U.S. lawmakers launch push to repeal NAFTA

[Anarchist420]

So, if repealing free trade between America, Mexico, and Canada is good for America, would Illinois repealing free trade between Illinois, Iowa and Indiana be good for Illinois? Could we help the economies of all the states by throwing up tariffs and trade barriers at the state lines?

As Sandorski said, China is the issue, not NAFTA.

Um, repealing NAFTA wouldn't repeal free trade between America, Mexico, and Canada. All it did was open the trans-TX corridor, favor corporate interests, and placed restrictions on trade with other nations.

They really ought to reduce the income tax and start taxing goods from China @ 10%. That would help. I miss the good ol' days when everything was made in Japan.

 

[brencat]

Oh, and the MBAs, don't even get me started, just as useless as lawyers from practical standpoint, indocrinted into certain thinking pattern, it's a pass to "good old boys" club.
From press conference of Jim Rogers in Miami about practicality of MBA:
"One of the questions from the audience pertained to getting an MBA. Jim’s response in so many words was that it would be a complete waste of money and time. He suggested traveling around the world would be a more valuable experience. He went as far to say that sitting in a hot tub in Boston one could learn more than going to some of the prestigious universities there."

I actually happen to agree with you regarding the necessity of an MBA, especially in a sales and trading role. Not necessary at all if you were a decent (3.3+ GPA) undergrad student with a finance or accounting degree. However, I do believe it helps career changers and others with non-econ or finance related undergrad degrees who want to work in finance or Wall St.

All I'm saying is don't complain about the necessity of an MBA if the job you're applying for requires one just to get an interview, regardless of your personal view. Either do what's required / play the game / join the club, whatever, if you want that high-paying "good old boys" job, or STFU. Not to sound like a dick here, but I'm very black and white. Reality sucks sometimes and life isn't fair. If you feel left behind in your job, there has to be enough personal motivation for one to want to improve their position. No guarantees, but to expect it will just happen on its own or that others will be/should be dragged down to your level via taxation or other penalty is unfair, IMO.

 

[werepossum]

Ideas, capital and equipment are all essentially fungible. Therefore if you want to out-compete a guy making eight dollars a day, you'd have to be twenty-four times as productive to make $50,000 a year. And that includes all your benefits; whether health care is provided by the individual, the employer, or the government it must still be funded by the individual, the source of both employers' and government's wealth. Does anyone really think we can be twenty-four times as productive as Mexicans, or Chinese, or Indians?

Free trade is great because we get stuff more cheaply, but a nation cannot sustainably consume more wealth than it produces. Right now the USA consumes far more than it produces, making up the difference with credit, and we have no clue how we might ever ween ourselves from that credit let alone pay it back. The route we are traveling leads inevitably to a large wealth differential, which means we either divide into a caste system like the one India is trying to outgrow, or we use the Democrat ideal where government claims all money and then "redistributes" it. This latter also leads to a caste system, with a small, highly paid class of Mandarins of rich resource owners and politicians and a large servant class subdivided into a relatively small upper sub-caste (i.e. government and non-exportable jobs with scarce skills) and a relatively large sub-caste of low level servants and unskilled labor. Personally I hate either of those choices.

Unless we can find some sort of wealth generation mechanism that builds a large middle class and that can't or won't be exported to other countries, then we are headed for serfdom one way or another. The race to the bottom might be exciting and a fun ride, but once we're there it's a long, hard climb back out.

 

[daishi5]

Um, repealing NAFTA wouldn't repeal free trade between America, Mexico, and Canada. All it did was open the trans-TX corridor, favor corporate interests, and placed restrictions on trade with other nations.

They really ought to reduce the income tax and start taxing goods from China @ 10%. That would help. I miss the good ol' days when everything was made in Japan.

Are you sure? According to http://www.fas.usda.gov/itp/policy/nafta/nafta.asp NAFTA removes the tarriffs between the countries. Repealing NAFTA would not automatically put the tarriffs back in place, but protectionist policies sell so well to an uninformed public during economic downturns.

Also, how did NAFTA favor corporate interests and restrict trade with other nations?

 

[ElFenix]

Um, repealing NAFTA wouldn't repeal free trade between America, Mexico, and Canada. All it did was open the trans-TX corridor, favor corporate interests, and placed restrictions on trade with other nations.

They really ought to reduce the income tax and start taxing goods from China @ 10%. That would help. I miss the good ol' days when everything was made in Japan.

wat?

 

[Anarchist420]

Are you sure? According to http://www.fas.usda.gov/itp/policy/nafta/nafta.asp NAFTA removes the tarriffs between the countries. Repealing NAFTA would not automatically put the tarriffs back in place, but protectionist policies sell so well to an uninformed public during economic downturns.

Also, how did NAFTA favor corporate interests and restrict trade with other nations?

It restricted trade with other nations because it favored trade with Mexico over everywhere else.

 

[Trianon]

I actually happen to agree with you regarding the necessity of an MBA, especially in a sales and trading role. Not necessary at all if you were a decent (3.3+ GPA) undergrad student with a finance or accounting degree. However, I do believe it helps career changers and others with non-econ or finance related undergrad degrees who want to work in finance or Wall St.

All I'm saying is don't complain about the necessity of an MBA if the job you're applying for requires one just to get an interview, regardless of your personal view. Either do what's required / play the game / join the club, whatever, if you want that high-paying "good old boys" job, or STFU. Not to sound like a dick here, but I'm very black and white. Reality sucks sometimes and life isn't fair. If you feel left behind in your job, there has to be enough personal motivation for one to want to improve their position. No guarantees, but to expect it will just happen on its own or that others will be/should be dragged down to your level via taxation or other penalty is unfair, IMO.

I am not talking about fairness, I am talking about human ability for ingenuity and mindset indocrination in higher learning institutions. And I agree,if the rules of the game require one to study to succeed, that shall be done. But the problem is that in reality nobody follows the rules, e.g. nobody used their MBA wisdom to get US taxpayers to bail out banks, they used the backdoor connections and corrupt political practices. So education really is a dubious way to get ahead, the reality is it's all about WHO YOU KNOW.

 

[Matthiasa]

I am not talking about fairness, I am talking about human ability for ingenuity and mindset indocrination in higher learning institutions. And I agree,if the rules of the game require one to study to succeed, that shall be done. But the problem is that in reality nobody follows the rules, e.g. nobody used their MBA wisdom to get US taxpayers to bail out banks, they used the backdoor connections and corrupt political practices. So education really is a dubious way to get ahead, the reality is it's all about WHO YOU KNOW.

Which is the real reason why people get an MBAs from the top tier places. While the education may or may not be any better the number of people you are able to network with are higher and those people, on average, will be of a higher economic status as well.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Which is the real reason why people get an MBAs from the top tier places. While the education may or may not be any better the number of people you are able to network with are higher and those people, on average, will be of a higher economic status as well.

+1 for truth.

'Top Tier' graduate students are indoctrinated with " ... you are the future leaders of the free world ..."

That doesn't mean they have any 'special powers' that go along with that status.

And I am more likely to agree that the trappings of that 'special status' narrow the vision of the individual(s) in question.





--

 

[Trianon]

Which is the real reason why people get an MBAs from the top tier places. While the education may or may not be any better the number of people you are able to network with are higher and those people, on average, will be of a higher economic status as well.

So what is the chance of getting into the Ivy League if you were not born with silver spoon in your mouth and don't fallinto one of the "disadvantaged" categories? Children of the people in the KNOW want to go to top level schools as well, no matter how dim they are. All I am saying that chances of dramatic advancement thru education are much slimmer than chances of wasting 4+years at the university and then still having trouble in finding a stable well-paying job.

 

[shira]

False.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akVL7QY0S8A

Thanks for this link. It's absolutely brilliant, absolutely terrifying.

Anyone who smugly dismisses the financial problems of a rapidly growing percentage of our society as "their own fault" cannot possibly maintain that point if view of they listen to what Professor Warren presents.

 

[OutHouse]

It's only really going to mean more expensive goods, as its still cheaper to make stuff elsewhere

Oh? cheap labor?

case in point a Hershey chocolate made in Mexico bar sold at the grocery store is 1.25. just a couple of years ago before Hershey moved its plant to Mexico that same chocolate bar was .75 cents + tax.

 

[theeedude]

And back then we had stay at home moms, one car, one small tv and our houses were 50% smaller than today etc etc etc etc etc etc forever.

Most families now cannot afford to have mom stay at home and raise kids, even if they want to. If you measure your quality of life by the area of your house and TV screen, then yeah, I guess we do have a higher standard of living. But we would anyways because of worker productivity gains, even without NAFTA. If workers are more productive, they generate higher standard of living per hour worked.

 

[Fern]

Well, you would think that NAFTA has been around long enough so that we all understand it's effects on our (USA, Canada & Mexico) economies etc, yet I see very liitle in the way of concensus.

Repealing NAFTA might have some very serious consequences, so I hope they (washington politicians) are careful about proceeding.

I'm very wary of any moves towards protectionism. I'm afraid that's what this is. I doubt increased tarrifs would do anybody's economy any good. If Mexico's economy suffers I suspect that may exacerbate our illegal immigration problem.

I'll point out that tarrifs are a source of (tax) revenue for importing country governments. I.e., tarrifs are a 'hidden tax' on consumer products. Do we really need more taxes and higher product costs? Tarrifs on imported products would be inflationary.

I see our NC Congressperson is one of those sponsoring this. Yes, we have lost manufacturing jobs here in NC, but is this a case of 'closing the barns doors after the horses have left?' I.e., what good would repeal of NAFTA do? Is it really going to bring back manufacturing jobs? I'm highly doubtful.

Given our huge amount of debt, and the resultant possibility of a devalued dollar, I wonder if we might be better off without tarrifs so we can continue to grow our exports and eventually get ourselves out of this economic problem.

Fern

 

[Matthiasa]

Oh? cheap labor?

case in point a Hershey chocolate made in Mexico bar sold at the grocery store is 1.25. just a couple of years ago before Hershey moved its plant to Mexico that same chocolate bar was .75 cents + tax.

Yes let's ignore the rise in prices of the materials they need to make it over the years.

 

[werepossum]

Well, you would think that NAFTA has been around long enough so that we all understand it's effects on our (USA, Canada & Mexico) economies etc, yet I see very liitle in the way of concensus.

Repealing NAFTA might have some very serious consequences, so I hope they (washington politicians) are careful about proceeding.

I'm very wary of any moves towards protectionism. I'm afraid that's what this is. I doubt increased tarrifs would do anybody's economy any good. If Mexico's economy suffers I suspect that may exacerbate our illegal immigration problem.

I'll point out that tarrifs are a source of (tax) revenue for importing country governments. I.e., tarrifs are a 'hidden tax' on consumer products. Do we really need more taxes and higher product costs? Tarrifs on imported products would be inflationary.

I see our NC Congressperson is one of those sponsoring this. Yes, we have lost manufacturing jobs here in NC, but is this a case of 'closing the barns doors after the horses have left?' I.e., what good would repeal of NAFTA do? Is it really going to bring back manufacturing jobs? I'm highly doubtful.

Given our huge amount of debt, and the resultant possibility of a devalued dollar, I wonder if we might be better off without tarrifs so we can continue to grow our exports and eventually get ourselves out of this economic problem.

Fern

We have to figure out though some way of earning wealth in this country before we are completely nationally bankrupt. We cannot keep consuming wealth like drunken Congressmen whilst producing wealth like, well, drunken Congressmen. To paraphrase the old quote, if the Chinese build the computers and we buy them, they'll have the money and we'll have the computers. If they build the computers and we don't buy them, they'll have the computers and we'll have the money. But if we build the computers, we'll have the computers and the money. You're right about Mexico's economy though. I'd say we start with China except that we're pretty much China's bitch because we need them to keep financing our debt.

 

[theeedude]

Well, you would think that NAFTA has been around long enough so that we all understand it's effects on our (USA, Canada & Mexico) economies etc, yet I see very liitle in the way of concensus.

Repealing NAFTA might have some very serious consequences, so I hope they (washington politicians) are careful about proceeding.

I'm very wary of any moves towards protectionism. I'm afraid that's what this is. I doubt increased tarrifs would do anybody's economy any good. If Mexico's economy suffers I suspect that may exacerbate our illegal immigration problem.

I'll point out that tarrifs are a source of (tax) revenue for importing country governments. I.e., tarrifs are a 'hidden tax' on consumer products. Do we really need more taxes and higher product costs? Tarrifs on imported products would be inflationary.

I see our NC Congressperson is one of those sponsoring this. Yes, we have lost manufacturing jobs here in NC, but is this a case of 'closing the barns doors after the horses have left?' I.e., what good would repeal of NAFTA do? Is it really going to bring back manufacturing jobs? I'm highly doubtful.

Given our huge amount of debt, and the resultant possibility of a devalued dollar, I wonder if we might be better off without tarrifs so we can continue to grow our exports and eventually get ourselves out of this economic problem.

Fern

Devaluing the dollar enough for our labor costs to compete with cheap central American labor would be inflationary too.