Economic Populism

We used to have indentured servants here. And some seem to want it back under the immifgration bill where the employers could pay the fines/fees for the illegal immigrant....
 
Superfreak said:
AHZ... I am all for the above, but we obviously disagree with how to get those countries there. Do you believe the Chinese people are better off now than they were 20 years ago?

No question China still has a long way to go, but as capitalism has expanded and their barriers begun to come down, their economy has flourished, which benefits their people. Which is why more luxury goods are being purchased there now than there was ten years ago.

I know many like to chant "slave wages" and such (and in many cases they may be correct)... but too often we are not comparing the cost of living standards at the same time. Just something to keep in mind.
Click to expand...

Material goods are not freedom, or actual civil rights.

And that's another good point, americans cannot be gouged on items any longer if we're going to be priced out of the market due to salary necessities.

We disagree on an implementation. I believe in all this as a precondition, which means, "no trade until", you only believe in it as an afterthought, nice to have, if they feel it. that's a recipe for failure. And you know that as well as I do. Please find your soul.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Material goods are not freedom, or actual civil rights.

And that's another good point, americans cannot be gouged on items any longer if we're going to be priced out of the market due to salary necessities.

We disagree on an implementation. I believe in all this as a precondition, which means, "no trade until", you only believe in it as an afterthought, nice to have, if they feel it. that's a recipe for failure. And you know that as well as I do. Please find your soul.
Click to expand...

Well gee golly beav... Material goods don't equal freedom? Really? Thanks for that piece of wisdom.

As for the implementation, the more exposed to capitalism, the more economic freedom they get, the more freedom they will demand from their government. Trying to force the government to change by refusing to do business with them simply will push them back to where they were 20 years ago. They are far better off for having traded with us, than they would be if they had not. That is not to say that we cannot continue to push for improvements, but the all or nothing mentality solves little.
 
Superfreak said:
Well gee golly beav... Material goods don't equal freedom? Really? Thanks for that piece of wisdom.

As for the implementation, the more exposed to capitalism, the more economic freedom they get, the more freedom they will demand from their government. Trying to force the government to change by refusing to do business with them simply will push them back to where they were 20 years ago. They are far better off for having traded with us, than they would be if they had not. That is not to say that we cannot continue to push for improvements, but the all or nothing mentality solves little.
Click to expand...


Their government doesn't heed demands, that's not part of their culture, why can't you get that? It's like you're retarded. Capitalism for them is just a path that's been offered to them by world crafters to increase their power. Good profits are realizable when sufficient orders are accumulated by multinationals to make the huge runs preferred in the statist slave driver context. That doesn't mean the system is good.
 
Darla said:
I can only hope that we are approaching a new progressive era, we badly need one. I agree with this approach, and think that the DLC'ers represented here by Topspin, are wrong and out of step.

If I'm wrong, well, I'd rather go down swinging.

New Populism Is Spurring Democrats on the Economy
By ROBIN TONER
WASHINGTON, July 15 — On Capitol Hill and on the presidential campaign trail, Democrats are increasingly moving toward a full-throated populist critique of the current economy.

Clearly influenced by some of their most successful candidates in last year’s Congressional elections, Democrats are talking more and more about the anemic growth in American wages and the negative effects of trade and a globalized economy on American jobs and communities. They deplore what they call a growing gap between the middle class, which is struggling to adjust to a changing job market, and the affluent elites who have prospered in the new economy. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Democrat of New York, calls it “trickle-down economics without the trickle.”

At the same time, centrist Democrats, like those at the research group the Third Way, worry that the party is veering left away from the optimistic, pro-growth, business-friendly policies that Mr. Clinton championed.

But many Democrats argue that this is an inevitable response to the dislocation and unease in much of the country, which was a crucial factor in the party’s victory in Congress last November. The case for populism is made most powerfully by the Democrats who were elected to Congress last fall. Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio, who defeated a Republican incumbent with an attack on the trade and economic policies of recent years, said he was convinced that the populists were on the rise. He noted that he carried Ohio by 12.5 percentage points two years after John Kerry, the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee, lost the state by only about 2 percentage points, and with it the presidency.

“That’s because of the economic populist message,” Mr. Brown said. “They voted minimum wage, they voted trade, they voted student loans, they voted health care and prescription drugs, over what their traditional conservative social values might suggest. And that’s the route to winning Ohio for Hillary or Barack or anybody else.”

Even Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, who is viewed as far too much of an establishment, free-trade Clintonian by many populists, says the party must respond. “The party that deals with globalization and economic security will win,” Mr. Emanuel said.


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/16/us/politics/16populist.html?_r=1&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print
Click to expand...

I never really liked the "progressive" era. All they seemed to want to do was ban alcohol, enforce their morality on everyone, and just generally control ever moment of your life, whether it was in social or trade issues.

Same thing with populists. There is no philosohpy more contrary to mine than one that claims to use emotion instead of rationality as a basis for government. Thankfully, the populists will probably never be in power again.
 
The only thing I really agree with the progressives on was restrictions on monopolies, proportional representation, and women's voting, which is all just common sense.
 
Cypress said:
that article is about the global economy. Not the US economy. I don't give a crap what's happening in china and india. The global economic growth rate (cited in the article) is largely being driven by them. Our economic growth is mediocre.
Click to expand...

Cypress, it's greater than Europe's.
 
AssHatZombie said:
It's a mistake to assume populism = socialism. The thing with populism is that it depends on the people. When the elites agree with the people populism is called democracy, when the elites do not like what the people believe and wish to begin a campaign of ideological destruction against the people, they call it populism.

A hard line needs to be drawn between globalism/internationalism and capitalism. They're not the same thing. I believe in capitalism inside a framework devised with other considerations in mind, like sovereignty, the economic future of the working class, self reliance, and security.

Globalism is a radical assertion that countries may not protect their populations from what may be deemed unfavorable international market conditions.
Click to expand...

Populism isn't socialism.

But it's still stupidity. Rarely can they ever provide a rational justification for any of their claims. Anytime you critiscize them you're against "the common man", even as the populists destroy are economy and drive away all our jobs. Populists steal our jobs, not other countries.
 
uscitizen said:
BTW I warched an economic news show from India on CNBC last night. It appears that foreign ownership of India companies is limited to 26%, at least in the finiancial and insurance areas.
Click to expand...

We really have little need to limit foreign ownership in America, US. We probably own half of that 26% in India anyway.
 
Cypress said:
LOL - China is one of the most protectionist trading countries on the planet. So much for your theory about NAFTA-style "free" trade driving china's economy.

Company's often move there for cheap labor, slave labor, and few if any labor protection laws. Bottom line.
Click to expand...

Cypress, he never said that. And it's not true that an economy can't grow without free trade - free trade is just one of numerous factors that improves an economy. And China's basically going from no economy to a shit economy. That's where their "improvement" comes from.
 
Cypress said:
china maintains trade tarriffs on key industries, and china strictly regulates (and prohibits in many cases) foreign investment and foreign ownership of Chinese capital and infrastrucutre.

And they're kicking our ass in trade. Even with a "protectionist" policy. So, I don't want to hear anything about how wonderful NAFTA-style trade agreements are. That why many liberals call for bilateral trade agreements.

Its a false choice to proclaim that either you are for NAFTA-style agreements, or you are a flat out "protectionist". And you know its a false choice. Its one of Cons favorite strawmen.
Click to expand...

They're kicking our ass in trade?

Howso? America, a nation of 300 million, moved twice as much in trade as them, and they have 2 BILLION people.

What was wrong with NAFTA? When's this humongous job loss from it that you paranoids have been talking about going to come up? And why can't you get a single economist to agree with you?
 
AssHatZombie said:
Ya losing your trade boner, are ya?

For all my rhetoric, all i really espouse is limiting entry into global trade to nations with BASIC human rights, freedoms, working conditions etc. Other wise we relegitimize the kind of totalitarianism we claim to be against. It's really just a matter of right and wrong, and do we want to watch our society degrade as it is pulled down to that level, trying to compete with that sort of slavery, and with that reduction of humanity down to the level of machine efficiency analysis?
Click to expand...

Then why don't you just say that, Hat?
 
Watermark said:
Cypress, he never said that. And it's not true that an economy can't grow without free trade - free trade is just one of numerous factors that improves an economy. And China's basically going from no economy to a shit economy. That's where their "improvement" comes from.
Click to expand...



It directly contradicts the notion that protectionist barriers will "destroy an economy".

China is playing the game smart, and crushing us on trade, and economic growth rates. They practice "free trade" in theory, but their economy is relatively protectionist.
 
Cypress said:
It directly contradicts the notion that protectionist barriers will "destroy an economy".

China is playing the game smart, and crushing us on trade, and economic growth rates. They practice "free trade" in theory, but their economy is relatively protectionist.
Click to expand...

I never said that protectionism destroys an economy. If we raised all our tariffs to 100% there would be a large immediate economic fall out, but we wouldn't become a third world nation for at least 25 years.

China's not crushing us on trade. An artificial trade surplus is far worse for your an economy than a real trade deficit. And our trade deficit only comes from our debt, not from losing jobs and other such nonsense.

Think about it. What jobs have we lost? Our unemployment in 1994 was 4%. It's still about 4%. How have we lost jobs?
 
Watermark said:
I never said that protectionism destroys an economy. If we raised all our tariffs to 100% there would be a large immediate economic fall out, but we wouldn't become a third world nation for at least 25 years.

China's not crushing us on trade. An artificial trade surplus is far worse for your an economy than a real trade deficit. And our trade deficit only comes from our debt, not from losing jobs and other such nonsense.

Think about it. What jobs have we lost? Our unemployment in 1994 was 4%. It's still about 4%. How have we lost jobs?
Click to expand...


But with such growth, we should have a negative unemployment rate. Right?
 
Watermark said:
Then why don't you just say that, Hat?
Click to expand...

Because I might as well be pissing into the wind. even my meager desires are too much for the internationalist slave owners, who insist on pulling the world down into economic servitude. Do you understand PRECONDITION?
 
Watermark said:
I never said that protectionism destroys an economy. If we raised all our tariffs to 100% there would be a large immediate economic fall out, but we wouldn't become a third world nation for at least 25 years.

China's not crushing us on trade. An artificial trade surplus is far worse for your an economy than a real trade deficit. And our trade deficit only comes from our debt, not from losing jobs and other such nonsense.

Think about it. What jobs have we lost? Our unemployment in 1994 was 4%. It's still about 4%. How have we lost jobs?
Click to expand...

By going to a consumer economy we have lost jobs that create exports. Ie manufacturing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top