Trans-Pacific Partnership - the Expanded NAFTA

Gimmesometruth · Jan 11, 2014

cpwill said:
There is a lot of money that wants to be protected from competition, and thus has a vested interest in convincing whomever it can to do so.

There has been a lot of employment gutted by state sponsored industry that captured markets by importing below cost products.

cpwill · Jan 11, 2014

Gimmesometruth said:
There has been a lot of employment gutted by state sponsored industry that captured markets by importing below cost products.

non-defense industry should not be government sponsored.

Gimmesometruth · Jan 11, 2014

cpwill said:
non-defense industry should not be government sponsored.

Wishes, rainbows and Unicorns don't help your "argument".

PS....just because the page turned doesn't mean the previous argument disappeared.

cpwill · Jan 11, 2014

Gimmesometruth said:
A lie, these are your words:

The post I was responding to:

Montecresto said:
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.

So you will note that yes, in fact, I was quoting the person I was responding to. Apparently you still have an aversion to carefully reading what you are responding to. However, I definitely did misunderstand him, as I translated "mfg" to something a bit more... pungent :lol:.

That is a new highly creative claim....that you once again....cannot bring yourself to cite to anything supporting it. ALL manufacturing world wide has improved its use of information. That was not caused by NAFTA.

No, it was sped up by NAFTA in the United States, as less technologically agile production became less sustainable more rapidly. Competition tends to do that.

You have it upside-down again, NAFTA lowered barriers, allowed business to seek cheaper labor in manufacturing and import the products.......while NAFTA lowered barriers in Mexico on US corn, causing massive destruction of their domestic corn production.

You will get no defense of the U.S. practice of subsidizing domestic corn production from me. But if the U.S. is capable of producing food cheaper than Mexico and shipping it to them at cost - why shouldn't we reduce the expense of Mexico's poor in feeding their children? If Ford can build cheaper in Mexico, well, that allows them to delay and draw out their current high production costs in Detroit, well, good for Ford.

You are correct, though that it allows goods to move and be sold at lower cost. Free trade absolutely lowers our cost of living - and that is a good thing.

You have still not shown that NAFTA was the cause.

:shrug: sure, that's the point about creative destruction - the damage is always very easy to pinpoint and see, and the resultant growth that comes from the more efficient allocation of increased resources happens around it. You can point to specific increases as most likely directly resulting from it - which a351 did, and which you tried to spin out of. If you're going to blame job loss on industry moving overseas, blaming industry shipping goods oversees seems to at least as equally be blamable for job creation.

But your argument is like saying that, because exercise tears muscle fiber, that it makes you weaker. But you tear those fibers every day and they get stronger, mysteriously and nonetheless

The nations that open themselves to free trade are stronger, freer, and less violent as a result, and all those are good things too.

NAFTA opponents promised us that it would result in increasing unemployment. It didn't. Just as the last time we adopted a major protectionist regime proponents argued that it would reduce our then spiking unemployment, and instead it exacerbated it and helped create the Great Depression.

cpwill · Jan 11, 2014

Gimmesometruth said:
Wishes, rainbows and Unicorns don't help your "argument".

PS....just because the page turned doesn't mean the previous argument disappeared.

:shrug: if other companies want to give us free stuff they are impoverishing themselves, not us. Neither we nor them should have non-defense state-sponsored industry because it's dumb policy, not because giving our trade partners a heavy discount hurts them.

Gimmesometruth · Jan 12, 2014

cpwill said:
The post I was responding to:

So you will note that yes, in fact, I was quoting the person I was responding to.

I know you "quoted" him, but DEAR...you NEGATED what he said. He is affirming that trade agreement HAVE caused manufacturing job loss...you said the OPPOSITE.

WITF are you playing this stupid game?

Apparently you still have an aversion to carefully reading what you are responding to. However, I definitely did misunderstand him, as I translated "mfg" to something a bit more... pungent :lol:.

Are you going to now say that trade deals DID in fact cause job loss? Because you are continuing to argue the opposite.

No, it was sped up by NAFTA in the United States, as less technologically agile production became less sustainable more rapidly. Competition tends to do that.

You can keep dancing that jig, but you have to pay the piper.....ie show that NAFTA was the cause, you know citation.....not pulling it out of somewhere "pungent".

You will get no defense of the U.S. practice of subsidizing domestic corn production from me. But if the U.S. is capable of producing food cheaper than Mexico and shipping it to them at cost - why shouldn't we reduce the expense of Mexico's poor in feeding their children?

Um, it was not at cost, you defeated your own point.

If Ford can build cheaper in Mexico, well, that allows them to delay and draw out their current high production costs in Detroit, well, good for Ford.

I understand, you are in favor of of allowing corporations to import production using labor from countries where environ regs, worker protection, etc are lower. It does not matter to you that it displaced workers here, you are in favor of the free movement of good and capital. The next move will be to remove restrictions on the free movement of labor.

You are correct, though that it allows goods to move and be sold at lower cost. Free trade absolutely lowers our cost of living - and that is a good thing.

Of course it is, it is wonderful for the corporation that can move to the lowest cost of labor and sell to a population without barriers. You have a total corporatist view that goes hand in hand with your eugenicist supported argument on US welfare.

sure, that's the point about creative destruction - the damage is always very easy to pinpoint and see, and the resultant growth that comes from the more efficient allocation of increased resources happens around it. You can point to specific increases as most likely directly resulting from it - which a351 did, and which you tried to spin out of.

If the argument is that NAFTA did these things, then all you have to do is find citation. You referenced the paper, but it does not support your argument that NAFTA created anything, in fact it supports the argument that since NAFTA, manufacturing jobs declined substantially.

If you're going to blame job loss on industry moving overseas, blaming industry shipping goods oversees seems to at least as equally be blamable for job creation.

You keep making vague, confused statements like this that do nothing but to distract from your losing argument.

But your argument is like saying that, because exercise tears muscle fiber, that it makes you weaker. But you tear those fibers every day and they get stronger, mysteriously and nonetheless The nations that open themselves to free trade are stronger, freer, and less violent as a result, and all those are good things too.

Like who? Japan and Germany (or that matter all of the EU) have tariffs in place to protect their own industries.

NAFTA opponents promised us that it would result in increasing unemployment. It didn't.

Wrong, it did in manufacturing...as I have shown over and over to counter YOUR WORDS:

cpwill said:
cpwill said:

Trade deals didn't leave us with high unemployment and very little mfg jobs.

Click to expand...

Just as the last time we adopted a major protectionist regime proponents argued that it would reduce our then spiking unemployment, and instead it exacerbated it and helped create the Great Depression.

I know...you need another diversion.

I understand.

Gimmesometruth · Jan 12, 2014

cpwill said:
:shrug: if other companies want to give us free stuff they are impoverishing themselves, not us.

No, what they do is to capture market share. This was done by Japan in the 70's and 80s, it decimated our radio, TV, semiconductor, optics and steel industries.

Neither we nor them should have non-defense state-sponsored industry because it's dumb policy

This simplistic international corporate policy vision of yours is really astounding in it naivete.

cpwill · Jan 12, 2014

Gimmesometruth said:
I know you "quoted" him, but DEAR...you NEGATED what he said. He is affirming that trade agreement HAVE caused manufacturing job loss...you said the OPPOSITE.

WITF are you playing this stupid game?

I am not playing any games. If you still lack the ability to understand what I said, perhaps you should go ask Montecresto, who, upon reading this thread, will probably get it, and be able to help you. If that is not something he is willing to do, PM me and I will explain it to you in very simple language.

Are going to now say that trade deals DID in fact cause job loss? Because you are continuing to argue the opposite.

Trade causes specific job losses and net job gain. If that is too complex, I can try using smaller words, or perhaps pictures.

You can keep dancing that jig, but you have to pay the piper.....ie show that NAFTA was the cause,

:shrug: it is at least equally the cause of the job growth as it was of the job losses you are citing. I'm sorry that you got suckered by a highly selective series of stats that attempted to ignore the greater movement, but :shrug: them's the breaks.

I understand, you are in favor of of allowing corporations to import production using labor from countries where environ regs, worker protection, etc are lower. It does not matter to you that it displaced workers here, you are in favor of the free movement of good and capital. The next move will be to remove restrictions on the free movement of labor.

That is an argument of many libertarians. It is not one of mine, as I value having a social safety net - which does not mix well with unrestricted immigration.

Of course it is, it is wonderful for the corporation that can move to the lowest cost of labor and sell to a population without barriers.

You are mistaking "lowest cost of labor" with "lowest cost of production". If Schmitt in Germany costs $80,000 a year to employ, but has a value added of $800,000 to the company, while Lieu in Vietnam costs $3,000 a year to employ, but has a value added of only $20,000; then Schmitt is actually a cheaper source of labor.

You have a total corporatist view that goes hand in hand with your eugenicist supported argument on US welfare.

:doh

1. You really need to drop the Eugenicist thing, as you only make yourself look stupid when you launch it.
2. Corporatism is a socialized view of a trade structure, in which large industries utilize government for guaranteed market share and in return governments utilize industries to achieve political goals. Ironically, protectionism is a Corporatist policy.

If the argument is that NAFTA did these things, then all you have to do is find citation. You referenced the paper, but it does not support your argument that NAFTA created anything, in fact it supports the argument that since NAFTA, manufacturing jobs declined substantially.

:shrug: sure; and yet (as predicted) our unemployment rate continued to drop and jobs continued to be created. Manufacturing is not our entire or even a majority of our economy nor should it be used in place of it.

Like who? Japan and Germany (or that matter all of the EU) have tariffs in place to protect their own industries.

And we have ours as well, however, here you are mistaking presence for scale. I would reference you to the excellent work of Steven Pinker in "Better Angels of our Nature", discussing the precipitous drop in violence over the last few centuries - Ayn Rand was way off base about many, many things; but one of her closer-to-truth insights was that you can have coercion, or you can have free trade, the dollar, or the whip. And where you find more trade, you find less violence.

Wrong, it did in manfacturing..

who cares? I mean, obviously they do, and I wish them well in finding new employment. But why should we worry in general any more about the collapse of defunct manufacturing modes now than we should have a century ago about the collapse of the newly defunct horse-and-buggy industry? If the net effect on the economy is positive, we retain a decent social safety net to ensure that no one is completely lost, and the result is a reduction in unemployment and an increase in our standard of living, well, that's a win.

cpwill · Jan 12, 2014

Gimmesometruth said:
No, what they do is to capture market share. This was done by Japan in the 70's and 80s, it decimated our radio, TV, semiconductor, optics and steel industries.

:lol: Yeah? How'd that work out for them? Have they been doing just really awesome the last couple of decades or so?

Market share is not a given - just ask Kodak. What they pay more for than it is worth today in terms of share, they will therefore be less able to sustain tomorrow, or will have to lose in other venues that will cost them more than they gain.

This simplistic international corporate policy vision of yours is really astounding in it naivete.

:shrug: I'm aware that other companies and countries think that they are being sneaky and gaining an unfair advantage when they subsidize other nations. I am just equally aware that they are being guided by unfortunately misguided mercantilist impulses, and that all they are doing is decreasing their national wealth.

Gimmesometruth · Jan 12, 2014

cpwill said:
I am not playing any games. If you still lack the ability to understand what I said, perhaps you should go ask Montecresto, who, upon reading this thread, will probably get it, and be able to help you. If that is not something he is willing to do, PM me and I will explain it to you in very simple language.

Is this supposed to change the fact that you continue to argue that NAFTA has nothad a negative effect on US manufacturing jobs?

Trade causes specific job losses and net job gain. If that is too complex, I can try using smaller words, or perhaps pictures.

Guess this is your cutesy way of getting around to admitting NAFTA caused manufacturing job losses.

it is at least equally the cause of the job growth as it was of the job losses you are citing. I'm sorry that you got suckered by a highly selective series of stats that attempted to ignore the greater movement, but :shrug: them's the breaks.

Ohhh...how cute! You are losing track of your argument...hint: It was that NAFTA "sped up" tech change in the US.

Try again.

That is an argument of many libertarians. It is not one of mine, as I value having a social safety net - which does not mix well with unrestricted immigration.

You CONSTANTLY argue against safety nets....with ME.

Good grief.

You are mistaking "lowest cost of labor" with "lowest cost of production". If Schmitt in Germany costs $80,000 a year to employ, but has a value added of $800,000 to the company, while Lieu in Vietnam costs $3,000 a year to employ, but has a value added of only $20,000; then Schmitt is actually a cheaper source of labor.

No no no cp....we ARE talking about "Ford" having lower labor costs in the maquiladoras because of the stated reasons......stay with me here.....don't divert your little argument now.

1. You really need to drop the Eugenicist thing, as you only make yourself look stupid when you launch it.

Imagine how stupid YOUR ARGUMENT looks when you use it! (don't get so personal, cp....or the mods will get involved)

2. Corporatism is a socialized view of a trade structure, in which large industries utilize government for guaranteed market share and in return governments utilize industries to achieve political goals. Ironically, protectionism is a Corporatist policy.

I doubt there there is little that is not in the corporatist arsenal.....depending on which way the wind is blowing. Eugenics, "free trade"....it is all in there at some point.

:shrug: sure

Look everyone, cp's cutesy way of arguing is breaking down to agree that NAFTA did kill a lot of manufacturing jobs!

and yet (as predicted) our unemployment rate continued to drop and jobs continued to be created.

LOL....And you don't have to support this in any way!

It is happening....because you say so!

Amazing!!!

Manufacturing is not our entire or even a majority of our economy nor should it be used in place of it.

Oh Ma Gawd....I am CHOKING ON ALL THAT STRAW!!!

And we have ours as well, however, here you are mistaking presence for scale. I would reference you to the excellent work of Steven Pinker in "Better Angels of our Nature", discussing the precipitous drop in violence over the last few centuries - Ayn Rand was way off base about many, many things; but one of her closer-to-truth insights was that you can have coercion, or you can have free trade, the dollar, or the whip. And where you find more trade, you find less violence.

Save your Randian love for someone who cares. You COMPLETELY avoided understanding how market share is captured while domestic manufacturing is destroyed.

who cares? I mean, obviously they do, and I wish them well in finding new employment. But why should we worry in general any more about the collapse of defunct manufacturing modes now than we should have a century ago about the collapse of the newly defunct horse-and-buggy industry?

We already went over this, if there is not a replacement employment, if you continue to allow good paying jobs to leave, if you continue to race to the bottom at the pace that "free markets" allow when your competitors are NOT playing by the same rules, you cause a lower and lower living standard for your population.
Your argument against "welfare" still has not gotten the economic side of the point, we needed massive numbers of factory workers in the 30 Great Years and you don't just flip off the switch with "free market" industrial policy set by corporations. They have no interest in a population beyond either extracting the most amount of labor or profit from it....it is not interested in long term things like.....the lifespan of a citizen. You are free to make argument on what is best for the corporation, but that is not the same as what is best for the citizens of a nation.

If the net effect on the economy is positive, we retain a decent social safety net to ensure that no one is completely lost, and the result is a reduction in unemployment and an increase in our standard of living, well, that's a win.

I already showed that the pretax income for the lowest quintile declined from 79 to present, and that all quintiles in the 30 Great Years shared in the gains. Now the gains have gone to the upper quintiles. Not all have "won", the gains have shifted, you know this....yet you keep telling yourself a fairy tale.

Gimmesometruth · Jan 12, 2014

cpwill said:
:lol: Yeah? How'd that work out for them? Have they been doing just really awesome the last couple of decades or so?

Last I checked, they still produce a lot of those items.......and the factories we used to have producing them....have not reopened.

Market share is not a given - just ask Kodak.

Uh...you mean how Fuji dumped in the US? We can talk about the period.

What they pay more for than it is worth today in terms of share, they will therefore be less able to sustain tomorrow, or will have to lose in other venues that will cost them more than they gain.

You are NOT talking about how a competitor undercuts with price, gains a market and then can (and does) regain profit when a competitor is gone. Stop acting as if you don't know what I am talking about or that it does not happen.

:shrug: I'm aware that other companies and countries think that they are being sneaky and gaining an unfair advantage when they subsidize other nations. I am just equally aware that they are being guided by unfortunately misguided mercantilist impulses, and that all they are doing is decreasing their national wealth.

Temporarily....until sufficient market is captured.

Stop making naive argument.

cpwill · Jan 12, 2014

Save your Randian love for someone who cares.

:roll: never mind. taking time or effort or thought to respond to someone who refuses to address what is actually said would be a waste of all three.

Trans-Pacific Partnership - the Expanded NAFTA

Do you think USA was better off Pre-NAFTA?

Yes

No

More options

Gimmesometruth

Dr. Tongue’s Evil House of Pancakes

cpwill

Gimmesometruth

Dr. Tongue’s Evil House of Pancakes

cpwill

cpwill

Gimmesometruth

Dr. Tongue’s Evil House of Pancakes

Gimmesometruth

Dr. Tongue’s Evil House of Pancakes

cpwill

cpwill

Gimmesometruth

Dr. Tongue’s Evil House of Pancakes

Gimmesometruth

Dr. Tongue’s Evil House of Pancakes

cpwill