Posted on 03/17/2016 1:15:58 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
Kaminsky is stupid. Obama campaigned against NAFTA too, but then pushed TPP. Hillary was for TPP before she was against it, and even suggested she might change her position on TPP again later.
The Uniparty is all in favor of “free trade” because that is what the money interests demand, regardless of what they say to get elected. Cruz included. He campaigned for TPA, and only turned against it at the last minute.
Three cheers for 40 million out of work U. S. Citizens.
Hip hip...
Hey, wait a minute!
Yeah, I know. It’s only been 30 years of short runs and 19 trillion in debt.
These deals aren’t free trade, they are managed trade!
So silly. Tariffs serve multiple goals when used wisely.
Have watched the problem on the border since the ninties and have brokers in the family.
Trump is correct. NAFTA is a globalist tool to establish the NAU.
If free trade worked as advertised this would not be happening in America right now with Trump or Sanders. It has been around for like 30 years or so we real world data to reflect on.
Government regulations, lawsuit abuse, taxation - the march toward toward socialism and Big Government control and Crony Capitalism (the pattern of business going hat in hand and on bended knee - eventually moving beyond a Stockholm Syndrome relationship to bankrolling politicians for favored market status) have torqued free trade.
Who’s history foretells their willingness to change this?
Trump’s or Cruz’s?
I say Cruz’s.
In the predawn glimmering this morning here in Germany my neighbor's rooster stepped out, ruffled his feathers, puffed his chest, and let go with a cock-a-doodle-doo (although I'm told they do it differently here in Germany, at least the Germans have a different onomatopoeic for it). Shortly thereafter, the sun rose. Satisfied, our rooster retired to the henhouse no doubt with the intention of rendering the hens equally satisfied.
The question is not whether the American economy in certain sectors have been harmed coincidently in time with trade agreements but whether there is data which demonstrates cause and effect.
Even when cause-and-effect are demonstrated in certain sectors, the next question which must be addressed is whether, on balance, the whole economy has been advantaged or disadvantaged by these trade agreements. To answer these questions we must have resort to more than the bombast of Donald Trump, we must actually see data.
And when we make these judgments we must ask ourselves are we advantaged or sometimes disadvantaged by our own protectionist measures? Is the American consumer advantaged because a very few families in Florida are in effect subsidized by the American consumers for growing sugar cane? Donald Trump tells us that our problem is that we make "stupid" deals because our negotiators are "stupid."
The reality is that some sectors are sacrificed by our trade negotiators to advantage other sectors. This is not stupidity but cupidity. When Donald Trump enters the picture we will have a different brand of cupidity but that does not make him smart.
Finally, we should ask ourselves whether the fault lies with the trade agreements or with the sweep of technology and the span of globalization. IBM today as literally tens of thousands of Indians sitting before computer monitors in India doing IT work for American and European companies. They are getting in salary a fraction of what it would cost to put an American in front of that computer monitor. It might well be that your next x-ray will be read by a physician in India instead of a doctor in America.
We should ask ourselves whether our educational establishment, our regulations, our tax policy, our intrusive environmental bullying are more responsible for the weakness in the American economy than the trade agreements. We should ask whether those deficiencies can be repaired by "smarter" trade agreements? Above all, we should have resort to data rather than bombast to answer these questions.
I’ll let someone else point it out to you.
If free trade is so good how come China poisoned our dogs?
Yeah, I know. It’s always best for us peons if we allow politicians and governments to pick the winners and losers among industries. Government of, for and by the elite. Please pass the peas.
“Trade should be debated in terms of its impact on efficiency, not in terms of phony numbers about jobs created or lost.” - Paul Krugman, 1993
I’ll text this to my husband as he boards a plane to India where he will train double the amount of Americans his company laid off.
There is no indication that he will come to the people with data and inform the electorate.
What you said.
bttt!
Trumps or Cruzs?
I say Cruzs.
A lawyer and lifelong politician. Pretty sure a lot of those got us into this mess to begin with. I guess you'll call him a community organizer next.
Free trade theoretically has its merits. But when free trade is coupled with ill-conceived legislation and regulation a country’s workers pay the price. Furthermore, when free trade which is also fair impairs the viability of industries vital to the national defense, free trade must move to the rear of the bus.
Because trade is going so well for us. Even when I was a kid I new Nafta was fishy.
We’re going to pay the tax. Whether it’s in the form of tariffs or welfare checks for the unemployed, we’re going to pay it. But there’s a lot more damage done to society if it’s welfare checks vs paychecks.
On the other hand, they’re not raising the tax, they’re raising the national debt. But there will be a day of reckoning on that bubble.
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.