View Poll Results: Do you think USA was better off Pre-NAFTA?

Voters
25. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    15 60.00%
  • No

    10 40.00%
Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 62

Thread: Trans-Pacific Partnership - the Expanded NAFTA

  1. #31
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,107

    Re: Trans-Pacific Partnership - the Expanded NAFTA

    Quote Originally Posted by a351 View Post
    Anyhow, the answer to the poll is no. What is often conveniently blamed on trade, sinister foreigners and corporate entities is largely a product of technological advances and the natural flow of unskilled jobs to unskilled populaces. A wonderful example of this disconnect is China's loss of approx 25 million manufacturing jobs in the first decade of its implementation, yet most will tell you of America's great suffering at the hands of the Chinese during said period. The efficiency and downward pressure on prices as a result of trade outweighs the short term effects that so many point to as evidence of failure.
    All Excellent Points. I would like to add that when you count only "jobs lost" but not "jobs added", as the OP and other detractors try to do, they are being fundamentally dishonest (if not intentionally by someone who repeats it, then by those who gave them the numbers). If we lose 200,000 manufacturing jobs but add 1.2 million jobs, we haven't lost jobs, we've gained jobs.
    Last edited by cpwill; 01-08-14 at 12:17 PM.

  2. #32
    Sage
    Montecresto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    03-13-16 @ 11:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,561

    Re: Trans-Pacific Partnership - the Expanded NAFTA

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Sure. And who deserves those decent jobs. Well.... you know. "us". Not.... you know.... all those foreigners....

    It's a similar story with the "overpopulation" crowd, where, conveniently, all the countries most in need of reducing their populace are always... well... you know conveniently brown....
    I don't see where that has anything to do with those Americans that are pissed off about trade deals that have moved jobs out of the country leaving us with high unemployment and very little mfg. jobs. As we speak there's a debate in Washington as to whether or not to extend unemployment, and we're talking about TPP. It doesn't matter what countries or what race of people's American jobs have gone to, they're gone.

  3. #33
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,107

    Re: Trans-Pacific Partnership - the Expanded NAFTA

    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    I don't see where that has anything to do with those Americans that are pissed off about trade deals that have moved jobs out of the country leaving us with high unemployment and very little mfg. jobs
    Trade deals didn't leave us with high unemployment and very little mfg jobs. Large keynesian projects following a fiscal crises did that. Unemployment dropped to newer and newer lows after NAFTA. That's why the OP has to constantly bait-and-switch around the unfortunate fact that all the predictions of net job loss for Americans proved false.


    TPP is a fantastic policy, both for economic and security reasons, and we need to be offering other nations as many incentives as possible to join, not engaging in protectionism at home.

    As we speak there's a debate in Washington as to whether or not to extend unemployment, and we're talking about TPP.
    Yup. Expanding free trade is a great way to get the economy moving again, and create new jobs, obviating the need for extended and increased unemployment costs.

  4. #34
    Sage
    Gimmesometruth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    US Southwest
    Last Seen
    09-13-17 @ 10:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    22,405

    Re: Trans-Pacific Partnership - the Expanded NAFTA

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Trade deals didn't leave us with high unemployment and very little mfg jobs. Large keynesian projects following a fiscal crises did that. Unemployment dropped to newer and newer lows after NAFTA. That's why the OP has to constantly bait-and-switch around the unfortunate fact that all the predictions of net job loss for Americans proved false.


    TPP is a fantastic policy, both for economic and security reasons, and we need to be offering other nations as many incentives as possible to join, not engaging in protectionism at home.



    Yup. Expanding free trade is a great way to get the economy moving again, and create new jobs, obviating the need for extended and increased unemployment costs.
    Uh....US manufacturing collapsed after NAFTA.
    Quote Originally Posted by trouble13 View Post
    If you wanna know why Trumpsters are ignoring you its for the same reason you ignored the KKKs complaints about Obama.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moderate Right View Post
    When it comes down to it, all facts are cherry picked.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    He didn't say it didn't make sense. He said it is complete nonsense.

  5. #35
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,107

    Re: Trans-Pacific Partnership - the Expanded NAFTA

    Quote Originally Posted by Gimmesometruth View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill
    Trade deals didn't leave us with high unemployment and very little mfg jobs. Large keynesian projects following a fiscal crises did that. Unemployment dropped to newer and newer lows after NAFTA. That's why the OP has to constantly bait-and-switch around the unfortunate fact that all the predictions of net job loss for Americans proved false.
    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...."NAFTA was "Keynesian""

    Good grief.


    I'm just going to keep this quoted, and let folks marvel at your ability to distinguish between subjects and the difference between "high" and "low".

  6. #36
    Sage
    Gimmesometruth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    US Southwest
    Last Seen
    09-13-17 @ 10:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    22,405

    Re: Trans-Pacific Partnership - the Expanded NAFTA

    Quote Originally Posted by Gimmesometruth View Post
    Uh....US manufacturing collapsed after NAFTA.
    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post


    I'm just going to keep this quoted, and let folks marvel at your ability to distinguish between subjects and the difference between "high" and "low".
    Quote Originally Posted by trouble13 View Post
    If you wanna know why Trumpsters are ignoring you its for the same reason you ignored the KKKs complaints about Obama.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moderate Right View Post
    When it comes down to it, all facts are cherry picked.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    He didn't say it didn't make sense. He said it is complete nonsense.

  7. #37
    Sage
    Gimmesometruth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    US Southwest
    Last Seen
    09-13-17 @ 10:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    22,405

    Re: Trans-Pacific Partnership - the Expanded NAFTA

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Unemployment dropped to newer and newer lows after NAFTA.
    As of 2010, U.S. trade deficits with Mexico totaling $97.2 billion had displaced 682,900 U.S. jobs. Of those jobs, 116,400 are likely economy-wide job losses because they were displaced between 2007 and 2010, when the U.S. labor market was severely depressed.

    Prominent economists and U.S. government officials predicted that the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) would lead to growing trade surpluses with Mexico and that hundreds of thousands of jobs would be gained (Hufbauer and Schott 1993; President Clinton 1993). The evidence shows that the predicted surpluses in the wake of NAFTA’s enactment in 1994 did not materialize, for reasons outlined in this briefing paper. However, congressional leaders and administration officials now make nearly identical claims about export growth and job creation under the proposed U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement (KORUS FTA).

    Abstract promises about increased jobs and exports misrepresent the real overall effects of trade on the U.S. economy. Trade both creates and destroys jobs. While exports tend to support domestic employment, imports lead to job displacement: As imports are substituted for domestically produced goods, production that supports domestic jobs falls, displacing existing jobs and preventing new job creation.

    Growing trade deficits almost always result in growing trade-related job displacement. Like NAFTA, the KORUS FTA will likely result in growing trade deficits and hence U.S. job displacement, not economy-wide job growth.

    Heading South: U.S.-Mexico trade and job displacement after NAFTA | Economic Policy Institute
    Quote Originally Posted by trouble13 View Post
    If you wanna know why Trumpsters are ignoring you its for the same reason you ignored the KKKs complaints about Obama.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moderate Right View Post
    When it comes down to it, all facts are cherry picked.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    He didn't say it didn't make sense. He said it is complete nonsense.

  8. #38
    Gradualist

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    09-25-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    34,949
    Blog Entries
    6

    Re: Trans-Pacific Partnership - the Expanded NAFTA

    Ask 1 million American workers, and millions of Mexican workers how NAFTA worked out for them.


  9. #39
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,107

    Re: Trans-Pacific Partnership - the Expanded NAFTA

    Quote Originally Posted by Gimmesometruth View Post
    [IMG]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-3semshu6fpU/TfN5yDp8mbI/AAAAAAAAPZA/EguC-LcsUWA/s1600/mfgfarm.jpg[IMG]
    That's a cute strawman . Is that your attempt to pivot from your confusion when you thought I had described NAFTA as a Keynesian project?
    Last edited by cpwill; 01-09-14 at 01:03 AM.

  10. #40
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,107

    Re: Trans-Pacific Partnership - the Expanded NAFTA

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemSocialist View Post
    Ask 1 million American workers, and millions of Mexican workers how NAFTA worked out for them.
    are you talking about the ones that got hired given that unemployment went down?



    but...but...but... tha't's impossible - look at all the deficit equaling so many jobs etc.....


    Well, grasshopper, that's because measuring increased trade as straight replacement job loss is idiotic. A "trade deficit" means that you convinced another country to give you stuff in return for little pieces off paper.


    NAFTA came into effect on Jan 1 1994:



    And unemployment just kept dropping right up until the tech bubble popped; and even then "spiked" back up to 6%, a relative low. Economists started talking about how we were at "effective zero percent unemployment" because certain portions of the populace will always be in the process of changing jobs, and they found it hard to imagine getting much lower.
    Last edited by cpwill; 01-09-14 at 01:16 AM.

Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •