• 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!

Trans-Pacific Partnership - the Expanded NAFTA

Do you think USA was better off Pre-NAFTA?

  • Total voters
    20
  • Poll closed .
brothern said:
The extremes that the anti-free trade movement goes to has always seemed to me as a tendency towards racism, xenophobia and nationalism. :/
Click to expand...

I regret that it "seems" that way to you. It has always been an economic/jobs issue though.
 
Montecresto said:
It changes nothing, nothing at all. NAFTA negotiations began during Reagan's presidency, and continued through the end of Bush's when he had the ceremonial signing (because it hadn't passed congress/parliament yet. Had he won a second term he would have been the one to sign it into law. It did pass congress with a GOP majority support, and Clinton signed the bill in the first three months of his presidency.

So Reagan begins the negotiations,

Bush continues and COMPLETES negotiations, and signs it,

Congress passes it with GOP majority,

Clinton signs it into law.

And NAFTA is being blamed on democrats!!!!
Click to expand...


You have a good point.
 
DaveFagan said:
I will counter your very rational analysis with my pet peeve. If you want to create both money and jobs, the same answer has been presented since the 1970s. Convert to a 100% renewable energy economy. Creates new local jobs wherever implemented. Cuts the outflow of local cash to monopolistic energy distributors. New jobs spend new money growing local economies. New Renewable Energy facilities require local maintenance creating more local jobs and again more local spending. Simultaneously, could any of this address Global Warming and relegate Corporate mitigation policies to the scrap heap, and freeing up those same, probably gov't subsidized dollars, for local investment. Short and sweet. Too good to be true? It hurts Big Corporate Energy and if they can get profitable wars started, do you think they would have any problem preventing this scenario. They are preventing it. You get one vote, but Big Energy buys your Congressman's vote.
Click to expand...


I'm all for local economies and national sovereignty. We must do everything in our power to see to it that U.S. jobs stay HERE.
 
Montecresto said:
I regret that it "seems" that way to you. It has always been an economic/jobs issue though.
Click to expand...

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....
 
a351 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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:
cpwill said:
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....
Click to expand...

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.
 
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
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
cpwill said:
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.
Click to expand...
Uh....US manufacturing collapsed after NAFTA.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
cpwill said:
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.
Click to expand...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...."NAFTA was "Keynesian""

Good grief.
Click to expand...

:doh

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".
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Uh....US manufacturing collapsed after NAFTA.
Click to expand...
cpwill said:
:doh

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".
Click to expand...
mfgfarm.jpg
 
cpwill said:
Unemployment dropped to newer and newer lows after NAFTA.
Click to expand...
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
 
Ask 1 million American workers, and millions of Mexican workers how NAFTA worked out for them.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-3semshu6fpU/TfN5yDp8mbI/AAAAAAAAPZA/EguC-LcsUWA/s1600/mfgfarm.jpg[IMG][/QUOTE]

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? :)
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
TheDemSocialist said:
Ask 1 million American workers, and millions of Mexican workers how NAFTA worked out for them.
Click to expand...

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:

USunemp.jpg


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:
cpwill said:
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? :)
Click to expand...
It was a mistake.

You going to keep dancing away from the manufacturing job loss data post-NAFTA?
 
cpwill said:
already answered: see where I point out that unemployment fell after NAFTA and continued to fall.
Click to expand...
That is not an answer in two ways, your post concerned MANUFACTURING, I showed correlation and causation between manufacturing job loss and NAFTA.

You have NOT shown causation with NAFTA and general employment.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
That is not an answer in two ways, your post concerned MANUFACTURING, I showed correlation and causation between manufacturing job loss and NAFTA.

You have NOT shown causation with NAFTA and general employment.
Click to expand...

No... you are trying to make this about manufacturing, because NAFTA accelerated trends inside our manufacturing sector which were net beneficial for the economy, but hard on that particular sector. I could use the same logic to talk about how automobiles are incredibly economically destructive because they wiped out the horse-and-buggy industry :roll:
 
cpwill said:
No... you are trying to make this about manufacturing,
Click to expand...
Um...er....I'm afraid you were talking about it, and any discussion of a trade deal invariably includes manufacturing:
cpwill said:
Trade deals didn't leave us with high unemployment and very little mfg jobs.
Click to expand...

_________________________________________

because NAFTA accelerated trends inside our manufacturing sector which were net beneficial for the economy, but hard on that particular sector.
Click to expand...
This is absolutely double talk, if it "accelerated (the manufacturing) sector" (whatever that means), it would not "be hard on it".

Again, I showed NAFTA directly caused huge losses in US manufacturing employment. That is not an "acceleration" other than the destruction of jobs. But knock yourself out to provide reference for your claim.


I could use the same logic to talk about how automobiles are incredibly economically destructive because they wiped out the horse-and-buggy industry :roll:
Click to expand...
Except that one can show that the replacement industry not only created much higher levels of better paying employment, it also was much greater in efficiency.

Now, again, I am still waiting for you to show that NAFTA caused a lowering of unemployment.
 
cpwill said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yep. Unfortunately employment opportunities brought about by increased trade doesn't tend to make the news cycle for sensational purposes, but export supported jobs have increased by over 2 million in that same time span.

http://www.trade.gov/mas/ian/build/groups/public/@tg_ian/documents/webcontent/tg_ian_003978.pdf
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Um...er....I'm afraid you were talking about it, and any discussion of a trade deal invariably includes manufacturing:
Click to expand...

A) that was me quoting the person I was responding to
B) :lol: I completely translated "MFG" into something else :lol:

This is absolutely double talk, if it "accelerated (the manufacturing) sector" (whatever that means), it would not "be hard on it".
Click to expand...

Sure, it's double talk, if you selectively edit it in order to change the meaning. It accelerated trends inside of manufacturing, which were away from early 20th century line models that utilized large amounts of low-skill labor and towards higher informatization and use of technology.

Except that one can show that the replacement industry not only created much higher levels of better paying employment, it also was much greater in efficiency.
Click to expand...

Indeed it was superior in efficiency - which is why it occurred. Resources do not seek out lower return areas unless they are pushed there by exogenous factors (politics). You are focusing in on the losing side of creative destruction in an attempt to pretend that the positive does not outweigh it.

Now, again, I am still waiting for you to show that NAFTA caused a lowering of unemployment.
Click to expand...

I already showed you where unemployment fell after NAFTA, just when you claim we lost all of those obsolete manufacturing jobs - and a351 (above) points out to you where your "200,000 jobs lost" is met with an increase to our export sector by ten times that number.
 
Voltaire X said:
I can't believe people still think free trade is a bad thing.
Click to expand...

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.
 
cpwill said:
A) that was me quoting the person I was responding to
Click to expand...
A lie, these are your words:

cpwill said:
Trade deals didn't leave us with high unemployment and very little mfg jobs..
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
B) :lol: I completely translated "MFG" into something else :lol:
Click to expand...
?????
Click to expand...



Sure, it's double talk, if you selectively edit it in order to change the meaning. It accelerated trends inside of manufacturing, which were away from early 20th century line models that utilized large amounts of low-skill labor and towards higher informatization and use of technology.
Click to expand...
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.



Indeed it was superior in efficiency - which is why it occurred.Resources do not seek out lower return areas unless they are pushed there by exogenous factors (politics). You are focusing in on the losing side of creative destruction in an attempt to pretend that the positive does not outweigh it.
Click to expand...
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.



I already showed you where unemployment fell after NAFTA
Click to expand...
You have still not shown that NAFTA was the cause. I showed you NAFTA caused massive US manufacturing job loss, countering your denial of this fact.


just when you claim we lost all of those obsolete manufacturing jobs
Click to expand...
"Obsolete" auto manufacturing employment? Funny, we are importing higher levels of autos, produced by some "obsolete" auto builders in other countries.



- and a351 (above) points out to you where your "200,000 jobs lost" is met with an increase to our export sector by ten times that number.
Click to expand...
Funny thing...I searched for ANY reference in the document in post 47 to NAFTA being responsible for that.....and the computer said "no".

No wonder you did not cite anything from it to support your claim that:

cpwill said:
Trade deals didn't leave us with high unemployment and very little mfg jobs..
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom