What NAFTA hath wrought: Bill Clinton, Flint Michigan, and the destruction of the American dream

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by aaronvan, Mar 3, 2016.

  1. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #1
    Happy 20th Anniversary, NAFTA!

    The brilliant Detroit journalist Charlie LeDuff hits it out of the park. NAFTA, then CAFTA, and now TPP: America frets over Supreme Court justices while our future is offshored.

     
  2. Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #2
    The architects of NAFTA now acknowledge that the idea, lifting both regions North and South of the border failed miserably. Was this their plan all along? You know the business/profit focused GOP fully supported it. I hold this against Bill Clinton, who was a moderate Democrat, not the flaming liberal the right accuses him and his wife of being.

    The question is who will you vote for? I'm voting Democrat because I see nothing from the Republicans that is remotely appealing.
     
  3. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #3
    Don't forget the GATT and the WTO.

    Trade treaties (that's what they are) since the 80's have only been about freeing multinationals to continue economic colonialism. Use up resources and labor until they are depleted or demand fair compensation, then move on to the next country to exploit.
     
  4. thewap macrumors demi-god

    thewap

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2012
    #4
    Trump is against it.. actually the only one against it. Clinton is a well know advocate and spokesperson pushing all these globalist trade agendas. Voting for the same party that keeps pushing it and expecting *change* is... well...on par with believing Obama if he ran today calling for *change* again.
     
  5. adroit macrumors 6502

    adroit

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2005
    Location:
    Victoria, BC
    #5
    Americans hate NAFTA. We Canadians hate NAFTA. Why is there NAFTA?

    Is it Mexico?
     
  6. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #6
    Because in an Oligarchy the only opinions that matter are those of the ultra wealthy, and the multinational corporations.
     
  7. aaronvan thread starter Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #7
    I don't vote party; I vote person. Right now, it will be Gary Anderson (again) or maybe Jill Stein just for grins. If Rubio gets the nod, probably him. Unfortunately, Trump is the only major candidate to oppose these free-trade deals so no matter who wins in November, American jobs will continue to move overseas.
     
  8. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #8
    Sanders has been speaking out against trade deals for decades....
     
  9. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #9
    so did Warren & Trump, seems only Trump is left who opposes it.
     
  10. aaronvan thread starter Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #10
    True, and that's why I was feeling the Bern. However, he is no longer a major candidate
     
  11. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #11
    is he OUT already? thought he was still in?
     
  12. aaronvan thread starter Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #12
    He's still in, but he has no realistic path to the Democratic Party nomination.
     
  13. sodapop1 Suspended

    sodapop1

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2014
    #13
    NAFTA isn't the problem, the problem is the concentration of wealth, greed and corruption. The more people/countries that are contributing and benefiting from a globalized economy, the better we are all off. Less poverty, better qualify of life and more importantly less terrorism and drug violence can only be achieved by a globalized economy. However, no matter how good intentioned policies are, they will always fail when greed and corruption are present.
     
  14. thewap, Mar 3, 2016
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2016

    thewap macrumors demi-god

    thewap

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2012
    #14
    The CFR member politicians - Bush, Clintons, Rubio, Cruz, rockefellers, banks, etc.

    want to turn the USA, Canada, and Mexico into a N. American zone without sovereignty at the control of special interest and the banks. To kill sovereignty, you have to destabilize the countries first (hello immigration?)- then take over as *saviors* ie United Nations to *heal* the continent into a EU type of economy and supremacist laws of it's commission.

    Result - banks and special interest control the Americas and it's natural resources, who are the same that control EU's trade and banking system.
    --- Post Merged, Mar 3, 2016 ---
    Because a world Central Bank controlling the world with global law supremacy over all humans worldwide is a good thing and we are all better off?
    Wow..
     
  15. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #15
    To blame NAFTA for the travails of Flint, MI is not just simplistic. Its flat out wrong.

    Lets put this in perspective: In 1989, filmmaker Michael Moore made the iconic Roger & Me documentary, contrasting his efforts to meet with then-GM CEO Roger Smith and the economic devastation that had followed the closing of several Flint automobile plants. So its pretty clear that in 1989 - four years before NAFTA came into force Flint, Michigan - and the US automobile industry was in trouble.

    There is neither time nor space to go into a detailed history of the faults of the US automobile industry - from incompetence and arrogance on the part of management; to sloth, avarice and stupidity on the part of many in organized labor. But I do remember - very well - how the UAW's decision to hold a devastating strike at Flint's Delphi facility in 1998 (four years after NAFTA) brought GM, its customers, and suppliers (my company among them) to the brink of disaster. So if they are sad to see that plant closed and the jobs gone - maybe, just maybe a little self-reflection is in order.

    So: Sorry, Flint. But you screwed up. GM and Ford and Chrysler, etc. screwed up. You built shoddy cars and got paid too much for doing it for forty years. You ignored VW and Toyota, Mercedes and Honda.

    You could (by some Trumpian fiat) order Delco to reopen its factories in Flint. But who do you expect to pay the inevitably higher prices - and worse quality - that is inevitably going to bring about?
     
  16. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #16
    it's EVERYONES fault EXCEPT the politicians who make it easier for the CO's to offshore in the first place. :rolleyes:
     
  17. lowendlinux Contributor

    lowendlinux

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2014
    Location:
    North Country (way upstate NY)
    #17
    No NAFTA is the problem, NAFTA's aims weren't solely economic it was also an attempt to stem illegal immigration. NAFTA is the problem along with some others but not those you listed other than greed which is sorta universal.
     
  18. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #18
    He's in no worse shape than Obama was in 08....

    Forget the super delegates, if it becomes clear that the people want Sanders in the later primaries they will do what they always do, switch.
    --- Post Merged, Mar 3, 2016 ---
    I don't believe for a second that NAFTA was actually an attempt to stem immigration. When you open up the market to dump cheap corn into Mexico, destroying the only livelihood for over a million corn farmers there, wtf did people think the end result was going to be?

    We destroy local economies in the name of global economics, and expect the HUMANS impacted by it not to try to find a way to survive? That's economic theoretical nonsense.
     
  19. lowendlinux Contributor

    lowendlinux

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2014
    Location:
    North Country (way upstate NY)
    #19
    We thought that they take jobs in the new factories that were going to open up as we and the US and Canadian markets were completely opened to Mexico. We thought that would stem the tide of migrant farm workers, they could stay hom,e and take good paying factory jobs.

    What we left out like in the TPP were labor laws and the idea that American companies would move en masse to take advantage of those laws ot lask thereof.
     
  20. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #20
    Well that's a nice thought but without the mechanisms set up to relocate farmers (presumably with their consent) to these factories, and provide assistance to make the transition from agrarian life to being cogs in a factory machine....why would anyone assume that reality would actually bend that way?

    What I'm getting at is industry doesn't account for human life itself, not how it works, not how people behave. If they really expected people to just up an relocate to the friendly corporations that ruined their entire life and livelihood, they should have known better.
     
  21. lowendlinux Contributor

    lowendlinux

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2014
    Location:
    North Country (way upstate NY)
    #21
    They thought Mexican companies would expand their business' and set up new manufacturing because they could expand into new markets and that would reduce illegal immigration because it would remove the need to come here to survive.

    The problem is you cannot set up trade deals with nations that have lax labor laws, you make US/EU labor compete with labor making orders of magnitude less. Trade deals for the US with anyone but the EU are bad for the US you provide more opportunity for capital to move and keep restrictions on labor it's a disaster.
     
  22. Huntn, Mar 3, 2016
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2016

    Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #22
    Unfortunately the game is relative good vs no good as framed by different groups. Unfortunately Trump is in say what you want to hear mode specially towards workers. It appears based on past practices he gives not a hoot about worker's lifestyle. They are just a cog in the Trump machine. Cog's don't need lifestyles. ;) MY opinion.

    My counter is that he is of questionable repute. Do you like buying oil from a snake oil salesman?

    I agree with this version of the big picture. The problem is that when they can, business will disenfranchise well paid workers for barrio workers somewhere else. And then they will shelter their profits overseas, avoid paying their fair share of taxes that supports the society that allowed them to accel. Through federal laws the masters of business can be brought to heal, but it takes a common will and not suckers who will believe a BSer with a good line. When a society takes off and fires on all cylinders, it's a slap to your society when a few can disenfranchise others, while keeping the wealth to themselves.

    Some good points. I believe the US auto industry is a good example of unions run amuck, however they are humans just like big business is run by humans and both are just as susceptible to selfishness.
     
  23. sodapop1 Suspended

    sodapop1

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2014
    #23
    I agree on all of these points but I would also extend the blame to consumers as well who want the world (big houses, fancy cars, electronics, clothes, etc) and expect to pay rock bottom prices. The end result, companies turn to cheap labor in order to provide these goods and services at a low cost but at the same time laying off the workers who are actually their would be customers. Nothing more than a race to the bottom.
     
  24. Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #24
    I wonder if any studies have been done where the impact of lowering you home market's buying power in the name of cheaper goods is a plus or minus for the business? I assume it's a plus, especially if these are large multinational corporations selling around the world.
     
  25. sodapop1 Suspended

    sodapop1

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2014
    #25
    Look at how well Apple is doing :)
     

Share This Page