Jobs lost by state. This is thru 2002. Since 2002 these losses have accelerated at an astonishing rate.
Attachments
Images (1)
Where the money is going.
Attachments
Images (1)
quote:"Free trade is essential to the creation of high-paying quality jobs," said Bush on Thursday. But if exports create jobs (and they do), imports displace them. And if we import half a trillion dollars more in manufactures than we export, is not Bush trade policy literally slaughtering industrial jobs?
Is there not a correlation between $4.3 trillion in trade deficits under Bush, the 3 million manufacturing jobs lost under Bush, the fall of the dollar by 50 percent against the euro under Bush and the resurgence of inflation, signaled by a quadrupling of the price of gold, under Bush?
Neither Hillary nor Obama has laid out a new trade-and-tax policy to deal with the de-industrialization of America and our deepening dependency on foreign technology, manufactures and the loans to pay for them. But at least they are listening to the country.
John McCain seems blind and deaf to the crisis. In Michigan, he informed autoworkers their "jobs are not coming back" and explained his philosophy: "I'm a student of history. Every time the United States has become protectionist ... we've paid a very heavy price."
This is ahistorical nonsense. From 1860 to 1913, the United States was the most protectionist nation on earth and produced the most awesome growth of any nation in history. In 1860, the U.S. economy was half of Britain's; in 1913, more than twice Britain's.
In 1920, Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge won a landslide, cut income taxes from Wilson's 69 percent to 25 percent and doubled tariffs. America went on a tear. When Coolidge went home in 1929, the United States was producing 42 percent of the world's manufactured goods.
Who were America's protectionists?
Alexander Hamilton and James Madison moved the Tariff Act of 1789 through Congress. Aided by Henry Clay, John Calhoun, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, President Madison enacted the Tariff of 1816 to protect U.S. infant industries from British dumping.
Abraham Lincoln used Morrill Tariff revenue to fight the Civil War. The 11 GOP presidents who followed, from 1865 to 1929, all protectionists, made America the greatest industrial power in history, with a standard of living never before seen. Mocking protectionism, McCain is repudiating Republican history and all its achievements up to the era of Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon.
http://www.realclearpolitics.c...battle_of_nafta.html
BTW, Real clear politics is a republican leaning organization. They are admitting the failure of NAFTA.
I never said anything to indicate I might be implying we had a trade surplus or deficit with Mexico nor anything you took as saying such a thing. So where did you dig up the blatant lie comment?. What I did say is that it helped maintain exports of products from the three countries that would otherwise be produced in China or another low wage country. Additionally none of the stats you show can be definitively pinned on NAFTA, there are way to many factors out there. The simple part of the answer is that there are a whole lot of choices where companies can produce product for less money than they can in the U.S., and Mexico is not at the top of the list because there are a lot of places where product can be produced far less than in Mexico. Many companies with operations in Mexico have them there so that they can work closely with their operations in the U.S. and easily ship product back and forth (in other words because even though not the cheapest option Mexico is convenient). Without Mexico being a viable option the other choices involve places like China where you have product produced by a Chinese company and zero parts of production done in the U.S. Which is worse?
It would be nice if we could make everything here in the U.S. but in the real world there are not many people that are going to pay double or more the price for labor intensive products just because they are made in the USA.
It would be nice if we could make everything here in the U.S. but in the real world there are not many people that are going to pay double or more the price for labor intensive products just because they are made in the USA.
Please give links or sources for the charts you've posted.
quote:Additionally none of the stats you show can be definitively pinned on NAFTA, there are way to many factors out there.
That statement proves you have no accurate concept of economics. There is not a single reputable economist who would say that record trade deficits are good for the economy.
If you have a trillion dollars ayear leave the country to never come back, you soon export your entire wealth. It's simple math really, you only deny it because you enrich yourself on the backs of the misery of others and try to tell yourself your doing the right thing.
LOL, where are you getting that I am saying trade deficits are a good thing? I am saying that NAFTA is a good deal for the USA and has prevented a lot of jobs from being lost. I am saying I do not think NAFTA is to blame for the deficits. If you keep up with what is going on you would see where NAFTA is working out fine. If you would even study what NAFTA actually is you might not have to get far into it to see that much of the negative feelings toward NAFTA are based on ignorance.
If you want to pull out charts take a loook at unemployement data from 1993 till 2008. No, NAFTA is not one of the major reasons we had low unemployemnt during any of those years and it sure as heck ain't the reason for the high unemployment figures we have been seeing the last 18 months but NAFATA did do its fair share to help provide jobs and improve the economy and when the economy went to the crapper it could have been worse without NAFTA.
As for your charts it was an easy cop out for a lot of companies to blame NAFTA instead of bad planning and management for their failures. I am also convinced from what I have seen that NAFTA has created more jobs than what critics claim it cost.
If you want to pull out charts take a loook at unemployement data from 1993 till 2008. No, NAFTA is not one of the major reasons we had low unemployemnt during any of those years and it sure as heck ain't the reason for the high unemployment figures we have been seeing the last 18 months but NAFATA did do its fair share to help provide jobs and improve the economy and when the economy went to the crapper it could have been worse without NAFTA.
As for your charts it was an easy cop out for a lot of companies to blame NAFTA instead of bad planning and management for their failures. I am also convinced from what I have seen that NAFTA has created more jobs than what critics claim it cost.
quote:I am saying I do not think NAFTA is to blame for the deficits.
So, Do I read you right? Your position is that NAFTA has nothing to do with trade deficits?
quote:I am also convinced from what I have seen that NAFTA has created more jobs than what critics claim it cost.
What if those critics are the U.S.Government.
Attachments
Images (1)
Do I trust the Government, geez do you even need to ask? Even if I did these tables were not published by the U.S. Government anyway they were not made by the U.S. Census Bureau, the U.S.Labor Department, or any other government agency. The charts were made by EPI and reflect their analysis of data from those agencies. No NAFTA did not cause trade deficits. Learn what NAFTA is if you want to argue any points on it and be ready to sit down a while because there is a lot of reading and research to do. How can you decide if you like or do not like something you know nothing about (excuse me for making an assumption but I can tell from a lot of what you have written that your knowledge of the agreement is nil).
quote:Originally posted by BFred07:
Do I trust the Government, geez do you even need to ask? Even if I did these tables were not published by the U.S. Government anyway they were not made by the U.S. Census Bureau, the U.S.Labor Department, or any other government agency. The charts were made by EPI and reflect their analysis of data from those agencies. No NAFTA did not cause trade deficits. Learn what NAFTA is if you want to argue any points on it and be ready to sit down a while because there is a lot of reading and research to do. How can you decide if you like or do not like something you know nothing about (excuse me for making an assumption but I can tell from a lot of what you have written that your knowledge of the agreement is nil).
I have already documented my case with good sound economics. If you want to rely on the Rush Limbaugh/Milton Friedman failed Chicago school of economics go right ahead.
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.
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.
quote:Originally posted by Jugflier:quote:Originally posted by BFred07:
Do I trust the Government, geez do you even need to ask? Even if I did these tables were not published by the U.S. Government anyway they were not made by the U.S. Census Bureau, the U.S.Labor Department, or any other government agency. The charts were made by EPI and reflect their analysis of data from those agencies. No NAFTA did not cause trade deficits. Learn what NAFTA is if you want to argue any points on it and be ready to sit down a while because there is a lot of reading and research to do. How can you decide if you like or do not like something you know nothing about (excuse me for making an assumption but I can tell from a lot of what you have written that your knowledge of the agreement is nil).
I have already documented my case with good sound economics. If you want to rely on the Rush Limbaugh/Milton Friedman failed Chicago school of economics go right ahead.
So I guess you are in favor of government control of our economy (communism).
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?
quote:Originally posted by kperk014:quote:Originally posted by Jugflier:quote:Originally posted by BFred07:
Do I trust the Government, geez do you even need to ask? Even if I did these tables were not published by the U.S. Government anyway they were not made by the U.S. Census Bureau, the U.S.Labor Department, or any other government agency. The charts were made by EPI and reflect their analysis of data from those agencies. No NAFTA did not cause trade deficits. Learn what NAFTA is if you want to argue any points on it and be ready to sit down a while because there is a lot of reading and research to do. How can you decide if you like or do not like something you know nothing about (excuse me for making an assumption but I can tell from a lot of what you have written that your knowledge of the agreement is nil).
I have already documented my case with good sound economics. If you want to rely on the Rush Limbaugh/Milton Friedman failed Chicago school of economics go right ahead.
So I guess you are in favor of government control of our economy (communism).
No, I believe in a constitutional government. Originally, the only taxation mentioned in the Constitution had to do with tarriffs. I believe in protecting the American way of life, don't you?
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.
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.
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.
Slanted charts and graphs on a subject you know very little about is hardly what I would call documenting your case with sound economics. I see the benefits of NAFTA everyday in a much more tangible way than most people and I associate with a lot of other people that are in similar business's doing work in both countries. I actually know the facts of why we work in Mexico and the U.S., the facts of how it has affected employment and wages here in the U.S., and where we would take our business if NAFTA was taken out of the picture (yes we actually talk about this kind of stuff). As I have said in a couple of other replies, learn what NAFTA really is, the zero tariffs (no tariffs in some cases, there are still imports that are not exempt under NAFTA) between the USA, Canada, and Mexico are not unconditional. It really is a good deal for the USA.
Lots of people want to blame NAFTA for their problems when it is one of the few things that actually works well.
Lots of people want to blame NAFTA for their problems when it is one of the few things that actually works well.
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.
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.