« Outsourcing Predictions for 2008... in a nutshell | Main | Is India adapting to the Night Shift? »

Dec 25, 2007


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

No presidential candidate has addressed in depth the fundamental problem: The fantasy of "free" trade embraced by the neocon right which took over the Republican party beginning with Reagan, accelerating through Daddy Bush, gaining a Congressional majority with Clinton, and - with a little luck - peaking with Dubya.

No country in history save the England has ever tried truly "free" trade on a sustained basis. The Brits discovered the disasters endemic to "free" trade with its Indian colony in the mid and late 19th century: Without tariffs, the British homeland standard of living deteriorated as domestic workers were displaced as cheaper foreign goods became available. The Brits ended their experiment, fueled in large part by the crackpot economic policies of Adam Smith, so dear to the hearts of right wing economic theorists to this day.

In a global economy, the implications of free trade are clear. Capital will seek the lowest possible production cost. That means workers in advanced economies with high standards of living will be replaced by cheaper workers in lower cost countries. In the long term, global costs of production will level out among countries. The leveling will cause dramatic lowering of livng standards in formerly "advanced" countries, and corresponding rises in living standards for previously poor countries.

Embracing free trade means clutching a lower standard of living for your kids and grandkids - and maybe for yourselves. The cure is "protectionism" and "nationalism" - both concepts embraced by our founding fathers, and anathema to current politicians of most stripes - save Ron Paul, who stands no chance of being elected president of our country.

Politicians most likely to reject, to some degree, NAFTA, WTO and unrestricted immigration are, perversely, Democrats.

So if you value your job, and hope to see politicians begin to try to save our own standard of living, vote Democratic. These folks have many faults, but they're not wedded to a theory which in practice demonstrably impoverishes American citizens in order to enrich their multinational employers.

Any candidate who struggles with the following: (1) separation of church & state, (2) responsible fiscal management, (3) election finance reform, (4) prudent tax reform, and in general (5) artculating & implementing a leadership vision.

Its still too early to really assess the candidates thoroughly against all of these criteria, although positions on church & state are largely defined along party lines. Candidates' positions are still necessarily formative to minimally differentiate them from their competitiors, though certainly not specific enough to implement.

That said, they're all borderline hopeless.

Dick Cheney

An American?

Hillary period.

McCain would have to be the worst choice America could make right about now - that'll get the US embroiled deeper into Mid Eastern conflicts and the wrong way of approaching the 'WOT'... Closely followed by Huckabee and Romney. Ron Paul's not even worth considering.


First, I don't want to be President. It's a crappy job. Second, I don't ever want a job that requires me and my family to have physical protection 24hrs a day not because of anything we've done, or even that we might do, just because we are.

My wife would be pissed because she hates DC, and my daughters like their daycare teachers. Plus, we just moved, and I'm not moving again even if it is at tax payer expense.

Last, but not least, remember the old refrain "Don't complain if you don't vote!"? Do you think anyone's going to let me complain if I'm President? Heck no.

I'm happy enough in my current job, thank you, and while it doesn't pay anywhere near as much as the Presidency does in dollars, it enables a better standard of living.

Rosie O'Donnell

Edwards - kill all the trial lawyers.

It doesn't really matter... they have no power. Anything that is vetoed by the President can be overridden by the Senate. Anything that is wanted by the President can be ditched by the House and Senate. The real power lies in the Senate. I can only hope the voters will figure that out one day.


Any of the current candidates...*sigh*...


Any Republican candidate - after 8 years of mismanagement and a war that makes no sense, it's time for a change...

any democrat, but especially Hillary

I least want to see someone who would further their own agendas and ignore those of the people.

I don't want to see someone whom have witnessed the belligerences of our country and try to continue old efforts from the past.

I least want to see someone who caters to the rich and not to the working, middle or poor classes.

Whatever package, delegation or "party" that ill serves the country first and the globally community second.

Someone who relies on fake morality and drummed up conservatism.

Anyone running. They all come rom the same group, just with different slogans and tag lines to make us think they are different. In the end they all end up doing the same thing, which is often what they promised they wouldn't do.

If by fat chance this were to happen, is there room for one more in Australia?


Without question.....HILLARY! Also noted that LUCKILY, the person who WANTS Al Gore, did not live in the USA!

Due to the impact US politic has all around the world, we should have a vote on that election too.

Every decision taken by White House has influence in our lives, our money, and our security.
USA decided to go to Iraq on war…and we were involved on that too.
Wall Street open in red…and we also fall, just near the close time in Europe.
Relations with other countries, trade markets, everything is impacted by US politics.

Why not a vote for us?

Whew, political chatter can often breed some high flame cross talk. I love it.

Let's see, we currently are under the thumb of an incompetent. As much as the talent pool is thin, and IT IS, anyone from this mix, including Clinton is an upgrade. That being said, and ONLY trusting Gore ( still waiting ) or Obama ( yeah, this country's ready to vote a black man, right), I'd have to say:

Thompson (although I like L&O reruns)
Hilary( she is hard to look at let alone trust)

C'mon Edwards, be the dweller in the threshold....

The comments to this entry are closed.

Your email address:

Powered by FeedBlitz

Follow me on Twitter

    follow me on Twitter


    My Photo