Sometime today in Iowa the Edwards campaign will release its official list of Economists for Edwards. The leader of the group is James K.Galbraith, and I announce here that I am among the 30 on the list that he has assembled.
I think he is the most consistently progressive among the leading Dem candidates. I also think he is the most electable, with polls suggesting he is the only one of the top three who is solidly ahead of all four of the top GOP contenders in the electoral college. I am concerned that at one point he went after Hillary briefly over social security, but it is not in his platform, and she has promised to appoint a commission. Obama seems more clearly down on social security and also has a health plan that will not cover all Americans. On this important issue, Edwards seems to have the best plan. I also note that while Edwards voted for the Iraq war resolution (he was on the Senate Intelligence Committee at the time, giving him more foreign policy experience than many know he has), he has been strongly against it and a war in Iran since, and probably gave the best followup on the Bhutto assassination of any candidate, actually calling Musharraf up on the phone. I disagree with him on the idea of renegotiating NAFTA, but then all the Dem candidates want to do that. I conclude by noting that it is rate that one gets to support someone who is both the most progressive and the most electable, a winning combo, I say.
23 comments:
I will adda a note here on the Republicans. There are two that I have some personal respect for: John McCain and Ron Paul. The bottom line on that side is the torture issue, which I take very seriuously. All of the other ones there have been bragging and competing as to who would torture more frequently and more vigorously. I have my differences with both McCain and Paul, but I wish to express my personal respect for their willingness to stand against a truly nauseating tide on this really fundamenatl issue.
Fortunately, on the Dem side there is nobody praising torture.
Barkley
PS: Happy New Year everybody!
Well let me make two points. At an intellectual level I agree about McCain and Paul, they are pretty much authentic. On the other hand there are really troubling indications that Dr. Paul is an unreconstructed racist and further indications that McCain has abandoned his fiscally responsible opposition to tax cuts for the wealthy as the equivalent of Magic Beans for growing the economy. Which tends to strongly sap my own personal respect for either.
On the other hand I am thrilled that Barkley has even a small seat at the Edwards economic table and hope that he can make the move somewhere closer to the candidate's elbow. I'll freely admit that Edwards is not the second coming of FDR, but given the field he is clearly the best shot progressives have of reversing the current narrative. And the current numbers for Edwards are pretty damn impressive. It is my personal opinion that Obama could have buried Edwards by tacking Left, his rather inexplicable attempt to outflank Hillary on the center right has not only been a gift to her but to Edwards as well.
Maybe my Karma didn't run over my Dogma after all.
And Happy New Year as well. (Of course it is also my birthday, and the candles are kind of crowding the cake, but as my friend Jake says "Well I'm vertical and sucking air")
Congrats, Barkley. Couldn't have picked a better frontrunner to throw you're weight behind.
Bruce Webb-"Obama['s]... rather inexplicable attempt to outflank Hillary on the center right"
Obama has been a Vechy Dem since he was in Illinois. His current policies are only inexplicable if you don't know much about his previous leanings, and know of him from the post-DNC-speech media.
Sorry, that should read 'Vichy', not Vechy.
Isn't it premature for Progressives to play the "electability" card. To play it so early seems to blur the line between the "left of the possible", and "what's possibly left".
Why not support the most progressive candidate and as those candidates gain in the polls so will their voice thereby educating more as to the depth of a progressive agenda.
There is plenty of time before and during the convention to do the who can win thing.
If we moderate our voices at the beginning it seems likely we will get what's left rather than the furhterest left of the possible.
Barkley,
Does Galbraith's role in recruiting for Edwards mean that he has a role in policy too? That would be a very good sign, of course -- in some sense a breakthrough. At this point, who is advising Edwards on economics?
Barkley - a while back the Times did a piece on the economic advisors to the various candidates. I was taken aback somewhat by Edwards' advisor, a protectionist businessman whose name escapes me*. Could you take over? Anyway, he does seem to be the most progressive candidate, as you say, and your endorsement has tipped me from mildly favoring him to favoring full stop. Unfortunately, I inadvertently deleted an e-mail (from Thomas Palley?) asking me to sign on to "economists for edwards" that I was stwoing in my in-box until I made up my mind.
*It's Leo Hindery, I think. Who is Leo Hindery?
Kevin
I think Jamie is in charge. I think the adviser you may be thinking of is Clyde Prestowitz, who is on the list and very protectionist. Edwards's protectionist tendencies are what I am most uncomfortable about with him, but as already noted, all the Dems are playing that card this year, to varying degrees.
As for Tom Palley, I suspect that he and Jamie may disagree on some issues... :-).
Barkley
Protectionism isn't always all bad. For example, I suggest that we would all be far better off if some how a process could be devised and implemented as a part of our economic system that would provide for the general population protection from the avaricious greed of our corporate executive class. On the other hand protectionism that simply provides enhanced profit opportunities for "local" business interests without protecting their customers is a bit one sided.
So you see there is good and bad protectionism, as there is in all aspects of human behavior and interactions. We would all benefit from the good if those persons chosen to represent the voice of the electorate only had the good of all of the electorate in mind. So our task is to divine in some way who those candidates may be who have the good of all of the nation, through its citizens (that's us), first and foremost in mind.
As in so much of science we seek to support the hypothesis through rejection of the null hypothesis.
That approach has value in the political arena because it's often easier to recognize the antithesis of good government. Look back over the past three decades and you see the null hypothesis in action. Keep in mind what so many of those elected officials promised for the good of us all, and listen for a repetition of the BS. Then vote for the other guy.
Well the intertubes say that Leo Hindery is the senior economic advisor to Edwards. Who is Hindery? Well the ex-CEO of Global Crossing. Who walked away with a bundle before the company went smash. Some of his former employees seem less than happy.
Edwards for President Press Release announcing Leo Hindery as Senior Economic AdvisorSome sources call him 'Professor' but really he is just a finance guy with an MBA who has some sort of part-time teaching gig at Columbia. Hopefully Galbraith or perhaps Rosser will be able to get some real policy input, but right now it looks like Edwards is getting his advice from the Cable Guy.
(Hindery doesn't seem to be a bad person, he has put a lot of time and money into the international fight against AIDS. But when I note that he has been named one of the "cable industry’s “25 Most Influential Executives Over the Past 25 Years.” I kind of want to pound my head on the wall until the pain goes away.)
I haven't seen anything official that says that Galbraith is the main econ adviser to Edwards -- it is all Hindery. For instance, Hindery has represented the Edwards camp in the media.
I could get excited if JG were the guy, but is he? I would like to see at least a press release that announces his status.
So, I am not sure what is going on. I just checked, and Leo Hindery is not on the list that was released to the press yesterday, although I have not seen any reports about that anywhere yet.
I have sent an inquiry to Jamie Galbraith regarding what Leo Hindery's role is. I have not checked on the guy myself and know next to nothing about him. Am about to go off to some parties right now... :-).
Barkley
Barkely the answer may be as simple as the undoubted fact that Hindery is not an economist as defined by the profession. Edwards could name me Senior Economics Advisor, which fact would not make me an economist. Whether or not Hindery is still leading up the team is a little immaterial to whether he in fact made the cut. Some coaches never did play the game at a professional level.
Barkley
i can't stand to listen to the regular news sources any more. shouting at my radio doesn't seem to do any good. so i am grateful that you are keeping track for me. and your endorsement of Edwards does tend to make me hope a little. but only a little.
i am not sure what you mean by protectionism, but my reading of the current state of "free trade" puts me into the protectionist camp.
i'd feel better if i heard any of the candidates talking reason to the people. but that would cost them the election.
note: by "talking reason" i don't mean "agreeing with me." just an honest effort to make sense as opposed to flying sound bites appealing to ignorance.
[Having trouble leaving a comment]
No answer from Jamie yet. The message inviting to join this group mentioned that there had been a NY Times article identifying only Jamie as being a "known," or some such term, economist who was publicly supporting Edwards, presumably a reference to the lack of "respectability" of this Hindery, about whom I continue to know next to nothing. The effort was to get a list of other "knowns" prior to the crucial Iowa caucuses about to happen. Needless to say, to have any chance at the big prize, Edwards needs to win those.
Regarding protectionism, I am not interested in getting into a discussion about that here and now. Suffice it that I agree that there is "good" and "bad" protectionism without getting into the details further.
Barkley
Good for you.
Edwards is the right antidote to the dangerously top-heavy economy of today.
Right on.
The presumption that opposition to extension of the NAFTA-model of corporate wealth agreements is "protectionism" really does need some elaboration before it can be taken seriously.
The NAFTA model, after all, is not a primarily about reaching free trade agreements. Its about reaching an agreement to eliminate barriers to capital flows, with trade concessions to various vested interests on both sides handed out to ensure passage.
And the proof of that particular pudding is in the eating ... the system of trade concessions in the following NAFTA-model corporate wealth agreements have been all over the map ... but except for US-Jordan, they have all been consistent in pushing aggressively for reductions in barriers to capital flows and expansions of corporate rights to "intellectual property" monopolies ... and of course, there was already an agreement in place between the US and Jordan substantially constraining barriers to capital flows.
Reflexively labeling any opposition to aggressive extension of the NAFTA-model agreements as "protectionist" is buying into the branding of the agreements as being primarily about "free trade", when the terms of the agreements themselves make them seem to be far more about entrenching Washington consensus policies, holding access of low-income nations to export markets hostage to surrendering national sovereignty on foreign ownership and accumulation of external debt.
I note that my opposition to renegotiating NAFTA does not mean either that I think it is perfect or that I think it is the model that should be extended elsewhere. It is for two reasons: 1) As a general principle demanding that existing treaties and agreements be renegotiated is generally an arrogant policy diplomatically, which is something that Bush did and the next prez should stay away from, and 2) (not unconnected to the former) the part that most needs renegotiating (and is what Mexico in particular is most pissed about) is not what the Dem candidates want to renegotiate. They want to renegotiate labor and enviro standards, which from the standpoint of many Mexicans amounts to an effort to keep their exports out. What they most think should be renogiated, and this is everybody across the political spectrum there, is that the US is allowed to (and does big time) subsidize its corn production, while subsidies in Mexico were ended, with very severe repercussions on the poorest in Mexico (corn/maize farmers). Any effort to tell the Mexicans they must up their labor and enviro standards without also opening the door to ending subsidies to corn production in the US, will result in very justified charges of extreme hypocrisy and imperialism by the Mexicans.
BTW, I remind everybody that the US is already in violation of parts of NAFTA with both countries, think trucks with Mexico and lumber with Canada. Are we really going to go demand changes in a treaty that we are in violation of? Again, a future Dem president (or any future president) should not approach the world with a "fuck past agreements, you are going to do what we want, and the sooner the better (and it will be for your own good!)."
Barkley
This story has now indeed surfaced, with a story by Dave Leonhart in the NY Times. It is also up on the Edwards campaign site. In the original story, the adjective applied to was "only high profile economist."
BTW, will be off to New Orleans for the annual meetings for the next few days. Will be out of commission mostly due to interviewing job candidates, although will be chairing a session at 12:30 on Saturday on "The Future of Comparative Economics."
Barkley
just a small point. Protectionism is not the necessary answer to outsourcing and job loss.. I have provided a 21 century version of the "KEYNES PLAN" that Keynes proposed at Bretton Woods -- but the plan was rejected by the USA. If this plan was in effect today there would not need to be any fear of net job loss to china, India, etc. We could have a full employment economy and trade as well -- .
My plan is written in my new book entitled JOHN MAYNARD KEYNES (Great Thinkers in Economics), Palgrave/Macmillan, 2007; isbn#1-4039-9616-4.
One other thing about trade. At a conference on "The Future of Liberalism" at Harvard's Kennedy School in October 2006, I presented a paper entitled "Are We Making Progress towards the Good Society?" In this paper I noted that if the Chinese built a factory in California and used child labor, a 15 hour work day, sweatshop conditions, pai workers less than the minimum wage, and polluted the surrounding environment, US laws would prevent any person in the US from buying from this factory.
So just because the factory is located in China, free traders believe it is OK for US residents to buy the product. Anyone notice anything crazy about the free trade position of buying from Chinese factories?
Paul Davidson
Davidson,
"So just because...etc." You've taken the words right out of my mouth. It's self evident, but there are too many US corporations enjoying the fruits of China's abysmal factory conditions and labor policies. In fact using the description of US corporation is probably misguided. There are no US corporations. There are only corporations that are owned by a wide variety of nationals from around the globe, and they have no ones interests at heart, but their own profitability. That's fine so long as our laws and trade policies don't abet their avaricious policies. If corporations want to move their manufacturing sites from the US and Europe to places like China they should be required to follow the same employment and work condition requirements that apply here. In a truly free market each market is free to establish its own norms and requirements of the participants in that market. Or do the free market cheer leaders only want a market in which they are free to ravage and pillage as they like?
Regarding Edwards' chances of getting the nomination? Oh well...
Barkley
Well, given the comeback by Hillary last night in NH, and the now close race between her and Obama, I guess Edwards will not get to "stand around the drainpipe waiting for Obama to fall," as some commentators were saying in the last few days. But, he'll stick around for awhile anyway, which is fine with me.
Barkley
Post a Comment