The Next Clintonomics

[Karmadillo]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/23/AR2007112301236.html

Where does Hillary Clinton stand on economic issues? More to the point, is she a "Clintonian," the heir to the pro-globalization views of her husband? Or is she part of the growing movement among Democrats that stresses equality and job protection over free trade?

Being Hillary, she's a little of both. She wants to position herself as a supporter of globalization and also as a pragmatic critic. The nub of that position is her statement that she will reevaluate NAFTA, the free-trade agreement with Mexico and Canada that her husband signed, and address its "serious shortcomings." Free-trade enthusiasts look at that position and cringe, fearing that she will break the globalization engine.

But after reading Clinton's economic speeches and talking with her chief economic adviser, Gene Sperling, I don't think anyone need worry that Clinton has become a hostage to the AFL-CIO. She's groping for a new balance between globalization and protection of workers, to be sure. She's a "post-Clintonian" on economics, you might say. She's reaching for what she calls a "new bargain" that will be fairer to workers while maintaining the basic pro-market stance that sustains economic growth.

Clinton's economic positions matter because, unfortunately, we're heading into a period when "it's the economy, stupid," all over again. The Federal Reserve warns that the U.S. economy is heading into a downturn, which by next year could become a full-blown recession. The tumbling stock market is signaling the same thing. As economic anxiety grows, the candidates' economic positions deserve a closer look, starting with the front-runner.

<edit>

Clinton sounds like a policy wonk when she talks about these issues, but after almost eight years of George Bush's botched syntax, that clarity and intellectual coherence are likely to reassure voters. An example is Clinton's proposal to create a 401(k) plan for all Americans, in which the government would match the first $1,000 of savings for families earning up to $60,000 a year. The plan goes to the heart of our biggest economic problem: our chronically low savings rate.

<edit>

With the economy on a downward trajectory, this is the wild card in the 2008 presidential race. Despite some straddles and a fondness for multisyllabic solutions, Clinton right now seems the candidate well positioned to take advantage of the pocketbook issue.

[Deja Q]

1. Globalization is a many faceted issue.

I agree with the pros. But the cons stick out badly - it is hurting Americans and it is hurting the American economy; more in terms of self-esteem though it's clear there's a financial slant to it as well.

Indeed, globalization is profitable because the cost of living makes the wages accord to "developing" countries profitable for their populations. In the US, the wages would not sustain its people.

I know people who have friends who travel the world. Globalization is pulling those people out of poverty.

On the flip-side, why is China being so rewarded for its actions of making poison products and piracy?

Like I said, the WHOLE issue is multi-faced and there's plenty of good and bad involving it.

But the messages being sent by the corporate world are, in a word, "bizarre". We are taught at home to do good, hard, smart work. We do but now we're told we get paid too much and we offshore jobs to countries, whose efforts (depending on the product) clearly show they couldn't care less. Never mind the differences between manufacturing quality, design quality, and other factors - not all of it can be blamed squarely on China.

Capitalism has its good side. But right now the imbalance of the "cost of living" factor is a side that is hurting.

And then the same people promoting globalization claim Americans aren't interested.

http://www.startribune.com/561/story/1506063.html

But, Pawlenty noted, with more than half its population younger than 25 and an economy growing fast enough to support a surge in education spending, India may be better positioned to close its skilled labor gap -- unless states such as Minnesota dramatically increase their output of young scientists and engineers. "It's imperative that we succeed with increasing the number of engineers and related fields in our country, and we have a lot of work to do in that regard," Pawlenty said.

He didn't need to go to India to see the looming shortage. Fact is, he's been talking about the problem for more than a year and has spurred the creation of the STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) initiative by the state Department of Education and several business sponsors. (See www.mn-stem.com.)

But seeing firsthand both the competitive pressure and the trading opportunity that India represents for Minnesota gives Pawlenty a new handle on the skilled labor gap. It also ought to provide the impetus for more effective state efforts to close it.

((emphasis added))

For that article, I am glad Governor Pawlenty acknowledges we need to do more at home. And I'll do my part.

[mzteris]

4. wow, HT

:wow:

I had no idea you were such a !

[Armstead]

2. David Ignatius -- A True Beltway Boob

An apologist for the neo-cons.

Typically, anyone who might support labor in a fundamental way is called a "hostage to the AFL-CIO."

Thank God Hillary isn't one of those. She'll stand up to those awful unions whenever they get too uppity.

[sam sarrha]

3. ..."Pragmatic Critic".... i guess that makes her the new Arland Spector", criticize and do nothing

:cry: and vote for it..