Dan, if trade's the thing, why the agonizing? All you need to do to predict who will be better on the issue (not Dreznerian, mind you, but that's because you're not running for President) is to look at the critical masses of the parties' support. Who's more likely to support trade liberalization: (A) The UAW, or (B) the Chamber of Commerce? I don't think you need to do much research to find out the answer (in short, it's (B)). And I don't think you need to look far to find out which party the party the CoC overwhelmingly supports.

Bush ain't great on trade, but -- especially in a close election -- why on Earth would Kerry be better? And what makes you think that you and other academic free-traders would find more influence in a Kerry White House than Bush's?

Case closed.

(By the way, have you heard the rumor that Gephardt is a leading pick for Chief of Staff? That should seal it, right?)

If clarity on trade policy is what you need to pick a candidate, I fear you may not be voting in November.

But just guess -- Kerry has the trial lawyers with him, the NEA, the AFL-CIO, the California teachers union, the UAW, the anit-outsourcing forces, Hollywood, ...

If he has time to do anything in his first year or two beyond making good on promised tariff deals from his campaign it will be surprising.

On the other hand, Bush's closest friend in the cabinet is Evans, Secretary of Commerce, and influencing voice for realism.

I don't really see "policy" playing a key role in either candidates' thinking on trade -- I think they mostly react to local influences and those are quite different.

The thing everybody seems to miss about banning outsourcing is that everybody in every other country will jump on it, lower their costs, and our industry will be hurt worse than anyone can imagine. The Germans came within an eyelash of moving all of Diamler to Czeck Republic, the French will do it (or is doing it now) to place like Ivory Coast. It's a fake issue while being a real concern.

Replying to D.J.: on that analysis, Clinton would have stopped NAFTA dead, and Bush would have rejected the steelworkers' demand for steel tariffs out of hand.

Replying to C. Bennett: what promised tariff deals?

No, alkali, on my analysis, a reasonable person would PREDICT that Clinton would dis NAFTA and that Bush would reject steel tariffs. Clinton certainly surprised me with his NAFTA support (I wouldn't have predicted it, even though he notably campaigned as a free-trader). Bush's pandering on the steel issue, alas, was not as predictable, but that hasn't signaled to me a fundamental turning away from free trade principles.

If Kerry wins, maybe you can report back in 12 years, alkali, and tell me that my prediction was wrong. Until then, I'm telling Drezner to play the odds and vote W.

I think freer immigration is the right anti-dote the outsourcing. Checkout my blog on this topic at http://ashish.hanwadikar.name/

The post brings up a good point: free trade is not only an economic issue, but a diplomatic and foreign policy issue as well.

It's interesting that Kerry promises to restore our relations with the rest of the world (not that they are lacking in truth, anyway), but yet proposes a trade policy that alienates foreign countries. Indeed, economic isolationism often breeds diplomatic isolationism as well.

In short, Kerry would be a disaster on all fronts, whether it would be economic, foreign policy, etc...

For all his occasional rhetoric, the fact is that Kerry has so far made only proposal about outsourcing -- and that is to suggest reducing a tax break, while using it to cut overall taxes. That is classical tax reform, and the man is generally careful and incremental enough that I don't see any great difference between his policy and that of GWB on trade. Yes, I can see steel quotas reappear, but only in small cases.

The blunt fact is that globalization is too far gone to stop. We've helped to create a solid middle class in India that may one day make India a close ally of the US. China -- well, thats going to be harder, but not impossible.

But simultaenously, I've yet to see anyone come up with good ideas to deal with people displaced by globalization. You cannot get political consensus for such changes if your country is badly split between rich and poor. This is something I think Kerry understands better than Bush.

Erg says:

". . . I've yet to see anyone come up with good ideas to deal with people displaced by globalization. You cannot get political consensus for such changes if your country is badly split between rich and poor. This is something I think Kerry understands better than Bush."

Precisely. There's no turning back on freer trade, but all too many voters see trade as a zero-sum game; everything "they" get is taken away from "us." Of course, that's not the case; giving others the opportunities to produce wealth in a global economy benefits them and us as well. But that's a terribly abstract, Chicago-schoolish notion to the beleaguered steel worker in Ohio or the laid-off textile worker in North Carolina. Brad Delong puts it well in his less pessimistic moments: the best remedy for anti-globalism is assurance to ordinary Americans that they won't get treated like chump change--that the alternative to preserving their present life is a shot at a better one, not a worse one. Not giveaways or permanent doles--just a sense that they remain people of value. And, again to echo Erg--It's the Democrats who recognize this.

Here's the start of the platform's trade plank:
Free and fair trade that creates American jobs. Exports sustain about 1 in 5 American factory
jobs. Open markets spur innovation, speed the growth of new industries, and make our businesses
more competitive. We will make it a priority to knock down barriers to free, fair and balanced
trade so other nation's markets are as open as our own."

A quick visit to a pro-protectionist site finds Kerry rated a "traitor" on three free trade agreements before he stopped voting to campaign.

That is, Kerry has a pro-free-trade voting record. And against considerable pressure his people wrote a platform that leads off with an accurate statement of the virtues of free trade and from there on avoids pledging any new restrictions on trade and leaves the way open to new trade agreements.

There's no reason not to believe that on free trade Kerry will follow in Clinton's footsteps. Other agreements like NAFTA loom. It's the protectionists have reason to fear.

Dan, I know the economic arguments in favor of free trade in general and outsourcing in particular. I'd just feel a lot more comfortable if there were some rationalization of intellectual property laws and licensing requirements to go along with it. As it is it looks to me if the "Two Americas" idea is a legitimate concern: one America that's been able to protect its livelihood by using the power of the government and one that hasn't.

Dan:

I think this Administration is abhorrent, and even I think you should vote for Bush. What percentage is there for you in voting for Kerry?

A lot of people believe Kerry vs. Bush is tantamount to thoughtful reflection vs. action for its own sake. I suspect that's one reason why most academics at decent schools have already declared their support for Kerry. At this point, the case on those terms is pretty clear. If you haven't broken for Kerry yet, I doubt you're going to get much credit for doing the right thing down the road. You'll just look like a tart, and a coy tart at that.

On the other hand, there appears to be a dearth of academic support for Bush. Beggars can't be choosers, and, despite the little teasing dance you've done, the 'Pubs would welcome you with open arms. And if Bush wins, it's a small pool of comparatively credentialed people you'd be competing against for influence with this Administration. (Granted, this isn't an Administration that appears to listen to people with actual expertise, but that's a bridge to cross later).

It's a neck-and-neck race, so the smart bet for you is pretty clear. Declare yourself for Bush, Dan.

I think you might be looking at this issue on too short a time-scale, Dan. Brad DeLong's comment that the issue will be unfolding over "the next generation" is dead-on. The key question is not whether Bush or Kerry will be better on specific trade issues over the next four years, but whether a Bush or Kerry presidency will lead to a better context for the debate on trade issues in general over the next 20 or 30 years.

I think a Kerry Administration will be better, not despite the protectionist elements in the Democratic Party, but because of them. The reality is that control of the government will shift between the Republicans and the Democrats for the foreseeable future, so the cause of free trade is best served if neither party becomes defined as anti-trade.

Since governing tends to moderate a Party, while being in opposition tends to push it towards its extremes, the longer the Democrats are shut-out, the louder and more extreme the anti-trade elements within it will become. By putting them in the White House now, however, the anti-trade elements will get muted and the party's overall attitude toward trade will become more reliably moderate over time. That, to me, is much more significant than what either Kerry or Bush will do on particular issues during their brief stay at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Dan,
I truly respect the effort you are giving to this issue. Keep fighting the good fight!

Elliot

"But simultaenously, I've yet to see anyone come up with good ideas to deal with people displaced by globalization. You cannot get political consensus for such changes if your country is badly split between rich and poor. This is something I think Kerry understands better than Bush."

But our country is not badly split between rich and poor, at least for most reasonable values of "poor". It's badly split between "not rich" and "really, really rich".

"Precisely. There's no turning back on freer trade, but all too many voters see trade as a zero-sum game; everything "they" get is taken away from "us." Of course, that's not the case; giving others the opportunities to produce wealth in a global economy benefits them and us as well. But that's a terribly abstract, Chicago-schoolish notion to the beleaguered steel worker in Ohio or the laid-off textile worker in North Carolina."

OK, how about this? Cut off trade, and all the people that made their living off of trade, and all the people whose livelihood was made possible by cheap inputs to whatever their company sells, will be after your job. And you'll be stuck with higher prices, too.

"I'd just feel a lot more comfortable if there were some rationalization of intellectual property laws and licensing requirements to go along with i
it."

There's a "rationalization" of it right there in the Constitution: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts".

I think that the liberal community is still working to build a consensus on this, most are leaning heavily free-trade, but not all.

If I know liberals, the final consensus won't be some religious adherence to some hard doctrine. Instead, it will be pragmatic - ninety five percent free trade, with a few regulations here and there.

As for Kerry, I'm sure he has his own ideas. But he seems to be the kind of guy who likes to do a lot of research before he makes a decision - as a result, I think his policies will be shaped by whatever consensus the liberal community reaches.

There isn't much question that the Bush administration has retreated some distance from Reaganite advocacy of multilateral agreements to reduce trade barriers and trade-distorting subsidies. On the other hand Bush's USTR Zoellick is a genuine free trader who has moved ahead on bilateral and regional trade agreements, and has taken fire from Congress even for this.

On the other hand John Kerry compiled a mostly pro-trade record as a Senator from Massachusetts. It is relevant to ask whether he did this because Massachusetts interests (and other major sources of campaign cash, like the entertainment industry) supported it, or because he is really committed to trade liberalization. My guess is that it is the former; in the case of protectionist pressure, a Kerry administration will buckle.

I think people forget that in the 1992 campaign (and to some extent afterward) the people who really favored an anti-trade posture lined up with Ross Perot, not with the Democrats. This took a lot of protectionist pressure off Clinton that will be squarely on Kerry. I predict Kerry will try to please everyone for about the first year of his administration and then pursue steadily more protectionist policies.

Dan, keep reading the TNR blog. Altman, Rubin, and Sperling are running this puppy, and they say he's like Clinton on these issues.

No protectionists, they.

I'll echo Alkali, since he wasn't answered on this point: what are the "promised tariff deals" from Kerry? Ideally, answer using hyperlinks or URLs.

More generally, I'm a self-professed "slightly left of center" economist and blogger with a predictably left of center audience. And boy do they hate it when I advocate free trade. Same thing happens to Brad D. when he broaches the subject. Yet people were much less hostile to trade in the 1990s (though still substantially so), not because of, or at least not just because of, some magical power Clinton held.

Instead, the rosy jobs picture and good economic times meant that people could enjoy cheaper goods without, for the most part, fearing for their jobs. Now the general anger over the lackluster jobs situation (and before you cite the unemployment number, look at the employment to population ratio) has a target: outsourcing. If times pick up, the hostility will wane.

So the question of which candidate will be most able to expand, or at least resist pressure to limit, free trade really boils down to which one will be better for jobs. Last I checked, Bush was still in Hoover terrritory, down 1 million jobs, net.

AB

This all seems soooo September 10th.

*rollseyes* Please. The world didn't stop on September 11th. If there was a massive, gaping difference between the candidates on the war, then I could see this being a one-issue-wonder of an election, but that's just not the case. Despite all the over-heated rhetoric, the reality is that Bush and Kerry are going to pursue largely similar policies in the war on terror from this point forward. The difference will be mainly in style and in their relations with our allies. Given that, I'd say it's perfectly legitimate, and in fact necessary, for us to consider other large issues, such as trade and the economy.

Zathras:
Free trade is part of a package of essentially liberal foreign-policy principles passed on to John Kerry by his diplomat father. If it were merely a matter of expedient Massachusetts politics, he might as well have matched Edwards' apparent protectionism during the campaign for the nomination.
Kerry is sound on free trade. And he offers a modicum of wisdom as well as strength. Or at least he knows how to read and to listen.

Ken, let me refresh you memory by quoting the entire clause in the Constitution:

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

Nowhere in the clause are security the these rights to corporations mentioned. The ability to retroactively extend the life of a copyright is intrinsically the ability to extend it indefinitely.

Natural life of the author would be rational, 25 years would be rational, 50 years might even be rational. The status quo is not rational.

“I predict Kerry will try to please everyone for about the first year of his administration and then pursue steadily more protectionist policies.”

That sounds just about right to me. John Kerry is the type who puts his wet finger into the air and see which way the wind is blowing. He will be unable to marginalize the the Democratic left-wing---even if he so desires. Robert Rubin and Brad DeLong are outnumbered and will be pushed to the side by the followers of Howard Dean.

“Free trade is part of a package of essentially liberal foreign-policy principles passed on to John Kerry by his diplomat father.”

I predict that John Kerry will say nothing explicit concerning free trade during his acceptance speech. He will be all over the plate on this issue. As I said previously, somebody is going to be marginalized immediately after the election if Kerry wins. The con game now is to continue letting everyone think that they will have a place at the table. This is of course impossible. One cannot logically reconcile the economic views of a Howard Dean and a Robert Rubin.

Make that "securing these" rather than "security the these".

I would argue that by looking at "free trade" issue in isolation you are missing the point. If the driving force behind the trade deficit is really the domestic savings-investment gap than if you favor free trade you should vote for who would do the best job of reducing the savings-investment gap and that is not going to be Bush. The issue of outsourcing, etc., is confusing the symptoms with the disease.

Protectionism only becomes a political issue in periods of economic weakness. The best policy to support free trade is one to maximize growth.

"debunking horses"? I get it, but "debunking a horse" is a new phrase to me.

Angry Bear:

We keep hearing about the jobs problem from Kerry, but we haven't heard what the magic words are that will create jobs - oh, only good ones too.

The rhetoric started with Benedict Arnold Corporations, which I gather you aren't down with, but what is left? All you can do as a president is get out of the way of growth or go Luddite and destroy productivity, unless there is another option I'm missing?

Praktike wrote:

Dan, keep reading the TNR blog. Altman, Rubin, and Sperling are running this puppy, and they say he's like Clinton on these issues.
No protectionists, they.

Angry Bear made a very good point: nobody is against free trade for the sake of being against free trade. If our economy is doing well, if jobs are secure and plentiful, then all talk of outsourcing as a problem and protectionism as the solution will go away on its own.

On the other hand, if the opposite is true, then policiticans from both sides will be forced to compromise on free trade, because otherwise they will be voted out of office.

So the question is really not who pays the most lip service to free trade, but who has the better ideas to revive the economy and restore the confidence of the American workforce.

We pretty much know that Bush's only idea is to extend his budget-busting tax cuts for the top 1-10 %. Far from reviving the economy, these tax cuts will cause us more and more grief because they will require deeper and deeper service cuts to the average and poorer Americans to offset the growing budget deficits. So the people on whom the economy really depends (not the top 1-10 %) will have less and less money to spend on goods.

More and more people will feel the pain, life will be more and more miserable for them, and they will yell louder and louder for an end to outsourcing, for import restrictions and what not. Republican congressmen and senators will (have to) respond to these complaints.

A vote for Bush is a vote to end free trade.

Something to keep in mind that Bush has agreed to temporary tariffs on a few specific items in order to get the votes necessary to regain Trade Promotion Authority after his Clinton lost it. While Kerry did vote to give Bush TPA, it was only after he voted to gut the TPA with the Dayton-Craig Amendment until Bush sent Cheney to defeat the amendment.

Bush has used the TPA to negotiate several multilateral and bilateral trade agreements (three of which Kerry is on record opposing). To me that indicates that Bush is generally a free trader but pragmatic enough to make deals on a few specific items in order to get the votes needed push for generally lower trade barriers and more broader open markets.
BTW: contrary to what some have speculated, Kerry’s recent rumblings of protectionism aren’t quite as recent as some might like to believe.

Kerry has been a staunch supporter of agricultural subsidies (voted against Freedom to Farm in 1996 and voted to restore them in 2001) including specific protections for sugar and peanuts. While it’s true he (previously) usually voted for trade agreements, he also has voted for more protectionist amendments to those agreements such as voting against limiting tariff reductions and adding anti-dumping requirements to the Andean Trade Agreement and voting for the Dayton-Craig Amendment to TPA (which would have pretty much defeated the purpose of TPA by having Congress vote on specific items rather than up-or-down on the entire agreement). There is no reason to think that Kerry’s protectionist rumblings aren’t an accurate indication of what he would do as POTUS if given the chance.

Jason -- if you want a president that will get out of the way of growth the last person you want is Bush. As Clinton said, for the last 25 years we have experimented with supply-side or trickle down economics and the results have been very powerful -- it does not work. Probably the real reason is that the federal deficit have done more harm -- largely through the international impact -- than the tax cuts did good. We have had structural deficits for 25 years and the only time during that period the economy boomed was when Clinton eliminated the deficits. Show me there is no cause-effect relationship.

That should be "voted to restore them in 2002"

Haven't had my morning yogurt yet.

that's a terribly abstract, Chicago-schoolish notion to the beleaguered steel worker in Ohio or the laid-off textile worker in North Carolina

Boosting incomes in China India Brazil and Eastern Europe also boosts demand for Intel processors, iPods, Palm Pilots, etc. Why is it more important to preserve a few thousand steelworkers' jobs than to help spur thousands of new high tech jobs? What's so wonderful about factory jobs that makes them more precious than engineering and product marketing jobs?

If laid-off workers need federal assistance, fine. Give them federally-subsidized health insurance, access to retraining, maybe also a lump sum payment. But it strikes me as self-defeating to tell our people that they should strive to compete with illiterate Brazilian steelworkers or Indian claims processor drones rather than striving to move up the value chain.

Let me throw out a linkage I observed listening to voters in the Atlanta suburbs: many of the same people upset about trade issues, particularly outsourcing, are even more upset about immigration. I don't think this phenomenon is confined to Republican voters, either.

Any thoughts as to the problems this poses for the next administration, whether Kerry or Bush is elected?

Right now, all we're doing is speculating on whether Kerry will be a protectionist or not. I'm unsure whether we know for sure. Trade has never struck me as one of Kerry's signature issues.

If Kerry runs a protectionist campaign, then it would be foolish to assume that he won't run a protectionist administration. This is true, even if the one delivering the protectionist message is Edwards. If he stays silent on the issue, or makes vague anti-corporate Shrumblings, but does not really say anything, my guess is that he intends to be free-trade.

Stay on the fence, Dan, if trade is a deal-breaker for you. There is, as yet, insufficient information with which to make a choice.

This post isn't about trade, but it is about (my) fence-sitting.

I voted for both Bill Clinton (twice) and Al Gore (once). Yet while Bill Clinton's speech made me want to vote for John Kerry, Al Gore's speech made me want to vote for George Bush.

Did anyone else have a similar reaction to these two speeches?

Arjun;

What should seal that deal...(jeez, did I actually use that phrase?) is that the majority of the Party, inclduing John/John, is closer to Gore.

Dan; You're not alone in your thought... you're just alone among those seriously considering Kerry. With stuff like this, how in the name of (insert name here) can you still be on the fence? The choice, based on oyur own values, as you've laid them out to us over the last several months is quite clear.... and it's not Kerry.

And even that's assuming you can take Kerry at his word... and you know better, don't you, really?

Hell, even the Unions are starting to come to that conclusion. Did you see WaPo this morning?

"Breaking sharply with the enforced harmony of the Democratic National Convention, the president of the largest AFL-CIO union said Monday that both organized labor and the Democratic Party might be better off in the long run if Sen. John F. Kerry loses the election. "

Need I say more?

'Boosting incomes in China India Brazil and Eastern Europe also boosts demand for Intel processors, iPods, Palm Pilots, etc. Why is it more important to preserve a few thousand steelworkers' jobs than to help spur thousands of new high tech jobs? What's so wonderful about factory jobs that makes them more precious than engineering and product marketing jobs?
'

Most of these are built aboard these days, and an increasing number are being designed abroad as well. Its not just manufacturing jobs, its a lot of design jobs as well, and more will go aboard. Product marketing will probably remain in the US.

In any case, the issue here is not that there's anything sacred about steel workers jobs, or chip designers jobs, or software engineers jobs, or even doctors jobs. Its how best to manage and deal with the inevitable disruptions.

The bad news: Kerry voted for every restrictive amendment to the Trade Bill of 2002.
The good news: disagreeing with a slight majority of his Democratic colleagues (including Clinton, Edwards, and Kennedy), he placed himself in the free-trade camp by voting for the act itself.

'Hell, even the Unions are starting to come to that conclusion. Did you see WaPo this morning?

"Breaking sharply with the enforced harmony of the Democratic National Convention, the president of the largest AFL-CIO union said Monday that both organized labor and the Democratic Party might be better off in the long run if Sen. John F. Kerry loses the election. "

Need I say more?'

And the reason seems to be that they want Kerry to be more leftist, more like Howard Dean.

'But Stern complained that motivating blue-collar families who have not voted in the past is being impeded because Kerry and the Democrats have declined to address what he calls "the Wal-Mart economy," a system in which he says employers deliberately keep wages so low and hours so short that workers are forced to turn to state Medicaid programs for their families' health care. '

If you're a leftist, Stern's comments would make you more inclined to distrust Kerry. If you're a centrist, this would be more of a reason to vote for Kerry -- he's not going to be a left-wing wacko.

But again, Erq; that assumes you can take him at his word.

Wait a few minutes, it'll change.

Hey, Dan--
Would you believe Laura Tyson? Matt Yglesias reports that she vouches for Kerry's free-trade bona fides. He says she said:
Recognize that what might be said in one primary . . . is not an indicator of the future." The thing to look at "is Sen Kerry's very courageous, very consistent, very long-term record on trade and global economic integration." A man who has consistently voted for a pro-trade, pro-integration agenda. His career has been oriented in this direction. He has shown "courage in this direction because a significant part of my party's base is a voice of concern about trade . . . and is consistently asking for policies that would take the US backwards." Kerry has consistently heard those voices, "and consistently voted a pro-trade record."

Come on, Dan. Now you've no excuse not to vote for the candidate with a mind.

Bithead wrote:

Dan; You're not alone in your thought... you're just alone among those seriously considering Kerry. With stuff like this, how in the name of (insert name here) can you still be on the fence? The choice, based on oyur own values, as you've laid them out to us over the last several months is quite clear.... and it's not Kerry.

If you read what Kerry said, I bet you'll find he was careful NOT to commit himself to dumbass specifics of the kind Bush locked himself into.
Kerry is a member in good standing of the free-trade wing of his party.
And yes, the Republican party does have its own protectionist wing.

'Bush wants to reform Social Security and Kerry does not. '

Bush had his chance to try and reform Social Security. When we were projecting a huge surplus in the early days of the administration, that was the chance to reform SS, using the surplus to pay off the vast transition costs of such a system. The surplus of course vanished like those flowers we were promised in Iraq, but the fact that Bush was unwilling to even try and take the hard decisions to reform SS while we had a bunch of moolah we could toss around to make everyone feel better tells me how serious he is about SS reform.

'Both want to increase spending but Kerry wants to increase spending by about $2 Trillion more than Bush including a $900 Billion bailout of the insurance industry under the guise of “health care reform''

Well, anyone can conjure numbers out of thin air. Why $2 T, why not 10 Trillion ? We do know what Bush's staff says about fiscal sanity "Deficits don't matter"

Hopefully he will be positive on free trade. I'd like to point out that Clinton was no saint on free trade, either. In fact, I'd argue that his position was broadly similar to Bush's-- saying all the right things, but making many small exceptions.

Who put massive tariffs on South Korean steel and manufactured steel products? Clinton.

Who first imposed quotas on Canadian softwood lumber? Clinton.

Who repeatedly slapped tariffs on South Korean DRAM, at the behest of Micron? Clinton.

I'd prefer a more forthright pro-trade president, but the consensus that we've had from essentially all recent presidents is a consensus that free trade in general is good, combined with plenty of specific exceptions for well-connected businesses (and businesses with powerful unions.)

That said, most of the time it's unlikely that a president will have a tremendous change on the trade policy of the US, though small moves are possible.

In other news, we've ratified the free trade agreement with Morocco.

Laura Tyson is happy.

Andy Stern is PO'd.

Dan, what could simplify things more?

In any case, the issue here is not that there's anything sacred about steel workers jobs, or chip designers jobs, or software engineers jobs, or even doctors jobs. Its how best to manage and deal with the inevitable disruptions.

erg: Actually the issue is the jobs themselves, and whether they should be protected by government intervention. There are a great number of manufacturing segments where this country simply cannot compete in a global market with anything like the current level of US employment. Everyone agrees we should "manage disruptions"; the crucial test is whether you're willing to let companies and jobs die in order to increase trade (read: increase US exports, increase US consumer choice and at lower prices).

Those like Edwards who favor tariff protection say Yes. I favor letting those jobs go and providing one-time payments, along with health insurance credits and some retraining, to those displaced.

Dan:

I first saw this at angrybear. My reply was that you have a right to expect better trade policies than the protectionist policies of Bush43. I know I do and I suspect angrybear does too. Well said!

Remember that one reason George W. Bush slapped tariffs on steel in 2002 is that he essentially promised he'd do this during the 200 election campaign.

And yet you supported him then, Dan. What - you thought he was lying to you at the time?

Sheesh, can people BE more fickle?

Kerryist wrote:

If you read what Kerry said, I bet you'll find he was careful NOT to commit himself to dumbass specifics of the kind Bush locked himself into.
Kerry is a member in good standing of the free-trade wing of his party.
And yes, the Republican party does have its own protectionist wing.

The only way Kerry looks like a “free trader” is when you compare him to his advisors – Reich, Kennedy, Edwards, and Sweeny.

And that only because he flip flops almost hourly, apparently being unable to decide what he wants to be when he grows up.

John Thacker is quote correct, there are very few candidates who can be deemed “free traders” or “protectionists” with any sense of absolute purity. I did some checking on the claims Mr. Thacker made and it squared with my own memory which was that during the Clinton administration (particularly in later years) there were often stories of “trade wars” or looming trade wars. I found the following interesting tidbits while looking into the issue:

On June 22, 1993, the U.S. Commerce Department, in a final ruling, cited Canada and eighteen other countries for dumping steel in the U.S. market, then imposing duties on U.S. steel imports. Dumping duties have been imposed on individual companies, with rates ranging from 1.47% to 68.7%. The Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement was reputedly designed to protect Canada from arbitrary application of U.S. anti-dumping laws, through the negotiation of new trade remedy laws by both countries. Instead, Canada remains exposed to U.S. retaliatory action designed to protect its domestic industries.
Source:
http://www.legis.gov.bc.ca/CMT/35thParl/cmt04/2REPORT/OBSERV04.HTM

Judging by the date, this would have occurred a few months before the vote on NAFTA which suggests to me that it is possible that the Clinton administration (much like the Bush administration) was willing enact a few strategic tariffs/duties in order to coral the votes it needed on a crucial trade bill. In Clinton’s case it would have been NAFTA, in Bush’s it would have been to regain Trade Promotion Authority, the two free trade agreements with Chile and Singapore, and future votes on CAFTA and FTAA.

'The only way Kerry looks like a “free trader” is when you compare him to his advisors – Reich, Kennedy, Edwards, and Sweeny. '

Reich is not a Kerry advisor.

Not only is Sweeney not an advisor, he doesn't want Kerry elected.

Kennedy is not a Kerry advisor on issues. He has helped Kerry on tactics and in setting up his campaign, but thats different.

So 3/4 = 75 % of your comments are inaccurate. That says it all for your criticism.

And incidentally, you forgot to include all the pro-free trade Rubineseque Democrats who are really Kerry advisors, not just advisors you dreamed up.

And that only because he flip flops almost hourly, apparently being unable to decide what he wants to be when he grows up.

Don’t you know? John Kerry wants to be a spaceman! (or an Oompa Loompa) ;)

http://mhking.mu.nu/archives/038815.php

'Don’t you know? John Kerry wants to be a spaceman! (or an Oompa Loompa) ;)'

Hey, Bush wants to be a military aviator. Everyone had their dreams.

Jon wrote:

Reich is not a Kerry advisor.

Not only is Sweeney not an advisor, he doesn't want Kerry elected.

Jobs joins a team of celebrity advisors, who include investor Warren Buffett, Roger Altman, a former advisor to Bill Clinton, as well asformer Labor Secretary Robert Reich, AFL-CIO labor organization President John Sweeney, and former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, head of Citigroup's executive committee.

Source: “Jobs Joins Kerry Campaign as Tech Advisor”
http://www.technewsworld.com/story/33630.html

Try again.

Oops --- I confused Sweeney with Stern, the guy who spoke out against Kerry today. Other than that, I stand by by comment -- Reich and Sweeney seem to hold a sort of honorary position, and to my knowledge have not done any real advising. Ditto for Buffett.

But lets look at your announcement. We have Rubin. Altman who are both pro-free trade. Buffett is probably free trade, at least he's free capital flows. Ditto for Jobs. We have 2 to 1 for free traders vs. protectionists.

Jonathan T Conant wrote:

Oops --- I confused Sweeney with Stern, the guy who spoke out against Kerry today. Other than that, I stand by by comment -- Reich and Sweeney seem to hold a sort of honorary position, and to my knowledge have not done any real advising. Ditto for Buffett.

Translation: you didn’t have a clue what you were talking about when you falsely accused me of getting 75% of my previous post wrong and are now trying to obfuscate by pretending to have some secret knowledge as to which of Kerry’s advisors are actually doing “any real advising.”

But lets look at your announcement. We have Rubin. Altman who are both pro-free trade.

Debatable. As pointed out above, the Clinton administration was hardly as “pro-free trade” as some have been lead to believe. However for the sake of argument, I’ll grant these two until we know otherwise.

Buffett is probably free trade, at least he's free capital flows.

Nope, Warren Buffet came out in favor of a convoluted scheme to try to equalize exports and imports. Basically a form of import tariffs and export subsidies. Hardly an example of a “free trader.” If you have some evidence to the contrary, let’s see it.

http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/000301.html

Ditto for Jobs.

Really, what is the evidence that Steve Jobs is a free trader?

We have 2 to 1 for free traders vs. protectionists.

Nope – we have Reich, Sweeney, Edwards, Kennedy, and (arguably) Buffet pretty much in the protectionist camp with Altman and Rubin in the free trade camp and you have provided no evidence on Steve Jobs one way or the other.

Spencer,

Re: supply side failures and causation

1) You grant too much of the business cycle to the balanced budget that happened at the same time or a little after. If you are postulating cause and effect to that extent in a 100 variable problem, I think the onus is on you to demonstrate it.

2) Unlike supply side theory, demand stimulation is great, which is why Japan has been doing so well?

"We can't afford to do that--a world in which Indians and Chinese in fifty years are taught that the U.S. tried to keep them poor will be a very unsafe world"

The problem with this statement is it's based on the assumption that the Indians and Chinese have the same attitudes towards commerce, employees, and economic policy that we do. More likely their going to say, "What chumps. They gave it away."

Don’t you know? John Kerry wants to be a spaceman! (or an Oompa Loompa) ;)

Yeah, well, about that:

http://bitheads.blogspot.com/2004/07/dems-claim-nasa-leaked-photos-to-smear.html

Jason -- if I am giving too much weight to the business cycle on the savings-investment gap
why did exactly the same thing happen in the 1980s when we first tried voodoo economics.

Under Reagan we had a structural federal deficit that absorbed 15% of domestic savings. Now Bush has created a structural federal deficit that is absorbing some 25% to 30% of domestic savings.

This has nothing to do with the business cycle.
Actually, the normal business cycle pattern is for business investment to fall and so reduce demand for savings so the current account deficit and the need for international capital inflows fall. The US international deficit actually improved in the recession but once the economy tries to rebound the international deficit plunges.

I believe those who warned about crowding out in the 1980s were right, but because they were looking at the economy as a closed system they looked in the wrong place for the damage. In the 1980s we had crowding out,it just worked through the dollar and imports rather than higher interest rates. Crowding out hits those sectors exposed to foreign competition rather than those that need low rates like housing. We are seeing it again as the current account deficit has to grow to allow the savings-investment gap to be financed.

In an open economy with floating exchange rates
deficit spending works much differently than it did in a closed economy with fixed exchange rates.

Jason -- the supply side argument in the early 1980s was that the economy had a major problem because high taxes dampened growth.

From 1960 to 1980 the single best measure of how the economy is doing, real per capita income grew
at roughly a 3% anual rate. So in 1981 we tried the supply side solution of cutting taxes. Over the next 12 years real per capita income growth fell to about 2%. In the 1990s we tried Rubinenomics of dealing with the deficit and real per capita income growth rebounded to 3%.
Under Bush we went back to voodoo economics and
real per capita income growth has been under 1%.

Yes, the business cycle does have something to do with it. But the evidence is overwhelming, economic performance has been worse under voodoo
economics than under other economic regimes. What I think is hapening in that the deficit is doing more damage than lower taxes are doing good.

"We pretty much know that Bush's only idea is to extend his budget-busting tax cuts for the top 1-10 %. Far from reviving the economy, these tax cuts will cause us more and more grief because they will require deeper and deeper service cuts to the average and poorer Americans to offset the growing budget deficits. "

I'm still not seeing the downside here. Lower taxes and lower spending doesn't seem like a recipe for dampening the economy to me.

Of course, we're still waiting for the lower spending...

"So the people on whom the economy really depends (not the top 1-10 %) will have less and less money to spend on goods."

The people on whom the economy really depends will not be depending on "services" from the government for their spending money. Such people will find their disposable income going up if taxes and spending go down.

"Probably the real reason is that the federal deficit have done more harm -- largely through the international impact -- than the tax cuts did good. We have had structural deficits for 25 years and the only time during that period the economy boomed was when Clinton eliminated the deficits. Show me there is no cause-effect relationship."

Clinton vetoed a Congressional plan to drive down deficits. Fortunately, the high tech industry started growing by leaps and bounds before anyone in Washington noticed, and before anyone could think to regulate it into submission, it was filling the Treasury.