by Robert Reich:'An acquaintance from my days in the Clinton administration,

[elleng]

who has been advising Hillary, phoned this morning.

ACQUAINTANCE: “Don’t you think your blog post from last night was a bit harsh?”

ME: “Not at all. The Democratic Party is shooting itself in the foot by not officially opposing the Trans Pacific Partnership.”

ACQ: “But you know why. The Party can’t take a stand opposite the President’s. He’s the leader of the Party, for chrissake. And he wants the TPP.”

ME: “Yeah, because he sees the TPP as a way to limit China’s economic influence. So he made a Faustian bargain with big global corporations who want more protection for their foreign investments. But he’s wrong. The TPP won’t crimp China. Global corporations will give China whatever it wants to gain access to the Chinese market. The TPP ….”

ACQ: “Look, it doesn’t matter what you or I think. The President wants the TPP, and the Party isn’t going to oppose him.”

ME: “You mean Hillary won’t oppose him.”

ACQ: “Hillary won’t, and Debbie [Wasserman Schultz] won’t, and neither will Nancy [Pelosi] or Harry [Reid] or Dick [Durbin] or Chuck [Schumer].

ME: “But it’s terrible policy. And it’s awful politics. It gives Trump a battering ram. Obama won’t be president in six months. Why risk it?”

ACQ: “They don’t see much of a risk. Most Americans don’t know or care about the TPP.”

ME: “But they know big corporations are running economic policy. They think the whole system is corrupt. Believe me, Trump will use this against Hillary.”

ACQ: “He can’t. She’s inoculated. She’s come out against the TPP.”

ME: “But it’s her delegates who voted not to oppose it in the Democratic platform. Her fingerprints are all over this thing.”

ACQ: “I think you’re being too cynical.”

ME: “Actually, the real cynic is you.”'

https://www.facebook.com/RBReich/?fref=nf

[stopbush]

1. Robert Reich is just pissed his guy lost.

Last time I saw him he was having his lunch eaten by Barney Frank on the subject of "too big to fail." Reich had no understanding of the issue.

[elleng]

2. Bull shit.

Robert Reich is not pissed, and he understands perfectly, Frank's issue and all of the others. FRANK's the one who has 'recently' demonstrated unwarranted pissedness.

[stopbush]

5. Oh, I think Barney Frank knows what's in Dodd Frank

and what it means.

Robert Reich does not.

"Too big to fail" is a bullshit position. The problem in 2008 wasn't banks having too many assets, it was having too few assets, ie: becoming insolvent because they invented crap investment products that were over-leveraged.

"Too big to fail" is a position that there is something inherently wrong or evil about banks or other financial institutions having too many assets, to the point where if they become insolvent, they cannot be allowed to fail and are then bailed out by the Feds.

But Dodd Frank has safeguards in place that keep that from happening. If a bank reaches a certain point, they are taken over by the feds, their assets are liquidated, their investors are paid and they go out of business. End of the offending bank and avoidance of another financial crisis. Reich doesn't seem to understand this.

And- as Frank also points out - no one advocating a "too big to fail" position has assigned a dollar amount to what "too big" is. Typical empty rhetoric without a plan or a program to back up or institute such a policy. Lots of teeth grinding with no specifics whatsoever.

[George Eliot]

17. Blustery barney. He knows every loophole.

He didn't want to lose that cushy lobbying job. Hes no dummy. Reich keeps his cool while Barney spits and storms and monopolizes. He's lost it.

Too big? See Sherman antitrust.

[BobbyDrake]

24. Reich is the one posting apoplectic articles on HuffPo every other week.

The spitting and storming is most definitely coming from Reich's side, not Franks's.

[George II]

9. I heard that he also left Bill Clinton's administration under less than amicable terms. Sour grapes?

[stopbush]

10. There's this:

Electronic magazines have gleefully picked apart the claims of memoir writers, most notably the political confessional of former Labor Secretary Robert B. Reich, who described dramatic episodes and dialogue that did not match the record of C-Span tapes and transcripts of Washington meetings.

For his paperback version of his book, ''Locked in the Cabinet,'' Mr. Reich made revisions, explaining in a foreword that ''memory is fallible.'' As a result, the paperback no longer recalls a tense, smoky meeting with members of the National Association of Manufacturers who confronted him with curses and shouts of ''Go back to Harvard!'' Instead, he hears hisses from several locations.

http://www.nytimes.com/1998/02/24/books/now-read-true-more-less-story-publishers-authors-debate-boundaries-nonfiction.html

[BobbyDrake]

23. He's got a vineyard's worth of sour grapes, that's for sure.

I consider him a shuckster, more concerned with selling books than anything else.

[PufPuf23]

31. No way does Barnie Frank have Reich's intellect nor knowledge

of economics and how the financial world works.

[stopbush]

38. Your opinion. Not quantifiable beyond the extent

that we look at the policies advocated by both men. In that regard, Frank emerges a clear winner.

BTW - Reich was a huge supporter of NAFTA.

Interesting perspective on Reich at The People's View here: http://www.thepeoplesview.net/main/2015/3/19/is-robert-reich-a-republican-by-trade

[Tal Vez]

3. Reich is convinced that opposing the TPP in the platform is good politics.

He may be right. Or, he may be wrong.

Do I think that he is more capable than Clinton at devising an electoral strategy? No, I don't. I don't think that Reich has ever won an election. I know he ran for Governor of Massachusetts in 2002, but he lost.

So, when it comes to election strategy, I think that I will stick with Clinton.

[Snarkoleptic]

8. Reich is convinced that the TPP bad policy. He is correct.

This explainer is bit stale as it's 18 month old, so the path has changed, but the policy points remain solid.

[Tal Vez]

13. We get to do policy only if we first win the election.

Reich is claiming that opposing TPP in the platform is good politics. When it comes to politics, I trust Clinton more than Reich. After the election (if we win), there will be time for Reich's policy arguments.

[Snarkoleptic]

15. TPP is an 800# gorilla and failing to oppose it could give Herr Drumpf room to run to the left,

since he's vociferously spoken out against TPP. Add to that the fact that lots of congressional republiClowns are against it (albeit for the wrong reasons - I.E. Obama Derangement Syndrome), and we lose some of what contrasts us against them, in terms of economic issues and the middle class. ''

IMHO, it's bad policy and the politics of it give Drumpf a tool to club Democrats.

[Tal Vez]

18. When the question concerns political strategy,

I ask myself, "What do I know that Clinton doesn't know?" She will be up on that stage. Why does she need my advice to choose the best path to victory?

[Snarkoleptic]

20. I have heard a lot of chatter around the notion that the

platform must support the TPP so as to not appear to contrary to POTUS.

As public sentiment is anti-TPP, most congresscritters are anti-TPP and TPP is bad for all but the 1%, they should think twice before forcing this rubbish on us.
Lots of politicians have the inside-the-beltway-bubble mentality as they hear from more insiders and lobbyists than acaemics, labor leaders and citizens.
This is why I call and write them.

[seabeckind]

22. So the question is one of political strategy?

Look at it from a practical viewpoint from what you see everyday.

Are you the one who has profited from the "political strategies" of the last 30 years?

Not only from a monetary standpoint but also from a quality of life standpoint. You are the one living your life.

What might you know that your employee needs to know to do a good job?

[Tal Vez]

28. I just don't feel comfortable viewing Clinton as an employee

waiting for my directions as to how to win a national election. I acknowledge that she and her team are more capable than I at making those kinds of political judgements. And, the presidency requires a leader, not a follower.

My understanding is that Senator Sanders is planning to soon endorse Clinton. We will learn then whether Sanders was a leader or merely a mouthpiece for a group of voters with a narrow range of interests. Will he be capable of leading and influencing his supporters to support Clinton? Or was Senator Sanders just taking direction from his supporters all along? Maybe that is why his campaign fell short of winning the nomination.

As to the political strategies of the last 30 years, I can only say that my life was more improved by the electoral strategy of Bill Clinton than by the electoral strategy of George McGovern. I don't remember disagreeing with McGovern about anything, but the utter failure of his campaign taught me a lesson in humility at an early age. I learned in 1972 that it might be better for the country if my candidate designs a successful campaign, even if that means that he/she fails to actively campaign on each and every one of my personal political sentiments. Part of what I am asking for in a candidate is leadership, someone who can find the best path to victory.

[seabeckind]

29. Gee, here I've been confused all these years by that "gov't for the people" phrase.

If elected she will be a public servant.

She will be acting as agent for the people.

Doing those things that we, the people, cannot do for ourselves.

I have absolutely no idea what your Sanders comments are for.

Nor do I have any idea what McGovern has to do with it.

[Tal Vez]

30. I am just relating to you my personal experience.

As I said, I learned about the importance of some humility when it comes to political strategy.

From my experience, I have learned that the world and I might be better off if my favorite candidate does not always adopt my strategic advice. In fact, I have learned that the world might be better off if our leaders do not adopt all of the policies that I might adopt.

It's about humility. I am reminded of those lessons when I see amateurs who more or less presuppose that they are naturally more adept at charting the course of a campaign (or a country) than others with far more experience. Of course, that kind of thing can be seen every Sunday in the fall. It's not at all hard to find football fans who more or less presuppose that their favorite team would be more successful if they were given the responsibility to call each and every play instead of that idiot coach who has spent a lifetime learning his craft.

It's about humility. Maybe it would be strategically better for the party to adopt a platform that supports a particular treaty. Maybe it would be strategically better for that party to adopt a platform that opposes that treaty. Or, maybe it would be strategically better for that party to adopt a platform that describes in general terms the kinds of treaties that it supports and the kinds of treaties that it opposes without reference to any particular treaty.

It's about humility. I am not the one who is pretending to know which strategy would be best in terms of gaining the public's consent to lead this country's government after November. I am willing to acknowledge that there are people who have more knowledge about current public sentiment, more experience at winning elections and a better feel about which platform would best fit the candidate's overall message.

It's about humility. I expect to do well in this country no matter who wins this election. I have always known that my economic well-being and my quality of life are almost entirely my job and responsibility. Nevertheless, I believe that who wins this election will have large consequences for our entire planet. I am humble enough to admit that I may be wrong, but it is my judgment that this world will be better off with a President Clinton than a President Trump.

I trust Clinton to run her own campaign better than I could run her campaign. I want her to win and so I want to give to her a very wide range of discretion in terms of choosing which issues to emphasize and how to specifically approach those issues. I think it's important that she wins, more important than my vanity.

[seabeckind]

32. From my personal experience, I think actions after the election are important.

In fact, I think they are the reason for the election.

Otherwise we might as well rescind that whole American revolution thing where the people get to have a say in their destiny.

Nice way to throw in that canard about "personal responsibility".

[Tal Vez]

33. We don't disagree about the importance of actions after the election.

Everyone thinks that the government's actions should please them.

The only point that I am making concerns the creation of political strategy before the election. If your candidate loses, he/she isn't going to be engaged in any "actions after the election" that matter.

And, obviously people do have a say in their destiny, even the political destiny of their country. The question that I am raising is whether it really makes sense for a citizen to insist that a party include in its political platform that citizen's personal political wish list or whether it might be better for everyone involved that the platform be designed instead to serve the goal of a political victory in November.

And, as to our personal need to take responsibility for our own personal destinies, I can only tell you that it terrifies me to think that there may be people who believe that their well-being revolves entirely upon the identity of their president or what the president was saying during a campaign. It has been my experience that it is best for me to view our political environment much like I view the weather. I have t-shirts and I have an umbrella because I know that over the long run the political environment will change and I have to be ready for pretty much anything that might come along.

Anyway, I hope that you will find a way to support Clinton this November no matter what the platform might say about this or that. Right now, her job is to win this election.

[still_one]

4. So far Mr. Reich's analysis of the 2016 primaries has not been that accurate. Bernie Sanders

indicated that even if he endorsed Hillary, he has no control over what his supporters do.

President Obama is supporting the TPP. Hillary has come out against the TPP.

Sounds to me that Mr. Reich is still fighting the primary

[AntiBank]

6. “But it’s terrible policy. And it’s awful politics. It gives Trump a battering ram.

won’t be president in six months. Why risk it?”

[sangfroid]

7. Now starts the loyalty oath.

nt

[pnwmom]

11. Reich is the genius who talked Bill Clinton into NAFTA, and bragged about

how he got Bill to focus on that instead of healthcare, which was Hillary's priority.

I don't know why anyone listens to him about anything now.

Unless they're still busy fighting the primary . . . ..

[think]

12. The unions, environmental, indigenous, human rights groups and many top Democrats are opposed

to the TPP.

There are plenty of main stream articles documenting their concerns and opposition to it....

[elleng]

14. Absolutely,

and Reich has been right on this for a long time.

[George Eliot]

16. Warren thinks it's bad. She's held in high esteem.

Why be held hostage for something smart people know is bad for the country for the sake of an outgoing pres?

[HereSince1628]

21. Warren is a problem.

She gave voice to the concerns of people who were hungry, some would say desperately hungry, for a politician who would seek to protect them from the corporate barony. By which I mean those with only corporate interests, that see agreements like TPP as the neo Magna Carta upon which their Novum Ordus Seculorum will be built and controlled by their heirs.

Having avid support of voters is desirable, during an election cycle. If you can do it without making game changing promises, it may be cynical but it's bloody practical. Warren is esteemed for her capacity for voter support.

However, standing with voters and making noise about game changing actions, like voting to to sink the TPP, is not practical and won't be supported by the Barony because that risks -everything- they are seeking in neo-colonial global control through their one-world governing Landsraad.

Warren's voice is a threat. It must be neutralized or disempowered. A VP slot not worth a bucket of warm spit seems appropriate.

[seabeckind]

26. Gets her out out those pesky congressional hearings.

And if she can be replaced by a more pro-Wall Streeter...

Win, win, win!!!

[bemildred]

19. “Actually, the real cynic is you." nt

[seabeckind]

25. Trade isn't the issue. Trade control is the issue.

Who gets to decide what's in the best interest of the country? If our elected official who is entrusted with the responsibility for ensuring the short and long term benefits for all the people in the country,

hands over the authority to control our trade and then the responsibility and accountability is eliminated...

just where do the people go for recourse? It's a complicated issue. What's better for the future of the country? A Walmart supplier deciding our trade policy or the guy who used to work for a company that used to supply a product to Walmart?

Some history:

In 1999, Newell Company acquired the Rubbermaid and Graco brand names in a megamerger deal worth $5.8 billion, and later renamed the combined firm Newell Rubbermaid. This was an acquisition ten times as big as the last biggest acquisition Newell had made before. This nearly doubled the company's size, and significantly increased Newell's portfolio of brands. According to the November 10, 2004 Frontline documentary series' "Is Wal-Mart Good for America?" episode, Newell's chance to buy the Rubbermaid brand resulted from the original Rubbermaid corporation's bankruptcy and fire sale-style liquidation of its remaining assets. The original Rubbermaid had risen to enormous market share and profits by making Wal-Mart the near-sole distributor of its products — shifting away from a previous, years-long policy of diversifying its product distribution by using multiple retailers. After it had become dependent upon Wal-Mart for almost all of its sales, Rubbermaid claimed that it needed to raise the retail price of its products by a small, single-digit percentage. Rubbermaid said that this price increase was needed to keep pace with operational costs and inflation, without sacrificing its legendary product quality. Despite Rubbermaid's insistence that it couldn't afford to stay in business without it, Wal-Mart — citing its strict commitment to its "everyday low price" (EDLP) policy, and language in their contract with Rubbermaid allowing it to control pricing — refused Rubbermaid's request. Rubbermaid's business collapsed shortly thereafter. Most of its physical assets had to be sold off at discount prices to satisfy its creditors; its biggest remaining asset was the Rubbermaid brand name.

However, the merger in 1999 was dubbed as the "merger from hell" by Businessweek magazine. Newell shareholders lost 50 percent of their value in the two years following the closing and Rubbermaid shareholders lost 35 percent. In 2002, Newell wrote off $500 million in goodwill.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newell_Brands

(The frontline piece: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/walmart/)

Note some of the particulars: The increased cost to the customer was pennies per piece. The stockholders lost money. The country lost a manufacturing base.

Walmart made a bigger profit.

[KittyWampus]

27. Cool Story, Robert.

[The Second Stone]

34. The TPP is bad policy because it puts corporations above the

American judicial and legislative system.

[seabeckind]

35. It's almost like the Federal Reserve model, isn't it? n/t

[The Second Stone]

36. The Federal Reserve is run for the benefit of the American people

and the bankers seem to take that rather seriously. TPP will have non-Americans making the decision to benefit the agreement itself.

The Federal Reserve is far from perfect, but it is a better Central Bank than most countries have.

[seabeckind]

37. Whether the bankers take it seriously or not is irrelevant.

It is the same model.

Whether that model is better than other systems is also irrelevant.

The fact is that we have the people running the system who are put in the position of having 2 masters. When a situation occurs that might require them to make a decision where their decision will absolutely require that damage be done to one of the parties...

which way would they act?

I think we have seen some precedent in recent years. TARP? How about insisting on extremely low interest rates to business interests in hopes of trickledown?

Sorry.

If it's important, I've always held the position that I should never hand over that decision to anyone else. And if someone is supposed to be acting in my stead... I want some iron clad guarantees.

[The Second Stone]

39. I'd change it to putting the nation's economy first and that the gov't

owned it, but I wasn't there in 1913. What we have could be a lot better, but they don't let me decide those things. I live in a world of compromises.

Voting for Hillary Clinton is not a compromise for me, but a first choice.

[seabeckind]

40. Some things I compromise on, some I don't.

I have no idea what your comment about who you'll vote for is relevant to. If I were to hazard a guess I would suspect it's what appears to have some connection to my avatar.

The government's mandate is to operate in the best interests of the nation (defined as "the people&quot . In fact anyone in the government takes an oath to that end.

BTW, what might have been a good idea in 1913 doesn't mean it's a good idea today.

Times and circumstances change.

[The Second Stone]

41. My life opinions were formed for the most part decades ago

and are not about you. While it is true that the Federal Reserve as it stands today needs to be reformed (in my opinion) the likelihood of that happening is small and in the meantime we have to live with it. It is a less than perfect system. But it could be a lot worse.