I agree with Warner its about education and working smarter while facing reality. 

Webb is all about protectionisim

I strongly disagree that they are on the same page.
I look forward to a civil debate. 

The devil's in the details. If Webb just said that we need new laws/tariffs to protect our interests in world trade, I would agree that he's about protectionism. He doesn't say that exactly. Although he does use the term "fair trade," his message is a bit more subtle, and I'd want to know more details before concluding. Here's more of what Jim Webb says: We must reexamine our tax and trade policies and reinstitute notions of fairness, and also enforce our existing trade laws so that free trade becomes fair trade. Source: Campaign website, www.webbforsenate.com, "Issues" May 2, 2006 The Republican Senate talks endlessly about a dream-world of "free trade" while year after year their policies continue costing American jobs. In rural America, including much of Virginia, they've wholesaled entire industries such as furniture and textiles to other countries, and outsourced stacks of other jobs as well. Some say the train has left the station on this issue. I say to you, the corporations who want to betray the American worker need to pay a higher price for a ticket on that train. Source: Campaign announcement speech Apr 28, 2006 Some of the ways in which corporations could "pay a higher price for a ticket on that train" might include worker re-education, training, etc. I'd like to learn more about what Webb has in mind, although I'm inclined to agree that we don't want to export jobs.

I'd like to see a little more meat on the bone.  Show me how we can do in Waterloo what can be done in Bangladore.  I definitely do NOT want to go the protectionist route like Webb.  This has become a big political issue but I don't hear many people talking about the practical realities and how to fix the problems.

Where did you get that from? It's definitely not the case.

and shows a failure to understand basic economics. If you read all of Webb's writings and hear him speak, Webb is an economic populist. He believes strongly that American businesses, if they are to take advantage of the growing trends in globalism have some responsibility to their workers and to American society to either help them find new work or at least get the proper training to find a new job.

Webb's desire for "fair trade," a term that actually attempts to make American corporations more responsible stewards of their capital, comes from his deep understanding of the history of the South and the pre and post Civil War economies that left much of the South in poverty while a small ruling (white) elite controlled the majority of assets and pitted poor whites against poor blacks to maintain economic supremacy.

I would recommend that you read Born Fighting so you can see for yourself that Jim Webb is no protectionist. However, he is a populist in the truest sense and believes that if large corporate interests are to be the main financial beneficiaries in a society then they also have a responsibility to treat working class Americans with a sense of decency and fairness.

For some, this is simply too much to ask. Those in power are always threatened by a voice that calls out for fairness.

As Webb says of his political hero, Andrew Jackson: 

Jackson believed that you don't measure the health of a society at the apex but at the base.

Time and time again, American workers get a raw deal and coporations and their political apologists call it free trade. Unfortunately under Bush II we've leared that is true. With all the tax breaks Bush has granted to the wealthy elite and large corporations, it's no wonder they see it as free trade. Jim Webb intends to stand up for the rights of the American working class and wants to put an end that that free ride.

Born fighting didn't solve the question of how we make in Waterloo what they make in Bangladore (Warner's statement not Webb's).  I'm tired of rhetoric and ready for some policy proposals.  Saying "I'm a populist," "I'm for the little guy," "I'm tired of big business getting all the breaks" doesn't solve anything.  Webb needs to tell us how we're gonna make widgets in the USA that cost $5.00 and $.10 in Bangladore without simply driving up the cost to the end user (the middle class).  Believe me, I'm all ears and am just waiting for Webb to take over this issue with some ideas, not more rhetoric.

What I've stated is not rhetoric, but a summation of Webb's ideas as found in both his writings and from what I've heard him say. In your original post, to which I was responding, you called Webb a protectionist, thus my ("rhetoric") response to explain Webb's position. Nice try to shift the goal post. As I am not on the staff nor an economist I can't answer your deep and probing widget question, but I suppose you prefer Allen's shiny mumbo jumbo or Miller's empty wonk speak.

The fact is, neither Webb nor Allen are entrepreneurs in the sense that they have created factories in their past, but it isn't hard to extrapolate whose side they are on in the economic battle for America's souls when you listen to their "rhetoric."

Either way, if Webb and Allen were going to sit down and have an economic symposium, I would certainly put my money on Webb.

I also imagine, given the time limits of Warner's speech, he probably couldn't go on at length about the process of how he'd create your widget factory, but as a wealthy businessman who started his own company I'm sure he would have an idea.

So what's your solution, how would you create the ideal widget factory in Waterloo, Iowa, which you seem to care so much about?

Maybe we don't need all those widgets.  Our consumption is a massive problem.

In the olden days we didn't have income tax because we made money on tariffs and exports.  That has drastically changed.  We used to export products, now we export raw materials and buy the products back. 

The Titanic showed us that we needed more even policies, since all the poor drowned (locked below).  So they started income tax on the anniversary date which does hit the wealthy the hardest.  But they also wield more power. 

I think we need much less.

Reuse, restore, recycle. 

Need less, enjoy more.

that we need less in this consumer society. When consumption has become about a quick psychological fix you know something is deeply wrong with that society.

As far as widgets and free trade goes va.walter appears to worship them like the Golden Calf. It appears his concern for widgets wanes when you ask him for his solution. Nice armcharm punditry...can demand answers from some, but can't answer his own questions.

Your post makes it sounds like Webb is okay with outsourcing as long as the businesses that outsource take steps to help workers find new jobs or get trained for new jobs.  If that's the case, I certainly didn't hear that in the primary.  Furthermore, other than offer incentives, there's very little the government can do in this area.  Like I said, we've continued to hear generalities and rhetoric without any workable ideas or solutions.

The government can negotiate better trade treaties and fully enforce the provisions of the existing treaties.  Hear that sucking sound?  That is the sound of corporations moving production to low-wage countries and leaving empty factories in towns across America.  See those record corporate profits since 2001?  That is the result. God didn't do this to America, corporate greed did it.

What has Webb done to back up his "strong feelings" beyond wondering aloud if there is a "formula that protects American workers"?

Warner has walked the walk on this subject with practices like farmshoring -- including bringing 300 IT jobs to rural southwestern VA. With his background and the prominence of tech in the outsourcing game, Warner has a lot more clout in this area.

But I'm interested to see something concrete from Webb...

When the high paying manufacturing jobs went first to Mexico and then to China, economists, free traders and New Democrats, like Mark Warner, all confidently told us that Americans would just have to be retrained for the coming highly skilled high tech economy.

Well, it came, and some Americans were trained for it and were highly skilled.  Then it was discovered that so were the people of Bangalore.  So we lost those jobs too.

Many of the jobs that real, average Americans were trained to do - from customer service and IT help desks to doctors trained to read X rays - all have jobs that can just as easily be outsourced.

Anything you can do on a computer, regardless of how complex, can be outsourced to a place with a lower standard of living where people can do it cheaper.

And let's face it, the vast majority of people in any country can't be expected to get PhDs in rocket science. The type of highly paid, high skilled jobs requiring advance degrees like that just aren't going to cover the downward spiral.  I think Mark Warner knows that too.

And protectionism, tariffs, and pulling up the moat would only be a temporary solution as well, and not a particularly effective one.  That would leave us less competitive.

The real solution lies in writing international trade agreements and rules and regulations that contain minimum wage, health and safety regulations, and environmental protections.

The notion that there is some free for all out there where anything goes is only a partial truth.  Right now, trade agreements contain laws that at least attempt to keep competition among corporations fair.  Nations that don't abide by those rules are taken to international courts were fines and sanctions are imposed. 

In addition, most trade agreements have language that protects the intellectual property rights of corporations. 

So, there is a recognition that free trade must have orderly regulations to ensure fairness to corporations.  For companies to compete, it is generally agreed, there must be a level playing field between nations.

If that's true for large international companies, it should also be true for workers.  Without certain basic, minimum standards, there is no level playing field.

There is not anarchy out there.  There are rules that protect corporations while encouraging free trade by making it profitable to compete.

There is no reason on earth why there also can't be laws that level the playing field for workers to ensure that even while companies make profits, workers also have decent lives.  All that needs to be curbed is not the legitimate desire for profitable business but the illegitimate greed of some corporations.

I look forward to more specific trade policy suggestions from Webb, and I'm confident that he'll put real thought into it before he acts. Allen has already demonstrated that he is not so concerned about offshoring.