« Why not increase this penalty? | Main | Article about GMU Economics »
Barack Obama's economic advisors
Here is the story, by Noam Scheiber of TNR, hat tip to Greg Mankiw. Excerpt:
Like Bill Clinton in 1992, Obama's campaign boasts a cadre of credentialed achievers. Intellectually, however, the Obamanauts couldn't be more different. Clinton delighted in surrounding himself with big-think public intellectuals--like economics commentator Robert Reich and political philosopher Bill Galston. You'd be hard-pressed to find a political philosopher in Obama's inner wonk-dom. His is dominated by a group of first-rate economists, beginning with Goolsbee, one of the profession's most respected tax experts. A Harvard economist named Jeff Liebman has been influential in helping Obama think through budget and retirement issues; another, David Cutler, helped shape his views on health care. Goolsbee, in particular, is an almost unprecedented figure in Democratic politics: an academic economist with a top campaign position and the candidate's ear.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on February 26, 2008 at 09:44 AM in Political Science | Permalink
Comments
All the economics advisors in the world aren't much use if he's going to ignore them as he has on NAFTA.
Posted by: Chris at Feb 26, 2008 10:00:26 AM
All of these first rate economists and he still can not come up with one fundamentally sound position on the economy.
Posted by: john pertz at Feb 26, 2008 10:19:08 AM
Just remember that this is the primary season. Everyone is pandering to their respective extremes. Hopefully Obama is no exception. He's trying to get the backing of the unions (don't forget he is a Democrat). I'm not concerned about the soundness of his economic policy yet. If something hasn't formed before the general election, then I would be concerned. How soon we forget the median voter theorem.
Posted by: Dan M at Feb 26, 2008 10:26:32 AM
Dan,
His unifier rhetoric and relatively non-ideological economic advisors aside, what actions has Obama taken in Congress or in Illinois to suggest he's anywhere near the center? I realize the median voter theory suggests he'll be shifting to the center after the primaries, but he can't shift too far without losing credibility.
Posted by: Jake at Feb 26, 2008 11:00:28 AM
Seemingly, Obama is the anti-McCain. McCain is a divisive, highly-experienced conservative career-military foreign policy expert with outspoken positions on practically everything, but who is utterly tone-deaf on economics, while Obama is a unifier with little experience, few overt positions in his rhetoric, and horrible foreign policy instincts, but who has good economics advisors despite his liberal activist background.
Jake: Obama can go anywhere credibly - thus far he hasn't said anything substantive enough to weigh him down, and his legislative record is sufficiently empty and light-weight to not be an anchor, either. "Hope and Change" is not a liberal platform, or even slogan - the resemblance to "Morning in America" is palpable and oft-noted.
Posted by: rvman at Feb 26, 2008 11:20:43 AM
I'm glad Obama has real economists (not fools like Robert Reich) on his team. But I won't be comfortable about his ability to listen to them until he stops bashing free trade.
Posted by: James Hanley at Feb 26, 2008 11:28:43 AM
Although it is true that Obama has not layed out anything particularly substansive, if he does win the
democratic nomination he would still loose legitimacy and public support if he strayed too far from the left.
Most Americans see him as the progressive candidate, and it wouldn't be in Obama's best interest to become
more moderate. Check out this Obama video, it's pretty cool.
http://campaigncircus.com/video_player.php?v=7519
Posted by: kberly7568 at Feb 26, 2008 11:57:36 AM
What would a Goolsbee economic team mean to Federal policy? Does anyone know his approach to Fiscal policy, budgeting and taxes? Labor policy, regulation?
Or does he just look good in a suit?
Posted by: guy in the veal calf office at Feb 26, 2008 12:12:04 PM
no mention of david and christina romer?!
Posted by: anon at Feb 26, 2008 12:19:52 PM
Actually, in fairness to the Obamanator, he has already softened his anti_NAFTA stance and morphed into a "I just want to make sure free trade helps everyone" kind of schtick. So it does look like he's listening to the economic advisors.
Posted by: Keith at Feb 26, 2008 12:23:17 PM
"I just want to make sure free trade helps everyone." Whatever that means, in substantive terms. Obama also recently said he wouldn't have voted for NAFTA, but now we can't repeal it. He's all things to all men and women. If NAFTA is so bad, why won't he use his "transformative change" and get a Democratic House and Senate to join him in repealing it?
Posted by: massrepublican at Feb 26, 2008 12:33:40 PM
""I just want to make sure free trade helps everyone." Whatever that means, in substantive terms. Obama also recently said he wouldn't have voted for NAFTA, but now we can't repeal it. He's all things to all men and women."
Look, he's trying to play to the anti-trade rubes a bit, since they do form a significant part of the Democratic base, without boxing himself in to a dumb policy position. Works for me.
Posted by: Keith at Feb 26, 2008 12:38:06 PM
I think the idea that Obama will govern from the center is pretty naive. He has never done so before, in Illinios or in the Senate and he will have a democratic congres pushing him to the left.
My guess is that he will move to the center in the general election then promptly move back to the left when in power.
Also, for all those great advisors he seems to have a habit of saying economically stupid things. Like Nafta and his health care for hybrids proposal. At least McCain says that he does not know.
Better to not know than think you know what aint so.
Posted by: eccdogg at Feb 26, 2008 12:52:04 PM
I can't stress it enough...Obama in the presidency and Republicans in control of Congress is the best-case scenario those interested in limited government can hope for.
Posted by: Christopher Monnier at Feb 26, 2008 12:58:42 PM
"I can't stress it enough...Obama in the presidency and Republicans in control of Congress is the best-case scenario those interested in limited government can hope for."
I'd say it's the best-case scenario period. I think Obama would be an excellent manager of the Executive branch, and would actually listen to smart people who might disagree with his priors. I don't get that vibe from the current administration or any of the other candidates.
But a Republican Congress would rein in possible left-wing ideological excess, so I like that.
But it looks unlikely.
Posted by: Keith at Feb 26, 2008 1:13:18 PM
And with Obama in the White House and Dems controlling both the House and Senate?
Posted by: massrepublican at Feb 26, 2008 1:13:44 PM
"I just want to make sure free trade helps everyone"
reminds me of Yoram Bauman's principles of economics
http://www.standupeconomist.com/
"trade can make everyone better off" really means " trade can make everyone worse off".
The proof: We don't make the better claim "trade WILL make everyone better off", so this must not be true. Therefore, trade can make somebody worse off ... and therefore can make everybody worse off.
"Helping everyone" is nice campaign rhetoric, but an impractical policy directive. So, who's he going to hurt? That's where the analysis of advisors can help.
Posted by: ZBicyclist at Feb 26, 2008 1:27:04 PM
I am surprised to find that Obama has any ecomomic advisors at all after reading his "economic plan". There is not a single tax the guy doesn't want to raise and a single entitlement the guy doesn't want to expand. And the Democrats are claiming to be the party of fiscal discipline now? To hear Obama talk, the most important entitlement in this country seems to be the government's entitlement to the paychecks of people making more than minimum wage.
Once his ridiculous "Hope and Change" crap no longer gets him by and he actually has to reveal his policy positions, he will become the next George McGovern. The man is no centrist, and he will have a hard time winning the votes from the political center.
Posted by: Mark at Feb 26, 2008 1:27:20 PM
Wow, what a little cabal we have here - of folks who are winners in the current 'free trade' fiasco. The real elitists.
Well I have news for you. The tide is turning. Your policies have been poisoning the future for the middle class decades and now the future has arrived.
You may think just "the rubes" don't believe your free market rhetoric. But the fact is it's failed on the ground, where it matters, up close and personal. Unless you want to hit the streets fighting against democracy itself YOU WILL LOSE.
Posted by: dissent at Feb 26, 2008 1:35:48 PM
See? I'll take a Obama's deception over dissent's self-deception.
Posted by: Keith at Feb 26, 2008 1:40:26 PM
Zbicyclist,
Trade can't make everyone worse off.
Also, as a general matter, it seems to me that people are missing that most of the apparent losers of trade seem to belong to unions. Which seems like another way of saying that the welfare component of union pay is biting the dust.
Welfare component? Yes, if an auto maker can make cars at $X in Alabama or Texas at market wages, and it costs $3X in Michigan, then 2X of that 3X is voluntary welfare, or charity, being paid by gutless executive agents who get paid better by going with the flow than by rocking the boat and doing right by their shareholders.
That day is collectively coming to an end thanks to trade. If these same people in Michigan and Ohio would instead agree to be paid market wages instead of union wages then it is doubtful that their jobs would be on the chopping block.
Additionally, if we do establish Fortress America, and all manufacturing wares by legal fiat must be made in America, then the new factories will go up in right to work states, not union-yes states. Thus ending free trade won't bring (m?)any international jobs back to the rustbelt.
Posted by: happyjuggler0 at Feb 26, 2008 2:30:53 PM
To put it simply, "If Obama has such great non-ideological economic advisers, then why does he keep saying stupid, ideological things about economics?"
Posted by: Joey at Feb 26, 2008 2:38:58 PM
"If Obama has such great non-ideological economic advisers, then why does he keep saying stupid, ideological things about economics?"
Because he has to win over stupid ideological primary voters.
Posted by: Keith at Feb 26, 2008 2:45:27 PM
Swarthmore taught you well, huh Megan? - I mean - dissent?
Posted by: numbskullduggery at Feb 26, 2008 3:27:46 PM
I keep hearing from people like Jared Bernstein and people in this thread that candidates like Hillary and Obama don't actually mean what they are saying in the primaries, that their true colors will come out during the general election.
My question that no one seems to be answering is this: why should we believe that they are lying now and will telling the truth later, instead of the other way around, where they are lying during the general election and telling the truth during the primaries?
Regardless of the answer, they are liars who simply can't be trusted. If memory serves, Reagan said the same things during both the primaries and the general election and he did quite well by it. Why can't candidates today take a page from his campaigning book (regardless of whether or not you loved him or hated him, or both[!]) and be consistent in their message for both periods of time?
Posted by: happyjuggler0 at Feb 26, 2008 3:29:20 PM
the real crime is that the unions have seduced their employees into believing they have jobs for life as long as they continue to pay their union dues and to eat cheetos on the couch at home.
when they should rather be spending their time educating themselves in productive technologies and skills in the community college system in order to move up the food chain.
and without the expansion of trade (and credit), these people would still be watching the superbowl on a 24-in. CRT TV in a trailor home with a $5 Big Mac rather than feasting on $7 Dominoes pizza, $1 Big Macs, $3 buckets of KFC, or $1 Burrito Supremes while being blinded by a 52-in HD plasma flat screen from the seat of their Lazy-Boy deluxe in the living room of their sub-prime castle.
Posted by: ptk at Feb 26, 2008 3:48:36 PM
the real crime is that the unions have seduced their employees into believing they have jobs for life as long as they continue to pay their union dues and to eat cheetos on the couch at home.
when they should rather be spending their time educating themselves in productive technologies and skills in the community college system in order to move up the food chain.
and without the expansion of trade (and credit), these people would still be watching the superbowl on a 24-in. CRT TV in a trailor home with a $5 Big Mac rather than feasting on $7 Dominoes pizza, $1 Big Macs, $3 buckets of KFC, or $1 Burrito Supremes while being blinded by a 52-in HD plasma flat screen from the seat of their Lazy-Boy deluxe in the living room of their sub-prime castle.
Posted by: ptk at Feb 26, 2008 3:50:19 PM
"My question that no one seems to be answering is this: why should we believe that they are lying now and will telling the truth later, instead of the other way around, where they are lying during the general election and telling the truth during the primaries?"
Why I believe: Because the first thing Obama did after saying nonsense about NAFTA was so "oh yeah, but we can't repeal it." That indicates to me that he's doing his best to play to the rubes while still being able to embrace free trade as President. At the very least, he's serious about keeping that option open.
Posted by: Keith at Feb 26, 2008 4:15:27 PM
Someone who knows Obama personally tells me that he is very good at "listening" to various views, including those contrary to his own, but they do not affect him, that is, they do not cause him to change his mind. In any event, haven't we all suffered through enough politicians who make bad decisions, although they have good and smart advisors, to be seduced again? Have you heard of Nixon's price controls -- despite George Schultz?
Posted by: Mario Rizzo at Feb 26, 2008 4:23:53 PM
Is it really true that "Goolsbee, in particular, is an almost unprecedented figure in Democratic politics." Is it necessary or sufficient that an economist be an "academic economist" to be a sound economist? A gratuitous slap at Democratic presidents who haven't chosen a Laffer. Hard to say that academic Mankiw's record was better than Rubin's.
What about Paul Samuelson? "He was Economic Advisor to Senator, candidate, and President-elect Kennedy and was the author of the January 5, 1961 'Samuelson Report on the State of the American Economy to President-elect Kennedy.'"
Posted by: zeno2vonnegut at Feb 26, 2008 4:31:44 PM
"Swarthmore taught you well, huh Megan? - I mean - dissent?"
No idea what megan you are referring to, but dissent has never been there.
Posted by: dissent at Feb 26, 2008 4:47:59 PM
The sarcasm and contempt for ordinary working people dripping from these posts really shows the corruption of the ruling elites in this country. It's a form of moral decay - and contemptible in and of itself.
I know it's hard when the winds of change are blowing you away, but you guys are not doing yourselves any favors by showing your true colors.
I think it would be an useful project to excerpt some of this rhetoric and blast it into Ohio and like places, to help defeat McCain in November.
Posted by: dissent at Feb 26, 2008 4:55:46 PM
dissent,
These guys think bailouts are not welfare. Must be financial types.
Posted by: rdan at Feb 26, 2008 4:56:25 PM
To "bring people together", Obama does the "yes, but .." routine. The trick is this: only listen to what he says after the "but ...". Unfortunately, he also does double "yes, buts ..".
Take free trade, for example. In his book, Audacity of Hope, Obama says he says NAFTA is flawed, but it won't go away. He then says he supports free trade, but opposed CAFTA because he wanted to make sure it helped everyone.
Bottom line: pay more attention to what he has done then what he has said. He opposed free trade when he had the chance.
Posted by: John at Feb 26, 2008 5:12:11 PM
Wow -- it is almost universal that every comment at MR is anti-Obama.
Of course the point that seven years ago everyone of you were all in favor of the republican program, but that after seven years the overwhelming consensus is that "it's the economy , stupid" is the winning political campaign slogan.
I guess this really demonstrates that I should pay a lot of attention to your policy analysis-- it has really created seven years of peace and prosperity.
Posted by: spencer at Feb 26, 2008 5:26:06 PM
spencer,
If you had known me during the past 7 years you'd know for a fact that I can't stand Republicans as a group, just as I can't stand Democrats as a group.
Most little "l" libertarians have been opposed to most of what Bush has done the past 7+ years, especially his huge increase in government spending, especially after 8 years of a previous administration basically holding the line on spending.
This doesn't even include our horror starting circa 9/11 + a day at his totalitarian streak that (seemingly?) suddenly evidenced itself. Liberty has been rapidly eroding ever since on the noneconomic front as well.
it is almost universal that every comment at MR is anti-Obama
For what it is worth I despise both Hillary and McCain even worse than Obama. I've audaciously been holding out hope that Obama would eventually learn something from Austan Goolsbee (whose biases I don't agree with) and grow an economic brain. Either way though I am voting Libertarian in the Fall because I live in CA and what's the point in voting anything else in that glorious people's republic? We already know how CA will vote in Novemember, namely overwhelmingly for the donkeys. At leats this way I'll help to make the Libertarian Party less unviable in people's minds by upping their vote count.
Posted by: happyjuggler0 at Feb 26, 2008 6:13:04 PM
it is almost universal that every comment at MR is anti-Obama
P.S. It is an Obama thread on a site that is at least nominally libertarian. Of course he is going to get trashed, just the same as if it had been about McCain.
Posted by: happyjuggler0 at Feb 26, 2008 6:15:00 PM
I think Cowen has a soft spot for Obama. I think he is right to. The American people are really hostile to a lot of economic fundamentals. This goes for republicans and democrats. There will not be a viable candidate that is actually 'right' on economic issues because being right on economic issues precludes that candidate being viable. The good thing is that it doesn't matter much. Just like the president will not have much effect on the bloated military budget or the disastrous agricultural policy the president will also not make America an anti-trade ghetto.
Obama is a smart, thoughtful, level headed man, who is likable and picks good people, he also has about the maximum amount of integrity one can have and still be a viable candidate for the president of the united states. If you look what went wrong with bush it wasn't so much that he had a bad ideology (which he did) but that he had bad character. He wasn't capable of knowing what to do, of knowing who would know what to do, or of knowing that he didn't know what to do. He punished people for disagreeing with him and he was corrupt and petty and felt it was ok for him to do bad things because his intentions were good. Or not.
I will take taxes that are a bit higher than they should bein exchange for programs that are a bit more sweeping than they ought to be. In exchange I will get a president who respects the rule of law, openness, the opinions of others, and prudence.
Posted by: Michael Foody at Feb 26, 2008 7:57:00 PM
Well republicans have thought for years they could get free trade which helps out the rich and hurts half of the working class, but without the redistribution to make sure everyone has a stake in it. Way to go, GOP!
Posted by: yoyo at Feb 26, 2008 9:08:06 PM
"I will take taxes that are a bit higher than they should be in exchange for programs that are a bit more sweeping than they ought to be. In exchange I will get a president who respects the rule of law, openness, the opinions of others, and prudence."
Oh, Lord. Grant those who "think" such thoughts at least a bit of wisdom, or, failing that, protect the rest of us from their machinations.
Posted by: DBrooks at Feb 26, 2008 11:43:04 PM
@freetraders
I think FDR had it right when he said (paraphrasing): The only problem with capitalism is the capitalists. They are too greedy.
In my opinion, conservatives use the term free trade to hide behind their capitalistic greed. For the last eight years, we've been free to export jobs, manufacturing, democracy, war, and our standard of living. We even seem to export our ability to procreate, since it is cheaper to hire H1B visa holders or illegal immigrants than educate and raise our own children. It is time for the middle class to take back its future and quality of life for the benefit of decent, hard-working citizens and their progeny. The "free trading" excesses of the rich getting richer must be regulated or controlled. "President" Barack Obama will swing the pedulum in the "right" direction to benefit ordinary, freedom loving Americans.
Posted by: Cesqy at Feb 26, 2008 11:43:21 PM
""I just want to make sure free trade helps everyone." Whatever that means, in substantive terms. Obama also recently said he wouldn't have voted for NAFTA, but now we can't repeal it. He's all things to all men and women."
Do you all agree with our NAFTA policy??? I havn't studied it particularly extensively, but I have read some research into NAFTA's failures, and I have to believe Obama's advisers have read the same research and told him free trade "does not help everyone". My take on free trade is it would be mutually beneficial only if the free trade were amongst two "economic equals".
Posted by: Brainwarped at Feb 27, 2008 2:52:43 AM
Obama IS FOR FREE TRADE.
It's just that right now he is campaining for the democratic primary in Ohio, a rust-belt state where NAFTA and free-trade are sensitive issues with the blue-collar democratic voters there. So he has to be delicate about how he frames the issue of his support for free trade.
Posted by: Tim_G at Feb 27, 2008 4:24:13 AM
Obama'a for free trade, except he voted against CAFTA and says he would of voted against NAFTA.
So he is for free trade except when it comes to voting for it!
And of course free trade does not help EVERYONE. Nothing helps EVERYONE. If that is the Obama srandard then he might as well as shut down all govt. programs.
What free trade does do is increase the averages standard of living. Some will gain or loose more than others but the average will be higher.
Posted by: eccdogg at Feb 27, 2008 8:49:16 AM
If we should only trade with economic equals then we wouldn't trade with most countries. You think that's good for places like Mexico? It's a death sentence! Trade fosters economic equality.
Posted by: massrepublican at Feb 27, 2008 10:32:16 AM
No one on this site seems to distinguish between unilateral and regional free trade agreements like NAFTA or CAFTA and multilateral agreements. They are not one and the same thing. In addition to the fact that giving one country or region favorable trade terms comes at the expense of other trade partners that are not parties to the agreement, the over-reliance on regional trade agreements limits our ability to negotiate trade terms with non-regional trade partners.
Bhagwati, for example, has studied this, and although he's as pro-free trade as they come, he shares quite a bit of concern about the branding of unilateral and regional agreements as "free trade."
As a moderate Democrat, I cringe as much as the rest of you when I hear candidates from either party rail about the free trade bogeyman. Still, it's not unreasonable, even for someone who's well-trained in economics, to concede that how you play your hand in establishing free-er trade is important, and that going about things the wrong way may be enormously beneficial to a few capitalists but not particularly beneficial to capitalism or to the American economy.
My read on Obama is that his primary misgivings on trade have to do with the establishment of labor and environmental standards in partner countries. Maybe some libertarians on this blog think that this is the end of the world as we know it, but I quite frankly think that it is mostly superfluous. I understand the libertarian position that labor and environmental standards will rise without interference as a result of trade, but I would still much rather have an agreement with a few extra environmental provisions than have no trade agreement at all.
I also, frankly, have a very hard time believing that Obama could be as anti-free trade as a few folks on here want to make him out to be. Anyone who has spent as much time as he has living in a developing country ought to recognize that trade is the single most beneficial thing we can do to eradicate poverty and increase prosperity throughout the world. So far, my analysis of his statements and his positions suggests that he shares that sentiment, at least in principle. And right now, during the Great Pandering to Ohio of 2008, that's about as good as you're going to get.
Posted by: Lee at Feb 27, 2008 11:03:27 AM
I would just like someone to point me to one action Obama has taken in favor of free trade.
I keep hearing don't listent to what he says, he will change in office. But what has he DONE to advance free trade. I have yet to see anything. All I see are anti trade votes and wishy washy to anti-trade retoric.
What have all of you seen? Have you "Peered into his soul" so that you know how he will act without any evidence?
Also waiting on multilateral solution will mean waiting forever. Shouldn't we pursue free trade on our continent regardless of what people in Europe and South America want?
Posted by: eccdogg at Feb 27, 2008 11:57:56 AM
This is the way to advance in Liberal America today
Welfare Ain't What It Used To Be
Sharon Jasper has been victimized. Sharon Jasper has been rabidly wronged. She has become a Section 8 care case "the victim of ever changing public housing policies.
Sharon Jasper has spent 57 or her 58 years dedicated to one cause and one cause only, and has nothing to show for her dedicated servitude. She has lived in Section 8 housing all but 1 of her 58 years. It was a legacy passed down from her parents who moved into Section 8 housing in 1949 when she was six months old. She has passed the legacy down to her children, but fears they may have to get jobs to pay for the utilities and deposits. She laments about her one year hiatus from the comfort of her Section 8 nirvana, ' I tried it for a year..you know, working and all. It's not anything I would want to go through again, or wi sh on anyone in my family, but I am damn proud of that year.'
Sharon was moved out of her St. Bernard housing project after hurricane Katrina and into a new, yet albeit, substandard quarterage. As can be noted from the above photo of her new Section 8 home, it is repugnant and not suitable for someone of Sharon Jasper's seniority status in the system. 'Don't be fooled by them hardwood floors,' says Sharon . 'They told me they were putting in scraped wood floors cause it was more expensive and elegant, but I am not a fool "that was just a way to make me take scratched up wood because I am black. The 60 inch HD TV? It may look nice but it is not a plasma. It's not a plasma because I'm black. Now they want me to pay a deposit and ut i lities on this dump.' 'Do you know why?'
She has held her tongue in silence through the years of abuse by the system, but it came to a head at the New Orlean's city council meeting where discussions were under way about the tearing down of the St. Bernard projects. When a near riotous exchange between groups opposing the tearing down of St. Bernard and groups wanting the dilapidated buildings torn down and newer ones built, Sharon unleashed verbal hell with her once silenced tongue. The object of her oratory prowess was an acquiescent poor white boy in attendance. The context of her scathing rebuke was, 'Just because you pay for my house, my car, my big screen and my food, I will not be treated like a slave!' and 'Back up and Shut up! Shut up, white boy! Shut up, white boy!'
Recapping from the mental log of the city council minutes in her head, Sharon repines, 'Our families have been displaced all over the United States. They are being forced to commit crimes in cities they are unfamiliar with. It is a very uncomfortable situation for them. Bring them back, then let's talk about redevelopment.'
Sharon directs the reporter's attention across the street to Duncan Plaza where homeless people are living in tents and states that, 'I might do better out there with one of these tents.' She further lamented her sentiments about her situation,' I might be poor, but I don't have to live poor.
Posted by: weirdone at Feb 27, 2008 1:53:13 PM
Please look at the details of what Obama is saying: He is not calling for higher tarrifs or quotas.
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN2414727720080225
These are moderate pro-trade positions.
Assuming for a moment that we really do want to reduce pollution, it is meaningless under a free trade system to have one emissions standard for developed countries and another for less developed countries. Because then polluting industries will simply relocate to countries where they can pollute without paying.
Labor standards should not mean equal pay scales, but I don't think that's what Obama is calling for. It could just be some basic protections like against child labor and unsafe working conditions.
Posted by: Tim_G at Feb 27, 2008 11:01:58 PM
Barack Hussein Obama could surround himself with the entire faculties of Chicago and George Mason, the fact is that he is a typical Democrat who will insidiously create constituencies dependent on government. Beholden to legions of fools looking to see what government will do for them, a BHO presidency will inevitably bow to leftist give-aways.
As for the legions of swooning fans-mass hysteria would be a good subject for the behavioral economists. Krugman fially got one right-this is a cult of personality.
If the adoring throngs weren't raised on the plantation known as public schools, they'd recogize his rhetoric as second rate, nebulous bloviate.
In Cuba, BHO would be Castro's sucessor
As for the quote from FDR, haven't we dispatched his legacy to a reality check yet? The hero worship on the left is really nauseating.
Posted by: Superheater at Feb 27, 2008 11:57:59 PM
The following article from Reason Magazine should give you an idea of why Obama has to frame this issue in a way that appeals to voters, even though from a strictly economic standpoint free trade is better. It's really an unfortunate reality of politics, just as no sane politician could admit to being atheist. I've accepted that I will never (at least in the forseeable future) be able to vote for an out-of-the-closet fellow atheist for president, so I also understand that all politicians are inevitably going to have to "pander" to the biases of voters to some extent. No one is going to reach the Oval Office without some pandering along the way.
The 4 Boneheaded Biases of Stupid Voters (And we're all stupid voters.)
http://www.reason.com/news/show/122019.html
Posted by: Tim_G at Feb 28, 2008 1:44:45 AM
Obama just wants somebody to give him some tidbits he can work into a speech, or some advice he might half-way take if the mood strikes him. At least McCain, for all of his faults, admits he doesn't know economics. Scary that a person should even think of running for office without studying economics more than any single issue, but it tells me that he'd be more malleable by his economic advisors. Hopefully he picks good ones.
I want to hear one politician say *and explain why* health care costs won't be solved with an insurance-based approach or by price-fixing, but through demonopolizing and deregulating the industry. I want to hear one politician say "I can't create jobs, but I can allow jobs to *be* created by letting the market work." I want a politician who says "out-sourcing means cheaper stuff, which has the same affect as everybody's income going up."
Posted by: Jacob Oost at Feb 28, 2008 5:25:45 AM
Obama is still a State Senator in mental scope. He has enjoyed a meteoric rise onto the national stage. If he becomes the next president he will be the very textbook definition of "unprepared."
Posted by: Al Fin at Feb 28, 2008 12:14:01 PM
Obama is still a State Senator in mental scope. He has enjoyed a meteoric rise onto the national stage. If he becomes the next president he will be the very textbook definition of "unprepared."
Posted by: Al Fin at Feb 28, 2008 12:18:37 PM
"Because he has to win over stupid ideological primary voters."
No, he doesn't. He could get an honest job, instead.
Posted by: Nacho Bizness at Feb 28, 2008 12:22:47 PM
I like reading Marginal Revolution, and I think Mr Cowen is a thoughtful writer. But I find some of the glibertarian comments that appear after many posts to be so off-putting and detached from the political realities that it's incredible.
Posted by: eyes open at Feb 29, 2008 3:05:57 PM
"As for the quote from FDR, haven't we dispatched his legacy to a reality check yet? The hero worship on the left is really nauseating."
Hero worship on the left? Perhaps I just haven't been paying much attention, but it seems to me that obsessive presedential idolatry has been pretty well monopolized by the GOP in recent years, seeing as many of their debates seemed to revolve around the candidates trying to prove that each was indeed Reagan incarnate.
Posted by: Elliot at Mar 1, 2008 1:45:16 AM
cc of note to the New Republic:
comment to Scheiber of New Repub -- his piece, “The Audacity of Data” at his blog at http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=4d40a39e-8f57-4054-bd99-94bc9d19be1a
_________________________
Pitch:
“Despite Obama's reputation for grandiose rhetoric and utopian hope-mongering, the Obamanauts [‘whether they're domestic policy nerds or grizzled foreign policy hands’] aren't radicals--far from it. They're pragmatists--people who, when an existing paradigm clashes with reality, opt to tweak that paradigm rather than replace it wholesale.”
Comment:
What a surprisingly sad, sad bunch of tired "wonks".
"Brought to you by the same bunch that utterly failed to solve the key foreign policy problem, Palestine, and thought that borderless ('free') trade sounded like a keen idea."
I voted for Kerry although he was wrong on all three of the key issues: war; trade; and Israel/Palestine.
Now I get to vote for a guy who's at least right on "war", but has somehow surrounded himself with yesterday's failed "thinking" on trade and Israel/Palestine.
Only in baseball is batting but .333 considered applausable?
Left to himself, Mr. Obama has proved both incisive and prescient. Hopefully, once he has a chance to think again, Obama will prove one of those "leaders who draw on the expertise of professionals without suffering the contagion of the professional fallacy, who enlist the loyalty and industry of bureaucrats without being paralyzed by their caution?" -- and we will find ourselves treated to "what happens when time-honored ways of aristrocrats and bureaucrats are displaced by the ever-risky question, 'Why not?'". (Daniel Boorstin, "The Amateur Spirit and Its Enemies"; Introducton and chapter 18 of "Hidden Histories; Harper & Row, 1987)
Posted by: Lawrence Kelly at Mar 3, 2008 2:56:55 AM
cc of note to the New Republic:
comment to Scheiber of New Repub -- his piece, “The Audacity of Data” at his blog at http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=4d40a39e-8f57-4054-bd99-94bc9d19be1a
_________________________
Pitch:
“Despite Obama's reputation for grandiose rhetoric and utopian hope-mongering, the Obamanauts [‘whether they're domestic policy nerds or grizzled foreign policy hands’] aren't radicals--far from it. They're pragmatists--people who, when an existing paradigm clashes with reality, opt to tweak that paradigm rather than replace it wholesale.”
Comment:
What a surprisingly sad, sad bunch of tired "wonks".
"Brought to you by the same bunch that utterly failed to solve the key foreign policy problem, Palestine, and thought that borderless ('free') trade sounded like a keen idea."
I voted for Kerry although he was wrong on all three of the key issues: war; trade; and Israel/Palestine.
Now I get to vote for a guy who's at least right on "war", but has somehow surrounded himself with yesterday's failed "thinking" on trade and Israel/Palestine.
Only in baseball is batting but .333 considered applausable?
Left to himself, Mr. Obama has proved both incisive and prescient. Hopefully, once he has a chance to think again, Obama will prove one of those "leaders who draw on the expertise of professionals without suffering the contagion of the professional fallacy, who enlist the loyalty and industry of bureaucrats without being paralyzed by their caution?" -- and we will find ourselves treated to "what happens when time-honored ways of aristrocrats and bureaucrats are displaced by the ever-risky question, 'Why not?'". (Daniel Boorstin, "The Amateur Spirit and Its Enemies"; Introducton and chapter 18 of "Hidden Histories; Harper & Row, 1987)
Posted by: Lawrence Kelly at Mar 3, 2008 2:58:14 AM
You Numb-Nut don't know anything. Free Trade, ala Milton Friedman and the Chicgo Univ School of Economics, has caused more repression, stolen democracies, destroyed lives, starvation, and the mass torture and killing of Millions of people around the world since the '70's. Free Trade is a misnomer for Global Greed. Disaster Capitalism is alive and well and will send all of us, and the planet, to common graves in the very near future unless we stop using natural and planned disasters to force the peoples of the world into servitude for the elites who run the corporations of the world. Free Trade is another name for Greedy government wonks who are destroying this planet. You don't know what is going on because you listen to our televised 'propaganda-led" national media, or worse yet Right-Wing Pundits on radio and TV. They pulled the wool over everyone's eyes until Venezuela, Brazil, and other grass-roots 'campesino' groups organized to support each other with economic bartering and took over from the mass killers. Pinoche is the only that has been prosecuted and then he died before they could send him to prison for the rest of his life. That is just where the rest of the neo-cons need to be put!
Posted by: wilma ralls at Jul 1, 2008 9:20:02 PM
You Numb-Nut don't know anything. Free Trade, ala Milton Friedman and the Chicgo Univ School of Economics, has caused more repression, stolen democracies, destroyed lives, starvation, and the mass torture and killing of Millions of people around the world since the '70's. Free Trade is a misnomer for Global Greed. Disaster Capitalism is alive and well and will send all of us, and the planet, to common graves in the very near future unless we stop using natural and planned disasters to force the peoples of the world into servitude for the elites who run the corporations of the world. Free Trade is another name for Greedy government wonks who are destroying this planet. You don't know what is going on because you listen to our televised 'propaganda-led" national media, or worse yet Right-Wing Pundits on radio and TV. They pulled the wool over everyone's eyes until Venezuela, Brazil, and other grass-roots 'campesino' groups organized to support each other with economic bartering and took over from the mass killers. Pinoche is the only that has been prosecuted and then he died before they could send him to prison for the rest of his life. That is just where the rest of the neo-cons need to be put!
Posted by: wilma ralls at Jul 1, 2008 9:22:18 PM
You Numb-Nut don't know anything. Free Trade, ala Milton Friedman and the Chicgo Univ School of Economics, has caused more repression, stolen democracies, destroyed lives, starvation, and the mass torture and killing of Millions of people around the world since the '70's. Free Trade is a misnomer for Global Greed. Disaster Capitalism is alive and well and will send all of us, and the planet, to common graves in the very near future unless we stop using natural and planned disasters to force the peoples of the world into servitude for the elites who run the corporations of the world. Free Trade is another name for Greedy government wonks who are destroying this planet. You don't know what is going on because you listen to our televised 'propaganda-led" national media, or worse yet Right-Wing Pundits on radio and TV. They pulled the wool over everyone's eyes until Venezuela, Brazil, and other grass-roots 'campesino' groups organized to support each other with economic bartering and took over from the mass killers. Pinoche is the only that has been prosecuted and then he died before they could send him to prison for the rest of his life. That is just where the rest of the neo-cons need to be put!
Posted by: wilma ralls at Jul 1, 2008 9:23:23 PM
The following materiaol is being sent to Publishers. I believe all economic advisors of President Obama must read my treatise on Scientific Human Economics, described in my metter to publishers. If you wish to receive a copy please reply by email (technomics@eastlink.ca) and I will reply with the book attached.
Jorge Torrealba, Director General,
Techno Economics I(nternational Consultants,
Halifax, NS, Canada.
------------------- Here is the letter to Publishers:
Editor in Chief,
Dear Sir,
I have chosen your North American Publishing Branches to provide you with one -or two- manuscripts that you can convert into Best-Sellers now, when Barak Obama has reached the delegate number to be nominated.
This great American has just toppled the corporate mafia that owns the political establishment of Washington and – most likely - he will defeat McCain in November.
I am forwarding to your attention the following:
- Information required by most Publishers (Readership and Markets, Completion of the Manuscript,
Competition, Brief Resume of the Author, Author’s collaboration in Promotion),
- Synopsis of “S.H.E. or HOW TO ESCAPE THE CORPORATE GLOBAL FRAUD”,
- The number of words, the table of contents and INTRODUCTION, CHAPTER I AND CONCLUSION.
This is a unique engineered procedure to convert from what most people considers a corporate global fraud, into a global technical economy designed by my associates and I, to allow the President of the USA to have the technical means to be democratic, equalitarian and fair to all nations poor or rich, large or small, peaceful or belligerent. Obama must do it through the UN and as President of the USA he has the moral authority to contain the terminal crisis of Humanity. Just read the complete manuscript and you will agree with me. A Best-Seller is in the making if you carefully evaluate the uniqueness of this book, the right time to appear in the middle of the USA election and a few months ahead of the Canadian one.
The global monopoly of the USA dollar is an abusive cartel not a monetary system; we must return to the international rules of the 1800’s. My book is controversial because it demonstrates with technical facts that the corporate fraud is causing the economic penury of the people of America.
Respectfully,
Jorge Torrealba, Director General,
Techno Economics International Consultants,
1103-5565 Cornwallis St, Halifax NS B3K 5K9,
technomics@eastlink.ca 902-448-7417.
If you agree with me that the publication is urgent, you may contact me by email or phone to get the manuscript by carrier or as an attachment. (I am enclosing just the same, a SASE with a postal coupon acceptable in the USA, because I live in Canada and cannot procure USA stamps)
INFORMATION REQUIRED BY MOST PUBLISHERS.
READERSHIP AND MARKETS.
The subject of Scientific Human Economics attracts readers of all languages because it is the only realistic solution to contain the corporate global fraud.
This is a “How To” treatise (in simple and precise language) on Scientific Human Economics that is presented for the first time in the English Speaking World. The Author has the back-up of all his colleagues in Techno Economics International Consultants {a non profit research Third World organization} and the confirmation of his research during over 20 years. He has already published three treatises on this novelty subject in Spanish (www.e-libro.net) and his researchers have contributed to the creation of the “Banco del Sur”, which is providing financial services to all the South American countries that have different political profiles, from socialism to fascism. The IMF and the World Bank are losing grip on Latin America because of the success of this new egalitarian financial institution that serves democratically its members, without strings attached. My colleagues are civil servants and influenced the decision of their governments.
The present economic crisis in the United States – wrongly tune down to a recession by the corporate media - is creating an immense market, particularly because the USA politicians are in the midst of a very enthusiastic electoral campaign where both Obama and Clinton are inspiring a new government of “change”. Obama will need a real scientific economic system if he indeed wants to achieve the change expected by the electors. The cheat of Globalization and the trillion debt of Bush will tie the next president’s hands because all the financing is hoarded by the Multinationals and Obama will have to listen to modern techno-economic solutions, what was normal for all countries prior to 1929. No politician in the Capitalistic World has the courage to face the facts of reality and tackle the global swindle. Over twenty years of research, development and completion of procedures make TEIC – International group of researchers - certain of the validity and efficiency of the solutions that we propose in my first book in English, which – from the engineering point of view – are extremely simple. The controversial nature of my first “English” publication can be used to make it a Best Seller during the electoral campaigns in the USA and later in Canada. Once a Best Seller in North-America, the translations of my “HOW TO ESCAPE CORPORATE GLOBAL FRAUD” can be sold all over the world by my Publisher through sub-agents.
Publishers must understand that this technical economy designed by engineers is exactly what Obama needs to operate a real change in the well-being of Americans, and, consequently, of the whole world. The Publisher that will manage the global success of this book will cash-in a bundle on the first document on techno-economics. Our engineered global solution is what the next president of the USA needs to keep his electoral promises. Literary quality is subjective; my work is books of precise technical reporting on innovation in modern Economics and must be judged by the technologic content and the financial return rather than by the style of writing the reports. In “How To” books, readers are looking for solutions, not poetry; their saleability rests in the quality and correctness of the solutions. Additionally, my book has the right kind of controversy in an electoral period in North America.
COMPLETION OF THE MANUSCRIPT.
The manuscript is ready for publication. English is an acquired language of the author. The book needs a final language polish and the usual editing the Publisher may deem necessary. I have another complete manuscript on the same subject of Scientific Human Economics entitled CSIS, THE GESTAPO OF CANADA, which takes to task the political corruption of our present parliament and the crimes that CSIS committed on me and my family under orders of the Secretariat of Mulroney. Both are ready to be sent to you upon request.
COMPETITION.
No competition is foreseeable. The researchers in Europe started five years after my group (mainly engineers and academicians of Latin America), and I do not know of the publication of a competing book. This is the first in a series of treatises in English on the applications of Scientific Human Economics to all aspect of international trade and internal commerce, on financing Medicare, education, social services and on the improvement of the quality of life of Human Beings. We are now the leaders in the publication on the progress of Scientific Human Economics, which started in Spanish some 5 years ago (www.e-libro.net; three Books in Spanish, one in English, which are the only books on S.H.E. that we know have been written in the whole world). TEIC has invited Asian and African researchers to adopt our analogy and they have joined our group of specialists. (All my colleagues abroad have left the writing on S.H.E. to me as Director General, and I have several books on progress for publication twice a year after the publication of this “HOW TO ESCAPE THE CORPORATE GLOBAL FRAUD”. They are busy in their Third World countries working as consultants, academicians or in the civil service as experts in modern economics, attached to their Ministries of Economics).
BRIEF RESUME OF THE AUTHOR.
Civil Engineer graduated Magna Cum Laude at Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal. He also holds a degree in mathematics from the Catholic University of Chile and an executive Diploma from the Board of Trade, Montreal.
He is fluent in three languages and reads three others. He has served Canadian and international Engineering Companies as structural designer, project manager, business development manager and vice-president, international contract negotiations. He was invited professor in Universities of Canada, Chile, Senegal and Cameroon. In the University of Yaoundé he started his research in Scientific Human Economics when he formed an international group of experts (Techno Economics International Consultants) of which Torrealba is Director General.
AUTHOR’S COLLABORATION IN PROMOTION.
The author is at the disposal of the Marketing Director of his Publisher. He is a retired engineer and can offer 40-60 hrs/week to help in conferences, signing session and all other publicity organized by the Publisher.
------------------------------------------------------------
SYNOPSIS
We are initiating the production of a series entitled “HOW TO IN SCIENTIFIC HUMAN ECONOMICS” by the completion of this first manuscript in English, after three treatises in Spanish. We present in this first book the fundamental principles of Scientific Human Economics, and how it must be adopted in Canada, in the USA and at the United Nations.
I make a strong criticism of present corrupted politicking because it is corrupted and obsolete. Politics must give way to progress of the well-being of the citizens. The democratic foundation of this technology demands a cultural raise from fraudulent politicking to democratic representative Parliaments... That remains in the hands of the electors.
This first book speaks of how to have an enormous source of financing to solve the global and national economic problems and how to correct the corporate aggression to the environment. The chapter on environment was written to give a taste of the “How To” books that are ready to follow.
Posted by: Jorge Torrealba, Techno Economist at Jul 13, 2008 12:02:36 PM
