So, why do I find myself on the side of the Democrats, against many of the Republicans, and obama?

[kaz]

So seriously, he's with the Democrats for overt government power to control our economy, keep high prices for consumers and make our corporations uncompetitive. He's on your side and wants what you do. What is the purpose of that question?

It's self-explanatory, most republicans support anything with free trade in the title as you do. I am fascinated at the motives for the small republican opposition, it must just be because Obama, anything else would be an admission that "free trade" fever has cost us dearly.

There's always been a doom and gloom hysterical fear wing of the Republican party. Remember Pat Buchanan?

And other than that I'm not a Republican and I don't support "anything with free trade in the title," I support free trade.

Also, how do you know the field of economics is wrong when you say free trade has cost us?

Results speak for themselves, Our manufacturing sector has been gutted, we shifted to a lousy unstable service economy and wages and benefits have been flat since "free market" dogma infected our government. All of these deals have been sold as a cure for our trade deficit and decline in good paying jobs and it has just never materialized while big multinational business has never been bigger. We have been listening to "free trade" economists since Reagan and the average wage earner has never been more poor and powerless in living memory.

Yes, NAFTA is the only thing that's affected our economy in the last 20 years. We can take anything that happens in the economy and assume it's a result of NAFTA.

BTW, those things were already happening, Holmes

NAFTA is but one factor in a huge lurch in trade policy starting all the way back in Carter's term that resulted in stores full of cheap Chinese crap and idle American factories. Free trade agreements are but the legitimization of a broad process meant from the beginning to make the American worker cheaper and unwilling to organize.

Still now seeing your explanation on how you know the field of economics is wrong, just you keep begging the question and assuming that it is because you said so. Well, lawyers did anyway

 

[hipeter924]

simple fact is we dont need any more huge legislation or treaties we dont what is in it. ...The supposed teabagger who replaced Bachmann...doesnt want to say what his position is..........

Yep, if this was a real 'free trade' treaty, it would have just a few provisions, rather than hundreds or thousands.

All you need is three:
1. No tarrifs and duties on goods and services.
2. No international taxes on trade.
3. Freedom of movement for trade of goods and services.

 

[eagle1462010]

Our borders are not necessarily closed with tariffs.............If china bans products there..........which they do in some areas......then they get hit for it in return...................Tariffs don't close borders.........and they don't necessarily sky rocket prices when they are done in moderation...............

And the border closed argument would be if we started a trade war over it..................

I didn't say our borders are closed. I talked about open borders and the more open the better, so I'm not sure what you're looking for.

NAFTA allowed corps to move south of the border...........use it to their advantage........and then ship it back here free gratis..........at the cost of hundreds of thousands of jobs.....................How is that beneficial to the average working man in this country?

Do the lower costs offset those who now have the great SERVICE SECTOR JOBS at McDonalds and Walmart....................that ain't a good trade off..............

I must have missed the post you explained how you know more than economists about the economy. Can you give me that post # and I'll review that and we can take it from there?

post 3 and 4

I don't see anywhere in there how you know the field of economics is wrong

focus on 4

That was happening anyway you realize, and again, NAFTA is actually not the only thing that has happened in the last 20 years, you are committing a single cause fallacy

show the new jobs that replaced those lost in the graphs now please..................

I addressed this in the post immediately following this one

Specifics.............................none posted....................where are they................show the growth.

Show what graph? I am answering your questions

No you did not.....................Show the job gains with realistic examples............................

Your counter to the economic losses in my examples was basically the same old argument...............they would have been lost anyway................and since your sector in IT is gaining you don't care................

You made that clear in another thread where you said we don't need blue collar workers anyway.....................

You've outsourced your company to increase profits to india.............so be it.................It is my point that you are increasing money circulation there and not here........................and if I had my way you'd be taxed on the way back in due to lower standards in the form of protectionism.....................

Again, specifics on REAL JOBS in the United States proving that the gains outweigh the losses....................IN THE LABOR MARKET............NOT CORPORATE OR STOCK PROFITS...............

 

[eagle1462010]

U.S.-Korea Trade Deal Resulted in Growing Trade Deficits and More Than 75 000 Lost U.S. Jobs Economic Policy Institute

KORUS losing jobs again.....................net gain = more of a trade deficit.............

I guess if you like trade deficits then free trade is the shit..............especially if your bread and butter of increased profits comes from outsourcing to foreign countries.

 

[occupied]

It's self-explanatory, most republicans support anything with free trade in the title as you do. I am fascinated at the motives for the small republican opposition, it must just be because Obama, anything else would be an admission that "free trade" fever has cost us dearly.

There's always been a doom and gloom hysterical fear wing of the Republican party. Remember Pat Buchanan?

And other than that I'm not a Republican and I don't support "anything with free trade in the title," I support free trade.

Also, how do you know the field of economics is wrong when you say free trade has cost us?

Results speak for themselves, Our manufacturing sector has been gutted, we shifted to a lousy unstable service economy and wages and benefits have been flat since "free market" dogma infected our government. All of these deals have been sold as a cure for our trade deficit and decline in good paying jobs and it has just never materialized while big multinational business has never been bigger. We have been listening to "free trade" economists since Reagan and the average wage earner has never been more poor and powerless in living memory.

Yes, NAFTA is the only thing that's affected our economy in the last 20 years. We can take anything that happens in the economy and assume it's a result of NAFTA.

BTW, those things were already happening, Holmes

NAFTA is but one factor in a huge lurch in trade policy starting all the way back in Carter's term that resulted in stores full of cheap Chinese crap and idle American factories. Free trade agreements are but the legitimization of a broad process meant from the beginning to make the American worker cheaper and unwilling to organize.

Still now seeing your explanation on how you know the field of economics is wrong, just you keep begging the question and assuming that it is because you said so. Well, lawyers did anyway

Economists said "this 'free trade' mumbo-jumbo will be great" and it turns out that things are not so great unless you have a lot of stock in a multinational. At this point I have zero faith in the predictive powers of anyone that calls themselves an economist. The numbers say they suck at predicting the future or coming up with ideas that do not screw the working class.

 

[eagle1462010]

China Trade Outsourcing and Jobs Alliance for American Manufacturing

China Trade, Outsourcing and Jobs
Growing U.S. trade deficit with China cost 3.2 million jobs between 2001 and 2013

2.4 million manufacturing jobs were lost due to trade with China between 2001 and 2013, accounting for 75 percent of all jobs lost to China.

Every state and congressional district but one has lost net job opportunities since China joined the World Trade Organization.

The trade deficit in the computer and electronic parts industry grew the most, resulting in more than 1.2 million jobs lost or displaced.

 

[kaz]

Show what graph? I am answering your questions

No you did not.....................Show the job gains with realistic examples............................

I already answered that. When you spend less for something, you have more money. You spend it on whatever you want. How can I tell you how everyone will spend their money? Some businesses just start getting more business.

They cover this literally in basic, first year economics.

Your counter to the economic losses in my examples was basically the same old argument...............they would have been lost anyway................and since your sector in IT is gaining you don't care................

You made that clear in another thread where you said we don't need blue collar workers anyway.....................

Stopped reading here. You are full of shit, that isn't remotely what I said. I said we aren't going to build the economy by trapping blue collar work here with government force.

What legitimate power does government have to prevent it's citizens from freely crossing our border and doing whatever the hell we want? Why is that your business

 

[eagle1462010]

Hit Us Where It Hurts China s Ban on U.S. Agricultural Products Grows China Law Blog

Since China’s admittance to the World Trade Organization (WTO), China and the United States have increasingly traded their comparative advantages. Daily, Chinese made iPads, Lenovo computers, Nike sneakers, and other material trappings of American consumerism arrive in U.S. ports, where they are unloaded and then returned filled with U.S. grain products like soybeans and corn. But in November 2013 the system began to break down, as corn exports to China came to a halt.

What caused this halt was the discovery by China’s Inspection and Quarantine Services (CIQS) of an unapproved genetically modified corn varietal called MIR-162 in imported shipments. Import permits began to be denied, and US corn exports to China gradually decreased to nothing. Grain merchandisers and U.S. farmers were horrified, as the fastest growing market for U.S. corn closed its doors.

Agribusiness companies and Chinese importers were quick to react, replacing corn grain as the number one U.S. export to China with a corn based ethanol byproduct called distiller dried grain with solubles (DDGs). For a time it seemed that American grain merchandisers had found a solution to China’s ban on U.S. corn with DDGs, but this “solution” was short-lived. In the spring of this year China stopped returning import permits for DDGs. After months of confusion, the U.S. Embassy in Beijing on July 24received a short message stating that “U.S. DDGs imports must now be tested at origination for the unapproved gene MIR-162.” In the space of a day, traded corn prices dropped by more than half.


They ban our products we ban theirs...................but we don't because we are Free Trade Partners...............of course the shelves at Walmart might go empty........................

 

[kaz]

There's always been a doom and gloom hysterical fear wing of the Republican party. Remember Pat Buchanan?

And other than that I'm not a Republican and I don't support "anything with free trade in the title," I support free trade.

Also, how do you know the field of economics is wrong when you say free trade has cost us?

Results speak for themselves, Our manufacturing sector has been gutted, we shifted to a lousy unstable service economy and wages and benefits have been flat since "free market" dogma infected our government. All of these deals have been sold as a cure for our trade deficit and decline in good paying jobs and it has just never materialized while big multinational business has never been bigger. We have been listening to "free trade" economists since Reagan and the average wage earner has never been more poor and powerless in living memory.

Yes, NAFTA is the only thing that's affected our economy in the last 20 years. We can take anything that happens in the economy and assume it's a result of NAFTA.

BTW, those things were already happening, Holmes

NAFTA is but one factor in a huge lurch in trade policy starting all the way back in Carter's term that resulted in stores full of cheap Chinese crap and idle American factories. Free trade agreements are but the legitimization of a broad process meant from the beginning to make the American worker cheaper and unwilling to organize.

Still now seeing your explanation on how you know the field of economics is wrong, just you keep begging the question and assuming that it is because you said so. Well, lawyers did anyway

Economists said "this 'free trade' mumbo-jumbo will be great" and it turns out that things are not so great unless you have a lot of stock in a multinational. At this point I have zero faith in the predictive powers of anyone that calls themselves an economist. The numbers say they suck at predicting the future or coming up with ideas that do not screw the working class.

Who were you quoting? I don't believe any economist actually said they support mumbo-jumbo. Or do you just make up the quotes you wanted them to say? Do you even know what quote marks mean? You can start figuring that out by looking at the first of the two words in quote marks.

And free trade doesn't undo all the harm the rest of our belligerent, socialist government is doing. It's a net positive, you don't know what "net" positive means, do you?

 

[eagle1462010]

Show what graph? I am answering your questions

No you did not.....................Show the job gains with realistic examples............................

I already answered that. When you spend less for something, you have more money. You spend it on whatever you want. How can I tell you how everyone will spend their money? Some businesses just start getting more business.

They cover this literally in basic, first year economics.

Your counter to the economic losses in my examples was basically the same old argument...............they would have been lost anyway................and since your sector in IT is gaining you don't care................

You made that clear in another thread where you said we don't need blue collar workers anyway.....................

Stopped reading here. You are full of shit, that isn't remotely what I said. I said we aren't going to build the economy by trapping blue collar work here with government force.

What legitimate power does government have to prevent it's citizens from freely crossing our border and doing whatever the hell we want? Why is that your business

How the hell do you spend more money when your job was sent overseas..............................

Where is that part of the equation......................and where are the higher paying jobs in the service sector....................I've asked for specifics in the jobs in the UNITED STATES LABOR FORCE and you still haven't shown me the increases in the labor force in reply.

 

[kaz]

China Trade Outsourcing and Jobs Alliance for American Manufacturing

China Trade, Outsourcing and Jobs
Growing U.S. trade deficit with China cost 3.2 million jobs between 2001 and 2013

2.4 million manufacturing jobs were lost due to trade with China between 2001 and 2013, accounting for 75 percent of all jobs lost to China.

Every state and congressional district but one has lost net job opportunities since China joined the World Trade Organization.

The trade deficit in the computer and electronic parts industry grew the most, resulting in more than 1.2 million jobs lost or displaced.

I agreed there are gains and losses, there are just more gains. Focusing only on one side doesn't contradict that

 

[kaz]

Show what graph? I am answering your questions

No you did not.....................Show the job gains with realistic examples............................

I already answered that. When you spend less for something, you have more money. You spend it on whatever you want. How can I tell you how everyone will spend their money? Some businesses just start getting more business.

They cover this literally in basic, first year economics.

Your counter to the economic losses in my examples was basically the same old argument...............they would have been lost anyway................and since your sector in IT is gaining you don't care................

You made that clear in another thread where you said we don't need blue collar workers anyway.....................

Stopped reading here. You are full of shit, that isn't remotely what I said. I said we aren't going to build the economy by trapping blue collar work here with government force.

What legitimate power does government have to prevent it's citizens from freely crossing our border and doing whatever the hell we want? Why is that your business

How the hell do you spend more money when your job was sent overseas..............................

Where is that part of the equation......................and where are the higher paying jobs in the service sector....................I've asked for specifics in the jobs in the UNITED STATES LABOR FORCE and you still haven't shown me the increases in the labor force in reply.

What part of there are gains and losses, there are just more gains, do you not understand?

That you would have kept blacksmiths as the economy and technology changed wouldn't have actually helped the economy. The blacksmiths needed to develop new skills and find new jobs. You keep making the same points and ignoring my answers

 

[eagle1462010]

China Trade Outsourcing and Jobs Alliance for American Manufacturing

China Trade, Outsourcing and Jobs
Growing U.S. trade deficit with China cost 3.2 million jobs between 2001 and 2013

2.4 million manufacturing jobs were lost due to trade with China between 2001 and 2013, accounting for 75 percent of all jobs lost to China.

Every state and congressional district but one has lost net job opportunities since China joined the World Trade Organization.

The trade deficit in the computer and electronic parts industry grew the most, resulting in more than 1.2 million jobs lost or displaced.

I agreed there are gains and losses, there are just more gains. Focusing only on one side doesn't contradict that

Ignoring the losses without showing the gains you say are there doesn't prove a damned thing.......................

Show these gains to counteract the losses.................that you say are there and DO IT IN THE LABOR MARKET ONLY.

 

[occupied]

Results speak for themselves, Our manufacturing sector has been gutted, we shifted to a lousy unstable service economy and wages and benefits have been flat since "free market" dogma infected our government. All of these deals have been sold as a cure for our trade deficit and decline in good paying jobs and it has just never materialized while big multinational business has never been bigger. We have been listening to "free trade" economists since Reagan and the average wage earner has never been more poor and powerless in living memory.

Yes, NAFTA is the only thing that's affected our economy in the last 20 years. We can take anything that happens in the economy and assume it's a result of NAFTA.

BTW, those things were already happening, Holmes

NAFTA is but one factor in a huge lurch in trade policy starting all the way back in Carter's term that resulted in stores full of cheap Chinese crap and idle American factories. Free trade agreements are but the legitimization of a broad process meant from the beginning to make the American worker cheaper and unwilling to organize.

Still now seeing your explanation on how you know the field of economics is wrong, just you keep begging the question and assuming that it is because you said so. Well, lawyers did anyway

Economists said "this 'free trade' mumbo-jumbo will be great" and it turns out that things are not so great unless you have a lot of stock in a multinational. At this point I have zero faith in the predictive powers of anyone that calls themselves an economist. The numbers say they suck at predicting the future or coming up with ideas that do not screw the working class.

Who were you quoting? I don't believe any economist actually said they support mumbo-jumbo. Or do you just make up the quotes you wanted them to say? Do you even know what quote marks mean? You can start figuring that out by looking at the first of the two words in quote marks.

And free trade doesn't undo all the harm the rest of our belligerent, socialist government is doing. It's a net positive, you don't know what "net" positive means, do you?

I know you are trying to defend a profession with a terrible track record. It is also important to note that the very richest industrialists have endowed most of the elite economics schools in America with the proviso that the Chicago school theories be taught and favored, another good reason to suspect their every prediction.

 

[eagle1462010]

Show what graph? I am answering your questions

No you did not.....................Show the job gains with realistic examples............................

I already answered that. When you spend less for something, you have more money. You spend it on whatever you want. How can I tell you how everyone will spend their money? Some businesses just start getting more business.

They cover this literally in basic, first year economics.

Your counter to the economic losses in my examples was basically the same old argument...............they would have been lost anyway................and since your sector in IT is gaining you don't care................

You made that clear in another thread where you said we don't need blue collar workers anyway.....................

Stopped reading here. You are full of shit, that isn't remotely what I said. I said we aren't going to build the economy by trapping blue collar work here with government force.

What legitimate power does government have to prevent it's citizens from freely crossing our border and doing whatever the hell we want? Why is that your business

How the hell do you spend more money when your job was sent overseas..............................

Where is that part of the equation......................and where are the higher paying jobs in the service sector....................I've asked for specifics in the jobs in the UNITED STATES LABOR FORCE and you still haven't shown me the increases in the labor force in reply.

What part of there are gains and losses, there are just more gains, do you not understand?

That you would have kept blacksmiths as the economy and technology changed wouldn't have actually helped the economy. The blacksmiths needed to develop new skills and find new jobs. You keep making the same points and ignoring my answers

I have asked for specific gains and have received none..................SHOW ME THE GAINS YOU SAY ARE THERE.........EXAMPLES WITH BACKED UP DATA...................via THE LABOR MARKET.

 

[kaz]

China Trade Outsourcing and Jobs Alliance for American Manufacturing

China Trade, Outsourcing and Jobs
Growing U.S. trade deficit with China cost 3.2 million jobs between 2001 and 2013

2.4 million manufacturing jobs were lost due to trade with China between 2001 and 2013, accounting for 75 percent of all jobs lost to China.

Every state and congressional district but one has lost net job opportunities since China joined the World Trade Organization.

The trade deficit in the computer and electronic parts industry grew the most, resulting in more than 1.2 million jobs lost or displaced.

I agreed there are gains and losses, there are just more gains. Focusing only on one side doesn't contradict that

Ignoring the losses without showing the gains you say are there doesn't prove a damned thing.......................

Show these gains to counteract the losses.................that you say are there and DO IT IN THE LABOR MARKET ONLY.

Take an economics 101 class and ask the teacher to show you that. Seriously. I can't explain economics to you on a message board. But it's basic, first year questions you are asking me.

Again though, I cannot tell you which people because I don't know how people will spend the money they save. How can I possibly tell you which people?

Say I kill a sniper and you charge me with murder because I can't prove which person I saved?

 

[kaz]

Yes, NAFTA is the only thing that's affected our economy in the last 20 years. We can take anything that happens in the economy and assume it's a result of NAFTA.

BTW, those things were already happening, Holmes

NAFTA is but one factor in a huge lurch in trade policy starting all the way back in Carter's term that resulted in stores full of cheap Chinese crap and idle American factories. Free trade agreements are but the legitimization of a broad process meant from the beginning to make the American worker cheaper and unwilling to organize.

Still now seeing your explanation on how you know the field of economics is wrong, just you keep begging the question and assuming that it is because you said so. Well, lawyers did anyway

Economists said "this 'free trade' mumbo-jumbo will be great" and it turns out that things are not so great unless you have a lot of stock in a multinational. At this point I have zero faith in the predictive powers of anyone that calls themselves an economist. The numbers say they suck at predicting the future or coming up with ideas that do not screw the working class.

Who were you quoting? I don't believe any economist actually said they support mumbo-jumbo. Or do you just make up the quotes you wanted them to say? Do you even know what quote marks mean? You can start figuring that out by looking at the first of the two words in quote marks.

And free trade doesn't undo all the harm the rest of our belligerent, socialist government is doing. It's a net positive, you don't know what "net" positive means, do you?

I know you are trying to defend a profession with a terrible track record. It is also important to note that the very richest industrialists have endowed most of the elite economics schools in America with the proviso that the Chicago school theories be taught and favored, another good reason to suspect their every prediction.

Begging the question.

And manual labor jobs were already going offshore before NAFTA and I keep pointing out NAFTA is not the only thing that has happened to the economy in the last 20 years, government policies are actively driving jobs offshore and also you are directly contradicting the field of economics. That NAFTA hasn't fixed all that doesn't prove anything

 

[occupied]

NAFTA is but one factor in a huge lurch in trade policy starting all the way back in Carter's term that resulted in stores full of cheap Chinese crap and idle American factories. Free trade agreements are but the legitimization of a broad process meant from the beginning to make the American worker cheaper and unwilling to organize.

Still now seeing your explanation on how you know the field of economics is wrong, just you keep begging the question and assuming that it is because you said so. Well, lawyers did anyway

Economists said "this 'free trade' mumbo-jumbo will be great" and it turns out that things are not so great unless you have a lot of stock in a multinational. At this point I have zero faith in the predictive powers of anyone that calls themselves an economist. The numbers say they suck at predicting the future or coming up with ideas that do not screw the working class.

Who were you quoting? I don't believe any economist actually said they support mumbo-jumbo. Or do you just make up the quotes you wanted them to say? Do you even know what quote marks mean? You can start figuring that out by looking at the first of the two words in quote marks.

And free trade doesn't undo all the harm the rest of our belligerent, socialist government is doing. It's a net positive, you don't know what "net" positive means, do you?

I know you are trying to defend a profession with a terrible track record. It is also important to note that the very richest industrialists have endowed most of the elite economics schools in America with the proviso that the Chicago school theories be taught and favored, another good reason to suspect their every prediction.

Begging the question.

And manual labor jobs were already going offshore before NAFTA and I keep pointing out NAFTA is not the only thing that has happened to the economy in the last 20 years, government policies are actively driving jobs offshore and also you are directly contradicting the field of economics. That NAFTA hasn't fixed all that doesn't prove anything

I already said NAFTA was but part of a broad policy to cheapen American labor and undercut unions by making us compete directly with sweat shop laborers. Pay attention. I am attacking your entire Friedmanite economic belief system as a false gospel, not just NAFTA.

 

[eagle1462010]

China Trade Outsourcing and Jobs Alliance for American Manufacturing

China Trade, Outsourcing and Jobs
Growing U.S. trade deficit with China cost 3.2 million jobs between 2001 and 2013

2.4 million manufacturing jobs were lost due to trade with China between 2001 and 2013, accounting for 75 percent of all jobs lost to China.

Every state and congressional district but one has lost net job opportunities since China joined the World Trade Organization.

The trade deficit in the computer and electronic parts industry grew the most, resulting in more than 1.2 million jobs lost or displaced.

I agreed there are gains and losses, there are just more gains. Focusing only on one side doesn't contradict that

Ignoring the losses without showing the gains you say are there doesn't prove a damned thing.......................

Show these gains to counteract the losses.................that you say are there and DO IT IN THE LABOR MARKET ONLY.

Take an economics 101 class and ask the teacher to show you that. Seriously. I can't explain economics to you on a message board. But it's basic, first year questions you are asking me.

Again though, I cannot tell you which people because I don't know how people will spend the money they save. How can I possibly tell you which people?

Say I kill a sniper and you charge me with murder because I can't prove which person I saved?

Perhaps I need to write the equation in crayon for you...............

Show me examples in the LABOR MARKET of these GAINS YOU SAY ARE OCCURRING........................This isn't about where they spend their money it is ABOUT JOBS PERIOD................That is my argument........................You just bragged at the outsourcing of jobs by your own company......................

Perhaps I'll make it easy for you............can you at least tell me how many jobs you created in India...............................

That's the question and not the evasive answers you are giving me............

And the largest growth of jobs in this country is WHERE????????????????? GO.

 

[eagle1462010]

Example..........

Oil and gas industry employment growing much faster than total private sector employment - Today in Energy - U.S. Energy Information Administration EIA

Quarter million jobs since 2007 in the energy sector...............

These jobs have not been outsourced...........

These jobs are middle class paying BLUE COLLAR JOBS.................

Now...........your turn...............