Warren's Astonishing Plan for Economic Patriotism

[babylonsister]

Warren’s Astonishing Plan for Economic Patriotism
Robert Kuttner
June 4, 2019


I have been a fan of Elizabeth Warren for a long time. Her combination of deep knowledge of how American capitalism works, her capacity to narrate the lived experience of American working families and tie it to radical reforms, and her sheer integrity are unsurpassed.

Her rollout of one brilliant policy proposal after another and her ability to connect those to a political understanding of the American situation has been just stunning. But Warren’s latest plan is in a class by itself, even for Warren. She calls it an Agenda for Economic Patriotism.

Warren’s proposal does nothing less than turn inside out the globalist assumptions pursued by the past several administrations, Democrat and Republican alike. Where they have pursued more globalization of commerce as an end in itself (and as a profit center for U.S.-based multinational corporations and banks), Warren’s goal is to bring production and good jobs home.

Even better, she knits it all together with a coherent plan, beginning with a new Department of Economic Development “with the sole responsibility to create and defend quality, sustainable American jobs.”

more...

https://prospect.org/article/warrens-astonishing-plan-economic-patriotism

[Auggie]

1. FINALLY!!! Some concrete proposals on JOB CREATION!

THIS is what will fire the imaginations of voters in swing states like Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin ...

[comradebillyboy]

2. Sounds too much like protectionism and isolationism for me.

I admit that I am a globalist free trader though.

[Politicub]

3. In what way?

[comradebillyboy]

4. The article is quite short on the specifics of Warren's plan but

Warren’s proposal does nothing less than turn inside out the globalist assumptions pursued by the past several administrations, Democrat and Republican alike. Where they have pursued more globalization of commerce as an end in itself (and as a profit center for U.S.-based multinational corporations and banks), Warren’s goal is to bring production and good jobs home.

This sounds very anti-trade and a move back to pre WW2 economic isolationism.

[Auggie]

7. YOU make it sound like that. Warren has a concept. And a darned good one.

[comradebillyboy]

10. I simply quoted from the article.

[Auggie]

11. You said, "This sounds very anti-trade and a move back to pre WW2 economic isolationism."

[comradebillyboy]

15. Oh please forgive for having an opinion that differs from yours.

[Auggie]

17. Point

[Politicub]

8. I'm looking forward to seeing more details about policy proposals

In the Medium post from the campaign, Warren makes some good points about how many workers have been left behind from manufacturing jobs being moved out of the country.

It's a problem that has yet to be solved, and poverty still infects communities where the main industry was manufacturing, textile mills, etc.

If we as a country are going to go all-in as a knowledge-, service-, and trade-based economy, then the problem of wages and jobs must be addressed. Knowledge workers tend to have high salaries, but not everyone aspires to be a knowledge worker.

Service jobs tend to be oriented to low-skilled labor, so salaries tend to be low.

Trades (plumbing, welding, etc.) require skilled employees, which is a great option for people who can pursue that type of work.

I guess you could throw healthcare into the mix of industries in the U.S. It's made up of a spectrum of highly skilled and low-skilled service-type jobs (everyone from surgeons to nursing assistants, for instance).

Trade, service and healthcare jobs are mainly tied to a specific location. Some knowledge workers can work remotely, but that's the exception rather than the rule.

So that leaves millions of people in rural communities across the country who, about thirty years ago, would make a good living and have benefits from working in a factory. That time is gone.

Maybe something like a UBI or jobs guarantee is part of the answer. I'm not an economist, so I don't know.

But what I do know is that what we are doing is not working for a lot of people. Either we become okay with a permanent underclass, or we, as a society, do something about it other than defend the status quo.

[comradebillyboy]

12. Ultimately automation will eliminate more jobs than

outsourcing. So some sort of UBI may be needed. I haven't any idea how these issues will be handled in the long term. It's going to be a huge problem in the not too distant future. I don't have the answer to these problems but I'm pretty sure protectionism won't work any better now than it did in 1929.

[Hoyt]

14. +100000. Darn right it does, it's American Firsterism, Nationalism, and quite disappointing.

"Economic Patriotism" is one of the ideologies that got us trump. It sounds a little too close to a code word to me. I'm quite surprised.

Unfortunately, there were a few Democrats promoting that ideology in 2016, it helped elect trump. And here we are again.

[Hortensis]

5. Warren wouldn't like being used to smear Democrats,

Babylonsister. After all, she really is one. Not a fake, dishonorable one either but fully invested, a member of the leadership brought along by the party leaders because they like what she is and adds to our capabilities.

Just as much to the point, you won't find her using "globalism" as an economic smear word, any more than "capitalism" or "corporatist." She thinks of those things more as...power plants, highly desirable but in need of strong regulation, like we used to have before the Republicans dismantled it. And in some areas more.

[babylonsister]

6. The author was/is

highly impressed with Elizabeth Warren and her ideas. I'm not quite sure what you mean by smearing though he is entitled to his opinion when writing an opinion piece.

[Hortensis]

9. Lots of people claim to be, but then a lot of people,

mistake Warren and Sanders, and this guy's use of ideologically loaded words and notions that she doesn't use suggests he's one, or is pretending to for cynical purposes, when she's incredibly different.

I kind of suspect the latter because, if he is an admirer, why would he misrepresent her so badly with words that tend to appeal to people with a very different ideology from hers?

[Nanjeanne]

13. Excellent

[B Stieg]

16. What a...Person!

[Jarqui]

18. At a glance, I am really impressed

It's complex so I need more time to digest it to make sure I understand it.

But this is something no one else seems to be talking about in the way she is talking about it.

It is way overdue and badly needed. Closest to it has been some of what Buttigieg has talked about in general terms.

We are fortunate to have good people like Elizabeth running because these good ideas make us stronger and force the other candidates to address the issue.

And she's proving herself to be a good candidate for the office.