Somethings happening in Texas.

NAFTA's problem is that it is not really a free trade agreement. It's an agreement for the US, Canada, and Mexico to collude on the international market - no es bueno.

There is nothing wrong with real free trade, and deficits aren't inherently bad. I have a trade deficit with Verizon, Comcast, and several other companies.

quote:

Originally posted by Jugflier:

quote:

Originally posted by kperk014:
Milton Friedman failed Chicago school of economics

The reason ALL models will fail is because we continue to pay people trillions of dollars to NOT work. Well that money for the slackers has to come from somewhere. Guess where that is.

Kperk,
When the Austrians pointed out the glaring holes in Friedmans analysis, his response was "In the end, we're all dead anyway". I really am too tired tonight to debate Friedman economics, or supply side, but is is an abysmal failure.
Yes welfare is a problem, but that isn't what caused supply side to fail. Friedman believed in the ever expanding money supply, the Federal Reserve and it asbility to create money out of thin air to cover the shortfalls of his economic theory. All the while he knew inflation would be the result. Eventually, you run out of confidence in the money and the system fails. It's Democratic socialism in reverse. Under Democratic socialism, money is taken thru taxation, under supply side money is taken thru inflation.

Sorry, I find no foundation for that quote by Friedman. It sounds suspiciously like, "In the long run, we're all dead." That was uttered by John Maynard Keynes, the Brtish economist who favored a government managed economy.


http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Maynard_Keynes

quote:

Originally posted by Jugflier:

quote:

Originally posted by interventor12:
Much of the US trade deficit does not involve goods, but commodities. Oil being the most important.

For example, in 2008, the US imported $673.3 billion in trade.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...ll-sha_n_176238.html

Oil imports in 2008 were valued at $342 billion.

http://import-export.suite101....imports_exports_2008

The presence or absence of NAFTA or unions can effect that.

So ventor,
How much of the trade deficit with mexico is oil imports?

US trade deficit with mexico in 2008 - $64.7 billion

http://www.census.gov/foreign-...ance/c2010.html#2008

About 11.7 percent of our oil imports were from Mexico in 2008. So, 11.7 percent of $342 billion is about $40 billion.

quote:

Originally posted by Jugflier:
BFred,
Your not only wrong on NAFTA, but you don't understand that it creates an open road for drug smuggling into the U.S.
The reason why you love NAFTA is because it puts money in your pocket. Bottom Line. The Wall Street criminals and the politicians who foisted this fraud on our country cared nothing for the human misery it creates, they cared only for the vast wealth they would reap.

In closing, there are several reports about how bad NAFTA has been for Mexico. It has not increased wages or raised standards of living, and has created polution problems that the government is ill financed to clean up. It's been devastating to their farming economy and driven up the price of food. With the corporations in control, the Mexican worker is road kill.

NAFTA had little or nothing to do with the rise of food prices in Mexico. Mexico used to import cheap US corn when their farmers couldn't grow enough to feed the people. Since US government subsidies for ethanol forced corn prices up, the result was rising food prices in Mexico. Subsidies, not NAFTA!

quote:

Sorry, I find no foundation for that quote by Friedman. It sounds suspiciously like, "In the long run, we're all dead." That was uttered by John Maynard Keynes, the Brtish economist who favored a government managed economy.

The quote may be incorrect, but the summary of Friedman's economic policies is basically accurate. As much good as Friedman did, his hard-line stance that the government should manage slow inflation is horrible.

For a funnier quote, I would go with Nobel Laureate Robert Solow:

"Everything reminds Milton Friedman of the money supply. Everything reminds me of sex, but I try to keep it out of my papers."

Ok a little late making a reply here. NAFTA has caused wages (in Mexico) to go up at a very fast rate. This one I darn sure know, some of those wage increses come out of my pocket and the percentage of increase for wages in Mexico has risen much more than the percentage wages have increased here.
If you were familiar with NAFTA you would know that it imposes a much higher bar for environmental regulation in Mexico. I do know for a fact that in at least Monterrey and Juarez, air pollution has gone down dramatically. Before NAFTA kicked the smog in Monterrey made the whole city just plain nasty I mean the air stunk and yes you litterally could see what you were breathing. It has gotton a lot better, being a large industrialized city that basically sits in a bowl surrounded by mountains it is still a little hazy most days but not near as bad as it was. Because of the landscape the pollution has nowhere to go and just sort of hangs around till a storm comes along with enough wind to clear the valley. Anyway it is a lot better than it was and NAFTA deserves a lot of the credit for it. As for increases in drug smuggling, I do not think that can really be pinned on NAFTA unless you just want to say that because there is more traffic at the border that the drugs are harder to find. Most companies in Mexico are very vigilent in making sure no drugs end up on their shipments. Trailers are inspected before they are loaded and a lot of companies even go to the extreme of sending someone to follow the trucks to the border just to make sure they don't stop or get diverted to pick up "extra cargo".
Keep one thing in mind, I am just a guy on a forum telling you about his experiance. I am not asking that my word be taken for anything but I am leaving plenty that you can research from reliable sources (EPI is not really a reliable source, they already have their stance and fudge their research results to back it up) that you will find to be correct. If you would study more about NAFTA including looking at the actual agreement you would find out how much you really do not know. You would find that some of what you have stated about NAFTA is actually the exact opposite of what you have said.

quote:

NAFTA has caused wages (in Mexico) to go up at a very fast rate. This one I darn sure know, some of those wage increses come out of my pocket and the percentage of increase for wages in Mexico has risen much more than the percentage wages have increased here.

Does that mean we need to get that fence built to keep Americans in? Maybe NAFTA was good for you but my company moved their operations to Mexico and closed the doors here. Almost 1,00 people without a job.

BFred,
The truth about NAFTA from a Mexican perspective.

quote:

May Day demonstrations throughout the entire region condemned unemployment, plummeting worker purchasing power, privatization -- and the resulting corporatization of society -- and widespread labor abuses.
In Mexico City, workers overflowed the capitol's huge Zocalo, jamming surrounding streets, demanding more jobs, better wages, an end to the privatization of the nation's Social Security pension system and to new reforms making it easier to fire workers. A huge effigy of President Vicente Fox, depicted as a snake, was burned at a rally of the National Union of Social Security workers, denouncing the undermining of public workers' pensions, chanting that they were prepared to join in a national strike. Tens of thousands protested what they called a campaign against workers by Fox and his conservative National Action Party. Exporters have benefited from NAFTA, but workers have not, they said, as the gap between rich and poor is growing.

http://www.guadalajarareporter...m-worker-abuses.html

http://www.peoplesworld.org/wo...rotests-rock-mexico/

quote:

Earlier on January 30, a rally organised by the peasant organisation Central Campesino Cardenista (CCC) was held in front of the US embassy in Mexico City.

The CCC delivered a letter directed to the US president, calling on him to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement. In particular, the CCC wants the section on the agriculture and fishing industries to be fundamentally revised. The peasants then marched to join the main mobilisation in Zocalo.

http://www.greenleft.org.au/2009/782/40277

Mexican workers being fed worms by Wall Street corporations.
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10...americas/08MEXI.html


Yes, the wonderful paradise for the Mexican worker under NAFTA.

I am uneducated enough about the NAFTA deal to make a qualified comment, but a friend of mine works for the aircraft industry in Nashville. His company currently employs around 900 people. Yesterday they were told that beginning June of this year with their current contracts, the hourly cost of their employees would be almost $120 per hour. The company has decided that because of the contracts, and evident reluctance to compromise, they will be forced to move much of their operation to China, and decrease their employees to around 400 people within the next few months. Needless to say, he thinks he will be out of a job. Last year the Union in which he is a member of, went on strike and stayed out several months. During that time he drew about $150 a week for strike pay, and now a few months later he will be out of job. He is furious with the company and the Union, since in essence, he is the only loser here.
Sadly, more and more we are becoming a country that makes NOTHING.

Forget NAFTA for a moment. As I mentioned earlier, I believe it to be an agreement for collusion rather than a "free trade agreement." Are those of you speaking against NAFTA just against the act itself, or do you oppose unrestricted free trade as well?

quote:

Originally posted by teyates:
I am uneducated enough about the NAFTA deal to make a qualified comment, but a friend of mine works for the aircraft industry in Nashville. His company currently employs around 900 people. Yesterday they were told that beginning June of this year with their current contracts, the hourly cost of their employees would be almost $120 per hour. The company has decided that because of the contracts, and evident reluctance to compromise, they will be forced to move much of their operation to China, and decrease their employees to around 400 people within the next few months. Needless to say, he thinks he will be out of a job. Last year the Union in which he is a member of, went on strike and stayed out several months. During that time he drew about $150 a week for strike pay, and now a few months later he will be out of job. He is furious with the company and the Union, since in essence, he is the only loser here.
Sadly, more and more we are becoming a country that makes NOTHING.

Yates, In China, if the factory don't make money, the manager gets killed. Tough business.

I have dealt with some of the chinese companies, and know that if they cannot match the price of production for an item, then the government will supplement that company in order to keep it in business and provide jobs for those employees. They will do this until the company can figure out a better way to do it (translated as cheaper) or until they decide they want to make something else that someone needs or wants. When was the last time the government actually stepped in here to help a small company to compete in an environment like that? All you ever hear is that companies should be paying more taxes. The elephant in the room here is that the government is stifling the companies with taxes and regulations, which these other overseas companies are not subjected. Greedy executives also contribute. In the long run, it is the small business owners and their employees who suffer.
Jug, maybe the same type of policy would work here. If you are the corporate head, and your company fails, we chop off your head, if you succeed then you get a bonus. Reckon how many people would be lining up for those jobs?

dolemite, like I said I am not familiar enough with NAFTA to make my case, but I do know that we cannot isolate ourselves from trade, especially in the current world we live in. Eventually, these nations will continue to improve, their wages will get better, and things will equalize. I don't think I will live long enough to see it, but I think that is the general plan they have for us.

quote:

Originally posted by interventor12:

quote:

Originally posted by Jugflier:

quote:

Originally posted by kperk014:
Milton Friedman failed Chicago school of economics

The reason ALL models will fail is because we continue to pay people trillions of dollars to NOT work. Well that money for the slackers has to come from somewhere. Guess where that is.

Kperk,
When the Austrians pointed out the glaring holes in Friedmans analysis, his response was "In the end, we're all dead anyway". I really am too tired tonight to debate Friedman economics, or supply side, but is is an abysmal failure.
Yes welfare is a problem, but that isn't what caused supply side to fail. Friedman believed in the ever expanding money supply, the Federal Reserve and it asbility to create money out of thin air to cover the shortfalls of his economic theory. All the while he knew inflation would be the result. Eventually, you run out of confidence in the money and the system fails. It's Democratic socialism in reverse. Under Democratic socialism, money is taken thru taxation, under supply side money is taken thru inflation.

Sorry, I find no foundation for that quote by Friedman. It sounds suspiciously like, "In the long run, we're all dead." That was uttered by John Maynard Keynes, the Brtish economist who favored a government managed economy.


http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Maynard_Keynes

Howie baby, I find that Friedman's most famous quote is missing from that site "Greed is Good".

quote:

Originally posted by interventor12:

quote:

Originally posted by Jugflier:
BFred,
Your not only wrong on NAFTA, but you don't understand that it creates an open road for drug smuggling into the U.S.
The reason why you love NAFTA is because it puts money in your pocket. Bottom Line. The Wall Street criminals and the politicians who foisted this fraud on our country cared nothing for the human misery it creates, they cared only for the vast wealth they would reap.

In closing, there are several reports about how bad NAFTA has been for Mexico. It has not increased wages or raised standards of living, and has created polution problems that the government is ill financed to clean up. It's been devastating to their farming economy and driven up the price of food. With the corporations in control, the Mexican worker is road kill.

NAFTA had little or nothing to do with the rise of food prices in Mexico. Mexico used to import cheap US corn when their farmers couldn't grow enough to feed the people. Since US government subsidies for ethanol forced corn prices up, the result was rising food prices in Mexico. Subsidies, not NAFTA!

When the value of the Peso falls 50%, that will make food go up too.
If NAFTA was so great for Mexico, why are we seeing record numbers of illegals coming accross the border. I'll tell you why, Mexico is just like pre unionized America at the turn the last century. Corporations getting wealthy on the sweat of others, workers with few options.

quote:

Originally posted by Jugflier:

quote:

Originally posted by interventor12:

quote:

Originally posted by Jugflier:

quote:

Originally posted by kperk014:
Milton Friedman failed Chicago school of economics

The reason ALL models will fail is because we continue to pay people trillions of dollars to NOT work. Well that money for the slackers has to come from somewhere. Guess where that is.

Kperk,
When the Austrians pointed out the glaring holes in Friedmans analysis, his response was "In the end, we're all dead anyway". I really am too tired tonight to debate Friedman economics, or supply side, but is is an abysmal failure.
Yes welfare is a problem, but that isn't what caused supply side to fail. Friedman believed in the ever expanding money supply, the Federal Reserve and it asbility to create money out of thin air to cover the shortfalls of his economic theory. All the while he knew inflation would be the result. Eventually, you run out of confidence in the money and the system fails. It's Democratic socialism in reverse. Under Democratic socialism, money is taken thru taxation, under supply side money is taken thru inflation.

Sorry, I find no foundation for that quote by Friedman. It sounds suspiciously like, "In the long run, we're all dead." That was uttered by John Maynard Keynes, the Brtish economist who favored a government managed economy.


http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Maynard_Keynes

Howie baby, I find that Friedman's most famous quote is missing from that site "Greed is Good".

Sorry, jughead, you've struck out -- three for three. Back to the dugout with you!

1. I'm not Howie -- Howard Roarke. He's off to Ethiopia, putting as much distance between his boss Hillary and himself, as possible.

2. As you oldest post is about 10 January 2010, you must be a replicant of one of our leftie posters.

3. Milton Friedman didn't state, "Greed is good."

Here's a video of him making a fool of Phil Donahue on greed:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A

Not, that is takes much to make a fool of Donahue.

Oliver Stone made that statement out of the mouth of Gordon Gecko in the movie, "Wall Street." It is understandable that lefties have problems with distinguishing reality from fiction. After all, may believe that incompetent child murdering commie, Che, was a hero.

quote:

Originally posted by Jugflier:

quote:

Originally posted by interventor12:

quote:

Originally posted by Jugflier:
BFred,
Your not only wrong on NAFTA, but you don't understand that it creates an open road for drug smuggling into the U.S.
The reason why you love NAFTA is because it puts money in your pocket. Bottom Line. The Wall Street criminals and the politicians who foisted this fraud on our country cared nothing for the human misery it creates, they cared only for the vast wealth they would reap.

In closing, there are several reports about how bad NAFTA has been for Mexico. It has not increased wages or raised standards of living, and has created polution problems that the government is ill financed to clean up. It's been devastating to their farming economy and driven up the price of food. With the corporations in control, the Mexican worker is road kill.

NAFTA had little or nothing to do with the rise of food prices in Mexico. Mexico used to import cheap US corn when their farmers couldn't grow enough to feed the people. Since US government subsidies for ethanol forced corn prices up, the result was rising food prices in Mexico. Subsidies, not NAFTA!

When the value of the Peso falls 50%, that will make food go up too.
If NAFTA was so great for Mexico, why are we seeing record numbers of illegals coming accross the border. I'll tell you why, Mexico is just like pre unionized America at the turn the last century. Corporations getting wealthy on the sweat of others, workers with few options.

Actually, lately the stream has lessened, as the recession offers fewer jobs. Corn has increased in price in our own nation, so don't tell me it hasn't risen in the Mexico just because of a peso devaluation.

Mexico, like so many third world nations, continue to exist in poverty because their leaders will not do a few simple things -- educate their population, squeeze corruption out of government and the private sector, and enact firm property laws.

Nations like Taiwan and South Korea did so and prospered. Unions had little or nothing to do with it. Same for Japan and, now India.

quote:

Sorry, jughead, you've struck out -- three for three. Back to the dugout with you!

1. I'm not Howie -- Howard Roarke. He's off to Ethiopia, putting as much distance between his boss Hillary and himself, as possible.

I still say you and Howie are one and the same, or at least raised in the CIA agency.

quote:

2. As you oldest post is about 10 January 2010, you must be a replicant of one of our leftie posters.

Like you, I got cought up in one of the purges, so i must not be one of those lefties. The problem with neocons, they can't identify a real constitutionalist.

quote:

3. Milton Friedman didn't state, "Greed is good."

He sure did, it was the centerpiece of his economic philosophy.

quote:

Here's a video of him making a fool of Phil Donahue on greed:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A

Not, that is takes much to make a fool of Donahue.

I've seen it, and this video says it all about his philosophy, can't believe you missed it.

quote:

Oliver Stone made that statement out of the mouth of Gordon Gecko in the movie, "Wall Street." It is understandable that lefties have problems with distinguishing reality from fiction. After all, may believe that incompetent child murdering commie, Che, was a hero.

The rest of this is just dribble.

jug head,


3. Milton Friedman didn't state, "Greed is good."
____________________________________________________


"He sure did, it was the centerpiece of his economic philosophy."

Prove that statement! Prove venue and date! Or, alternately, in the book or article he made the statement!

____________________________________________________________________________________
quote:
Here's a video of him making a fool of Phil Donahue on greed:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A

Not, that is takes much to make a fool of Donahue.


"I've seen it, and this video says it all about his philosophy, can't believe you missed it."

No, he made a statement on human nature, and the nature of freely engaging in trade and commerce vs. the state imposed economies and the tragic results of such.

quote:

Originally posted by interventor12:
jug head,


3. Milton Friedman didn't state, "Greed is good."
____________________________________________________


"He sure did, it was the centerpiece of his economic philosophy."

Prove that statement! Prove venue and date! Or, alternately, in the book or article he made the statement!

____________________________________________________________________________________
quote:
Here's a video of him making a fool of Phil Donahue on greed:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A

Not, that is takes much to make a fool of Donahue.


"I've seen it, and this video says it all about his philosophy, can't believe you missed it."

No, he made a statement on human nature, and the nature of freely engaging in trade and commerce vs. the state imposed economies and the tragic results of such.

Lol, need to brush up on you're computer skills a bit. I would have thought they would teach you better at the CIA.

quote:

Originally posted by Jugflier:

quote:

Originally posted by interventor12:
jug head,


3. Milton Friedman didn't state, "Greed is good."
____________________________________________________


"He sure did, it was the centerpiece of his economic philosophy."

Prove that statement! Prove venue and date! Or, alternately, in the book or article he made the statement!

____________________________________________________________________________________
quote:
Here's a video of him making a fool of Phil Donahue on greed:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A

Not, that is takes much to make a fool of Donahue.


"I've seen it, and this video says it all about his philosophy, can't believe you missed it."

No, he made a statement on human nature, and the nature of freely engaging in trade and commerce vs. the state imposed economies and the tragic results of such.

Lol, need to brush up on you're computer skills a bit. I would have thought they would teach you better at the CIA.

Can't answer my questions, so you stoop to obfuscation. That's two quotes from liberals you've attributed to others. CIA! CIA! I don't work for liberals.

quote:

Originally posted by interventor12:

quote:

Originally posted by Jugflier:

quote:

Originally posted by interventor12:
jug head,


3. Milton Friedman didn't state, "Greed is good."
____________________________________________________


"He sure did, it was the centerpiece of his economic philosophy."

Prove that statement! Prove venue and date! Or, alternately, in the book or article he made the statement!

____________________________________________________________________________________
quote:
Here's a video of him making a fool of Phil Donahue on greed:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A

Not, that is takes much to make a fool of Donahue.


"I've seen it, and this video says it all about his philosophy, can't believe you missed it."

No, he made a statement on human nature, and the nature of freely engaging in trade and commerce vs. the state imposed economies and the tragic results of such.

Lol, need to brush up on you're computer skills a bit. I would have thought they would teach you better at the CIA.

Can't answer my questions, so you stoop to obfuscation. That's two quotes from liberals you've attributed to others. CIA! CIA! I don't work for liberals.

Sorry, but the CIA is run by neo-cons. They sell drugs to finance their private wars.

quote:

Sorry, but the CIA is run by neo-cons. They sell drugs to finance their private wars.

Silly jug head, believing all that trash!

quote:

Originally posted by ferrellj:

quote:

NAFTA has caused wages (in Mexico) to go up at a very fast rate. This one I darn sure know, some of those wage increses come out of my pocket and the percentage of increase for wages in Mexico has risen much more than the percentage wages have increased here.

Does that mean we need to get that fence built to keep Americans in? Maybe NAFTA was good for you but my company moved their operations to Mexico and closed the doors here. Almost 1,00 people without a job.

Sorry to hear that, I hate to see anyone lose their job. Although NAFTA may deserve the credit for the company moving to Mexico I would hardly blame NAFTA for any company’s decision to move out of the USA. Right now many companies are closing up and sub out everything to Chinese companies because it is so much cheaper than operating in Mexico and normally the decision to move has already been made before even researching which country to move operations to. I would much rather see the jobs at least next door than in Asia.

quote:

Originally posted by Jugflier:
BFred,
The truth about NAFTA from a Mexican perspective.

quote:

May Day demonstrations throughout the entire region condemned unemployment, plummeting worker purchasing power, privatization -- and the resulting corporatization of society -- and widespread labor abuses.
In Mexico City, workers overflowed the capitol's huge Zocalo, jamming surrounding streets, demanding more jobs, better wages, an end to the privatization of the nation's Social Security pension system and to new reforms making it easier to fire workers. A huge effigy of President Vicente Fox, depicted as a snake, was burned at a rally of the National Union of Social Security workers, denouncing the undermining of public workers' pensions, chanting that they were prepared to join in a national strike. Tens of thousands protested what they called a campaign against workers by Fox and his conservative National Action Party. Exporters have benefited from NAFTA, but workers have not, they said, as the gap between rich and poor is growing.

http://www.guadalajarareporter...m-worker-abuses.html

http://www.peoplesworld.org/wo...rotests-rock-mexico/

quote:

Earlier on January 30, a rally organised by the peasant organisation Central Campesino Cardenista (CCC) was held in front of the US embassy in Mexico City.

The CCC delivered a letter directed to the US president, calling on him to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement. In particular, the CCC wants the section on the agriculture and fishing industries to be fundamentally revised. The peasants then marched to join the main mobilisation in Zocalo.

http://www.greenleft.org.au/2009/782/40277

Mexican workers being fed worms by Wall Street corporations.
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10...americas/08MEXI.html


Yes, the wonderful paradise for the Mexican worker under NAFTA.

So far it is the Mexican gov't that has not held up their end of the deal on agriculture so these guys are blaming the U.S. when it was just us enforcing the agreement.
As for making it easier to "fire" workers it is more like lay off workers. There are plenty of legitimate reasons for firing an employee in Mexico without recourse on the employer however a short term lay-off or a reduction in work force is a big no-no in Mexico and very expensive for employers. As a result employers are very reluctant to hire extra workers for short term projects and very worried about giving raises as an employee’s "severance" is directly affected by what they are paid.
As for abuses they do happen, there are to many greedy A-holes going there to open up shop and thinking they can treat the people working for them like crap but most soon find that the employees will not put up with it especially in the more industrialized areas of the country. I've run across people like that and they are not usually in business for long.
As for some of your other comments in the thread, did you not realize that most labor in Mexico is union labor? I am not talking just about larger companies the way it is here but even companies with 3 or 4 employees are mostly union. Most of the unions are independent or exclusive to a small area. With the larger unions you do have a lot of crooked leadership just like here but with the smaller unions the membership will deal appropriately with anyone trying to rip them off.