Posted on 02/20/2016 2:42:33 AM PST by Helicondelta
You know nothing about how businesses really operated. Absent a really juicy patent, businesses that seek economic profits will always be undercut by competitors who don’t.
Yes, but it was finally implemented by Bill Clinton.
Remember the Al Gore/Ross Perot “debate” after the 92 election?
NAFTA - thanks to Clinton, Dole and Bush.
Perot warned us of what was to come and we ignored him. Trump is warning us of what is to come. Will we ignore him, too?
And both of them being nutcases has nothing to do with it. One spoke the truth and the other is speaking the truth.
The day it happened, Gore was the deciding vote. And Clinton and Dole stood side by side smiling. I watched on TV and said “Anytime Dole and Clinton stand side by side in agreement it means we the people are getting screwed.”
There is no such thing as (Adam) Smithsonian free trade in the world and never has been.
The Free Traders build all their advocacy, logic and benefit models on a penumbra.
The real world is mercantilism. And always has been.
In fact, the USA built the largest capital stock since Rome by adopting Rome's mercantilistic commerce model. England before us.
Now we have a modern uniparty that thinks we should abandon all protections and advantages...all commercial interests...as a nation and adopt the fantasy of Smithsonian Free Trade while the rest of the world learns from and adopts our model of mercantilism.
It's just a way to transfer the US Capital Stock to the rest of the world so that the brokers (Congress and their payers) can skim off the top of that series of transactions and become individually rich.
It really IS that simple.
>> abandon all protections and advantages..
Yep.
And “COMMERCE BETWEEN MASTER AND SLAVE IS [still] __________”?
Same ol’ ba’al manure, different municipal toilet.
Read post #65 and take a course in macroeconomics. Augment with world history.
The dilemma we face is that we can either employ a lot of people in manufacturing, or we can have the highest standard of living in the world. We really can't do both at the same time.
It's also worth nothing that the migration of manufacturing from the U.S. to other parts of the world isn't necessarily the result of some kind of betrayal or pernicious politics at work. The simple truth is that there are more than 7 billion people in this world, and the U.S. with its 300+ million people just isn't the same attractive market we used to be.
The biggest impact of NAFTA is that it prevented any of the nations from nationalizing their energy resources. This was particularly important for western Canada, which was decimated in the 1980s when the economy collapsed after the Trudeau government nationalized the entire energy sector. It's no coincidence that Saudi Arabia was surpassed by both Mexico and Canada as the largest foreign sources of crude oil for the U.S. by 2000. This never would have happened before NAFTA.
>>The dilemma we face is that we can either employ a lot of people in manufacturing, or we can have the highest standard of living in the world. We really can’t do both at the same time.
We did when I was young. But, you are right. Those jobs are lost forever. I wrote some long posts in another thread on this, but our problem is that we lost all the Stage 3 work in the Product Life Cycle, but our education system failed to become one that takes our “highest standard of living” nation to the highest level of education. A nation can lose all the Stage 3 work as long as it keeps the Stage 1 work, and doesn’t just give away the secrets so foreigners can create Stage 2 work for themselves.
We give away the tech for the Stage 2 work. We import educated labor for the Stage 1 work. And we charge thousands of dollars for the most useless Associates degree. Our education system cannot provide what we need to force the government to end the H1-B scam.
Not only is that statement wrong it is just crazy. We will have the highest standard of living with a strong industrial base making the economy hum along. Manufacturing creates wealth.
We did when I was young. But, you are right.
That's true. It's important to note that from an economic standpoint, the post-WW2 period was an exception, not the norm. The U.S. was a dominant industrial power only because we were the one major country in the world to escape World War II with our infrastructure and industrial assets unscathed. Once that reality changed, our dominance began to erode.
The laws of supply and demand say you are wrong. When salaries go up in a particular field then more people enter that field. Shut the H-1B spigot off then salaries go up and STEM majors become real popular again. Your Anti American ignorance is why Trump is doing well. Go Trump, go!
We want positive America First nationalist leadership and not what these Cheap Labor Express stooges want. They are throw backs to the NWO whores that need to be put in the dust bin of history.
We will have the highest standard of living with a strong industrial base making the economy hum along. Manufacturing creates wealth.
I agree with that. What we will not have, however, is a strong industrial base with more than 10% of our work force employed in manufacturing. Those days are gone forever -- and for the same reasons we no longer have 95% of our workers employed in agriculture. Our "strong industrial base" will be more of what it already is: technologically advanced and heavy automated, with very low labor costs compared to the value of the products that are made.
Again your defeatist global BS is why we will have a President Trump.
I'll bet I employ more Americans than you do.
>>It’s important to note that from an economic standpoint, the post-WW2 period was an exception, not the norm.
There really isn’t a “norm” established because there isn’t enough data. The Industrial Age lasted less than a century and that was disrupted by two world wars. The Information Age is less than 50 years old and technology changes that game every decade.
We work with economic theories and business practices that are based on a world that doesn’t exist anymore, and some of those theories and practices are for worlds that only existed for brief period of time.
We need to search for a new paradigm, but our old 20th century political divisons prevent that. In the battle between Collectivism vs Free Market, where both are a failure if taken to the extreme, there can be no winner except for a few at the top—if we only seek to “win”.
In an Information Age where the most valued possession of a generation is their smart phone, there could be something (”Cooperatism”???) that eradicates the old C vs FM paradigm.
It's not as if we are a nation filled with people who went to law school because they figured they could get paid more as lawyers than as engineers. Most of them went to law school because they were incapable of working in a STEM field.
Here's an example of two of them, LOL
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.