During a campaign rally with steel workers from USW Local 8888 in Newport News we talked about the importance of standing up for economic justice for all, living wage jobs, workers? representation, and collective bargaining.  You could tell then that Jim Webb was committed to making working Americans lives better. 

Between this and his now-legendary pummeling of Lindsey Graham on Meet the Press, Sen. Webb is already proving an influential voice on the '08 elections.  An Obama-Webb ticket, anyone?

My dream ticket, although it'll never happen.

Would bring a new day. When Jim Webb talks about "Rubin Democrats" I think he may be refering generically to Goldman Sacks and Wall St. - the "Wall St. Barons" he talked of in his post-State of the Union speech. In other words, a party returned to the common and working people rather than based on Wall St. profit-based philosophy.

That sounds more like it ;-)

Webb's experience as Secretary of the Navy and in other places fully qualifies him to be President in the First Tier. He is far more qualified that the three Democratic front runners right now. That he quit the Navy job shows elan and sterling character. In days past honorable women and men like Webb and Eliot Richardson quit rather than support bad or immoral policy. He showed the same character and esprit when he quit the Republican party and ran for Senate in '06. This is consistent and in keeping with his life force and with the spirit of his kin and ancestors in the western hills of Virginia. The rest of the country is beginning to feel it. (And beginning the see and understand the contrast between character and political expediency.)

He could win - Hillary has high unfavorables and is a risk.  Obama and Edwards are OK, but Senator Webb would draw more Republican and independent votes.  I think he would do better in the general than any of the front runners.

He has "Reagan" credentials, he is a populist, he resonates on issues of security, trade, and economics.  He is just what Americans need right now.

I don't care what any of you greedy Virginians who want him to yourselves say ;-)  He should run.

We had several visionary Virginian Democrats, and it seems that we are are witnessing the rise of another one.

What a radical idea: look out for the common American citizen.

I know a lot of people like to look back on the Clinton years with a lot of nostalgia. And this is somewhat justified. But we all should never forget that NAFTA was and IS STILL a fucking disaster for hundreds of thousands of workers in America.

Jim Webb gets this. Everytime I hear people talking all that bullshit about how globalism and free trade is inevitable and is of overall benefit to American workers....I want to go get a bucket of burning tar and some axe handles and burn some shit down. I swear I am identifying more and more with all the hippies throwing rocks in the 60's.

So far the anger of working class people has been misdirected at the bullshit targets that Bush and company has pointed them at. Muslims, liberals ect.... It will only work for so long. Pretty soon working people are gonna get fed the fuck up with being given the runaround and then things are gonna turn ugly.

Webb is already fed up with it. I am so happy that we have a Senator who has the balls to tell the truth about this.

Rubinomics blow - the failure of which can be measured in massive and long running trade deficits.

The Bush administration has continued these policies - which has been a gravy train for the rich.

Meanwhile, wages don't keep pace with inflation.  Senator Webb had it right when he said that you measure success of a society "by the base, not the pinnacle".

When you see that sardonic grin form on Senator Webb's face, as it did just before he went for Senator Lindsay Graham on Sunday, you know it is time for a Socratic moment. The difference between Webb's promises during the campaign and those of your run of the mill candidates is that what he says is always based upon principles he firmly embraces. How refreshing.

Yes, it is about power and priviledge manifest in the concentration of influence in the marketplace on only one side of the capital generation equation.

First, I would emphasize that "Rubonomics" -- at least as defined by Wikipedia -- relates to domestic spending priorities.  e.g. balanced budgets, and low interest rates -- as Lowell pointed out above.

"Rubonomics" also relates to trade liberalization includes things like NAFTA and the effect of globalization. 

The issue here isn't with balanced budgets and low-interest rates, I would hope that many would agree with those priorities.  I think it's important to define the problem in precise terms.

On the other hand, the impact of globalization on American workers is a real problem -- especially in cases where companies are allowed to circumvent worker safety, product safety, and environmental safety laws.  Not only are American workers screwed when their jobs go overseas, but the American consumer is screwed -- as evidenced by several recent problems with China -- when dangerous products enter into the U.S. market and consumers are stuck with dead pets, or increased medical costs which would have been reduced in a better regulated environment priorities are obviously out of whack. 

I give Webb credit for simply calling attention to this issue, and I am reassured that he will be sincere in his efforts.  The man can't be bought. The key though is to provide an effective long-term cure, not one that is simply reactive and short-sighted.  (e.g. a number of the problems caused by global trade can be attacked by adjusting domestic spending priorities; revamping the tax code -- and ensuring that companies and the top .001% actually PAY their taxes; as well as through trade agreements that ensure some regulation on the other side of the equation). 

Rejecting the "Rubonomics" wing needs to be stated more explicitly here.  What exactly does that mean?  What policies are people opposed too?  What are the best alternative approaches? 

Do people really want to say that deficit spending is the answer, and that we should jack up interest rates?  I suspect the answer here, once again, is no. 

I think it's also worth pointing out that Rubin has revisited some of the ideas concerning the impact of globalization.  The idea here is not for the U.S. to disengage from the global market, but to do a better job of balancing corporate and civic interests (i.e. looking out for ordinary workers; addressing the root causes of economic inequality).
http://economistsvie...

As bad as the Clinton years were for some, the Bush years are an even worse long-term option.  At least during the Clinton years we had some decent gains in the median wage for ordinary families.  So at least some aspect of the Clinton policy worked. 

I don't see how an outright rejection of "Rubinomics" solves anything.  That doesn't mean that Rubonomics should be the final answer on what's best for the U.S. economy and American workers.  Clearly the globalization issue needs to be dealt with. 

And I'll explain part of what I think the problem is...

"I think it's also worth pointing out that Rubin has revisited some of the ideas concerning the impact of globalization.  The idea here is not for the U.S. to disengage from the global market, but to do a better job of balancing corporate and civic interests"

He went head to head with Sona Shah on the H-1b in an aired broadcast a couple years ago.  He supported cheap and indentured labor - saying it would be protectionist to do otherwise.

Sona kicked his butt in that debate.

All that said, anytime we seek "civic interests" to be represented and fair trade, we are blasted as dirty protectionists who seek to close the borders and tip off a massive trade war.

I believe that Senator Webb was attacking not only some of Rubin's economic policies, but also the blind faith in free and unrestricted trade.  I'll leave it up to him or his staff to clarify.

I support smart trade - and very liberal trade in the cases where it makes sense - Canada for example.  When countries have similar economies and governments, with relatively equal labor and environmental laws, and stable economies - something close to free trade may make sense.

But in the case of China we need much more parity.  When one nation pegs the currency, heavily subsidizes industry, has unequal tariffs, and little to no protections for the environment or workers they are not ideal partners for liberalized trade. 

I'm not sure we don't agree on the issues here.  You tell me ;-)

As far as global trade goes, I would definitely consider myself a proponent of "Fair Trade".  The jobs end is one part of the equation.  The other side is the fact that overseas manufacturing costs are indirectly shifted to consumers from a product safety standpoint.  Those regulations are in place for a reason.

The bottom line is that CEOs and large shareholders get a better return, because they cut corners.  Some of those corners have real costs -- and the tab for those costs doesn't magically disappear.  It's picked up by ordinary American consumers, taxpayers, and by workers who get screwed.

Btw, I think you'd like the following article on "Economic Inequality in the 20th Century".  A good paper by a couple MIT profs -- this could be looked at as a counterpoint to the "unfettered free market school".  (e.g. the idea here being that government can play a constructive role in reducing economic inequality).

The short version:
http://www.voxeu.org...

The long version:
http://papers.ssrn.c...

(A PDF copy of the paper is available through the link at the bottom of the page). 

This kind of rhetoric may sound good at the local union hall after a few Budweisers, but it ignores realty.  Labor and regulatory costs are so much lower in China, India and other emerging markets that no tariff - no matter how big it is - will either keep those jobs here or bring the old ones back. 

If Webb really cares about workers he will be honest with them and say that the world has changed and they need to change with it.  If workers cannot adjust to changes and be ready to change jobs and in some cases careers they will not succeed in the economy.  For a guy who claims to be so tough and have so much courage, Webb's spitting out the AFL-CIO line is a real chicken shit move. 

 

Trade policy makes winners and losers.  Doctors, lawyers , politicians and pilots are protected against foreign competition.  Does it make labor union workers into "undynamic, inflexible, luddite communists" if they ask for the same protection?

As long as the game is business controls the borders, the average working man better keep his hand on his wallet and be prepared to fight back.

Why shouldn't we have tariffs?  The American government was run for 150 years off of tariffs.  It worked then: America had higher growth rates when we had more capital controls.

If you're a businessman and you have the choice between working in American where you have to pay minimum wage and can't pollute or in China where you can use slave labor and belch all the carbon you can into the stratosphere, what would you do?  What if there was a tariff to equalize for labor slavery and pollution?  Then it's a fair fight.

What are you talking about America had higher growth rate?  More wealth has been created in the American economy in the last 25 years than in the previous 200 years. 

In case you didn't realize it you don't want a fair fight.  By pushing for tariffs you are advocating the government to come in and arbitrarily pick winners and losers in the economy.  What is fair about that? 

Growth RATE, silly.

Actually Ron Paul wants to repeal NAFTA and CAFTA.  I take the same position on trade the Mark Warner, Bill Clinton, Rahm Emanuel, and Dianne Feinstein take. 

When did these economic glory days occur?  Was it the 1950s and 60s?  Because if it is then good luck.  You will NEVER recreate the economic circumstances that existed during the Post WWII years.  So you might as well admit the world has changed and deal with it.

 

Where's this higher growth rate you Reaganist, establishment, free-traders promised us?

We can do better.

That is why we should sign new trade agreements with South Korea, Columbia, and Peru.