Friday, January 30, 2004
Who should Kerry pick as his running mate, assuming he wins the nomination? My pick is Joe Lieberman, who has the charisma of a garden statue, but heck, VPs don't have to have lots of charisma (hence Al Gore as VP, or Dick Cheney). Yes, he ran as VP with Al Gore, but Al Gore ran on a bad platform, and if the kinds of things Lieberman is saying now is an indication of his true beliefs (which seems likely, as presidential candidates get to write their own policy points while VPs have to sign onto the agenda of the presidential candidate), Lieberman has some good ideas.
From the recent debate in South Carolina
“NAFTA, though it’s cost some jobs, has actually netted out 900,000 new jobs.”
Exactly. People forget that exports have gone up dramatically as a result of NAFTA, and continue to go up faster than they would have in the absence of a free trade agreement with Mexico. Partly that is the result of building a richer and more prosperous Mexico more capable of buying more American products, and partly it's just the fact that Mexico is a NATURAL place for our exports, given that we share a very long border with the country.
Both Kerry and Lieberman have strong free trade credentials, and are likely to see the "bigger picture" whenever people talk about harm to the domestic labor force from trade. Yes, some people DO get harmed, and government SHOULD do something to help those harmed. More, however, benefit in the big balance sheet that is our national economy.
As a side issue, the fact that the Bush administration's recently passed Medicare reform (or shall we call it, ill-thought out expansion of an entitlement program) costs a 1/3rd more than estimated previously really bothers me. I always thought the bill was a shameless attempt at pandering to special electoral interests in preparation for the vote in November. This bill was passed JUST a few months ago! That leads me to believe that everyone knew that the reform was going to cost far more than touted, and now we have yet another item in the federal budget that will lead to ballooning deficits.
Governments will run deficits during recessions. I just wish that there would be some recognition that deficits should be minimized. It seems the Bush administration is of the opinion that deficits don't matter. I've even heard members of the administration quoted as saying that Reagan proved it. Well, the sinking dollar should be a sign that others recognize that it DOES matter. Yes, American exports benefit from a low dollar, but if our trading partners dive into a recession because the dollar is TOO low (remember, America is usually the rest of the world's biggest trading partner), we end up impoverishing ourselves by shutting down our export markets.
The dollar has to sink to get America to save more (we only save 2% of GDP, versus 10% in Japan, our target should be 5-6%). That doesn't give the US government a blank check to run deficits, thus pushing the dollar lower than it needs to be.
From the recent debate in South Carolina
“NAFTA, though it’s cost some jobs, has actually netted out 900,000 new jobs.”
Exactly. People forget that exports have gone up dramatically as a result of NAFTA, and continue to go up faster than they would have in the absence of a free trade agreement with Mexico. Partly that is the result of building a richer and more prosperous Mexico more capable of buying more American products, and partly it's just the fact that Mexico is a NATURAL place for our exports, given that we share a very long border with the country.
Both Kerry and Lieberman have strong free trade credentials, and are likely to see the "bigger picture" whenever people talk about harm to the domestic labor force from trade. Yes, some people DO get harmed, and government SHOULD do something to help those harmed. More, however, benefit in the big balance sheet that is our national economy.
As a side issue, the fact that the Bush administration's recently passed Medicare reform (or shall we call it, ill-thought out expansion of an entitlement program) costs a 1/3rd more than estimated previously really bothers me. I always thought the bill was a shameless attempt at pandering to special electoral interests in preparation for the vote in November. This bill was passed JUST a few months ago! That leads me to believe that everyone knew that the reform was going to cost far more than touted, and now we have yet another item in the federal budget that will lead to ballooning deficits.
Governments will run deficits during recessions. I just wish that there would be some recognition that deficits should be minimized. It seems the Bush administration is of the opinion that deficits don't matter. I've even heard members of the administration quoted as saying that Reagan proved it. Well, the sinking dollar should be a sign that others recognize that it DOES matter. Yes, American exports benefit from a low dollar, but if our trading partners dive into a recession because the dollar is TOO low (remember, America is usually the rest of the world's biggest trading partner), we end up impoverishing ourselves by shutting down our export markets.
The dollar has to sink to get America to save more (we only save 2% of GDP, versus 10% in Japan, our target should be 5-6%). That doesn't give the US government a blank check to run deficits, thus pushing the dollar lower than it needs to be.
