• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Misleading Trade Rhetoric of Trump, Clinton and Sanders

Jack Hays said:
The Constitution gives the federal government authority over trade.
Click to expand...

Um, the protection is unconstitutional to the core. It does not allow federal or state court to hear when a lawsuit is brought against our country.
 
Jack Hays said:
From the link in #16:

Increasing exports is only one of the many benefits of expanding trade. Imports are in many ways more beneficial for middle class growth. The more imports, the better, as it leads to greater consumer choices and varieties at lower prices.
As George Mason University economist Donald Boudreaux points out (PDF), “Prices are held down by more than two percent for every one-percent share in the market by imports from low-income countries like China.” Fearing cheaper imports from China, as the president does, is not a part of any middle class platform grounded in good economics. We should welcome lower prices!
Consumers aren’t the only beneficiaries of expanded trade. U.S. manufactures within our borders benefit from lower input good prices. At least half of U.S. imports are not consumer goods; they are inputs for US-based producers, according to Boudreaux.
Freeing trade reduces imported-input costs, thus reducing businesses’ production costs and promoting employment possibilities and economic growth. We should welcome U.S. business and employment growth!
Free trade also benefits the U.S. in incredibly effective ways that are harder to see. Opening trade barriers improves efficiency and innovation. It shifts workers and resources to more productive uses and allows more efficient industries to prosper. Over time, Boudreaux explains “higher wages, investment in such things as infrastructure, and a more dynamic economy that continues to create new jobs and opportunities”. Free trade also drives competitiveness which fuels long-term growth, higher quality of good and services—and still lower prices.
Click to expand...

And the over one million Americans who have lost their jobs because of these trade deals are now suppose to feel better about this rah rah BS?
 
haymarket said:
And the over one million Americans who have lost their jobs because of these trade deals are now suppose to feel better about this rah rah BS?
Click to expand...
Yes, just like how the families of dozens of Americans murdered by illegal immigrants are supposed to feel better that illegal immigrants commit few crimes overall. I just want you to be aware of all the deflections that people try to justify.
 
reinoe said:
Yes, just like how the families of dozens of Americans murdered by illegal immigrants are supposed to feel better that illegal immigrants commit few crimes overall. I just want you to be aware of all the deflections that people try to justify.
Click to expand...

Cheaper toilet tissue does not justify this

NAFTA’s Legacy: Growing U.S. Trade Deficits Cost 682,900 Jobs | Economic Policy Institute

Former President Bill Clinton claimed that NAFTA would create an “export boom to Mexico” that would create 200,000 jobs in two years and a million jobs in five years, “many more jobs than will be lost” due to rising imports. The economic logic behind his argument was clear: Trade creates new jobs in exporting industries and destroys jobs when imports replace the output of domestic firms. Fast forward 20 years and it’s clear that things didn’t work out as Clinton promised. NAFTA led to a flood of outsourcing and foreign direct investment in Mexico. U.S. imports from Mexico grew much more rapidly than exports, leading to growing trade deficits, as shown in the Figure. Jobs making cars, electronics, and apparel and other goods moved to Mexico, and job losses piled up in the United States, especially in the Midwest where those products used to be made. By 2010, trade deficits with Mexico had eliminated 682,900 good U.S. jobs, most (60.8 percent) in manufacturing.
Claims by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce that NAFTA “trade” has created millions of jobs are based on disingenuous accounting, which counts only jobs gained by exports but ignores jobs lost due to growing imports. The U.S. economy has grown in the past 20 years despite NAFTA, not because of it. Worse yet, production workers’ wages have suffered in the United States. Likewise, workers in Mexico have not seen wage growth. Job losses and wage stagnation are NAFTA’s real legacy.



See related work on Trade
See more work by Robert E. Scott


 
Last edited:
TRUMP-TRUMPERY

JS: Myth: Persistent U.S. trade deficits reflect recent free trade agreements and, says Trump, America’s clueless negotiators.

Reality: The underlying cause of U.S. trade deficits is the dollar’s special role as the world’s major international money.
Click to expand...

Right and wrong:
*Right: The dollar's "special-role" helps maintain it against its major competitor - namely the Euro. So, it's a real bonus, for the moment. The dollar is presently at 1.12 to the Euro. When the dollar costs 1.35€, we will see how that affects foreign trade.
*Wrong: Clueless-negotiators? Trump-Trumpery yet again. (The guy is so wrong on so many things, it's getting Very Boriinnnnnggggggg.)

Trump is wrong yet again because, if anything, the jobs lost in manufacturing are due to the fact that American companies themselves are taking that bull-by-the-horns. That is they are doing the "right thing" in automating as many processes as possible to keep production in the US, which necessarily means lay-offs of redundant personnel.

Meaning also this: Manpower is not the only cost-element in a business. If a key cost-element can be reduced, it should be done in order to maintain production (and therefore competitiveness) in the US. Automation helps with that objective. Which, in turn, keeps a company afloat and independent of foreign suppliers for the goods they sell. This independence is crucial the higher up the Bigness Ladder one goes.

A PERSONAL EXPERIENCE

Imagine that you are dependent upon some Chinese-supplier for a product, and though it as been faithfully supplying your order, suddenly they tell you that your order will not be fulfilled for another 3 months. Then you get the same message 3 months later. Whaddaya do? Look for another supplier who will offer a same-but-different product for which your Sales Force needs training and your After-sales Service does as well.

Been there, done that - it aint at all fun!

A SOLUTION

The solution is simple and staring us in the face. When low-skill jobs go, train the laid-off workers with the skills they need to get a better job at a better pay. No job is ever guaranteed for life anymore - not even in Detroit.

The US is creating jobs once again, and it is important that the unemployed have the right skills to access them successfully. So, if they come off a production-line, what do they know better than "the production-line"? Which is why they should be trained in the sophisticated techniques of Automated/Robotic Production.

MY POINT (How do we train them?)

We make that training Free, Gratis and For Nothing! It will be (1) much cheaper than the unemployment benefits that will need otherwise to be paid and (2) help guaranty a worker on-the-job a better pay-scale for longer.

But, how do we do that?

Germany has one of the most adept apprenticeship-training programs in the World. It works: 90/95% of its graduates find a full-time job upon graduating. The apprenticeship program can be a year long during which the student is "paid" to attend classes that alternate with OJT-work in a company. Most apprentices graduate directly from the program right into a full-time job at the company where they apprenticed!

PS: Embroidery schools in Italy employ the same apprenticeship-program. As a result, the embroidery industry in Italy now has the right talent, and the sector has reawakened after a long, deep sleep. (Many students are from China!) Meaning this: If there is a sector that is devoid of talent, then training personnel may be one way to restart that sector.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
There is a price to pay for everything and in this case the price is millions of American jobs. I guess for somebody whose only concern is toilet paper at five cents less a package - screw the American workers because I can now wipe by behind more cheaply.
Click to expand...

Are they jobs that would be feasible or desirable in a post-industrial economy? If you think we lost jobs overseas, wait until corporate teams of full-stack developers get their hands on cutting edge automation hardware. We ain't seen nothin yet.
 
Kushinator said:
Are they jobs that would be feasible or desirable in a post-industrial economy? If you think we lost jobs overseas, wait until corporate teams of full-stack developers get their hands on cutting edge automation hardware. We ain't seen nothin yet.
Click to expand...

Which is why we as a society need to speak to the reality that this post industrial economy simply has no use for tens of millions of people who used to be productive workers but for whom now there is no real future.
 
Jack Hays said:
From the link in #16:

Increasing exports is only one of the many benefits of expanding trade. Imports are in many ways more beneficial for middle class growth. The more imports, the better, as it leads to greater consumer choices and varieties at lower prices.
As George Mason University economist Donald Boudreaux points out (PDF), “Prices are held down by more than two percent for every one-percent share in the market by imports from low-income countries like China.” Fearing cheaper imports from China, as the president does, is not a part of any middle class platform grounded in good economics. We should welcome lower prices!
Consumers aren’t the only beneficiaries of expanded trade. U.S. manufactures within our borders benefit from lower input good prices. At least half of U.S. imports are not consumer goods; they are inputs for US-based producers, according to Boudreaux.
Freeing trade reduces imported-input costs, thus reducing businesses’ production costs and promoting employment possibilities and economic growth. We should welcome U.S. business and employment growth!
Free trade also benefits the U.S. in incredibly effective ways that are harder to see. Opening trade barriers improves efficiency and innovation. It shifts workers and resources to more productive uses and allows more efficient industries to prosper. Over time, Boudreaux explains “higher wages, investment in such things as infrastructure, and a more dynamic economy that continues to create new jobs and opportunities”. Free trade also drives competitiveness which fuels long-term growth, higher quality of good and services—and still lower prices.
Click to expand...

"Over time..."

Our off shoring is supposed to create new consumers for us to sell to.

In fifty to a hundred years. That's how long it's gonna take before those new consumers start to push OUR wages up again.

Nobody asked me if I wanted to lift up my fellow man by not seeing any raises for 3 to 5 generations while a relative handful get rich as gods during that time.

And that cheaper crap you laud is more often than not just that. Crap.

We had one can opener my entire childhood. I can't find one now that lasts more than a year or two. So lots of those " bargains" are just false economy. Half the price, one third as "good".
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
No where does that say it's constitutional for foreign bodies to usurp US law just because it does business with the US.
Click to expand...

Treaty provisions usually include agreed procedures for legal disputes. In any case, those who believe laws have been violated are free to file a lawsuit in US courts. There's no issue here.
 
What if...? said:
"Over time..."

Our off shoring is supposed to create new consumers for us to sell to.

In fifty to a hundred years. That's how long it's gonna take before those new consumers start to push OUR wages up again.

Nobody asked me if I wanted to lift up my fellow man by not seeing any raises for 3 to 5 generations while a relative handful get rich as gods during that time.

And that cheaper crap you laud is more often than not just that. Crap.

We had one can opener my entire childhood. I can't find one now that lasts more than a year or two. So lots of those " bargains" are just false economy. Half the price, one third as "good".
Click to expand...

The fifty-to-one hundred years timeline is all you. Nobody else touts that. I haven't needed a new can opener in years.
 
Jack Hays said:
The fifty-to-one hundred years timeline is all you. Nobody else touts that. I haven't needed a new can opener in years.
Click to expand...

It was discussed here a while back. Nobody seemed to be doubting the timeline much.

But anyhoo, so 2+ years then. Or do you still have your parents'?
 
What if...? said:
It was discussed here a while back. Nobody seemed to be doubting the timeline much.

But anyhoo, so 2+ years then. Or do you still have your parents'?
Click to expand...

There is no policy initiative with a 50-to-100 year timeline. As to our can opener, we've had it so long I can't remember when we got it.
 
Jack Hays said:
There is no policy initiative with a 50-to-100 year timeline. As to our can opener, we've had it so long I can't remember when we got it.
Click to expand...

This was an analysis of global wages and consumer and other trends.

It will be 50-100 years before the new consumption in other countries begins to put upward pressure on American wages again.

There are just that many desperate people in poor countries. When china was forced to increase the minimum wage as a consequence of their one child policy, businesses moved to Vietnam and other countries.

Eventually they will have enough money to buy stuff made here.

50-100 years.
 
What if...? said:
This was an analysis of global wages and consumer and other trends.

It will be 50-100 years before the new consumption in other countries begins to put upward pressure on American wages again.

There are just that many desperate people in poor countries. When china was forced to increase the minimum wage as a consequence of their one child policy, businesses moved to Vietnam and other countries.

Eventually they will have enough money to buy stuff made here.

50-100 years.
Click to expand...

That's going to happen no matter what we do. Free trade gives us a chance for our economy to evolve.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom