The un-dorsement

I'm digging the undorsement trend, at least when it's as well done as it has been by Daniel Drezner:

On the other hand, Matthew Yglesias and the Concord Monitor are onto something with the "undorsement" idea. So, my two undorsements of candidates that could ostensibly win are.... John Edwards and Rudy Giuliani.

My reasons for the Giuliani undorsement have been made clear.

As for Edwards -- I can't take seriously anyone who thinks that a free trade agreement with Peru -- Peru!! -- is somehow going to devastate workers and communities. Proposing to "make top prosecutors at the Department of Justice responsible for enforcing trade agreements"? I love how Edwards wants to re-engage with the world and simultaneously bully these governments into accepting American terms. Hillary Clinton's trade positions are problematic, but Edwards is Hillary on steroids.

I second that emotion.

Comments

As for Edwards -- I can't take seriously anyone who thinks that a free trade agreement with Peru -- Peru!! -- is somehow going to devastate workers and communities.

I couldn't take Edwards seriously either if I thought he really believes his own rhetoric on trade. I doubt he does.

There's a line of thinking that goes something like this: unlike workers in nice, kinder gentler places like Canada or Denmark, American workers have little in the way of government support to buffer them from the vicissitudes of the global economy. Hence plummeting support for trade in the United States. This situation isn't going to be reversed until the safety net is rebuilt, and at minimum that probably means government-guaranteed universal healthcare, far more robust retraining, and some kind of direct financial assistance to displaced workers too old to retrain (ie., wage replacement insurance). I mean, you can hardly blame American workers for not being big fans of the aggregate gains achieved through comparative advantage when they're not getting much of that aggregate.

So, which candidate as president is most likely to actually get something done in this area? I reckon it's the fire-breathing populist aiming the anti-globalization gun at the heads of the plutocrats. These guys know the status quo isn't sustainable indefinitely. They read polls. They travel to Europe. They just haven't been confronted by someone willing to get a little crazy.

I think John Edwards may be the candidate who actually offers the best chance at heading off serious anti-globalization efforts.

Posted by Jasper | December 27, 2007 12:41 PM

"I mean, you can hardly blame American workers for not being big fans of the aggregate gains achieved through comparative advantage when they're not getting much of that aggregate."-Jasper

That's just not true. American workers are also consumers, and they benefit from comparative advantage every time they step into a Walmart or Target. To "prove" that the typical American has not been benefiting from growth in the last ten, twenty or thirty years you have to do some impressive statistical somersaults (as Paul Krugman does frequently).

Look at total household wealth. It has been rising steadily for a long time. Or look at consumption, which is the best single indicator of well-being. It too has been rising.

It amazes me to hear all the whining here. Americans have never been better off than in the last few years. They might feel a little pain from the housing downturn, but this too shall pass.

Edwards is a clown. He must have the same speechwriter as Hugo Chavez. There aren't "two Americas." There is one America and it is thriving.

Posted by rwe | December 27, 2007 1:55 PM

IMHO, very few people really want retraining and very few people are really too old to retrain.

Mostly, 45 year old workers don't want to start a second career as an entry-level plumber/mechanic/whatever.

If you're making $75,000-$125,000 a year in a union position at your auto plant, the last thing you want to do is go to ITT and learn to be a court reporter or back to college and learn to be a math teacher. Frankly, however, (1) it is fairly easy to finance that re-education, either publicly or privately, and (2) most auto plant workers would learn and practice another trade if they didn't have an alternative. It just wouldn't pay as well, at least at first.

Posted by J Mann | December 27, 2007 2:22 PM

That's just not true. American workers are also consumers, and they benefit from comparative advantage every time they step into a Walmart or Target.

rwe: Nonsense. A 57 year-old American mill worker who loses his $19 an hour job because the factory upped and moved to an industrial park outside Guadalajara is hardly better off because he can get cool cheap imported shit from Wal-Mart. This is hardly controversial stuff. The main reason protectionist rhetoric is so effective is that, even though freer trade benefits the economy in the aggregrate, there nonetheless exist individuals firms or workers who are worse off, and who therefore possess a powerful economic incentive to noisily lobby for protections.

I likes me some very robust free trade. That's precisely why I want the safety net made more effective.

Posted by Jasper | December 27, 2007 2:30 PM

The main reason protectionist rhetoric is so effective is that, even though freer trade benefits the economy in the aggregrate, there nonetheless exist individuals firms or workers who are worse off, and who therefore possess a powerful economic incentive to noisily lobby for protections.

Yes, of course. Every policy creates winners and losers, and free trade is no different. But the key point, which you seem to accept, is that the gains from the winners outweigh the losses of the losers. America as a whole benefits from free trade. You seem to understand that, but John Edwards evidently does not.

Among economists, the most commonly used measure of the average standard of living is GDP per capita. And by that measure we are right at the top, ahead of Britain, France, Germany and Japan. As you evidently recognize, free trade benefits us by increasing our productivity, which in turn pushes wages (or rather, total compensation) higher. In other words, free trade raises incomes.

And that's evident in the data. the average income (Real GDP per capita) is about 7% higher than it was four years ago. That figure belies Edwards's claims that Americans in general have not been benefiting from the prosperity of the last few years.

Posted by rwe | December 27, 2007 3:18 PM

Jasper,

Look at this from John Edwards:

"Elect me and Christopher Reeve will walk again."-John Edwards

Oops. Wrong shameful John Edwards quote. Here is the right one:

"A sure sign that our trade and economic policies are seriously out of whack is our trade deficit. Our nation's imports have increased by a staggering 50 percent in the past 15 years, and instead of a trade balance, the United States now has the largest trade deficit in the history of the globe - and it just keeps growing. Last year, our current account deficit was more than $850 billion, which is a staggering 6.5 percent of our nation's entire GDP, and our trade deficit with China alone was $233 billion... Behind all these numbers and statistics are the faces of millions of Americans forgotten in our trade deals."-John Edwards

This is mercantilist nonsense. He wants people to believe that a large trade defcit means that we are losing from trade. Either he himself is economcially illiterate or he wants to sucker people who are.

Posted by rwe | December 27, 2007 3:31 PM

But the key point, which you seem to accept, is that the gains from the winners outweigh the losses of the losers.

Of course. This used to be non-controversial among educated people. Sadly, this is no longer the case.

America as a whole benefits from free trade. You seem to understand that, but John Edwards evidently does not.

Again, I doubt John Edwards -- rich, smart, well-educated, extremely successful, hedge-fund directing, cosmopolitan John Edwards -- really buys the rhetoric about fair trade and the like. I know it's dangerous to play mind-reader, but that's how I see things. I know his rhetoric isn't very helpful in improving US attitudes toward trade. But my feeling is that horse has already left the barn. Americans have simply become fearful. That's too bad, but them's the facts. I think the way to address those fears is to become a little bit more like the Nordic states: you know, lots of free trade, lots of innovation, robust markets etc., combined with a strong and effective safety net that insures that people who play by the rules are guaranteed a decent quality of life. If you're a libertarian, you're probably not very likely to share my dreams of making Washington look a little bit more like Copenhagen.

Anyway, Edwards seems to me the most likely of the big three Democrats to push for better social insurance. I also suspect -- even if I'm wrong about his secret attitude toward comparative advantage -- that it is beyond the power of the president to somehow make America disengage from the global economy. I just can't see it happening.

Posted by Jasper | December 27, 2007 3:37 PM

This is mercantilist nonsense. He wants people to believe that a large trade defcit means that we are losing from trade. Either he himself is economcially illiterate or he wants to sucker people who are.

I think it's the latter and I have no problem with that. Might as well use their ignorance for some good. What are the Republicans going to do to combat the spreading virus of anti-globalization? Bush has been disgraceful on the issue. Heck, even the wisest, most well thought-out, most market-friendly safety net enhancements cost money. But the GOP's brain dead, Stepford Wives-like opposition to raising taxes basically renders them a no-show on domestic policy debates.

Sorry, folks, but Rome's burning.

Posted by Jasper | December 27, 2007 3:51 PM

"Sorry, folks, but Rome's burning."

The numbers I cited above show otherwise, Jasper. America is doing fine.

As for the Bush adminsitration, I don't want to defend their record, which has been mixed at best. I would just say that the voter who is committed to free trade has two choices: the Republcians, who are not so great on trade, and the Democrats, who are just terible. Take a look at this if you don't believe me:

Last month, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and nine colleagues... endorsed a petition from — you guessed it — the domestic candlemaking industry asking the secretary of commerce to impose a 108.3 percent tariff on Chinese candle producers.

I take the Republicans.

Posted by rwe | December 27, 2007 4:06 PM

Your un-endorsement sounds pretty negative and desperate to me. I guess you don't subscribe to the politics of hope.

Posted by pmorlan | December 27, 2007 5:49 PM

Again, I doubt John Edwards -- rich, smart, well-educated, extremely successful, hedge-fund directing, cosmopolitan John Edwards -- really buys the rhetoric about fair trade and the like. In other words, you are defending Edwards by calling him a liar.

Posted by markm | December 27, 2007 8:08 PM

I take the Republicans.

rwe: You might be sticking with the GOP, but Wall Street is apparently deciding otherwise:

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/MarketTalk/story?id=3399837&page=1

Posted by Jasper | December 27, 2007 11:21 PM

Of the big three among the Democrats, Edwards had the least pro-trade voting record in the Senate. This is the biggest reason I can't support him over Obama. While both Edwards and Obama have been making good sense on the military side of foreign policy (especially compared to Clinton) and have the potential in this area to repair American good will through better policies, Edwards will undo that with protectionism if he gets his way (considering that protectionism for one's home district's products is always safe policy, he probably would get his way). For instance, a farmer or factory worker in Brazil, Egypt or Thailand may be mad about the Iraq War, but they are not directly hurt by it. However, American protectionism would directly hurt them and their home economies as a whole. Edwards hasn't shown himself to be as cosmopolitan as his supporters claim him to be when it came to voting. After all, this was a guy who listened to Bob Shrum when it came to deciding whether to give Bush the talking point and the legal covering he needed ("even the Democrats in Congress agree with me") to help launch this war.

Posted by Reality Man | January 1, 2008 12:11 PM