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

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by jkcerda, Jun 8, 2015.

  1. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #1
    http://news.yahoo.com/trade-obamas-most-loyal-allies-abandoning-him-135622450.html

    NAFTA stuck it to every one. glad to see some common sense among his supporters.
     
  2. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #2
    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.
     
  3. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #3
    Can you explain why NAFTA stuck it to everyone?
     
  4. Huntn Suspended

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #4
    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.

    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.
     
  5. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #5
    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 .

     
  6. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #6
    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?
     
  7. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #7
    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.
     
  8. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #8
    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.
     
  9. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #9
    Post 4 does not explain why free trade isn't more efficient.

    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?

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

    I am on the impression it doesn't work at any level. I am not the Libertarian however.
     
  10. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #10
    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.
     
  11. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #11
    Sounds like efficient for both corporations and price to the consumer.
    Why is free trade stupid?

    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.
     
  12. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #12
    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.
     
  13. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #13
    Greedy corporations are the worst. Perhaps this is why workers need to be empowered and why unions have a role?
     
  14. Huntn Suspended

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #14
    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. :)
     
  15. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #15
    depends on the Union .....
     
  16. Happybunny, Jun 8, 2015
    Last edited: Jun 8, 2015

    Happybunny macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2010
    #16
    That's not the only trade agreement that's running into problems TTIP with Europe is also not going well, but for other reasons.
     
  17. jnpy!$4g3cwk macrumors 65816

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #17
  18. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #18
    At the expense of the workers
     
  19. lowendlinux Contributor

    lowendlinux

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2014
    Location:
    North Country (way upstate NY)
    #19
    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.
     
  20. Keukasmallie macrumors regular

    Keukasmallie

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2011
    Location:
    WNY
    #20
    Thus joining the other 90% of us who left him in the dust long ago.
     
  21. td1439 macrumors 6502

    td1439

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2012
    Location:
    Boston-ish
    #21
    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
     
  22. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #22
    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.
     
  23. jnpy!$4g3cwk macrumors 65816

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #23
    Wealthy, for those who missed it.

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

    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.

    Who? And why? Whoever he is, did all the people who left him do so for the same reasons?

    If my choice is Clinton or Rubio, I'm voting for Clinton.

    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]

    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.
     

Share This Page