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

[eagle1462010]

WTO Ruling Blasts U.S. Sovereignty TPP Threatens More of Same

Both the TPP and the TTIP would create international courts that could (and would) override American federal, state, and local laws, as well as federal and state court decisions, and even federal and state constitutions, as The New American has reported previously (see here and here).


The May 18 WTO ruling was the fourth time in three years the organization has struck down the United States’ country of origin labeling (COOL) law, ruling that it violates international trade laws.

In an article in March, we provided this summary of the WTO-COOL battle:

A few short months ago, on October 20, 2014, the World Trade Organization ruled that the U.S. Country Of Origin Labeling (COOL) law is illegal, even though a U.S. federal court had upheld the law. COOL, which requires imported foreign meat to carry a label naming the country of origin, was challenged as discriminatory by meat exporters from our NAFTA partners Mexico and Canada. It should be noted that the COOL law does not prohibit or restrict any product; it merely says American consumers have a right to know where foreign meat is coming from so they can make an informed decision on whether or not to buy it. To most Americans that probably sounds not only reasonable, but also an issue that we have a right to decide for ourselves, without international interference. That was also the opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The U.S. court ruled against Canada and Mexico and concluded that COOL complies with the U.S. Constitution and that Congress had authority to enact the law.

But WTO considers itself above the U.S. Constitution, above U.S. laws, and above U.S. courts. Not surprisingly, the WTO ruled against COOL and the right of Americans to know if the food they’re eating was produced in a foreign country.

“More cases are pending before NAFTA and WTO courts,” we noted. “And if the TPP is passed, we will, most assuredly, be afflicted with new TPP tribunals that will offer even more potential for subversive attacks on every aspect of our political and economic systems.”


aka..........................The WTO said we have no right to know where the meat came from from or who produced it.....................

LOL

DRINK THE KOOLAIDE.....................

and FUCK THE WTO AND TPP............

 

[occupied]

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.

OK, so then you think the only thing that has happened in our economy is not just NAFTA, you think the only thing that has happened on our economy the last 20 years are free trade agreements. That's no better

You still don't get it. Read this slowly and ponder every word. Our trade policy has only enriched the already wealthy and done nothing positive for any American wage earner. All of your economic beliefs are the same dogmatic bullshit we have been hearing for decades. All of these "free trade" proponents' predictions of widespread prosperity have been either lies or total incompetence. Take your pick.

You still don't get it. Read this slowly and ponder every word. How ... do ... you ... know ... the ... field ... of ... economics ... is ... wrong?

Economics claims to be scientific if not a science. After all this time there should be some agreement on what reaction will result from any sort of action in very general terms, but this is not the case. Instead we have two warring camps who are more interested in pushing their belief systems rather than actually providing some definitive answers to mostly avoid this unstable boom and bust cycle that has made life very difficult for nearly everyone. So in nutshell this is my opinion: Economics should not be treated as anything other than a dubious pseudo-science, like phrenology, until they produce some repeatable results and some straight answers. As long as it is just a bitter polar conflict between greasing the skids for the rich and providing economic protection for the working class everything any of them says is suspect.

 

[eagle1462010]

So on this question, let me start with you. Let's say because Ford builds cars in Mexico they save you $200 on your next car. What are you going to spend the $200 you saved on?

That's not the point................you are focused on the amount of money saved without consideration of the losses..................but to the point since I don't build cars for a living I'd spend it on gas..............................

Now address the same to the laid off workers who lost there job so I could save $200...............If they don't have a job how are they going to buy a car anyway................................

Again apples to oranges........................

These agreements aren't selling our sovereignty and people out.

I answered that in post 121....................

You don't consider having to go to a foreign group like the WTO to legally battle trade agreements with China a loss of Sovereignty........................................................

It didn't work that way before the WTO or these Free Trade agreements were made..............before the WTO we'd tell those countries if you want to sell those goods here then you will put the country of origin on the label or keep your products...............

Before the WTO, if China banned our agri business we'd either ban something of theirs or tariff a product from them................or renegotiate the deal......................We didn't have to plead our case to a foreign court called the WTO to decide our fate............

That to me goes against Article 1 Section 8 clause 3

 

[eagle1462010]

 

[kaz]

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.

OK, so then you think the only thing that has happened in our economy is not just NAFTA, you think the only thing that has happened on our economy the last 20 years are free trade agreements. That's no better

You still don't get it. Read this slowly and ponder every word. Our trade policy has only enriched the already wealthy and done nothing positive for any American wage earner. All of your economic beliefs are the same dogmatic bullshit we have been hearing for decades. All of these "free trade" proponents' predictions of widespread prosperity have been either lies or total incompetence. Take your pick.

You still don't get it. Read this slowly and ponder every word. How ... do ... you ... know ... the ... field ... of ... economics ... is ... wrong?

Economics claims to be scientific if not a science. After all this time there should be some agreement on what reaction will result from any sort of action in very general terms, but this is not the case. Instead we have two warring camps who are more interested in pushing their belief systems rather than actually providing some definitive answers to mostly avoid this unstable boom and bust cycle that has made life very difficult for nearly everyone. So in nutshell this is my opinion: Economics should not be treated as anything other than a dubious pseudo-science, like phrenology, until they produce some repeatable results and some straight answers. As long as it is just a bitter polar conflict between greasing the skids for the rich and providing economic protection for the working class everything any of them says is suspect.

This is basic economics, no economist argues that free trade is not good for the economy.

So don't you ever sit back and ask yourself about liberal lawyers:

1) How exactly do they know so much about economics from ... law school?

2) Isn't it convenient that what they claim is good for the economy is in their complete self serving interest? Doesn't that make you question them at all? Well, obviously it doesn't, but shouldn't it?

 

[eagle1462010]

The Folly of Free Trade - HBR

Unequal National Competition
Classical economics teaches us that free exchange works to produce the best results for all, whether the exchange takes place within one nation or across national boundaries. But this concept works only when the exchange is an equal one that occurs within a common framework of laws, customs, rules, and regulations. Economic competition conducted under the law of the jungle leads to chaos and failure. The price system becomes a guide to nothing that is sensible or tolerable.

The laissez-faire approach to economics fashionable in the United States permits distorted outcomes precisely because it neglects the essential role of rules and regulations in preventing destructive competition. When each nation creates self-serving rules, free trade across national boundaries becomes destructive—an unequal competition under inconsistent and inharmonious rules.

Most American companies facing international competition have encountered the problem. Most governments are playing a simple game: they use their myriad powers—subsidies, favorable banking practices, local content requirements, exchange control, and the like—to win jobs and gain higher incomes for their people or to achieve a favorable national balance of payments.

American companies, therefore, end up competing not with foreign companies but with sovereign foreign states—states intent on winning jobs and sometimes whole industries for themselves. Foreign competitors are able to beat out a U.S. company not because of superior economic efficiency but because of subsidies. Japan grants favorable credit terms to certain industries, and many countries give cheap export-finance loans. European nations have special treatment for the value-added tax on exported goods. Most of the Pacific rim nations have weak or nonexistent environmental regulations, and Taiwan often fails to enforce its patent and copyright laws. Laborers in places like China lack the rights of U.S. workers.

Under either free immigration or free trade, however, the lower-wage nation enjoys only a short-term benefit. Rapid economic advance based on taking over the markets, the industries, and the jobs of high-income nations is likely to be a blind alley. Gradually, the higher-wage nation, deprived of its economic base, becomes poorer and its market shrinks—or it belatedly begins protecting itself from one-sided imports. The low-wage nation then may wish it had followed a pattern of economic growth that was sustainable and not parasitic.

Either free migration or free trade would work to turn the world into a “population commune,” drifting into global poverty, pulled down by the negative-sum game of international wage competition.

Now for the economist version...........an NBA Star makes more money so he doesn't cut his own lawn...........thus creating jobs from the economic gain........a lawn mower man. What the economist didn't say is that the lawn mower man used to be a maintenance man at a local mill that was shutdown and sent overseas.......

 

[Misty]

Is there a conservative here who can tell this conservative why most in the right are for this thing?

Is there a conservative here who can tell this conservative why most in the right are for this thing?

I don't think conservatives are for it. Republicans might be but republicans in Washington are not conservatives.

 

[Zander]

Is there a conservative here who can tell this conservative why most in the right are for this thing?

I don't know anyone, outside of a few politicians, who is for it. How can we be? it's all a big secret.....

 

[occupied]

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.

OK, so then you think the only thing that has happened in our economy is not just NAFTA, you think the only thing that has happened on our economy the last 20 years are free trade agreements. That's no better

You still don't get it. Read this slowly and ponder every word. Our trade policy has only enriched the already wealthy and done nothing positive for any American wage earner. All of your economic beliefs are the same dogmatic bullshit we have been hearing for decades. All of these "free trade" proponents' predictions of widespread prosperity have been either lies or total incompetence. Take your pick.

You still don't get it. Read this slowly and ponder every word. How ... do ... you ... know ... the ... field ... of ... economics ... is ... wrong?

Economics claims to be scientific if not a science. After all this time there should be some agreement on what reaction will result from any sort of action in very general terms, but this is not the case. Instead we have two warring camps who are more interested in pushing their belief systems rather than actually providing some definitive answers to mostly avoid this unstable boom and bust cycle that has made life very difficult for nearly everyone. So in nutshell this is my opinion: Economics should not be treated as anything other than a dubious pseudo-science, like phrenology, until they produce some repeatable results and some straight answers. As long as it is just a bitter polar conflict between greasing the skids for the rich and providing economic protection for the working class everything any of them says is suspect.

This is basic economics, no economist argues that free trade is not good for the economy.

So don't you ever sit back and ask yourself about liberal lawyers:

1) How exactly do they know so much about economics from ... law school?

2) Isn't it convenient that what they claim is good for the economy is in their complete self serving interest? Doesn't that make you question them at all? Well, obviously it doesn't, but shouldn't it?

I don't like lawyers either, I just want some straight answers, not another over educated suit parroting dogma written in another century. Again I charge this most holy office of capitalism to be bound in superstition, rigid dogma and wishful thinking, I am not a true believer as you are, these shamans of cash flow have been wrong too many times.

 

[PredFan]

Is there a conservative here who can tell this conservative why most in the right are for this thing?

Is there a conservative here who can tell this conservative why most in the right are for this thing?

I don't think conservatives are for it. Republicans might be but republicans in Washington are not conservatives.

Good point.

 

[kaz]

OK, so then you think the only thing that has happened in our economy is not just NAFTA, you think the only thing that has happened on our economy the last 20 years are free trade agreements. That's no better

You still don't get it. Read this slowly and ponder every word. Our trade policy has only enriched the already wealthy and done nothing positive for any American wage earner. All of your economic beliefs are the same dogmatic bullshit we have been hearing for decades. All of these "free trade" proponents' predictions of widespread prosperity have been either lies or total incompetence. Take your pick.

You still don't get it. Read this slowly and ponder every word. How ... do ... you ... know ... the ... field ... of ... economics ... is ... wrong?

Economics claims to be scientific if not a science. After all this time there should be some agreement on what reaction will result from any sort of action in very general terms, but this is not the case. Instead we have two warring camps who are more interested in pushing their belief systems rather than actually providing some definitive answers to mostly avoid this unstable boom and bust cycle that has made life very difficult for nearly everyone. So in nutshell this is my opinion: Economics should not be treated as anything other than a dubious pseudo-science, like phrenology, until they produce some repeatable results and some straight answers. As long as it is just a bitter polar conflict between greasing the skids for the rich and providing economic protection for the working class everything any of them says is suspect.

This is basic economics, no economist argues that free trade is not good for the economy.

So don't you ever sit back and ask yourself about liberal lawyers:

1) How exactly do they know so much about economics from ... law school?

2) Isn't it convenient that what they claim is good for the economy is in their complete self serving interest? Doesn't that make you question them at all? Well, obviously it doesn't, but shouldn't it?

I don't like lawyers either, I just want some straight answers, not another over educated suit parroting dogma written in another century. Again I charge this most holy office of capitalism to be bound in superstition, rigid dogma and wishful thinking, I am not a true believer as you are, these shamans of cash flow have been wrong too many times.

So I'm curious, if you don't like politicians and don't like people who parrot other people, how did you and liberal lawyers arrive independently at all the same answers?

 

[kaz]

I charge this most holy office of capitalism to be bound in superstition, rigid dogma and wishful thinking.

How does that even make sense? Economic freedom is superstition? How left are you, Karl, that you think the natural state is total government control and every freedom must be justified. I believe the exact reverse

 

[occupied]

I charge this most holy office of capitalism to be bound in superstition, rigid dogma and wishful thinking.

How does that even make sense? Economic freedom is superstition? How left are you, Karl, that you think the natural state is total government control and every freedom must be justified. I believe the exact reverse

Jesus H Christ you are dense. Have you never really thought about how much of your economic dogma is based on faith? How similar to a religion it is? You ought to. I am an economic atheist, if that shit works then do it, if it didn't work last time then don't keep on with it.

 

[kiwiman127]

I charge this most holy office of capitalism to be bound in superstition, rigid dogma and wishful thinking.

How does that even make sense? Economic freedom is superstition? How left are you, Karl, that you think the natural state is total government control and every freedom must be justified. I believe the exact reverse

I would guess that most of us who have serious issues with free trade based on factual history, have positive feeling for fair trade. That includes protectionism for the American worker. How about you, Kaz?

 

[hipeter924]

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.

OK, so then you think the only thing that has happened in our economy is not just NAFTA, you think the only thing that has happened on our economy the last 20 years are free trade agreements. That's no better

You still don't get it. Read this slowly and ponder every word. Our trade policy has only enriched the already wealthy and done nothing positive for any American wage earner. All of your economic beliefs are the same dogmatic bullshit we have been hearing for decades. All of these "free trade" proponents' predictions of widespread prosperity have been either lies or total incompetence. Take your pick.

You still don't get it. Read this slowly and ponder every word. How ... do ... you ... know ... the ... field ... of ... economics ... is ... wrong?

Economics claims to be scientific if not a science. After all this time there should be some agreement on what reaction will result from any sort of action in very general terms, but this is not the case. Instead we have two warring camps who are more interested in pushing their belief systems rather than actually providing some definitive answers to mostly avoid this unstable boom and bust cycle that has made life very difficult for nearly everyone. So in nutshell this is my opinion: Economics should not be treated as anything other than a dubious pseudo-science, like phrenology, until they produce some repeatable results and some straight answers. As long as it is just a bitter polar conflict between greasing the skids for the rich and providing economic protection for the working class everything any of them says is suspect.

Economists can be politicized, just like with people in other professions that deal with issues in society.

Milton Friedman, Keynes, and so on, for good or ill pushed their economic policies through a political ideology, whether they intended to or not. Keynes influenced the New Deal and much of the Post-WW2 rebirth, and Milton Friedman had significant influence on US foreign policy.

This can be very damaging, as when some economists push their political ideology, they can do it on the basis of 'if they aren't with us, they are against us' and snub all criticism.

Certainly the great recession was the product of politicized economists who put their 'free market' beliefs into practice - even if they ran foul of the reality expressed by more objective economists.

 

[hipeter924]

I charge this most holy office of capitalism to be bound in superstition, rigid dogma and wishful thinking.

How does that even make sense? Economic freedom is superstition? How left are you, Karl, that you think the natural state is total government control and every freedom must be justified. I believe the exact reverse

So you believe that the government should be controlled by private industry and wealthy individuals, and that every freedom should be awarded according to the size of one's contribution to the national GDP?

If the 'little people' don't make it, then they don't get freedom of speech and expression, or a political say.

How very, Roman Republic of you.

 

[Freewill]

Is there a conservative here who can tell this conservative why most in the right are for this thing?

this is the major complaint I have against the RNC. That said they have always been for "free" trade so we have to take the good with the bad.

In theory "free" trade is a great idea, if it were only possible. The problem is we are free trading with countries that make a whole lot less then Americans need to live. Apparently the Republicans learned nothing from Clinton's "free" trade agreements. The ones predicted to cause a "great sucking sound" of jobs leaving the country, and that indeed did happen.

As i have always said, free trade agreements don't pass under Republican Presidents, i am surprised that people like Pelosi held out. I wonder what she will be getting to vote yes next week. IF it passes on Tuesday you can damn well know that the pork was flying. Because we know nothing else changed in the bill.

 

[occupied]

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.

OK, so then you think the only thing that has happened in our economy is not just NAFTA, you think the only thing that has happened on our economy the last 20 years are free trade agreements. That's no better

You still don't get it. Read this slowly and ponder every word. Our trade policy has only enriched the already wealthy and done nothing positive for any American wage earner. All of your economic beliefs are the same dogmatic bullshit we have been hearing for decades. All of these "free trade" proponents' predictions of widespread prosperity have been either lies or total incompetence. Take your pick.

You still don't get it. Read this slowly and ponder every word. How ... do ... you ... know ... the ... field ... of ... economics ... is ... wrong?

Economics claims to be scientific if not a science. After all this time there should be some agreement on what reaction will result from any sort of action in very general terms, but this is not the case. Instead we have two warring camps who are more interested in pushing their belief systems rather than actually providing some definitive answers to mostly avoid this unstable boom and bust cycle that has made life very difficult for nearly everyone. So in nutshell this is my opinion: Economics should not be treated as anything other than a dubious pseudo-science, like phrenology, until they produce some repeatable results and some straight answers. As long as it is just a bitter polar conflict between greasing the skids for the rich and providing economic protection for the working class everything any of them says is suspect.

Economists can be politicized, just like with people in other professions that deal with issues in society.

Milton Friedman, Keynes, and so on, for good or ill pushed their economic policies through a political ideology, whether they intended to or not. Keynes influenced the New Deal and much of the Post-WW2 rebirth, and Milton Friedman had significant influence on US foreign policy.

This can be very damaging, as when some economists push their political ideology, they can do it on the basis of 'if they aren't with us, they are against us' and snub all criticism.

Certainly the great recession was the product of politicized economists who put their 'free market' beliefs into practice - even if they ran foul of the reality expressed by more objective economists.

Very good, people who have their economics all wrapped up with politics are more of a pain in the ass than people who have religion all wrapped up in politics. Zealots often ruin things for everyone else.

 

[kiwiman127]

Is there a conservative here who can tell this conservative why most in the right are for this thing?

this is the major complaint I have against the RNC. That said they have always been for "free" trade so we have to take the good with the bad.

In theory "free" trade is a great idea, if it were only possible. The problem is we are free trading with countries that make a whole lot less then Americans need to live. Apparently the Republicans learned nothing from Clinton's "free" trade agreements. The ones predicted to cause a "great sucking sound" of jobs leaving the country, and that indeed did happen.

As i have always said, free trade agreements don't pass under Republican Presidents, i am surprised that people like Pelosi held out. I wonder what she will be getting to vote yes next week. IF it passes on Tuesday you can damn well know that the pork was flying. Because we know nothing else changed in the bill.

NAFTA was originated by and the draft signed by George HW Bush. It was ratified by Congress in a bi-partisan manner after GW lost the election in 1992, Clinton got the Dem support by including some weak provisions to protect the American worker.
CAFTA was originated by George W Bush and ratified by the GOP Congress.
I think you need to educate yourself.
Can you list all of Willie's free trade agreements?
Thank you.

 

[hipeter924]

Is there a conservative here who can tell this conservative why most in the right are for this thing?

this is the major complaint I have against the RNC. That said they have always been for "free" trade so we have to take the good with the bad.

In theory "free" trade is a great idea, if it were only possible. The problem is we are free trading with countries that make a whole lot less then Americans need to live. Apparently the Republicans learned nothing from Clinton's "free" trade agreements. The ones predicted to cause a "great sucking sound" of jobs leaving the country, and that indeed did happen.

As i have always said, free trade agreements don't pass under Republican Presidents, i am surprised that people like Pelosi held out. I wonder what she will be getting to vote yes next week. IF it passes on Tuesday you can damn well know that the pork was flying. Because we know nothing else changed in the bill.

A version watered down a tiny bit, will probably pass, and we will get stung by the TPP. People that want these kinds of treaties, wait for the right moment to strike, despite the attrition from the general public and opposing groups.