“The effects of the neoliberal global order … strongly buttressed by the Chicago School of Economics, have by no means been unequivocally positive,” the letter states. “Many would argue that they have been negative for much of the world’s population.”

she’s exactly the type of person a true progressive and liberal would be listening to— not these fools who are to the right of even Bill Clinton’s all-procorporate trade policies.

(i love her—her and Krugman are pretty much the only people i agree with, economics-wise)

one of the few places on the web which actually was investigating such things, once the Blogger Boyz made their move to the Obama camp. Last January I began looking all over for information about this great orator (about all I could find about him) who couldn’t answer questions and get to the point in debates or interviews. I was somewhat perplexed and wondered how Mr. Hem and Haw was considered such a great speaker. Teleprompters are his friend, along with good speech writing.

Anyway, found interesting stuff at site listed below:

http://www.blackagendareport.com/

once Edwards withdrew it was just a question of which neo-liberal was nominated.

Behind the Rise in Prices: The Plan to Torpedo the Dollar

the entire Bush administration is nothing but a mafia bust out operation

and yes, you should read it regularly.

sigh, i hate to say that i’m that i’m right there with naomi. but it’s true. i’m going to vote for obama mainly b/c he’s slightly less worse than mcstain. but yes, we’ve got some ugly economic policy to expect, and it’s going to make things worse. the Chicago team of economic advisors guarantees it, as i’ve been saying for some time. still, our only chance to have a say in changing econ policy is under a dem admin. in a rethug one we’ll have none. so there you go. it sucks, but such is life.

Krugman Blog”

Jason and the Obamanauts
OK, this furor over Jason Furman’s appointment is silly, on two levels.
1. Furman is a very good guy, with a solid track record as a progressive. You can disagree with him about Walmart — and I do — but his heart is clearly with those who want more social justice and a stronger safety net.
2. He’s not, despite what the story says, Obama’s chief economic policy advisor — he’s the economic policy director, which is a process job: basically, he organizes other people to provide advice. Obviously there could be a real problem if the policy director steered the candidate away from progressive advice, but Furman is, as I said, a solid progressive, and well suited to the job of honest broker.

And just so we aren’t just cherry picking the more centrist of Obama’s econ advisors:

HuffPo

Furman pointedly noted that his circle of advisers will include economists viewed favorably by organized labor and its allies, including University of Texas professor James Galbraith and former Labor Secretary Robert Reich.
::
Other Furman supporters include SEIU president Andy Stern, who told The Huffington Post, “I am completely convinced after hearing from the campaign that Jason will serve Obama’s interests and priorities not his own. And Jared Bernstein’s involvement is also a good sign.”

Bernstein, of the pro-union Economic Policy Institute, has been added to the list of those to be consulted by the Obama campaign. Bernstein said in response to a Huffington Post inquiry:

“The concern that’s surfaced in the last few days maybe comes down to: will Obama be pro-worker in ways that we haven’t typically seen from Jason, [University of Chicago economist and top Obama adviser] Austan Goolsbee, and Rubin, but have seen from EPI types like me? Obviously, I think so and that’s what I’m doing there … It’s a work in progress but I very much like what I’ve seen so far.”

Now, the HuffPo article is critical of some aspects of Obama’s team, but there is definitely enough balance for a progressive agenda to emerge. Obama has been spot on when it comes to progressive tax policy and wealth redistribution(Goolsbee’s department). Regarding trade, Obama might very well end up closer to Bill Clinton than would be ideal, but the jury is still out.

A quick search turned up this enlightening story on Kenneth Griffin. The multi-millionaire hedge fund manager has been quite critical of Wall Street and the lack of proper regulation and oversight (Krugman has placed a high priority on better financial regulation).

The problem is compounded further by weak government oversight, he said. “The unwillingness of the Federal Reserve and the SEC to require working capital” limits, he said, only exacerbates the risk-taking environment because the banks are playing the equivalent of no-limit poker. “The sad truth of the matter is it didn’t have to be this way,” he said.

But Griffin is not just a serial complainer. He has thought about solutions.

First, “the investment banks should either choose to be regulated as banks or should arrange to conduct their affairs to not require the stop-gap support of the Federal Reserve,” he says.

But that’s not all. He also wants new government oversight of the arcane world of credit default swaps, a business with a notional value and risk of $50 trillion. “Everyone is missing the elephant in the room,” he said.
::
Of course, most big investment banks would hate such a plan, he acknowledged by telephone last week. “The investment banks and commercial banks benefit from the lack of transparency because they are the intermediary,” he said.

Just some things to think about before convincing yourselves that Obama is a secret Republican on economics.

Of course, most big investment banks would hate such a plan, he acknowledged by telephone last week. “The investment banks and commercial banks benefit from the lack of transparency because they are the intermediary,” he said. (It also has the effect of making Griffin’s firm more money by cutting out the middleman.)

that’s often the reason why businesses want more regulation, they want the regulations that favor them and disadvantage their competition.

pre-reagan, obama and most of his advisers could easily have been nice, centrist republicans with moderate social consciences.

progressive tax policy? from what i’ve read, obama is in favor of rolling back the bush tax cuts to, or almost back to, the tax system we had under bill clinton, hardly a progressive structure. i like 1944 [extra mouseclick needed to see fullsize chart], but i’d settle for just about anything we had from the late 1930s through late 1970s.

1. As far as the investment banks, and I hope I’m getting this right, it used to be that they weren’t regulated at all, but that also meant that there were no bailouts (no FDIC for investment banks). Well, Bernanke changed all that recently (one reason I think the Bear, Sterns bailout was quasi-legal). So, now that policy is to bail them out, it makes sense that the regulatory regime legalize whatever the fuck was done (a major change in what Stirling Newberry calls the Constitutional order).

2. It would be nice to see a link on this:

Obama has been spot on when it comes to progressive tax policy and wealth redistribution(Goolsbee’s department)

And not to the campaign site, please!

3. I guess I don’t have a lot of confidence in the advisor’s game as an indicator of where Obama’s policy inclinations are. Do we have any kind of a timeline of who the first advisor was? Or can anyone give any history, here?

[x] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

“Now is the time to worry…. ” Klein provides the historical precedent too:

Now is the time to worry about Obama’s Chicago Boys and their commitment to fending off regulation. It was in the two-and-a-half months between winning the 1992 election and being sworn into office in 1993 that Bill Clinton did a U-turn on the economy. He had promised to revise the North American Free Trade Agreement, adding labour and environmental provisions - but two weeks before his inauguration, the then Goldman Sachs chief, Robert Rubin, convinced him of the urgency of embracing liberalisation.

Another U-turn could be bad, no?

[x] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Tax Policy Center

The two candidates’ plans would have sharply different distributional effects. Senator McCain’s tax cuts would primarily benefit those with very high incomes, almost all of whom would receive large tax cuts that would, on average, raise their after-tax incomes by more than twice the average for all households. Many fewer households at the bottom of the income distribution would get tax cuts and those whose taxes fall would, on average, see their after-tax income rise much less. In marked contrast, Senator Obama offers much larger tax breaks to low- and middle-income taxpayers and would increase taxes on high-income taxpayers. The largest tax cuts, as a share of income, would go to those at the bottom of the income distribution, while taxpayers with the highest income would see their taxes rise.

Some Obama highlights:
* 0 tax for seniors earning <$50k
* Increase top marginal tax rates for individuals and corporations (36%, 39.6%)
* Increase cap gains and dividend taxes for over $250k bracket
* Fix estate tax at 45% ($3.5mil exemption)
* Mortgage tax credit for non-itemizers
* $4k college credit (100 hours of comm. service required)
* Expansion of EIC, child & dep care credit

Also, a number of increases in the business sector:

Miscellaneous revenue-raisers (first set). Senator Obama has proposed (1) taxing carried interest as ordinary income, (2) eliminating all oil and gas loopholes, (3) codifying the economic substance doctrine (requiring transactions to have economic justification absent tax benefits to be eligible for tax benefits), (4) requiring publicly traded financial partnerships to pay the corporate income tax, and (5) creating an international tax haven watch list of countries that do not share information returns with the United States (and potentially enacting sanctions against those countries). Combined with other as-yet-unidentified provisions, the campaign expects these provisions to raise an additional $41 billion in revenue each year. Because not all provisions are identified, we cannot verify that revenue estimate but use it for 2009. We assume that the amount would grow at the same rate as GDP throughout the 10-year budget window.
Miscellaneous revenue-raisers (second set). Senator Obama has also proposed (1) imposing a windfall profits tax on oil and gas companies, (2) requiring information reporting of basis for capital gains, reallocating multinational tax deductions, and (3) closing loopholes in the corporate tax deductibility of CEO pay. Combined with other as-yet-unidentified provisions, the campaign expects these provisions to raise an additional $35 billion in revenue each year. Again, because we lack necessary details, we cannot verify the revenue figure but use it for 2009. We assume that the revenue raised would grow at the same rate as GDP throughout the 10-year budget window.