There is a new article out from the New York Times overviewing Obama's economic policy views and details.
It is not calling cash on Obama to get with it on economic policy changes America sorely needs. Matter of fact the article doesn't even report on the hundreds of economists who will show you statistics, details on just wrong headed many of these policy positions are, especially on trade. Seemingly a large deficit doesn't seem to count to the New York Times in terms of referencing credible economists.
That said, this is one hell of an article. It goes through the details of how we can expect basically more free market Chicago school or "business friendly" economic policy.
Compared with many other Democrats, Obama simply is more comfortable with the apparent successes of laissez-faire economics.
Sunstein, now on the faculty at Harvard, has a name for this approach: “I like to think of him as a ‘University of Chicago’ Democrat.”
If anyone is not aware, the Chicago School is neoconservative, Milton Friedman, privatization headquarters.
Obama said he agreed that blue-collar workers were struggling primarily because their skills weren’t as much in demand as they used to be.
What kind of lie is that? Americans are the most skilled workers in the world. Blue collar workers are struggling because they are competing with a 100:1 wage ratio in other countries. It's wage arbitrage.
But any public-policy response couldn’t be about just education; it also had to take account of the psychology of the workplace, Obama continued. Some laid-off steelworkers might indeed be able to go back to school to become health-care workers. But many of them don’t want to work in health care or any service job. Factory workers, he said, want to make something. It’s part of their identity.
Is this just wrong headed or what? How is the United States going to a 1st world economy with someone thinking what is happening to manufacturing is simply all in their head?