Was Ross Perot right on NAFTA?

[michal1980]

People on here can get pretty angry and personal so I would rather not. If you're genuinely interested you can PM me though.

we all know.

Obama spokesperson

 

[fskimospy]

we all know.

Obama spokesperson

Sweet! I can't wait for those awesome White House parties. I hear they get the best catering.

 

[realibrad]

I would argue that there is nothing inherent to this that requires a net increase in inequality. In fact, it's what I mentioned much earlier in this thread. I view the resulting increase in inequality due to free trade as a failure of domestic policy, not trade policy.

I would argue that its not a failure, but the desired outcome of domestic policy. When you actually look at what policies are passed, you start to get a picture that most laws are going to benefit the upper income classes. While its true that we have a progressive tax system, the upper classes have many more loop holes. I cant afford to move my money outside of the tax reach of the US.

Free trade is not what is causing the drastic wealth inequality we see, its governments and their laws that are set up to benefit them and their friends with power.

 

[fskimospy]

I would argue that its not a failure, but the desired outcome of domestic policy. When you actually look at what policies are passed, you start to get a picture that most laws are going to benefit the upper income classes. While its true that we have a progressive tax system, the upper classes have many more loop holes. I cant afford to move my money outside of the tax reach of the US.

Free trade is not what is causing the drastic wealth inequality we see, its governments and their laws that are set up to benefit them and their friends with power.

Oh, to be clear I mean it's a failure because it's shitty. Being shitty could certainly be the desired outcome.

Interesting note, while our federal tax system is pretty progressive, the overall tax system of the US is much less so due to the fact that most states finance themselves through regressive taxation. In the end it's still progressive, but way less than I'd bet the average person thinks.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-s-tax-code-isnt-as-progressive-as-you-think/

 

[bshole]

You realize that I was reading that from my bed at 90 degrees and was not able to actually read much of any comment and was only able to read that bshole was yelling about the Chinese polluting the environment when he does not give a fuck or even believe in environmental destruction.

That is untrue. I care passionately about the environment as evidenced by my own personal conduct (forest management). In my OPINION (I suppose I could be wrong) carbon dioxide is plant food, not a pollutant at its current levels. While warmists are running around screaming about phantom carbon dioxide pollution, they are criminally devoid of interest in real and observable pollution on a scale not seen for a hundred years. It is a disgrace and an outrage. Why the hell are they turning a blind eye to the ongoing devastation?

As an aside, my company is heavily involved in the fracking industry. I am convinced that fracking can have negative impacts on local water supplies. This conviction does cause me a great deal of cognitive dissonance and I am quite bothered about it. If I didn't care about the environment, the results of fracking wouldn't bother me in the least. I do support holding all frac companies responsible for any damage they do to the environment.

 

[realibrad]

That is untrue. I care passionately about the environment as evidenced by my own personal conduct (forest management). In my OPINION (I suppose I could be wrong) carbon dioxide is plant food, not a pollutant at its current levels. While warmists are running around screaming about phantom carbon dioxide pollution, they are criminally devoid of interest in real and observable pollution on a scale not seen for a hundred years. It is a disgrace and an outrage. Why the hell are they turning a blind eye to the ongoing devastation?

As an aside, my company is heavily involved in the fracking industry. I am convinced that fracking can have negative impacts on local water supplies. This conviction does cause me a great deal of cognitive dissonance and I am quite bothered about it. If I didn't care about the environment, the results of fracking wouldn't bother me in the least. I do support holding all frac companies responsible for any damage they do to the environment.

So what about what carbon is doing to the ocean? Carbon dioxide is plant food, but it is bad for ocean animals.

http://worldoceanreview.com/en/wor-...n/when-carbonate-formation-loses-equilibrium/

I think fracking and carbon dioxide are both very great examples. We are not gaining the ability to make large changes that we don't fully understand. For the vast majority of humanity, the damage we could do was pretty small. We now have the ability to kill almost all life on earth in many different ways. We really don't know the full implications of our actions.

Many things will always be unforeseeable until they happen, and that's life. But, we also understand culpability of reckless behavior. Its why we still punish for manslaughter and murder differently. There is factual negative effects that adding Carbon Dioxide to the planet at the levels we have been. The only question is the size of the effect. Same goes for fracking.

 

[werepossum]

Yes, Ross Perot was 100% right. It amazes me that it's even debated at this point. Now all that's left is to extend the stupid, and right on cue here comes Obama.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

I would argue that there is nothing inherent to this that requires a net increase in inequality. In fact, it's what I mentioned much earlier in this thread. I view the resulting increase in inequality due to free trade as a failure of domestic policy, not trade policy.

I don't disagree that there are domestic policies compounding the problems, but I still think the model that promotes these deals is inherently flawed:
http://www.americaneconomicalert.org/view_art.asp?Prod_ID=3076
At their core all economic models are models of human behavior, but economists have a really bad habit of assuming the human behavior right out of them (Efficient Market Hypothesis being the most egregious offender of this).

And even the federal tax system stops being progressive somewhere around $430K. Policy failure, but if the policy correction is politically unattainable what's the solution?

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Yes, Ross Perot was 100% right. It amazes me that it's even debated at this point. Now all that's left is to extend the stupid, and right on cue here comes Obama.

While I don't frequently agree with werepossum I do here. Simple & effective post. Thank you.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Yes, Ross Perot was 100% right. It amazes me that it's even debated at this point. Now all that's left is to extend the stupid, and right on cue here comes Obama.

I'm sure there are plenty of liberal-leaning economists all lined up to tell him how if we just do this, this, and this, it will be different this time. But the really real reality is any time you have two systems out of equilibrium and introduce a path to reach it, excess flows to the deficient. It's physics, it's chemistry, it's economics.

 

[werepossum]

While I don't frequently agree with werepossum I do here. Simple & effective post. Thank you.

Glad to be of service.

I'm sure there are plenty of liberal-leaning economists all lined up to tell him how if we just do this, this, and this, it will be different this time. But the really real reality is any time you have two systems out of equilibrium and introduce a path to reach it, excess flows to the deficient. It's physics, it's chemistry, it's economics.

Yep, although it's theoretically possible economically for both systems to benefit, even though for America over the last several decades we've not seen that happen. (Unless one believes we are somehow better off losing good jobs in exchange for mountains of cheap disposable consumer junk.) I'm not sure that's true in physics or chemistry which are typically concerned with energy levels.

Doesn't really matter how many liberal-leaning economists line up to tell him that though. If it wasn't him, it would be the next Republican. With free trade as with so many things, the two parties march in lockstep.

I can completely understand how someone in 1950 could believe that America would benefit from unrestrained free trade. It baffles me that someone could honestly believe this in 2015.

 

[Brian Stirling]

I would argue that there is nothing inherent to this that requires a net increase in inequality. In fact, it's what I mentioned much earlier in this thread. I view the resulting increase in inequality due to free trade as a failure of domestic policy, not trade policy.

You're talking utter nonsense and flat ignoring the human consequences, both in places like China and here as well.

When you accept the devaluation of labor, and thus the devaluation of human life, on the basis that cheaper goods is more important you've sold your sole!

In no way is your view in keeping with the traditions of the Democratic party or liberalism. Of course, the Democratic party post Bill Clinton is not the Democratic party of old.

Someone asked what you do for a living and you've declined to say. I'd joked about it being perhaps Nike. Actually, the manor of your writings would lead me to suspect something in the financial services industry. Maybe Wall Street, maybe banking, perhaps accounting. I freely admit that's just a guess. It could also be some form of technocrat -- I've worked in the Semiconductor industry and know many folks that speak in similar ways.


Brian

 

[Brian Stirling]

I would argue that its not a failure, but the desired outcome of domestic policy. When you actually look at what policies are passed, you start to get a picture that most laws are going to benefit the upper income classes. While its true that we have a progressive tax system, the upper classes have many more loop holes. I cant afford to move my money outside of the tax reach of the US.

Free trade is not what is causing the drastic wealth inequality we see, its governments and their laws that are set up to benefit them and their friends with power.

This is not an either/or situation! The rich are getting richer for MANY reasons.

When products are made with decently paid workers under safe conditions with reasonable control for pollution a higher percentage of the income from the sale of those goods goes to the working class. Conversely, when products are made with poorly paid workers in unsafe workplaces with terrible pollution AND the goods are sold for nearly the same price then less is going to the workers and more is going to the investor/leisure class. This results in a transfer of wealth from the middle class to the wealthy and IS a huge part of the income inequality equation. There can be no doubt about this!

There are other factors such as the elimination of SS deduction and a tax rate that frequently tops out at 15% for billionaires.

Additionally factors include states that eliminate the income tax and instead place heavily regressive sales tax and registration fees that, frankly, target the poor and middle class while leaving the wealthy with more.

Ultimately this all boils down to politics and specifically -- getting elected! It appears this cycle will see more than $5B spent directly with billions more dark money.

The rich folks that are ponying up that much money will expect an ROI -- you need not be a rocket scientist to figure out on who's backs this will be borne.


Brian

 

[bshole]

Glad to be of service.


Yep, although it's theoretically possible economically for both systems to benefit, even though for America over the last several decades we've not seen that happen. (Unless one believes we are somehow better off losing good jobs in exchange for mountains of cheap disposable consumer junk.) I'm not sure that's true in physics or chemistry which are typically concerned with energy levels.

Doesn't really matter how many liberal-leaning economists line up to tell him that though. If it wasn't him, it would be the next Republican. With free trade as with so many things, the two parties march in lockstep.

I can completely understand how someone in 1950 could believe that America would benefit from unrestrained free trade. It baffles me that someone could honestly believe this in 2015.

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

 

[fskimospy]

You're talking utter nonsense and flat ignoring the human consequences, both in places like China and here as well.

Of course I'm not.

When you accept the devaluation of labor, and thus the devaluation of human life, on the basis that cheaper goods is more important you've sold your sole!

Are you sure YOU don't work for Nike?

In no way is your view in keeping with the traditions of the Democratic party or liberalism. Of course, the Democratic party post Bill Clinton is not the Democratic party of old.

Trade protectionism has nothing to do with liberalism. If anything, it is against the principles of liberalism. I'm for policies that decrease the sum total of human misery, which freer trade generally does for both parties involved.

Someone asked what you do for a living and you've declined to say. I'd joked about it being perhaps Nike. Actually, the manor of your writings would lead me to suspect something in the financial services industry. Maybe Wall Street, maybe banking, perhaps accounting. I freely admit that's just a guess. It could also be some form of technocrat -- I've worked in the Semiconductor industry and know many folks that speak in similar ways.

Brian

It hardly matters what industry I work in.

 

[Brian Stirling]

Of course I'm not.



Are you sure YOU don't work for Nike?



Trade protectionism has nothing to do with liberalism. If anything, it is against the principles of liberalism. I'm for policies that decrease the sum total of human misery, which freer trade generally does for both parties involved.



It hardly matters what industry I work in.

I'm sorry, but when you support policies that result in:

1. Forced child labor
2. Dangerous workplace conditions
3. Life threatening pollution

I can come to no other conclusion than that you do not give a rats ass about people -- only the bottom line.

Misspelling soul as sole doesn't make me a Nike employee -- and I'd already indicated the industry I've worked in -- semiconductors (silicon valley thing)


You manage to skirt the issue by hiding under the trade issue. So I'm going to pin you down on this:

Q: If China was to turn its workforce into slaves, more than they are now that is, would you continue to promote the importation of goods produced there? If not why not?


Brian

 

[fskimospy]

I'm sorry, but when you support policies that result in:

1. Forced child labor
2. Dangerous workplace conditions
3. Life threatening pollution

I can come to no other conclusion than that you do not give a rats ass about people -- only the bottom line.

Clearly. I mean all those things you mentioned sound terrible for human health!

Strange, someone better tell the Chinese about how bad they have it:

That doesn't mean that the consequences of industrialization in China aren't bad for human health. In fact, China's life expectancy has grown more slowly than other rapidly industrializing countries, which implies other countries found a better balance.

That being said, how do you square this with your statements about not giving a rats ass about people?

Misspelling soul as sole doesn't make me a Nike employee -- and I'd already indicated the industry I've worked in -- semiconductors (silicon valley thing)

It was a joke.

You manage to skirt the issue by hiding under the trade issue. So I'm going to pin you down on this:

Q: If China was to turn its workforce into slaves, more than they are now that is, would you continue to promote the importation of goods produced there? If not why not?

Brian

They aren't slaves now, and of course I wouldn't support slave labor. Your mistake here is thinking that I only care about the bottom line when the reality is precisely the opposite. I support free trade precisely because it IMPROVES the lives of people.

 

[nickqt]

They aren't slaves now, and of course I wouldn't support slave labor. Your mistake here is thinking that I only care about the bottom line when the reality is precisely the opposite. I support free trade precisely because it IMPROVES the lives of people.

Free trade isn't inherently bad, just like corporations aren't inherently bad.

It's the laws that money and power write that allow themselves to capture almost all of the benefits of the "free trade" while pushing the negative economic costs onto the middle class of an industrialized country, and the negative environmental and labor costs onto the industrializing country.

In essence, free trade could improve everyone's life much more efficiently if almost all of the economic benefits weren't captured by the wealthiest people in the solar system.

 

[1prophet]

You're talking utter nonsense and flat ignoring the human consequences, both in places like China and here as well.

When you accept the devaluation of labor, and thus the devaluation of human life, on the basis that cheaper goods is more important you've sold your sole!

In no way is your view in keeping with the traditions of the Democratic party or liberalism. Of course, the Democratic party post Bill Clinton is not the Democratic party of old.

Someone asked what you do for a living and you've declined to say. I'd joked about it being perhaps Nike. Actually, the manor of your writings would lead me to suspect something in the financial services industry. Maybe Wall Street, maybe banking, perhaps accounting. I freely admit that's just a guess. It could also be some form of technocrat -- I've worked in the Semiconductor industry and know many folks that speak in similar ways.


Brian

Don't waste your time, He represents the new style Liberal, one who separates profits from human rights, as long as its not the team Rep/conservative doing it.

Best comparison would be to the Northerner back in the day of slavery who would tell you that owning slaves is wrong and illegal, but indirectly supporting it by buying the cheap goods and services from slave owning Southerners while rationalizing in his mind that it was good economic policy and not his problem because he himself didn't own slaves and lived where slavery was illegal.

http://usslave.blogspot.com/2014/05/complicity-how-north-profited-from.html

Two businesses, one owned by abolitionists, the other by a utopian industrialist, controlled 75 percent of the ivory production in America. Yet neither had a problem growing rich through a trade that led -- through their purchases alone -- to the deaths or enslavement of 2 million Africans.

This ability to separate profit from human rights is a characteristic of so many of the Northern whites who figure in ``Complicity.''


``What kinds of people were these?'' I wonder indignantly. Only later, when I slip on my Malaysia-manufactured shoes and Mexico-manufactured slacks and shirt and sit in my bargain-priced Thailand-manufactured chair, do I realize the truth: They were people like me.

 

[Brian Stirling]

They aren't slaves now, and of course I wouldn't support slave labor. Your mistake here is thinking that I only care about the bottom line when the reality is precisely the opposite. I support free trade precisely because it IMPROVES the lives of people.

Just to be clear, if China instituted slavery you would favor banning all imports from China, yes?

If that's so, is there some level of pay scale that you'd similarly demand the end of imports below that point? $1/hr, $0.10/hr, $0.01/hr?

Do you think labor rates in China effect labor rates in the USA? Do you think they are 100% disconnected?

Again, in those places in the USA that have lost a manufacturing plant the economic conditions of the people in that town have almost always declined and almost always never returned. There are a few exceptions but only a tiny percentage of the effected towns.

How is the decline in living standards for those that have had the job disappear when the plant closed somehow to you a good thing? If there was a net benefit then why are all these towns dead or dying?

You can dismiss the horrendous pollution problem and terrible work conditions if you please and I guess you do.

I don't generally get into it with righty types as it is almost always useless to confront them with the truth, but you struck me as smarter than them. I see my impression was wrong and that the actual impact on the American worker just doesn't matter.

In another thread on Sheriff Arpaio one of the righty types was going on about Hitler the lefty socialist. It's a thing being pushed by Glen Beck and comforting to the right to claim Hitler was actually a lefty. With them, true is false. Sadly, so it is with you!


Brian

 

[fskimospy]

Just to be clear, if China instituted slavery you would favor banning all imports from China, yes?

If that's so, is there some level of pay scale that you'd similarly demand the end of imports below that point? $1/hr, $0.10/hr, $0.01/hr?

Not interested in playing that game.

Do you think labor rates in China effect labor rates in the USA? Do you think they are 100% disconnected?

Again, in those places in the USA that have lost a manufacturing plant the economic conditions of the people in that town have almost always declined and almost always never returned. There are a few exceptions but only a tiny percentage of the effected towns.

How is the decline in living standards for those that have had the job disappear when the plant closed somehow to you a good thing? If there was a net benefit then why are all these towns dead or dying?

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.

You can dismiss the horrendous pollution problem and terrible work conditions if you please and I guess you do.

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 generally get into it with righty types as it is almost always useless to confront them with the truth, but you struck me as smarter than them. I see my impression was wrong and that the actual impact on the American worker just doesn't matter.

In another thread on Sheriff Arpaio one of the righty types was going on about Hitler the lefty socialist. It's a thing being pushed by Glen Beck and comforting to the right to claim Hitler was actually a lefty. With them, true is false. Sadly, so it is with you!


Brian

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

 

[dank69]

I'm sorry, but when you support policies that result in:

1. Forced child labor
2. Dangerous workplace conditions
3. Life threatening pollution

I can come to no other conclusion than that you do not give a rats ass about people -- only the bottom line.

Misspelling soul as sole doesn't make me a Nike employee -- and I'd already indicated the industry I've worked in -- semiconductors (silicon valley thing)


You manage to skirt the issue by hiding under the trade issue. So I'm going to pin you down on this:

Q: If China was to turn its workforce into slaves, more than they are now that is, would you continue to promote the importation of goods produced there? If not why not?


Brian

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

 

[Attic]

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

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.

 

[dank69]

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.

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?

 

[finglobes]

22 years ago Ross Perot warned America that the big sucking sound we hear is going to be the jobs lost to NAFTA. Millions of jobs lost to China I believe that Ross was correct.

Now, here we are again. Obama and congress are on the verge of signing the Trans Pacific Free Trade Agreement. Again, we're being told that this is what's best for the American economy. It's sad that most Americans don't even know about this.

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