  The knowledge is an afterthought.  The funding scheme might be different, but I think the good ol' focus on a broad, liberal education is probably even more important (as is family support, which I can't speak to at all on a region to region basis).

---

by: Valatan @ Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 19:25:36 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Education or Wages? (4.00 / 2)

I'm not sure how much of a winning issue it is for the Democrats. Tell voters that you want to cut class sizes and spend more money, and they think, "Uh-oh, higher taxes. And for what?"

I mean, what's the point of education in the modern economy? The answer: To get ahead. Well, the reality is that even college grads are seeing their wages stagnate. So, maybe it's time to re-think this one and attack the source, which is low wages themselves.

Think of it this way: An awful lot of desperately stupid people got good-paying jobs between 1945 and 1975. Of course, we want people to be well-educated, but it's just not true that higher education will automatically confer better employment compensation.

I really think that, when it comes to education, in many ways the string is played out. One-quarter of American adults have college degrees, and now their wages are stagnant, too.  A bunch of other means of raising family take-home pay are played out as well: increased female participation in the labor force, stock market gains, home value gains, the use of credit, you name it.

But I'll tell you what's not played out, because it hasn't even been seriously examined. In the past 20 years, the average return on equity of an American corporation has risen by 50%. Want to know why wages are stagnant? Because all of the productivity increases from computerization have gone to corporate owners, while the workers have been held stagnant.

Democratic candidates shouldn't be talking about statistics, they should be seriously dusting off the rhetoric about rich Republicans and then coming up with some simple, digestible ideas for righting the wrong. Edwards was great, but he just wasn't the right guy, and I think it was because he wasn't bold enough or simple enough. The haircut didn't help him a whole lot, either.

This is a matter not just for individual candidates but for the Democratic Party, which will either return to its roots of supporting the interests of wage earners or die a justified death.

---

by: C-Pluckhahn @ Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 18:04:42 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

... (0.00 / 0)

"An awful lot of desperately stupid people got good-paying jobs between 1945 and 1975."

It's an amusing way to put it, but you're right (I would change "desperately stupid" to "poorly educated".) The idea that education will somehow magically make the economy work is bogus; there are excellent reasons to educate people but "to compensate for unjust economics" is not one.  

---

by: sdedeo @ Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 18:13:49 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

stupid people (4.00 / 2)

What strikes me in this statement is something happened to the principle that everyone deserves a right to work and a reasonable quality of life, even stupid people.

It is our duty now to begin to lay the plans and determine the strategy for the winning of a lasting peace and the establishment of an American standard of living higher than ever before known. We cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people-whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth-is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure.

This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights-among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.

As our nation has grown in size and stature, however-as our industrial economy expanded-these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.

We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. "Necessitous men are not free men." People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all-regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens.
- Franklin D. Roosevelt

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist

---

by: Robert Oak @ Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 18:22:55 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm Not Nostalgic About Factories (4.00 / 3)

Remember when Bruce Springsteen made "Born in the U.S.A.?" Well, maybe not. I don't know how old you are, so maybe that was before your time. I think it was '83 or '84 when it was a hit. I remember telling some people then that nostalgia for a way of living is inversely proportional to the number of people who are forced into it.

I did my time in factories. Fortunately, they were summer jobs while I was in college. There were some very smart people working in factories, but not many. The far more typical pattern was that factories were the refuge for the mentally lazy. Which is fine, by the way. I don't think someone should have to be at the top of their class to make 25 bucks an hour plus benefits.

My point is that education, while very important and something I've always supported and voted for, is not necessarily the answer to the wage stagnation question.

---

by: C-Pluckhahn @ Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 18:24:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Can THIS become the response to the next war? (0.00 / 0)

"Uh-oh, higher taxes. And for what?"

Or, even Sen. McCain's "Super Surge", or whatever fool idea he comes up with?

Why do people worry about taxes when its about educating, but salute the flag when its about war?


"One day, when we stand on this thing that we have built and know the virtues of height, then will the gods become the sacrificed - and WE the cleanser of souls."

---

by: SpitBall @ Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:52:07 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Agree with many of your points (0.00 / 0)

I'm a liberal leftist Democrat in Los Angeles, and let me tell you I'm right with you regarding our messed-up immigration policies. What's frustrating is that almost NONE of our politicians (outside of loons like Tom Tancredo) bother to take this immigration stuff seriously without demagoguing it.

You have John McCain pushing his guest worker plans and telling the AFL-CIO that they wouldn't pick lettuce even if he paid them $50/hour to do it. Obama's NEVER said anything as condescending as that! Almost every Republican, from Bush on down, has pushed the line that there are jobs Americans "won't do". My parents picked apples and cleaned toilets, so what Americans are they talking about?

And yes, the Democrats haven't been any better. Although I would say that Bill Clinton never proposed a "guest worker" plan, he actually did build a border fence here in San Diego, and there was no talk of amnesty during the 1990s. But going forward, I don't see any candidates on either side really talking straight about the costs of immigration.

But I still support Obama. Why? Because when it comes down to it he is a people-powered candidate. He's not a DLC-creation like Hillary, he's not a corporate-controlled Bush-type Republican like John McCain.  Obama isn't going to write policy based on what corporations want, not when his lefty aides and cabinet members and red state Senators tell him what's really going on. He's smarter than the other candidates, he has more empathy and understanding of working class frustrations, and I think his progressive policies will surprise us all once he is elected.

McCain and Hillary aren't gonna do anything to upset their corporate bosses. Obama is the real game-changer here, and if you want an America-first president he's the one to support.

Old Man McCain - The best anti-McCain blog on the web!

---

by: existenz @ Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 04:43:12 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Obama (0.00 / 0)

I'm not so sure about that frankly.  I know what you're saying and it's why I'm personally not really blogging for either candidate, focused in on actual policy, but there really are some powerful interests behind the Obama campaign, such as private equity hedge funds, SEIU, Google and so on.  I don't know why folks cannot follow the money and realize this.

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist

---

by: Robert Oak @ Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 15:18:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Look, I basically agree with him (0.00 / 0)

but that's not why this is being called a 'gaffe." Oak's is in the minority. People like BTD who are saying its not the Presidential candidates job to tell the truth are the majority. That's the problem.

Let's also be clear. I agree that diagnosing why people are bitter or angry isn't the solution. he's right all Obama was doing was the Oprah-like I can identity your problem without any solutions. BUT, for Obama to even admit this given where he's been is a big deal. I am not going to toss that out because it could be the start of a dialogue that moves him toward policies we want OR people can choose to attack him for it, and have him move back toward the safer territory of saying nothing and making the real elites feel good about the fact that under him nothing will change.

This is the problem as I see it- people are using the perfect (what they would like him to be) as the enemy of the good to okay (that he is moving in a direction that at least is the right one for our purposes). What I think has happened is that he will abort these efforts before they have even fully developed.

Some such as Oak's don't see that. i do. Go read the posts by Sullivan or by BTD. Tell me that they aren't attacking the comments for entirely different reasons than cited by Oaks. Tell me that they aren't saying that its the underlying issue that he maybe describing some sort of truth that bothers them.

I don't see it in either one is angry and therefore its just emotions or one has real reasons to be concerned terms. It's in fact both. It's a false kind of choice to say that people who are being hurt don't have a reason to be angry. Or as someone once told me- just because someone has a chip on their shoulders doesn't mean there is not a reason for it to be there. I believe progressives a real problem with understanding emotions.

---

by: bruhrabbit @ Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 17:06:21 PM CDT

But The Point Of This Diary Is To STOP Letting Sullivan & Co Set Our Agenda (4.00 / 5)

You can talk about that at the old diary, where 95% of this diary comes from.

I wanted to give us a chance to refocus on what we should be talking about.  Because if we don't talk about it, then it's pretty damn pointless to just blindly hope that the politicians will.

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 17:12:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Good point. (0.00 / 0)

---

by: bruhrabbit @ Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 17:33:36 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I think i have overlooked this as the ultimate goal (0.00 / 0)

I think that so much of your post was rooted in a discussion about what Obama said, and that Robert is so intensely singling out Obama that that overwhelmed my view of what you were trying to get discussed here.

perhaps you'll need to try again with a discussion singularly focused on economic, trade, and employment trends, and get it it out of the content of discussing what Obama said or did not say or should have said. if thats what you want to discuss. I'll add that I don't think there is a single left view of what the economic policies should be. just to start there is wide division on the left about what the immigration policy should be.  

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

---

by: Will @ Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 18:33:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Agreed (0.00 / 0)

This is not the best way to do this, but it's better than not doing anything at all about the underlying eonomic issues.

And I'm certainly conscious of significant differences spanning a range of different economic issues. For example, immigration is really a big help with respect to Social Security and Medicare. Provided, that is, that we still have an economy left.

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 18:40:15 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

still have an economy left (4.00 / 1)

the US is one of the largest economies in the world and our standard of living is exceptionally high. we're wasting tons of money and are racking up dept, and we have health and retirement benefits getting a bit out of control, and yet in all that the economy is still cruising along. with all that crap the worst we can say right not is we might be in a recession. I wouldn't worry too much about it going away. it needs some fixes, but the sky is not falling.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

---

by: Will @ Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 18:53:27 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Wages Have Been Stagnant For 30 Years (4.00 / 1)

and the US economy is swimming in a sea of debt. We haven't run a trade surplus since before Reagan declared "Morning In America."

Wake up and smell the orange juice.

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 19:21:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

even so (0.00 / 0)

the sky is not falling. which is not to say there are not some big problems, or that we are headed in a direction we want to go. Certainly ending the wasteful spending of the Iraq war means we can invest in lots of cool stuff at home. and we don't really want to be a society where 30% of the population works a cash register at a big box store. but the fact that we can blow however many hundreds of billions on Iraq, that we can be a trillion dollars in debt, that wages have been flat for a long time and most people are still only talking about a mild recession points to just how blazingly rich this country is. relative to most of the world we have a great standard of living for most our population and we make lots of money. one of the reasons why corporations like moving operations overseas. :)

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

---

by: Will @ Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 20:05:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Did You Know That There Are Farms In Detroit? (4.00 / 1)

With tractors?

I've never heard of any European industrial centers reverting to agriculture.

Have you?

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 20:15:21 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

A lot of people are having a lot of serious problems (0.00 / 0)

On average, the economy is merely going through recession, but that has a lot to do with how horrible the wealth distribution has become.  Vast swaths of this country are filled with communities that are disappearing, and there are many rust belt cities that are just becoming dens of unemployment, as there are simply no manufacturing jobs left anymore.  And this doesn't even begin to touch on the currency nightmare that is brewing in China.

there are serious, long term problems that won't go away when this current crisis dissolves.  If the best we can say is "well, we've got a long way to fall...", we're in for big problems down the road.

---

by: Valatan @ Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 19:30:17 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I Really Think You're All Missing It (4.00 / 2)

Obama made an offhand remark. It wasn't the smartest thing he ever said, but it wasn't a particularly bad comment either.

To the degree that it gets attention, it highlights the degree to which the media are, first, having a slow news days and grasping for straws, and second, in the tank for the Republicans. The Democratic response amounts to the usual defensiveness and hand-wringing when they learn, for the 11,000th time, that it's no longer 1974 and the news media aren't the Democratic asset that they were for about 10 years there.

Obama himself has handled it correctly, which is to apologize for his choice of words and move on. What would be better, of course, is if there was enough of a Democratic echo chamber to call bullshit on all of this. But there really isn't, and what there is of a Democratic echo chamber is too nervous.

A healthier, more confident, more disciplined, and more focused Democratic Party (and an Obama campaign with a surrogate army to prowl the carival midway of American media culture) would be hooting, laughing, and hollering right back, while the candidate himself took the high road.

Someone please remind me never to hire anyone in the Democratic Party as a professional card counter or poker player. I'd lose everything.

---

by: C-Pluckhahn @ Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 17:07:03 PM CDT

This Diary Is Not About What Obama Said (4.00 / 3)

It's about what he should have said, and done and put in his campaign platform.

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 17:13:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I Don't Think There's Cause For Deep Examination (4.00 / 2)

Obama, Clinton, and Edwards are fine on the issues. There are minor differences among them at most. The campaign is entirely about picking the vehicle for the issues, and nothing else.

At this late date, the Democratic issues and platform are not going to change. They truly are what they are. I'm as critical  as many Democrats on the lack of anything groundbreaking for the working lower middle class.

My favorite idea (because it happens to be my own) is a $10 minimum wage and a federal tax holiday (including payroll taxes) for anyone making less than $12 an hour. Do that, and just think about how much needless complexity we could get rid of when it comes to helping working people at the lower end of the ladder.

Higher wages, no taxes, when combined with national health care, would be an earthquake. You know all those 20- and 30-somethings working at the 7-Eleven who don't bother to vote? Propose what I suggest, and call it Social Security for the 21st Century, and just see what the hell happens.

But all of that is for a different day. Obama's remarks are a blip. I'm glad to see that Obama hasn't taken the bait and gotten himself wrapped up in it. Now I wish other Democrats would do likewise. But then, who knows, maybe I'm wrong.

---

by: C-Pluckhahn @ Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 17:24:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

There's A HUGE Gap (4.00 / 5)

between your policy proposals--I agree, it's a good, simple, easy-to-grasp formula--and your counter-factual claim that there was no difference between the candidates on issues.

Edwards was noticeably more progressive on economics, though of course he didn't go far enough.  But Clinton and Obama are both mired in the CW of the past, economically, and as Robert has shown in the past, Clinton is actually the one who is less trapped in that pacticular quagmire than Obama is.

All of which strongly suggests that there's plenty of reason to keep hammering on the issues here.

Like you said, if it got through to the candidates, and they picked it up, we could be looking at landslide city, not just this year, but for decades to come.

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 17:33:06 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I Never Noticed The Differences (4.00 / 1)

I watched about half the debates and did a lot of reading, too. Yeah, I'm sure someone can go into their policy platforms and make a liar out of me, but we all know that the platforms are illustrations and hypotheticals anyway. I mean, when I hear Obama and Clinton argue about whose health care plan will cover more people, I don't know whether I want to laugh, cry, or throw a brick at the TV.

The Democratic Party needs fewer policy proposals, not more of them. This has been one of the many communicative geniuses of the Republicans. They don't require voters, who, after all, are busy and justifiably cynical, to memorize the Encyclopedia Britannica. They say, in essence: "Here are three or four things we care about," and leave it at that. Sure, there are another dozen talking points, but it's the three or four that they really bang away on.

Bill Clinton understood that one in '92 with the, "It's the economy, stupid" theme. That, plus his manner that was one part F.D.R., one part Reagan, and one part Bubba, is what did it. I had a friend who worked on that campaign in the Midwest, and he told me that the crowds who appeared for those bus trips made your hair stand on end.

One of these years, the Democrats had better learn that it's politics and not an upper-level political science lecture. With a few exceptions, our side has been running a combination of a college lecture and a pre-symphony wine & cheese party. And then we wonder why so many voters, including our own, merely tolerate us. When will anyone wake up?

---

by: C-Pluckhahn @ Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 17:47:33 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

What Robert wishes would be said on tv and what Obama said have nothing to do with each other (3.20 / 5)

Obama's comment was perfectly reasonable in SF, that is the ultimate point. That Robert would like Obama to say some things about NAFTA etc is fine, but there was no problem with what Obama said as it stood. So Robert's scolding words are misplaced.

It is also hilarious to me that Robert has attacked and attacked and attacked Obama for instigating a discussion that could lead to Robert getting what he wants, a richer discussion about trade. It wasn't going to happen before this. Of course the more people like Robert tend to echo that Obama said the wrong thing, the more likely it is that such a discussion will be quashed; Robert's complaints will drown in the chorus of other criticism. What would make more sense if for those like Robert to come to Obama's defense and try from their to open the discussion more.

But what do I know, I'm just an out of touch, blind, locking behind my computer, elitist, trust fund kid.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

---

by: Will @ Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 18:08:42 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

the moderation system here needs some improving (0.00 / 0)

i cant really see how a troll score on my comment makes sense? maybe the scorer thinks its off topic, or wrong, or redundant. would be nice to have those options so the troll stuff is not abused, which thats what it looks like to me here.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

---

by: Will @ Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 18:36:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

A Patch (0.00 / 0)

is better than nothing.

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 18:42:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Why are you worried? (0.00 / 0)

A troll rating means nothing more than disapproval unless the average comment rating goes below 1.

Then it means the comment is hidden.

There is no such thing as autoban on Soapblox blogs like Open Left.

Get over your ego.

---

by: ek hornbeck @ Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 18:54:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Id rather not have my comment hidden (0.00 / 0)

thats why i bite my nails.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

---

by: Will @ Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 18:57:32 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

personal attack (0.00 / 0)

warning shot.  I think Paul is specifically asking to argue issues on their content, not just attack commentators.

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist

---

by: Robert Oak @ Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 18:54:26 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I did Robert (0.00 / 0)

Of course the more people like Robert tend to echo that Obama said the wrong thing, the more likely it is that such a discussion will be quashed;

thats an argument in context.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

---

by: Will @ Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 18:56:32 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Digby had a post a couple of week ago (4.00 / 5)

about the failure of the liberal blogosphere/netroots to take advantage of this long primary to push both candidates into more progressive policy positions.  She said, and I wholeheartedly agree, that we missed a great opportunity because we fell into cheerleading our favorite candidate instead of doing our job.  She said we should have used our leverage to play Obama and Clinton against each other until we got better policy.

---

by: Susan S @ Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 18:18:47 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Reality indeed. (4.00 / 6)

It's the reason I supported Edwards. He was the only candidate who got even close to dealing with the reality of the the economic condition of every person in the United States with a net worth of less than 50k.

I was thinking about this the other day in terms of our candidates not dealing with reality. One conversation I would just love to have with HRC or Obama would be like this....

"You talk about education or training as the great panacea for lifting people up out of poverty or for helping workers to find new jobs. But what about the majority of jobs in this country? The majority of jobs in this country still require basically NO education. It's just that they pay far less than they used to. A college degree is not going to help your income situation if the only place hiring in your community is Wal-Mart. In fact, it may hurt you because you'll be getting paid a non-living wage and you'll be in lots of debt. The impression I get in all these discussions is, "Get an education so you don't end up one of those poor slobs working at McDonalds or Wal-Mart." Well, what about those poor slobs at Wal-Mart and McDonalds?"

Are we saying that those businesses (meaning virtually the entire service sector of the economy) should disappear in our grand new economy where everyone has a post-graduate education? This viewpoint simply ignores the fact that these jobs are necessary for our economy. Unskilled labor, whether for production or services, is necessary. The only reason Wal-mart or McDonald's jobs could be rendered useless is if we have a revolution and make everyone independent small businessmen running their own shop. Somehow I don't see that happening.

The only solutions I see are
1. Raise the minimum wage to a living wage (min $12/hour)
2. Heavily promote unionization of the service sector
3. Enact policies that create a more balanced economy where unskilled labor can find employment in high-wage industries.
4. Greatly strengthen the social safety net (UAW promoted socialism in one union, but when the industry that supported that union collapsed, the workers had no other entity to fall back on).

I do not see the candidates espousing any of these solutions (except very weakly supporting solution 3 in terms of green collar jobs). And since they're not, they are not dealing with reality.

---

by: adamterando @ Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 17:15:45 PM CDT

Bingo! (4.00 / 3)

Education is a great solution for the individual.  But it's no solution at all for the society as a whole--unless there's a lot of other pieces in place as well.

Heck, the explosion of advanced degrees during the Baby Boom actually depressed the wages of those who got them. Simple supply and demand.  My sister was a lot better English teacher than my dad was.  But he had a much better job, because there was much less competition during his generation--and because the profression didn't organize to protect its members as conditions changed.

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 17:27:04 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The question I ask now (4.00 / 5)

after my years of being a Clintonite in the 90s is how will education raise wages? That's the core of the problem. People always talking retraining. Retraining for what? What sort of jobs. What sort of salaries. What will that mean with regard to benefits. Etc.  

---

by: bruhrabbit @ Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 17:36:23 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Retraining To Be A Retrainer, Obviously! (4.00 / 3)

There's also a big need for bootstrap salesmen.

Or so I'm told.

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 17:48:19 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The biggest reason why this was "inartful" (4.00 / 2)

was that Americans live in denial, and we are never suppose to break the forth wall of it all being a fictional work done up to make us feel Oprah Winfrey better about our situation.  

---

by: bruhrabbit @ Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 17:59:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

no kidding (4.00 / 2)

even worse, now that Professional careers are targeted for offshore outsourcing, insourcing, literally one community college received $750k to retrain people with Bachelors, Masters degrees as restaurant service professionals, i.e. do you want fries with that!

On the green jobs initiative I wrote (over on EP again) a piece mentioning those jobs will be vulnerable also to offshore outsourcing and that's really where they need to make sure those jobs are truly going to US workers.  It's a fantastic idea for economic justice, esp. for US domestic diversity but they really need to tackle this issue that any job (almost any) can be offshore outsourced and if it cannot be, they can bring in cheaper workers to displace US workers (which corporations lobby for and do right now).

But, retraining to me is such an insult, blow off response.  I mean they are throwing away people with Masters, Bachelors, even PhDs in tough subject areas:  Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics as it is and telling someone with a Masters degree they are supposed to retrain at a community college is just ridiculous, esp. when they already have the skills or have sister skills which are highly amenable to transfer to a sister skill specialty area.

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist

---

by: Robert Oak @ Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 18:14:16 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Now You Know What It's Like ... (4.00 / 3)

... to be a Russian-trained surgeon driving a cab in New York

---

by: C-Pluckhahn @ Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 18:26:27 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It's like in the third world (4.00 / 3)

where PhDs drive taxis and doctors sweep streets. All the education in the world can't help you in an economy that's gone kaput.

---

by: Sadie Baker @ Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 19:18:12 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

much more than that (4.00 / 1)

The US is simply not dealing with globalization, in favor of working America.

I wrote an overview on the Horizon Project.  They have a lot of good ideas to restructure a series of policy areas in favor of the US middle class and it's really worth it to promote some of them.

Then, most nations have a VAT.  That's a value added tax dealing with imports and exports and it's legal under the WTO.
That would help enormously in terms of stopping the labor arbitrage of middle class jobs and the trade deficit.

There are many more but the US really is no longer a domestic economy per say so one needs to look at policy in a global arena.

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist

---

by: Robert Oak @ Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 18:05:02 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

VAT = National Sales Tax = Regressive (0.00 / 0)

The other problem is that, until now, the U.S. has been the world economy's consumer of last resort. If we go to a VAT, there will be interesting times in the developing world.

---

by: C-Pluckhahn @ Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 18:16:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

come on over (0.00 / 0)

to EP to discuss it.    As usual, devil in the details but I don't think it's realized that most of our trading partners have VATs, extensively and we're the ones who don't, so I don't think it's regressive.  this is a heavy topic though, I'm game for analysis but kind of outside Paul's post here.

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist

---

by: Robert Oak @ Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 18:27:04 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The Thing Is (4.00 / 1)

European countries that have a VAT have vastly more progressive taxations schemes.

So, obviously, it is easy to counter the regressive impacts, if there is just the political will to do so.  You can do wonders with a negative income tax.

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 18:29:36 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Come on then, give us the executive summary (0.00 / 0)

in two to three sentences: how does a VAT help the middle class vis-a-vis trade? (asked without snark)

---

by: Matt H @ Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 08:24:49 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

At the beginning of the Industrial Revolution (4.00 / 6)

factory jobs were not the "good jobs" we mythologize them to be. They were anything but!

It was the long, hard work of the unions that made them "good," with decent hours, benefits, middle class wages.

There is absolutely no reason in the world we can't do the exact same thing with service economy jobs.

---

by: Sadie Baker @ Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 19:16:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Very good point (4.00 / 1)

Many people forget this.

However, it is important to realize that service is not a value add job; it doesn't create wealth.  The U.S. cannot support itself by simply serving each other.

---

by: Mark Matson @ Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 19:29:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Depends On The Definition (0.00 / 0)

Is software a service? How about engineering? How about construction? What about telecommunications? Do these create value?

---

by: C-Pluckhahn @ Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 20:04:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

producers not consumers (0.00 / 0)

Right now 70% of GDP is consumption.  That's really not good, service jobs can make something but I think in some form, America and her people need to be seen as producers, which we once were, not mere shoppers which is happening now.

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist

---

by: Robert Oak @ Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 20:06:12 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

We need to be the leaders in the next product wave(s) (0.00 / 0)

Your arguments about China look remarkably similar to arguments made about Japan in the later 80s back when Paul Kennedy was considered a genius and it was only a matter of time before the American empire collapsed. And then along came IT in full force and everything changed. Now we've lost our comparative advantage in IT (or at least certain aspects of it).

We can prolong American success as long as we continue to be leaders in the next product waves, which we decidedly are in biotech and nanotech and decidedly aren't in green tech. We should be investing more as a nation in all three of these product areas but Bush is too frakking densely right-wing to get that.

---

by: Matt H @ Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 08:33:23 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Paul Kennedy Was Right (0.00 / 0)

Even with IT, we are still massively, by a LARGE margin the world's leading debtor nation.  And our own IT infrastructure is pathetic.  What, 17th, 18th in the world in broadband penetration?

He said that our imperial power was near its end, and Iraq confirms that, "big time" as America's #2 war criminal would say.

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:01:03 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Is empire a matter of degree or kind? (0.00 / 0)

I'm generally deeply skeptical of arguments against American economic might but I will admit that Bush's policies these past 8 years have brought great damage to the juggernaut that is the U.S. economy.  

---

by: Matt H @ Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:06:41 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

In Fact (4.00 / 2)

As recently as the mid-1930s, agricultural wages were broadly comparable to industrial wages.  But industrial workers underwent the most massive wave of organization ever seen in this country, and they are fully proctected under the Social Security Act, they got rights to organize, unemployment, Social Security, minimum wage--the whole nine yard.  Agricultural workers--a very large percentage of them Southern blacks--got left in the dust.

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 20:10:49 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not a good sign for the next eight months (4.00 / 2)

Without a script Obama seems gaffe-prone.  And his essential arrogance is beginning to come through.  I don't know what he can do about that.  It seems to be who he is, and the sycophancy surrounding him on every side can't be helping.  (That San Francisco fundraising clip is painful to watch. Unless you're John McCain.)

---

by: Upstate Dem @ Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 17:22:06 PM CDT

He's Aloof, Not Arrogant (0.00 / 0)

It's an interesting thing to watch. Obama has definite personal characteristics, and any characteristic has its pluses and minuses.

He comes across as a very cool cat. Unflappable. Which, I might point out, is highly marketable in the "commander-in-chief" derby. The downside is his aloofness, which can be cast as arrogance, especially when the media are in the tank for the Republicans and the Obama campaign doesn't appear to recognize that the bar is being raised.

Those guys have done a great job so far, but I think the man needs a new media consultant. Someone's done a pretty damn good makeover on McCain recently, so let's hope Obama and his people recognize that they need a midcourse correction.

---

by: C-Pluckhahn @ Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 18:11:53 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Interesting point (0.00 / 0)

But maybe a distiction without a difference.  John Kerry was aloof--it didn't help him much.  And I haven't really noticed the McCain makeover.  It's a little late in the game for that.  You are who you are, and it's going to show up on television.

---

by: Upstate Dem @ Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 19:07:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

McCain Makeover? (0.00 / 0)

Yeah, I must have missed that one.

OTOH, Dude's been made over every time he pullers a boner.  Tweety & Co. do it on the fly.

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 19:10:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Kerry Was More Than Aloof (0.00 / 0)

He was frozen. Obama is a lot more engaging. If you don't think McCain's had a makeover, just think back to his "Old soldiers never die/They just fade away" acceptance speech on Super Tuesday, and then compare his recent appearances. I'm not telling you that I like McCain (far from it, trust me) but he's been doing a much better job.

It would be a whole lot better if they did the media plastic surgery (speaking figuratively) on Obama now, rather than waiting until it's too late like they did with Gore in 2000. Obama needs a nip and tuck job, that's all. Yeah, I know it sucks but you take the world as you find it.

---

by: C-Pluckhahn @ Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 19:12:23 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Or he's Muhammed Ali rope-a-doping his opponents into a trap. n/t (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Matt H @ Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 08:36:53 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

See... (4.00 / 3)

this is why they call me a radical at the institute.

Wealth taxes.  Inheritance caps.  Nationalization.  Captital repatriation.  Protectionist trade policies.

What's the matter with that you free trade idiots?

Your system has failed!

---

by: ek hornbeck @ Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 17:22:35 PM CDT

Symptom of National Decline (4.00 / 1)

Free trade benefits creditor nations. Trade barriers are something that debtors use. The transformation of the U.S. from creditor to debtor has been swift.

---

by: C-Pluckhahn @ Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 18:13:43 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

That Transformation Happened Over 20 Years Ago (4.00 / 1)

In Reagan's first term.

Sorta had enough time since then to, you know, wake up and smell the coffee.

Or orange juice.

Whatever.

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 18:32:13 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

oh right, we're going to have a rational discussion with Robert - good luck (3.00 / 4)

First he is quite wrong when he says its not about bitterness its about that Obama does not have solutions. The issue was the credibility of the Democratic party on economic issues, and Obama said people are voting on the other issues because they don't trust politicians in general to do anything on economic issues. For Robert the issue is his perception of Obama's lack of a program, but that's not what the issue is for everyone else. For some its "bitterness" is a bad word, for others they wrongfully charge Obama is saying people turn to religion because of the bitterness. But Obama's solutions or lack there of have not and currently are not the topic. Not to say its not a nice topic.

Second I would like to see the quote where Obama pushes counseling as a solution - but we won't because Robert made it up. Which is weak.

Third Robert also is under the delusion that xenophobia doesn't exist. it does.

Robert uses false logic to argue xenophobia does not exist. He cites one false premise to argue another one. he cites the false premise "either you are for open borders or you are a racist xenophobe" to try to convince us that people are 100% reacting to economic struggles based on their analytical analysis of the cost/benefits of nafta and other trade deals, and thus xenophobia is not at play in anti-trade sentiment. However, what Robert refuses to recognize is that the two are not mutually exclusive. One can see problems with nafta and be xenophobic. which does happen. There are plenty of people in America completely unaffected negatively by nafta and yet they eagerly embrace anti-mexico anti-china rhetoric simply for the superiority feeling of it. America has a long tradition of this, and it, as well as trade policy problems is well worth discussing and trying to solve.

Forth or Fifth (I'm losing track) Robert charges that discussing the mechanics of politics, particularly discussing xenophobia is insulting to people. He then labels those engaging in those discussions with being "trust fund" kids, blind, "out of touch", locked into their computers. Robert if you can chill the fuck out long enough you'd see just how insulting you are being to those you disagree with; and then you might realize how ineffective your method of discourse is. pot meet kettle brotha.

In the end I find front paging Roberts comments ( which he posts repeatedly in every thread ) to be a poor entry point to the discussion of trade policy in the US. Robert takes a very black and white view of trade; at least that is my impression. To him most open trade is bad and most everyone in America is suffering from it. But this just not the case,  open trade is a very complex issue with various benefits nad costs. There are serious problems with nafta and such trade deals, and there are serious benefits and opportunities with them as well. And some anti-trade anti-immigrant sentiment is rooted in real undercutting of American benefits and some of it is just protectionist racists bs. But Robert to date certainly hasn't shown an interest in having any kind of a more complex and frankly "REAL" discussion about this topic, so i see no good reason to reward him with posting his narrowly focused text to the front page.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

---

by: Will @ Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 17:58:19 PM CDT

how obtuse you all are (4.00 / 1)

This isn't really about Obama; it's about two diametrically opposite ways of reading the polls (both electoral and exit) which have shown Hillary's support to be among low-educated Whites, especially white females. A substantial financial contributor had asked Obama to explain why these poor Whites tend to vote (such as for Hillary or McCain) against their own real economic interests. In his 30-second answer, Obama failed to self-censor in the way he does when speaking to a general audience, because he didn't know that he was being taped. Thus, he elliptically summarized Robert Frank, and he did it quite well, for anyone who knows that argument. But he was only trying to counter Hillary's argument, contrary to that, the argument that's based on "the Bradley effect." Hillary subtly argues that Obama should get out of her way because in the general election the race-factor will hand the election to the Republicans if a minority, a black male, is the Democratic candidate; not a majority, a white female such as herself. She has one way of reading the polls, to favor herself as a white female; and Obama has another, to counter her argument and transcend both race and gender by talking about economic class instead.

These are two very different ways of reading the polls. If Hillary is right, then she should be the candidate to send up against McCain. After all, she's a female, and there are more female voters than male voters; and she's also a White, and there are more white than black voters. But if Obama is right, then "the Bradley effect" (plus gender) needn't rule the general election after all.

Hillary's former "experience" argument has been so much shot down (Bosnian "sniper fire," etc.), so that all she's got left is race and gender; and she's resorting back to that (it had always been there, but now it's ALL SHE'S GOT).

So, this discussion of the substantive class issues is really beside the point. The real point here is instead: Why should I (some substantial financial contributor) invest in your campaign even though you're a black male in an electorate that's predominantly white females?

I happen to think that Obama (the Robert Frank argument) has the better side of the facts here, and that he'd be a much more effective candidate in the general election than Hillary would. But that's the question, and Hillary's campaign essentially disagrees and thinks that the time has not yet come when a black male can be elected President against a white male. This is just a strategic political issue; not a substantive question about policy-differences between Hillary and Obama. You miss the real point.

---

by: cettel @ Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 18:03:02 PM CDT

Again, Wrong Diary, Dude! (4.00 / 1)

Folks will do absolutely anything to avoid talking about the economy, stupid.

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 18:34:18 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

story might have had too much content (0.00 / 0)

Hey Paul, not trying to be critical, but I've seen you write this a few times now, and so just sharing with you that from my first reading of this story, its scope seemed very wide. The title is a leader, but there was just such a vast array of content in the story itself to respond to that, I don't think it was easy for people to gather the limited direction you were trying to go. IMHO.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

---

by: Will @ Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 18:44:38 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Local diversity, less than free "free" trade (4.00 / 1)

I'm definitely a knee-jerk free trader most of my life.  I imagine what the U.S. would be like if California could put up tariffs against Mississippi and don't like the result.  So that's my starting point.

But Robert's point that free trade isn't at all free is most certainly correct.  Go read NAFTA for your self.  Well, you probably can't because it is too freak'n long, and didn't even include this or this/.  While it is fairly obvious you can't just swing the doors wide open, those doors that are pushed open are promoted by the corporations, not the people.  

I'm sure real labor economics have thought this through better than I, but it seems the real, ultimate counterargument to free trade is the need for local diversity.  Let me explain.  The number 1 reason why free trade provides a net gain is because it allows greater specialization.  If one group can do A better than B and another can do B better than A, free trade between the two allows each to specialize, improve their productivity and both have cheaper access to A and B.

But specialization is the opposite of diversity.  What happens if you specialize in A but then A falls out of favor or becomes obsolete?  The answer is you are screwed.  In fact, I'd say the biggest problem seen in the Rust Belt were caused before freer trade and before things went south; the problem was overspecialization.

But do economic models take the risk of specialization into account?  I'm guessing not.  In order for a region to be resilient to change it needs a large amount of economic diversity.  Trade is good, but it must be balanced against local diversity.

---

by: Mark Matson @ Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 19:25:59 PM CDT

An even better example: (4.00 / 3)

Africa.

Development guys came in in the 60s, after the countries declared independence from their European colonialists.  The development specialists told them to push their comparative advantage and to develop a lot of cash crops, and push them on the international market.

Only, everyone else did the same thing, the market got flooded with the same few cash crops, prices collapsed, and now the countries used a much, much smaller fraction of their area for developing food.  Tariff barriers for international goods were also lowered, resulting in the quashing of what little manufacturing there was.  So now you have food crises and no economy to pick up the slack.

Meanwhile, equally poor southeast asia ignored the development lectures, raised tariff walls, and developed a much more diverse economy, and are doing much better.

This isn't to say that there aren't other causes of African poverty, but this, I think, is the often overlooked fundamental problem.

---

by: Valatan @ Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 19:39:38 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Am I the only one (0.00 / 0)

around here who is relatively pro-trade? I don't want China ruining its environment, golden parachutes, or deregulation like we've seen over the past few decades but other than that, I think we get more out of it than we lose.

I'm not picking a fight; I'd far prefer to just agree to disagree on this up front. I'm just curious to see if there are other pro-trade folks in here.  

---

by: Matt H @ Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 19:34:36 PM CDT

Well, trade with China ain't free (4.00 / 2)

They set up tarrifs against US goods, and they have manipulated their currency in such a way so as to guarantee a massive trade surplus with the US.

If you have free trade between two equal partners, acting in good faith, I don't mind.  I wouldn't mind opening a free trade pact with the EU or something, but most of our free trade agreements really don't involve free trade.

---

by: Valatan @ Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 19:41:56 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

This is what I get for provocatively posting before bedtime... (0.00 / 0)

A lot of good responses that demand attention in the morning.

I'm not sure what to do about the 'dirty peg' of the yuan to the dollar. Unpeg it too quickly and the Chinese economy could collapse, which would likely in turn cause ours to collapse, especially given our current precarious position.  

---

by: Matt H @ Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 07:59:20 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

No (0.00 / 0)

As I said before, I'm a "knee jerk free trader".  But I've definitely been moving on this issue over the past several years.  Note this isn't really a left versus right move, it is a populist versus (what, elite?) move.

I still buy into the free trade, pro-globalization frame and have a huge, gut-level problem with, say, Robert's world view, but every time I discuss free trade with those against it I always have to concede virtually every specific point they make.  Eventually, one comes around to the realization there is a problem.

I'm a big picture guy.  When the big picture seems to disagree with the details I need to understand where I went wrong.  That were my diversity post above comes in, me trying to get a better big picture.

---

by: Mark Matson @ Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 19:53:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

eh (4.00 / 1)

Just to make it clear, I'm actually into trade as well, but as playing to win on the national interest and for the US interests.  It has enormous economic benefits if it's done right.  That's why I like so much Ralph Gomory's book and math on trade theory.  Utlizing those equations I don't see why the United States cannot develop a strategic trade policy that would grow the middle class and be in the national interest.  If China can almost dominate the world in 8 years since the China PNTR, surely if we got our heads out of our asses could do the same.  Why I want to see Peter DeFazio's idea of a Congressional trade office set up, modeled on the Congressional budget office.  One can play this game and win, big time but there has to be a strategy for the people and national interest.  

Right now, as far as I know we have a few multinational corporations writing these things, like Citigroup, Goldman Sachs and so on.  Not exactly the big picture.

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist

---

by: Robert Oak @ Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 20:17:27 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Another Big Picture Thing (4.00 / 3)

The rationale and the reality of "free trade" are seriously out of whack.  The rationale is straight out of Adam Smith, down through Ricardo.  But Smith was an advocate of small-scale free markets vs royal monopolies and the like.  Similarly, early international free trade models depended on labor and capital being nationally/cuturally tied together.

That rationale still exists, but the reality is just the opposite--those pushing free trade have much more similarity to the royal monopolies Smith opposed than they do to the entreprenurial diversity he championed.  Likewise, capital and labor have become almost entirely divorced from each other.  So what we have, in essence, is a neo-feudal economy, rooted in defacto pre-modern ideas, that's justified in terms of 18th and 19th century liberal ideology.

On top of that, the Post WWII system of internation trade ("Bretton Woods" for short) was originally based on the assumption of national welfare states as part of its institutional framework.  But the overseas development aspects--the World Bank and the IMF--were never committed to supporting the development of welfare states in the Third World.  And from the 1970s onward they were not just non-supportive, they were incredible hostile.

So, in short, what you have is what's technically known as a "mess."  And it's only getting messier over time.

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 20:27:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not much different than my viewpoints (0.00 / 0)

I am for trade and don't like many of the arguments normally made against it but at the same time I'm all for pressuring Colombia to not crack down on labor unions, pushing China, Mexico and other nations to protect the environment, getting China to gradually at least clean up its dirty peg of the yuan to the dollar, using resources gained from trade to help those disproportionately harmed by it (laid off workers in particular), etc.

---

by: Matt H @ Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 08:02:36 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

we're all Pro Trade (0.00 / 0)

But intelligent, strategic trade, huge difference.  Trade itself does create winners and losers, but unfortunately our trade agreements currently guarantee we're the loser.  It's not trade, it's how it's implemented that we're discussing.

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist

---

by: Robert Oak @ Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 20:10:03 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Fwiw (0.00 / 0)

I am also pretty strongly pro-free trade.  The assumption that progressive=protectionist is something that bothers me quite a bit.

---

by: FuzzyDunlop @ Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 20:15:36 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

For Pretty Much The Whoile 19th Century (4.00 / 1)

The slaveholding--and then sharecropping--South was pro-free trade, while the relatively liberal Northeast was protectionist.

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 20:43:04 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yes, but... (0.00 / 0)

I don't really see the relevance to my post.

---

by: FuzzyDunlop @ Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 21:52:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well, Obviously (0.00 / 0)

It shows that there's no necessary relationship between free trade and being progressive.  Rather, the relationship is much more complicated and depends on a whole constellation of factors.

And given that stores like Wal-Mart, agribusiness behemoths like Cargil and ADM, and the like are the primary beneficiaries of "free trade," I think it's hardly a stretch to say that progressives ought to be skeptical, at the very least.

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 21:58:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

it's mindless free trade (4.00 / 3)

said as a mantra of which I am skeptical. Often time there is no much thought into it understand than market fundamentalism. I trust it no more than I trust communism to reflect true economic behavior. As you say, it's a lot  more complicated than that. I find it instructive that when I start getting specific about what I mean- all too many "I am for free trade" type either don't have anything to say to it or agree with me. Of course, the worse is when I am talking to someone who is for free trade, and can't understand how race to the bottom matters.

---

by: bruhrabbit @ Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 22:36:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Gotcha (0.00 / 0)

I agree that its super complicated.  A good example actually is raised at the end of your post, I think. ADM benefits enormously from many of the "less free" aspects of our trade policy - ethanol subsidies, protection of the domestic sugar market, etc.  If there is such a thing as "corporate welfare," they are the poster child. And its American consumers as well as tons of people in the developing world, especially Latin America, that get hammered by these policies while the benefits largely accrue to a small number of corporate insiders (as well as shareholders).

That isn't to say that other companies (or even ADM in other ways) don't benefit from free trade.

---

by: FuzzyDunlop @ Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 13:04:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

And the Corn Laws in 19th century England (0.00 / 0)

were populist uprising FOR trade. In theory, how a nation's laborers feel about trade depends in part on whether or not labor is a relatively scarce factor (which it is here and wasn't in England.)

---

by: Matt H @ Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 08:04:54 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

What I meant to say was the riots in response to the (0.00 / 0)

Corn Laws.

---

by: Matt H @ Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 08:08:48 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Great Post. (0.00 / 0)

It's seems Roosevelt said something about those are good ideas and it's up to you to make me do it. I think Barack has similar thing about that he us to bring about the change we need.

"They pour syrup on shit and tell us it's hotcakes." Meteor Blades

---

by: JugOPunch @ Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 21:32:29 PM CDT

Great Post. (0.00 / 0)

It's seems Roosevelt said something about those are good ideas and it's up to you to make me do it. I think Barack has similar thing about that he needs us to bring about the change we need.

"They pour syrup on shit and tell us it's hotcakes." Meteor Blades

---

by: JugOPunch @ Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 21:35:43 PM CDT

Obama is right about anti-immigrant sentiment (4.00 / 1)

Robert spends an awful lot of time complaining about being called an immigrant basher for his anti-immigrant views, considering that Senator Obama said nothing about that.  What Obama said is that it is not surprising that people cling to anti-immigrant sentiment, among other things, as outlet for their frustrations at the lack of economic progress in many parts of the country.  Sorry Robert, but that is undeniable.  

Robert may not have noticed, but the level of vituperation expressed against immigrants far surpasses the degree of harm that can reasonably be charged against them.  And many of the allegations against today's immigrants are nothing more than recycled remnants from previous campaigns against other despised groups:  that they carry disease, commit crimes, and displace other workers.  

Robert may think that "anyone" should know that immigrants massively depress the wages of black workers, but in fact there is disagreement about that among economists.  And if there is a wage effect on black unskilled workers, it isn't 40 percent, a figure which Robert likely found on a website that any progressive should be ashamed to be associated with.  A sober review of the literature can be found here.  This is a CBO paper, so perhaps I am validating Robert's prediction that some of us would pull one of those up to refute his anti-immigrant ideas.  

The real reasons for low wages among unskilled blacks include racism, failure of our education system, low minimum wage, failure to enforce labor laws, the broken labor movement, and trade policy.  People like Robert who seem to obsess about illegal immigration are allowing themselves to get distracted.  They are pitting one group against another, rather than helping us to join together against much more powerful enemies.  

---

by: Sanity Please @ Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 22:52:22 PM CDT

I think, by now, almost anyone on the left (0.00 / 0)

is aware that the illegal immigration debate is really about punishing the employers of undocumented workers, rather than absurd talk about border fences and mass deportations.  

That doesn't speak to how some people perceive the exploitation of illegal immigrant labor, and how some voices on the right might portray the 'Mexicans stealing our jobs' phenomenon, which I see from indy voters back home (the midwest) quite a bit.  But when it's explained in terms of fat cats trying to get an unfair cut, versus people trying to feed their families however they can, even those voters can be spoken to--from the union guys in Flint to the small-time  farmer, there is as much distrust of Corporate CEOs as there is of any other group.  And most of us have a grandfather or a great grandmother who came over speaking German, Italian, Polish or Yiddish, and little English.

It just requires that Democrats actually stand up to the wealthy.

---

by: Valatan @ Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 23:11:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

if it's not okay to be classist, why is it okay to be anti-immigrant on the left? (0.00 / 0)

I hate to say this but we have Democratic leaders pushing legislation constantly per the request of illegal immigrants and so on, but they don't put Americans 1st .  I mean Americans are getting rejected from college, cannot afford college, having their job offshore outsourced that they just went to college for and into massive debt

for... so when they see something like the Dream Act, it really pisses them off.  When their kid with the 4.0+++++ just was rejected from even getting into college and they see this, yes, it's assuredly pisses them off.  Working America and their needs are ignored yet come hell or high water, the illegals get legislation written for them.  I don't want to get into this legislation being good or bad, more I'm trying to explain the anger.

This completely fails to grasp changes in the laws and practices in the country, the immense body of ANTI-immigrant legislation that's been passed, proposed, and in the air for over a decade now (start with 1996...or the Alien and Sedition Acts...your choice).  And it ignores the actual reality of the lives that undocumented people live. Go to a county jail sometime and visit someone that's being jailed and getting deported for having a few ounces of weed on them or because their dumb shit lawyer didn't file the right paperwork 10 years ago and didn't tell them about it.  (and those are your tax dollars paying for them to be jailed)  Or just visit a poor single mother green-card holder with two kids who doesn't have access to benefits because of the 1996 laws.  I think you'd probably have more in common with her than with Obama, Clinton, McCain, Kennedy, or any of the others.

This theme of either you are for open borders or you are a racist xenophobe has been going on for a long time and yes this isn't the first time I've seen this sort of rhetoric and framing coming from Obama.

Somehow, people thinks it's perfectly ok to name call like this on the left and frankly it's not.

It's not "name-calling" to try and explain what you see and think with words like "bitter."  I understand the point about "this is where the anger comes from" but can't you see that the problem is the corporations that are exploiting both undocumented people  AND the American working class?  Which is sort of what Obama was trying to point out, although perhaps inelegantly? Obama's not a radical, so why collude with the people who are actually holding you down (as opposed to illegal immigrants) to portray him as one?  

---

by: dr anonymous @ Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 23:04:43 PM CDT

if it's not okay to be classist, why is it okay to be anti-immigrant on the left? (0.00 / 0)

I hate to say this but we have Democratic leaders pushing legislation constantly per the request of illegal immigrants and so on, but they don't put Americans 1st .  I mean Americans are getting rejected from college, cannot afford college, having their job offshore outsourced that they just went to college for and into massive debt

for... so when they see something like the Dream Act, it really pisses them off.  When their kid with the 4.0+++++ just was rejected from even getting into college and they see this, yes, it's assuredly pisses them off.  Working America and their needs are ignored yet come hell or high water, the illegals get legislation written for them.  I don't want to get into this legislation being good or bad, more I'm trying to explain the anger.

This completely fails to grasp changes in the laws and practices in the country, the immense body of ANTI-immigrant legislation that's been passed, proposed, and in the air for over a decade now (start with 1996...or the Alien and Sedition Acts...your choice).  And it ignores the actual reality of the lives that undocumented people live. Go to a county jail sometime and visit someone that's being jailed and getting deported for having a few ounces of weed on them or because their dumb shit lawyer didn't file the right paperwork 10 years ago and didn't tell them about it.  (and those are your tax dollars paying for them to be jailed)  Or just visit a poor single mother green-card holder with two kids who doesn't have access to benefits because of the 1996 laws.  I think you'd probably have more in common with her than with Obama, Clinton, McCain, Kennedy, or any of the others.

This theme of either you are for open borders or you are a racist xenophobe has been going on for a long time and yes this isn't the first time I've seen this sort of rhetoric and framing coming from Obama.

Somehow, people thinks it's perfectly ok to name call like this on the left and frankly it's not.

It's not "name-calling" to try and explain what you see and think with words like "bitter."  I understand the point about "this is where the anger comes from" but can't you see that the problem is the corporations that are exploiting both undocumented people  AND the American working class?  Which is sort of what Obama was trying to point out, although perhaps inelegantly? Obama's not a radical, so why collude with the people who are actually holding you down (as opposed to illegal immigrants) to portray him as one?  

---

by: dr anonymous @ Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 23:06:42 PM CDT

The posts here are simply irrelevant. (0.00 / 0)

I am stunned at the persistent obtuseness of the posts here. As I said before, the real issue here isn't "free trade" nor immigration. Just to remind, I copy here the opening of that post, but it's just as true now as it was when I posted it in full:

how obtuse you all are  (4.00 / 1)
This isn't really about Obama; it's about two diametrically opposite ways of reading the polls (both electoral and exit) which have shown Hillary's support to be among low-educated Whites, especially white females.

...

---

by: cettel @ Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 09:13:08 AM CDT

You Project Like A Dittohead! (0.00 / 0)

You're the one who's obtuse and irrelevent here. That's not what we're discussing at all.

2+2=4!  So there!

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:06:03 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Irrelevant to what? (0.00 / 0)

Paul,

I know that you're not focused on the politico-strategic issue of how we get to the promised land; you're focused only on describing the promised land. That's why your post, and all the comments here, have no relationship to the actual making of progress.

---

by: cettel @ Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 15:38:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

To The Frikken Diary! (0.00 / 0)

What else?

Contrary to your claim, I write plenty of political-strategic stuff.  Too much of it, one might argue.  Here I am making a quick-and-dirty stab at steering the discussion to an actual issue of deep importance, and you just can't stand it.

Go watch Chris Matthews now.

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 20:34:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]