Are you a communist? Just kidding.

However, it is not funny when so many in our country have no idea what Andy Grove is talking about. Why would they give up Wal-Mart? That's un-American.

Levy an extra tax on the product of offshored labor. (If the result is a trade war, treat it like other wars -- fight to win.)

For some reason this scares the dickens out of Washington. Maybe we are too dependent on overseas goods, in a serious way. I don't know.

That's an outstanding article from a pretty smart guy that people should listen to. Thanks for the link.

It made me think of Thomm Hartmann, a liberal talk radio guy you can only hear around here on satellite radio. This is one of his favorite topics. I scrounged around and found this article from 2004 that sums up his arguments. Here's an excerpt:

Democracy - Not "The Free Market" - Will Save America's Middle Class:

In actual fact, there is no such thing as a "free market." Markets are the creation of government.

Governments provide a stable currency to make markets possible. They provide a legal infrastructure and court systems to enforce the contracts that make markets possible. They provide educated workforces through public education, and those workers show up at their places of business after traveling on public roads, rails, or airways provided by government. Businesses that use the "free market" are protected by police and fire departments provided by government, and send their communications - from phone to fax to internet - over lines that follow public rights-of-way maintained and protected by government.

And, most important, the rules of the game of business are defined by government. Any sports fan can tell you that football, baseball, or hockey without rules and referees would be a mess. Similarly, business without rules won't work.

Which explains why conservative economics wiped out the middle class during the period from 1880 to 1932, and why, when Reagan again began applying conservative economics, the middle class again began to vanish in America in the 1980s - a process that has dramatically picked up steam under George W. Bush.

The conservative mantra is "let the market decide." But there is no market independent of government, so what they're really saying is, "Stop corporations from defending workers and building a middle class, and let the corporations decide how much to pay for labor and how to trade." This is, at best, destructive to national and international economies, and, at worst, destructive to democracy itself.

Markets are a creation of government, just as corporations exist only by authorization of government. Governments set the rules of the market. And, since our government is of, by, and for We The People, those rules have historically been set to first maximize the public good resulting from people doing business.

If you want to play the game of business, we've said in the US since 1784 (when Tench Coxe got the first tariffs passed "to protect domestic industries") then you have to play in a way that both makes you money AND serves the public interest.

Which requires us to puncture the second balloon of popular belief. The "middle class" is not the natural result of freeing business to do whatever it wants, of "free and open markets," or of "free trade." The "middle class" is not a normal result of "free markets." Those policies will produce a small but powerful wealthy class, a small "middle" mercantilist class, and a huge and terrified worker class which have traditionally been called "serfs."

The middle class is a new invention of liberal democracies, the direct result of governments defining the rules of the game of business. It is, quite simply, an artifact of government regulation of markets and tax laws.

When government sets the rules of the game of business in such a way that working people must receive a living wage, labor has the power to organize into unions just as capital can organize into corporations, and domestic industries are protected from overseas competition, a middle class will emerge. When government gives up these functions, the middle class vanishes and we return to the Dickens-era "normal" form of totally free market conservative economics where the rich get richer while the working poor are kept in a constant state of fear and anxiety so the cost of their labor will always be cheap.

Maybe put those two together and you have a movement.

The Democratic Party should embrace it as a major theme, and not be afraid to defend its consequences.

It's a little late for that. Instead of embracing labor and the middle class, the Democratic party has spent the last 20 years or so actively embracing "free" trade agreements. The neoliberals who brought us GATT, the WTO, and NAFTA are in full control of the Democratic establishment, and they dance with the ones who brung 'em[1]. Instead, there would have to be a completely new party built around the concept of rebuilding America's middle class.

How about an American Labor Party?

[1] There is an entirely apocryphal story that, even if it isn't true, is truthy enough to illustrate the point. In the early 90s, when the Uruguay round of GATT was being negotiated, the Washington Post company stood to profit significantly from its passage. GATT's future was in doubt, and there was a lot of grumbling among the labor faction of the Democratic party about its implications regarding jobs. If GATT was approved (and the WTO created from its consequences), the Post would be able to import its gargantuan shipments of newsprint without tariffs, saving the company gobs of money. The apocryphal story says that in early 1992, Katharine Graham (the Post's owner) held a private dinner at her mansion on R Street, and the guest of honor was Bill Clinton. The Post had withheld endorsing any particular candidate until that point, and its coverage of Clinton had been spotty and rather dismissive. At this dinner, she allegedly said to Bill, "You give me GATT and I will give you the nomination." Clinton quickly adopted a set of positions that strongly advocated for GATT and NAFTA. The Post's coverage of his campaign suddenly became a lot more comprehensive and complimentary.

The story may not be true, but it doesn't really matter. The Democratic establishment has firmly embraced the delusions of neoliberalism ever since, and I don't see any possibility that those delusions will be abandoned.

[EDIT]: The story recounted above should not be confused with the documented scandal involving the Washington Post and GATT, which happened two years later.

i suppose it would be appropriate to repost this:

Founded in the runup to the war in Iraq, KnoxNet provides a forum for the exchange of ideas and information by individuals and groups in the Knoxville, Tennessee area who share concern for peace, justice and the environment. Topics include issues/events of local, regional, national and international interest and importance. The list, with over 290 members, is unmoderated and uncensored and depends for its success on the goodwill and common sense of its participants.

For some reason, this seems to fit this discussion:

Michigan cosmetology school wants cash for Knoxville move