« Sister Souljah Time | Main | Second Comings »

Bayh Watch II

And of course the universe wouldn't be complete without a Bayh blog dedicating to hyping his 2008 presidential prospects. Just today via something approximating actual reporting I got something approximating actual confirmation that Bayh is, indeed, in the midst of a campaign to burnish his credentials in the eyes of the party's primary electorate. I would have lumped this anti-trade measure in that same category with his "no" vote on Rice, but looking at the thing New Dems and Third Wayers of various sorts -- Lieberman, Pryor, Lincoln, Artur Davis -- are all over the thing, along with liberals (Dick Durbin), hardcore rightwingers (Santorum), and general troublemaker Robert Byrd. I do not approve. "Unfairly" cheap goods and services are exactly the kind of goods and services I want to be buying!

March 11, 2005 | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345160fd69e200d83472b81d69e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Bayh Watch II:

Comments

You just like Bayh because he's the foreign policy candidate.

---

"Just today via something approximating actual reporting I got something approximating actual confirmation that Bayh is, indeed, in the midst of a campaign to burnish his credentials in the eyes of the party's primary electorate."

Bully for actual reporting, but, well, duh.

And as for Bayh's prospects, let's look at those moderate foreign policy candidates of the past:

Jackson '76
Glenn '84
Gore '88
Lieberman '04
Bayh '08

Posted by: Petey | Mar 11, 2005 2:13:04 AM

Why not just say look at all Democrats except Bill Clinton in the past?

Bayh is the real deal, and I would be very happy with him as President.

Posted by: Adam Herman | Mar 11, 2005 2:34:11 AM

""Unfairly" cheap goods and services are exactly the kind of goods and services I want to be buying!"

Another one of those provocative MY sentences right up there with your dislike of forests. So does this mean that you don`t really care about how employees or the environment are treated as long as you get your low prices?

Posted by: Oryx&Crake | Mar 11, 2005 3:21:37 AM

Folks, how come you don't you understand an obvious thing: when your chief executive is Dubya, your congress leader is Mr. Delay, your Senat leader is Doctor Menge..., um, sorry, Frist and your top judge is a personal friend of the VIP - somthing is terribly wrong; the system isn't working, the problem is much more serious than you seem to realize.

You're in denial. It's broken, broken beyond repair. Everything is rotten: executive branch, congress, senate, courts, media, military, federal reserve, economy - everything.

You need to think out of the box here.

We need someone like Mr. Putin, only much stronger. We need a king. A king who can just dissolve the parliament one morning, fire the chief executive, kick the corrupt judges out, break up and destroy corporations - and order the new elections, fresh start. This is the only way.

Your Bayh fella is a part of the problem; every senator is a part of the problem, the fact that he/she has managed to become one is an overwhelming proof of that.

Posted by: abb1 | Mar 11, 2005 3:51:50 AM

abb1, you aren't thinking out of the box far enough. Your solution would only indirectly address foreign policy. What we really need are a million heroic werewolves who would provide stability in Iraq, devour terrorists, intimidate Republicans, and do amusing werewolf tricks to raise funds for pro-Social-Security ad campaigns.

Posted by: Ethical Werewolf | Mar 11, 2005 4:45:53 AM

""Unfairly" cheap goods and services are exactly the kind of goods and services I want to be buying!"

and third world wages are exactly the kind of wages you want to be earning?

Posted by: and | Mar 11, 2005 5:07:19 AM

aaaaaaaauuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu-u--u---u

Posted by: abb1 | Mar 11, 2005 5:08:05 AM

As an economist, like the overwhelming majority of my fellow economists, I strongly support free trade. Generally, it raises our living standards and those of our trading partners by allowing each to specialize in the production of goods and services that we produce most efficiently. I believe that Clinton's trade policies generally were correct and that Bush's have veered far from what I understood to be the general republican support for free trade.

However, when someone says they support "'unfairly' cheap goods and services," I have a major problem. Economists' overwhelming support for free trade is predicated on a number of assumptions, assumptions that often are taken as so obvious that they aren't even listed in the details of the models that are used to justify trade. Enforcement of laws, e.g. labor laws and environmental laws, are just one of those assumptions. When someone talks about "'unfairly' cheap goods and services," my literal interpretation of that statement is, for example, that labor laws in our trading partners are not relevant when it comes to U.S. consumers receiving lower prices. I doubt that's what you meant, but would argue that you need to be a little less "incendiary" in your language.

One additional note of caution. Having seen firsthand the working conditions in a number of low-income third world countries, I am quite sure that the overwhelming majority in the U.S. would say - if they knew of those working and living conditions - I'm willing to pay a little more.

Posted by: Rich | Mar 11, 2005 6:29:42 AM

Young master Yglesias really needs to lose his job to cheap foreign labor(I have, it ain't pretty) it might change his outlook. Or have his salary reduced by 2/3.

Posted by: steve | Mar 11, 2005 7:57:01 AM

Or have his salary reduced by 2/3.

Rather, he should be brought to China, had his passport taken away, locked with the others in a US-owned factory and forced to work on a sewing machine for 17c/hour, 16 hours/day, 365 days/year; and, should he complain, be punched in the face like everybody else.

Then in a couple of years he should be asked to read this post and had his hourly wage cut to 12c.

How 'bout that?

Posted by: MonarchyNow! | Mar 11, 2005 8:15:33 AM

Young master Yglesias really needs to lose his job to cheap foreign labor(I have, it ain't pretty) it might change his outlook. Or have his salary reduced by 2/3.

Maybe. But this is unlikely to happen, as Master Yglesias has sensibly acquired skills for which the global (and not just American) econonomy pays handsomely. Which is exactly the strategy that should be pursued by everybody who desires a high standard of living. Now, while it may well be true that not everybody can become a journalist, or even get a college education, it also true that the best way to deal with this fact is the have the government spend money on things like healthcare and income replacement and retraining. Washington has access to a $12 trillion economy to pay for such things. Blocking access to the goods and services produced by unfair yellow and brown people makes them, and us, poorer.

Posted by: P. B. Almeida | Mar 11, 2005 9:07:11 AM

"Unfairly" cheap goods and services are exactly the kind of goods and services I want to be buying!

I was going to trot out the ususal liberal critique of this statement, but that's been done.

Rich:
Economists' overwhelming support for free trade is predicated on a number of assumptions, assumptions that often are taken as so obvious that they aren't even listed in the details of the models that are used to justify trade.

They aren't listed because they aren't followed. China adheres to fair labor and evironmental practices!? You say this with a straight face?

And what does Matthew know from China's evironmental practices? He's a kid. The statement was obviously a personal creed: He is encouraging the theft of any intellectual property he generates, now and in the future, and we shouldn't worry about paying his present or future masters for the privilege of enjoying it. Free trade, baby!

Intellectual property is theft

Posted by: epistemology | Mar 11, 2005 9:08:12 AM

Letting subsidized imports replace domestic production has nothing whatever to do with "free trade."

Posted by: SqueakyRat | Mar 11, 2005 9:12:33 AM

Petey,
As you know those comaparisons are of limited value. For example, look at the history of Senators as candidates.

Posted by: theCoach | Mar 11, 2005 9:13:59 AM

Why, thanks for the link to the blog today. We at AFB appreciate it very much

Posted by: Daniel | Mar 11, 2005 10:36:20 AM

After reading economic blogs for awhile, I have come to the conclusion that most economists, with a few honorable exceptions, are useful idiots for big business. Take their advice with a massive grain of salt.

The best book on "free trade" is WEalth and Democracy by Kevin Phillips. It is hysterical to read quotes on "education" by the likes of Lord Rosebury, etc. They sound just like that Delong guy and Greenspin today. Actually, I think "free trade" is a symptom of Empire. The Empire, to control its possessions, starts free trading, hollows out its core, and falls.

This guy just makes statements like the above to get a lot of commenters.

Posted by: la | Mar 11, 2005 10:48:08 AM

Haha, MY! Looks like you successfully roused the idiot-camp from their Friday slumber with this post. Might as well not even put unfair in quotations next time since no one will even pay attention.

Posted by: Matt | Mar 11, 2005 11:03:54 AM

I think Matt's blog is starting to attract stoners.

Posted by: JP | Mar 11, 2005 11:05:50 AM

bayh
voted yes on the bankruptcy bill

that ought to tell you a little something about these unfairly cheap goods he wants to fix

anyway with that vote on the bankruptcy bill he should be out of the running period.

Posted by: media in trouble | Mar 11, 2005 11:09:31 AM

"I think Matt's blog is starting to attract stoners."

What,"starting?" I been around for years. Blacklights, incense, Quicksilver Messenger Service and meta-ethics. Grooooovy.

Posted by: bob mcmanus | Mar 11, 2005 11:15:25 AM

Maybe. But this is unlikely to happen, as Master Yglesias has sensibly acquired skills for which the global (and not just American) econonomy pays handsomely. Which is exactly the strategy that should be pursued by everybody who desires a high standard of living. Now, while it may well be true that not everybody can become a journalist, or even get a college education, it also true that the best way to deal with this fact is the have the government spend money on things like healthcare and income replacement and retraining. Washington has access to a $12 trillion economy to pay for such things. Blocking access to the goods and services produced by unfair yellow and brown people makes them, and us, poorer.

I know it's not going to do any good but I'll try. I keep hearing this shit about "acquiring new skills" as I yet no one has said what they should be. When I read shit like this I think of the classic moment on Lou Dobbs's show.

He had a "free trader" on his show(can't remember his name but he is fairly famous). Dobbs asked him(paraphrase)-"Ok sir exactly what new jobs should Americans be training for?"-Famous "free trade" asshole(sputtering) "Ah, uh, ah, ah, uh I don't know". Lou Dobbs-"EXACTLY".

I saw this happen in real time and I think it explains our current situation perfectly.

Posted by: steve | Mar 11, 2005 11:27:42 AM

Bayh is the real deal, and I would be very happy with him as President.

I think he'd make a good president. So would have Dick Lugar, Bob Graham, John Glenn, and (it pains me to say this) Joe Lieberman. However, his candidacy isn't going to get off the ground. I think that it's the echochamber of the beltway bubble that convinces Bayh that he's presidential material. If Bayh is so great, why didn't the presidential candidacies of any of these other perfectly good Senators go anywhere?

Posted by: Constantine | Mar 11, 2005 11:32:57 AM

Maybe. But this is unlikely to happen, as Master Yglesias has sensibly acquired skills for which the global (and not just American) econonomy pays handsomely.

Young Master Yglesias has not acquired any skills that are so unique that some young bright indian in New Delhi cannot acquire as many a programmer have discovered to their chagrin...

Posted by: Don Quijote | Mar 11, 2005 12:17:09 PM

Maybe. But this is unlikely to happen, as Master Yglesias has sensibly acquired skills for which the global (and not just American) econonomy pays handsomely.

Young Master Yglesias has not acquired any skills that are so unique that some young bright indian in New Delhi cannot acquire as many a programmer have discovered to their chagrin...

Posted by: Don Quijote | Mar 11, 2005 12:21:25 PM

his is unlikely to happen, as Master Yglesias has sensibly acquired skills for which the global (and not just American) econonomy pays handsomely.

I think that mr. Yqlesias, and other writers might disagree with the idea that they're payed "handsomely."

Posted by: Brew | Mar 11, 2005 12:29:24 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.