On trade, Obama's most loyal allies are abandoning him

jkcerda

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jun 10, 2013
682
39,010
Criminal Mexi Midget
http://news.yahoo.com/trade-obamas-most-loyal-allies-abandoning-him-135622450.html

But for many members like Fudge, trade is in a category of its own. Even for a president who desperately needs them, on an issue he desperately wants, many of Obama's most loyal foot soldiers are expected to abandon him. Partly, it's the NAFTA effect – the bad aftertaste from past trade deals and how they are perceived to have affected black Americans. But some members of the caucus say labor unions are forcing the issue, taking away whatever advantage Obama might have.

Ultimately, black caucus members are members of Congress, “and they’ve got to go back to their district and explain why we offshore people’s jobs. No number of rides on Air Force One is going to solve that problem,” said Rep. Keith Ellison (D) of Minnesota, in an interview last week.
NAFTA stuck it to every one. glad to see some common sense among his supporters.
 

aaronvan

Suspended
Dec 21, 2011
1,349
9,287
República Cascadia
Obama is a traitor to the American worker. Beside his devilish support for TPP, he recently changed the rules to allow spouses of H1-B visa holders to work. So for every H1-B visa Obama grants to some foreigner, two Americans will have their jobs stolen from under their feet. Hillary will be even worse.
 

Huntn

macrumors demi-god
May 5, 2008
17,060
16,569
The Misty Mountains
Hillary will be even worse.
Can you explain why Hillary will be even worse?

For the record I am against this trade deal as I understand it. I'm puzzled why President Obama likes it.

Can you explain why NAFTA stuck it to everyone?
Only the workers. It was a boom for business. NAFTA allowed US based corporations of all sizes to move jobs to Mexico closing a multitude of factories in the U.S.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jkcerda

jkcerda

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jun 10, 2013
682
39,010
Criminal Mexi Midget
Can you explain why NAFTA stuck it to everyone?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lori-wallach/nafta-at-20-one-million-u_b_4550207.html

we can't all work at McDonalds, when factories close, workers displaced TRY to move onto other fields, manufacturing was booming before NAFTA, after NAFTA we had CNC programmers looking for work as machine operators, plenty of factories closed.
The study makes for a blood-boiling read. For instance, we track the specific promisesmade by U.S. corporations like GE, Chrysler and Caterpillar to create specific numbers of American jobs if NAFTA was approved, and reveal government datashowing that instead, they fired U.S. workers and moved operations to Mexico.

NAFTA's actual outcomes prove how damaging this type of agreement is for most people, demonstrating why NAFTA should be renegotiated or terminated. The evidence makes clear that we cannot have any more such deals that include job-offshoring incentives, requirements we import food that doesn't meet our safety standards or new rights for firms to get taxpayer compensation before foreign tribunals for laws they don't like.
not everything moved to Mexico/Canada, plenty moved to China .

 
  • Like
Reactions: satcomer

.Andy

macrumors 68030
Jul 18, 2004
2,946
583
The Mergui Archipelago
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lori-wallach/nafta-at-20-one-million-u_b_4550207.html

we can't all work at McDonalds, when factories close, workers displaced TRY to move onto other fields, manufacturing was booming before NAFTA, after NAFTA we had CNC programmers looking for work as machine operators, plenty of factories closed.
not everything moved to Mexico/Canada, plenty moved to China .
I thought free-trade meant things got done more efficiently? Surely this just means the US workforce is not competitive when it comes to manufacturing? Do you propose the government provide barriers to trade in the form of tariffs and subsidies to prop-up local, non-competitive industries? Is that the role of a Libertarian small government? Or are you trying to have it both way?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Grey Beard

jkcerda

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jun 10, 2013
682
39,010
Criminal Mexi Midget
1.I thought free-trade meant things got done more efficiently?
2. Surely this just means the US workforce is not competitive when it comes to manufacturing?
3. Do you propose the government provide barriers to trade in the form of tariffs and subsidies to prop-up local, non-competitive industries?
4. Is that the role of a Libertarian small government? Or are you trying to have it both way?
1. you thought wrong. see post 4
2. shirley we can't compete at all when a Chinese worker gets paid 60 cents per hour to our 20-30 per hour for the same skilled work.
3. tariffs USED to be there, you seem to be under the impression that trickle down economics works at higher levels, there are reasons why Apple does not make the iphone in the U.S.
4. we will never have such a thing.
 

.Andy

macrumors 68030
Jul 18, 2004
2,946
583
The Mergui Archipelago
1. you thought wrong. see post 4
Post 4 does not explain why free trade isn't more efficient.

2. shirley we can't compete at all when a Chinese worker gets paid 60 cents per hour to our 20-30 per hour for the same skilled work.
If you can't compete then aren't you by definition non-competitive? Presumably if this is the case and you are against manufacturing in china that you don't have anything made in china in your home?

3. tariffs USED to be there
Just because something used to be there does not justify them. This is a logical fallacy.

you seem to be under the impression that trickle down economics works at higher levels
I am on the impression it doesn't work at any level. I am not the Libertarian however.
 

jkcerda

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jun 10, 2013
682
39,010
Criminal Mexi Midget
1.Post 4 does not explain why free trade isn't more efficient.


2.If you can't compete then aren't you by definition non-competitive? Presumably if this is the case and you are against manufacturing in china that you don't have anything made in china in your home?


3.Just because something used to be there does not justify them. This is a logical fallacy.


4.I am on the impression it doesn't work at any level. I am not the Libertarian however.
1 efficient for who? corporations? CO I worked for had to wait 3 months for radiators to come in from China, it was not about efficiency, it was about PRICE, our cost to build in the U.S was $80, it was $16 DELIVERED from China.

2. at those wages paid overseas? you are correct, can't compete there. TPP will kill most of what it is left that did not get shipped with NAFTA.

3. ok, did you read the link on NAFTA? no reason to repeat the stupidity they displayed there.

4. not sure what Libertarian has to do here. you have GOVT meddling sticking it to the workers to prop up corporations.
 
  • Like
Reactions: satcomer

.Andy

macrumors 68030
Jul 18, 2004
2,946
583
The Mergui Archipelago
1 efficient for who? corporations? CO I worked for had to wait 3 months for radiators to come in from China, it was not about efficiency, it was about PRICE, our cost to build in the U.S was $80, it was $16 DELIVERED from China.
Sounds like efficient for both corporations and price to the consumer.
Why is free trade stupid?

4. not sure what Libertarian has to do here. you have GOVT meddling sticking it to the workers to prop up corporations.
So the government is "meddling" by removing barriers to competition. You are charging them with "meddling" by them literally meddling less. Sounds like you want more welfare for workers in businesses that aren't competitive. Doesn't sound very Libertarian to me. Sounds a bit socialist.
 

jkcerda

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jun 10, 2013
682
39,010
Criminal Mexi Midget
1.Sounds like efficient for both corporations and price to the consumer.
2.Why is free trade stupid?
1.who said the savings got passed to the consumer? the CO still sold that radiator for $200.
2. its not "free trade" when you are not competing at all.
 

Huntn

macrumors demi-god
May 5, 2008
17,060
16,569
The Misty Mountains
1) Her support of NAFTA.
2) Her corporatism and her allegiance to Wall Street.
3) Her demonstrated paranoiac obsession with secrecy.
4) The fact as Secretary of State she championed--and advocated for--the TPP.
1 and 4 are problems. 3 is overstated. 2 may be a problem if it is substantiated. Let's say she is the Democratic nominee. Who would you suggest on the GOP side? This is assuming any independent has the chance of a snowball in Hell. :)
 

Happybunny

macrumors 68000
Sep 9, 2010
1,752
1,351
That's not the only trade agreement that's running into problems TTIP with Europe is also not going well, but for other reasons.
 
Last edited:

td1439

macrumors 6502
Sep 29, 2012
337
115
Boston-ish

0007776

Suspended
Jul 11, 2006
6,474
8,051
Somewhere
Obama is a traitor to the American worker. Beside his devilish support for TPP, he recently changed the rules to allow spouses of H1-B visa holders to work. So for every H1-B visa Obama grants to some foreigner, two Americans will have their jobs stolen from under their feet. Hillary will be even worse.
If they are here on a visa then they are working in the US and contributing to the local economy. If anything we should be allowing more immigration.

If there ever was anything to the idea of American Exceptionalism it was because the US was a relatively stable country that it was easy to immigrate to so we got the best people from all over the world immigrating here, someone willing to risk a lot to move to a completely new country is likely to also be willing to take the risks to develop new ideas. We should be trying to get more people like that here and less on outsourcing all of our jobs. If you want to help the US economy cut back on the free trade deals and open up more immigration.
 

jnpy!$4g3cwk

macrumors 65816
Feb 11, 2010
1,100
1,293
You are wrong. In actuality, many wealthy people on both sides of the border have done well.
Wealthy, for those who missed it.

At the expense of the workers
Clearly at the expense of the lowest paid U.S. workers. It probably increased wages for lower paid Mexican workers.

The idea of NAFTA was fine, the discrepancy between wages was not. I think Clinton and HW thought it would bring wages up in Mexico killing two birds with one stone immigration and trade. In hindsight it didn't the TPP will have the same effect and the pres just doesn't or doesn't want to see it.
I think NAFTA did improve wages in Mexico. Do you have evidence that it didn't? I posted a while back that net immigration with Mexico was roughly zero over the last decade.

Thus joining the other 90% of us who left him in the dust long ago.
Who? And why? Whoever he is, did all the people who left him do so for the same reasons?

She went to Goldman-Sachs twice for a six-figure speaking fee each time and told the poor little plutocrats there how misunderstood they are. She's a corporatist, but her shucks-ain't-we-all-in-this-together act will probably be enough for the Team Blue types.

EDIT: linky with details: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/06/hillary-clintons-goldman-sachs-problem
If my choice is Clinton or Rubio, I'm voting for Clinton.

If they are here on a visa then they are working in the US and contributing to the local economy. If anything we should be allowing more immigration.
Do you care who immigrates? No question that people with PhD's in engineering are a plus. Not so clear about farmworkers from Guatemala. That is, they do contribute when they are working, but, they also displace poor U.S. citizens. There isn't enough farm work left with mechanized agriculture to support very many people. Unemployed poor people do not make a net contribution anywhere.[/QUOTE]

If there ever was anything to the idea of American Exceptionalism it was because the US was a relatively stable country that it was easy to immigrate to so we got the best people from all over the world immigrating here, someone willing to risk a lot to move to a completely new country is likely to also be willing to take the risks to develop new ideas. We should be trying to get more people like that here and less on outsourcing all of our jobs. If you want to help the US economy cut back on the free trade deals and open up more immigration.
The difference between then:

“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.”


and now, is, simply, mechanization and automation of so many jobs that the huddled masses could do without a lot of training. OBTW, unless your job is truly creative, the robots are coming for your job, too. There is no tested program of political economy, and, that includes Marxism, that is known to work in this new situation.