|
Pres - 30 Economists Endorse Edwards |
|
|
|
|
Written by Stumo
|
|
Wednesday, 02 January 2008 |
|
This is interesting. 30 economists endorse Edwards.
It's interesting to me because Edwards is the only top tier candidate
of either party to oppose the Peru FTA. And he's the most
populist of the top tier.
I
don't a lot of the economists on the list, but I didn't think academia
tended to endorse primary candidates. Maybe I'm wrong. They
are promoted as the "nation's leading economists."
[Most
economists I see quoted in the business press are whores. Or part
of a leper colony of economic misfits. Remember, you need no certification to be an economist, and you cannot be disbarred. You can just pronounce, "I am an economist."]
Iowa
votes tomorrow. The Des Moines Register has Obama ahead, and
predicts a record caucus turnout. Other polls show Clinton just
ahead. Polling for caucuses is really hard, and Iowans are
getting a dozen calls a night.
We'll know more tomorrow night.
|
|
|
Written by Richard R. Oswald
|
|
Wednesday, 02 January 2008 |
|
Derived from the Latin word corpus, the word corporation means simply a
body of people. But while the Bill of Rights guarantees equal rights for
everybody, todays corporate body may in many cases hold a greater influence
over governmental day to day operation than any body with a single human soul
could ever hope to.
|
|
Read more...
|
|
|
Written by Stumo
|
|
Wednesday, 02 January 2008 |
|
What word (trade) comes to mind (trade) when you look (trade) at these pictures. Ignore the subliminal hints please.

|
|
|
Written by Stumo
|
|
Wednesday, 02 January 2008 |
|
The main point: Get involved in partisan politics and attend
candidate forums to push a new trade agenda, and demonstrate support
for it during 2008.
The Peru FTA passed by 77-18 in the Senate, and by 285-132 in the House.
A bad vote. It was not close.
The worst statistics: Republican House members voted "yes" on Peru
by 176 to 16. Only one Republican Senator voted no, Jon Kyl of
Arizona.
The silver lining: Seven out of nine freshman Senators voted "no",
while the majority of House Democrats voted no (109-116). That
House Democratic majority included many freshman members from the 2006
election. Lesson - the new blood has been good on trade.
We are unlikely to convince enough existing Members of
Congress to make a major change in direction. Without more change
in the makeup of Congress (better R's and better D's), we are more
likely
to only slow down the new agreements and new policy damage, but that is
not good enough. Fast Track expiration in June 2007 was very
good, but only slows the acceleration. It does not slow the
absolute level of harm.
The majority of the country wants a new direction in
trade. This Old Trade vs. New Trade is a partisan divide in
Washington, but not in America. Republicans and Democrats are
both on the same page on the farms and in the cities. Unilateral
disarmament in trade is killing American prosperity.
SOLUTION:
We need new blood in DC, both R's and D's. Get involved in partisan politics... any
party. But fight for America rather than your party. Find out candidate positions, something I will help do on
this blog. Attend candidate forums. Ask them what they will
do about the trade deficit, currency manipulation, VAT tariffs,
outsourcing, trade agreements. This is the time the candidates are
nervous about getting, or retaining, a job. Votes matter more
than money when the voters are organized.
We have to hold candidates accountable. 2008 is a major
election year. Presidential candidates are asking for your
vote. Each of the 435 House members is asking for your
vote. Thirty five senate seats are contested... 23 held by
Republicans and 12 by Democrats.
Let them know the conditions for getting your vote.
|
|
|
Bush Administration helping arm the Chinese |
|
|
|
|
Written by Stumo
|
|
Tuesday, 01 January 2008 |
|
Trade trumps all. We have to be strip searched at the airport,
while the TSA personnel grab our toothpaste tubes over 3 ounces
and toss them in the garbage. AT&T helps the National
Security Agency listen to our calls. But some are more equal than others:
Six months ago, the Bush administration quietly eased some
restrictions on the export of sensitive technologies to China. The new
approach was intended to help American companies increase sales of
high-tech equipment to China despite tight curbs on sharing technology
that might have military applications.
Oops. The reporters got ahold of this. I don't venture towards the profane much, but listen to this bull*!#%:
We believe that the system we have set up ensures that we are
protecting our national security consistent with our goal of promoting
legitimate exports for civilian use, [Mario Mancuso, Under Secretary
of Commerce for industry and security] said in an interview. We have
adopted a consistent, broad-based approach to hedging against helping
Chinas military modernization.
This is really bad. China is our geopolitical rival.
They have a big army with big rockets and big ships. We cannot be
arming them too.
Boeing says "don't worry, be happy":
Boeing is not involved in any defense activities in
China, said Douglas Kennett, a company spokesman. All our activities
in China are in compliance with U.S. export laws and regulations.
This is getting to be a habit. We're also helping the Chinese crack down on religious folks and reporters for the Olympics.
Trade
wins. Multinationals get what they want. We lose.
Even our Defense Department loses, because they have to spend billions
to keep ahead when we transfer the technology to China. Just dumb.
|
|
|
|
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next > End >>
|
| Results 55 - 60 of 60 |