The Most Devastating Ad Ever Produced.
If you are a political history junkie, then you will understand when I say that this ad will rank up there with Daisy, the Bear in the Woods, and the Willie Horton ad as the most devastating political ads. The message in this ad is so simple it is amazing. This Obama campaign is good at politics. Very good.
Really, because it comes across to me as class envy. I’d love to have enough money to need to stash some of it in the Caymans.Also, from an economic perspective, the outsourcing of jobs makes the US better off.
The outsourcing of jobs makes the people who make money from that better off. The people who lost those jobs certainly are not better off and nor are their communities.
Most people don’t resent the money, they resent that they are being asked to support that money. Between losing jobs, furlough days, salary claw backs, stingy raises, increased responsibilities, fewer resources, extraordinary tax breaks and all of the other ways that folks in charge steal from the people who do the work, average Americans see their own relatively modest aspirations further and further from reach. It isn’t class warfare to locate the problem exactly where it belongs.
Chlorophil, it is only class warfare when the middle class and the poor fight back. I suppose when the rich get richer off of eliminating middle class jobs, you think that is not class warfare, right? Typical.
I was going to write about how I thought that Team Obama was handling this bain stuff awfully well, and then I saw this piece that Josh Marshall wrote. I can’t add anything to it, but this seems right:
Quite right. The question is can they maintain this level of play.
Can we please have these Democrats AFTER the election too?
Well there is that too.
Now that these ads are wreaking havoc among Republicans, how long will it be before the Empire strikes back? I think they are still rattled and gathering their forces for a counterattack. They have enough money to run whatever ads they want, but they just don’t have a message. When they do it will likely be some bullshit non-scandal they try to gin up.
And more importantly, will House and Senate Democrats jump on the coattails of this new message to win convincing majorities, or will they grimace and keep it at arm’s length like Coons/Carper/Carney/Rendell/Booker?
And I wonder if the Beltway Navelgazers dismiss it all on Sunday.
For those of us who wanted Obama to fight in the first half, this is the kind of fight we were asking for. We knew he was capable of it, but he kept it in his pocket. We knew it would work.
This is the level of play that would have passed a public option and middle-class-only tax cuts before the mid-terms, and possibly even have won the mid-terms. I hope Obama’s team can remember this game plan when the Senate is in session again.
Well, Puck, remember that he’ll have more flexibility in a second term. He even said so.
“Also, from an economic perspective, the outsourcing of jobs makes the US better off”
I would say this is debatable based upon your view of economics. Can you expand on your economic case for this.
Also along with the economics should we consider other factors? For example, if we had outsourced major manufacturing prior to WWII, would we have been better off from national security perspective?
I got chills.
“On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation” David Ricardo
See: Comparative Advantage.
Expanded by Heckscher-Ohlin
Btw. Newt was right. I never thought I’d type that.
Thank you
“On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation” David Ricardo
See: Comparative Advantage.”
Would you agree that this is one perspective not the only perspective?
I’m pretty sure there are multiple “perspectives” on every issue. That doesn’t make them all valid or even worthy of consideration. You’d be hard pressed to find an accepted theory that disputes comparative advantage.
Chlorophil: Ricardo does not negate what Cassandra wrote. There are winners and losers, even if the overall effect is positive. The anti-free-traders’ argument is that a very few win a lot, while a broad group loses a little bit each. This argument is consistent with the experience of the past 30 years, in which middle-class buying power has stagnated while the top strata have seen a great deal of wealth shifted to the top.
You don’t have to agree with the argument, but it is sound.
I didn’t address what cassandra wrote at all. at the presidential level, i believe policy needs to be made with the goal of benefitting the country as a whole. choosing specific winners and losers should be outside the president’s purview. do what’s best for the united states of america. international trade theory shows that specialization and trade makes all parties better off.
Thank you again. I wasn’t questioning the theory per se.I understand that some would even argue that Comparative Advantage as illustrated in the work referenced above understates the benefits to a country such as the United States. I just think that given other factors and considerations that the net benefits/impacts of outsourcing are debatable when it comes to the citizens of the US.
Which is why I prefaced my comment with the clause “…from an economic perspective,…”
“international trade theory shows that specialization and trade makes all parties better off.”
Theory can’t prove anything. Theories posit.
The direct experience of putting these theories into practice shows that they do not reflect reality, as not all parties are better off. You’ll have to do better than that.
The theories you champion claim a worker losing his job to China benefits because he can buy cheaper crap from China. Ricardo wrote in a world in which the worker’s loss of health insurance didn’t amount to a loss of many thousands of dollars. You can’t buy cheap health care from China.
“choosing specific winners and losers should be outside the president’s purview.”
I disagree. The “country as a whole” can benefit when only a small percentage of its people do. This is a nominal democracy. The usual formulation of the phrase is “the greatest good for the greatest number,” not “what’s best for America, even if it sucks for millions of people.”
i believe policy needs to be made with the goal of benefitting the country as a whole
So do most people. The problem is that we have the country that you can view as a set of aggregate data that appears to make everything look ok until you look at that in some detail. And that detail shows that a small group of people are doing incredibly well while the rest are treading water or losing ground. And paying through the nose to support the small group of people who are doing incredibly well. The system picks winners and losers largely because the winners can pay for the privilege of having the government put their thumb on the scale for them. So we have banks that are utterly immune from paying for their bad decisions while people who are laid off through no fault of their own are losing their houses. That is what picking winners and losers looks like.
Attempting to tailor macro policy to micro situations leaves you with 360 million different macro policies. That’s untenable.
Not really. You can have a macro policy that supports the American Middle Class (the one we had when this country had its most explosive growth period) or you can have a macro policy that supports the business class (the one that squeezes the middle class and has them foot the bill for economic development).
Let’s say we make it the law that everything consumed in America must be produced here. Who do you think that benefits?
People making spurious arguments?
Spurious arguments indeed.
Come back when you know what macro policy looks like.
Typical conservative: Rather than deal with reality, turn the original conjecture on its head, as if that removes the discussion from the world of theory.
You’re over your head, Phil. You have to understand the arguments of both sides if you want to refute one.
In other words…you see how your anti-outsourcing fervor destroys the middle class’s standard of living, and so you’ve decided to take your ball and go home rather than suffer the indignity of trying to defend such a position.
I understand, have a great day!
And that still isn’t macro-economic policy, so we understand that you need to run away fast from this conversation.
Enjoy your hiding place!
Ok, one more for Geezer.
I am a progressive. I am a Ph.D in Economics with a research focus on the econometrics of international trade.
Over my head? ok.
Many people on our side of the political spectrum are right about so many things, but a rudimentary education in economics would be a good idea for a lot of us.
See, Geezer, cassandra doesn’t even know what macroeconomics means.
And here you are pretending to something that isn’t even true. Because there is no way to construe one law as the entirety of macroeconomic policy.
I thought you were running away and hiding?
Chicago School is the triumph of ideology over common sense and experience. You can still find economists to endorse it, but that is because they have stopped being academics in favor of being highly paid whores.
That said I’m not sad that Republicans have decided that a defense of unworkable bullshit will save the Romney campaign.
OK, I’m still here. Answer the question.
“Let’s say we make it the law that everything consumed in America must be produced here. Who do you think that benefits?”
Oh, I see what your problem is now. When I said “macro policy” i was referring to macroeconomics, not “macro” as in large or all encompassing. Generally, when we talk about unemployment, we are referring to the macroeconomic principle of aggregate joblessness in the entire country, state, county…so we develop macroeconomic solutions to the problems. Now, if that solution causes cassandra to lose her job, that’s unfortunate for cassandra, but what if it helped 100k other people find a job? You can’t judge macroeconomic solutions to macroeconomic problems by looking at them from a microeconomic perspective.
So, you argue that out-sourcing benefits the hyper rich and hurts the middle class. So, I agree to consider that analysis, but only if you provide me with an analysis of the ramifications of the logical substitute, no outsourcing.
“Let’s say we make it the law that everything consumed in America must be produced here. Who do you think that benefits?”
Jason, I’m pretty sure the Austrian School has the ideology over substance award sewn up.
You don’t even have to know anything about what everyone else calls economics to be an Austrian. They treat it as more of a social psychology.
Hayek (a real economist) is probably rolling over in his grave.
Maybe voters can play hypothetical games from the decks of thier imaginary yachts? I think that is the Romney strategy. If we just stick with trickleddown a little while longer it is sure to work. We just haven’t drowned the government baby long enough.
analysis of the ramifications of the logical substitute, no outsourcing.
Um, that’s *not* the logical substitute, so thanks for playing. And this is how I know you aren’t fluent in this — there exist multiple models for policy that don’t degrade the benefits of a global economy OR the middle class workers of a country. But why would you know that?
It never occurred to me until just now, but the fight that the Republicans put up to mute the stimulus in order to fowl the economy is pretty solid proof that the Chicago School is all washed up, except for their fairly robust PR operations.
Keynsians rule.
So you realize your position on outsourcing is a loser, and you want to discuss anything but?
No. Especially since you have no idea what my position on outsourcing is.
You can keep arguing against what you want to argue against, but you certainly aren’t representing my position worth a damn. You should have stopped when you were running away, Mr. Economics.
The entire conversation was about outsourcing. Are you really going to pretend that you weren’t in a conversation about outsourcing?
This started as a conversation about the benefits of outsourcing — and your claim that it makes the US better off.
And just because you won’t read it — my argument is that outsourcing is good for some and not for most. Certainly the way it has been done here.
Here is my take. Outsourcing is a political loser.
I agree with you there, Jason. Though, relying on the economic ignorance of the voting public is a bit cynical.
Outsourcing is good for business. Until business fires or cuts the pay of all its customers, who then no longer have income to be customers anymore.
Outsourcing kills the goose that lays the golden eggs of American prosperity – the middle class.
Romney’s philosophy is that he likes the taste of goose, and he’ll be long gone before the eggs run out.
I know. Im so loving that Romney is up to his ears. As the ad says, romney is the problem as far as American workers are concerned.
BTW – I love Romneys helpless response to all of this. “no fair. Obama is trying to win.”
I love the way the audio goes all echo-y when panning across othe factories that Bain closed down when they shifted the jobs to China.
classic!
OK–so if the guy had jobs outsourced–do you really think it had has great an impact as our auto outsourcing or our tech and engineering outsourcing? He’s a business, who had to work with the laws, restraints and economies given. This is small potatoes to big industry players of outsourcing–watch out President Obama–there may be some blowback.
Oh yea…and I’m even madder Hershey’s moved to Mexico!!
jason, I agree with you regarding the quality of the ad–noticed the sound effects, too.
My only disagreement is that I think it still comes out as runner-up to Willy Horton and just ahead of the Daisies on the all time list. That might change depending on how much impact it has.
It isn’t as though iPads were made here, plants shut down and then moved to China. The outsourcing that is being litigated here is the kind that a class of American workers still haven’t recovered from. And the “restraints and economies” were about that business making more money — not about American jobs. That is the vein that is being tapped here, and it is a particularly resonant one.
And you don’t have to be a laid off worker to get it. My favorite brand of towels was made in North Carolina. The plant shut down — costs! — and a year or so later the brand returned. Where were those linens made? That is hard to tell — Vietnam or China seems to be the answer — but these linens actually cost more than when they were made here in the US and the quality is not quite as good. So who is saving money here? It isn’t me — the consumer, that’s for sure. But all of the money that they save in US wages, benefits certainly does not put any more money in my pocket.
Well then cass, what has Pres. Obama done to KEEP jobs here? Or reignite jobs COMING here? If it wasn’t for some governors making those global junkets looking for businesses we’d all be in worse shape. I know you are probably referencing more financial/intellectual capital going outta here–but let’s face it–most Americans really ARE concerned it’s their towels, chocolate bars, and cars that went to another continent. You can’t blame a 12 year trend on a guy who may have been making good business sense. But a dismal return of the American workforce hasn’t really come to fruition under a president who had a whole heckuva lot more influence than Bain Capital over the last 3 years.
At this rate, only Ben and Jerry’s is going to be US made.
You can’t blame a 12 year trend on a guy who may have been making good business sense.
Which means he should stop promising *good American jobs* then, right? Because that is the point of this ad. He hasn’t been concerned about good American jobs for years — even though he profited mightily when they went offshore. The *good business sense* you are praising here makes alot of money for the people running the Bains and leaves alot of good Americans high and dry with little to backfill it.
Actually, I don’t believe that Presidents have a ton to do with creating jobs. The kind of stuff that they can do is to create demand by spending on infrastructure and the kind of thing that creates some long term value. They can also provide incentives — direct and indirect ones. He’s signed into law a ton of direct incentives (notwithstanding the fact that they create little in terms on direct employment) and lots of agencies are working on indirect ones (a long visit over to the Dept of Commerce should be instructive).
Nonetheless, the employment is anemic and that is still because demand is weak. And it is also because those Governors making those junkets are cutting back on teachers and first responders so they can subsidize those businesses who were going to be there in the first place. Private sector employment is growing (slowly) and public sector employment is decreasing. If the public sector wasn’t laying off, the unemployment rate might be closer to 7%.
Manufacturing is recovering some and haltingly, and there were plenty of incentives for that. This Administration has a specific policy of boosting manufacturing and exports — why? Because that demand has to come from somewhere and if *we* aren’t buying stuff other people should.
The one thing that is something of a slam dunk is the government helping to increase the demand side of the equation. Fixing roads, bridges, tunnels and just expanding that infrastructure to meet demand is something that the GOP doesn’t want to see happen. But hey, building a road actually puts money into the pockets of people who can feed families, not into the pocket of someone who will stash it away in the Caymans. And, of course, a high unemployment rate only has meaning to the GOP if it helps them take over the White House, right?
I would agree that presidents have little to do w/ creating jobs–but that fail in the economic recovery act, hardly got the guy next door back to work. I think this admin. had a unique slam dunk in creating a 21st century WPA–but instead Americans received some obtuse roll-out of some program that really didn’t translate to a workforce. And then extending unemployment benefits…..? Every national park could have been facelifted, or bridge or all the infrastructure you mention…and hey the GOP is out of work too, so it’s not so one-sided.
I think this admin. had a unique slam dunk in creating a 21st century WPA
And you were not paying attention, Joanne. The programs that were rolled out by the Obama administration were ratcheted back *specifically* to get GOP votes. They weren’t going to vote for any more. But the programs that did get passed included tax cuts that didn’t do that much, but were supposed to make the GOP happy and there was alot of ARRA funded projects all over. My company hired all through the recession and it wasn’t all for government projects, either. Alternate energy projects — especially solar — got undermined by the Chinese who massively subsidized their own industry. The GOP turned that into a finger pointing exercise into how futile alternate energy is as a project. Without doing what OG American legislators used to do — fight for home grown industries. ARRA wasn’t obtuse — it wasn’t enough. And any further ARRA-type spending is obstructed by the GOP. Because boosting employment won’t help their political plans.
Good advice:
It is good, exaggerated and unfair, but well done. From a theatrical stand point it is an A. Its weakness is the facts.
The Daisy ad was made by the reaction to it from Goldwater, Romney is a much cooler customer. The Horton ad was effective because of the record. It put a name and face with a record. It wasn’t isolated and when Duke defended it, other questions came up culminating with the famous, it would be sad if my wife were raped and murdered, but justice wouldn’t be the answer line in the debate. The more effective ad was actually the revolving door of prisoners.
This ad does have the potential to have the life of the Horton campaign, but it also has the potential to be turned around against the administration. We shall see.