Reflections on blogging for globalization.

I know this is a little late, but hey, I needed to think about things.

 

 Who would have ever thought that when we started these blogs three months ago, that I would find a way to make mine about both globalization, but also about my passion, politics.  Okay, I’m sure everyone thought that, but irony aside, I defiantly think that our blogs have served a great purpose in acting as a forum for outside the classroom thought and observations about globalization, even if it was in a political vacuum.  At first, I was very skeptical about the blog, both as a tool, and as an assignment.  This is quite obvious in the nature of my early one posts.  Most were a few sentences, not really thought provoking, and focused on definitions of words we had discussed in class.  I’ll be honest, my original thinking, was use less thought based posts like my definition of globalization, culture, etc. towards that one post a week minimum.  My posting of definitions, paired with posts that reiterated news headlines, neither of which required much work or thought; I figured would get me an okay grade, and suffice.  Let’s be real guys, I went as far as to post about Professor Greenlaw’s coffee.  I think back now and wonder, what the hell I was thinking.  Looking back it appears that my movement towards pithier blogging began as I began to read other globalization blogs.  You see, I had read political blogs about Northern Virginia politics before, and they were formatted much more as reporting NoVA political news.  However once I began reading “Beyond Globalization” and Greg Mankiew’s blog on a regular basis, my posts changed.  This was evident with my post “Poverty on the Decline.”  It was the first post I really reacted or thought about something, instead of just reporting something.  After that, things just started to flow.  My post “Questions About Comparative Poverty”, piqued my interest in using my blog to react to things I had read or heard.  This continued with what I consider one of the most educational blog posts I wrote, the one reflecting on the class we talked about President Frawley’s speech.  Educational, in the sense that I learned a lot about myself, and also that I could use the blog as a means to advance my beliefs and thoughts.  However my growth as a blogger didn’t end there.  I used my blog as an almost diary of sorts, after reading the “I, Pencil. My Family Tree as told to Leonard E. Read,” article, as well as Adam Smith’s assertions about morality.  I even posted my response to an essay topic I found connected to our class.  I also began to use my blog as a means to write down thoughts and ideas in relation to my expert study.  This is where the turn to politics and globalization really took root.  Looking back I think my blog served a very important purpose as a forum for me to develop my expert study from.  I also got more confident about my posts, following a meeting with Professor Greenlaw, who said I shouldn’t be scared to write what I believe, and thus my opinions about 2008 and fiscal conservatives came out.  By the end of the semester I was using my blog as a means to let my stream of consciousness ideas come out.  This had aided greatly in the development of my ideas and thoughts about things we talk about in class.  While I started quite jaded to the blogging assignment, and doing the bare minimum to get by with a decent grade, I realize now that the grade isn’t what matters, it is the development of ideas and thoughts that blogging allows for that matters.  There are a few things I would like to work on as well.  I often had five or more posts come out all at once, that I had been working on, or had a creative day, but there were also weeks at a time when I didn’t post at all.  This is something I want to work on.  Also, while I would have liked to comment more, and see more of the blogs provoke more out of class discussion, and provide more of an online education forum, these things didn’t happen.  This is something I think defiantly we all should work on, and hopefully continue our pithy posts, and perhaps spark some informative debate about things.  I think it is clear that I have enjoyed blogging, and I think it really added to the course.  I would like to thank Professor Greenlaw for helping me out of my blogging shell and for begin a really good professor, and thank everyone for a great semester.  It was truly an entertaining and greatly informative course.  I wish you all the best in the future, stay in touch, stay blogging, and stay cool.

 

Final thoughts about 2008

2008 should be a very interesting year in American politics, as it will be the first time in quite a long time that neither party has the President or Vice President, that is a clear front-running party candidate established.  Both parties will have hard fought and seemingly entertaining primary battles.  A very interesting thing to note, is other then the one polarized on globalization candidate from either side (Edwards for the Democrats, Romney for the Republicans) most of the candidates despite their party affiliation have pretty much the same views.  This is what my expert study found, and thus I am going to go out on a limb and say that unless one of the more decisive candidates (Edwards/Romney) wins one of the nominations, that Globalization/Free Trade will not be a polarizing issue in the 2008 race.

Oh and on a side note, here is the GEM for the Democrats.  Come out in favor of a sort of Universal Health Care system, and increased Education so that as people lose jobs, they keep their health care and insurance coverage, and have easier access to high level education.  I think if those two programs are explained in terms of globalization and preparing our country to be “untouchable,” they will have wide margins of approval.

A look to ‘08 continued once more…

 The Clinton Strikes Back

Hillary Clinton has been widely touted and widely criticized as the front runner for the 2008 Democrat nomination.  A look at her voting record, shows mixed votes on Free Trade.

Voted YES on free trade agreement with Oman.

Voted NO on implementing CAFTA for Central America free-trade.

Voted YES on establishing free trade between US & Singapore.

Voted YES on establishing free trade between the US and Chile.

However, Senator Clinton is the least conflicted of any of the potential nominees about Globalization/Free Trade.  Clinton in the steps of her NAFTA organizing husband, President Bill Clinton, is a democrat who is largely in favor of Globalization and Free Trade.  Hate to break it to the Hillary hating, Free Trade Loving Club (headed by Hart) but Hillary is the Democrat most in line with views in favor of globalization.  A large question remains though, will she actually run?  Should be an interesting build up to the primary season next year.

A look at ‘08, once again continued…

The Return of the John Edwards. 

John Edwards, the former senator from North Carolina, and former candidate for Vice President should announce any day now, his bid for the White House.  Edwards has spent the past two years beefing up on his “weaknesses” from 2004.  He is the best funded challenger to a potential run by Hillary Clinton.  In a recent interview about trade, Edwards answered some important questions which aid in our discussion of the potential cnatidates for 2008 views on globalization/free trade.

 Q: Should the US seek more free or liberalized trade agreements?

Edwards: I believe we need trade that works for America and the world, and have outlined a new approach to trade agreements that will protect American jobs and require labor and environmental standards in trade agreements. My approach would also establish an international ‘right to know,’ so that consumers know if corporations have moved jobs overseas or engage in abusive environmental and labor standards. I would also take aggressive measures to make sure foreign markets are open to US goods and include strong environmental and labor standards in all trade deals.

Q: How do you intend to boost the manufacturing base?

Edwards: We have lost over 3 million private sector jobs under President Bush. Two and a half million of those are manufacturing jobs. In order to protect the jobs we have I would do the following. Put enforceable provisions into our trade agreements for environmental protection, labor protection, prohibitions for child labor and forced labor. All of these would be aimed at helping level the playing field for American workers. Close corporate tax loopholes that give American companies an incentive to go overseas and take jobs with them. Instead I would give tax breaks to American companies who would keep manufacturing jobs here in America. I would provide seed money of venture capital to new business who would locate in areas where jobs have been lost. For existing business and industries that are willing to locate a plant of facility those areas I would give tax write offs.

Edwards is rated 17% by CATO, indicating a pro-fair trade voting record and showing us his relatively anti-Globalization/Free Trade stances.

Edwards has a shot at the nomination, especially if Hillary chooses not to run, however his anti-Globalization/Free Trade stances could hurt him in the general election should he win the nomination.  While other potential democrats are less decisive about Globalization/Free Trade, Edwards could potentially polarize the issue too much.  But first, he has to win the nomination.

A look to ‘08 yet again continued…

A New Hope?

Barak Obama, who has in no regards officially entered the race, is making waves about a potential run for the nomination. Since he told Tim Russert on Meet the Press he was considering a run for the presidency, he has become the talk of the political town. His superstar status and strong speaking ability could aid in a John Kennedy type of wave. Let’s look at his stances on Globalization and Free Trade. In his campaign an 2004, Obama touted his strong opposition to NAFTA, and when CAFTA came up for a vote, penned a letter explaining his vote against it. Most of his stances on globalization are explained in the letter. “Globalization is not someone’s political agenda. It is a technological revolution that is fundamentally changing the world’s economy, producing winners and losers along the way. The question is not whether we can stop it, but how we respond to it. It’s not whether we should protect our workers from competition, but what we can do to fully enable them to compete against workers all over the world.”

When it comes to his vote record, it is clear that he has mixed feelings about Free Trade.

Voted YES on free trade agreement with Oman.

Voted NO on implementing CAFTA for Central America free-trade.

Obama is young and charismatic, I don’t think he will focus on the issue of Free Trade but more likely on issues such as Health Care reform and Education. If he can get over the “he’s inexperienced” argument, and if he actually runs, Obama has a real shot at the White House.

References: United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement; Bill S. 3569 ; vote number 2006-190 on Jun 29, 2006, Central America Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act; Bill HR 3045 ; vote number 2005-209 on Jul 28, 2005

A look at ‘08 continued…

The Long Shot Dems.

Three candidates for the Democratic nomination, are lesser known, but mostly against Globalization/Free Trade. They are Iowa Governor, Tom Vilsack; Delaware Senator, Joe Biden; and Indiana Senator, Evan Bayh.

Late last week, Tom Vilsack, the governor of Iowa formally launched his candidacy for the Democratic Party’s nomination for President. As a governor Vilsack has a limited trail about Globalization, yet he has come out in strong favor of writing new rules for the Global Economy. He believes that the rise of global markets has undermined the ability of national governments to control their own economies, and argues that the answer is neither global laissez faire nor protectionism but his “Third Way”: New international rules and institutions to ensure that globalization goes hand in hand with higher living standards, basic worker rights, and environmental protection. U.S. leadership is crucial in building a rules-based global trading system as well as international structures that enhance worker rights and the environment without killing trade. For example, instead of restricting trade, he argues that we should negotiate specific multilateral accords to deal with specific environmental threats. This is similar to the view that my expert study took and could aid in Vilsack’s campaign. New ideas in a political deceive debate are always good. However, I don’t think Vilsack’s campaign will be able to steer the nation towards the globalization issue, that is to say, I don’t think it will be a main polarizing issue in 2008. Vilsack does have an advantage in that he is the governor of the state with the first primary, but this year, in returning most of their Republican delegation to the US House, Iowans showed a lack of caring about Globalization. Iowans care more about soy beans and moralistic issues such as Abortion then the economy, so it should be interesting to see how Vilsack fairs in his own state come 2008.

Joe Biden, senator from Delaware is currently the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and is slated to chair that committee when the Senate comes back next year, with Democrats in the majority. Biden who ran for president briefly in 1988, has been considering a 2008 bid quite vigorously. Biden is defiantly the anti-Globalization candidate of the lesser known Democrats.

Voted NO on the free trade agreement with Oman.

Voted NO on implementing CAFTA for Central America free-trade.

Voted NO on establishing free trade between US & Singapore.

Voted NO on establishing free trade between the US and Chile.

Biden’s vote history is clear; however he often uses rhetoric which shows some favoritism to globalization. This has lead to a 42% rating by the CATO Institute on Globalization, indicating a mixed record on trade issues.

Biden is obviously against Free Trade, his votes mark a clear path and he will not easily get past them. I think Biden is in the race, running for the VP spot, or even the Secretary of State position should the Democratic nominee win in 2008. Look for him to drop out of the presidential race by January of 2008, and through his support behind one of the top challengers. Should that person win the nomination, Biden will be in a good spot for either the VP part of the ticket or a cabinet position.

Evan Bayh who has served as a Senator from Indiana since 1999 and is a former Governor of Indiana is a potential Democratic candidate for the 2008 presidential nomination, and rounds out our list of lesser known Democratic candidates. He has a much less desisive voting record then Senator Biden.

Voted NO on free trade agreement with Oman.

Voted NO on implementing CAFTA for Central America free-trade.

Voted YES on establishing free trade between US & Singapore.

Voted YES on establishing free trade between the US and Chile.

Voted YES on extending free trade to Andean nations.

Bayh benefited greatly by the withdrawal of Mark Warner from the race last month, but will need to increase his recognition outside of Indiana. It is interesting that he isn’t as against Globalization as other potential nominees; especially where he is from a state which has lost many manufacturing jobs over the last decade.

All of the three above candidates have a long road to the nomination, but one thing is clear, there are no big time Free Trade/Globalization fans amongst them.

References: United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement; Bill S. 3569 ; vote number 2006-190 on Jun 29, 2006, Central America Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act; Bill HR 3045 ; vote number 2005-209 on Jul 28, 2005, US-Singapore Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act; Bill S.1417/HR 2739 ; vote number 2003-318 on Jul 31, 2003, US-Chile Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act; Bill S.1416/HR 2738 ; vote number 2003-319 on Jul 31, 2003.

Uncertainity and angst about the economy and globalization.

I talked to a friend from Minnesota today who said there is 3.7 per cent unemployment in his state. That is virtual zero unemployment.  Yet many seem to think that Globalization is destroying the jobs in Minnesota. (Note this year’s House races in the state.)  The mood can be discribed as very uneasy about Globalization, and people seem discontent. Why? It is a real paradox…  why was Globalization a polarizing  issue this year in Minnesota despite what looks on paper to be  good economic numbers?

A look to ‘08 continued…

John McCain – Strait Talk America?

John McCain, widely credited as the frontrunner for the Republican nomination for President, is widely not-Republican in his stances on Globalization and Free Trade. McCain has been in favor of some protectionist actions over his years in the Senate, and for the sake of maintaining the political center, has not been decisive in recent times about his opinions dealing with Globalization.

“We have to provide for workers in a more effective way that have lost their jobs because of jobs fleeing oversees. We have to hope that, not hope, but try to implement policies that get more of this prosperity more evenly distributed.

By the way, I am not saying redistribution of the wealth. I am saying that more benefits of free trade and globalization and lower prices could flow to more middle and lower income Americans. I do believe there are some economics that come into play here where people could get more prosperity out of these good economic times. But there certainly is great uncertainty out there.”

So we see a real rise in the uncertainty about Globalization in McCain’s politics. So while he votes for the most part in the Senate for pro-Globalization stances, the movement towards the political center required for his campaign to be effective has lead to new caveats in his Globalization reasoning. While he is clearly pro-Globalization, McCain appears to have many more concerns then Mitt Romney. It should be interesting to see if their stances on Globalization provide to be a polarizing issue during the Republican primaries in early 2008.

A bad year for Fiscal Conservatives? Or not so much?

Conservative candidates suffered humiliating losses in this year’s elections. Fiscal Conservatives such as Lincoln Chafee lost.  Democrats threaten to govern from the center, turning conservatives into a minority of the minority. Milton Friedman, the patron saint of free-market economics, died on Nov. 16. Just yesterday, Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) declared to the New York Daily News editorial board that “Reaganomics is dead.” 

Many would thus assume that this has been a bad year for fiscal conservatives, but this simply isn’t the case.  While all Republicans had a lousy year, fiscal conservatives gloom was lost on Election Day, when the GOP lost control of Congress.

The last few years of the Bush administration and its rubber stamp Congress have been marked by large tax cuts to the rich and very much so increased spending.  This is not fiscal conservatism.  Follow me to a simple household example.  Your parents give you a $20 dollar allowance.  For the sake of example, this is the tax you collect from your parents.  You then spend money on programs, that is at the mall.  If you calculatedly give your parents a tax break, by reducing you allowance to $10, (like the Bush tax cuts) and then at the same time increase spending at the mall, or in real terms agenda programs and wars, you end with large deficits.  That is to say, if you spend more then you bring in; you destroy all the ideals of fiscal conservatism. 

While the coming of the devils, (the newly elected Democratic majority) must seem like a horror to fiscal conservatives, in truth the new Congress will be much more in line with fiscally conservative views.  Democrats have for ages been labeled as over spenders, who increase too many taxes.  However there has been a shift to the right in the mainstream Democratic economic platform.  For example there is a group of Democratic House freshmen who won seats in conservative districts, including the Florida seat that was held by disgraced Rep. Mark Foley, and Tom DeLay’s former seat in Texas are much more fiscally conservative then the Republicans they replaced.  Further mainstream Democrats have made many promises to balance the budget and work to reduce the debt, most likely via reductions in the Bush tax cuts, and Bush spending on Iraq and other programs, similar to previous Republican platforms.  Fiscally conservative Republicans such as Lincoln Chafee and Olympia Snow have been abandoned by their party.  The small government and limited spending fiscal conservatives have been abandoned by the Republicans as the entire partisan political system has shifted to the right over the past twenty years, and now fiscal conservatives can find themselves more in line with Democrats. 

Also with the GOP now in the minority, they will have to return to their “budget hawk,” fiscally conservative role, only further benefits fiscal conservatives.  “Now that Republicans are in the opposition, they’re going to be the most saintly budget hawks you can imagine,” said American Enterprise Institute economist Kevin A. Hassett.  As soon to be former Speaker of the House, Dennis Hassett put it, “being in the minority requires increased fiscal responsibility.”  The point is, fiscal conservatives can look to a bright future because of the Democratic check to the Bush spending programs.

This was obviously a bad year for Republicans, but for Fiscal Conservatives the coming of the Democrats should be seen as a god send.

 

A look at ‘08

I will be spending the last few days of the semester examining the field for the Presidental nomination in 2008 in relation to Globalization.

 Today…Mitt Romney, your Republican Pro-Globalization Choice for President in 2008

Probable candidate for the Republican Presidental nomination, Mitt Romney has made many staff moves this week aimed at bolstering his Beltway Cred by hiring economic advisors.  One of the major challenges that has faced Romney is bolstering his “street cred” inside the Beltway that is showing the chattering politicos in the nation’s capital that he is ready to make a serious run for the White House.

Romney signed economic advisers R. Glenn Hubbard, N. Gregory Mankiw and Cesar Conda to his team in recent days.

R. Glenn Hubbard, dean of the Columbia University Graduate School of Business, and N. Gregory Mankiw, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, are both prominent Globalization and Free Trade writers.  Hubbard chaired Bush’s economic council from 2001 to 2003 and was succeeded by Mankiw, who served until 2005. Mankiw stirred up a controversy for the president in 2004 when he said the outsourcing of jobs was “probably a plus” for the U.S. economy in the long run. Many economists agreed with that view, but the comment revealed Mankiw’s lack of political instincts.

This I think shows Romney’s campaign goal of establishing himself as the Pro-Globalization candidate despite the potential political costs.  This will separate him from other leading Republican cantidates such as John McCain and Rudy Guilianni. 

Romney has said he will announce his future intentions in early 2007. Everything points to an announcement of a presidential bid at that time, and looks like he will be the pro-Global candidate of the next presidential cycle.