View Poll Results: For or against the Trans-Pacific Trade Agreement/.

Voters
55. You may not vote on this poll
  • For

    18 32.73%
  • Against

    34 61.82%
  • Other

    3 5.45%
Page 8 of 21 FirstFirst ... 67891018 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 208

Thread: For or against the Trans-Pacific Trade Agreement?

  1. #71
    Phonetic Mnemonic
    radcen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Look to your right... I'm that guy.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:16 PM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    27,522

    Re: For or against the Trans-Pacific Trade Agreement?

    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    Obviously we haven't seen it. But it is concerning that while the GOP doesn't trust Obama on anything, suddenly they trust him with fast track authority on this, and most democrats are steadfastly against it. Furthermore, there's 28 committees composed 85% of corporate executives and industry lobbyists. It is problematic.
    I'm not a big fan of these big trade agreements, but the world is still turning so I guess they're not as dire as many originally predicted.

    I am, however, very much put off by the fast track aspect. I'm sorry, but no... things like should not be fast tracked. They should be carefully negotiated and include some level of public knowledge and comment.
    Huntsman / Kasich 2020

    Sean Spicer is the new Baghdad Bob

  2. #72
    Sage
    Montecresto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    03-13-16 @ 09:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,561

    Re: For or against the Trans-Pacific Trade Agreement?

    Quote Originally Posted by radcen View Post
    I'm not a big fan of these big trade agreements, but the world is still turning so I guess they're not as dire as many originally predicted.

    I am, however, very much put off by the fast track aspect. I'm sorry, but no... things like should not be fast tracked. They should be carefully negotiated and include some level of public knowledge and comment.
    The worst trade deal imaginable isn't likely to stop the earth from revolving, but if that's the bar..............................!!!!!

    So Perot has been vindicated in his opinion; expanded free trade has not been accompanied by an increase in jobs in the U.S. relative to the vast numbers of jobs created in the rest of the world as NAFTA became just a stepping stone on the pathway to global commerce.

    Just how much the giant vacuum has been collecting has been calculated at GEI Analysis. The results are shown in the following two graphs. The first shows manufacturing jobs lost each year starting with 1992 that are equivalent to the U.S. goods trade deficits over the past 19 years. The second shows the cumulative job loss, amounting to almost 29 million jobs by the end of 2010.



    Read more: Looks Like Ross Perot Was Right About The
    Killing one person is murder, killing 100,000 is foreign policy

  3. #73
    Traveler

    Jack Hays's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    45,376
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: For or against the Trans-Pacific Trade Agreement?

    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    The worst trade deal imaginable isn't likely to stop the earth from revolving, but if that's the bar..............................!!!!!

    So Perot has been vindicated in his opinion; expanded free trade has not been accompanied by an increase in jobs in the U.S. relative to the vast numbers of jobs created in the rest of the world as NAFTA became just a stepping stone on the pathway to global commerce.

    Just how much the giant vacuum has been collecting has been calculated at GEI Analysis. The results are shown in the following two graphs. The first shows manufacturing jobs lost each year starting with 1992 that are equivalent to the U.S. goods trade deficits over the past 19 years. The second shows the cumulative job loss, amounting to almost 29 million jobs by the end of 2010.



    Read more: Looks Like Ross Perot Was Right About The
    Here's something more recent.
    NAFTA's Economic Impact - Council on Foreign Relations

    Council on Foreign Relations Trade


    Council on Foreign Relations


    Feb 14, 2014 - ... and U.S. manufacturers created supply chains across North America that have ... But economists still debate NAFTA's direct impact, given the many other ... such as the movement of some jobs and industries across borders.

    How has NAFTA affected the U.S. labor market?

    . . . Wide disagreement persists on how and to what degree NAFTA accounts for changes in net employment from adjustments in the labor market. Supporters of NAFTA, and many economists, see a positive impact on U.S. employment and note that new export-related jobs in the United States pay 15 to 20 percent more on average than those focused on domestic production. But side effects of the treaty should not be ignored. Edward Alden, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, notes that wages haven't kept pace with labor productivity and that income inequality in the United States has risen in recent years, in part due to pressures on the U.S. manufacturing base. To some extent, he says, trade deals have hastened the pace of these changes in that they have "reinforced the globalization of the American economy."

    Opponents of NAFTA take a starker position. Thea M. Lee, the deputy chief of staff at the AFL-CIO, which opposes NAFTA and lobbies against other free-trade agreements unless they include provisions that raise labor and environmental standards, said that NAFTA forced "workers into more direct competition with each other, while assuring them fewer rights and protections." Public Citizen, the left-leaning Washington nonprofit consumer rights organization, said in a report that the "grand promises made by NAFTA's proponents remain unfulfilled" [PDF] twenty years after implementation and resulted in the loss of one million U.S. jobs by 2004.
    But most economists say it is a stretch to blame these shifts on NAFTA. Manufacturing in the United States was under stress decades before the treaty, and job losses in that sector are viewed as part of a structural shift in the U.S. economy toward light manufacturing and high-end services. Alden says that broader economic trends affecting U.S. employment, such as China's economic rise, wouldn't be substantially altered by U.S. policy shifts toward NAFTA. . . .
    "It's always reassuring to find you've made the right enemies." -- William J. Donovan

  4. #74
    Sage
    Montecresto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    03-13-16 @ 09:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,561

    Re: For or against the Trans-Pacific Trade Agreement?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hays View Post
    Here's something more recent.
    NAFTA's Economic Impact - Council on Foreign Relations

    Council on Foreign Relations Trade


    Council on Foreign Relations


    Feb 14, 2014 - ... and U.S. manufacturers created supply chains across North America that have ... But economists still debate NAFTA's direct impact, given the many other ... such as the movement of some jobs and industries across borders.

    How has NAFTA affected the U.S. labor market?

    . . . Wide disagreement persists on how and to what degree NAFTA accounts for changes in net employment from adjustments in the labor market. Supporters of NAFTA, and many economists, see a positive impact on U.S. employment and note that new export-related jobs in the United States pay 15 to 20 percent more on average than those focused on domestic production. But side effects of the treaty should not be ignored. Edward Alden, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, notes that wages haven't kept pace with labor productivity and that income inequality in the United States has risen in recent years, in part due to pressures on the U.S. manufacturing base. To some extent, he says, trade deals have hastened the pace of these changes in that they have "reinforced the globalization of the American economy."

    Opponents of NAFTA take a starker position. Thea M. Lee, the deputy chief of staff at the AFL-CIO, which opposes NAFTA and lobbies against other free-trade agreements unless they include provisions that raise labor and environmental standards, said that NAFTA forced "workers into more direct competition with each other, while assuring them fewer rights and protections." Public Citizen, the left-leaning Washington nonprofit consumer rights organization, said in a report that the "grand promises made by NAFTA's proponents remain unfulfilled" [PDF] twenty years after implementation and resulted in the loss of one million U.S. jobs by 2004.
    But most economists say it is a stretch to blame these shifts on NAFTA. Manufacturing in the United States was under stress decades before the treaty, and job losses in that sector are viewed as part of a structural shift in the U.S. economy toward light manufacturing and high-end services. Alden says that broader economic trends affecting U.S. employment, such as China's economic rise, wouldn't be substantially altered by U.S. policy shifts toward NAFTA. . . .
    Yeah I know, doesn't sound good.
    Killing one person is murder, killing 100,000 is foreign policy

  5. #75
    Traveler

    Jack Hays's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    45,376
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: For or against the Trans-Pacific Trade Agreement?

    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    Yeah I know, doesn't sound good.
    Free trade enriches all participants, and any job lost after NAFTA was enacted likely was doomed anyway.
    "It's always reassuring to find you've made the right enemies." -- William J. Donovan

  6. #76
    Phonetic Mnemonic
    radcen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Look to your right... I'm that guy.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:16 PM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    27,522

    Re: For or against the Trans-Pacific Trade Agreement?

    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    The worst trade deal imaginable isn't likely to stop the earth from revolving, but if that's the bar..............................!!!!!

    So Perot has been vindicated in his opinion; expanded free trade has not been accompanied by an increase in jobs in the U.S. relative to the vast numbers of jobs created in the rest of the world as NAFTA became just a stepping stone on the pathway to global commerce.

    Just how much the giant vacuum has been collecting has been calculated at GEI Analysis. The results are shown in the following two graphs. The first shows manufacturing jobs lost each year starting with 1992 that are equivalent to the U.S. goods trade deficits over the past 19 years. The second shows the cumulative job loss, amounting to almost 29 million jobs by the end of 2010.
    For what it's worth, I didn't believe it then when they tried to sell it to us.
    Huntsman / Kasich 2020

    Sean Spicer is the new Baghdad Bob

  7. #77
    Phonetic Mnemonic
    radcen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Look to your right... I'm that guy.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:16 PM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    27,522

    Re: For or against the Trans-Pacific Trade Agreement?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hays View Post
    Free trade enriches all participants, and any job lost after NAFTA was enacted likely was doomed anyway.
    That's kind of a "I believe it because I want to" fantasy way of looking at it.
    Huntsman / Kasich 2020

    Sean Spicer is the new Baghdad Bob

  8. #78
    Sage
    Montecresto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    03-13-16 @ 09:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,561

    Re: For or against the Trans-Pacific Trade Agreement?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hays View Post
    Free trade enriches all participants, and any job lost after NAFTA was enacted likely was doomed anyway.
    I just linked you graphs that don't support your claim, but believe as you wish. With 85% of the negotiators in the 28 committees being corporate executives and industry lobbyists, along with the fact that the Republican Party that doesn't trust Obama to tell them the truth if they asked him what time it is, suddenly ready to give him "decider" authority on TPP while the democrats are steadfastly opposed to this, I'm sorry, but I don't care what you have to say about it.
    Killing one person is murder, killing 100,000 is foreign policy

  9. #79
    Traveler

    Jack Hays's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    45,376
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: For or against the Trans-Pacific Trade Agreement?

    Quote Originally Posted by radcen View Post
    That's kind of a "I believe it because I want to" fantasy way of looking at it.
    Well, no. The bit about enriching all participants is pretty standard economic theory, and the bit about jobs being lost anyway was in the link I posted in #73.
    "It's always reassuring to find you've made the right enemies." -- William J. Donovan

  10. #80
    Phonetic Mnemonic
    radcen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Look to your right... I'm that guy.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:16 PM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    27,522

    Re: For or against the Trans-Pacific Trade Agreement?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hays View Post
    Well, no. The bit about enriching all participants is pretty standard economic theory, and the bit about jobs being lost anyway was in the link I posted in #73.
    Because of technological progress jobs will always evolve, trade agreement or not.
    Huntsman / Kasich 2020

    Sean Spicer is the new Baghdad Bob

Page 8 of 21 FirstFirst ... 67891018 ... 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
  •