Sunday, May 27, 2012
In the Interesting/Did You Know? Category 6
That, according to Dallas Morning News business reporter, Richard Alm, 7 out of 10 of the new jobs that the U.S. economy created between 1993 and 1996 (the years immediately following NAFTA) actually paid wages that were HIGHER than the national average?......So much for that whole progressive talking-point that protectionism drives down wages.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 comments:
"So much for that whole progressive talking-point that protectionism drives down wages."
I think you mean to use the term free trade, not protectionism.
While of course it is a fact that protectionism does drive down wages, I doubt this is a "progressive talking point", as progressives (here as with many issues) favor these decisions being made by the few at the top instead of by the people actually directly involved in them.
Yes, thanks. I'll fix it.
dmarks: ...progressives... favor these decisions being made by the few at the top instead of by the people actually directly involved in them.
Actually, it's the free trade advocates who want the few at the top making the decisions instead of "we the people". This is why they want to turn our trading decisions over to the plutocrats and take them away from our elected representatives.
Progressives favor economic policies that benefit the 99 percent. They refuse to kowtow to the plutocrats, which explains why those who idolize the wealthy (like dmarks and Will) hate them so (and make up lies about "jealously").
A 9/1/1997 report from the Economic Policy Institute says, "...NAFTA's adherents claimed the agreement would create new jobs... [however] On the whole, imports from Mexico and Canada [resulted in a net loss of] 394,835 jobs. Even workers who found new jobs in the growing U.S. economy faced a reduction in wages, with average earnings dropping over 16%..."
Further in the article they say, "The NAFTA job losses are skewed toward high-wage jobs".
We should withdraw or renegotiate NAFTA, withdraw from the WTO, and back away from the other free trade agreements that are killing our jobs and our economy.
WD said: "...take them away from our elected representatives."
These people, the ruling elites, and not qualified to make these decisions about matters they know nothing about. The actual "we the people", those making the trade decisions, are.
Those others should butt out of matters that are not their business.
"Progressives favor economic policies that benefit the 99 percent."
Which is flat out untrue. Progressives act in the interest of less than 50%. Not 99%. The "99%" thing is marketing at worse, wishful thinking at best, for a political movement that is embraced by far far less than 99%.
"They refuse to kowtow to the plutocrats,"
Actually, progressives typically want more and more power for the ruling elites. Since most of those who rule are rich, these people that the progressives want to control our personal economic decisions meet the definition of plutocrat.
As for NAFTA, we should leave it in place. And let the people decide. If you and other bigots who hate Mexicans so wish, you can choose to not buy the products of their labor. But don't force your personal preferences on anyone else. You have no idea what you are talking about, and you are not qualified to run our lives.
"and back away from the other free trade agreements that are killing our jobs and our economy."
Thankfully, there are none of this specific type of free trade agreement to withdraw from.
Walking into your local store and making a decision to buy based on available products isn't trade. Trade agreements are negotiated between countries.
Currently the US has decided to leave the trading decisions in the hands of the plutocrats (by imposing negligible tariffs). dmarks only thinks individual consumers are making the decisions. It's an ignorant and naive view of what's really happening.
"Letting the people decide" would entail our elected representatives doing what the people want and imposing larger tariffs (because a majority of the people think free trade is harmful). Currently the plutocrats are deciding. dmarks (being on the pro-plutocrat/anti-"the people" deciding side) should butt out.
dmarks: Thankfully, there are none of this specific type of free trade agreement to withdraw from.
Unfortunately all the trade agreements we are involved in are of the job-killing variety, as the Economic Policy Institute accurately pointed out.
Walking into a store is trade alright. As is ordering something directly from Mexico or another country.
"Trade agreements are negotiated between countries."
As long as they are negotiating to make things more free and open, then it is fine.
"Currently the US has decided to leave the trading decisions in the hands of the plutocrats (by imposing negligible tariffs)."
The current tariffs are still excessive. Tariffs do of course leave matters in the hands of the actual plutocrats (the ruling elite).
Again, let the people decide. Sorry, the rulers you speak of are not 'the people'. Only a moron would think that.
The Economic Policy Institute is a biased liberal organization. The Council on Foreign Relations and the CBO are both completely NONpartisan and those organizations concluded differently; that, while there were many pluses and minuses to NAFTA, it was essentially a slight net plus.......And nobody has a God-given right to A specific job for an entire lifetime, wd. You really need to grow up and understand that.
And who in the hell are these frigging plutocrats? The vast, VAST, percentage of people in the top 1% are NOT CEOs and had absolutely NOTHING to do with the Wall Street meltdown. They're doctors, lawyers, accountants, administrators, architects, engineers, real estate people, farmers, and some of them are even in the damned blue-collar field, for Christ. This cartoon-like notion of yours ("Marxism for Dummies"?) on just how our society works is rapidly becoming a "South Park" episode.
Will: And who in the hell are these frigging plutocrats?
What, because the number of people who qualify as the plutocrats is small you round down to zero? That's extremely naive of you. Must be something you got from "Capitalism for Dummies".
dmarks: Again, let the people decide. Sorry, the rulers you speak of are not 'the people'. Only a moron would think that.
I'm 100 percent in favor of letting the people decide. The problem is the plutocrats have bought off our elected officials and they're doing what the plutocrats want (the plutocrats want free trade).
Also, none of my comments mentioned "rulers". You must be thinking of a comment by someone else you read on another blog.
And, only dummies believe that under free trade the decisions are in the hands of individual consumers instead of the hands of the plutocrats.
WD said: "i'm 100 percent in favor of letting the people decide. "
Well, that's a 180. Because up until now you have been consistently opposing letting the people decide and only letting the rulers decide.
"Also, none of my comments mentioned rulers."
Actually, your comment above, the one tagged May 27, 2012 2:26 PM, has you decrying the idea of taking decisions away from the rulers.
"And, only dummies believe that under free trade the decisions are in the hands of individual consumers instead of the hands of the plutocrats."
It's not "dummies". It's a fact. See my earlier Hyundai example. I want the decision of whether or not to buy a Hyundai to be in the hands of individual consumers. You want these decisions to be in the hands of the real plutocrats* : the rulers.
(Referring to the real definition of plutocrat, referenced earlier. Our representatives, who are all wealthy and all rule, meet the definition)
WD, are you advocating for the tyranny of the majority?
Rational; It's the tyranny of someone, anyway. Someone else forcing their own personal preferences on us, against our wishes and interest.
If someone's personal preference is to turn control over to the wealthy elites and diminish democracy... then you're damn right I'm going to oppose it, even if that means forcing you to accept more freedom against your wishes.
If you are going to do something fascistic like have the government get in the way of my choice to buy a Hyundai (as per my example), you are the one taking away freedom.
Your strong idea that giving the ruling elites more power over us and taking away our decisions gives us more freedom is completely preposterous.
dmarks: Your strong idea that giving the ruling elites more power over us and taking away our decisions gives us more freedom is completely preposterous.
I don't have that idea. My idea is that the power is vested in "we the people" and that power is exercised/enforced through our elected officials. That's the foundation of democracy.
What's preposterous is that you're arguing against democracy.
"My idea is that the power is vested in "we the people" and that power is exercised/enforced through our elected officials."
I strongly disagree with this, when it comes to our personal decisions. On these, 'We the people' means each and every person. No middlemen of elected ruling elites are needed or necessary for this.
"That's the foundation of democracy."
No, it's not. It isn't necessary for the ruling elites to micro-manage our lives for there to be democracy.
"What's preposterous is that you're arguing against democracy."
No, I am against statism. A very different thing.
Democracy definition: "/diˈmäkrəsē/
Noun:
"1. A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives."
.... says nothing about the size of the government. And of course I am not against democracy at all. I am against another factor: over large government.
Interesting article, gentlemen. Yes, we currently have a substantial trade deficit in terms of goods. But we actually had a 144 billion dollar SURPLUS when it came to services.......We also have a trade surplus when it comes to education and hopefully when Mr. Obama streamlines the Visa process we can really start to kick some serious butt again in tourism.......http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/17/opinion/17cox.html?pagewanted=all
dmarks: I am against another factor: over large government.
Then you're in favor of allowing corporations to do as they please. Because without the government regulators to keep them in check, that's what happens.
Of course we have to address the problem of regulatory capture as well, but getting rid of the regulators isn't the answer.
"Then you're in favor of allowing corporations to do as they please."
Not at all. Less of one does not mean more of the other.
In fact, more of one often means more of the other. Look at out-of-control big government giving all those massive bailouts *cough* handouts to all those huge corporations (something opposed by supposedly corporatist Republicans and supported by supposedly much less corporatist Democrats). A properly limited government wouldn't do that.
Excellent point, dmarkes. The big corporations profited handsomely from the stimulus and government regulations all too often hurt the smaller businesses and start-ups in that they simply don't have the money to be able to afford the higher (relative) costs of compliance.
Post a Comment