While we were deporting second and third-generation "reds" back to their "countries of origin." Sorry, but we're about 85 years late and nothing's going to bring Emma Goldman or John Reed back from the dead...though I suspect that if it were possible to bring them back they would both take a look around and then promptly commit suicide.

Well, that notion about Scandinavian countries is a fine idea unless you have tens of millions of uneducated people in your midst that come from a culture without a strong emphasis on education, and a liking for the mystical and religious.

What are we about do with the coming amnesty? Increase the uneducated peasantry by the 11 million here, their 30 million relatives, and the 50 million who will come in the next 15 years to position themselves for the next amnesty?

At the same time as we are trying to move up the development stream to an economy that is more creative, we seem to be recreating the Mexican economy. This is foolish.

It's no accident that one of the recent discussions we had on globalisation here ended up as a rant (mine) about social safety nets -- namely the US predeliction for not having one, or anything that even looks like one.

As the song says, socialism is not communism! And to extend that, social safety nets are not socialism, either.

Social safety nets, including well managed wide public health coverage, are just simply more efficient than the alternatives.

Australia's economy, for example, is roaring along, with all the same challenges that the US economy faces in terms of outsourcing, and they have free medicine for all, and an extensive (but sensible) retraining and unemployment benefits system.

Not that this argument is likely to succeed in a climate of a multi-trillion-dollar war.

Labor standards are also key.

In this part of the discussion, we sadly see the historically racist positions of the labor-left come back to haunt the various political parties "representing" this portion of the population in developed countries: viz "Those [insert racist epithet here] are taking our jobs!"

Whatever happened to the global solidarity of workers!?

The current "enforcement by inspection" regime that exists has had some remarkable success -- particularly with product lines made for the so-called "family entertainment" conglomerates -- and should be strengthened, but also needs to be followed up with a concerted effort by developed nations to make certain standards a pre-requisite for doing business.

We're already doing this for high-tech stuff -- play our game on IP or don't access our markets -- it could easily be extended to manufacturing.

Yes, shoes and shirts will probably get more expensive as a result. The consumer, as always, will be the one to pick up the tab.

Andrew, my previous letter was a *bit* harsh - but not much.

You blame the *Democrats* for neoliberalism, when (a) this crap origianated with the right-wing and (b) you're one of the guys pushing it by means fair and foul.

T'aint honest, Andrew.

And, in the end, political change to fix this will require the destruction of the propaganda careers of you and your kind.

As people scratch their heads and wonder what I''m talking about - I wrote a flamer, pointing out that the political changes neccesary to for a Scandinavian approach would start with the destruction of the Democratic careers of Andrew and all neolibs. That we'd have to drive them into Starbucks, as 'associates', not pundits writing while sipping lattes. Which is true. If we can't flog Salon into line or bankruptcy, we certainly can't alter the neolib course of the Democratic Party.

I don't know what you're talking about Barry. My post was a cry for Democrats to be offering a coherent safety net approach that would be the first step to ensuring that workers in this country _survive_ globalization.

And if you think I'm a neoliberal propandist, then you aren't reading me with much comprehension. Do you think Joseph Stiglitz is a neoliberal? Do you think endorsing a national health care program and comprehensive wage insurance for all laid off American workers is neoliberal?

People seem to get most worked up here when I defend, a la Stiglitz, the right of developing nations to put up barriers to trade liberalization, but advocate that the United STates make good on its word and get rid of its remaining subsidies and domestic protections. But I'm not going to back down from my belief that as the richest and most dynamic economy in the world, the United STates is best situated to adapt to the pressures of a more integrated global economy.

Our problem here is that the benefits from global trade are not being distributed equally. The answer to that is not shutting down trade, but in raising taxes on those who are benefiting disproportionately and redistributing the resulting cash in the form of a much imporved safety net that cushions American workers form the inevitable challenges of a global economy. That's flat out LIBERAL, and it's high time we made that word a badge of honor again, and not a conservative slur.

Andrew: "I don't know what you're talking about Barry."

Yes you do. Read the rest of your articles - you know, the glib Friedmanite cheerleading, with side orders of glib and inevitabilibty.

"My post was a cry for Democrats to be offering a coherent safety net approach that would be the first step to ensuring that workers in this country _survive_ globalization."

Andrew, perhaps you should talk to some actual Democrats (hint: Friedman and Lieberman are not Democrats); we've been offering such things, for a number of years.

The trick is - listen closely - **the right runs the country**.

Until that's changed, it'll be a hard job just keeping the current joke of a 'safety net' from being destroyed further. This means that nothing good will be created, until the right-wing/neolib order has been put out of power.

Sorry, Andrew, I forgot the rest of your letter:

"Our problem here is that the benefits from global trade are not being distributed equally. The answer to that is not shutting down trade, but in raising taxes on those who are benefiting disproportionately and redistributing the resulting cash in the form of a much imporved safety net that cushions American workers form the inevitable challenges of a global economy. That's flat out LIBERAL, and it's high time we made that word a badge of honor again, and not a conservative slur."

Andrew, this ain't gonna happen. Raising taxes on those benefiting disproportionately? Right now the political status quo is cutting taxes on those people, and cutting programs on those suffering. Getting to the point of just not doing harm would require a significant political shift.

IMHO, this explains why Krugman has been sounding different than before. Once one abandons the demonstrably untrue assumption of 'tax the winners, help the losers', things look quite different.

For the past couple of decades, neolibs have been pulling a giant con game - accept losses now, for future gains. And Andrew - you are a neolib. One article facing the truth doesn't a liberal make you. You've spent a lot of time cheerleading for neoliberalism. An occasional forray into reality doesn't make one a member of the reality-based community.