Like the U.S. Business Industrial Council. Marc Cooper on Radio Nation
had on one of their ideologues.
http://www.opensecrets.org/lobbyists/98profiles/24303.htm
1998 DATA* (1997 DATA ALSO AVAILABLE)
US Business & Industrial Council
Total Lobbying Expenditures: $60,000
Lobbying Firms Hired by US Business & Industrial Council:
Lobbying Firm Hired Amount Spent Lobbyist Subsidiary (lobbied for)
[In-house lobbyists for US Business & Industrial Council] [N/A] Kearns,
Kevin L
Wood, Lloyd III
-
* This data was compiled using 1998 lobby disclosure reports and amendments
filed under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995. Feel free to distribute
or cite this material, but please credit the Center for Responsive Politics.
http://www.google.com/search?q=U.S.+Business+Industrial+Council
Michael Pugliese
P.S. These folks be more my type of businessmen...
... American Industrial Hemp Council's Board of Directors has ... mail: -
describe your business
in 50 words ... Industrial Hemp Brochure ... once again allowing US farmers
to ...
Description: The comprehensive information source for the North American
hemp industry. Learn all about industrial...
Category: Society > Issues > Business > Agriculture > Industrial Hemp
www.naihc.org/
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2001 9:06 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:15288] wynne godley
>
>
> >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/17/01 07:11PM >>>
>
>
>
> Anyway, I think it's a big mistake to generalize from the 1930
Hawley-Smoot
> tariff to current-day issues. (It's quite common for the "free trade
> vulgaris" crowd -- e.g., Krugman -- to fall for this trap.) The GATT (now
> called the WTO) is aimed specifically at preventing trade wars of the type
> that H-S spurred. In any event, the world political economy has changed,
> undermining the political basis for "protectionism" (as I argue later on
in
> the paper that Mark quotes). When the components of a car are imported for
> assembly in the U.S., that makes even the direct benefits of protection
> more ambiguous. Further, the power of the main political forces for
> protection has faded, at least in the U.S.: these are nationally-oriented
> manufacturing, narrow-minded labor unions, and domestic agriculture. As I
> further argue in the paper, these days it's not protection that encourages
> depression as much as a world-wide process of competitive austerity and
> export promotion encouraged by the US and its IMF and World Bank and by
the
> competition to attract capital investment by offering low wages, pliable
> work-forces, etc.
>
> ((((((((
>
> CB: What is competitive austerity ? Is it competition between governments
to see who can cut social spending and public enterprise the most ? Is the
difference between this and the 1930 situation that there weren't welfare
state institutions as much in place then as in the period out of which
competitive austerity is taking us now ?
>
> (((((
>
>
> It's important to realize that in my full story of the origins of the
Great
> Depression (http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/Faculty/JDevine/depr/Depr.html.),
the
> H-S tariff plays only a small role. (It's sort of like Jar Jar's role in
> Star Wars Episode I: bad but ultimately unimportant. When I see the Jar
> Jar-free version of SW Ep I, I'm sure it will be just as bad as the
> original.) Further, it was a _product_ of an international political
> economy centering on aggressive nation-state-to-nation-state competition
of
> a sort we don't see in the rich capitalist world these days. It also hit a
> world economy that was ready to fall. It should also remembered that the
> early-1920s US tariff _promoted_ US prosperity, unlike H-S. Back then,
BTW,
> it was Republicans, not Democrats, who liked tariffs. Protection was the
> main Republican activist economic policy.
>
> ((((((
>
> CB: Would Bush be going back to the old Republican trend if he protects
the U.S. steel industry ?
>
> (((((((
>
>
>
> I'm not big into protectionism: it can create jobs in one country by
taking
> jobs away from workers in another. Or -- in the VERY exceptional case of a
> H-S tariff -- it can destroy jobs for both.
>
> Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
>
