Business week has a new article, Economists Rethink Free Trade
I find this amusing for for what I have read, the good economists for a long time have said current trade policy is not in the national interests and often is glorified labor arbitrage agreements.
From Alan S. Blinder, a former vice-chairman of the Federal Reserve and member of the Council of Economic Advisers in the Clinton Administration, to Dartmouth's Matthew J. Slaughter, an international economist who served on President George W. Bush's CEA, many in the profession are reevaluating the impact of globalization. They have studied the growth of low-wage work abroad and seen how high-speed telecommunications make it possible to handle more jobs offshore. Now they fear these factors are more menacing than they first thought
Moreover I think it might be dawning on the corporate focused economists that these trade agreements will actually hurt corporations in the long run and that the middle class, working America, when that implodes so go they.
ABOUT TIME!
Clinton agreed with Samuelson?
Wow, although I believe this is to get votes. It sure would be wonderful is she started presenting policy to incorporate these facts! (none to date that I am aware of! and the corporate lobbyists would revolt I am sure!)
Clinton & Outsourcing
This is the best thing I've heard yet about Hillary Clinton. I'd pretty much resigned myself to voting for for Ron Paul, or a 3rd party candidate. If Clinton follows up on this notion, I might have to reconsider.
Now, if she'd only stop pandering to the illegal immigrant lobby.
EPC
http://www.unlawflcombatnt.proboards84.com/
EconomicPopulistForum
LOC
Least objectionable candidate.
Obama--Wrong Again
Here's a paragraph from that article, which gives a hint as to the difference between Clinton and Obama on free trade:
"The rumble of academic debate is already having an effect on the Presidential campaign. In an interview with the Financial Times late last year, *Hillary Clinton* agreed with economist Paul A. Samuelson's argument that traditional notions of comparative advantage may no longer apply. "The question of whether spreading globalization and information technology are strengthening or hollowing out our middle class may be the most paramount economic issue of our time," her chief economic adviser, Gene Sperling, recently wrote."
The Obama camp, however, has a different view:
"
*Barack Obama's* adviser, the University of Chicago's Austan D. Goolsbee, is NOT convinced free trade is the culprit behind the squeeze on incomes. "
Obama is now worse on both trade AND illegal immigration than Clinton.
Add to that the fact that Obama has no idea what he's talking about on medicine and health care reform, and Clinton becomes a better choice. By a lot.
EPC
http://www.unlawflcombatnt.proboards84.com/
EconomicPopulistForum
Pay Close Attention to the Actual Words of the Candidates
Hillary has said she favors a "Time Out'" on new trade agreements. If elected, she can easily change her opinion again. All of her past, and her friendship with the Indian IT companies, her backing of the Peru Agreement, and Comprehensive Immigration Reform, shows where she stands on Labor Arbitrage.
But Obama is much worse. The Panderer supports drivers licenses for illegal aliens. There is no Republican who is trustworthy on Trade and Immigration except Ron Paul. The last debate also showed he has a grasp of the magnitude of the Economic Crisis.
Ron Paul Hearts H-1B
Ron Paul also is for increasing H-1B Visas and sees this as "not a problem" to trade people.
I agree Obama in overall policy positions is much worse and we know Hillary Clinton has enabled offshore outsourcing, chair of the India caucus and her voting record on H-1B is horrific.
But Obama has promised those exact same lobbyists and even worse is trying to make global labor arbitrage an "immigrant" issue versus a globalization, trade, labor issue.
But, try as you might to find a candidate you can believe in, Ron Paul is horrific on this issue also.