Search results

Renowned economist Jeff Faux explains why neither party's leaders have a plan to remedy America's unemployment, inequality, or long economic slideAmerica's political and economic elite spent so long making such terrible decisions that they caused the collapse of 2008. So how can they continue down the same road? The simple answer, that no in charge one wants to publicly acknowledge: because things are still pretty great for the people who run America. It was an accident of history, Jeff Faux explains, that after World War II the U.S. could afford a prosperous middle class, a dominant military, and a booming economic elite at the same time. For the past three decades, all three have been competing, with the middle class always losing. Soon the military will decline as well. The most plausible projections Faux explores foresee a future economy nearly devoid of production and exports, with the most profitable industries existing to solely to serve the wealthiest 1%The author's last book, The Global Class War, sold over 20,000 copies by correctly predicting the permanent decline of our debt-burdened middle class at the hands of our off-shoring executives, out of control financiers, and their friends in WashingtonSince his last book, Faux is repeatedly asked what either party will do to face these mounting crises. After looking over actual policies, proposed plans, non-partisan reports, and think tank papers, his astonishing conclusion: more of the same.

Americans' perception of the future bounces between two contradictory visions. One is that the country is drifting toward decline. Polls report widespread belief that the younger generation of Americans will be worse off than their parents, that U.S. influence in the world is weakening, and that our governing institutions are incompetent and corrupt. At the same time, a majority thinks that although the country may be going to hell, they and their families will prosper. According to a Pew survey, 63 percent of Americans think that forty years from now the standard of living of the average family will not improve, with 36 percent thinking it will get even worse. At the same time, 64 percent are optimistic that they personally and their families will be better off. Indeed, like the citizens of Lake Wobegon, over 70 percent of Americans believe that their income is above average. This perceived disconnect between one's personal fate and one's country's surely helps explain the low level of public outrage in this post-crash era of high unemployment and falling wages.

Money talks. It is also a conversation stopper. Almost any discussion among progressives of what is really needed to solve the nation's multiple crises typically ends in despair when someone says, "But they will not accept that," they being the corporate rich and powerful, what a Texas friend of mine used to call Big Dollar.

When Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton pledged to Ohio Democrats last spring to renegotiate the North American
Free Trade Agreement, they were immediately charged by the mainstream press with pandering to labor, thus reigniting
the simplistic "free-trade vs. protectionism" debate that has dominated the discussion of the U.S. role in the
international economy for the last quarter-century. It was clearly an over reaction. After all, both candidates merely
suggested strengthening the agreement's labor and environmental protections, which even fierce champions of
NAFTA now concede are inadequate. Changing them would have little effect on the rest of the agreement.

Cites Mexico's deteriorating sociopolitical situation as a key national security threat to the US & links it to NAFTA. The deleterious effects of NAFTA on Mexico are noted, & the debate on NAFTA is examined. Highlighted is the political link between Mexican travails & NAFTA, addressing the prospect of Mexico spiraling into state failure. Attention is given to NAFTA's conceptualization & original context & how that context no longer exists as the global recession is spurring a shift away from US free-market fundamentalism with a likely impact on trade policy. In this light, the relevance of NAFTA is considered in terms of whether continued continental economic integration can occur. Recommendations for pursuing North American integration are provided. D. Edelman. Adapted from the source document.

Passive resistance could even help the Democrats win November's election. With the once fearsome Republican blitzkrieg bogged down in catastrophe in Iraq, incompetence in New Orleans, and corruption scandals in Washington, the Democrats may simply be the default option for voters disgusted with Bush, Tom DeLay, and Bill Frist. We will, of course, take any victory we can get. And a takeover of the House or Senate, or both, would presumably help prevent a lame-duck Bush administration from inflicting more damage on the nation and the world. But if the Democrats are to truly lead the country in another direction, they will need more vision and imagination than they have thus far demonstrated.

This article examines the political configuration between the Republican & Democratic parties in the United States. It asks what political direction the Democrat party will decide upon in order to lead the country following the Republican presidency of George W. Bush. The article points to impending economic changes in the United States caused by globalization. Examples of changes include the offshoring of skilled jobs as well as the rising US trade deficit serviced by a foreign debt which exceeds the US income. It is argued that the Democrats do not take into account the scale of economic changes ahead. The article uses Gene Sperling's book Pro-Growth Progressive to exemplify the Democrat's ideas. It is concluded that Sperling sees the bad economic times ahead but is unable to fully acknowledge the problems. R. Prince

Thomas L. Friedman's new book is one of those works that reveals more than the author seems to intend—or perhaps understands. For the past year or so, a new tone has seeped into the writings of Friedman and the other pundits who have promoted the protection system for transnational investors that we call globalization and the rest of the world calls "neoliberalism." In the past they have assured us that, whatever we call this process, it is a "win-win" for everyone, apparently the only exception to the dictum of another Friedman (Milton, no relation) that there is no free lunch.