The ever-incisive FT columnist Martin Wolf reminds us that while globalization's prize is plus-sum (everyone gains), as opposed to zero-sum (Country A gains only if Country B loses), it is not perfect sum (there are costs) nor egalitarian sum (everyone gains equally).

The biggest advantage of globalization, in Wolf's view? The spread of prosperity, including a wider distribution of innovation and bigger opportunities for profitable exchange/trade. Also valuable, although not guaranteed, Wolf says, is increased political stability in previously impoverished countries.

Globalization marches on

Further, in the globalization era's first decade, the United States can't do anything to halt the flow of ideas, and the diffusion of knowledge, skills, technology systems, and so forth, Wolf argues. Or at least the United States can't do anything decent to stop globalization.

Tuesday's primary victories in Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island gave Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-New York, about all her campaign could hope for: solid performances and a chance to close the delegate gap in the next primary, in Pennsylvania on April 22.

Still, the delegate math remains rough for the candidate seeking to become the first woman nominated for president by a major U.S. political party. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, leads in delegates, 1477-1391, including pledged superdelegates, according to a Washington Post tally, and the Clinton campaign's strategy will now be to try to close the delegate gap to 60 or so with a win in Pennsylvania. Two caucuses, Wyoming and Mississippi, occur before the Pennsylvania primary, and Sen. Obama is expected to win each and increase his delegate lead heading into Pennsylvania.

In 187-delegate Pennsylvania, the demographics favor Sen. Clinton -- she's leading in statewide polls there - - and the Clinton campaign likes its chances. Pennsylvania has a large working class -- which, along with women voters and Latin-Americans, forms the bulk of Clinton's base. If Sen. Clinton registers a solid win in Pennsylvania, she can make the case that although Sen. Obama has the delegate lead, she has won in the major states of New York, California, Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania, and probably would have won in Florida, had the delegate count been included in the Democratic Party's nominating process. That big-state coalition, and the fact that she's the candidate of the working class, would be two strong philosophical points as the campaign attempts to secure pledges from the to-date 353 un-pledged superdelegates. (Note: The number of un-pledged delegates is likely to decline by the end of the primary season on June 3.)

In an appearance on NBC's Meet The Press (NYSE: GE), political analyst James Carville cited analysis that would please a political scientist regarding the factors likely to shape the 2008 presidential election, as his prediction was consistent with the most accurate theory regarding voting behavior. (Note: Carville has provided political advise to Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign to secure the Democratic Party's 2008 nomination for president.)

Carville said that objective economic events in this election cycle favor the party out of power. Those objective economic events? The housing slump, higher energy and food costs, and anemic job growth, conditions that are "presenting real economic hardship for many Americans." (Or as Carville would put it, in the 2008 election, as in the 1992 election, "It's the economy, stupid.")

Social scientists, unlike some journalists, are reluctant to label anything a trend until they've amassed and evaluated a great deal of data often over years. A journalist can always cite a lack of information, or the crush of daily (and shorter) deadlines as a reason his/her news story did not describe reality, but if a social scientist errs in a refereed-article, well let's just say the action is not conducive to career advancement.

And that's why many social scientists are reluctant to comment on the impact of Sen. Barack Obama's (D-IL) run for the U.S. presidency: it's way too early to articulate informed conclusions that are likely to endure.

Still, that's not to say that one can't comment on developments that may -- and underscoring "may" -- be indicative of a trend. And along that line, here's what we know about the Obama candidacy regarding voting behavior:

One of the Democratic Party's worst nightmares regarding the 2008 presidential election is coming to fruition: Sen. John McCain (R-Arizona) will be the Republican Party's nominee.

Some investors / readers may argue that as a moderate, somewhat rebellious Republican and an advocate of the Iraq War, McCain will be a fairly easy candidate for the Democrats to oppose. Well, to borrow one of Vice President Gore's renowned, low-key allusions, Now, I can see you really haven't researched the matter thoroughly.

True, the short-term forces -- issues -- are against McCain. The economy is barely growing, or is already in a recession, and the Iraq War continues with little certainty regarding its outcome or ultimate impact. Further, because there's a Republican in the White House, the American people -- if decades of political science survey research mean anything -- will blame the party in power for not having solved the above problems, and this will take votes away from McCain.

A colleague based in Washington, D.C. recalled that moment in the 1960 presidential campaign when Kennedy's campaign staff knew that John F. Kennedy would defeat Richard Nixon. It occurred that fall, just before their first televised debate -- the first presidential debate ever broadcast on television.

The then Sen. Kennedy, a Democrat, was fresh from a vacation at the Kennedy Compound at Hyannis on Cape Cod, Massachusetts. He was bronzed from days spent sailing in the sun, and he was well rested. He looked like a Greek sculpture.

Conversely, the then Vice President Nixon, a Republican, looked ashen, tomb-stone white, with deep-set eyes from weeks of campaigning.

And as is the norm before a show, the TV producer asked Kennedy if he wanted some make-up.

"Nah, I don't want any make-up," Kennedy said, and motioned off the make-up man with his hand.

Nixon, perhaps trying to match Kennedy, and despite his sweaty face, refused make-up, as well.

It is not a revelation to state that Sen. Hillary Clinton's (D-New York) campaign has stumbled and is reeling.

It would be a revelation to argue that despite all of the advantages that public policy experience, party apparatus, and political contributions affords, Hillary Clinton could lose the 2008 Democratic Party Nomination, and to an upstart at that.

When one is trained in public policy and economics, you tend to view the world, at least the economic and political worlds, through a social science prism, and with that lens one can detect three Clinton campaign errors that have led to the current nomination process state-of-things.

The economy
To-date, the Clinton campaign has failed to emphasize Clinton's biggest strength: how she would fix an ailing U.S. economy. Clinton has at least five policy proposals that speak directly to what many Americans need economically; she'll have to emphasize these to secure the nomination.

The U.S. economy will grow at a minuscule rate in Q1 2008 and the odds of a recession in 2008 stand at 50/50, according to a survey of economists conducted by Bloomberg News.

The 62-economist survey expects the world's largest economy to grow just 0.5% in Q1 2008, Bloomberg News reported. Meanwhile, the 2008 recession probability was increased to 50%, up from 40% in January 2008.

Economist Steve Affinito, who did not partake in the survey, told BloggingStocks Friday that 2008 looks like it will be the roughest election year, from an economic standpoint, since 1992.

Bearish, bullish forces

"We've got major contraction forces in the housing slump, the credit market crunch, and in high oil prices. Any one of those could cut growth substantially. Taken together, they can flatten economic activity," Affinito said. "On the stimulus side, we have 225 basis points of Fed rate decreases and a $168 billion fiscal stimulus package, so 2008 is shaping up to be a battle royal, economically speaking."

On Super Tuesday, as the United States approaches its first $1 billion election, the chorus sounds a familiar refrain.

The conventional wisdom regarding campaign spending -- that the U.S. is spending too much on campaigns, or that certain groups have too much influence -- reminds me of what Mark Twain said about the the public's attitude toward the weather: "Everybody complains about the weather, but no one ever seems to be able to do something about it."

While some would argue that campaign spending is not a problem, for the sake of argument let's assume that the conventional wisdom on campaign spending is valid. The next logical question would be, what changes could and should we make to the current campaign spending laws?

Limits on campaign spending? The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that Congress and regulators can do this, but only up to a degree, as beyond a certain point it violates the First Amendment's free speech right.

Fresh from several disappointing early voting contests, Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani announced a plan to cut corporate business taxes from 35% to 25% as a way of stimulating the economy. It is difficult to know whether this is a serious policy issue for Giuliani or merely an attempt to get some attention to help his presidential campaign. But current Republican front runner Senator John McCain has also jumped on board Giuliani's proposal, so perhaps the issue will gain brief traction as the nomination circus continues.

Corporate tax cuts are not an automatic economic booster. In theory, reducing corporate tax rates leads to more productive corporate activity, which leads to higher profits. This in turn should lead to higher profits resulting, down the road, in higher tax revenues. Lower taxes on the front end in order to get back higher tax revenues in the longer term. Except that often, the longer term necessitates its own tax manipulations.

Reducing corporate taxes may seem like a good idea to a candidate looking for industry support. But at a time when some American companies are notching record profits and American consumers are being slammed with rising energy and fuel prices, tax breaks for corporations that are outsourcing or shedding jobs right and left will not earn a candidate many votes. Ultimately, it's voters who pull the lever.

Delta Air Lines (NYSE: DAL) is said to be seriously considering a merger with either Northwest Airlines or United Airline's parent UAL Corp, people close to the matter say, The Wall Street Journal reported Friday.

According to the Journal, Delta is expected to give CEO Richard Anderson permission to pursue formal mergers talks with both Northwest and United, a source with knowledge of the matter said.

Delta shares were down 7 cents to $15.91, while Northwest (NYSE: NWS) declined 22 cents to $15.63, and United (NYSE: UAUA) fell 59 cents to $31.60 amid a broad market sell-off Friday afternoon.

Too many carriers

Many sector analysts believe the U.S. market has too many carriers, and could benefit from two or even three mergers or takeovers. American Airlines (NYSE: AMR) is the largest carrier by traffic, followed by United, Delta, Continental (NYSE: CAL) and Northwest.

The Republican Party is supposed to be looking out for the interests of investors. But after Bush-appointed SEC Chairman Christopher Cox supported a new rule that insulates entrenched management from dissident shareholders, we may have to look elsewhere.

John Edwards seems like an unlikely friend of the small investor, but his editorial in today's (subscription required) Wall Street Journal suggests otherwise:

...Our companies should be run for the benefit of workers and shareholders as well as insiders. Today, too many companies in America are putting far too much of their earnings into excessive CEO and executive pay, when this money could be going to increased worker salaries, better benefits and investments in plants and equipment.

As president, I will immediately cap untaxed deferred compensation for executives. I will also give shareholders new rights and responsibilities so that they can call shareholder meetings, remove directors who aren't acting responsibly, and have a say on executive pay.

Regardless of how you feel about putting a cap on untaxed, deferred compensation -- I myself wonder whether that would really do anything to curb excessive pay, and think it might actually exacerbate the problem -- it's nice to see a candidate who wants to talk about what many of us see as one of the greatest threats to capitalism: lack of accountability for corporate executives and directors.

Edwards may not be the right guy to fix the problem, but this is definitely an issue that deserves a lot more discussion.

What does the coming year hold for the economy? BloggingStocks' Peter Cohan considers five issues that will factor heavily in 2008.

2008 is an election year in the U.S., which means that nothing significant is likely to change in terms of government policy. The one wild card in that assessment is whether the Bush administration will go to war in Iran – or take some other radical policy move -- since it knows it has very little time left.

Assuming nothing significant changes, the biggest economic story of 2008 is likely to be the repercussions from the deepened collapse of the housing market and all the credit markets that plunge in its wake. There are no firewalls in place to keep the drop in CDO, MBS, and SIV values from spreading to the entire global financial system.

The question is whether the U.S. policymakers will be able to do anything effective to stop the damage.

Peter Cohan is President of Peter S. Cohan & Associates. He also teaches management at Babson College and edits The Cohan Letter.

While the race for Democratic nomination for president seems to be 67% wrapped up with Hillary Clinton getting the nomination, the Republican nomination is far from settled. According to Intrade.com, a betting site where you can bet on the outcome of the elections, Mike Huckabee has been gaining a lot of ground recently.

As a stock analyst, I can recognize a healthy, up-trending chart, and support for Huckabee has taken off in the last two months, from a 3% chance of the Republican nomination to a 12% chance of the nomination.

Sources close to CNN broadcast journalist/commentator Lou Dobbs said he is seriously considering a run for the U.S. presidency in 2008, The Wall Street Journal reported.

Dobbs, who formerly hosted CNN's MoneyLine business news show and currently hosts CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight has seen both his ratings and his name recognition rise after his work's focus turned away from news reporting and anchoring and toward political and economic commentary.

Dobbs, an independent, displays an ideology and a political world view that many have characterized as a modified hybrid of Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan -- i.e. populism combined with strong views against free trade (or current trade frameworks) and against illegal immigration.

Dobbs is a frequent critic of both the Democratic and Republican parties, which he argues don't represent the interests of the typical person or the middle class. His show's website describes him as "an independent populist and the leading media advocate for working men and women, their families, our middle class and the American way of life."

Political Analysis: Unless there's a tidal wave of discontent in the American electorate not tallied by pollsters, Dobbs, as a third-party candidate or as an Independent, has virtually no chance of being elected president of the United States. Although his name recognition is rising and he has a positive public image, it's highly unlikely Dobbs could assemble the campaign staff and money required to compete effectively against Democratic and Republican parties' nominees.

However, this is not to say that Dobbs could not broaden the discourse, i.e. "force the discussion of less-publicized issues" during a debate. Dobbs could accomplish this, but it must be emphasized that making points in a debate is a much easier task than receiving enough votes to win the electoral college vote for U.S. president.