(Very) bad news: Obama appoints another leading neoliberal to his economics policy team

[brentspeak]

He already appointed neoliberal/pro-cheap-labor Austen Goolsbee to his team; now he appoints Hamilton Project wonk and globalization cheerleader Jason Furman to whisper in his other ear.

Steve Clemons at TPM has the story:

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/06/09/obamas_economic_soul/

[gravity]

1. I think it is a good decision

The best economic policies come about when you get both people from the right and left working together to come up with solutions.

[vaberella]

4. Gravity, you took the words right out of my mouth. You need a balance. Right now if we want to

move to a economically stable country. That means we have to actually reestablish Capitalism and convert it into something more agreeable with an environment that supports social welfare programs for all people. That being said, I like Obama more because of this. The transition needs to be slow, but the transition needs to be made and having both will help with that.

[brentspeak]

9. What, uh, "balance" is that?

The "transition needs to be slow"??????

Can you please specify what it is you're trying to say?

[gravity]

13. Economic policy is tricky

There are many unintended consequences from policies with the best intentions. Careful examination of policies need to occur, or else you can create whole new problems that are worst than with what you begin with.

[vaberella]

34. Gravity just answered it. You don't enact policies just like that. There are

consequences taht need to be realized. I find our system to be a sort of warped capitalist structure. Obama is trying to elmiinate big business control (this is one aspect mentioned). You don't just jump out of that. You have to provide slow transitional methods in order to create a healthy economy.

Keep in mind money has been slowly leeched out of social welfare programs for almost 30 years now (Thank you Volger). The programs that were around during the 60s and 70s have become extinct. In order to bring them back new policies have to be written and old ones eliminated. The economic set up is the most dangerous ones to deal with. You need both types of economic specialists in order to have some sucess and you have to do it slowly.

[Skwmom]

200. Common sense: you don't put the people back in charge that helped

you get in the mess your in. About those unintended consequences: I seem to recall plenty of people warning team Clinton about the downside of their free trade policies so I guess they didn't do such a good job of "careful examination."

Wow,can you imagine being one of the idiots involved in creating the subprime crisis and then being sought out for your economic counsel? No wonder America is going to hell in a hand basic. We reward stupidity.

[Captain Hilts]

32. But the Clintons got trashed here for doing that. nt

[polmaven]

116. The Clintons get trashed here

for existing!

[iamthebandfanman]

149. and all this time i thought it was because

hillary said activists and grassroots campaigning didnt matter.
and since we are a website full of those people....


silly me.

you know that logic, always getting in the way of making up things.

[polmaven]

151. Hillary said that, did she?

Please show me the link to that statment!

[iamthebandfanman]

180. sure, here ya go

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/celeste-fremon/clinton-slams-democratic_b_97484.html

p.s.
not a fan of the author, but you cant dispute the audio file of her saying what she said. have a listen to it.

[polmaven]

193. Well, maybe you hear

differently, but not one time on that audio did I hear the words "party activists don't matter".

Is this maybe the same language that said "These people are sh**s" and "white ni**ers"?

[sandnsea]

146. They get trashed for enacting corporatist policies

Not for having people on their team with a different point of view.

[Romulox]

156. LOLOL. And Obama is surrounding himself with *people who espouse corporatist policies*

Not because he agrees with them, or intends to enact them himself (oh no!)

But because he wants to hear a different point of view (from the one he's already hearing from the other rightwing economists (e.g. Austan Goolsbee) on his staff.

That makes--no--sense whatever.

[sandnsea]

159. Look at his Illinois Legislation

Look at what he's already passed in the Senate. It isn't anything like the stupidity the Clintons passed that didn't help anybody - except SChip which came from that evil Obama supporter, John Kerry.

[Marie26]

210. Look at his donors

What's that saying? "You have to dance with them that brought you." Big-shot Wall Street & hedge fund donors bankrolled Obama's campaign from the beginning & he'll have to adopt policies that satisfy them.

"Hedge Fund Managers Invest In Obama" - http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/04/hedge-fund-managers-invest-in-1.html

[OzarkDem]

107. They're both pro-cheap labor, that's not balance and its certainly not liberal

I don't know where people are coming up with these silly labels of neo-liberal, etc.

[Romulox]

154. "neo-liberal" refers to the historical meaning of the word: Radical, laissez faire capitalism...

Deregulation, privitization, and "free trade" all being central tenets of the faith...

Broadly speaking, neoliberalism seeks to transfer control of the economy from state to the private sector.<3> The definitive statement of the concrete policies advocated by neoliberalism is often taken to be John Williamson's<4> "Washington Consensus", a list of policy proposals that appeared to have gained consensus approval among the Washington-based international economic organizations (like the IMF and World Bank). Williamson's list included ten points:
Fiscal policy discipline;
Redirection of public spending from subsidies ("especially indiscriminate subsidies") toward broad-based provision of key pro-growth, pro-poor services like primary education, primary health care and infrastructure investment;
Tax reform – broadening the tax base and adopting moderate marginal tax rates;
Interest rates that are market determined and positive (but moderate) in real terms;
Competitive exchange rates;
Trade liberalization – liberalization of imports, with particular emphasis on elimination of quantitative restrictions (licensing, etc.); any trade protection to be provided by law and relatively uniform tariffs;
Liberalization of inward foreign direct investment;
Privatization of state enterprises;
Deregulation – abolition of regulations that impede market entry or restrict competition, except for those justified on safety, environmental and consumer protection grounds, and prudent oversight of financial institutions; and,
Legal security for property rights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberal#Policy_Implications

[Mimosa]

16. TRUE. The Clintons did the same.

I'm trusting Obama until I see/know otherwise.

[NashVegas]

18. Who Is Obama's Economic Left-Wing Flank?

[gravity]

20. This shouldn't be a battle

An economic policy team is used to help come up with effective solutions to problems. It ain't suppose to be to prove that one side is right, and the other is wrong.

I trust Obama's leadership ability to set the agenda, and whatever ecnomists who chooses will collaborate to work out the details.

[NashVegas]

24. Well, You Referred to Having Both Leftie And Rightie Elements

So I'm curious as to whom Obama turns to for economic advice among the anti-globalist & demand-side capitalism crowds.

[gravity]

30. You have to research that yourself

I honestly don't know

[Marie26]

59. There isn't one.

I did research it. Obama doesn't have one progressive economic adviser - they're ALL Friedmanites. It's one of the major reasons I didn't support him in the primary & why I still don't altogether trust him now.

[Buzz Clik]

66. You're fighting against the remants of the pro-Hillary "until death" goon squad.

It is not possible to conduct a logical debate with that crew.

[niceypoo]

You will be neutered tomorrow...

I cant wait to hear you sing in soprano.

[Buzz Clik]

77. Yeah. And you'll be the one assigned the job?

I'll be here.

[Straight Shooter]

163. All we need is tweezers. n/t

[Romulox]

93. Will censorship make rightwing economics make more sense for the average American family?

:shrug:

[Marie26]

92. So who are Obama's progressive economic advisors?

Let's have a logical debate.

[Marie26]

117. *crickets* nt

[Buzz Clik]

125. Did you bother to read the OP? He listed them.

Jesu Cristo. Logical debate -- based on what? Your predisposition?

[Marie26]

126. He listed them?

Who are they? I didn't see any progressives listed in the OP. *puzzled*

[Buzz Clik]

130. In the link. You wouldn't be puzzled if you read the article.

Give it a rest. Your concern is not about the economists, it's about who the nominee is not.

[Marie26]

131. I did read it. Did you?

That article doesn't mention ANY progressive economic advisors to Obama. Instead, it mentions only two economic advisers by name: Furman & Goolsbee. It mentions Hindery, a corporate AT&T CEO as someone who might be less hard-core, but he is a political adviser & a pro-business CEO to boot. There's just no real progressives or populists on the Obama team.

This is it: "Jason Furman, Director of the Brookings Institution Hamilton Project, has just announced that he is joining University of Chicago economist Austan Goolsbee as part of Barack Obama's (paid) economic policy team. This is really interesting news given the tug and pull over economic policy that has taken place already inside the Obama camp.

There are exceptions in their broad policy profiles and work, but essentially, both Goolsbee and Jason Furman are serious economists who generally subscribe to a neoliberal economic policy framework. They would be called "free traders" for the most part ...

Furman (a friendly acquaintance of mine and close associate of one of my New America Foundation colleagues) is also well known for his budget-hawkery. He has been part of the Democratic Party economic class that has successfully stolen from the Republicans the ethic of fiscal conservatism and advocates a Social Security entitlement reform process that begins to wrestle with America's long term entitlement obligations.

Leo Hindery, the CEO who has been advocating a stakeholder vs. 'winner takes all' capitalism as well as a national "on-shoring strategy", is part of Obama's advisory team -- but it may be wise for Obama to explain why those hired for the econ jobs pretty much reflect neoliberal orthodoxy and those 'only advising' in political roles are struggling with strategies on how to rebalance the economic results and impacts of globalization. ...

So, congrats to Jason Furman on his new post -- but I am scratching my head wondering which direction Obama is really going?"

[Buzz Clik]

134. Thanks for that, but you're hours behind.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6332938&mesg_id=6334993

Your bias oozes from your pores.

[Marie26]

182. Yeah, well that's an easy way to

avoid having to respond to any of my points. I love how the AT&T telecommunications CEO is the best one of Obama's advisors! LOL. But here's one point I want to make, while I have the chance: Be aware. Pay attention. Learn. It's sort of disturbing to me that so many "progressives" at DU seem to have no idea what neoliberalism is, or care, because this is the ideology that is shaping our economy & our lives.

Back in 2000, Republicans liked Bush cause he seemed like a nice guy, & he preached tolerance, unity. & a humble foreign policy. Meanwhile, he was surrounding himself with a boatload of neoconservative advisors. Most of his supporters had no idea what a "neocon" was, & wouldn't care if someone told them. Supporters could say "who cares what a neocon is, I trust Bush." But it turns out that Bush's choice of advisors was a much better predictor of how he would eventually govern than any of his campaign rhetoric. The "humble foreign policy" & "bipartisanship" quickly fell by the wayside as the neocons got their wars. It's important to know who a politician appoints in order to know who that politician is allied with & what groups he is beholden to. Pay attention to the man (or men) behind the curtains.

Obama is appointing corporate neoliberals because (IMO) he adheres to a corporate, free-market, free-trade economic policy. He's not a populist, or even a progressive on economic issues. These advisers have advocated for privatization of government, corporate tax cuts, & other right-wing, free market policies. In order to weaken their influence, Obama needs to receive just as much pressure from the grassroots, left-wing activists that helped elect him. Don't simply trust that he'll enact progressive policies, use pressure to ensure that he does, & pay attention when he seems to be traveling down the neoliberal road.

Obama gets economic advice from the Chicago School -
http://thesyndrome.com/2008/02/19/obama-gets-his-economic-advice-from-skull-and-bones-and-the-chicago-school/

[Runcible Spoon]

168. Oh Bullshit! I can't stand the Clintons and I want to know the answer!

I honestly don't trust any mainstream Dem to be truly progressive on economic policy. Neoliberalism and global capitalism have become the "default" economic system, one seen as undeniable, besides the point, and inevitable. Any policy any major candidate espouses will embrace neoliberalism/global capitalism as a forgone conclusion and craft policy from there. I'm DYING to be proven wrong; no indication from the Obama campaign that this will be the case.

[Skwmom]

201. I'm not pro-Hillary and could you point me to the logical debate

b/c it seems like a lot of illogical, meaningless spin to me.

[Buzz Clik]

65. Three and a half hours. That's it. God damn, I can't wait!

[jonnyblitz]

70. nope. the primary ends on DU at noon TOMORROW not today.

see Skinners thread pinned at the top of this forum.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6259404&mesg_id=6259404

[Buzz Clik]

71. Shit! 27.5 hours.

[NashVegas]

90. Weren't You The One Who Wrote

Something about the admins confusing the difference between free speech and the appearance of free speech?

A shame you've decided to fall on the side of appearances.

[Buzz Clik]

123. Nope. That wasn't me.

You wouldn't have a link ... no, of course not.

There is no appearance of free speech at DU, and I don't come here to read the latest trashing of Democratic candidates. We've put up with this for nearly a year, and I cannot wait for it to officially end.

If your dismay with the turn of events in the Democratic Party has you questioning political orientation, I can direct you to some sites with people who'd love to compare notes about the other candidates/parties out there.

[NashVegas]

144. Well, Never Mind Then

Say, what do you think about global capitalists and multi-national corporations that ride roughshod over human rights, local/regional law-making & cultural norms?

[high density]

76. Right. He can ask these guys what they think, and then do the opposite.

Obama will look like a genius! ;)

[bread_and_roses]

198. The utter failure of neo-liberal economics makes that nonsense

We've had a long lotta years to see the total failure of neo-liberal economics, and what a defender of cheap-wage, slave-labor-goods WalMart is doing on Obama's economic team is a good question.

I support Obama, and harbor probably insane hopes that he is more progressive than some of his rhetoric - but in the end, change and progress will be on OUR shoulders.

Either we create the demand for real change or it won't happen. Our hope is greater with Obama than with HRC because he has run a populist style campaign and fueled people's hopes and activism.

Now, it's time for us to watch him like a hawk and exert pressure for the changes we want. Otherwise, we may as well stay home for all the changes we'll see coming out of Washington.

The elders have it right: "We are the change we've been waiting for." Obama is just our best-chance vehicle.

[babylonsister]

2. Not everyone thinks it's bad news...

and what's wrong with this?

Furman said his priority as Obama's economic policy director would be to expand the range of advice and proposals flowing to the Democratic nominee by reaching out to a wider group of economists.



http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=108x132551

[brentspeak]

5. That's about as nebulous a statement of fluff as I've heard recently

Why isn't Furman's priority trying to convince Obama that we have to give Chinese imports the stiff-arm unless China finally freely opens up its borders to our products???

[babylonsister]

7. How do you know what his priorities are? He's just been hired, and

I'm sure he doesn't intend to share a whole lot with us, at least not at this point.

[brentspeak]

12. No, the question is: How to YOU know what his priorities are?

I believe it was you, not me, who asked "What's wrong with this?" in reference to the Furman paraphrase.

[babylonsister]

14. Yawn. You're worrying about someone you know nothing about and

looks to me like you're trying to pick a fight. I'm not interested.

[Shoelace]

49. Bloomberg has a more positive stance on Furman

goodness sakes, he sounds great to me. He's a brilliant man who helped Clinton get the budget balanced, etc. Here's a few snips from Bloomberg:

Furman said in an interview that the Obama campaign's economic goal is based on ``broadly shared, bottom-up growth,'' similar to the views espoused by groups such as the Hamilton Project and the Economic Policy Institute, a Washington research group funded partly by labor unions.

`Empower People'

``You need to empower people to make the economy work for them,'' Furman said.

Furman also named Jared Bernstein of the Economic Policy Institute and James Galbraith, a University of Texas economist and son of economist John Kenneth Galbraith, who was an adviser to President John F. Kennedy.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aUEIoIsU8XR4&refer=us

Also, the Hamilton Project is anything but "neo-liberal." It believes that unemployment insurance should be greatly strengthened and Social Security should be protected from privatization.

[Marie26]

97. The Hamilton Project is corporatist

If Obama's views are "similar to the views espoused by groups such as the Hamilton Project," then that is not a progressive or populist economic policy.

The Hamilton Project: Same Corporatist Whine In New DLC Vessels - http://firedoglake.com/2008/02/13/the-hamilton-project-same-corporatist-whine-in-new-dlc-vessels/

[LisaM]

142. Why not?

He keeps insisting that he is doing our work, not his own work. So I think we should expect full and immediate tranparency.

[bigpenguin]

53. probably

probably for the same reason his priority isn't trying to convince the redhead down the hall from me to show up at my apartment with a bottle of whiskey and some chinese take out while wearing nothing but her underwear.

Just because that's what I'd like to see him do, doesn't mean he'll do it.

[Marie26]

61. That is fluff

What kind of economists will he be reaching out to? That could mean anything from reaching out to progressives to reaching out to corporate free-market neoliberals. And given that Furman runs a hedge fund, it's more likely to be the latter.

[ProSense]

3. This is nonsense. Why the sky is falling characterization from Clemons

Economist Jason Furman joins the Obama campaign

Jason Furman has joined the Obama campaign staff as its Director of Economic Policy, campaign spokesman Bill Burton said.

Economist Austan Goolsbee -- who has been an unpaid advisor throughout the campaign and, unlike Furman, has not previously worked in Democratic electoral politics -- will join Furman on an 11:45 conference call kicking off Obama's two-week economic tour.

Furman played a similar role for John Kerry during the 2004 campaign, and then went on to work at NYU, where played a role in the fight against Bush's 2005 Social Security reform efforts. He then became the director of the Hamilton Project, a center-left economic policy shop at Brookings overseen, among others, by former Clinton Treasury Secretaries Robert Rubin and Lawrence Summers. He is a veteran of the Clinton White House.

Jason Furman
Visiting Scholar

Jason Furman is a Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution where he is Director of the Hamilton Project. Furman is also a Visiting Scholar at New York University's Wagner Graduate School of Public Service. Previously Furman served as Special Assistant to the President for Economic Policy in the Clinton Administration. Furman has been a visiting lecturer at Columbia and Yale Universities. In addition, he served as a Staff Economist at the Council of Economic Advisers, Senior Economic Adviser to the Chief Economist of the World Bank, and Director of Economic Policy for the Kerry-Edwards campaign. He received his Ph.D. in economics from Harvard University.

link

Clemons spent the most part of the past couple of years pushing Hagel for president. Now he's worried about Obama?

[mzmolly]

45. Clemons said "it's fairly easy for each to say that they are on the side of working families"

so I'm not sure who's sky is falling? ;)

[On the Road]

50. I'm Not Familiar with Furman

but that's a pretty good background for an economics advisor.

[FrenchieCat]

6. You have a cloud over your head.

:wtf: And you supported Hillary?:wow:

[brentspeak]

10. No, genius: I supported Edwards

[FrenchieCat]

22. And?

so?

The sky still isn't falling.

[Warren Stupidity]

31. I believe that he lost the primary a long time ago.

So what we have is what we have. Time to work on getting Obama in the white house, and time to stop stirring shit.

[2rth2pwr]

46. LOL!

[LBJDemocrat]

8. He's doing what needs to be done to get elected

What do you expect? It doesn't mean he'll necessarily do as this guy says. And even if he does, if he shifts the rhetorical frame of debate away from Reaganism, there might still be long-term prospects for a progressive solution.

[hendo]

44. Reagan and Thatcher

are why neo-liberalism became so popular. They were the driving forces behind putting the theory into practice.

[guruoo]

51. Absolutely. To serve, one must first get elected.

[Skwmom]

202. I wondered about that. Time will tell.

[PM7nj]

11. Did you hear Obama's speech in NC today?

He knows what is wrong with the economy and how to fix it.

[AtomicKitten]

15. I never expected to agree with everything Obama does 100% of the time.

Did you? I also prefer Kucinich's healthcare plan. But, you know what? For the purposes of this general election that is upon us, I'm going to support the candidate generally and specifically wherever I can.

Overall, I think Obama is a spectacular candidate. He ain't Jesus but damn that boy has skills.

[OzarkDem]

112. The economy is a pretty important issue

Having people who support policies that ship good paying US jobs overseas isn't a minor thing, its major.

[AtomicKitten]

141. these are advisers (and there are many) - we're not taking about policy

When Barack was talking about getting all points of view, that's what he intends to do. Compilation of data and differing opinions in the consideration of important policy decisions is a good thing.

:scared: is a rather overblown response to this, but you go on with your bad self.

[OzarkDem]

161. Maybe he'll add Paul Krugman, then

that would be a different POV.

[AtomicKitten]

165. that's the idea but he'll probably keep those openly hostile to him at arm's length

[Skwmom]

204. Krugman is pro free-trade.

[Runcible Spoon]

187. not accusing you of anything but the "we need more data" line is old hat to neocons...

neocons who want to stall on making any real policy moves on issues like the environment. Global ice caps melting? Neocons say: we need more data to know if this is actually happening. Polar bears going extinct bc. of environmental degradation? Neocons: we need more data to find out how many polar bears there should be in the first place.


Look, after decades of Reagan, Clinton, and Bush, we have a pretty good fucking idea of what's going on. Neoliberalism and global capitalism is a CANCER that eats away at everything good and noble and proud in this country.

I don't need another fucking multimillion dollar BROOKINGS INSTITUTE "study" to try to hide what is glaringly obvious to those of us who are paying attention!

[AtomicKitten]

188. "glaringly obvious to those of us who are paying attention"

You are coming to that conclusion based on a handful of advisers (among hundreds) you find objectionable. I believe Obama deserves a chance to craft policy and govern before summarily passing judgment on him. But, hey, that's me.

[Runcible Spoon]

190. well hey, I certainly hope for the best, but politics at this level is a carefully crafted game.

a presumptive nominee and very probable next president of the USA does NOT pick high profile advisers without fully knowing that their presence communicates an awful lot about what they plan to do.

I mean, c'mon, would you expect us to NOT judge Bush by Karl Rove?!

I'm happy you're optimistic, I'm not being sarcastic. I guess I'm just sick of politics as usual and I really see no overwhelming indication that we are going to get anytthing else than neoliberal/global capitalist business as usual.

OBAMA PROVE ME WRONG!

[AtomicKitten]

192. I would be very pleased if he proved you wrong too.

I know precisely where you are coming from. I completely support open government, truth and accountability. But after holding our breath for the last, hell, three decades, I'm up for a brief respite (at least til he's elected) before being provoked again. He just may prove all the hand wringing moot. Hey, it could happen. :D

[NashVegas]

17. This Does Not Surprise Me

Obama wants to be president.

If he should win, I reckon I'll be among the noisemakers encouraging people to fight his administration's economic policies.

[FrenchieCat]

23. I believe that Hillary Clinton is a neoliberal.....last I checked.

[hendo]

111. Yup, as was Bill. n/t

[DemocratSinceBirth]

19. Doesn't Surprise Me...What Did You Expect?

All electorally successful national Democrats practice "Third Wayism" even if they don't call it that...

[mainman232]

21. Neoliberalism works

It's a neccesity for proper economic stability that are new leaders be rooted in it.

[LWolf]

25. Neoliberalism is destroying our nation.

Neoliberalism is what privatizes, de-regulates, and enriches corporations at the expense of the rest of us.

Neoliberalism and neoliberals are the enemy of the people.

From my non-corporate perspective, of course.

[mainman232]

27. Neoliberalism hasn't even been used in our nation...

Don't think George Bushes poor excuse for Neoliberalism is real Neoliberal policies.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[hendo]

113. No, but Reagan's were. Bush Sr was fairly neo-lib too. n/t

[gravity]

29. We had neoliberal policies in the 19th century

and there is a reason why we don't have them today.

[hendo]

115. neo-liberalism hasn't been around that long.

It was more a drive for imperialism than the creation of a free market.

The furthest that you could possibly go back is Bretton Woods, and thats more classical liberalism. Neo-liberalism didn't begin to pick up steam until Reagan and Thatcher
pushed for it in the 80's.

Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of good things that come from a free market, but neo-liberalism saw its birth in the US and the UK.

[Tatiana]

33. Yeah, that's what leaders of Argentina said.

Unfortunately, the citizens disagreed.

[mainman232]

35. Yet its working miracles in Colombia

But yes, lets ignore the positive examples.

[gmudem]

38. The Colombian government that is killing union organizers?

Yeah sounds great. And research the affects of neo-liberalism in Chile, Argentina, Bolivia, and Brazil. The people never wanted those policies so the governments there had to force them to accept the policies at the barrel of a gun.

[mainman232]

39. The Colombian goverment isn't killing union organizers....

More propaganda for you....

Anyways violence rate, kidnapping rates, economy, all improved at rates better than any other nation in history.

While there are some Human Right abuses they have gone down in number by over 300% in that time as well. Also America has its own problems with Human Rights that are far worse.

[PM7nj]

41. HAHA!

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2007/11/07/colomb17269.htm
http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/feature-stories/colombia-time-stop-killing-and-persecution-trade-unionists-and-a

[mainman232]

47. not only old as fuck...

But the killers were brought to justice. They were leftist guerillas. Not the goverment. And the police did a great job on bringing them to justice. Strange I never see human right reports abotu the USA. I'm pretty sure Colombia has far less problems in that are; we're not sending randomly picked arabs to detention centers and torturing them....

[gravity]

42. If you want to defend neoliberalism, don't use Colombia as the example

There are too many problems in that country even with the small successes.

As a rule of thumb, any simplistic economic prescription is going to be a disaster. That is why we need pragmatic economic solutions that take into account many points of view.

[Runcible Spoon]

179. yeah, isn't Chile the usual cheerleader trotted out for this BS?

:shrug:

[progressive_realist]

55. Enjoy your stay here

Colombia is undeniably the most fucked up country in South America right now. And Chile's experiment in neoliberalism under Pinochet was pretty much the test that proved neoliberalism was an absolute loser of a strategy. I don't normally get personal on this board, but you are an idiot. Read some history.

[Marie26]

60. Worked out great for South America, right?

The torture, economic shocks, exploitation & US-backed coups messed up that continent for decades.

[ecstatic]

89. Can you give examples of neoliberal strategies nt

[OzarkDem]

114. How are cheap labor policies "neo-liberalism"?

and how does it provide the US with economic stability?

[and-justice-for-all]

26. Did Lincoln not do the very same thing?

appoint opposition to his adminestration as a balance to beable to hear both sides of the issues.

[Marie26]

57. This isn't the opposition.

This is the team. ALL three of Obama's top economic advisors espouse "free trade/free market", neo-liberal positions. Obama himself is a member of the Hamilton Project, which is a pro-business, Wall Street corpratist think tank. His campaign was backed by many Wall Street hedge funds, & hedge fund CEOS were some of Obama's top donors. Now he selects a hedge fund manager for his VP search committee. This person will NOT be recommending anyone for VP who has advocated for market regulation, hedge fund investigations, or populist positions. All of this means that Obama is not as progressive as people here would like to believe.

[NashVegas]

63. Isn't It Neat

How we were kept from discussing this stuff, by all the flame fests, until now when the nomination is pretty much secure?

[Marie26]

83. Not so much

It got brought up on occasion, but you're right, it got lost in the flame-fests. The only reason anyone learned about Goolsbee at all was when Canadian news reported that he'd been whispering to Canada about how Obama's criticism of free trade was just "campaign rhetoric" for Ohio voters. IMO it'd be better for all DUers to be on top of this, because we need to know & the netroots needs to be in a position to pressure Obama on some of these issues. I would pay good money to hear Obama answer this simple question: "Do you support Keynesian or Friedmanite economic theory?" But based on who he's selected for his inner circle, I'm afraid that we already have the answer. (See "Shock Doctrine" for an explanation of all of this.)

[Skwmom]

203. What difference would it have made? Clinton is a big free-trader.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

28. Good news. These are great, brilliant minds. Now if only Ms. Powers would return! n/t

[Skittles]

37. I hope this does not surprise you n/t

[Lord Helmet]

40. he's one of many advisers so you don't need to be ascared

[zulchzulu]

43. Free Trade Agreement experts with the ability to make agreements like Peru FTA are needed

Even environmental groups like Friends of the Earth and the Sierra Club liked the environmental provisions of the Peru FTA.

No it wasn't perfect, but it has to be noted that free trade agreements will continue with the prerequisite that agreements are made with responsible parameters regarding environmental, labor, financial distribution and other attributes as part of the agreement.

Since we want to reconfigure FTAs like NAFTA, CAFTA and China PMFN, it would be good to have experts involved in the brain trust. Yes, let's all keep an eye on what's going on.

That is a given no matter who is in charge.

[stillcool]

48. Something else about Obama's advisors...

..it's a four page article...

Obama's policy team loaded with all-stars
By Mike Dorning | Washington Bureau
September 17, 2007
http://www.chicagotribune.com/services/newspaper/printedition/monday/chi-obama_mon_nusep17,0,3844054.story
WASHINGTON - Barack Obama's presidential bid may have a well-cultivated insurgent feel, as the candidate both benefits and suffers politically from a relatively thin record of experience in Washington.

But the swelling team of policy advisers who have joined his campaign shows a politician grounded in his party's intellectual mainstream and well-connected within the capital's Democratic establishment.

As Obama rapidly transitioned from a senator with less than three years in office to a presidential candidate who has delivered detailed policy speeches, he has assembled a personal think tank that easily outsizes any of the established Washington policy institutes that provide intellectual fodder for the political war of ideas.

On foreign policy alone, some 200 experts are providing the Obama campaign with assistance of some sort, arranged into 20 subgroups. On the domestic front, more than 500 policy experts are contributing ideas, campaign aides said. Veterans of previous election campaigns say the scale of the policy operation resembles the full-blown effort candidates typically undertake for a general election campaign rather than the more stripped-down versions common for the primary season.

Senior advisers include heavy hitters from the administration of President Bill Clinton, husband of Obama's primary rival.

Anthony Lake, Clinton's original national security adviser, is helping coordinate foreign policy. So is Susan Rice, a Clinton assistant secretary of state and protege of former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. Eric Holder, a former deputy attorney general, is among those providing expertise on legal policy.

"These are not outsiders trying to tear down the temple," said Philip Zelikow, a former senior Bush administration foreign policy official and executive director of the Sept. 11 commission.

"If you guess that he's surrounded himself with people who are highly ideological, left-wing or dovish, you would guess wrong," added Zelikow, now a history professor at the University of Virginia. "These folks cannot easily be typecast by ideology."

Free-market economic team

Key economic advisers include a few Washington veterans such as Michael Froman, a Citigroup executive and former chief of staff to then-Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, the Cabinet member most closely identified with the Clinton administration's pro-free trade, business-friendly policies.

There are also several scholars from prestigious universities whose approaches are anchored in dominant market-oriented economic thought. One is Austan Goolsbee, a 38-year-old star University of Chicago Business School professor and New York Times columnist with centrist Democratic views who has argued for eliminating tax returns for many Americans with simple finances.

Alan Blinder, former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve, described Obama's top economic advisers as "mainstream with a dash of creativity."

"These are people who think new thoughts -- within the mainstream, new without a capital N," said Blinder, now a professor at Princeton University.

The campaign policy team gathered around Obama is hardly a shadow Cabinet. If he wins the nomination, other Democratic policy experts who now are neutral or allied with a different candidate will gravitate toward him. If he's elected, still more will join his circle.

But the makeup of the group, and the way in which Obama deliberates with its members, offers a window onto how he might operate as president. Many of them surely would graduate to influential roles in an Obama administration. Their discussions of the broad range of issues a presidential candidate must address provide an early if imperfect drill for decision-making in the Oval Office.
------------------------------------
Obama built relationships with high-powered policy experts even before he was elected to the Senate.

Goolsbee first met Obama, then a lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School, in the faculty social world. University of Chicago law professor Cass Sunstein and Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe, two of the nation's leading liberal legal scholars, have relationships with Obama respectively dating back to the University of Chicago faculty lounges and Obama's days at Harvard Law School. Lake began giving Obama informal foreign policy advice even before Obama won the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate.

Once elected to the U.S. Senate, Obama set up an ambitious policy operation for a newcomer. Froman, a former fellow editor of the Harvard Law Review, helped make connections in Washington's policy establishment. So did Cassandra Butts, another law school classmate and former senior policy adviser to then-House Democratic Leader Richard Gephardt. She continues to assist with Obama's policy operation.

[Shoelace]

52. that is GREAT news! He's got a huge team of great people behind him

thanks so much for posting that info. I so hope you do post the same thing in a separate post as people need to know these things.

God knows, he's going to need all the help he can get to get out of the present economic mess that Bushistas have created and it sounds like he's got a dynamic team to do the job. :bounce: :kick:

[Marie26]

56. "Free market economic team"

'Nuff said.

[Buzz Clik]

75. Thank you! Excellent counterbalance to the OP.

[Marie26]

84. Is it really?

First of all, the OP bolds the praise Obama recieved from Philip Zelikow, a Bush Administration Republican. And Zelikow praises Obama's economic team because it's not "left-wing, not dovish, not ideological." The translation here is that they're not liberals, pacifists, idealists or people who will rock the boat from the economic status quo. If a Bush Republican is happy w/Obama's team, generally progressives should not be.

They didn't bold this part of the article, which basically confirms everything the OP posted:

Free-market economic team

Key economic advisers include a few Washington veterans such as Michael Froman, a Citigroup executive and former chief of staff to then-Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, the Cabinet member most closely identified with the Clinton administration's pro-free trade, business-friendly policies.

There are also several scholars from prestigious universities whose approaches are anchored in dominant market-oriented economic thought. One is Austan Goolsbee, a 38-year-old star University of Chicago Business School professor and New York Times columnist with centrist Democratic views who has argued for eliminating tax returns for many Americans with simple finances.



"Free market" "market-oriented" "anti-tax" is another way of describing Freidmanite, neoliberal economic policy.

[Buzz Clik]

118. I used the word "counterbalance", not "contradiction"

The OP didn't even bother to include all the information in the article he linked.

For those looking to undermine Obama's campaign, this must be fascinating reading. For those of us who understand the complexities of both campaigning and economics, this is just another piece in a big puzzle.

[hendo]

124. Zelikow is a renowned scholar

Many of his books are non-partisan and insightful reads. I highly recommend Essence of Decision if you are looking for a good analysis of the Cuban Missile Crisis.

[Marie26]

199. OK

You're not really contradicting my point. Zelikow might be a scholar, but he's also a Republican & Bush Ad. official. Republicans generally favor "free-market" economic policies like tax cuts, privitization, ending entitlement programs, etc. If a Republican like Zelikow is praising Obama's economic team, that's not a good sign. It's even worse when he praises them not being "dovish" or "left-wing" - the translation here is that they're not a bunch of radical liberals, but people who will follow market-friendly policies that don't rock the boat. It reinforces what the article says straight out: this is a "free market" team that will follow neoliberal "free-market" policies once in office.

This impression was further reinforced when Obama unveiled his economic plan this week. With the world at his feet, & the chance to present a bold new vision of change, Obama's plan proposes... more stimulus checks? Eliminating the capital gains tax? Ugh. That's Republican-lite policies straight out of the free-market playbook. I would be THRILLED to be proven wrong about this. Prove me wrong, Obama! Please!

[woolldog]

54. Wonderful!!

[Marie26]

58. This doesn't surprise me.

Obama is pro-globalization & pro-free trade. He's appointed U of Chicago economics advisers, even though these advisers preach things like corporate tax cuts. He wouldn't fire Goolsbee even when Goolsbee (supposedly) went behind Obama's back to assure Canada that he's still a big backer of free trade. He's spoken w/admiration about the corpratist Hamilton Project & gotten big backing from Wall Street hedge funds. So of course he appoints a hedge fund manager to run his VP search. This is what he believes & who he is beholden to.

[blindpig]

145. Exactly

This is the most delusional campaign in history. Obama is about as 'left' as Joe Lieberman.

Obama, Clinton, McCain, doesn't matter, the government moves further to the Right. The differences are small change, mostly cosmetic.

Perhaps Obama is what it will take to blow apart the hollow husk of liberalism.

[conspirator]

62. Even Obama voters know he is light version of a corporate candidate. But still better him than

a 100% corporate like Hillary.

[Buzz Clik]

64. A neoliberal? No way! He appointed a neoliberal!!!!11 What's a neoliberal.

This OP sucks ass.

[Freddie Stubbs]

87. Neoliberalism is

a political movement beginning in the 1960s that blends traditional liberal concerns for social justice with an emphasis on economic growth.

[Marie26]

91. No

Neoliberalism is not about social justice. It refers to "economic liberalism" - Adam Smith's philosophy that the markets should be free of any & all government control. Otherwise known as free-market, free-trade, laissez-faire economic policy. The "neoliberals" revived this old theory w/a special emphasis on globalization & free markets as a way to enrich American corporations. "Neoliberalism" is free market philosophy, & stands in direct opposition to socialism, liberalism, populism & other movements that emphasize government regulation of capitalism & collective programs to promote social justice & the general welfare.

[Freddie Stubbs]

95. Most people did pretty well in the 1990's due to Clinton's economic policies

[Marie26]

99. What does that have to do with my post?

What you were describing is not neoliberalism. "Neoliberalism" is another word for free-market, free-trade, laissez-faire, pro-globalization economic policy.

[Freddie Stubbs]

101. Isn't that what NAFTA is?

:shrug:

[Marie26]

104. Yep.

:shrug: That's why Obama's neoliberal adviser reassured Canada that he wouldn't mess w/NAFTA. Neoliberalism is the opposite of populism. Globalists love unrestricted free-trade agreements, because they can unload US goods in new countries w/o tariffs & outsource jobs to workers who can be exploited for pennies an hour. American workers, not so much.

[Freddie Stubbs]

108. American workers did pretty well in the 1990's

[Marie26]

109. Tell it to Ohio.

We don't disagree here on the main points - it's just that you believe neoliberalism is a good thing & I do not. Whatever your opinion on the merits, you must agree that it is NOT a progressive or populist policy.

[Freddie Stubbs]

122. It is a centrist policy

[brentspeak]

135. It's a "centrist" policy to allow China to dump billions of tons of its goods on our shores

while China closes its borders to most of our products?

That's what you call "centrist"?

[Freddie Stubbs]

140. No, it only is if BOTH countries drop their trade barriers

We do not yet have a free trade agreement with China.

[brentspeak]

171. And since we don't have a free-trade agreement with China...

...and almost none of the neoliberal economists have exactly been pushing for one (not like a trade agreement with China would do much good, anyway; China will always allow its citizens to be unprotected from labor and environmental violations, for instance), WHY are you on side of these economists and their policies?

[Runcible Spoon]

173. what we have with China is the sale of the soul of our economy.

I'm so glad everyone got to enjoy the 90's while I get to begin my working life in THIS. Fuck you Clinton, fuck you Bush, fuck you Brookings Institute.

[HughBeaumont]

162. White collars may have. Blue collar workers mostly got the shaftola.

And the PTB callously told these downsized blue collar workers to train for white collar careers . . . which, in a few years, would follow their predecessors offshore.

Watch The Big One sometime. The Clinton years weren't peaches and cream for everyone.

[hendo]

119. neoliberalism is only laissez-faire if it is allowed to degrade. n/t

[Skwmom]

205. That's because the negative impact from his economic policies

wasn't really felt UNTIL he left office.

[Buzz Clik]

127. I don't know squat about neoliberalism. If the term refers to Adam Smith, what's the "neo" about?

[Marie26]

132. It's a new version of an old idea

The original was called "classical liberalism". Neoliberalism is short for "neoclassical liberalism," & represents a resurgence of classical free-market policies w/a new globalization twist.

[brentspeak]

136. And the great irony of the neoliberals is their support of trade "liberalization"

Ironic because they care very little that nations like China and India refuse to "liberalize" their own trade borders. All that matters to the U.S. neolibs is that the United States liberalizes it's borders.

[brentspeak]

137. Er, um...wrong.

Marie's response lays it out well, though.

What I don't get is why you support the policy of neoliberalism when you apparently don't even know what it is.

[Romulox]

157. The same reason the poster has a picture of the Perot-Gore debate--she's unaware that Gore was wrong

It's frustrating, but I'm guessing she's very young.

[Marie26]

88. You really should find out

Neoliberalism is the slightly kinder, less war-like face of neoconservatism. They use economics to accomplish the same goals that neoconservatives accomplished w/force: American hegemony, free trade, & exploitation of resources for the benefit of an elite.

"What is Neoliberalism? - A Brief Definition for Activists"
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=376

[hendo]

121. However, neoliberalism is also highly anti-war

because the concept is that international trade will create alliances that are so strong that war will become unthinkable.

There are two sides to this coin. Or do you not agree that economic sanctions are better than waging war?

[brentspeak]

138. You don't seem to understand...

...neoliberalism is not even pro-trade. If its proponents really were pro-trade, you'd be hearing them angrily denounce China and demand that it drops its tariffs on American-made products.

Also, neoliberalism has absolutely nothing to with being "anti-war"; Thomas Friedman, the most famous globalization cheerleader of all, is also famous for supporting the invasion of Iraq.

[hendo]

139. I'm sorry

but you don't seem to understand what you are talking about, and neoliberalism is a far broader perspective than the opinions of one man.

Also, there have been many calls for China to drop tariffs, and they have been consistently made for years.

I recommend that you go read up more on neoliberalism before you attempt to blindly trash it. If you would like to read some articles on the subject let me know and I will point you in the right direction.

Maybe your boy Edwards was right, maybe we really are two americas. the one that understands the importance of trade, and the other that runs around spouting tin foil hat arguments against it.

[brentspeak]

169. I apparently know a heck of a lot more about the subject than you do

The very fact that you keep using the word "trade" when "trade" doesn't actually exist, for one.

Your http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6332938&mesg_id=6335790">use of the word "isolationism" instead of "protectionism", for two.

And your statement that there have been "many calls for China to drop tariffs, and they have been consistently made for years", for three. Which of the neoliberal economists have been raising a stink about China's policies? Which of them have called for punitive measures from our end to force China's hand?

My recommendation is that you get your facts straight before commenting on this issue.

[hendo]

195. your fear of free trade is far more isolationist than protectionist

get off your high horse with that tin foil logic.

[Runcible Spoon]

178. not just one man, MANY. PNAC has a bunch....

here you can get started: http://www.defenddemocracy.org/

Supporting trade does NOT FUCKING EQUAL pro-neoliberal policies. The Devil's best trick was convincing us he doesn't exist. Well, he's here, he's PNAC, and he wants to milk your economy for everything it's worth before the inevitable collapse of the global economy that he KNOWS is impending because he helped orchestrate it.

Some optimists say it's not too late, the more days that go by, the more doom and gloom I get.

[hendo]

196. You are right

There is a difference between trade and neoliberal policies. however, when responding to someone who is afraid of even the concept of trade, there is really only one way to answer.

[Runcible Spoon]

177. Neo-liberals LOVE war. it boosts their favorite economies: defense, energy, telcoms, etc.

what's better than a new population to entirely build the way we want it, and make them completely dependent upon our goods? Fuck, our entire Armed Forces is nothing but an excuse to create a gigantic artificial demand for the products and services of our most notorious industries!

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/feb2003/tele-f22.shtml "US telecom giants and the war in Iraq: It’s not just about oil"

[NashVegas]

143. Neo-Cons Are Just Neo-Liberals In a Hurry

[hendo]

147. I have no problem with that statement

Neo-cons are neo-liberals that in many cases decide
1) the rules of the game do not apply to them.
2) if the rules do apply to them, they are too tedious to actually follow. "Do first, apologize later (if at all)."

[Marie26]

152. Yeah, why wage war when a coup will do?

It's true that neoliberals generally prefer economic squeeze & covert coups to impose their policies, while a neocon will go straight for the war guns. In that way, it's much more efficient - one Pinochet can do what a Iraq War does at a tenth the cost. That's good business. So multi-national corporations will usually go the neoliberal route if possible, but they are not above using force (in the form of coups, torture, starvation) on countries in order to impose their policies.

Economic sanctions are not "better", they are simply another tool. US Friedmanites pretty much control bodies like the World Bank & IMF, & use the club of sanctions (plus the carrot of loans) in order to force desperate countries to adopt free-market policies. These economic shocks are indirectly responsible for thousands of deaths, as well. I disagree that neoliberals are "highly anti-war" - many prominent neoliberals agitated for the Iraq War & War on Terror as well. Because the real point is not alliances or peace, but hegemony & the creation of a world favorable to US multi-national corporations.

[Runcible Spoon]

174. BWAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHH was that farce?

I can't even tell anymore around here!

[Enrique]

197. where'd you hear that theory, in a Tom Friedman column?

[Buzz Clik]

129. Ah. Neoliberalism is an insult hurled by socialists at those who are not "liberal" enough.

Got it. Thanks.

[Marie26]

133. Not at all, actually. nt

[Romulox]

158. It. has. nothing. to. do. with. that. It is NOT an insult for left-leaning people...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberal#Policy_Implications

[Runcible Spoon]

181. do you insist on packing your short, pointless responses with as much bullheaded ignorance possible?

If you don't believe the people calling you on this, why do you refuse to take 5 minutes out of your day and learn for yourself? Go google something...read...learn...this issue is far more important than petty sniping! I IMPLORE YOU to please educate yourself if you won't take our word for it. The stakes are so incredibly high when it comes to this issue. To me, I can't even separate global capitalism and neoliberalism from other issues like: environmentalism, human rights, healthcare, education...neoliberal policy has its sticky fingers in everything, and nothing but a complete restructuring of our economy to offset the great accumulation of wealth and power at the top will save our country.

[Runcible Spoon]

172. self delete.

GET A HOBBY.

[JCMach1]

67. Another Chicago School economics advisor-- meet the new boss, same as the old boss

[Alter Ego]

68. You need people from all stripes if you're to be truly objective.

I admire Obama for not wanting a shitload of yes-men surrounding him.

[Romulox]

80. Cognitive dissonance is bizarre!

Barack Obama is the anti-DLC candidate of the people whose inner circle is full of DLCers and rightwing economic hacks. Surrounding himself with hardcore "free traders" and corporatists proves he is truly objective... :puke:

Why not bring Cheney into the campaign to run his energy policy??? :rofl:

[ElsewheresDaughter]

69. sometimes you just gotta get it

meet the new boss same as the old boss


that includes any and all the candidates that were running

[bluescribbler]

72. He's also going to be listening to a DUer

He's talking to Elizabeth Edwards on health care. You see anything wrong with that?

[Buzz Clik]

73. Whaddya say we put the whole opinion piece in a post and read it?

Obama's Economic Soul?

By Steve Clemons - June 9, 2008, 12:10PM

Jason Furman, Director of the Brookings Institution Hamilton Project, has just announced that he is joining University of Chicago economist Austan Goolsbee as part of Barack Obama's (paid) economic policy team. This is really interesting news given the tug and pull over economic policy that has taken place already inside the Obama camp.

There are exceptions in their broad policy profiles and work, but essentially, both Goolsbee and Jason Furman are serious economists who generally subscribe to a neoliberal economic policy framework. They would be called "free traders" for the most part -- and because no free trade is really a free trade deal given the thousands of pages and negotiated side arrangements that comprise an FTA, it's fairly easy for each to say that they are on the side of working families and want to prevent the worst impacts from hitting the American middle class while in theory, they would prefer to see a genuine, frictionless free trade system in which efficiencies are created throughout the economic ecosystem.

Furman (a friendly acquaintance of mine and close associate of one of my New America Foundation colleagues) is also well known for his budget-hawkery. He has been part of the Democratic Party economic class that has successfully stolen from the Republicans the ethic of fiscal conservatism and advocates a Social Security entitlement reform process that begins to wrestle with America's long term entitlement obligations.

To some degree, Furman manifests the interests and perspective of perhaps the leading neoliberal force in politics today, Robert Rubin. Furman could make a good case that his views may differ here and there, but my sense is that he's an essential spear-carrier of Rubinomics.

Given the rhetoric of Obama on redoing trade deals, of giving China a tough time on trade, and focusing on the real needs of working class Americans -- the choice of Furman surprises me though I certainly don't oppose it.

But calling a spade a spade, it's clear that Furman is no Dean Baker or Robert Blecker or Jared Bernstein -- all important economists who have been far more right as of late than the Rubin crowd in anticipating the stress points in globalization, the housing bubble, trade, and the like.

Leo Hindery, the CEO who has been advocating a stakeholder vs. 'winner takes all' capitalism as well as a national "on-shoring strategy", is part of Obama's advisory team -- but it may be wise for Obama to explain why those hired for the econ jobs pretty much reflect neoliberal orthodoxy and those 'only advising' in political roles are struggling with strategies on how to rebalance the economic results and impacts of globalization. I do a lot of work with Hindery whose earnestness in trying to rejigger the global economy towards fairness and growth is inspiring -- and my recommendation to Obamaland is to make sure that Hindery and others working on this front that is more skeptical of classic neoliberalism are elevated as well.

It's useful to remember however that whereas Robert Reich and Derek Shearer wrote Bill Clinton's economic plan for the 1992 campaign, it was Rubin and his followers on the neoliberal wing of economics who contained and essentially exiled those with alternative views.

So, congrats to Jason Furman on his new post -- but I am scratching my head wondering which direction Obama is really going?

So, what we've got is a smattering of different economic philosophies on the same team, providing different outlooks. And, we've got an opinion written by somebody who isn't sure what this means.

[Runcible Spoon]

170. Leo Hindery, the warmer, fuzzier corporatist.

but a corporatist nonetheless. There is nothing new here, and certainly nothing that gives me any indication of real change. So maybe CEOs will get their compensation packages clipped by a few percentage points. Whoop dee doo.

[Freddie Stubbs]

74. Sounds like someone who would continue Bill Clinton and Al Gore's economic policies

[Romulox]

79. You are seriously confused. You support Clinton/Gore's economic policies

And have a picture of Ross Perot (quite correctly, by the way!) challenging Al Gore on NAFTA in your sig line. You do realize that Al Gore has (supposedly) disavowed his support for "free trade" and neo-liberal economics, right??? :shrug:

[Freddie Stubbs]

81. Gore has never called for a repeal of NAFTA

[Romulox]

85. In 2000, he ran as a "progressive", and distanced himself from RW economics

What is the significance of the Perot/Gore picture in your sig-line if you support NAFTA and "free trade"?

Perot was right, and Gore was wrong.

[Freddie Stubbs]

94. Perhaps if he had stuck to his roots he would be in the White House right now

[Romulox]

96. So the lesson you take away is that Gore didn't veer far enough to the *right* in 2000???

Just stunning.

[Freddie Stubbs]

100. He, unlike Bill Clinton, ventured too far from the center

Bill Clinton won both of his elections by comfortable margins.

[Romulox]

103. I'll give you credit for openly supporting Supply Side economics on a supposedly "progressive" site

But I do not respect your choice, nor would I consider you a political ally, simply because you hang a (D) after your name.

[Freddie Stubbs]

106. Senator Obama seems to consider people like me as allies, since

he is appointing them as advisers.

[Romulox]

110. If Obama loses the GE by veering right even as most Americans name the economy as their #1 issue

Pandering to your views will undoubtedly be the reason.

[Freddie Stubbs]

120. Americans trust Obama over McCain on the economy 48% to 38%

[RichardRay]

164. So, are you a supply sider? Do you believe that Senator Obama is?

Leaving out for the moment the question of what his 'advisers' might or might not espouse.

[Runcible Spoon]

183. why would we leave out who his advisers are?

:shrug: I guess they are just there for cake?

[RichardRay]

189. Because if the poster IS a supply side proponent

then that tells me something about his level of sophistication when it comes to economics and arguments about policy.

As far as Senator Obama's advisers are concerned, I'm confident of the senator's ability to accept advice when it's good and reject it when it's bad. The fact that a particular adviser might not be entirely to my liking doesn't make him unacceptable; it just means that I wouldn't want all of his advice accepted at face value. In my work I regulary accept advice from people with whom I don't agree on all topics; I really don't see anything wrong with that. Purity is not required.

[Runcible Spoon]

191. and hey, if Iwe get anything even remotely more progressive than more NAFTA cheerleading from Obama

I will be thrilled. No sarcasm. I don't expect purity, I expect something ELSE for gawd's sake!

[RichardRay]

194. Yep, I agree on NAFTA, although

I don't equate every aspect of 'free trade' with the implementation under NAFTA. Commerce between nations is a good idea, and it's a good thing it is since it's pretty inevitable. How it'a managed is certainly an issue. I think what's required is managing 'free trade' as 'fair trade', not shuttting it down.

None of that is here nor there re 'supply side', which was the question I posed above. I don't believe that any of Obama's advisors are supply-siders; neither Austen Goolsbee nor Jason Furman are. I was curious as to how 'globalisation' got transmuted into 'supply-side economics'.

[Romulox]

207. tax cuts, deregulation, "free trade", globalization = the very SOUL of supply side economics

Barack's "free trade" rhetoric is of the "rising tide lifts all boats..." species...

[RichardRay]

211. Bullshit.

Excuse my emphatic response, but you are simply flat wrong. I understand that you don't like what you believe is being recommended, but I really don't like supply-side economic folderol and I don't what to see it's unmitigated BS rolled to an argument about how much free trade is a good idea.

Supply-side economics has a very specific definition that has nothing to do with any of those topics aside from tax cuts. Supply siders may be in favor of the other elements you list, or they may not, but they're not supply-siders based on them.

If you honestly don't know what supply-side theory is I'll be glad to post some links for you, but here are some to start with from Wikipedia's article at Supply Side Economics.

The typical policy recommendation of supply-side economics is the reduction of marginal tax rates. According to proponents increased private investment generally brings higher productivity, which increases economic growth, and lowers costs for consumers.

In 1983, economist Victor Canto, a disciple of Arthur Laffer, published The Foundations of Supply-Side Economics. This theory focuses on the effects of marginal tax rates on the incentive to work and save, which affect the growth of the "supply side" or what Keynesians call potential output. While the latter focus on changes in the rate of supply-side growth in the long run, the "new" supply-siders often promised short-term results.

The supply-siders were influenced strongly by the idea of the Laffer curve, which states that tax rates and tax revenues were distinct -- that tax rates too high or too low will not maximize tax revenues. Supply-siders felt that in a high tax rate environment, lowering taxes to the right level can raise revenue by causing faster economic growth. They pointed to the tax cuts of the Kennedy administration and the high rates of the Hoover and Nixon administrations in justification.

Note that the supply-side chimera has been thoroughly disproved in practice. It simply doesn't work - the Laffer Curve should be known as the Laughable Curve. OTOH, trade across international boundaries is clearly a good idea, the question is how to manage it. It really doesn't work to conflate the two.

[OzarkDem]

105. Clinton and Gore don't even support those policies any longer

after seeing the results of Bush II's complete stripping of job and environmental protections and the loss of jobs in the US.

[Romulox]

78. Did I log onto Center/Right Underground? Lots of apologia for rightwing economics upthread!

[Freddie Stubbs]

82. No. It is Democratic Underground. There are many centrist Democrats. Get used to it

[Romulox]

86. I don't see too many posters from the Left around here--most have been run off by now

leaving the center/right posters (and a few who are severely confused about which economic policies their heroes support, fwiw. :silly: )

[Runcible Spoon]

186. either that or they were corralled off into their respective pet topic forums.

and rarely venture out into this battleground. I'm certainly not one to wish for ideological echo chambers but sometimes talking to people with common values is better for the soul than screaming and tilting at windmills.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

166. Respectfully, Many Became Centrists When Their Candidate Became A Centrist

That's life...

It's also interesting how most folks flipped on a dime when it came to Israel...

What did folks expect Obama or Clinton to do?

The government's role is to intervene when markets fail and folks get hurt...Their role isn't to intervene until that happens...

[crankychatter]

98. It's going to take more than a new prez to end decades of extractive/exploitive foreign policy

our defense and intelligence apparatus shouldn't be a proprietary function of transnational corporations

when we allow it we get Pinochet

when we don't allow it, we get covert bullshit ala Ollie North

it's actually fucked up... very fucked up

[OzarkDem]

102. That will hurt him in Ohio

Why is he such a fan of cheap labor? Those two are bad news, they don't seem to understand the long term repercussions, nor do they learn from past failures of others.

[hendo]

128. isolationism never worked either. n/t

[amandabeech]

148. I'm not the least bit surprised.

I just wonder how John Edwards feels about his endorsement now.

[Romulox]

153. Austan Goolsbee was on the team when Edwards endorsed; John knows who he is supporting

Edwards also appeared on the ticket with John Kerry, who is another dedicated "free trader".

[OzarkDem]

175. I don't think Edwards knew

or if he did, perhaps he wasn't being honest about ending poverty in the US either.

[amandabeech]

176. Yes.

However, I thought that Edwards was the best of the bunch on this issue for economic populists like me.

I'm beginning to have my doubts, though.

[iamthebandfanman]

150. so then youll be voting McCain ? n/t

[knixphan]

155. after he's in the white house

...We still have to ride our senators and reps - to keep pushing the boat to the left. It doesn't end with the GE.

[HughBeaumont]

160. Ah, the "give all the money to one class of people and hope they'll be benevolent" school of thought

THAT'S worked out swell for the lower 95% these past 28 years, hasn't it? :eyes:

I mean, there aren't ENOUGH dilapidated dustbowl small towns in America? There aren't ENOUGH closed factories and secondary businesses? There isn't ENOUGH urban blight, where whole streets of small businesses are closed? There isn't ENOUGH joblessness and all of the problems, economic and physiological, that stem from it?

What's worse is that there are people who STILL believe the "if you're not FOR free trade, you're FOR isolationism and protectionism", and it really is NOT that black and white. COME on, people, you're smarter than this.

[Runcible Spoon]

184. amen. n/t

[sufrommich]

167. He will be Bill Clinton all over again.

(not that there's anything wrong with that)

[Runcible Spoon]

185. nothing wrong with that?!

oh goody another 4, possibly 8 years of yoking ourselves to China's global dominance at the expense of our workers, our local economies, our resources, our economic autonomy, last but certainly not least, our desperately fragile environment.

And that's just us. God forbid we set an example and demand that China treat its OWN people and environment with a shred of dignity and good will.

The whole mess just frustrates me to no end, especially to see PNAC alive and well on a "progressive" site. :cry:

[GalleryGod]

206. Maybe he has "personally held" views in direct contravention and is

looking for "Balance" in the Room !?:think:










Good choice,Obie One Obama !:yourock:

[Romulox]

208. Right. Any maybe George Bush secretly pines for peace--he merely surrounds himself with warmongers

for balance.

:rofl:

[Skwmom]

209. Not if it's true that his top 3 advisers are free traders.