An Open letter to President Bush (End run vs. Outsourcing)

Me | Me

[Havoc]

Dodge and distort. Dodge and distort. Still waiting.

[discostu]

You've gotten what you asked for. No dodges no distortions, and saying there are dodges and distortions is MORE LIES from HAVOC THE LIAR.

Now answer the questions asked of you. Talk about dodge and distort. First you LIE about not having your questions answered then you refuse to answer questions. STOP THE LIES HAVOC, START ANSWERING QUESTIONS WITH TRUTH.

END HAVOC'S LIES
END HAVOC'S LIES
END HAVOC'S LIES

[Havoc]

No, I haven't gotten what I asked for. I've gotten your rhetoric; but, you've cited no historical reference showing this theory has been proven correct, much less that it can function absent it's baseline. We had a thread posted last night on this forum noting the blaring absence of the baseline - etc. Cite the reference or admit it's never been proven. Adam smith did it, where's the proof for this?
Cite the publication and the people credited with proving it. Begging the question isn't proof.

[discostu]

Here's your historical data, this is the direction economic indicators have moved since NAFTA, the baseline is pre-NAFTA, the good news is now.

New unemployment claims - DOWN
Unemployment as a percentage - DOWN
Total jobs in the economy - UP
GDP - UP
Manufacturing indexes - UP
Retail sales - UP
Inflation - DOWN

That FULLY answers your question. There's no spin here, no distortion, no dodging. Just the pure simple fact that EVERY SINGLE economic indicator of any merit has moved in the good direction since NAFTA. Every one, no exception. That is the pure and simple truth and no matter how hard you stamp your foot and LIE those facts will not change. Free trade has demonstrably been good for America in EVERY MEASURABLE WAY and anyone that says otherwise is a liar and a moron.

[Toddsterpatriot]

GDP 1996 Dollars in Billions

DATE . VALUE

1987-01-01 6013.328

1987-04-01 6077.162

1987-07-01 6128.104

1987-10-01 6234.441

1988-01-01 6275.851

1988-04-01 6349.841

1988-07-01 6382.344

1988-10-01 6465.242

1989-01-01 6543.842

1989-04-01 6579.392

1989-07-01 6610.567

1989-10-01 6633.538

1990-01-01 6716.279

1990-04-01 6731.749

1990-07-01 6719.404

1990-10-01 6664.243

1991-01-01 6631.350

1991-04-01 6668.541

1991-07-01 6684.870

1991-10-01 6720.889

1992-01-01 6783.316

1992-04-01 6846.759

1992-07-01 6899.654

1992-10-01 6990.599

1993-01-01 6988.724

1993-04-01 7031.150

1993-07-01 7062.012

1993-10-01 7168.662

1994-01-01 7229.370

1994-04-01 7330.238

1994-07-01 7370.163

1994-10-01 7461.109

1995-01-01 7488.689

1995-04-01 7503.300

1995-07-01 7561.352

1995-10-01 7621.904

1996-01-01 7676.440

1996-04-01 7802.935

1996-07-01 7841.922

1996-10-01 7931.305

1997-01-01 8016.391

1997-04-01 8131.947

1997-07-01 8216.564

1997-10-01 8272.897

1998-01-01 8396.345

1998-04-01 8442.912

1998-07-01 8528.466

1998-10-01 8667.853

1999-01-01 8733.171

1999-04-01 8775.518

1999-07-01 8886.934

1999-10-01 9040.072

2000-01-01 9097.421

2000-04-01 9205.711

2000-07-01 9218.681

2000-10-01 9243.840

2001-01-01 9229.932

2001-04-01 9193.054

2001-07-01 9186.413

2001-10-01 9248.762

2002-01-01 9363.225

2002-04-01 9392.446

2002-07-01 9485.579

2002-10-01 9518.238

2003-01-01 9551.991

2003-04-01 9625.513

http://marketvector.com/data/index.htm

Civilian workforce in thousands

1987-01-01 110953

1988-01-01 114016

1989-01-01 116708

1990-01-01 119081

1991-01-01 117940

1992-01-01 117978

1993-01-01 119075

1994-01-01 121966

1995-01-01 124663

1996-01-01 125125

1997-01-01 128298

1998-01-01 130726

1999-01-01 133078

2000-01-01 136609

2001-01-01 137846

2002-01-01 135791

2002-02-01 136450

2002-03-01 136143

2002-04-01 136196

2002-05-01 136487

2002-06-01 136383

2002-07-01 136343

2002-08-01 136757

2002-09-01 137312

2002-10-01 136988

2002-11-01 136542

2002-12-01 136439

2003-01-01 137536

2003-02-01 137408

2003-03-01 137348

2003-04-01 137687

2003-05-01 137487

2003-06-01 137738

2003-07-01 137478

Now show me in this data where all the jobs were lost or where the economy declined after your buddy Clinton got NAFTA passed.

Come on Havoc, focus on the facts and resist the name calling and physical threats.

[Havoc]

No, that doesn't answer my question. It isn't proof of anything to do with free trade. I asked you specifically to cite historic reference that shows that the theory has been (A) proven, (B) by whome and additionally (C) that it will function absent the baseline the theory requires to function in the first place.

You've not yet done it. Now, I understand you're handicapped by a lack of understanding of the English language; but, if need be, get a translator and take your time. As I said, Adam Smith's theory was subjected to such proofs. So where's yours. Take your time - in no rush.

[discostu]

He'll never even try. All facts that don't agree with his pre-conceived notions are automatically "spin" and "distortions" and any failure to provide data that proves him right is a "dodge". It's not a healthy mentality to start with, but when the person with it has beliefs that bear so little resemblance to reality that they should probably be in therapy it become really bad. Here's what Havoc's answer will be in a nutshell:
typical free traitor, completely unable to prove 1 is 2 and hiding your ineptitude behind spin and distortion, stop dodging the question, prove that 1 is 2 or admit your just a money grubbing scum who hates America!

[discostu]

Yes it does answer your question. It just doesn't answer it the way you like because it proves you WRONG and that apparantly gives you a terrible rash. Buy ointment.

[Joe Hadenuf]

Now show me in this data where all the jobs were lost or where the economy declined after your buddy Clinton got NAFTA passed.

Get real. Most are making much less than they were just 4 years ago. Millions have gone from good jobs, with pretty good benefits to low end jobs with little or no benefits.

Many have their wifes working now just so they can have medical benefits.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Get real. Most are making much less than they were just 4 years ago.

I thought NAFTA was passed in 1993.

[Joe Hadenuf]

We've got an argument that has weight the economy. For the majority of the time since NAFTA was passed the US economy has been chugging along at meterioric rates, unemployment has dropped lower than ever

Sounds good, but in reality, thousands went from good full time positions with benefits, to low end jobs at Walmart and other low end service jobs....Trust me, this is not a good thing.

[Joe Hadenuf]

I thought NAFTA was passed in 1993.

You bet, and the negative effects didn't start kicking in until about 4 or 5 years ago....

[discostu]

Sorry that's not the case. In reality the manufacturing sector is a higher percentage of our GDP than it was just prior to WWII, good jobs are thriving throughout the country. Reality is the economy is fine and free trade has at worst been economically neutral. There's a perceptage some are selling that the jobs of America has trended downward, but you shouldn't buy it because the sellers are drunk and hooked on crack.

[Toddsterpatriot]

You bet, and the negative effects didn't start kicking in until about 4 or 5 years ago....

So, how many years before we start to recover once we repeal NAFTA?

[bvw]

Home loans and second mortgages -- WAY UP
Credit Card Debt -- WAY UP
Bankruptcies and loan defaults -- UP
Inflation on basic costs of living -- UP Real wages -- DOWN
State and City Income Tax Receipts -- WAY DOWN
Savings -- WAY DOWN

Hedonically adjusted inflation -- WAY DOWN!

People are trained to spend, to borrow to spend, to borrow more to spend ... so

Retail Sales -- UP!

Worry about Tomorrow -- DOWN!

BE HAPPY! :-))

[Poohbah]

Most are making much less than they were just 4 years ago.

I'm sure you have a source to back up this claim.

The plural form of "anecdote" is not "data."

[Havoc]

No, it doesnt' prove me wrong. All it proves is that the economy has recovered to an extent while under assault by your theory - just like a human body can recover from a cold though it is under seige by cancer. We already know the disastrous impact of this theory. I'm specifically asking you for something you are unwilling to supply because you can't - it's an unproven theory. An unproven theory that is ravaging the middle class of America, lowering incomes to poverty levels here while availing itself of slave rates elsewhere.. etc. It provides a short term appearance of gain while it destroys the tax base and puts people in poverty a little at a time. It's so popular that My company won't even admit publicly that it's outsourcing our helpdesk. One of our local papers called their corporate office and they denied it after telling us they're doing it and giving us dates.

When it's popular and good for ya, they advertise it openly and take all the credit they can scrape up for it. When it's damaging and unpopular to the tune of 70% of Americans, you have to hide and deny - just like you traitors here.. oh, forgot - free traitors.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Most are making much less than they were just 4 years ago.

Do you think most means more than 50%?

And exactly what percentage is much?

[discostu]

Home loans and second mortgages -- WAY UP - not related to free trade
Credit Card Debt -- WAY UP - not related to free trade
Bankruptcies and loan defaults -- UP - not related to free trade
Inflation on basic costs of living -- UP - actually not true
Real wages -- DOWN - also not true
State and City Income Tax Receipts -- WAY DOWN - the government has less money to spend and this is a problem how?
Savings -- WAY DOWN - not related to free trade

Hedonically adjusted inflation -- WAY DOWN! - yeah
Retail Sales -- UP! - good news, money makes the economy go round, if people aren't spending then other people aren't earning, that's called a recession

Worry about Tomorrow -- DOWN! - also good news, worry about tomorrow causes people to not spend, which causes other people to not earn, which is still called a recession

[discostu]

And if free trade is destroying the American economy then just how did the economy recover?

See that's where you're proven wrong. If free trade was half as bad for the economy as you insist it is the recession should have turned into a depression a while ago. Meanwhile the most trade restrictive nation in the world, Japan, has been in a recession for 12 years and counting, thus clearly demonstrating that erecting trade barriers is not the answer.