Web Feed for Forum with Presidential Campaign Economic Advisers

-

This is a bit of an experiment, but the New America Foundation is trying a live web feed for some of our events — including this big economic forum tomorrow.
We’ll be starting promptly at 8 am EST and ending at 9:30 am. CNN and MSNBC are filming — but C-Span is not making this round. We’ll have our own digital copy up after the event.

Thanks to the many who watched on line today. The sound is great but the video distance is lousy. Our people will try to fix in future meetings. But I am embedding the YouTube capture of today’s conference for your edification.
— Steve Clemons

Comments

22 comments on “Web Feed for Forum with Presidential Campaign Economic Advisers

  1. erichwwk says:

    Military spending definitely makes the US less safe. My father was on Team A during the Team B era, when NIE’s became cartoons. He retired rather early because of this waste. I myself started out in nuclear physics, with weapon design as an option, until I realized that military power does much more harm than good and switched to social engineering at the University of Chicago at Los Angeles for graduate work in economics. But that discussion needs to mostly happen off line.
    If we don’t fix the military spending it will eventually tank the US as it did in the USSR. It is just a matter of time, and the main weight on the camel’s back, even if global funny money appears as the straw that breaks it. LASG, like Chalmers estimates the LOW end of annual military expenditures at $1.1 Trillion. With $14 trillion annual GDP, military expenditures are 8.5%. Now some may be justifiable on economic defense grounds (protecting people, property), but if you look at what other countries spend, and what we have sunk into nuclear weapons ($7Trillion) most is clearly due to job security and keeping incumbents in power. I believe most honest and intelligent politicians know this (House vote on RWW), but it butters their bread (Senate deal between Dorgan and Domenici). It is basically inertia, the size of this industry that keeps it going. We cannot compete with essentially destroying 6.5% of our annual product. Having a realistic military budget would triple our current effective (as opposed to notional) growth rate. So we try to hide it, by letting our infrastructure (including human capital, machine goods) deteriorate. Do the math, draw out the graphs, between two economies differing at a 6.5% growth. It is simply not sustainable, as capital and labor movements move towards parity with international mobility.
    read James Sterngold’s article on Rep. Hobson here:
    http://tinyurl.com/2y3z9z
    James has been extremely helpful to LASG, and bringing Greg Mello’s work to public view.
    Fixing THAT, especially at LANL and the nuclear labs, is my personal priority. If you (or anyone else) is truly interested in understanding military expenditure and the economy, lasg.org is a good place to start. Linda, I did email Steve, asking him to fwd that to you. Others interested can contact me through lasg.org. This blog has much broader interests. The NAF is, IMHO, one of the best opportunities to draw together sincere individuals willing to leave partisan and ideological baggage at home, buried deep, with a stake through its heart. I encourage Steve to find more ways to conduct economic forums that are not concerned with candidate support, but with discussing substantive issues with the intent to move the discussion to a higher plane.
    re political forecasts, count me out. While not denying its importance, i limit myself to discussing economic policy, with a focus on the “unintended consequences”, or opportunity costs of military expenditures, especially nuclear related. You must know that by the last question you asked re dates, and the answer you received. FWIW, I found Goolsbe the most technically competent on SR impacts, Kevin absolutely scary, Leo Hindrey getting the big picture best (sans military- but I am troubled by his quarter billion Global Crossing take for 7 months work, bail out), and Gary Genslar so-so. Nobody deals with the big picture of the relationship among income inequality, debt, and the Military-Industrial-Congressional (DDE original wordage) Complex. My $0.02 worth.
    “When scientific power outruns moral power, we end up with guided missiles and misguided men.” — Martin Luther King
    “We have had the bomb on our minds since 1945. It was first our weaponry and then our diplomacy, and now it’s our economy. How can we suppose that something so monstrously powerful would not, after years, compose our identity?” — E.L. Doctorow
    “I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent.” — Mahatma Ghandi

    Reply

  2. Linda says:

    I’ve only listened to 50 minutes so far and will listen to the rest tomorrow, but it is excellent and a much better way to learn about the candidates’ positions.
    Edwards gets things closest to correct as Hindrey goes back to Reaganomics when deregulation, etc. started up. Somebody needs to go back 60 years to late 1940s and the start of the military-industrial-complex, but as you said, erichwwk, nobody is going to do that as it won’t get one elected. Any thoughts on which candidate might say that after he/she is elected? An argument can be made that continued military spending makes us less safe–i.e., could make us go the way of Roman Empire, etc.
    But Santayana still seems to be correct about learning the lessons of history.

    Reply

  3. erichwwk says:

    I thought the format was great; MUCH better to hear the advisers than the candidates themselves. Less pandering and posturing; mostly substance. Nice. Just the sort of process that “might” work, if repeated often enough, and folks stay congenial and sincere, putting America before personal political power. A cost effective experience for me.
    While pol types are gingerly dipping toes in the troubled waters of the murky globalized money supply , the economic inequities, and the neglected social infrastructure, it saddens me that the BIG ELEPHANT in the room, military spending is still TOTALLY taboo. No toes dipped in THAT pool!
    Without addressing THAT, we are like the drunk, looking on his porch for his lost keys, knowing they were lost out in the dark road, simply because the light is better there. In “war time”, a president is replaced by “the commander of the military”. No one wants to suggest they are less macho, less capable of leading the killing machine to the waving of the flag and the blare of trumpets.
    Can’t face up to having drilled a $2,000,000,000,000.00 dry hole, other than to drill deeper, hoping something good happens?
    Chalmers Johnson shows the moral courage so often lacking here:
    http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/74620
    And thanks, claes for your suggestion. And Mr. Murder, how about some editing, being a bit tighter w/ your “stream of consciousness” thoughts?
    Sort of puts a damper on conversation, crowding others out.

    Reply

  4. Mr.Murder says:

    Very good presentation, Steve did quite well to give everyone quality time to present ideas.

    Reply

  5. Mac says:

    Edwards man sounded the most knowledgeable and realistic. I still wonder that this country continues to hire ONE president when it’s clear that conference leadership and vetting is so much more productive…….hire 6 leaders and let em duke it out until they come up with real solutions, untethered from private interests, and who have to be capable of comprehending the experts.
    The whole conference did have a strong air of wishful thinking that the Iraq war is some small sliver of the overall economic situation facing us.
    More conferences with real life discussions.
    Thank-you Steve!

    Reply

  6. Mr.Murder says:

    If we don’t measure out some level of subsidies for farming then we’ll be at the mercy of other nations and their agriculture production.
    Without helping the farms maintain some level of output we’re playing into the hands of others who can shape market.
    See also the Gold Standard.
    American values should not be determined by others. We should have final say in how that reward is shaped.
    This is again one reason we should oppose revenue shortfalls that cause a deficit.

    Reply

  7. Mr.Murder says:

    *government
    If we’re for free trade why did the GOP neglect the strategic petroleum reserve so the oil market would bottleneck, why do we maintain import caps on oil to inflate the price?

    Reply

  8. Mr.Murder says:

    In other words McCain favors foreigners continuing to buy America up instead of having Govrnment help be a mediary.
    Toll Bridges to Nowhere!

    Reply

  9. Mr.Murder says:

    This isn’t a typical recession. You’ll see that soon enough.
    You don’t cut immediate checks out of Social Security.
    Roosevelt used the TVA to make jobs and improve living, energy was there for growth. Edwards is right, the TVA was in effect another pillar of Roosevelt’s recovery of America’s economy.

    Reply

  10. Mr.Murder says:

    The Fed has an important role. But fundamental priorities must be addressed.
    One of the issues facing the economy we know it now is the shift to service sectors.
    Pay more for service sector jobs so we can develop better demand and still increase competitiveness in those fields. Paying more expands the taxable base without actually needing a tax raise.
    Stimulus needs to be occur in ways that impact wage earners.

    Reply

  11. Mr.Murder says:

    You cannot argue economy without addressing the war. That is a simple fact.

    Reply

  12. Mr.Murder says:

    Hillary has a consultant up now.
    Mention her experience managing the strategic petroleum reserve. Contrast her husband’s success doing that to fuel the boom and ride our corrections, with the present regime and its all hat no cattle braggadocio when it comes to making affordable fuel.
    Allude to the fact that ending the Iraq war will produce a peace dividend in terms of cheaper fuel as the market eases fear over supply interruptions.
    That was a strength of the Clinton years, wise expansion of the strategic petroleum reserve, the bottom line costs were met.
    Hillary can help with the fuel reserves into our transition off that same fuel dependency.
    As for revenue concerns, buy back our own dollars and impose a restructure of the accounts outward instead of upward. Buy back some currency as well, a short term corrective measure, and have new alliances that use funds from other banks and their currencies to keep the dollar from getting too thin and to promote regional cooperation in economic spheres that we can assume security benefit from.
    Imagine the use of wise fuel and currency policy as a way to expand the peace dividend.

    Reply

  13. Mr.Murder says:

    Actually America pays one of the lower tax rates for first world nations. We pay more for health care and have less to show for that also. Intersting contrast…
    The most productive America was in the Boomer years we still had Social Security and very high tax rates at the top level, with lower taxes through the working class bands of income.

    Reply

  14. Mr.Murder says:

    The points you made on introduction were good.
    Someone is talking the truth about our economy. Edwards man.
    Stimulus should be vested within shared interests. This means the solution to green energy and market retirement are on in the same. Use the capital we have to help address energy production in renewable means, Roosevelt helped bring America forward with the TVA, we can do that again, making rural areas into power providers and helping urban business become more competitive.
    This also means helping address health care, that includes pooling out our participation in it. The supply/demand evaluation begins to satisfy pricing concerns as the market grows to meet demand. This growth will be paired with education and preventive care. Then three factors help us save on health care, instead of one.
    Thus in two area we can radically shift market fundamentals, making Americans healthier and expanding their income, and each of these makes our business model into a world leader once again.
    But we need to do it now. Twenty percent of some EU nations use green energy now and we’re talking about something decades from now on most plans. Green energy is the immediate need, far more important than moderate tax relief.
    We won’t address tax relief until wage raises occur. Moderate tax cuts can accompany increased revenue. We need the revenue to enable change first. No change comes free, a lot of people want change. We need to address the fundamental items that help bring about change in ways that remove us off cycles of dependency.

    Reply

  15. Mr.Murder says:

    Of course the Fed will struggle thanks to deficit Bush brought along with untenable tax cuts.
    Mandating payroll deductions? We have that already…
    nice talk by Obama’s rep.

    Reply

  16. Mr.Murder says:

    The reason the institution of Social Security worked was in its efficiency. Medicare remains a major mandate for Americans in retirement, most private plans switch over on leaving employment, so it’s clear that it must be strengthened in terms of effectiveness and remain part of the social insurance pillars. The third leg of Roosevelt’s New Deal was the TVA, and industry deregulation has seen utility prices go up. Americans still see their infrastructure needs in power and transit go on the blink, much like it did in years prior. This was a time in history our country had a need, and FDR didn’t blink. Let’s get back to public interest being part of the solution, job creation counts. As we make renewable energy, we make more jobs, and we make our jobs in use more efficient so they can pay better and be more competitive.
    Should the opportunity arise, I’d suggest scaling the infrastructure upgrades through the bond ordinances and pension plans we need to secure our retirement. Put portions of that money back into renewable energy that will make money, and in time middle class folks will be paying themselves when they pay power bills. As this alleviates the CPI in real terms we’ll be able to strengthen purchase power and discretionary income, key points of solid market fundamentals.
    Smaller states will probably get done with that first and have a surplus to share with neighboring peak demands, and in time the large states new green and clean energy commitment will match or surpass its needs as well. We want America strong, let’s make it to the point we can sell utility power to our neighboring countries that supply us with most of our oil. That’s win-win and then we’re making market fundamentals more affordable.
    We see who the media sides with, a candidate with high negatives for the limited exposure he has on the Democratic side. His ideas really don’t seem original either, the wording is the same we heard from George Bush in 2000, change. Ironically many of the policies mirror or match that.
    Let’s reshape the future in new ways so we can negotiate from a position of strength at all items. Bring back agribusiness independence to America. Energize our energy supply from within so we can meet the challenge without being compromised by other countries or corporations trying to unfairly claim part of our livelihood.
    Make education a cornerstone of leading the world once again. Research to remain leaders with the truth of altruism, like John F Kennedy’s Peace Corps. once did to help us lead the way, do so here and abroad. Reclaim our communities with the hope we’ve always shared in of having the next generation know peace and prosperity.
    Work to those ends and we’ll bring America to the position and vision we see , as others will be inspired to join us in these ends.

    Reply

  17. Mr.Murder says:

    Our market is over valued. Bottom line estimates of 20%, I say it’s much more, spread out over a series of items, enough so to scare Buffet out of many market sectors in 2005. The money from inflated value is then sent into investments for this market, compounding shortcomings in the future, and weighted abroad in securities bundles, which is one reason world markets are consistently plummeting right now. The countries also buy into our debt, so when things bad here they’ll get bad there as well.
    It used to be that you could hedge currencies and ride out bad time with sell offs in a sector or exchange by using a separate strong area’s gains to buy up when things cross a certain threshold. The boom years had this effect. Our Dow and NASDAQ could both gain, or just one, almost every day, provided the SPR was maintained to help fuel a domestic boom or counter minor valleys on the ride to the top.
    Then it became more of an item that as America’s stocks declined the multinationals gained elsewhere, the EU had a currency to buy in with, and China had volume to but with from the low end hedged currency.
    We’re in no man’s land, and enough shabby value was put into each slice of pie that market drag will occur to levels not anticipated. Only our currency value and several key investment yields may soon flip, which could be catastrophic because no normative correction measures could be used since we’ve pushed back with uncommonly low interest rates and high debt levels and there’s inadequate incoming revenue stream to counter.

    Reply

  18. Steve Clemons says:

    ckrantz — thanks for the advice on embedding. doing that now. will have to figure out the twitter function with you later.
    steve

    Reply

  19. Mr.Murder says:

    “You cannot cut the rates, we don’t need 50 cent on the dollar buyouts of the underwriting creditors, either.
    Instead table new payment plan for loans based upon a cap formula.
    The more on time payments you make, the less your payment becomes, extended additionally, with incentive reward interest.
    This can even be shaped to reflect cyclical concerns within markets that feature cyclical work and production surges for rural or factory regions, in accordance with other lending value from said institutions as well(school or car loans).
    Since it’s a cap formula the bank wouldn’t have to count some its lower loans, an incentive to distribute across the spectrum and evaluate fairly, and the loan rewards would give incentives in both to meet more equitable payment arrangements.
    Loans reaching critical stages could have their deferred counting costs applied to the upper cap structure in three year immediate deferments restructures, provided they accompany adequate job creation numbers to insure extra market value or meet other evaluative norms within the local bank’s circle of business.
    It’s not that we lose money, we just extend it over a longer span of time, and can apply rich interactive terms to them that stimulate demand and incentive supply of them to people best able to work with the bank at both ends of the buyer/lender transaction. Done in correct this would slow the retreat of the market and trend longer return since currency is presently devalued.
    Win-win situation, although the payment scale will shape out differently. Reducing some of the volatility can probably shape better results, without discouraging market activity to static levels. Static market sectors can occur at the bottom end of the trade scale more so than even in secure fiscal times anyways, let’s take a pooled measure to avoid rapid retreat across the entire market.
    Meanwhile, world markets are tanking. Bush went to the Mid East wanting loans for the tax cut as a way to rally GOP election chances and background his State of the Union. The Saudis told the warmonger where to go, buying up private American interests in the same instance.
    Bush hoped to put the blank check to the tax deal, one that still overlooks 28% of taxpayers, and do it on IOU’s from overseas. Now he’s asking Asian markets to match, many places already vested in production of jobs outsourced from us. The constraints on purchase here and the tense background of many emerging market sectors there aren’t meeting expectations, based on the currency juncture resulting from weakened dollars and diminished earnings.
    This may be the one chance James Baker can kick back in and pulse the phone lines. It would be unique to see how someone like John Edwards could perhaps benefit from some of that based on prior proxy interests that parallel their foreign policy discussions, at places like the Bilderburg Group meetings…
    Bush having to see his father’s consigliere undo his mess, and do it be working with parallel interests from emerging democratic majorities.”
    …previous comment by me made elsewhere…

    Reply

  20. ckrantz says:

    Hi Steve,
    I don’t know if you will see this before the event but I would add the embed stream to your website. It works the same as for youtube. Second for future events maybe a twitter microblog. Then anyone interested could could subscribe and get updates directly at live events.

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *