I'm not sure what the answer is. But my suspicion, MY STRONG SUSPICION, is that it'll probably be found somewhere in that vast expanse between the far-left progressives and the far-right tea-partiers. I mean, that's where we usually find it, right?
Of course on average the answer lies somewhere in the middle but the perspective that pulled me from the conservative side to liberal and now damn near socialist is that the balance in our society has been tilted far too much to the rich and powerful.
Only fools, idiots, and those wanting to sell something deny the data saying that the economic positions of the middle and working class is falling further behind the rich who control the vast majority of the wealth in this country.
Hell yeah I'm all for hard work and making a buck but a person would find it extremely hard to convince me that the Elites have not been abusing their positions and doing everything they can to secure it even further.
There is plenty of economic activity in the U.S., and plenty of wealth. But like greedy children, the folks at the top are seizing virtually all the marbles. Income and wealth inequality in the U.S. have reached stages that would make the third world blush. As the Economic Policy Institute has reported, the richest 10 percent of Americans received an unconscionable 100 percent of the average income growth in the years 2000 to 2007, the most recent extended period of economic expansion.
I'm still not sure what the answer is, double b. Raising the minimum wage? Yeah, that makes us feel good and maybe it'll work for a while. But all that that ultimately does is price certain people (teenagers, mostly) out of the job market and raise prices. Protectionism? Possibly. But that's had a pretty spotty record, too (Smoot-Hawley), and is clearly a double-edged sword (more jobs-higher prices). Regulation? Hey, I'm all for that. But doesn't big business actually embrace regulation (this, in that it generally ends up favoring the status quo)?.....Hm, what else?
More unions? That would definitely balance the power structure to a degree. But not everybody wants to join a union. And (at least from my experience) unions do in fact hurt some businesses (convalescent homes in CT have boarded up because of them). Nationalizing big industries? Maybe, but it's definitely got to be a last resort, no?
Two possible/plausible solutions could be a) tax reform (higher rates for the highest end earners) and b) campaign finance reform - REAL campaign finance reform (me, I've gone as far as to advocate public financing of elections). Maybe, double b, if we focused on those 2 issues - THAT would help.
Of course on average the answer lies somewhere in the middle.
The answer that we'll use, but not the one that will work (or work the best). That answer isn't in the middle.
We know this is a fact because Will, someone who professes to be in the middle, suggests many things that actually would work (see comments 3 and 4) and then dismisses them (with incorrect assessments of what the downside would be).
I agree with Comment 5, but those things are strongly opposed by the Republicans. If campaign finance reform and taxing the wealthy are "middle" positions, clearly the Republicans don't represent the middle.
Will, your strong suspicion is wrong. Just thought I'd share what the real answer is. Now you can post another blog with the same title... sans the question mark.
The law of unintended consequences, wd. It exists and neither extremist side fully understands it......So, you want to, what, nationalize industries, force people to join labor unions, raise the minimum wage to $20 an hour, build a trade wall around the entire country - yeah, that'll work. LOL
Your history's a little off. Most historians feel that the Smoot Hawley Tariff Act of 1929 contributed greatly to the Depression. And it wasn't Reagan that started to eliminate tariffs. The Bretton Woods Agreement of the '40s and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade of the '50s both started getting us away from protectionism.
OK, so the process of lowering tariffs started with the two agreements you mention. I've heard of them. That doesn't change the fact that Reagan significantly lowered tariffs, which accelerated the manufacturing exodus from the US.
(My history wasn't a little off in my previous post because I said nothing about how the process of the US moving away from protectionism BEGAN.)
You are, however, completely wrong about how most historians feel regarding Smoot-Hawley. Some historians also believe FDR's New Deal prolonged the Great Depression. Some historians are wrong.
According to political talk radio host Thom Hartmann Smoot-Hawley "may have had a slight short-term negative effect on the economy (-1.4 percent at most according to many historians) [but] its long-term effect was to bring American jobs back to America".
If Reagan "virtually eliminated" tariffs, then what in the hell were NAFTA and GAT all about? My God, you'd frigging blame Reagan for the tsunami if you could.......Thom Hartmann? That's your source? Come on!!......As for tariffs in general, they're (just like a lot of actions that the government takes) a double-edged sword. Yeah, they save some jobs buy they also raise prices and cost other jobs. Nothing is purely good or bad. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?......Oh, and, just for the record, Al Gore, in his debate with Ross Perot (over NAFTA) - he also claimed that Smoot-Hawley was a major cause of the depression.......Smoot-Hawley was penned by a couple of Republicans, btw. Ya' still like it? LOL!!!!
Come on Will, attacking my source because... (no reason given -- maybe you think he smells) isn't a refutation of the quote I provided.
Mr. Hartmann authored a book on the subject. And, even though Thom Hartmann IS the number one rated progressive political talk show host in the country, he isn't the Rush Limbaugh (who's probably authored a book saying the exact opposite) of the Left.
I am not a fan of NAFTA, GAT or the WTO. IMO we should withdraw from all of these agreements/organizatons. I should have voted for Perot -- he was right about NAFTA.
I don't care who authored Smoot-Hawley. I am in favor of tariffs in general, and wasn't defending Smoot-Hawley (which I haven't read) specifically -- except against your charges that it "contributed greatly to the depression", which is total bullshit.
I am in agreement with the Conservative Alexander Hamilton's "Report on Manufacturers" (which laid the groundwork for the US trade policy which stood, mostly intact, until Reagan).
Wikipedia says that Republican Abraham Lincoln, "would later make the principles outlined in the [Hamilton's] Report and furthered by Clay's "American System" program cornerstones, together with opposition to the institution and expansion of slavery, of the fledgling Republican Party".
Do you think you're going to get me to re-evaluate my position by pointing out that past Republicans agreed with me? Maybe you do. This would explain why you've been fu*king LOL-ing ever damn thing I say (which is becoming highly annoying, btw). Clearly LOL = You're an idiot.
Bringing jobs back to the United States would be mostly a good thing. Prices would go up, but so would wages.
Mr. Hartmann is a partisan hack (Dick Morris and Newt Gingrich write books, too - any idiot can write a frigging book - Sarah Palin wrote a frigging book ). If you want to impress me with something, then quote me a reliable, unbiased source like CNN, Time Magazine, the Council on Foreign Relations, etc.. I LOL because all that you give me is cartoon-like partisan extremist illogical crap.
wd, have you ever heard of Frank William Taussig? He was a Harvard grad who who eventually became a professor in the economics department at his alma mater. He was also the editor of the Quarterly Journal of Economics, President of the American Economic Association, and the chair of the U.S. Tariff Commission. It doesn't seems like he agrees with you and Mr. Hartmann. He said that tariffs did nothing to promote domestic industry and that infant industries never grow competitive behind trade barriers. They remain perpetually underdeveloped.......And, just for the record, world trade virtually collapsed after Smoot Hawley. Nobody ever said that it was the only cause for the great depression but it certainly made a bad situation even worse.......It was the Republicans who argued early on for protectionism. Taft, Harrison, McKinley, all of 'em. It was Woodrow Wilson who did his best to reduce them. Strange, huh? You would have been a Republican back then. LOL
Yea, well I think your source, "Most Historians" is a partisan hack. No, wait a minute, that isn't an actual source.
FYI, I have absolutely no desire to impress you.
We used tariffs to protect our economy for more of our history than not. Obviously they worked, so I don't know how you can call my position "cartoon-like partisan extremist illogical crap".
A policy that we've followed for most of our history cannot be called "extremist". Nor can a policy that is advocated by people like Pat Buchanan and Donald Trump (just the first two names I thought of, I'm sure there are other conservatives who agree with me on this) be described as "partisan".
Given these facts, I think the adjectives you used to describe my position are extremely illogical.
OK, so I see now you've given an actual source, this "Frank William Taussig" fellow, who I have not heard of.
I don't think my position on one issue would make me a Republican in the past any more than it would make me a Republican today (given the fact that currently there ARE Republicans who hold this position).
The fact that you've "heard of" Thom Hartmann and not Frank William Taussig - that alone speaks volumes......And because a spate of right-wing lunatics like Buchanan and Trump also advocate protectionism - that's what you're hanging your bipartisan claim on? Name me one progressive who advocates free-trade......And I'm not necessarily saying that I'm ALWAYS against tariffs. There may be a circumstance in which they may be called for. But what if the other countries put up trade barriers, too? Then we've got a trade war and nobody wins. These things are very tricky, dude.
It speaks volumes that I've heard of a person who's program I've listened to every day for the past 6 years?
I thought you asking if I had ever heard of Frank William Taussig was a genuine question and not a trap you cleverly laid to expose my ignorance.
I guess this PROVES you know more about trade than I do and I should now slink away with my tail between my legs... or I admit I was totally wrong. American doesn't need ANY manufacturing jobs.
lunatics like Buchanan and Trump also advocate protectionism - that's what you're hanging your bipartisan claim on?
Are you denying that these people are Conservatives? I didn't know "lunatic" was a political philosophy.
Regarding free trade, Economist Herman Daly says it "also has enormous consequences for the standards [of] a society... Standards regarding the distribution of income... free trade between the countries of North American under NAFTA represents an active commitment to a low wage policy". (excerpt from "When Protectionism Is A Good Thing")
I asked YOU to make the call. Are Buchanan and Trump Conservatives or are they not? The point I was making had nothing to do with whether or not they are lunatics.
Some members of Congress who subscribe to wacky birther conspiracy theories include Sen. Jim Inhofe R-OK, Rep. Bill Posey R-FL, Rep. Mary Bono Mack R-CA, Rep. John Campbell R-CA, Rep. Marsha Blackburn R-TN, and Rep. John Culberson R-TX.
Perhaps all these people are lunatics, but does that mean that they are NOT Conservatives??
I've never said that there weren't conservative lunatics. Buchanan? Yes, he's a conservative....But he's also an isolationist.......Trump? Who in the hell knows!! In the past he always came across as an anti Iraq War, pro-choice moderate. Now, HOWEVER - now that he's thinking about running for President, he's doing the kiss the ass of the base bullshit. Right now, wd, I would simply call him an asshole.
Excuse the comment I just made (which I deleted). For some reason I thought the question was "Name me one progressive who advocates AGAINST free-trade". That WAS the topic of discussion - people who support protectionism.
Anyway, why should I name you one who's for it? What would that prove or disprove?
Will said... It would indicate to me that progressives think in lock-step.
Well, you would be wrong. If every Liberal agrees that, in general we should not be flinging the doors wide open to every non-US entity that wants to sell goods in our country -- I would not say that was "Progressives thinking in lockstep".
There is nuance to their individual positions... there is no progressive who suggests we "build a trade wall around the entire country".
(As suggested by Thom Hartmann, it should be a membrane, not a wall).
If that is what you believe (progressives all walk in lockstep) then I say it is YOU who lives in the black and white cartoon world you accused me of inhabiting.
You're right. I probably shouldn't lump every progressive together. That would be as silly as lumping all conservatives together (George Will obviously having a lot more depth and integrity than Sean Hannity).
30 comments:
Of course on average the answer lies somewhere in the middle but the perspective that pulled me from the conservative side to liberal and now damn near socialist is that the balance in our society has been tilted far too much to the rich and powerful.
Only fools, idiots, and those wanting to sell something deny the data saying that the economic positions of the middle and working class is falling further behind the rich who control the vast majority of the wealth in this country.
Hell yeah I'm all for hard work and making a buck but a person would find it extremely hard to convince me that the Elites have not been abusing their positions and doing everything they can to secure it even further.
What Bob Herbert wrote:
There is plenty of economic activity in the U.S., and plenty of wealth. But like greedy children, the folks at the top are seizing virtually all the marbles. Income and wealth inequality in the U.S. have reached stages that would make the third world blush. As the Economic Policy Institute has reported, the richest 10 percent of Americans received an unconscionable 100 percent of the average income growth in the years 2000 to 2007, the most recent extended period of economic expansion.
I'm still not sure what the answer is, double b. Raising the minimum wage? Yeah, that makes us feel good and maybe it'll work for a while. But all that that ultimately does is price certain people (teenagers, mostly) out of the job market and raise prices. Protectionism? Possibly. But that's had a pretty spotty record, too (Smoot-Hawley), and is clearly a double-edged sword (more jobs-higher prices). Regulation? Hey, I'm all for that. But doesn't big business actually embrace regulation (this, in that it generally ends up favoring the status quo)?.....Hm, what else?
More unions? That would definitely balance the power structure to a degree. But not everybody wants to join a union. And (at least from my experience) unions do in fact hurt some businesses (convalescent homes in CT have boarded up because of them). Nationalizing big industries? Maybe, but it's definitely got to be a last resort, no?
Two possible/plausible solutions could be a) tax reform (higher rates for the highest end earners) and b) campaign finance reform - REAL campaign finance reform (me, I've gone as far as to advocate public financing of elections). Maybe, double b, if we focused on those 2 issues - THAT would help.
Of course on average the answer lies somewhere in the middle.
The answer that we'll use, but not the one that will work (or work the best). That answer isn't in the middle.
We know this is a fact because Will, someone who professes to be in the middle, suggests many things that actually would work (see comments 3 and 4) and then dismisses them (with incorrect assessments of what the downside would be).
I agree with Comment 5, but those things are strongly opposed by the Republicans. If campaign finance reform and taxing the wealthy are "middle" positions, clearly the Republicans don't represent the middle.
Will, your strong suspicion is wrong. Just thought I'd share what the real answer is. Now you can post another blog with the same title... sans the question mark.
The law of unintended consequences, wd. It exists and neither extremist side fully understands it......So, you want to, what, nationalize industries, force people to join labor unions, raise the minimum wage to $20 an hour, build a trade wall around the entire country - yeah, that'll work. LOL
Tariffs helped build this country. They worked for aproximately 200 years... until Reagan decided they should be virtually eliminated.
I respond to your LOL with an LOL of my own. I never realized how little the extremist middle knew about the history of our trade policies.
BTW I never said industries should be nationalized. That was you.
Your history's a little off. Most historians feel that the Smoot Hawley Tariff Act of 1929 contributed greatly to the Depression. And it wasn't Reagan that started to eliminate tariffs. The Bretton Woods Agreement of the '40s and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade of the '50s both started getting us away from protectionism.
OK, so the process of lowering tariffs started with the two agreements you mention. I've heard of them. That doesn't change the fact that Reagan significantly lowered tariffs, which accelerated the manufacturing exodus from the US.
(My history wasn't a little off in my previous post because I said nothing about how the process of the US moving away from protectionism BEGAN.)
You are, however, completely wrong about how most historians feel regarding Smoot-Hawley. Some historians also believe FDR's New Deal prolonged the Great Depression. Some historians are wrong.
According to political talk radio host Thom Hartmann Smoot-Hawley "may have had a slight short-term negative effect on the economy (-1.4 percent at most according to many historians) [but] its long-term effect was to bring American jobs back to America".
See also: The Smoot-Hawley Fairy Tale.
If Reagan "virtually eliminated" tariffs, then what in the hell were NAFTA and GAT all about? My God, you'd frigging blame Reagan for the tsunami if you could.......Thom Hartmann? That's your source? Come on!!......As for tariffs in general, they're (just like a lot of actions that the government takes) a double-edged sword. Yeah, they save some jobs buy they also raise prices and cost other jobs. Nothing is purely good or bad. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?......Oh, and, just for the record, Al Gore, in his debate with Ross Perot (over NAFTA) - he also claimed that Smoot-Hawley was a major cause of the depression.......Smoot-Hawley was penned by a couple of Republicans, btw. Ya' still like it? LOL!!!!
Come on Will, attacking my source because... (no reason given -- maybe you think he smells) isn't a refutation of the quote I provided.
Mr. Hartmann authored a book on the subject. And, even though Thom Hartmann IS the number one rated progressive political talk show host in the country, he isn't the Rush Limbaugh (who's probably authored a book saying the exact opposite) of the Left.
I am not a fan of NAFTA, GAT or the WTO. IMO we should withdraw from all of these agreements/organizatons. I should have voted for Perot -- he was right about NAFTA.
I don't care who authored Smoot-Hawley. I am in favor of tariffs in general, and wasn't defending Smoot-Hawley (which I haven't read) specifically -- except against your charges that it "contributed greatly to the depression", which is total bullshit.
I am in agreement with the Conservative Alexander Hamilton's "Report on Manufacturers" (which laid the groundwork for the US trade policy which stood, mostly intact, until Reagan).
Wikipedia says that Republican Abraham Lincoln, "would later make the principles outlined in the [Hamilton's] Report and furthered by Clay's "American System" program cornerstones, together with opposition to the institution and expansion of slavery, of the fledgling Republican Party".
Do you think you're going to get me to re-evaluate my position by pointing out that past Republicans agreed with me? Maybe you do. This would explain why you've been fu*king LOL-ing ever damn thing I say (which is becoming highly annoying, btw). Clearly LOL = You're an idiot.
Bringing jobs back to the United States would be mostly a good thing. Prices would go up, but so would wages.
Mr. Hartmann is a partisan hack (Dick Morris and Newt Gingrich write books, too - any idiot can write a frigging book - Sarah Palin wrote a frigging book ). If you want to impress me with something, then quote me a reliable, unbiased source like CNN, Time Magazine, the Council on Foreign Relations, etc.. I LOL because all that you give me is cartoon-like partisan extremist illogical crap.
wd, have you ever heard of Frank William Taussig? He was a Harvard grad who who eventually became a professor in the economics department at his alma mater. He was also the editor of the Quarterly Journal of Economics, President of the American Economic Association, and the chair of the U.S. Tariff Commission. It doesn't seems like he agrees with you and Mr. Hartmann. He said that tariffs did nothing to promote domestic industry and that infant industries never grow competitive behind trade barriers. They remain perpetually underdeveloped.......And, just for the record, world trade virtually collapsed after Smoot Hawley. Nobody ever said that it was the only cause for the great depression but it certainly made a bad situation even worse.......It was the Republicans who argued early on for protectionism. Taft, Harrison, McKinley, all of 'em. It was Woodrow Wilson who did his best to reduce them. Strange, huh? You would have been a Republican back then. LOL
Yea, well I think your source, "Most Historians" is a partisan hack. No, wait a minute, that isn't an actual source.
FYI, I have absolutely no desire to impress you.
We used tariffs to protect our economy for more of our history than not. Obviously they worked, so I don't know how you can call my position "cartoon-like partisan extremist illogical crap".
A policy that we've followed for most of our history cannot be called "extremist". Nor can a policy that is advocated by people like Pat Buchanan and Donald Trump (just the first two names I thought of, I'm sure there are other conservatives who agree with me on this) be described as "partisan".
Given these facts, I think the adjectives you used to describe my position are extremely illogical.
OK, so I see now you've given an actual source, this "Frank William Taussig" fellow, who I have not heard of.
I don't think my position on one issue would make me a Republican in the past any more than it would make me a Republican today (given the fact that currently there ARE Republicans who hold this position).
The fact that you've "heard of" Thom Hartmann and not Frank William Taussig - that alone speaks volumes......And because a spate of right-wing lunatics like Buchanan and Trump also advocate protectionism - that's what you're hanging your bipartisan claim on? Name me one progressive who advocates free-trade......And I'm not necessarily saying that I'm ALWAYS against tariffs. There may be a circumstance in which they may be called for. But what if the other countries put up trade barriers, too? Then we've got a trade war and nobody wins. These things are very tricky, dude.
It speaks volumes that I've heard of a person who's program I've listened to every day for the past 6 years?
I thought you asking if I had ever heard of Frank William Taussig was a genuine question and not a trap you cleverly laid to expose my ignorance.
I guess this PROVES you know more about trade than I do and I should now slink away with my tail between my legs... or I admit I was totally wrong. American doesn't need ANY manufacturing jobs.
lunatics like Buchanan and Trump also advocate protectionism - that's what you're hanging your bipartisan claim on?
Are you denying that these people are Conservatives? I didn't know "lunatic" was a political philosophy.
Regarding free trade, Economist Herman Daly says it "also has enormous consequences for the standards [of] a society... Standards regarding the distribution of income... free trade between the countries of North American under NAFTA represents an active commitment to a low wage policy". (excerpt from "When Protectionism Is A Good Thing")
Buchanan is a Nazi sympathizer and now apparently Trump is a birther. Lunatics? You make the call.
I asked YOU to make the call. Are Buchanan and Trump Conservatives or are they not? The point I was making had nothing to do with whether or not they are lunatics.
Some members of Congress who subscribe to wacky birther conspiracy theories include Sen. Jim Inhofe R-OK, Rep. Bill Posey R-FL, Rep. Mary Bono Mack R-CA, Rep. John Campbell R-CA, Rep. Marsha Blackburn R-TN, and Rep. John Culberson R-TX.
Perhaps all these people are lunatics, but does that mean that they are NOT Conservatives??
I've never said that there weren't conservative lunatics. Buchanan? Yes, he's a conservative....But he's also an isolationist.......Trump? Who in the hell knows!! In the past he always came across as an anti Iraq War, pro-choice moderate. Now, HOWEVER - now that he's thinking about running for President, he's doing the kiss the ass of the base bullshit. Right now, wd, I would simply call him an asshole.
Name me one progressive who advocates free-trade
Excuse the comment I just made (which I deleted). For some reason I thought the question was "Name me one progressive who advocates AGAINST free-trade". That WAS the topic of discussion - people who support protectionism.
Anyway, why should I name you one who's for it? What would that prove or disprove?
It would indicate to me that progressives think in lock-step.
Will said... It would indicate to me that progressives think in lock-step.
Well, you would be wrong. If every Liberal agrees that, in general we should not be flinging the doors wide open to every non-US entity that wants to sell goods in our country -- I would not say that was "Progressives thinking in lockstep".
There is nuance to their individual positions... there is no progressive who suggests we "build a trade wall around the entire country".
(As suggested by Thom Hartmann, it should be a membrane, not a wall).
If that is what you believe (progressives all walk in lockstep) then I say it is YOU who lives in the black and white cartoon world you accused me of inhabiting.
You're right. I probably shouldn't lump every progressive together. That would be as silly as lumping all conservatives together (George Will obviously having a lot more depth and integrity than Sean Hannity).
Post a Comment