Was Ross Perot right on NAFTA?

[nickqt]

Most Americans also don't know the trade folly is also an extenion of Obama immigration strategy for turning US into mere GPS coordinates for global welfare office and jobs program. Its funny to watch GOPers like Paul Ryan so giddy that Obama actually wants to work with them and the WSJ "free market" crowd. They think Obama is finally doing something right when Obama is just making them into turkeys again. I've never seen so many suckers "Trade agreement is a Trojan horse for Obama's immigration agenda" http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-bl...ment-is-a-trojan-horse-for-obamas-immigration

Obama isn't playing 11th dimensional chess.

Republicans really are that inept.

For once we somewhat agree on something.

Disturbing.

 

[werepossum]

That sounds like an attempt at conflation.

Truth remains that USA consumption of goods produced in China leads to what he listed as negative effects in China. Part of the problem may lie with China's politics, but we still exploit the situation in a manner that leads to additional human suffering. Perhaps the results may indicate the human suffering is by some stretch of the imagination, justified... - but we exploit the situation for one main result, so that we may have cheaper stuff and to boost profits of multi national corporations.

He was making the point that the Chinese people are better off making our products even though many of their practices are things Western society abandoned a century ago. Sweat shops and child labor are far superior to their lives under communist economic principles, where privation was a given and starvation an ever present possibility.

Good to see you again Were. I've missed ya brah!

Thanks buddy. Covered up at work right now so I don't get out much, just working my way to minimum wage. Lol

Most Americans also don't know the trade folly is also an extenion of Obama immigration strategy for turning US into mere GPS coordinates for global welfare office and jobs program. Its funny to watch GOPers like Paul Ryan so giddy that Obama actually wants to work with them and the WSJ "free market" crowd. They think Obama is finally doing something right when Obama is just making them into turkeys again. I've never seen so many suckers "Trade agreement is a Trojan horse for Obama's immigration agenda" http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-bl...ment-is-a-trojan-horse-for-obamas-immigration

No Trojan horse. The Pubbies are even bigger free trade advocates than the Dems, and damned few of them really care about illegal immigration either.

 

[Brian Stirling]

Let me ask you something. Do you think China would be better off if the US didn't buy so much stuff from them?

I guess you're not following along, let me clarify...


China IS benefiting and within a decade, by most estimates, it will surpass the USA as the #1 economy and it follows from that that they will then surpass the USA as the #1 military power. Clearly, if seeing China gain the big stick is to you a good thing then all this is what you'd want.

It is ironic that within a few decades of us winning the capitalist versus communist game that our own capitalists would sell off that victory to, ... wait for it, ...., communists.

China has gained and benefited in many ways and some of that benefit has made it down to some of the people. When an economy goes from no place to #2 there is room to build hospitals and to replace a rural diet with a more balanced diet. There have been offsetting factors that tend to counter the negative consequences of the horrendous pollution.


Brian

 

[norseamd]

It is ironic that within a few decades of us winning the capitalist versus communist game that our own capitalists would sell off that victory to, ... wait for it, ...., communists.

This.

China has also now moved over to authoritarianism with capitalism mixed in. How well the authoritarianism can control the corruption and capitalism will end up deciding how China can prosper as far as existing in their current political government.

 

[Brian Stirling]

Not interested in playing that game.



You are asking how there can be a net benefit if some people end up on the losing end? The reason is because net benefit doesn't say that everyone ends up better, it simply says more people are helped than are hurt.



I would say if anything you are the one dismissing things. You're complaining about the consequences of China's rapid industrialization on human health, and it's very true that their pollution is terrible. I was showing you that their rapid industrialization also has a lot of positive aspects for human health through increased prosperity. How do you respond to that large increase in life expectancy?



I don't often get called a conservative, haha. You may be confusing 'conservative' with 'person who disagrees with you'.

In the earlier form of outsourcing one USA town would lose but another USA town would win when a plant moved from one to the other. The modern form of outsourcing has a different dynamic -- you still have the losing town in the USA BUT you no longer have the winning town be in the USA. This is the issue.

I'm not surprised that you "don't want to get into that" as you'd rather not address the fact that devaluing labor is, in fact, devaluing human life.

No, you're not a conservative in any bright line test, but on the issue of outsourcing I see not a dimes worth of difference.


Brian

 

[Brian Stirling]

An attempt at conflation? No. This is simple logic. If his premise is that the US buying tons of cheap shit from China increases their human suffering then it should logically follow that stopping or slowing trade with them should reverse that trend, correct?

Again, you're not following the point.

I've been saying all along the China is benefiting from these trade deals and consequent outsourcing. As the USA loses jobs and our middle class declines, China is becoming a world power and many in China have gotten fabulously wealthy. There have even been things that the average person in China has benefited from.

In summary, my problem with these deals is:

1. A net transfer of jobs, good jobs, from the USA to China resulting in a declining standard of living for the middle class in the USA.

2. Because there is much lower standards of workplace safety practiced in China it results in an unnecessarily unhealthy environment in China.

3. As the standards of workplace safety is lower in China this puts pressure on US companies to devalue workplace safety in the USA -- this tends to make our workplaces less safe.

4. Because there is far less emphasis on environmental protections in China there workers, and non workers, are exposed to hazards they should not be.

5. As the standards of environmental protections are lower in China there is pressure to lower these standards here in the USA -- this, in time, will only worsen an already bad situation there, here and everywhere.

6. As China ascends to the throne of THE world power our power and influence will diminish. Our ability, weak as it is, to build a better world will be thwarted by a nation that has a different view on the value of human life and the principles of democracy. They are thwarting us now but as they gain in power and influence they increase there ability to deny progressive action.

7. As the middle class declines into poverty we will be left with two groups: a small number of super rich and everyone else, ie, the poor. Ultimately, when the middle class is gone so to will our economy so in the end even the wealthy will lose out.

8. When the middle class has been crushed and are converted into poor there WILL be a second revolution in the USA and it will be far, far, FAR more destructive then that little uprising in France 220 years ago. I would surmise the Guillotine will be pressed into service here on occasion, but this is America and the instrument of demise will most likely be the firearm.

Ultimately, we have constructed a system that promotes the decline of the middle class, and puts pressure on the standards of workplace safety and the environment. There is no mechanism in this system to improve conditions and in fact, the trade deals result in just the opposite. Anyplace that might wish to improve conditions will have to consider the competitive consequences of doing anything that increases the cost to produce. Anyplace that lowers the labor cost, lowers the workplace safety compliance costs, lowers the environmental controls cost will gain a competitive advantage and thus, over time, the world will regress.

None of this should have been hard to see coming, I protested these policies in 1992! The outcomes promised by the proponents of these deals have failed miserably! The outcomes projected by those of us that protested these policies have come to pass. A comparative analysis of the promises and projections by the proponents and opponents is illuminating!


Brian

 

[norseamd]

No, you're not a conservative in any bright line test, but on the issue of outsourcing I see not a dimes worth of difference.

That is known as neoliberalism. Neoconservatives are neoliberals.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JSBhI_0at0

 

[norseamd]

Fucking genius level 5000!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_r68xEH0io

 

[alcoholbob]

That sounds like an attempt at conflation.

Truth remains that USA consumption of goods produced in China leads to what he listed as negative effects in China. Part of the problem may lie with China's politics, but we still exploit the situation in a manner that leads to additional human suffering. Perhaps the results may indicate the human suffering is by some stretch of the imagination, justified... - but we exploit the situation for one main result, so that we may have cheaper stuff and to boost profits of multi national corporations.

Part of the problem is the Chinese government themselves are afraid to let their own people become too wealthy too fast. The Chinese government is free to sell their trillions of dollars in the foreign exchange market, let it lose value in relation to the RMB, and this will give significantly more purchasing power to the Chinese people, and now they are free to consume their own production instead of exporting goods to Americans for worthless U.S. paper assets that they will never cash out on because we no longer produce anything of value and only have real estate left to sale.

Of course the downside is this will effectively be an overnight collapse of the U.S. military empire (if oil is $1000 a barrel no more F/A-18s are taking off from any carriers), and I'm not sure the Chinese want that, simply because it may lead to geopolitical uncertainly.

Edit: Of course I know the Chinese government isn't stupid. Even though they themselves are free to dump the dollar at any time and haven't done so, they realize any number of parties in the world could pre-empt them they would lose the value of any of their dollar-denominated assets if they don't dump first. Obviously they aren't accumulating ~1500-2000 tons of gold a year for fun but to hedge on possibility that someone dumps the dollar first.

 

[Brian Stirling]

That is known as neoliberalism. Neoconservatives are neoliberals.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JSBhI_0at0

It's a religious cult either way.

The high Priest being Milton Friedman at the church of the Chicago School. There are numerous disciples in Wall Street and in the board rooms and executive suites in business. And of course, the pols in DC are fed a steady diet and bible, in the halls of Congress, from the like of the Cato Institute.

You can't question the word of god now can you?

Brian

 

[norseamd]

It's a religious cult either way.

The high Priest being Milton Friedman at the church of the Chicago School. There are numerous disciples in Wall Street and in the board rooms and executive suites in business. And of course, the pols in DC are fed a steady diet and bible, in the halls of Congress, from the like of the Cato Institute.

You can't question the word of god now can you?

Brian

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxXZ81irfbI

 

[alcoholbob]

That is known as neoliberalism. Neoconservatives are neoliberals.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JSBhI_0at0

Conservative ideology in the United States for nearly two centuries was isolationism so obviously any new movement that purports to be "new conservativism" and is based around a New Deal style of make-work for the military industrial complex is a left-wing ideology.

But the term liberal and conservative don't really have much meaning anymore. Who is the republican base now? Democrats from the 1960s. The democrats today are just modern liberals vs republicans being last years liberals. We lost the traditional conservative base politically, they have no candidates today that are allowed in the debates by the two party monopoly, it's just a war between two leftist parties that only differ on social, not political issues. Like Jon Stewart said while debating Bill O'Reilly--"we're just different shades of red." All we have is two parties with the same political ideology--which is statism.

We live in a tripartite state where a third of population produces goods and services in the free market. A third work for government and a third are on the dole. The democrats and republicans just argue whether the government class (military industrial complex, government monopolies) or the welfare class gets more subsidies.

 

[Brian Stirling]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxXZ81irfbI

I watched that video but I have to say I think Immanuel Wallerstein misjudged the Obama administration and believed he would end the era of outsourcing etc. This video, from 2011, was right about the time of ACA passing so it's not hard to see why he might have believed that at that time. He stated that this era was 15 years in the making and that would cover both the Bush and Clinton administrations, but, in fact, these forces have held sway for much longer than that and they have not let go of power yet.

Obama is pushing even more free trade deals that will further harm the US middle class. Hillary, getting money from the same sources will need to make the same compromises in order to get elected so...


Brian

 

[werepossum]

Conservative ideology in the United States for nearly two centuries was isolationism so obviously any new movement that purports to be "new conservativism" and is based around a New Deal style of make-work for the military industrial complex is a left-wing ideology.

But the term liberal and conservative don't really have much meaning anymore. Who is the republican base now? Democrats from the 1960s. The democrats today are just modern liberals vs republicans being last years liberals. We lost the traditional conservative base politically, they have no candidates today that are allowed in the debates by the two party monopoly, it's just a war between two leftist parties that only differ on social, not political issues. Like Jon Stewart said while debating Bill O'Reilly--"we're just different shades of red." All we have is two parties with the same political ideology--which is statism.

We live in a tripartite state where a third of population produces goods and services in the free market. A third work for government and a third are on the dole. The democrats and republicans just argue whether the government class (military industrial complex, government monopolies) or the welfare class gets more subsidies.

I'd argue that where a nation's two major parties believe the same thing, left and right have no meaning either.

I watched that video but I have to say I think Immanuel Wallerstein misjudged the Obama administration and believed he would end the era of outsourcing etc. This video, from 2011, was right about the time of ACA passing so it's not hard to see why he might have believed that at that time. He stated that this era was 15 years in the making and that would cover both the Bush and Clinton administrations, but, in fact, these forces have held sway for much longer than that and they have not let go of power yet.

Obama is pushing even more free trade deals that will further harm the US middle class. Hillary, getting money from the same sources will need to make the same compromises in order to get elected so...

Brian

lol Hillary won't be making "compromises". She believes the exact same thing as does her husband, Algore, both Bushes, Obama, McCain, Romney, any Pubbies with a snowball's chance in hell in the primaries . . .

You MIGHT find an honest dissenting opinion with Warren or Paul. Maybe. Personally I wouldn't put my money on it.

 

[norseamd]

Like Rand Paul gives a fuck about anything not even his own personal presidential campaign. Look how he just shat all over himself with all his flip flopping and pandering.

20 years ago I could see Bill Clinton doing something depending on a different political climate. I can see Hillary doing some "moderate" concessions to the citizens but I am sure she will be in deep as far as corruption. The problem is that most of the Republican candidates are not only just as bad but basically even worse on anything. Like was said about the possibility of Mexicans casting votes for the Republicans because of how mad they were about how Obama was handling the illegal migration issue a few years ago. Basically they would be jumping from the frying pan into the fire.

 

[norseamd]

I watched that video but I have to say I think Immanuel Wallerstein misjudged the Obama administration and believed he would end the era of outsourcing etc. This video, from 2011, was right about the time of ACA passing so it's not hard to see why he might have believed that at that time. He stated that this era was 15 years in the making and that would cover both the Bush and Clinton administrations, but, in fact, these forces have held sway for much longer than that and they have not let go of power yet.

Obama is pushing even more free trade deals that will further harm the US middle class. Hillary, getting money from the same sources will need to make the same compromises in order to get elected so...


Brian

He is not infallible and I am sure age gets to him sometimes but he has some very good insights into world civilization. Zbigniew Brzezinski is only 3 years older than him and looks far worse off right now.