Article 1: Democrats don't like NAFTA
Article 2: Obama does not like NAFTA or Wal-Mart
Article 3: "If the Patriot Employer Act is anything to go by, we are in trouble if Obama wins."
Article 4: Apparently Ethanol sucks but certain candidates continue to pursue it.
Article 5: Mexico and Canada disapprove of the Democrats. (NAFTA again)
I should also mention this highly credible site documenting certain sinister tendencies of the Clintster.
Alright, so where does this leave us? I believe this leaves us in excrement-hole, because Probability(latrines)=0.54+0.11=>65% as of February 20th.
1 comment:
It seems that both Obama and Clinton are backpedaling on free-trade, and instead advocating protectionist economic policies. Now, I have enough background in European history to recognize that the same phenomenon occurred throughout Europe and even Britain at the beginning of the 20th century, and that this maneuver was arguably symptomatic of the inevitable breakdown in the global international order. The similarities between early 20th century Britain and the United States today in this regard are striking. Throughout the 19th century, Britain preached pure laissez-faire economics because, as the world's strongest and most far-reaching economy, she had the most to gain from free trade (hence the "imperialism of free trade" theory). By the 20th century, however, the economies of Germany and the United States became strong enough that protectionism gained new popularity in Britain.
As an Econ major, maybe you can help explain the problems with protectionism. Is it the cause of the breakdown of international stability, or rather, a symptom? Some theorists believe that a transnational, global liberal economic system can survive even the relative decline of the United States, whereas others believe chaos will ensue. Thus, I ask you: how much harm will protectionism actually do? Could it possibly bolster the US economy (at least in the short term)?
Post a Comment