?

Log in

President Wall Street - Dukakis Hugging Moon Maiden [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Chad

[ website | The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly (a review site for cult films and B-movies) ]
[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

Links
[Favorite Sites| 1,000 Misspent Hours and Counting And You Call Yourself A Scientist! The Cinema Snob Cold Fusion Video Comics Curmudgeon History Sourcebook Project Lincoln Heights Literary Society Nostalgia Critic, Nostalgia Chick, and Linkara Prism Comics Wikipedia: The Online Encyclopedia ]
[Non-LJ Blogs| Angry Black Bitch Angry Indian Bourgeois Nerd Center of Gravitas Gall and Gumption Nathan Shumate Paul O'Brien Postmodernbarney.com Progressive Ruin Ragnell's Written Word Wil Wheaton ]
[Politiking| Alicublog August J. Pollak Glenn Greenwald The Not-Evil Roger Ailes The Rude Pundit Slacktivist Wonkette ]
[Web Comics| Achewood Girls with Slingshots The Non-Adventures of Wonderella Punch An' Pie Scandal Sheet Something Positive Templar, Arizona ]

President Wall Street [Jan. 6th, 2011|07:20 pm]
Chad
I see Obama named as chief of staff a man that was instrumental in putting in place NAFTA, a big part of the reason our economy is collapsing.

You know, I'm glad I got to be born in the waning years of the Cold War, or else I wouldn't be prepared to recognize what a government blinded by ideology to basic and obvious economic realities looks like.
linkReply

Comments:
[User Picture]From: normalcyispasse
2011-01-07 01:36 am (UTC)
But do you think the Cold War was really the genesis of ideocratic governments?
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: drownedinink
2011-01-07 07:43 am (UTC)
Oh, no, sorry, I just meant at least I got to experience being at a time and place where I'd be fed a lot of information (well, to be honest, propaganda) about such a government.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: brotherflounder
2011-01-07 03:10 pm (UTC)
Okay, back up. Please explain how free trade helped the economy collapse this time. Unregulated Wall Street and greedy bankers? Yes, that I get. What does NAFTA have to do with it?
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: drownedinink
2011-01-07 04:30 pm (UTC)
Ooh, well, there's so much written about how "free" trade policies benefit only the wealthy while doing very little, if not causing outright harm, for the working and middle classes, I don't know where to begin. Here's a short overview of some economists' views on the relationship between "free" trade and the income gap:

http://www.slate.com/id/2266025/entry/2266512/

A response to Paul Krugman's pro-NAFTA views:

http://www.workinglife.org/blog/view_post.php?content_id=5961

How NAFTA helped fuck up Mexico:

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/10/did-nafta-actually-help-mexico/

And finally what NAFTA did to the US:

http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/briefingpapers_bp147/
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: madwriter
2011-01-10 09:48 pm (UTC)
>>Ooh, well, there's so much written about how "free" trade policies benefit only the wealthy while doing very little, if not causing outright harm, for the working and middle classes...<<

This would explain why Rush Limbaugh said that NAFTA was one of the only two things he ever gave Bill Clinton kudos for. (The other was bombing Iraq.)
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: mossymonkey
2011-01-09 03:45 pm (UTC)
I really don't think it's ideology that's governing the president's decisions here but precedent: he's looking back at the last "successful" two-term Democratic president and essentially trying to re-create the team that got Clinton re-elected.

It's foolishness, of course; the economic boom of the late '90s had less to do with economic policy than the simple fact that the technology we'd developed in the '70s and '80s we finally figured out how to make work for us. It would have happened under Bob Dole too.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: drownedinink
2011-01-11 05:53 pm (UTC)
I think you're right, but I do think Obama is a sincere believer in neo-liberal ideology. He doesn't oppose Keynesian economics to the same degree as most Republicans and the Libertarians, of course, but he would definitely be far more "conservative" economically than any bona fide FDR Democrat.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: mossymonkey
2011-01-12 01:45 am (UTC)
The neo-liberal malady is more than just ideological; look at Madeline Albright's post-Clinton-administration career.

The New Dems are in it portfolio-deep; they need it to work to stay rich, and they're willing to game the global financial system to make it happen.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)