The Economic Populist
Speak Your Mind 2 Cents at a Time
Most Popular
US oil supplies at a 36½ year low, SPR at a 39 year low; oil+products supplies at an 18½ year low
- 191423 reads
2009: Recession vs. Recovery (Update 2)
- 67422 reads
May Leading Economic Indicators (1)
- 50877 reads
VAT or Value Added Tax is Getting a Look in D.C.
- 347041 reads
User login
Recent comments
Poll
US oil supplies at a 36½ year low, SPR at a 39 year low; oil+products supplies at an 18½ year low
- 191423 reads
2009: Recession vs. Recovery (Update 2)
- 67422 reads
May Leading Economic Indicators (1)
- 50877 reads
VAT or Value Added Tax is Getting a Look in D.C.
- 347041 reads
The Golden Rule
- 1826582 reads
Will the NY Attorney General Bring Doomsday Charges Against Wall Street? If So, How Long Will He Survive?
- 1217012 reads
New York Post Claims Census Falsifies Unemployment Figures
- 953260 reads
How Many Jobs Are Needed to Keep Up with Population Growth?
- 363168 reads
VAT or Value Added Tax is Getting a Look in D.C.
- 346712 reads
U3 and U6 Unemployment during the Great Depression
- 321945 reads
The war on the middle class
- 317331 reads
House discusses 401k/IRA confiscation
- 315807 reads
Tax Cuts for the Rich Do Not Generate Jobs
- 280233 reads
.
Dael V Escher > The White House
"Obama signs executive order mandating voting for everyone"
30 minutes ago · 23 · Unlike ·
Paul Craig Roberts for President.
Botswana pula? Give me a break!
So, Michael Collins, do you ever pull your punches?
Mark Smith notes SCOTUS Bush v. Gore, "you don't have the right to have your vote counted."
It's like peeling an onion: if you vote, you have no right to have it counted; if your vote is 'counted', you have no right to a real audit; even if your vote is accurately counted, whoever gets on the ballot has been bought by the necessity of campaign money; and, anyway, even if your good guy has won and gets into Congress, he or she will either be bought or will be voted down by the majority who have been bought.
And we haven't even got within the proverbial ten-foot-pole length of that even if everything else goes right, your representative may be assassinated at any time.
Voting looks like the definition of insanity. On the other hand, what does not-voting accomplish?
Early Tea Party activists included strong advocates of protectionism. But those early activists have not survived politically.
The 'Tea Party' movement historically has always been protectionist! (Of course, the original Boston Tea Party could be seen more as opposed to tariffs, but it actually was opposed only to tariffs not enacted by the colonies.)
The current so-called 'Tea Party' in Congress has stated their complete support for the fast-track 'free' trade agenda.
The 'Tea Party' has become a tool of the RNC to co-opt popular support for protectionism.
Identity politics are ultimately destructive in a time like this, when the nation is so dominated by special interests and in such dire straits.
If us old folks separate our interests from the interests of future generations, we deserve what we get - or, we deserve to lose whatever we lose.
JoblessInJersey quotes EPI: "Given this data on slow spending growth and decelerating wage pressures, it is odd indeed that boosting economic growth is not a higher priority among Washington policymakers."
Of course, the priorities of Washington policymakers are determined partly by realties and partly by politics. It has been said that "politics is the science or art of what is possible." Lately, politics seems to be the science or art of staying in power, which leads to thinking only about limitations, not possibilities. So, if we could begin to think realistically about possibilities ... for solutions ...
Here's what could be steps toward real solutions:
POSITIVE PROGRAM FOR FREE ENTERPRISE
The best protectionism begins with political reform, as prerequisite to any economic or financial reform.
Having said that, I look at the three protectionist options of currency exchange manipulation, subsidies and tariffs. For the currency exchange approach, I advocate a monetary policy like that prescribed by AMI or economist Michael Hudson.
For the subsidies approach, I advocate elimination of all subsidies and of the entire trade 'preference' system, which is, after all, a system opposed to free enterprise (and therefore to real free trade) and a manifestation of the current system of corporatist mercantilism. Aside from other problems of the 'trade preference' system, it can function only on the assumption of U.S. global hegemony. Whether U.S. hegemony was at one time inevitable and necessary, or not, such hegemony can no longer be assumed. To base national policies on unrealistic assumptions is the depth of folly, and such policies undermine U.S. national interests to the advantage of competing global powers.
Finally, for the tariff approach, I advocate imposition of an across-the-board tariff applied RIGOROUSLY AND EQUITABLY to all imports from any source whatsoever, unless outlawed by embargo deemed essential to our national interests or the interests of humanity. (If we have objections on principle, the proper action is an embargo, not a refusal to give a 'preference'.) Without some kind of across-the-board tariff on all trading partners, (a) we will never eliminate subsidies, and, (b) we will be unable to prevent profit-shifting income tax evasion. As long as tariffs are targeted by type and by source, tariffs like subsidies remain a guarantee that free enterprise will be forever held hostage to corrupt politics.
Apologists for the current WTO system say that tariffs are categorically against all economic policy across the board. With a little modification, I would agree. I would say an across-the-board tariff would be against all mercantilist economic policy. And I would say "THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT." We need to put systemic limits on the growth of global neo-mercantilism.
Walmart - Arkansas - Clinton - Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) - $$$ - NAFTA - more fast track - China trade 'deal' - U.S. decline
The next links in the chain of causation may well be like this:
U.S. decline - populist reaction - protectionism
The real question is what kind of protectionism?
There are three approaches : tariffs, subsidies and currency exchange.
I suggest there should be less blah-blah about protectionism is bad, 'free' trade is good ... and more about what kind of protectionism do we propose?
Going farther, I suggest there WILL be more discussion about what kind of protectionism does the U.S. want and how will it be implemented.
Robert Oak: "[To boost] US GDP ... something called wages [is] required."
Wages require employment (including independent operators, self-employed) ... something that used to be called full-employment policy.
Question: Can we have a full employment policy without protectionism of any kind?
Similar questions: Can we have a full employment policy without an immigration policy tied to that policy? Can we have a full employment policy without control of out-sourcing? Can we have a full employment policy and keep our H1B system as is?
Another question: Is free enterprise compatible with full employment? I think it is. I think that free enterprise is the only way to reach full employment without stagnation and the fall of democratic civil liberties. That brings us to the question of whether ad hoc subsidies are really compatible with free enterprise.
Has Trump come out strong in support of Obama's call to eliminate subsidies for oil companies? No, I don't think so. Are the news media playing elimination of those subsidies emphasizing the desirability of eliminating subsidies as a free-trade principle ... or are they using the scare tactic that "you will be paying more at the pump"?
The problem with tariffs is that, when they are targeted, they degrade into essentially political decisions. That is, targeted tariffs - like targeted subsidies - distort markets in favor of politically-connected special interests. Corruption is rewarded at the expense of the maintaining a healthy environment for competition.
What is needed is a way to protect our national economy and national interest against the erosive effects of tax dodges, monopolistic practices, corruption of the U.S. political structure, and other abuses that have become institutionalized within the WTO system as it exists.
Of course, Trump isn't criticizing the global mercantilist system generally. He isn't at any level advocating even a modification of our current system of targeted tariffs and subsidies, he's advocating an ad hoc policy targeting China only. That wouldn't work, because China's mercantilist system would easily find ways around it. Evasion of tariffs would be as easy as tax evasion by way of shifting profits to a low-tax or no-tax jurisdiction. The "Made in China" label would be replaced by "Made in Vietnam" or "Made in Pakistan" or "Made in Phillipines" - in all of which China has enormous resources that can be used in a mercantilist scheme.
Aside from that Trump's suggestion is unworkable, Trump doesn't really advocate it at all -- he advocates it as a kind of cowboy machismo approach that he knows will be attractive to many people who vote in Republican primaries. His idea really is to appeal to TV viewers ( = non-thinkers) with a ready-made pipe dream of China surrendering to the U.S..
I do credit Trump for admitting that he is among the many rich Republicans (and others!) in the U.S. who have essentially taken bail-out and tax-cut dollars from the U.S. economy and put them into China and other "emerging markets."
China is the prime example of the problem, NOT the problem.
The real solutions are here in the U.S.A., controlling our own lives our own borders and trade policies in our own best interests.
JoblessInJersey writes: "over the past few years I've seen economists and other people apologize more often for deviating from free trade principles than I've seen people apologize for disagreeimg with their religion's teachings."
There's another economic populist -- "Economic Populist Forum" -- which cannot fairly be compared to this EP site. It's wholly the creation of an M.D. in Southern California who has become interested in economics (and related politics) our of frustration with the current system and with the fantasy systems that permeate U.S. media and related non-thinking of the U.S. public. The other EP Forum presents good research and isn't just a political blah-blah thing, but it gets active only a few times a year -- presumably when the practicing physician can afford the time to do economic research and related commentary. Although this source is limited in scope, I have followed it on and off for a few years now, and I think it is impossible not to have some respect for the man behind it. The moniker of the blogger is 'unlawflcombatnt'.
Excepted for review purposes from 'unlawflcombatnt' writing (Aprl 18, 2011) on Trump and criticism of Trump by TV pundit, Lawrence O'Donnell -
Well, 'unlawflcombatnt' usually writes much more along the lines of what we see here from Robert Oak, but occasionally, as in this case, 'unlawflcombatnt' does get somewhat heated. Since I don't watch any TV news or commentary, I wouldn't have even heard of this O'Donnell guy except for the unfavorable review by 'unlawflcombatnt'.
If the point is to expose a political prejudice accepted like a religious belief, not to be subject to rational criticism, then the point is well taken.
IS TRUMP THE ONLY PROTECTIONIST?
JoblessInJersey writes, "Why didn't any other well known public figure suggest this years ago?"
Public figures who advocate protectionism don't get a whole lot of press. Which is strange, because ...
Every realist knows that protectionism has never died in practice and remains enormously popular among working people, with good reason. So, the question really shouldn't be "protectionism vs. non-protectionism", it should be "which protectionism do we advocate?"
Specifically, there are three approaches: tariffs, subsidies and currency exchange. According to the theorists of 'free' trade, all three of these are evil.
(How else can I discuss those theorists who have promised that war would end, national borders would dissolve, poverty would vanish, jobs would increase, consumer prices would fall, justice would prevail, and, autocratic one-party bosses would embrace civil liberties for all? You really have to go to the terminology that economists hate to get into, namely, Good vs. Evil. "Protectionism is evil whereas all 'free' trade agreements are good.")
Of the three approaches, it is only currency exchange manipulation that isn't 'outlawed' and subject to WTO quasi-litigation. So, everybody pretends that the whole issue is currency exchange manipulation. And that leads us where? Duh. Hat in hand, to the gate with "Central Bankers" inscribed in gold over the ornate arch!
IMO, America is filled with protectionists, as is the world. What else can be expected, considering what can only be considered the failure of virtually all the pie-in-the-sky promises of so-called 'free trade' advocates or WTO apologists? (Putting it another way, the collapse under an experiential critique of what is sometimes called the 'Austrian School' of economics -- for example, the lately great Greenspan.)
The truth is this: After a decade of experimentation with the WTO 'free' trade system, the working people not only of America, but of the world, are demanding protectionism. Protectionism is popular, and all but paid professional apologists respect that reality.
I recall a column by William Pfaff (Herald Tribune, writing from Paris since the days when there was a New York Herald Tribune), way back in the 1990s. Pfaff was puzzled by apparent enthusiasm in the U.S. for the globalist 'free' trade agenda, since (he stated firmly) there was no substantial popular support for that agenda in Europe any more. Indeed, there was wide-spread dissatisfaction growing throughout Europe with the EU system.
It's really been a case that could accurately be named "THE MONEY vs. THE PEOPLE" for some time now. The problem for advocates of THE PEOPLE is that one party (THE MONEY) has standing whereas the other party (THE PEOPLE) is left pleading for standing, without the issues ever being reached.
take the city of bell, please, or at least their jailed city hall. when a tiny fraction of the electorate actually gets off their rumps and votes, corruption cannot hide. our votes do count, if for nothing else but tossing out the current crop of thieves and putting into office a new cabal.
but in bell the folks stayed home on election days. gore lost when just a handful more votes would have avoided the supremes' gift of the presidency to their party. and on and on and so it goes, per omnia saecula saeculorum.
Most Americans don't have the cash to participate in our system of cash bribes to politicians, so they've given up. Only public funding of campaigns will restore our democracy, but that's the last thing in the world our entrenched politicians want to see.
They didn't get those benefits by voting, JoblessInJersey. The benefits were part of the New Deal, a bit of sleight-of-hand to protect corporate rule by means of regulations that could always be, and for the most part already have been, deregulated at any time.
Do you remember the 2000 election? When the Supreme Court stopped the vote count and nullified the election, they said that there was nothing in our Constitution that guarantees the right to have our votes counted. So you may, if you're fortunate, have the precious right to vote, but you don't have the right to have your vote counted. Exactly how precious is an uncounted vote? What changes can be brought about by means of uncounted votes?
Our Constitution was written in such a way as to ensure that those who owned the country would always rule it. So they retained the right to ignore or overrule the popular vote any time they wish.
Delegating your power by voting for candidates you can't hold accountable once they're in office, is like giving your power to attorney to a stranger and then wondering why your money is gone. It is the height of irresponsibility. If you can't hold them accountable, there is no incentive for them to represent you and they're more likely to represent whoever gives them the most money.
I see what you are saying but I am unwilling to concede that this state of affairs is hopeless or that we are helpless to do anything about it.
Look at how the elderly get just about whatever they want. Isn't that because they vote?
The electorate has been mostly passive for so long, who can say what would happen if the American people started standing up for themselves?
The Tea Party people did and have seemed to make some changes -- but of course we also see how much of what they really want is ignored because it doesn't suit the established politicians.
earlier in this decade. That said, the inane trade deficits mentioned, the never ending financialization, debt, outsourcing, sure had something to do with it!
But of course I have no training in economics.
Funny how many people who view "free trade" like a religion. Even more than a religion, really. Frankly over the past few years I've seen economists and other people apologize more often for deviating from free trade principles than I've seen people apologize for disagreeimg with their religion's teachings.
Too bad Trump didn't talk a bit more about stuff like this. He's never was a real, viable candidate and now all his birther stuff and cursing has probably sunk him and his ideas, as few and mostly ignored by the public as they were.
Even big mouthed jerks can articulate helpful ideas. Looks like he did.
There are all sorts of demands to confront China's currency manipulation, from the far left to the far right.
So, I don't know about anyone else, but I saw Trump's speech and just laugh, say "right on".
But that's basically a good idea, some version of that.
I clicked on one of the site's EPI links and the analysis of present trends is appalling:
"GDP Picture: First quarter growth dips, suggesting higher unemployment"
..."The last six months have seen an average growth rate of just over 2.4%, a rate indicating that the economy’s growth isn’t strong enough to put any downward pressure on the overall unemployment rate. In short, unless the economy starts growing appreciably faster, the problem of high unemployment will be quite persistent."
. . . . .
"All of the signs in this report [from the Bureau of Economic Analysis], point to an economy that remains below potential because it lacks sufficient spending. Another clear sign that the economy is running below potential is the continuing slow growth of core prices—prices minus food and energy products—whose changes are both volatile and driven largely by supply-side influences in the short-run. The “market-based” deflator for core personal consumption expenditures (a closely watched indicator of inflationary pressures building up in the economy) rose by less than 1% between the first quarters of 2010 and 2011. Given this data on slow spending growth and decelerating wage pressures, it is odd indeed that boosting economic growth is not a higher priority among Washington policymakers."
http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/gdp_picture_first_quarter_growth_d...
Pages