First, a brief correction on a statement by Veritas. According to the Reuters article, Nader plans to announce his decision tomorrow on whether or not to run as opposed to announcing his candidacy. Our discussion will be a moot point if he chooses not to run.
Second, I believe that, in general, a greater selection of candidates will promote deliberative democracy in our election and perhaps even generate increased voter interest. Although most of us would not prefer the Bush administration for another 4 years, the enhancement of democracy should not be so quickly discounted. Dave would quickly counter here that 4 more years of Bush would destroy any gains in deliberative democracy generated by the election process, and he might have a point. This essentially comes down to an argument of whether the end justifies the means. Do we promote the restriction of candidates running for office in the hopes of getting the exact outcome we want? This is questionable in my mind. I would far prefer a process with greater options and deliberation that might enhance our democracy as a whole. A third candidate is likely to force issues the other two might otherwise neglect. If the two "major" candidates fail to address these issues and lose votes, so be it. That is how democracy should work.
Saturday, February 21, 2004
Friday, February 20, 2004
Re: Here Comes Nader
I won't belabor this point, but the Nader thing has always been on the table. It was discussed as far back as last fall that Dean was keeping Nader out of the race and his supporters in the Democratic party. And he did it without having any ruinously radical policy positions. As Andrew Sullivan wrote a few weeks back: "In 2000 Al Gore lost in part because of the far-left Ralph Nader challenge. Dean has managed to bring these voters back into the fold — without making any drastic policy commitments that could come back to haunt him. Kerry in comparison? Gore redux." This was always on the table and was part of the choice voters made when they picked Kerry. Dean represented a compromise: the moderate, centrist policies of a mainline Dem, with the character and grassroots populist credentials to satisfy the Naderites. The mainline Dems rejected the compromise, and now lay in the bed they made themselves.
In any case I still have the feeling that current events regarding Iraq and the economy over the course of the summer and fall will likely trump all of this maneuvering, the results of the primary and Nader's presence. If things are rosy, Bush wins, if they're ugly he loses. Oh, and of course there is always the Osama trump card..
In any case I still have the feeling that current events regarding Iraq and the economy over the course of the summer and fall will likely trump all of this maneuvering, the results of the primary and Nader's presence. If things are rosy, Bush wins, if they're ugly he loses. Oh, and of course there is always the Osama trump card..
DNC Resorts to WTO-style Crowd Control
Well it seems the concept of "free speech zones" has crossed the aisle to the Democratic party. They plan to keep protestors out of sight and out of mind during the party convention. More fuel for Nader's fire?
Re: Here Comes Nader
Reuters claims here that Nader will announce his candidacy on Sunday's Meet the Press--so be sure to tune in.
I for one am glad he's running. The two viable Democrats (the media seems to have "misplaced" Kucinich and Sharpton, although it's hard to blame them as neither has accumulated a single delegate so far) are desparately looking for any disparity they can claim. For example, Edwards is making a big hub-bub over his opposition to free trade agreements with sub-Saharan Africa and the Carribbean (while at the same time hoping people will ignore his votes on China and South America). At least from the policies that each candidate is promoting from the pulpit, there is no meaningful difference. Except that each one boasts HE is the electable one and not the other.
Nader, on the other hand, promises to bring a host of issues into the fray that neither candidate is talking about. Rather than hoping that Nader sit this one out, I hope that Nader continues the push Dean started toward the issues that really matter. If the candidates incorporate some real issues in amongst the fluff, then maybe Nader won't pose a real threat. If they don't, well they deserve to reap whatever the result. But don't blame Nader for the Democratic Party losing its spine.
I for one am glad he's running. The two viable Democrats (the media seems to have "misplaced" Kucinich and Sharpton, although it's hard to blame them as neither has accumulated a single delegate so far) are desparately looking for any disparity they can claim. For example, Edwards is making a big hub-bub over his opposition to free trade agreements with sub-Saharan Africa and the Carribbean (while at the same time hoping people will ignore his votes on China and South America). At least from the policies that each candidate is promoting from the pulpit, there is no meaningful difference. Except that each one boasts HE is the electable one and not the other.
Nader, on the other hand, promises to bring a host of issues into the fray that neither candidate is talking about. Rather than hoping that Nader sit this one out, I hope that Nader continues the push Dean started toward the issues that really matter. If the candidates incorporate some real issues in amongst the fluff, then maybe Nader won't pose a real threat. If they don't, well they deserve to reap whatever the result. But don't blame Nader for the Democratic Party losing its spine.
Here Comes Nader
Fox News says that Nader's advisors are hinting that at his scheduled sunday press conference Ralph Nader will join the race for president as an independent. Coincidence that this comes the same week that Dean drops out?
Thursday, February 19, 2004
Thanking OPEC
This is a pretty random topic, but I was browsing through a Newsweek and thought this was an interesting take on a global trade topic rarely dealt with. Washington Post regular, RJ Samuelson (who I've been coming to like more and more) wrote a short piece on the stabilizing influence of OPEC on the oil trade.
Re: And Then There Were Two..
I rarely see NewsHour these days, but somebody at Dean For America pointed out these online segments about Wisconsin and Dean's concession. The last two in particular were pretty good, and, I think, offered some of the more cogent analysis of the whole situation that I've seen.
Wednesday, February 18, 2004
And Then There Were Two..
Howard Dean announces through his blog (of course) that he is ending his candidacy today. Based on his comments I suspect he doesn't intend to drop out of the political scene..
Tuesday, February 17, 2004
10th Circuit Holds that Do-Not-Call Registry is Constitutional
A while back, Joe and I discussed a ruling from the District Court of Colorado that found the National Do-Not-Call Registry unconstitutional. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals allowed the registry to go forward, and has now issued its full opinion.
In brief, the 10th Circuit found that the regulation survives First Amendment scrutiny because it promotes a substantial interest (privacy and preventing fraud) in a way that is reasonably tailored to the goal. The court found that there was a legitimate basis in distinguishing commercial and noncommercial speech because commercial speech presents a bigger nuisance than non-commercial calls. And while the court recognized that non-commercial calls may also be a nuisance, "the First Amendment does not require that the government regulate all aspects of a problem before it can make progress on any front." (P. 22).
The 10th Circuit seemed motivated in part by the fact that the registry restricts "only calls that are targeted at unwilling recipients," and "speech restrictions based on private choice (i.e., an opt-in feature) are less restrictive than laws that prohibit speech directly." (P. 30). The court cited Rowan favorably, a case that Joe relied on in his arguments, and noted that "Congress has erected a well (or more accurately permits a citizen to erect a wall) that no advertiser may penetrate without his acquiescence. ... The asserted right of a mailer, we repeat, stops at the outer boundary of every person's domain." (P. 31). The court observed that "like the do-not-mail regulation approved in Rowan, the national do-not-call registry does not itself prohibit any speech. Instead, it merely permits a citizen to erect a wall ... that no advertiser may penetrate without his acquiescence." (P. 33).
While I entirely agree with the result, I think that by bringing in Rowan the 10th Circuit's holding obscures the point I was trying to make earlier (although the Court did not rely on Rowan to reach its result). While a citizen has a right to determine whose messages it allows into his or her domain, if the government provides selective restrictions it must explain why it chose to select some speech for restriction but not others. In this case, the registry does not simply empower citizens to erect a wall to prevent all calls from coming into his or her home as the opinion suggests. Rather, Congress permitted citizens to erect a wall that is impenetrable only to some (commercial speakers) but does not prevent others (non-commercial speakers) from breaching the wall--and that feature is what raises First Amendment concerns. That is content restriction, plain and simple.
I certainly agree with the 10th Circuit that people are kings of their own domain, but when government decides to empower citizens to be left alone in some ways but not others, there must be a strong reason for the distinction. In this case, the court found that the FTC and FCC amply explained how commercial speech is more harmful than non-commercial speech in this context, and recognized that a 40-60% reduction in overall unwanted calls demonstrates a substantial relationship between the stated goals and the government action. That's all that is necessary to survive First Amendment review under these circumstances.
In brief, the 10th Circuit found that the regulation survives First Amendment scrutiny because it promotes a substantial interest (privacy and preventing fraud) in a way that is reasonably tailored to the goal. The court found that there was a legitimate basis in distinguishing commercial and noncommercial speech because commercial speech presents a bigger nuisance than non-commercial calls. And while the court recognized that non-commercial calls may also be a nuisance, "the First Amendment does not require that the government regulate all aspects of a problem before it can make progress on any front." (P. 22).
The 10th Circuit seemed motivated in part by the fact that the registry restricts "only calls that are targeted at unwilling recipients," and "speech restrictions based on private choice (i.e., an opt-in feature) are less restrictive than laws that prohibit speech directly." (P. 30). The court cited Rowan favorably, a case that Joe relied on in his arguments, and noted that "Congress has erected a well (or more accurately permits a citizen to erect a wall) that no advertiser may penetrate without his acquiescence. ... The asserted right of a mailer, we repeat, stops at the outer boundary of every person's domain." (P. 31). The court observed that "like the do-not-mail regulation approved in Rowan, the national do-not-call registry does not itself prohibit any speech. Instead, it merely permits a citizen to erect a wall ... that no advertiser may penetrate without his acquiescence." (P. 33).
While I entirely agree with the result, I think that by bringing in Rowan the 10th Circuit's holding obscures the point I was trying to make earlier (although the Court did not rely on Rowan to reach its result). While a citizen has a right to determine whose messages it allows into his or her domain, if the government provides selective restrictions it must explain why it chose to select some speech for restriction but not others. In this case, the registry does not simply empower citizens to erect a wall to prevent all calls from coming into his or her home as the opinion suggests. Rather, Congress permitted citizens to erect a wall that is impenetrable only to some (commercial speakers) but does not prevent others (non-commercial speakers) from breaching the wall--and that feature is what raises First Amendment concerns. That is content restriction, plain and simple.
I certainly agree with the 10th Circuit that people are kings of their own domain, but when government decides to empower citizens to be left alone in some ways but not others, there must be a strong reason for the distinction. In this case, the court found that the FTC and FCC amply explained how commercial speech is more harmful than non-commercial speech in this context, and recognized that a 40-60% reduction in overall unwanted calls demonstrates a substantial relationship between the stated goals and the government action. That's all that is necessary to survive First Amendment review under these circumstances.
Trippi Moves On
I just noticed that Joe Trippi has started a blog. So far he has, not surprisingly, mostly written about the campaign and the things he tried to accomplish and lessons learned and such. It's interesting reading. It will be interesting to see where he goes from here..
Outsourcing Surgeons
Even some of the supposedly secure industries may not be as secure as we thought they were. Slashdot has a discussion of this topic. As for anecdotal evidence, Ceci has been relying on our trips to China to have her dental work done due to the cost savings (our insurance claims they are pre-existing conditions and won't pay for it)...
Wednesday, February 11, 2004
Re: Comparative Advantage
Barry, I agree with you assessments. Using the proper definition of comparative advantage does rather shoot down Roberts's particular contentions. However, I think there is still some hay to be made here. First off, as Barry noted, excess labor supply is not well handled in Ricardo's model. And there are a number of additional factors that exacerbate this problem.
Ricardo's theory seems to me to be simply a matter of showing that a country has differing degrees of efficiency in production, and will naturally focus on those industries where their efficiencies are highest, which means that in the areas where they are not specializing they may rely on trade with other countries to fill their needs even though those other countries may not be as efficient. The labor problem is obvious and serious. Looking at the classic (wine and wheat) example, if Portugal was able to produce enough wine to satisfy the demands of all both England and the domestic market and still had labor capacity left over, Portugal would then also produce its own wheat as well. England would be frozen out of the market and would simply bleed money and jobs. So, for one, labor surpluses break the model.
An amplifying effect is lent to this problem by the developing nature of the market. In Ricardo's day, while the factors of production may have been mobile, I don't believe that the factors of efficiency (if there is a such thing) were terribly mobile. This is sort of what Roberts is getting at, I think. In the classic example, the efficiency of Portugal is probably, at least in part, determined by climate and soil type and other agricultural factors. These could not pick up stakes and move. Historically, much of the value in goods was strongly related to natural resources that were either used to produce the goods, or were refined into the goods themselves. This has changed. Natural resources have largely been commoditized and are traded on very low margins. Profit margin is generated in the processing of the resources. Increasingly, with services and intellectual property there are no natural resources involved to speak of. This eliminates one of the major factors of efficiency. Education and skill levels of the labor pool have also traditionally been a factor of efficiency. This, as Barry mentioned, is also becoming increasingly commoditized. Essentially the market is progressively eliminating all factors of efficiency but one: the cost of labor.
What follows from that is that if a) you have excess labor supply and b) a market where the factors of production can flow quickly and easily, and c) the sole factor of efficiency is labor cost, the result is going to be a rapid flow of work from the locations with the highest labor costs to those with the lowest. Which is exactly what we're seeing.
Furthermore, if we assume that labor costs are relative to a general labor cost index (ie if a doctor in the US makes 5x the US mean income, then a doctor in China probably makes 5x the Chinese mean income), it would be the case that the higher the income level of a job, the greater the savings of moving it to a country with a lower cost index. That would imply that the greatest efficiency advantages for countries with a low cost index would be those industries with the highest wages. So even if we eliminated the labor surplus and had an exact balance of labor supply to labor demand, it would be the case that all of the highest paying jobs would move from wealthy countries to poor ones, leaving menial jobs for the wealthy countries. I would assume that the existence of a labor surplus only serves to accelerate this process.
Let me add one more aggravating factor to the mix. One cap on the impact of trade is that (obviously) it only affects those industries whose products can be traded. This set of industries, however, is also rapidly expanding due to ubiquitous high speed data networks, and an ever greater portion of the economy is becoming subject to these pressures. This particularly impacts service industries, on which our economy has become increasingly dependent.
In the end, I guess I don't have any great insightful revelation here. But I feel like we're further refining our discussion and our understanding of the relevant terms and theories. It again comes back to deep structural problems that will confound any of the efforts I have thus far heard proposed to stop the bleeding of jobs out of the US.
Ricardo's theory seems to me to be simply a matter of showing that a country has differing degrees of efficiency in production, and will naturally focus on those industries where their efficiencies are highest, which means that in the areas where they are not specializing they may rely on trade with other countries to fill their needs even though those other countries may not be as efficient. The labor problem is obvious and serious. Looking at the classic (wine and wheat) example, if Portugal was able to produce enough wine to satisfy the demands of all both England and the domestic market and still had labor capacity left over, Portugal would then also produce its own wheat as well. England would be frozen out of the market and would simply bleed money and jobs. So, for one, labor surpluses break the model.
An amplifying effect is lent to this problem by the developing nature of the market. In Ricardo's day, while the factors of production may have been mobile, I don't believe that the factors of efficiency (if there is a such thing) were terribly mobile. This is sort of what Roberts is getting at, I think. In the classic example, the efficiency of Portugal is probably, at least in part, determined by climate and soil type and other agricultural factors. These could not pick up stakes and move. Historically, much of the value in goods was strongly related to natural resources that were either used to produce the goods, or were refined into the goods themselves. This has changed. Natural resources have largely been commoditized and are traded on very low margins. Profit margin is generated in the processing of the resources. Increasingly, with services and intellectual property there are no natural resources involved to speak of. This eliminates one of the major factors of efficiency. Education and skill levels of the labor pool have also traditionally been a factor of efficiency. This, as Barry mentioned, is also becoming increasingly commoditized. Essentially the market is progressively eliminating all factors of efficiency but one: the cost of labor.
What follows from that is that if a) you have excess labor supply and b) a market where the factors of production can flow quickly and easily, and c) the sole factor of efficiency is labor cost, the result is going to be a rapid flow of work from the locations with the highest labor costs to those with the lowest. Which is exactly what we're seeing.
Furthermore, if we assume that labor costs are relative to a general labor cost index (ie if a doctor in the US makes 5x the US mean income, then a doctor in China probably makes 5x the Chinese mean income), it would be the case that the higher the income level of a job, the greater the savings of moving it to a country with a lower cost index. That would imply that the greatest efficiency advantages for countries with a low cost index would be those industries with the highest wages. So even if we eliminated the labor surplus and had an exact balance of labor supply to labor demand, it would be the case that all of the highest paying jobs would move from wealthy countries to poor ones, leaving menial jobs for the wealthy countries. I would assume that the existence of a labor surplus only serves to accelerate this process.
Let me add one more aggravating factor to the mix. One cap on the impact of trade is that (obviously) it only affects those industries whose products can be traded. This set of industries, however, is also rapidly expanding due to ubiquitous high speed data networks, and an ever greater portion of the economy is becoming subject to these pressures. This particularly impacts service industries, on which our economy has become increasingly dependent.
In the end, I guess I don't have any great insightful revelation here. But I feel like we're further refining our discussion and our understanding of the relevant terms and theories. It again comes back to deep structural problems that will confound any of the efforts I have thus far heard proposed to stop the bleeding of jobs out of the US.
Tuesday, February 10, 2004
Another One Bites the Dust
Wes Clark is out of the race. I'm sad to see him go, although it does enhance the chances of somebody beating Kerry. Clark is a hella smart guy, and I hope that if the Dems win the presidency they can put him to work.
Re: Comparative Advantage
As an illustration to my previous post, the Christian Science Monitor has this story on the falling wages of the middle class, and the widening gap of wealth.
What's more, Slashdot has this provocative discussion about many of the same issues raised in our posts--and a whole lot more. I have not had time to wade through it all, but from what I've seen excellent points are made.
Update: As it turns out, that Slashdot discussion is the one Joe cites from that prompted this recent discussion. The big circle of life, I guess.
What's more, Slashdot has this provocative discussion about many of the same issues raised in our posts--and a whole lot more. I have not had time to wade through it all, but from what I've seen excellent points are made.
Update: As it turns out, that Slashdot discussion is the one Joe cites from that prompted this recent discussion. The big circle of life, I guess.
Re: Comparative Advantage
Here is a traditional example to Ricardo's comparative advantage theory, although I think the example Joe offers gets the gist of it.
The Roberts-Schumer discussion focused on mobility of factors of production as the changed circumstance in today's economy. I don't think that accurately describes the problem. Rather, it is that there is a seemingly endless labor pool available in the global market. Larger countries can create armies of engineers and lab technicians and more quickly adapt to any developments in the market, making our labor pool way over-priced. The problem is not permanent--eventually our labor pool will be equally priced with everyone else, although it may take many decades to achieve an equilibrium between our labor market and developing nations. But I don't think that's a comforting prediction for most Americans.
Undoubtedly the job drain will not happen overnight, as it will take time for developing nations to accumulate the skills necessary to provide sufficient labor forces in highly specialized fields. And of course because a lot of the investment capital originates in the US that investment capital will reap huge gains. The problem as I see it is that the investment gains comes at the expense of the middle class. Unless the investment class is willing to share some of their profits with the rest of Americans, the disparity of wealth will only continue to advance--and I predict at an accelerating rate.
Using Joe's example is a little tough because surgeons will probably not lose their jobs to overseas workers--but typists are already feeling the pinch. A quick Google search on "outsource + india + typists" comes up with this link, one of many that advertise such services. If "lab technician" were substituted for surgeon, then what you might expect to see in the coming years is that both lab technicians and typists in America having to take jobs at Walmart or Best Buy as customer service representatives at far less pay than they could have made in their native professions because there are more typists and lab techs in India than there are jobs to fill worldwide.
The Roberts-Schumer discussion focused on mobility of factors of production as the changed circumstance in today's economy. I don't think that accurately describes the problem. Rather, it is that there is a seemingly endless labor pool available in the global market. Larger countries can create armies of engineers and lab technicians and more quickly adapt to any developments in the market, making our labor pool way over-priced. The problem is not permanent--eventually our labor pool will be equally priced with everyone else, although it may take many decades to achieve an equilibrium between our labor market and developing nations. But I don't think that's a comforting prediction for most Americans.
Undoubtedly the job drain will not happen overnight, as it will take time for developing nations to accumulate the skills necessary to provide sufficient labor forces in highly specialized fields. And of course because a lot of the investment capital originates in the US that investment capital will reap huge gains. The problem as I see it is that the investment gains comes at the expense of the middle class. Unless the investment class is willing to share some of their profits with the rest of Americans, the disparity of wealth will only continue to advance--and I predict at an accelerating rate.
Using Joe's example is a little tough because surgeons will probably not lose their jobs to overseas workers--but typists are already feeling the pinch. A quick Google search on "outsource + india + typists" comes up with this link, one of many that advertise such services. If "lab technician" were substituted for surgeon, then what you might expect to see in the coming years is that both lab technicians and typists in America having to take jobs at Walmart or Best Buy as customer service representatives at far less pay than they could have made in their native professions because there are more typists and lab techs in India than there are jobs to fill worldwide.
Comparative Advantage
I just wanted to paste a little blip in here from a slashdot discussion. Barry and I had struggled a little with exactly what (definitionally) constitutes comparative advantage with regards to the Roberts - Schumer discussion. This snippet is a very concise and meaningful way to put it (well, it helped me a lot anyhow):
it's basically just a rehash of david ricardo's "comparative advantage" argument. it goes like this: there is a surgeon and a typist. the surgeon types 60 wpm, the typist only 40. however, despite the fact that the surgeon is faster on the keyboard, it is better overall for the typist to do the typing and leave the surgeon to surgery. Posted by Frymaster.
it's basically just a rehash of david ricardo's "comparative advantage" argument. it goes like this: there is a surgeon and a typist. the surgeon types 60 wpm, the typist only 40. however, despite the fact that the surgeon is faster on the keyboard, it is better overall for the typist to do the typing and leave the surgeon to surgery. Posted by Frymaster.
Monday, February 09, 2004
Re: Meet the Press
I watched the entire interview and think that President Bush put on a good performance. Not taking substance into account (which is not hard to do, as there wasn't much there to begin with), he appeared confident and comfortable, seeming unsure of himself at only one point--Russert asked whether Iraq was a war of choice or necessity, and Bush froze for a moment or two. Once he figured out what the "right" answer was, however, he was back on solid ground. Apparently Karl didn't prep him for that one. Oops.
I don't think "errs" and "umms" are viewed negatively if said with confidence. I know it sounds silly but the "rough" speaking style in my opinion adds to his "populist" image. Besides, the way he plays it any "gaffs" are the fault of tough and unfair questions by the media and not his fault. I offer the following exchange as an example:
Russert: You do seem to have changed your mind from the 2000 campaign. In a debate, you said, "I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called 'nation-building.'"
President Bush: Yes.
Russert: We clearly are involved in nation building.
President Bush: Right. And I also said let me put it in context. I'm not suggesting you're pulling one of these Washington tricks where you leave half the equation out.
But I did say also that our troops must be trained and prepared to fight and win war and, therefore, make peace more possible. And our troops were trained to fight and win war, and we did, and a second phase of the war is now going on. The first phase, of course, was the Tommy Franks troop movement.
Russert: But this is nation building.
President Bush: Well, it is. That's right, but we're also fighting a war so that they can build a nation.
I don't think "errs" and "umms" are viewed negatively if said with confidence. I know it sounds silly but the "rough" speaking style in my opinion adds to his "populist" image. Besides, the way he plays it any "gaffs" are the fault of tough and unfair questions by the media and not his fault. I offer the following exchange as an example:
Russert: You do seem to have changed your mind from the 2000 campaign. In a debate, you said, "I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called 'nation-building.'"
President Bush: Yes.
Russert: We clearly are involved in nation building.
President Bush: Right. And I also said let me put it in context. I'm not suggesting you're pulling one of these Washington tricks where you leave half the equation out.
But I did say also that our troops must be trained and prepared to fight and win war and, therefore, make peace more possible. And our troops were trained to fight and win war, and we did, and a second phase of the war is now going on. The first phase, of course, was the Tommy Franks troop movement.
Russert: But this is nation building.
President Bush: Well, it is. That's right, but we're also fighting a war so that they can build a nation.
Scott Ritter Criticizes Kerry
As a follow-up on Joe's post, "Scott Ritter Having the Last Laugh," Ritter now takes aim at the Democratic frontrunner. In this Newsday opinon, Ritter argues that Kerry's explanation falls short and "if he wants to be the next president of the United States, he must first convince the American people that his actions somehow differ from those of the man he seeks to replace."
Snow Job on the Dollar
Treasury Secretary John Snow continues to insist that American policy favors a strong dollar but the markets just aren't buying it. Forbes reports that the dollar is taking a nosedive after the G-7 meeting this weekend in Boca Raton, where it was decided that no additional protections will be put in place to promote stability of the dollar. The New York Times today reports that America appears to have compromised a little over the weekend, permitting the joint statement by the finance ministers and bankers in attendance to assert: "We reaffirm that exchange rates should reflect economic fundamentals. Excess volatility and disorderly movements in exchange rates are undesirable for economic growth." But nevertheless, according to the NYTimes article, America certainly appears to have stepped aside and is encouraging the dollar's drop in hopes that it will stimulate exports.
This is sloppy and outmoded thinking. I am not aware of any solid evidence that supports the supply-side economic theories that form the basis for the current administration's fiscal policies--indeed, I thought the general consensus among academics was that Reagan's experiments failed. In this instance, what a reduction in the dollar means--in practical terms--is that foreign goods are more expensive for the consumer, while American businesses may be more competitive. The whole problem with focusing solely with productivity and growth of business is that much of the gain does not "trickle down" to the employees. Directors benefit, stock owners benefit, but the employee does not see a bump in salary and the consumer does not see a corresponding drop in price. I recognize that stagnant consumer prices (approaching deflation) are partly due to increases in productivity, but most of the benefit from supply-side stimulation goes to the wealthy--and stays there.
Sure, let's give credit where credit is due--Bush has stimulated the GDP and stocks are stong in part due to Bush's policy. But that does not benefit the middle class as much as it benefits the wealthy. Long-term, America will continue to hemorrhage jobs (despite the reported menial increase last month) and the weak dollar will harm consumers. Both these points provide good opportunities to oust Bush this November, if the people get the message. If the people get the message.
Of course, President Bush will stump on his prediction that 2004 shall see an increase of 2.6 million jobs, from around 130 million non-farm workers to 132.7 million by years-end. But Bush showed how good of a predictor he was in 2003, when he claimed that 1.7 million jobs would be added--in fact the economy lost 56,000 last year (for a total of 2.2 million lost since he took office).
This is sloppy and outmoded thinking. I am not aware of any solid evidence that supports the supply-side economic theories that form the basis for the current administration's fiscal policies--indeed, I thought the general consensus among academics was that Reagan's experiments failed. In this instance, what a reduction in the dollar means--in practical terms--is that foreign goods are more expensive for the consumer, while American businesses may be more competitive. The whole problem with focusing solely with productivity and growth of business is that much of the gain does not "trickle down" to the employees. Directors benefit, stock owners benefit, but the employee does not see a bump in salary and the consumer does not see a corresponding drop in price. I recognize that stagnant consumer prices (approaching deflation) are partly due to increases in productivity, but most of the benefit from supply-side stimulation goes to the wealthy--and stays there.
Sure, let's give credit where credit is due--Bush has stimulated the GDP and stocks are stong in part due to Bush's policy. But that does not benefit the middle class as much as it benefits the wealthy. Long-term, America will continue to hemorrhage jobs (despite the reported menial increase last month) and the weak dollar will harm consumers. Both these points provide good opportunities to oust Bush this November, if the people get the message. If the people get the message.
Of course, President Bush will stump on his prediction that 2004 shall see an increase of 2.6 million jobs, from around 130 million non-farm workers to 132.7 million by years-end. But Bush showed how good of a predictor he was in 2003, when he claimed that 1.7 million jobs would be added--in fact the economy lost 56,000 last year (for a total of 2.2 million lost since he took office).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
