Some Elements of a Progressive International Trade Policy
There are other ways to organize U.S. international trade. The neoliberal free trade of recent decades and the trade restrictions of Trumpian tariffs are not the only options.
1 min read
Get ready for "the deficit chorus," as James K. Galbraith put it to us today.
I was happy to see that David E. Sanger quoted Galbraith in his news analysis of Obama's budget in today's
.
But I was puzzled by the way he was quoted, in an article that makes this claim: "For Mr. Obama and his successors, the effect of those projections is clear: Unless miraculous growth, or miraculous political compromises, creates some unforeseen change over the next decade, there is virtually no room for new domestic initiatives for Mr. Obama or his successors." There is some wiggle room here—virtually no room for new domestic initiatives, unless there are no miraculous political compromises; and I suppose it would take a miraculous political compromise for Congress to change its priorities away from ever-increasing military spending and refusal to raise marginal tax rates on the wealthy, and toward health care, education, jobs programs, etc. But the effect is to suggest that domestic spending is just not possible.
Well—judge for yourself; here's the beginning of the article:
Deficits May Alter U.S. Politics and Global Power
And this would be a bad thing?
Here's the bit quoting Jamie Galbraith:
When I asked Jamie Galbraith whether he was misquoted, here's what he told us:
Not quite what showed up in Sanger's analysis, alas. (Otherwise wouldn't the headline have been: "There is no financial barrier to funding the jobs, social programs and public investments that the country actually needs"?) I'm still glad he contacts Galbraith for his articles, though...