Anyone watching this DLC thing on CSPAN with Gary Hart?

[Skidmore]

It's a real sales pitch for the "progressive" thinking of the DLC--the "New Democrats". Using Clinton's presidency, they are touting globalization as a forward thinking concept, a future-oriented type of democratic philosophy.

[EFerrari]

1. I'll watch it for five minutes. Five. n/t

[HereSince1628]

2. It will be interesting to see if the Democrats swept up in the Abramhof

scandal are DLC'ers.

[KittyWampus]

25. There ARE No "Democrats swept up in the Abramhof" Scandal.

but it says volumes that DU'ers would help propagate the GOP propaganda.

:puke:

[HereSince1628]

35. Y.E.T.

[RSchewe]

40. Harry Reid is supposedly connected somehow. I am not sure to what extent.

I think he just received a contribution. Mary Landrieu seems to as well. This does not necessarily prove any guilt of any crime, but I believe that whoever is wrong it wrong, Dem or Repub. If they are wrong, should be out of Congress.

Lawmakers Acted on Heels of Abramoff Gifts - Yahoo! News

(snip)

Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada sent a letter to Norton on March 5, 2002, that also was signed by Sen. John Ensign (news, bio, voting record), R-Nev. The next day, the Coushattas issued a $5,000 check to Reid's tax-exempt political group, the Searchlight Leadership Fund. A second tribe represented by Abramoff sent an additional $5,000 to Reid's group. Reid ultimately received more than $66,000 in Abramoff-related donations between 2001 and 2004.

(snip)

Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., who was engaged in a tight re-election race in 2002, sent her letter March 6, 2002. That same day, the Coushattas sent $2,000 to her campaign and she received $5,000 more by the end of that month. By year's end, the total had grown to at least $24,000.

more...


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051117/ap_on_go_co/tribes_letters___dollars

[zanne]

73. This is the new Republican rebuttal....

"EVERYBODY'S DOING IT". When they're caught in the act, that's their excuse every time, and the media is compliant.

[MrBenchley]

64. Some people here

seem to hate Democrats with a white hot passion.....

[EFerrari]

3. Growing the private economy is the way you achieve

opportunity for all!

Duh! Isn't that what Bush says? :crazy:

[orpupilofnature57]

When he says it , we're not included

[EFerrari]

13. But, when Al From talks code to corporations, we are?

LOL!

[Neil Lisst]

17. sfexpat2000, I think you're going to like ...

sfexpat2000, I know you've followed the Neil Lisst cartoon, and this running debate at DU about the DLC has compelled me to write two daily cartoons on this very topic.

Tuesday we will look at the DLC, then Wednesday we will look at those activists and regulars in the party who don't care for the DLC and what it brings to the party, literally and figuratively.

I think you're gonna like it, as will many at DU.

[EFerrari]

24. That's great, Neil, I look forward to it. n/t

[EFerrari]

4. Reconnect the party with mainstream values!

:wtf:

[EFerrari]

5. Reconnect with the ethic of civic responsibility =

giving the earned income tax credit and limiting welfare.

Because welfare is SUCH A HUGE part of the budget. Not.

[EFerrari]

6. We need trigger happy Presidents!

LOL!

"People don't believe a Democrat will pull the trigger if necessary."

:wtf: 2.

Sorry FDR, Sorry Mr. Truman. You don't count.

[orpupilofnature57]

8. We need Al Gore!!

[Skidmore]

7. I find it interesting that they refer to the modernization of the

"Democrat party". There's one guy who repeats this over and over. Sirens are going off.

[orpupilofnature57]

10. Because " Modernization " is usually used in place of Assimilation

[Skidmore]

The use of the term "Democrat party" at a supposed Democratic Party

symposia strikes me as very strange.

[Neil Lisst]

18. Ain't no Democrat gonna call it the Democrat party!!

Who did it?!

[Skidmore]

19. I don't know because I was listening to it as I was working in

another room. I hope CSPAN has it up in the archives so I can try to watch it tomorrow.

I was amazed to hear it more than once.

[Neil Lisst]

20. that words does to me what the n and c words do to ...

... others.

I've heard it said like it was the dirtiest word in the language. I don't like it, and I'll give someone an earful that uses it, any time, anywhere.

[Skidmore]

21. I have the same reaction. This is why I distrust the DLC

profoundly. They walk like the Rs, and quack like the Rs. I think they are a fifth column in the Democratic Party established to destroy it.

[Neil Lisst]

23. Al From walks like Porky Pig.

It's Josh who walks like a duck.

[Skidmore]

11. The use of the term "Democrat party" at a supposed Democratic Party

symposia strikes me as very strange.

[EFerrari]

12. Sure. They want to "modernize" by repudiating the New Deal.

Doublespeak spoken here.

[orpupilofnature57]

15. They've rewritten the Bible, and the Constitution, why leave the Dictionary

alone.

[EFerrari]

26. Exactly. n/t

[FreedomAngel82]

71. Oh of course

Especially if they call the party democrat instead of democratic. It's a pet peeve of mine when republicans do it so this should send off any signs of this guy.

[cornermouse]

9. I did till I got irritated with them and turned it.

[EFerrari]

14. Okay, that's enough. These people are not connected to reality.

Here, the former senior policy advisor to Al Gore talks about 2004 AS IF KERRY LOST. As if election fraud isn't rampant and as if platform matters when votes are not counted. :wtf: 3.

[orpupilofnature57]

16. Al got ripped off first, now we've become indoctrinated to Kkkarls logic

which is, you cant get away with things that you don't try to get away with, robbery is bad but murder worse.

[applegrove]

22. Look - the world outside the West will have an economy 10 times

that of ours currently. Do you want to trade or not? Cause that 20th century - where the US didn't even have to listen or compete with Europe after the war, the soviet block & the poor countries - that type of "all roads lead to the USA" is over.

Are we for or against trade? Cause most of the middle class will be outside the USA - USA only has 5% of the world's population. Trust me - I am from Canada - when you have the choice to trade with a huge middle class outside your own country - you trade.

That doesn't mean it has to be done the neocon way. Or that GATT needs to impose the same laws on poorer countries as they do rich. Or that the UN cannot be strong. Or that universal health care should not be the goal for every country (it is cheaper than private health care). Or that Americans should not have jobs (the chinese need to raise their dollar). That doesn't mean that drugs for Aids should not be considered a "public good" and distributed as cheaply as possible.

In 2014 - that is just 9 years from now - the bulk of the boomers will be all retired and there will be a shortage of workers. Repukes want to fill that shortage with guest workers. Dems likely do not.

Isn't that something to hope for? That prices will keep going down so a single mom can afford inexpensive clothes for her kids. That the USA will not be dependant on jobs in factories that use oil when oil hits $200 a barrel. That Americans will be doing jobs in high-tech, nano-technology, intellectual property markets where they can sell the information around the world and nothing will have to be shipped. The USA will just licence factories.

Where do you want to be when oil runs out? When water is scarse, when there isn't enough electricity or water to run plants. Do you want to have all your kids working in those types of plants?

I'm not happy with GM. Like Krugman says - if you had universal health care GM would likely still be alive.

But I don't think the Dems will do any favors by pretending that the world is going to stay the same as it was. Because it is not.

Time to concentrate on industries that don't require much in the way of resources and then you can let the rest of the world - fight over them.

The other point about private business - well - with deregulation unfortunately the medium sized companies disappear. You end up with big or small business. That is where the jobs will be. So to say that people have to get jiggy with small business is an important thing. We all need the entrepreneurial spirit. The world will be changing really fast and mom & pop stores may come back into style as the cost of gas reaches the sky.

[Skidmore]

27. Crap. A world of Super Wallyworlds, MickeyDs, and

retail clothing chains for our jobs.

Meanwhile, just exactly how are we tooling to run all those industries in nanotechnonolgy and other said high tech jobs? By letting them chisel down our educational system? We are not EDUCATING people to do these jobs. We educating them to be priests and food service workers.

[applegrove]

29. I agree completely that the education system has to be top notch.

And global trade has resulted in phone service in parts of Africa that never had it. Farmers can use cell phones to call markets and find out which has the better price for their goods.

Hard to believe some places in the world never had the luxury of telephones. But now they do. And their lives are better for it.

[Skidmore]

31. That's not the reality of it though. Cell phones in Africa have

nothing to do with the education of our children here to participate in any type of economy. Read Armstead's response below. That reflects reality, not the shell game of the freetraders.

[applegrove]

32. Are you saying there should be no trade? OR just trade that favors the

USA in a world where the USA is dependant on outside sources of resources because the metal in your cell phone & electronics comes from only outside the USA.

Are you saying the USA should focus on industries that use the most oil? When Oil will go up to $200 a barrell?

Cause the world will be much different than it is today.

[Armstead]

30. You are spouting the same false dichotomy

Whenever neo-liberal DLC types or neo-CON GOP types trot out that meme it's time to hold on to your wallets.

The choice is NOT: "Do we want to trade in the global economy or pull up the drawbridge in protectionist isolation?"

The curerent form of "free trade" globalization has nothing to do with whether or not we participate in the global economy.

The debate is about HOW we participate. And even more fundamentally, who is going to set the terms for international trade and how nations handle their own economies.

Allowing the elites to continue to lie that "we can't set our own national policies because of globalization" is a crock. Claiming that we have never had to deal with the consequences of international trade before is a crock. International trade has been a basis for economies for centuries.

The DLC are just mouthpieces for the elites who want to make "free trade" totally unfree, by imposing a conservative straightjacket on the sovergnty of nations and making economics the ONLY yardstick for policies.

It's bullshit. We can trade internationally without selling our own economy down the river. But we're not on the track to that. Just the opposite.

[applegrove]

33. Don't you think that the moderates want your kids in industries & jobs

that don't depend on huge amounts of oil? Like high tech instead of farming - like intellectual industries?

Is that wrong - to not want your kids to have to make the change way late in the $200 a barrell game of which jobs to have?

Don't you think when oil is $200 a barrel - don't you think everyone else in the world will be trying to get rid of manufacturing (because they will not be able to sell stuff - it will be too expensive) and into industries that use less oil?

Do you want to be making this change at the same time as everyone else? or do you want to make the change a generation before when you can specialize & get expertise in certain areas and have American industries be way ahead of the pack?

[Skidmore]

36. How exactly do these hi-tech industries use less oil?

You don't need oil to produce the tools of those industries? My PC has a fair amount of petroleum in it. How about the oil needed to transport the physical materials between locations? Unless you replace fossil fuel, those nano-tech jobs ain't gonna happen.

I just don't buy your futureworld. So America becomes just a place were people sit around and have big ideas, or work at Wallyworld, MickeyDs, or the mall's retail clothing chains? Or, we sink into some sort of post-industrial Thunderdome, searching through landfills for any manufactured product from the great industrial eras to make our lives easier. Cause, lord knows, this culture isn't going to dirty its hands by returning to the land and to the basics for survival. Either way, it is a dreary future we have ahead.

[applegrove]

42. Because with intellectual property rights you can say to China - "you

wanna make gortex? Go ahead - but pay us a fee per item". Saves on shipping costs.

Software can be transfered around the world using electricity from two computers. Much cheaper than shipping. Much less oil.

[Skidmore]

52. Still doesn't use less oil...still depletes that resource in the

world. Software and intellectual rights will only put food on the families of the educated. Tell me, where are these educated masses coming from in this country? We have people here actively working to dismantle the educational system and to turn us into a theocracy where the only education that is tolerated is that which tells us "an elephant was created as an elephant, always has been an elephant and never will be anything else." People are less able to afford the types of educations necessary for this grand nanotechno society you see.

Also, at some point, China is in a position to be able to decide to make the rules, considering it is underwriting this nation's debt. Call in our debt and take those licenses as payment. Yeah, we're so secure and powerful now. The Ferenghi had more scruples than some of the people in this nation's power structure--Dem and R.

You haven't sold me on the DLC yet.

[applegrove]

54. I am not DLC. I am Canadian. We sell resources and that - unfortunately

will be out outcome in this global world. As oil rises it will make our high tech uncompetative. Because our dollar will rise when oil does.

But - as to oil & china - would you say that the chinese - people who trade a lifestyle on a subsistance farm and get a job in a factory - would you say they are less expensive than Americans? Cause when oil goes the machines may start to turn back into humans.

Also - all the waste. If you order something - like groceries from Costco - don't you think that in 10 years you could be doing that over the net - and a big warehouse would put your order in a box. And deliver it to a local depot where you pick it up? So there would be no waste in local grocery stores? Just the local depot. And all the technitions and packers (equivalent to a cashier & stocker in skills) and the people who man the closest costco depot you go to. And you walk there. Maybe you give them an afternoon. And the people who input the information into the local costco site - like local favorite bakery goods or special city famous spring rolls.

Don't you think that african farmers whose first reliable phones are cell phones so they can call and find out which market to deliver their goods to to get the best price - don't you think that helps them?

Think of all the gas being saved because today people are shopping online.

As to what they will buy - that will depend on the local economy and the job situation at home + the cost of the goods they buy. When your job is going to pay less - let us say you have to open your own business cause you were underemployed. But all the food and civil goods you buy are cheaper. And wages are actually rising at some point in China (they are a billion - give them some time to integrate everyone into the economy and they will go the way of Japan and South Korea - with a growing middle class). Okay 20 years from now the wages rise sharply in China. Change - change - change. We all went through it. Almost 10 by 10 every 50 years. Now all of a sudden we are all in it together. So when China is really absorbing people and wages start to rise then boom - the factories will go to Africa. But what happened in the meantime? Your country didn't have to import the oil to make all the things you have bought from China. And you paid much less for those items than you had before. Sure your salary is a little less but in 2014 the USA will be in a situation of vast employment opportunity because the boomers will all be retired and they will all be shopping. So you are working - financial planning for old people or whatever you do - and wages will start to go up in the USA (why Bush was guest workers to keep wages down). And oil is still going up but now it is people in Africa who finally get the factories and guess who they are selling to? The middle class in the USA and the middle class in China. Middle class in China is 4 times the middle class in the USA. Wow! So people in africa who are paid less than in China - they are working and creating wealth and buying stuff - even if it be not consuming like we are - they are really able to make choices about health and marriage and plan for the future - all things people in the middle class want to do. So they are getting there. And they have 1.7 kids - because with busy jobs and lots of choice and knowing in all liklihood their kids will make it to adulthood - people always make that choice. So to say trade is bad for poor people - well that is not so. Was it bad for Koreans? Japanese? No. It was bad for the Argentinians because they turned on themselves and didn't trade. Who would have thought that at the start of the 20th Century the Argentinians had an economy & education the same as Canadas. What happened? They went protectionist.

We keep talking about the oil wars to come. But really - there will be an end. One way or another. So best to be less dependant on it in the future and - focus on industries the USA can be good at and get a jump on - and make those be less oil intensive.

This trade will happen. There is no way Africa and China are going to say "I give up - I don't want that". The point is how are you going to participate. And how are you going to fight to make sure that in election after election we get in that trade - the things that are important like regulations to make countries fair and great. And to have health care around the world. Those are the things we should be fighting for. Those are the things that are really going to make a difference. You do that by making sure that some income tax is charged to the rich in the USA. And that elections are fair. By doing all the things we do to fight for the soul of the country. And you do it by boldly going into the trade game and learning about it and fighting for the parts of trade that are really important. And knowing what is bullshit (neocon science experiments). And learning the difference.


Right now on google you can price shop over their "froogle". So you get online and shop around. Saves you gas. because you can find out who has he best price without leaving your home. Information will be the way of the future. Information in exactly this form. And corporations - who have had a monopoly of trade suddenly are very worried. So they try and build themselves into huge monopolies. And they try to destroy public policy that threatens them. We cannot let them win.

We may be able to beat them with coop power. We may be able to do that. It is a game neocons play to try and make you think trade is not for you. They want you outside of the argument holding a sign. They don't want you to know how they are setting up the rules.

We need to learn more.

[Skidmore]

56. Shopping online does not save gas.

Those products still have to be taken to a shipping hub and shipped to me, and the greater the distance, the higher the shipping costs. It simply displaces the cost for energy consumption.

I don't believe that globalization will succeed. People think and identify parochially the world over. There is a huge amount of infrastructure that is necessary but nonexistent required to support this fantasy globalized economy--yes, even in the U.S.

I don't believe that the idea of the nation-state will become obselete. Nations will do what is in the interest of their citizenry. I do believe that there is a place for the idea that nation-states be self sufficient in terms of national security. I just don't see the world as one big happy shopping mall.

[applegrove]

57. Do you think that when you buy a book from Amazon that it comes from

some amazon warehouse in Seattle or middle America somewhere? It comes from your local bookstore. Do you honestly think that amazon is still pulling books off shelves and putting them on airplanes? Only in certain cases & for certain books.

Most of Amazons books are already in your town. In someone elses bookstore.

Have you seen "froogle"? Where you get online and shop compare for an item and its price in your part of the city. And then you know where to go to buy it at the cheapest cost.

This is about information being king. And we have barely scratched the surface of what it means. But it means innovation. Big innovation. All the time. Better information.

That is why the corporations are so scared. Because you will have the same information as them - about the rest of the world. Corporations used to be the only people who knew about other countries. Now we are all there. They are terrified of your power to buy online and form co-ops. They have no advantage over you. This may be their last tango. Corporations were created to give certain groups (owners) monopolies on power and information and they have mostly been used to cross market boundaries. Now those boundaries are gone. The power to get together with others and form buying groups is ours. And buy from corporations that way. They are terrified. Same as you.

Buckle down and start learning about trade and the possibilites. Innovation will be mind blowing. Courage!

[Skidmore]

58. So why should I pay a middleman to deliver a book to my

house if it is at a local bookstore when I can drive a few miles to pick it up myself after having a chance to scan it to help me decide if I really want to purchace it? Why should I carry the cost of the book as credit card debt? BTW, That book had to get to my local bookstore somehow. It had to be stored somewhere before it was shipped to them.

[applegrove]

59. Yes but unless you take the bus - getting that book to your as some

guy types in addresses into his computer and a route is printed out where to drop off books - in order (if it is UPS or whomever) saves you gas. And time. And they can guarantee supplies. And for sure it may not be how you buy books. Me - I am a browser too. (I am the queen of throwing books across the room if they ofend me or are too weird -so i try to be careful in stores and don't buy online).

It does save gas. The store that has the books doesn't have to send any back because one way or another - they will really all be sold (and if not then the book really didn't do very well). Gas was saved at both ends. Plus amazon got smart and now cells used books. Did you know some of the used book dealers went out of business? I hate that. That business relies on 1) people coming in off the street to get cheap books that interest them 2) serious collectors who travel all over the country to fuel their passion and pay top dollar for rare books. Now the rare book part is gone. They are all sold online. Bad for the bookseller who relied on that portion of the market to keep their stores going. Good for the consumer of used & rare books.

Did you know if you had suntan machine shop you could buy an ad on Google that costs you only if someone from your local neighbourhood or city logs on and types in suntan machine. They see your ad - running downt he right side. They click on it. You then pay google 5 cents. If someone from some other city sees your ad and clicks on it the ad says "sorry not in your town" and you don't pay.

Wow!

Information is getting really, really specific and good. Information on markets (and that does not mean usless consumerism - it means books and food and medicines). The innovations just keep on keeping on. And there is nothing you or the corporations can do to stop it. The world is getting smaller. China will be trading around the world as will Africa. Doesn't matter what you or I think. You just have to ask yourself do I want to be participating in a world in 40 years which has middle class 15 times bigger than the west is now? Do I want my local economy to participate in that and the innovators in my economy can sell science & computer stuff around the world. And create jobs that way. And the experts on tree rings of dandylions can find a buyer (perhaps only one) for that. And one of them will make more money than the other. But I bet you want those people to be in your economy both of them pursuing what they do best - around the world. Than selling to only your neighbourhood. None of them would make enough to keep your economy thriving.

[Skidmore]

60. In the US, we have a whole government hell bent on

dismantling our economic and social structure, and if the 06 elections don't shift power in the legislature, then we have for sure 3 more years in which they can totally destroy this nation. The middle class is rapidly dwindling here and will continue to do so because the wealthy haven't gotten what they consider to be "their due" yet.

Our experience here of a thriving economy is that our incomes continue to shrink, health care costs rise continually, necessities take up the whole paycheck, and prices are increasing now, not declining. My taxes are going up, not down. Most of us in this nation don't qualify for the R tax cuts. Our CEOs are doing fine. So are our elected officials.



I still do believe that there is a place for nation-states and local ecomies. AND there is such a thing as having too much stuff. My job in this nation, under this administration, has been redefined to be that of consumer. Whenever there is a significant problem, we are told to "go shop." Shopping is patriotic and a way of protecting the nation. The shopper soldier. I do not want to participate in this commerical glut.

[applegrove]

62. When oil goes you will not be able to afford too much stuff. I understand

your fear of your government. Yes - the taxation disappearing for the rich and throwing the burden onto the middle class so they learn to hate government and taxes is awful. And going into debt for war with the rich sacrificing nothing. Health care never works in the private system because that is just inefficient. Preventive health care costs the system less - but isn't so good for big Pharma. Big pharma hates the UN. So many reasons to be frustrated.

The thing to understand is that they are afraid of you. Afraid of your vote (so they try and make that hard). Afraid of you being involved in the discussion on trade (cause what if trade norms favor people and not U.S. corporations - they want to keep you out of the discussion on trade). Afraid of the information you may have as a consumer that may make you closer to a producer somewhere far away and not so patriotic and buying from the old corporations but perhaps from a co-op of independant fruit producers. You have to put your fears away cause change is coming.

And look into it. The market belongs to you as a human being. Corporations are at the most 500 years old. We are greater than that. The markets are ours. Trade is ours too. We get to decide in the end what to do with intelligence. And if we trade through a corporation, a blue one, or a co-op.

Don't look away. Because how the world ends up trading and what the norms are for the world are currently up for grabs. It is all new to them too.

[Skidmore]

74. So, as a Canadian, what is your interest in a

post-industrial America? Why are you trying so hard to sell this vision to me?

[applegrove]

76. Cause I want you to have a say in what world trade looks like. And

I want you to vote Democrat. I can only do so much as a canadian. I don't want to see the trade world turn out all neocon. That would be a nightmare.

[Skidmore]

77. My vote here will not be for free trade, but for fair trade.

And the party that embraces that concept will receive my vote.

[applegrove]

78. Just don't let them have the monopoly on the good things that will

come from trade. They will keep those for themselves if given half a chance.

[Armstead]

38. That's a seperate issue.

We should be (should have been) developing less resource intensive forms of manufacturing as part of a larger push to reorient energy sources all along, regardless of trade and economic structures.

That is a seperate issue than globalization. In fact, it doesn't matter whether a smelly, resource swilling factory is in Ohio or China -- the ultimate impact on everyone is the same.

All neo-liberal, neo-CON globalization does is put the garbage in poorer countries where desperation and corruption are LESS likely to encourage innovative energy and resource-use alternatives.

Meanwhile, there are only so many of the "better" jobs you described available. It is a total foolish fallacy to think that we can maintain any kind of broadly based prosperity if we employ the "best and brightest" to develop products, but then send them overseas to be manufactured by exploited modern-day serfs.

In addition to making producer nations into corporate colonies, it is also eliminating many of the types of jobs that are suited to the majority of real people here.

That is economic regression, not progress.

[applegrove]

43. Modern day serfs? Yes there should be laws instituting work weeks

and stopping child labour. Around the world. But don't you know that at one point your and my ancestors were serfs. And that first generation that got on a boat (sometimes 1/4 died en route) and then took a piece of land and spend twenty years removing stumps and rocks - before they had two cents to rub together - those people did that to give their kids a better chance at life (outside europe there was actually land to farm that had been getting rare in europe).

And each generation after that - people worked their asses off to give their kids better lives. And they did it knowingly and willfully and never stopped to relax or complain. Because they wanted something better for their kids. Do you think the people in the poor countries are any different? Do you think if it meant moving from say subsistance agriculture where you sell your daughter so that your son can marry okay - you make deals to survive with what you got - do you think that these people are not willing to work their asses off just like mine and yours did because there was a chance? So that these subsistance people could then have the cents to pay school fees for not just their sons - but their daughters too?

Because there is no way from subsistance and landless people in horrid poverty into middle class existance without markets. There simply has not existed rich societies without markets unless they happened upon some huge resource they could control.The 20th century where resources were taken out of countries and all the profits too - that showed us that unless the people themselves end up with a few cents more, because there is a job that pays a little better than what they have, or simply a job, do you think they want you to take that away from them? Because they are not getting the lifestyle out of the job you get?

For sure the third ways says that countries with huge inequalities have a right to nationalize industries for a bit to make sure there is enough credit and wealth spread around to make for a bigger working class. Much of what thrid wayers like DeSoto talk about is a system of laws in countries where people get title to the land they work and laws are clear and have easy access by the people - not just the rich who can bribe. So breaking down some laws in less developed nations is good. So people can get loans (there were banks popping up in the USA at the end of the 20th Century that was a huge part of the growing middle class. People could use land or the promise to pay back to start their own business instead of relying on a guild and apprenticeship - which is like slave labour. People could send kids to graduate school or stop paying rent and owning their homes in cities). Which then makes for a bigger middle class.

People in Africa growing crops not for subsistance but to bring to market can now use cell phones to call ahead and find out which market has the better price. The world is changing.

You either want all people to participate or not. Some laws need to be broken down - some built up. I for one do not plan of letting a big gang of aggressive neocons & corporations to be making all the rules. A narrow band of third wayers are not big enough to take those freaks on.

All of us have to join the discussion. What should be regulated to make the people of the world better off. What should not. And we need to be discerning to suss out the difference. Or neos will get their way.

[AntiFascist]

37. Free Trade will not lead to Freedom....

look at one of our biggest trading partners - China. It is a totalitarian society transitioning from communism to corporatism. Working conditions, human rights, and environmental controls all take a back seat to being able to manufacture products sold to the U.S. (via WalMart and many other venues) at the lowest possible cost. Did you notice on Black Friday consumers trampling and fighting each to get at the bargains? American democracy will also get trampled as we realize that the only way we can compete is to become just like China.

[applegrove]

46. No- the plan is to move manufacturing of goods that take alot of

oil to places where people are relatively less expensive than machines. So when oil hits $200 a barrel it is not the USA that is making flip flops and goes under. The USA will be concentrating on making things like software or intellectual property things like nano-technology that they can then liscence around the world. That way if someone wants to make gortex in Africa - they pay a fee and the coats are then made in Africa. And perhaps less of a factory using oil to run machines and more people doing the sewing. Good for Africa - good when there is no more oil. Good for the USA as they will get a fee for the gortex science.

There will be no oil soon. Do you want your kids in industries where there is a 100% chance that they will go under? That when oil crush hits and people are suddenly not able to buy all that they want - that they turn away from flip flops and start shopping locally. While they work in a firm that develops and sells software to the world.

The world middle class will be 15 times bigger than the middle class in the West is today. That's lots of software being sold - rather than flip flops. And America keeps some jobs at a time when shipping will not be cost effective (what a solar panneled ship?).

So it is good to think ahead about a few areas to specialize in.

[AntiFascist]

47. Quick thinking, but I see a different future.....

there are only a few geeks (myself included) who create intellectual property. I suppose the remaining Middle Class can become IP salespeople or all become shareholders, if only it were that easy to be assured of a good investment.

The reality is that the Middle Class is beginning to shrink and even many factory jobs may eventually be replaced by robots.

Peak Oil is likely to be a reality, but there is plenty of energy out there to be tapped into, and its not necessarilly solar panel based or nuclear. We don't have to lose our mobility.

(Also, eventhough Gore is DLC, I still don't think he's all that bad)

[applegrove]

48. Robots will be expensive to run. People will stop going to the big

box stores and start walking. They do that in Europe. If you are so sure that peak oil will not affect transportation I am happy for you. I do not feel that way.

Oil is cheap and makes people rich that is why it is being promoted in the USA. Along with huge houses and suburban living and all the things that will keep oil stock-holders happy as long as possible.

At least the Dems are trying to think ahead.

By going for both alternative fuels and a trade policy that American can run with for a few centuries.

As to jobs - well yes flipping burgers might be something the US does now. But people are turning off burgers and will so even more (do you know how much oil it takes to make a cow?). So some jobs will be local (grocers) and some small businesses will be freight forwarders. And some jobs will be in international co-ops that get goods to the USA. And much will have to do with the sciences.

That is the way it will be. If you put protection up and had an industrial job for your kid - you kid might be fine for a few decades - but then there would not be a job for them. Plus you would have lost the advantage in those fields like nano-tech, software, sciences and health.

Just think of all the changes that will happen. People do genealogy online and some companies do that software and make millions. At some point those family trees will become important not just to millions of descendants but to big pharma. Find a person with a thing that could be used to turn into a drug? Some genome flip? Well find their family tree and find their relatives and study them. Then you have a new drug. And all the people (many of them newly middle class in India, Brazil, China & Russia, not to mention Europe and everywhere else - will buy that drug. And you can put the drug plant in that country. So no shipping involved. Just the recipe across the internet to that factory in India.

But some drugs - like those against horrid disease like Aids need to not be so precious. So that millions will not be killed by the disease. So that people can get access to that cure. Or a real cure can be found and the disease stopped.

And we need to have the very efficient (better than the market) public health care as the norm around the world. So that countries can decide what parts of health care they will support in their people and what parts they will not (Canada & France are only 70% public health care and make choices all the time).

We need those public health care norms in place. How do we fight for that in trade agreements? We fight the neocons. By figting for what world trade will look like.

[applegrove]

49. You could be a freight forwarder in Texas and be moving freight

from Russia to India.

[AntiFascist]

50. Your koolaid tastes good, but reality dawns....

Free trade and corporatist mentality exist because of our culture of consumerism. We need alternative energy now and we need to begin conditioning (educating) people to the reality of peak oil now. There will be sacrifices and it may come in the form of a crash when interest rates go sky high and everyone with an ARM is forced to sell or foreclose.

I don't see people turning away from Walmarts, if anything they are becoming increasingly popular, and as more of the middle class transitions to the lower classes they will become increasingly popular still. This is reality! You want universal healthcare? Fine, but is that what Walmart and China want? Not likely, and it will take some fancy trade negotiations to get there.

The bottom line is that oil props up our economy and the more we have to fight to get the oil we need, the more the middle and lower classes will suffer. I'm sure the upper class will benefit nicely from the fancy drugs, though.

[applegrove]

51. They'll turn away from Wal mart when they can get their tunes online. When

to buy groceries it costs more for everyone to go to the store than for a few delivery trucks a week to go to local neighbourhoods. Who knows. You may be ordering your fruits & veggies online and costco may be delivering it to a local costco depot you can walk to to pick it up. Stores may not be like we know them at all.

We will get getting rid of plastic bags. We will be focussed on stuff that we can buy online. We will be downloading movies & CDs.

I am not drinking kool aid. The fact is the very inequalities you worry about at home exist already in the world. And we will all have to cut down on resources and use high tech means to help us. And people in Africa deserve to get the chance to get a business licence without greasing palms.

This does not mean structural adjustment et all. This means we go boldly into the new world and decide and desern for ourselves what is what - and not just say it is all bad. Cause it isn't. Letting people who would love to farm for cash grow your veggies and make some cash - when they are willing to weed by hand as part of that - that would save oil too. Why if agricultural subsidies come down the world may be a much better place for everyone - but especially for people who are not as well off as you or I.

[AntiFascist]

53. You make it sound so nice....

the middle and lower classes exist in a peaceful agrarian society, riding bicycles where they need to go and using cell phones, much like......the less industrialized parts of CHINA!!!!

It will never get that bad because by then we will be producing hydrogen, distributing it safely, and harnessing the power of the oceans and the earth's mantle, all without increasing CO2 levels.

[applegrove]

55. I think you are the one who makes it sound so nice. People being

forced to walk because they cannot afford gas for their cars is not nice. It is the way it will become.

Nice is when you think hydrogen is going to fix it. They can add hydrogen to diesel trucks and give them a kick and save milage. But hydrogen takes energy to make. It doesn't actually produce energy you can get for free(like say gravity will do with water going over falls).

Stop gap measures and lifestyle changes will be the norm. Wasn't so long ago we didn't have gas. We will adjust.

And please - don't drill into the mantle at home! That worries me.

[AntiFascist]

65. I understand that hydrogen doesn't come out of the ground....

like oil does. But we have these mixtures of hydrogen and oxygen, together with salt, in oceans. As long as there are ocean currents (which is debatable if the polar caps keep melting, diluting the salt) then we also have a tremendous source of energy which can be converted to electricity by a turbine. Electricity in salt water produces hydrogen and oxygen, voila! We could also convey the electricity to land by cables. I'm sure there are plenty of ideas like this one, all we need is the leadership that will steer us away from our dependence on oil.

[applegrove]

66. Isn't the amount of H20 on the planet supposed to be a constant?

Or was that the old way of thinking. I'm getting nervous. All using electricity to get hydrogen does is put that energy in a battery. Fine if you are using free electricity like hydro or solar or wind to make those hydrogen cells. Then you put them in the vehicle and they run.

But it isn't really increasing the amount of energy - it is just moving it into one or another form.

That will not replace oil on its own.

Geothermal pipes in the ground are something I would put into every lawn. In fact it should be required for those monstrous houses they have been building.


Oh - and when the salinity gets really bad - the gulf stream goes caput and Europe gets colder. So they need more heating oil.

[AntiFascist]

80. When the hydrogen is burned it converts back to water.....

there is no other pollution. You are correct in that it functions like a battery, in fact hydrogen battery cells operate the same way.

Since the ocean currents may be slowing down anyway due to the salinity decreasing, taking an infinitesimal amount of energy out of the ocean and using that as non-polluting energy may have a balancing effect by restoring the atmosphere (removing green house gas pollutants), unless it is already too late as some people are saying.

[RagingInMiami]

61. People will never turn off burgers

[applegrove]

63. They'll find a way to make fat out of nano-technologie and we will

all be very happy.

[shance]

28. Is the DLC a front group for Corporations/Neocons?

One could make a valid case I think.

They in no way that I can see remotely resemble a Democrat.

[applegrove]

34. No they are not alike at all. Third Wayers do not want hegemoney

and vast gaps between the rich and poor all over the world. They want the poor to be able to participate and they want your kids to study in fields and get jobs in industries that will pay well and not use much oil or natural resources (because most of the natural resources will be under huge competition as they are sold outside the USA).

Do you want to be importing copper, iron ore, oil, etc?

Or do you want to be the intellectuals who invent replacements for oil, steel, copper. And this time do it without concentrating on petrol as a input. And then selling the rights to produce these items across the planet.

The Neocons are very different. They want no regulations at all and no UN. They don't want the US to be for the ICC (International Criminal Court - which is trying to set precidents for putting all despots who comit war crimes on trial and police rulers that way). The neocons hate anything that doesn't come out of the mind of the strategic planners. They hate Amnestry International and the Red Cross. They hate UN population programs because the UN at one point said "hey big pharma - we supply birth control to 1/2 a billion women - what sorta deal you gonna give us".

The third wayers are not for such things. They want some poor countries to have the right to nationalize some key industries (CHAVEZ) to spread the wealth and reduce inequality over a few generations - all the while the poor country will be allowed to participate in world trade (the neocons would have isolated them and tried to depose them and put any available asshole in place).

There is a huge world of difference between the two.

[Armstead]

39. Third Wayers inadvertanrly reinforce NeoCONS

Whether or not they are sincere or are merely corporate lackeys, the neo-liberal "Third Way" types are naive, and thus contribute to the neoCON's goals. Their motivations MAY be different, but the end result is the same.

We've been trying the "third way" under both Democrats and Republicans for at least 25 years, and it is only making things worse.

Those in the "Third Way" are too smart for their own damn good. They get lost in cloudy promises, but forget certain basic laws of history and commonn sense. They fail to see the necessary half of the equation that is necessary to avoid making globalization a "race to the bottom."

We HAVE to have national and regional laws and controls on the economy. It is either naive or a deliberate lie for politicians to assume that if you give big corporations everything they want, that a wonderful economic utopia will emerge.

[applegrove]

41. Don't you think the anit-free traders give the neocons authority by

staying outside the debate on exactly what trade should look like? I am not talking about Gatt. There are problems with that. I am talking about the debate here.

What should trade look like? Because the 20th century that favored the USA with cheap resources for their plants and made American very rich - that is over.

Nobody in the world will trade with the USA if they don't get a chance to trade back.

Trade has to happen.

We should all get together to make sure neocons don't have their way and destroy any type of regulation that gets in their way all the while instituting regulations that favour them (like intellectual property rights).

[Armstead]

67. Alternative have often been proposed

Unfortunately, since trade is not as sexy as Palmegate of who shoulfd be president in 2008 discussions of the issue often fall by the wayside quickly.

And in a larger sense the CONservatives, corporate media and DLC-style Democrats have been stifling any real discussion and debate over these issues for years. They marginalize any differing views as "uninformed" or "anti-trade" or "anti-business." AND THAT'S THE MAIN PROBLEM WITH THE DLC. They have helped to marginalize they very opinions that represent the supposed principles of the democratic party by ignoring thge real debate over this, and by marginalizing all who are critical of this Glorious Free Market Globalization Con Job.

I'll give you my idea of a general altrnative. Although the issue is complicated, the underlying answer is fairly straightforward. Not perfect, but a different framework to this.

Emphasize nation-to-nation trade agreements, instead of these global trade regimes that are attempting to fit the world's economy into a "one size fits all" mold, and undermine the sovergnty of nations.

That would accompliosh two things.

1)It would allow nations to act in their own best interests based on their own circumstances and goals. It would allow them to establish their own balance between open trade and protectionism, and follow policies that support, rather than undermine their domestic economies.

2)It would return the negotiations to the spehere of national politics, instead of shadowy, appointed elites negotiating such important matters behind closed doors.

[applegrove]

72. So the USA wants to undo the free trade agreement with CANADA?

And try for a new one? We have oil? They have access to that. We have water. The midwest will be without water in 20 years.

Will Europe tear itself apart?

Will Latin American countries have to trade one by one and not put their might and their values all together and become a powerful consumer block?

Will the west coast of Africa - which was at one point two big colonies under the french - but divided up into twelve - yes - that is right twelve tiny countries - will they have to make little deals with every nation on the planet? 12 x 175 = 2100 trade deals that those poor countries have to make. Why you will be as close to those countries as you will be to Kansas in 10 years.

Will China do anything we want it to do? And if we get together in blocks will we not be able to offset China's power in a way?

Will concentrating on non oil using industries and excelling at them help the USA in peak oil times. Oh and what comes after peak oil? Less oil. So why not concentrate of things that don't take oil.

The price of oil will rise and that will cause inflation (à la 1970s and that was only a smaller increase in the price of oil that we will face) so if prices of other goods - goods produced in other countries come down in price - that will fight inflation. And we will avoid stagnation as long as possible. The problem isn't that the cost of goods are not coming down - it is that the rich are doing dick all to fight inflation in the USA. All these world changes are on the backs of the middle class and the poor.

Do you think Africa will not get together and try and push its way into agricultural markets? Don't you think they deserve a chance?

I say again - I'm with new zealand. They tried to be neocons. They didn't like it. They have moved back and put up some protection and still do lots of trade.

I say that some industries should be protected. The US sure protects itself from anyone stealing intellectual property. They make up regulations for that. Other countries should have policy flexibility. Nothing wrong with Chavez keeping 30% of Venezuela oil profits to redistribute the wealth in that country.

Public health care should be the norm all over the world.

[MisterP]

44. that just isn't true!!!

it's not inadvertent :evilfrown:

[applegrove]

45. People in poor countries have a hard time opening business and the

like. They don't often have the deed to the land they have worked on for generations. They have to pay bribes to make the system of laws work.

Don't you think it is good if those laws that make one set of rules for the rich in a poor country be able to work within the system - don't you think it is good if those laws are made for everyone?

That is part of what third wayers are into.

[Armstead]

68. There's a dofference between supporting democratic reform and imposing it

While countries ought to be encouraged and assisted to move in better directions, it should not be imposed through some set of arbitrary global rules. Especially not when those global rules are primarily to impose rigid right-wing cvorporatist policies on all nations.

In reality, neo-liberal corporate globalization undermines the ability of governments to institute reforms. Thgey even undermoine the ability of the US to set our own laws, no matter how well-intentioned, if they go against the enforced "free market" mold that places economics above every otehr social goal and value.

[applegrove]

69. But some line of of laws will help. But I agree - not the strict neocon

ones. But we need to get in there and fight.

[Armstead]

70. We can support those values better on a country-by-country basis

The US could better advance those wonderful goals like fair wages and environmental standards as we make trade agreements with individual nations.

We could, for example, demand that China pay all workers their equivalent of a decent living wage on any good that is shipped to the US. If China wants to sell goods to us -- and if US Turncoat Corporations want to offshore from there -- they have to have minmum wages that support the goal of bringing their people up, instead of dragging us down. (I am not saying it should be the exact equivalent of a US wage. But the equivalent within what is required in their economy for a similar standard of living.)

Meanwhile with a developed nation like Canada, trade agreements would be less oriented to such goals, because that is not an issue for you. Your nation's concerns seem to be more that you want trade with the US without your domestic economy and culture being swamped by us. Therefore, we can negotiate on a different basis.

But the present xet of neo-CON "free trade" policies are trying to undermine such flexibility. At the very least it is unweildy. At worst it is elitist and corrupt. Let's get back to some basic common sense in these things, and reject the baroque fantasy of some harmonious global economy that operates in lockstep in all nations.


P.S. Although i disagree with many of your points, I appreciate that you are willing to discuss and debate these issues. We need more of that on DU and in the larger political debate.

[applegrove]

75. I agree with much of what you say. In China though - who are you to

say somebody on a farm would not be willing to move to a factory job if it meant they could have a few cents to rub together.

In the 18th century in Canada - people were desperate for wars. Because they got off the farm and got a salary and could afford beer. Can you imagine what it would be like to be so dirt poor you never had any excess coinage. And how to get access to a job (in the army with a red coat) that it changed your life from one of drudgery to one of choice. Very little choice. But choice none-the less. More choice than you had before.

And like my ancestors and perhaps yours - people are willing to work their asses off and live very harsh lives if it means something better for their kids. Parents are the same all over the world. Most people living subsistance lives would give anything to become the working poor. And when they have nothing and no security for their kids - or having to marry off daughters into a not so secure life - because they have no choice and cannot afford their own kids - most of them would be willing to work a job that doesn't pay as well as you would want. If that meant they had choice for their kids.

China is difficult because it should be upping its dollar and in doing so - becoming less competative and then the advantage would go to some other countries. They have a huge population they want to get busy and will keep buying up America dollars to keep the amounts of people entering that workforce - and thus - having two coins to rub together - keep on going. For them, I am not sure they are wrong. It is frustrating for us.

And these are the things that need to be flushed out. And why we should all be right there in the discussion.

Of course countries have a right to decide what industries they want to focus on. Or more importantly spread the wealth within their own country if the distribution of wealth is terrible. Cause you cannot have a middle class without credit. And you cannot have credit without land ownership and a redistribution of wealth. And with laws that are simple and fairly enforced. So that bribes do not keep most of the people from middle class existance and opening businesses.

Yes - all this stuff should be discussed amongst us all.

[Armstead]

79. Who is Wal Mart to say those farmers shouldn;t have better options?

Under the current model of corporate globalization, those farmers you mentioned don't really have a chance to better themselves. They are merely exchanging one form of misery for another.

The whole basis of so many US corporations going to China and gutting the ecionomny here is to exploit the wortkers in China and other poor nations. That gives those nations the incentives to keep their people poor and miserable in order to satisfy their US paymasters. It discourags the Chinese from developing a healthier and more self-sustaining forms of economic develoipment.

That is NOT progress, and it is not how the US (or I assume Canada) advanced.

Also, we have self-interest in expecting otehr nations to raise their standards. That is the whole notion of precventing the "Race to the Bottom" in which our populations have to fall backward and be driven by the standards of the poorest nations. If China chooses to "grow" by providing an exploitative labor market, that is their issue. But when that screws our people and our real economic health, it IS our business.

There are middle grounds and win-win possibilities in global trading policies. But the current "free trade" regime is not interested in finding them. Instead they are attempting to impose one single hard nosed system through the world that will ultimately benefit neither the developed or the developing nations ultimately....All they will benefit are the elites at the top.

To paraphrase Paul Wellstone, a critic of this scam who was before his time, "We can do better." But we have to start by rejecting the con job that is being perpretratedf by the neo-CONS and is unfortunately being echoed and supported by too many neo-liberal Democrats.

[applegrove]

81. I agree we can do better on global trade. And going from subsistance

agriculture to sell your produce at a market is huge. It is a huge increase in wealth. And though it shows itself as the person having very small amount of extra cash - each and every one of our ancestors who walked off a farm made that choice. Something as simple as people going to market and pooling their resources to rent a few engineers to dig a well 300 feet down and buy a mechanical hand pump - so that women do not spend half their day walking to collect water from some bug infested pond - is huge.

So too is being able to buy wood. If you sell your stuff in a market you have a few cents to buy wood. And the family that runs around and collects wood can specialize in that. More hours saved in a day.

Those first few pennies have the utility of the biggest stack of gold a neocon has ever seen. That is how important being able to make those first few choices is to the lives of people. Don't belittle that.