Rudy Guiliani is a free market trader, and he will be the next President. The Dems will shoot themselves in the foot, as usual.
Americans will not trust a Hillary, Obama, or John Edwards
with national security, regardless of Iraq. Don't believe the hype, Rudy in a walk-over.

Ed Engels, New York,

Mr. Baker is a little hard on Democrats and Jimmy Carter in particular when it comes to economic policies. Carter started the deregulation in transportation in the 1970s. John Kennedy pushed GATT. FDR & Truman understood the problems of the 1930s and led the creation of more open trade after WW II. The current trend of protectionism in the Democratic Party is a departure from its more enlightened past

Bill Huneke, Herndon, Virginia USA

A Democratic president will bring English socialism to America ... Ouch! Hey, why don't you Brits just take Hillary off our hands and save us all a big headache?
Dave, San Diego, California USA
***********************
Sorry, we have enough problems recycling rubbish here, why add to them?

phil, London, uk

There is no turning back from a global economy, but there is the option of making that economy work for all and not just the hypercapitalists. Too many democrats in the past have take their cue from the same people who benefit from what we have had the last eight years, and possibly twelve. What we need is someone who will seek to protect workers' rights, the environment, to eliminate corruption, and to be a world partner in eliminating poverty. Why does a corporate CEO have to make $400 million, when he can live very well with $10 million. If we really want to change our nation, we all have to live more modestly and not just those who have no other option.

Ignacio M. Garcia, Provo, Utha

Give us a break Sam! socialist economies shrink and go backwards to equal poverty. capitalist societies expand to unequal wealth. Republican states prosper Democratic states lose people jobs and house seats. If Democrats have successful economic policies it is because they have kept republican policies. Like Clinton keeping Reaganomics and reappointing Greenspan.

Bill, Norcross, USA,Georgia

One can be but amazed at the refusal by many to admit that the last five years have been a period of great economic growth in the United States. Of course, those at the top have received the far greatest share of the economic pie, but that is normal and natural.
After all, it is foolish beyond belief to hope that a successful economic system can equalize incomes. Nor can a successful economic system guarantee that all will benefit, for the modern economy is too fluid to hope that no one will be left behind.
The question, then, is not the relative division of shares but the adequacy of compensation regardless of position.

augustus goddard, atlanta, ga

The best outcome would likely to be to have Dem control of Congress and Republican control of the White House. This way we are sure to have a government that does not drift to far to the left or right.

Rick, Syosset, NY

American voters need to embrace our money-driven economy and society. As the world's greatest consumer market, even regions like California can vote with its pocketbook and not purchase Toyotas or any other commodity that deprives us of good jobs. Neither Democrats or Republicans understand that policy nor advocate it.

Bruce Daniels, Running Springs, CA, USA

Sir:
Currently, global markets , across many asset categories , are priced to perfection and are supported by a fundamental, underlying expectation: the continuation "of open markets and global economic integration".

If, within the U.S and elsewhere, perception about a likely change of direction, towards redistribution, protectionism and/or uncompetitive regulatory measures , gathers momentum, the global financial markets will respond by selling off in anticipation of such changes.

Indeed, the going may get tough long before the November 2008 election takes place .

Enrique Hugo Bargioni
Miami Beach, Fla

Enrique Hugo Bargioni, Miami Beach , Florida, USA

By reading the comments above, no one has had a course in economics, let alone a degree. The unemployment rate is at all time lows (that means everyone, not just the "boys"), home ownership is at an all time high, minority home ownership is at an all time high, inflation is still in check, tax revenues are at an all time high (yes, that means more than ever) the budget deficit has shrunk from about 3% od GDP to a little over 1% of GDP (a very managable amount), the tax breaks help the average American more on a percentage basis than the "rich", the top 1% of American wage earners pay 36.89% of all the taxes, the top 25% of American wage earners pay 84.6% of all taxes and the top 50% of American wage earners pay 96.7% of all the taxes. That means 50% of American wage earners pay only 3.3% of the taxes! As a percentage of what gets paid, the % that higher wage earners pay actually went up slightly and thos of lower earners went down. Liberals, never let the facts ruin their story!

John Miller, Olathe, USA

SIR :
OUR unions do not have the power to push anyone on
economic issues. Middle class voters have seen not only
jop loss but loss of health care,benifts and now home values.
Most of the FREE TRADE benifits are not shared by the
lower and middle class.Could it be time we played by the same rule as the world.

dave finnell, elmira, ny

None of the Democrats running for President have any new ideas whatsoever. The one constant is class politics, plain and simple. The Democrats always want to take from the so-called 'rich' and give to those they consider to be have-nots. Other than a profound hatred of Bush on all levels, the Democrats have nothing to offer. Why Americans would want to vote for higher taxes, isolationist foreign policy, weak defense, and an explosion of new entitlements is beyond comprehension. Old wine in new bottles is not what American needs in 2008.

Mike Garfield, Jacksonville, USA/Florida

We in the U.S. have always called it the "Democrat" Party. It's only revisionists who want to attempt to imply democratic principles to the left-wing controlling arm of the Democrat Party which is the contemporary version of the old Communist Party of the United States.

Jim, Roscoe, USA

It cannot get any worse, Mr. Schoolsky? How about international humiliation at the hands of a third world terror state, with high unempolyment and high inflation. Yes, just like Jimmy Carter. Mr. Bush is far from perfect, but on the economy he has many accomplishments that will make him look very good in retrospect if the Dems get control and flush the economy down the toilet.

Hannah Katz, Los Angeles, California

The 1996 Welfare Reform was not Clinton's to brag about. If you look at history, he vetoed it and the Republican controlled Congress over-rode his veto.

Jesse, Des Moines, Iowa

Tax cuts worked. Every economist agreed that the economy was cooling when Clinton left office. We have been throught 9-11, how many hurricanes in Florida. A devastating hurricane in New Orleans all of which sucked billions, that's billions of dollars out of the economy. Despite all that adversity, and a war, the DOW is at an alltime high and the US economy is still the envy of the world. Now, we want the Libs to take over, raise taxes, and go into isolationism? Give me a break.

jc, jerome, idaho

Please remind Mr Baker that we here in America have no 'Democrat' party. Kindly refer to the Democratic party by its proper name, not the denigrating term pushed by the current administration.
As the months wind down on the current debacle in our nation's capital we may all look forward to a DEMOCRATIC administration.

William Crawford, Emmaus, USA/PA

Of course they won't protect capitalistic freedom. The Democrats are Liberals and Liberals want control over everything in goverment. If one of them wins(and I'm not as sure as you seem to be that will happen) and they try protectionist policies, the economic chao's they create will keep them out of the White House for 16 years.....or more.

Joshua Haught, Buckeye/Oxford, Arizona, U.S./ U.K.

The current govt has spent a lot of time protecting the freedom of modern capitalism - unfortunately that has mostly translated as jobs for their boys, hypercapitalism, and widening social inequalities in the USA. Not to mention the deficit, which will create fiscal havoc for any of the hapless parties that will run the USA from 2008, Republican or Democrat. The tax cuts that Bush has introduced have done nothing for the average American, while widening the deficit still further.

It's strange that Gerard Baker is so worried about the economic policies of any future Democrat presidency when the Republican presidency has been such an unmitigated economic disaster for the average working person. Since 2001, the current govt in the USA has been skilled at producing the illusion of wealth (e.g. the housing boom) but the foundations to this are shaky. Corporate profits might be high but productivity and investment are not and that will pose huge problems in the future. It's a bad legacy.

MB, Edinburgh,

As an American, I can put it very simply. After the last almost seven years of Bush, the Iraq War, failed foreign policy, kissing the behind of industry, and loss of civil rights, it would be impossible to go anywhere but up. It can't be any worse.

Sam Schoolsky, Lake Charles, LA, USA

A Democratic president will bring English socialism to America ... Ouch! Hey, why don't you Brits just take Hillary off our hands and save us all a big headache?

Dave, San Diego, California USA

The current candidates from both the Democrats and Republicans are not inspiring and the prospect of Democrat control of both congress and the White House is a nightmare.

One reason that Gerard offered in praise for Clinton, welfare reform, was passed because Clinton "stole" it from the GOP for the 96 election (by which time the Dems no longer controlled congress).

So the last time it was Dems all the way was during the awful Carter years - like I said, a nightmare for '08 onwards if it happens again.

Stan(expat), USA, USA

I agree, the high tide of globalisation and liberalism may be passing at this very instance. US elections tend to run in roughly 36 years cycles: republican 1896-1932; Democrat (largely)1932-.1968; Republican (largely) 1968-2004.

Economic policy cycles have tended to fllow the same pattern with liberalisation beginning tentatively under Carter (yes) and getting its real impetus under Reagan. under Bush II policy has collapsed into a disgusting money grab by vested monied interests so a swing back to the centre is overdue. A return to the regulation and control of the 1960s and 70s is not on the card however, unless there is a financial collapse, caused by some exogenous and unpredictable event.,

oldasiahand, Hong Kong,

Well said!

DB, akron, United states/ohio

I must say that this is a great country but we need to step back and look what we are leaving for our children an our children's children. global warming, loss of jobs, more poverty, over priced fuel in all areas,skyrocketing inflation, with no end in site, fuel prices leading to mist of the inflation. Tranportation of domestic goods. We need more tarriffs on imported goods and put the money to good use in the private sector to create new higher paying jobs for the less fortunate. This in turn creates more tax base in the federal gov. Help create more alternative fuels, and less independence on foreign oil. Less caos around the world mostly in the oil producing countries. Keep more of our tax money here in the states instead of giving it away to countries that would rather us get out of their countries and live them alone to live their lives with out all the turmoil.

Wally, Coffeyville, Ks.

"We used to have it all" [News review]
I think the major problem is House Price inflation.
Successive governments have been frightened to tackle this issue by say removing the green belt & capital gains tax exemption and offering that to encourage investment insustainable energy technology
Germany, with no property inflation, where manufacturing exports have risen 100% in the past 10 years to the far east the UK has matched this in terms of invisible exports but eventually we will be totally dependent on the city .
German engineering is respected worldwide and investment in education, trade apprentices etc attracts the best brains whereas in the UK the top graduates are sucked into the city.
Ultimately property is NOT a sustaining investment compared to say energy engineering and a highly geared work force is vulnerable to recession.

RICHARD DONALDSON, WINDSOR, UK

Many politicians over rthe whole world are saying lots of things to be elected, but are doing lots of other things once they made it.

Freddy de Graeve, gent, Belgium

good point on the use of the word "democrat" as opposed to "democratic" ....the new yorker has run a good article on the increasing use of "democrat" as an adjective (principally by the neocons)

as for protectionism..... sure tighten up the economy, keep jobs in America....just as long as you are willing to drive cars that are worse, pay more for your clothes and put up with higher unemployment that wage inflation will generate....

billy, dublin,

Carleen, the US continues to enjoy rapid economic growth and high wages and salaries. It still needs to import huge numbers of immigrants every year just to fil all the jobs that are going. Don't throw this away to protect old and badly-run corporations in Detroit etc. Protectionism didn't work for Herbert Hoover and it wouldn't work today.

Frank Upton, Solihull,

The adjective is "Democratic," not "Democrat." If you look at the actual record, rather than the rhetoric, you will find that the Democrats have generally been more open to adopting free trade policies than the Republicans, who talk a good game but are careful to protect their own little niches. NAFTA was ratified under Clinton; under Bush, protectionist policies have tried to protect American steel and paper and have effectively blocked efforts to open markets to South American sugar and orange juice. The last paragraph of this column is mere dogmatism -- the author doesn't have the slightest real idea as to how the next Democratic president would approach the issue.

Hugh Gordon, Ardmore, Pennsylvania

As an American who is watching the jobs that sustained the vast middle class in America disappear as corporations are moving their operations to overseas locations with cheap labor, cheaper materials, and no restrictions in operations due to the considerations of the environment or fair labor standards, I find it difficult to see the benefits of free trade markets. Like water seeking its own level, America's affluence is pouring overseas, with no care for the final result, it seems. Is it any wonder we're becoming protectionist?

Carleen Stephens, Battle Ground, USA/Washington

All true. You missed the turmoil that will come in industrial relations when the union bosses get to stretch out, not to mention the endless chain of NGO's with their zealotry for anything except economic growth.

Michael Kudla, Franklin, USA/NC