Are there any economic beneffits from global corporations ?

[ABikerSailor]

NAFTA is a lesson we should have learned, yet here we are again with the White House wanting to pass TPP.

 

[danielpalos]

i believe general taxes are more appropriate than direct taxes.

 

[kaz]

Economist) Because it reduces prices for consumers so they get more for less money and the wealth created stimulates the overall economy. It also helps American companies compete better against foreign products which protects jobs

How many US jobs did NAFTA "protect?"
NAFTA's opponents attribute much of the displacement caused in the US labor market to the United States' growing trade deficits with Mexico and Canada. According to the Economic Policy Institute, rise in the trade deficit with Mexico alone since NAFTA was enacted led to the net displacement of 682,900 U.S. jobs by 2010.[2]

"Critics see the argument of the proponents of NAFTA as being one-sided because they only take into consideration export-oriented job impact instead of looking at the trade balance, also known as net exports.

"They argue that increases in imports ultimately displaced the production of goods that would have been made domestically by workers within the United States.[3]"
NAFTA s effect on United States employment - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

No, my point encompasses the net effect on the economy as directly predicted by the field of economics, it does not only take into consideration any one factor, it's the overall net effect.

Seriously, you would learn that in your first economics class

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

But the basic idea is to protect infant/key industry, that's what the US did during the XIX century.
.

what an idiot!!. So every country protects, for example, the infant auto industry for x years and the entire world gets to buy expensive crap autos forever and crap everything for years while enjoying increasing poverty. You perfect fool. In the 1980's the protected Hungarian auto industry had not invented a gas gauge, their new cars came with dip sticks!! OMG!!

See why we are 100% positive that liberalism is based in pure ignorance?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

By what I've heard few people there think NAFTA had a positive effect.

Exactly, so we'll should ban trade so that every city has to make everything it consumers itself. That way there is no job loss to people in other cities who do things cheaper and better.

 

[georgephillip]

No, my point encompasses the net effect on the economy as directly predicted by the field of economics, it does not only take into consideration any one factor, it's the overall net effect.

I asked you how many US jobs NAFTA has protected?
Reading comprehension?
According to the Economic Policy Institute's study, 61% of the net job losses due to trade with Mexico under NAFTA, or 415,000 jobs, were relatively high paying manufacturing jobs.[2]

"Certain states with heavy emphasis on manufacturing industries like Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana, and California were significantly affected by these job losses.[2]

"For example, in Ohio, Trade Adjustment Assistance and NAFTA-TAA identified 14,653 jobs directly lost due to NAFTA-related reasons like relocation of U.S. firms to Mexico.[4] Similarly, in Pennsylvania, Keystone Research Center attributed 150,000 job losses in the state to the rising U.S. trade deficit.[5]

"Since 1993, 38,325 of those job losses are directly related to trade with Mexico and Canada. Although many of these workers laid off due to NAFTA were reallocated to other sectors, the majority of workers were relocated to the service industry, where average wages are 4/5 to that of the manufacturing sector.[3]
NAFTA s effect on United States employment - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

No, my point encompasses the net effect on the economy as directly predicted by the field of economics, it does not only take into consideration any one factor, it's the overall net effect.

I asked you how many US jobs NAFTA has protected?
Reading comprehension?
According to the Economic Policy Institute's study, 61% of the net job losses due to trade with Mexico under NAFTA, or 415,000 jobs, were relatively high paying manufacturing jobs.[2]

"Certain states with heavy emphasis on manufacturing industries like Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana, and California were significantly affected by these job losses.[2]

"For example, in Ohio, Trade Adjustment Assistance and NAFTA-TAA identified 14,653 jobs directly lost due to NAFTA-related reasons like relocation of U.S. firms to Mexico.[4] Similarly, in Pennsylvania, Keystone Research Center attributed 150,000 job losses in the state to the rising U.S. trade deficit.[5]

"Since 1993, 38,325 of those job losses are directly related to trade with Mexico and Canada. Although many of these workers laid off due to NAFTA were reallocated to other sectors, the majority of workers were relocated to the service industry, where average wages are 4/5 to that of the manufacturing sector.[3]
NAFTA s effect on United States employment - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Exactly, so we'll should ban trade so that every city has to make everything it consumers itself. That way there is no job loss to people in other cities who do things cheaper and better.

 

[CultureCitizen]

But the basic idea is to protect infant/key industry, that's what the US did during the XIX century.
.

what an idiot!!. So every country protects, for example, the infant auto industry for x years and the entire world gets to buy expensive crap autos forever and crap everything for years while enjoying increasing poverty. You perfect fool. In the 1980's the protected Hungarian auto industry had not invented a gas gauge, their new cars came with dip sticks!! OMG!!

See why we are 100% positive that liberalism is based in pure ignorance?

The US was a rather rural country compared to GB in the early 1800 .
How exactly would it have been able to compete against GB and develop its industry if not through tariffs?
Enlighten me genius.

 

[CultureCitizen]

By what I've heard few people there think NAFTA had a positive effect.

Exactly, so we'll should ban trade so that every city has to make everything it consumers itself. That way there is no job loss to people in other cities who do things cheaper and better.

Ed , we are talking about countries , not cities, as per our previous discussions you might have noticed that there is no free movement of labour between countries and both taxes and subsidies have different effects as they have differerent federal governments.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

.
How exactly would it have been able to compete against GB and develop its industry if not through tariffs?
Enlighten me genius.

too stupid!!!!! the same way China went from the stone age to now in 30 years. They work harder, smarter, faster, and cheaper while the fat cats are busy being complacent and comfortable.
Also, if you had an MBA you'd know that new companies come from where you least expect them. This is why IBM invented the computer not GE or RCA.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Ed , we are talking about countries , not cities,

the identical logic applies. Why shouldn't NY protect itself from trade CA????

 

[georgephillip]

Exactly, so we'll should ban trade so that every city has to make everything it consumers itself. That way there is no job loss to people in other cities who do things cheaper and better.

Cities are not the principal unit of analysis in the development of capitalism.
World-systems theory was aiming to replace modernization theory. Wallerstein criticized modernization theory due to:

1. its focus on the state as the only unit of analysis,
2. its assumption there is only a single path of evolutionary development for all countries,
3. its disregard of transnational structures that constrain local and national development.

"Three major predecessors of world-systems theory are: the Annales school, Marxist, and dependence theory.[2] The Annales School tradition (represented most notably by Fernand Braudel) influenced Wallerstein in focusing on long-term processes and geo-ecological regions as unit of analysis. Marxist theories added:

• a stress on social conflict,
• a focus on the capital accumulation process and
• competitive class struggles,
• a focus on a relevant totality,
• the transitory nature of social forms, and
• a dialectical sense of motion through conflict and contradiction."

World-systems theory - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Exactly, so we'll should ban trade so that every city has to make everything it consumers itself. That way there is no job loss to people in other cities who do things cheaper and better.

Cities are not the principal unit of analysis in the development of capitalism.

nobody said they were you idiot. Question is why shouldn't NY politicians ban trade with CA? Answer question or be held in contempt of court.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Ed , we are talking about countries , not cities,

the identical logic applies. Why shouldn't NY protect itself from trade CA????

No, it doesn't .
Do you pay income tax to the chinese government . No
Do you have a work permit for china . No
Do you purchase using yuans. No

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Ed , we are talking about countries , not cities,

the identical logic applies. Why shouldn't NY protect itself from trade CA????

No, it doesn't .
Do you pay income tax to the chinese government . No
Do you have a work permit for china . No
Do you purchase using yuans. No

dear I don't pay income tax to NY but that does not stop CA from stealing all our jobs????? Why do they get to steal all the jobs and not China??

so you get a work permit and then you can steal all the jobs??? 100% stupid and unrelated!!!!

 

[kaz]

No, my point encompasses the net effect on the economy as directly predicted by the field of economics, it does not only take into consideration any one factor, it's the overall net effect.

I asked you how many US jobs NAFTA has protected?
Reading comprehension?
According to the Economic Policy Institute's study, 61% of the net job losses due to trade with Mexico under NAFTA, or 415,000 jobs, were relatively high paying manufacturing jobs.[2]

"Certain states with heavy emphasis on manufacturing industries like Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana, and California were significantly affected by these job losses.[2]

"For example, in Ohio, Trade Adjustment Assistance and NAFTA-TAA identified 14,653 jobs directly lost due to NAFTA-related reasons like relocation of U.S. firms to Mexico.[4] Similarly, in Pennsylvania, Keystone Research Center attributed 150,000 job losses in the state to the rising U.S. trade deficit.[5]

"Since 1993, 38,325 of those job losses are directly related to trade with Mexico and Canada. Although many of these workers laid off due to NAFTA were reallocated to other sectors, the majority of workers were relocated to the service industry, where average wages are 4/5 to that of the manufacturing sector.[3]
NAFTA s effect on United States employment - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

No, you have reading comprehension issue since I specifically addressed that in my original reply

 

[georgephillip]

Economist) Because it reduces prices for consumers so they get more for less money and the wealth created stimulates the overall economy. It also helps American companies compete better against foreign products which protects jobs.

Same question/
Whose job does it protect?
What benefit do consumers derive from low prices without jobs?
Any increase in wealth has gone to one percent of Americans, so by what standard are you saying NAFTA has been good for the US economy?

 

[danielpalos]

Exactly, so we'll should ban trade so that every city has to make everything it consumers itself. That way there is no job loss to people in other cities who do things cheaper and better.

Cities are not the principal unit of analysis in the development of capitalism.

nobody said they were you idiot. Question is why shouldn't NY politicians ban trade with CA? Answer question or be held in contempt of court.

It is proscribed in our federal Constitution.

 

[kaz]

Economist) Because it reduces prices for consumers so they get more for less money and the wealth created stimulates the overall economy. It also helps American companies compete better against foreign products which protects jobs

Same question/
Whose job does it protect?

See the green

What benefit do consumers derive from low prices without jobs?

Because lower prices allow people with jobs to buy more products and services with the same money and someone has to produce those products and services so they get work. Then they benefit again by being able to buy more products and services with their own money

Any increase in wealth has gone to one percent of Americans, so by what standard are you saying NAFTA has been good for the US economy?

Begging the question. When you and culture can tell me how you know the field of economics is wrong, let me know.

 

[bripat9643]

Ed , we are talking about countries , not cities,

the identical logic applies. Why shouldn't NY protect itself from trade CA????

No, it doesn't .
Do you pay income tax to the chinese government . No
Do you have a work permit for china . No
Do you purchase using yuans. No

Those aren't economic arguments. They're irrelevant chaff.

If trade barriers between NY and China are good, then why are trade barriers between NY and CA bad?