Can you be pro-Republican Economics and still be considered a Democrat?

[brentspeak]

52. Does your non-sequiter respond to the previous post?

Not really.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-tasini/paul-krugman-gets-it-wron_b_48401.html

Paul Krugman Gets It Wrong On Trade--Sadly

by Jonathan Tasini

I am glad Paul Krugman is a columnist for The New York Times. He is one of the great voices exposing the incompetence and dishonesty of the Bush Administration on all matters economic and chimes in usually quite well on foreign policy. But, he has one blind spot---trade. His column today does a great disservice to the debate about trade. My goal here is not to tear down Krugman--for whom I have enormous respect--but, hopefully, to get us to change our language about the trade debate.

snip

But, the real issue I have with Krugman is much bigger than the controversy over the recent political trade deal. Krugman perpetuates some false myths and, disappointingly, regurgitates the notion that people who are opposing so-called "free trade" are "protectionists."

snip

The biggest disservice Krugman does, though, is by raising a complete straw man by raising the specter that we might go back to "old-fashioned protectionism." The problem is not protectionism versus so-called "free trade" (though to his credit, Krugman never uses the phrase "free trade&quot , which is simply a marketing phrase. The problem is: what are the rules? Right now, trade deals are structured primarily around the interests of capital and investment.

The real challenge is to scrap the NAFTA-style trade deals. The only way to do that is to start with a blank page and start with the following premise: trade is about trying to improve the standard of living of communities. When you answer that premise, then, labor rights and the environment are addressed as fundamental pillars of any agreement--not grafted on as an afterthought. And, then, and only then, would we ask the question--how to corporations help society reach that goal?