It's NAFTA's Fault! Why Don't They Talk About This and JOBS!

[michaelwise]

It's not Obama's Fault or Bush's Fault when it comes to jobs or tent cities. Why don't they talk about this in the MSM when it comes to discussing the job situation?

Add to that CAFTA, GAT, add the WTO. That's why there are no good jobs left in America.

The main stream media has no intellectual honesty. All they have is talking points that the commentators regurgitate from the teleprompter written by their corporate overlords. It’s good to see the MSM dying a free market death. Long live the alternative media.

Ross Perot was Right!

YouTube - Giant Sucking Sound - Ross Perot 1992 Presidential Debate.flv (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rkgx1C_S6ls&NR=1)

[michaelwise]

YouTube - The Wonderful World of NAFTA (Part 1/2) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnVL0d9fwkY&NR=1&feature=fvwp)

YouTube - The Wonderful World of NAFTA (Part 2/2) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxQQael1ueE&feature=channel)

[MsDoodahs]

Can't have people thinking that Perot guy was RIGHT, now, can we?

[michaelwise]

Why does the maim stream media work so hard to keep the American people divided against each other? Perhaps we should discuss the reasons for this too.

[erowe1]

No. It's the fault of the USA having taxes and regulations that prevent job seekers from being able to undercut their competition, including competition from workers in 3rd world countries, in the wages and conditions of their employment. If American workers were allowed to offer to work in sweatshop conditions at $1/hr., then it would genuinely be the case that the only people here who don't have jobs would be people who choose to be unemployed rather than to work at the wage and conditions that their level of productivity could command in the marketplace.

[jkr]

FUCK nafta!

it fucked us!

[speciallyblend]

the gop establishment loves nafta!!!!!

[tangent4ronpaul]

Has anyone heard anything about the North American Union lately? Last I heard was a bunch of land was seized by eminent domain for the superhighway but that was a WHILE ago - like a year or two. That an a caller into Washington Journal mentioned the Amero in passing a while back.

-t

[BenIsForRon]

No. It's the fault of the USA having taxes and regulations that prevent job seekers from being able to undercut their competition, including competition from workers in 3rd world countries, in the wages and conditions of their employment. If American workers were allowed to offer to work in sweatshop conditions at $1/hr., then it would genuinely be the case that the only people here who don't have jobs would be people who choose to be unemployed rather than to work at the wage and conditions that their level of productivity could command in the marketplace.

Once again you ignore all the other factors. Many Chinese are working in factories because they have no other choice. They have no land to farm on, because it was stolen from their grandparents by the government. You have no problem with US corporations taking advantage of the situation?

[erowe1]

You have no problem with US corporations taking advantage of the situation?

When you say they don't have a choice, do you mean that if they didn't have those jobs with those American companies they would die?

If not, then I'm not sure what you mean by not having a choice.

If so, then of course I don't have a problem with those American companies stepping in and saving them from certain death. How could anyone have a problem with that?

[michaelwise]

No. It's the fault of the USA having taxes and regulations that prevent job seekers from being able to undercut their competition, including competition from workers in 3rd world countries, in the wages and conditions of their employment. If American workers were allowed to offer to work in sweatshop conditions at $1/hr., then it would genuinely be the case that the only people here who don't have jobs would be people who choose to be unemployed rather than to work at the wage and conditions that their level of productivity could command in the marketplace.There would be plenty of jobs in the US if we made TV's, computers, toaster ovens, cameras, microwave ovens, bicycles, kitchen items, stereo equipment, clock radios, cell phones, flash memory, lap tops, clothing, chotchkies, and all that other shit sold in department stores bad boy. I freely admit I can't compete with 50 cent an hour Chines labor. Don't make me do it or our country will turn to shit just like it did.

[erowe1]

I freely admit I can't compete with 50 cent an hour Chines labor.

Right. And the reason you can't is because we have a minimum wage that makes it illegal for you to offer you labor at that price.

If you removed that factor along with other similar burdens the government places on you, then everything you said would be true. We'd be able to make all those products and there would be no unemployment problem. The only people not working here would be the ones who choose not to.

[michaelwise]

Right. And the reason you can't is because we have a minimum wage that makes it illegal for you to offer you labor at that price.Oh, You would prefer to live in a tent city at those wages unless you happen to be one of those privileged elitist scum or one who has just gotten lucky enough to have gotten a decent paying job. Well let me tell you something you stupid ass, the numbers don't add up now for most Americans to make a decent living. There are just not enough decent jobs to go around. Some people are just too stupid to figure that out.

And let me just add; You would prefer America was brought down to the Chines peasant level first and then go from there? Dumb ass.

[erowe1]

Oh, You would prefer to live in a tent city at those wages unless you happen to be one of those privileged elitist scum or one who has just gotten lucky enough to have gotten a decent paying job. Well let me tell you something you stupid ass, the numbers don't add up now for most Americans to make a decent living. There are just not enough decent jobs to go around. Some people are just too stupid to figure that out.

Why are you taking this personally? I never said anything about what I would prefer for your life, nor did I say anything about you personally at all. I said we should get rid of the minimum wage and all those other regulations so that unemployed people would be free to offer their labor at the terms of their choice, rather than the terms of the government's choice.

There is no option available to us where government can do something that makes all people better off with no exceptions. But we can have the most people possible enjoy the greatest possible benefits by removing all the burdens that government places on us in its attempts to control the economy.

Are there ways that some segment of the population might lose their jobs and find something else that pays much less if we allow markets to go wherever free people making free decisions take them? Sure. And are there things the government could do to protect those jobs and wages by limiting our freedoms? Sure. But anything the government did would make more people worse off in other ways that are harder to see but more costly overall.

When the sewing machine was invented, it certainly hurt the tailors. But it had a net positive effect on everyone else (not just the privileged elitist scum you seem to be worried about) that was far greater than the cost of those tailors' jobs and wages. Had the government intervened on behalf of tailors by banning sewing machines, there would have been a visible benefit for them, and an enormous invisible cost to everybody else, a cost that translates into far more jobs and wages lost than the amount saved for the tailors, but dispersed throughout the whole economy in places nobody could ever identify as related to that cause.

[specsaregood]

It is amazing that some here don't recognize that "free" trade is not the root problem, it is monetary policy. No matter how low wages go here, it will still be cheaper to print money and buy stuff from overseas; because we basically get everything for free. You restore sound money and the US would have no choice but to produce exports in order to make money.

[michaelwise]

Why are you taking this personally? I never said anything about what I would prefer for your life, nor did I say anything about you personally at all. I said we should get rid of the minimum wage and all those other regulations so that unemployed people would be free to offer their labor at the terms of their choice, rather than the terms of the government's choice.

There is no option available to us where government can do something that makes all people better off with no exceptions. But we can have the most people possible enjoy the greatest possible benefits by taking off all the burdens that government places on us in its attempts to control the economy.

Are there ways that some segment of the population might lose their jobs and find something else that pays much less if we allow markets to go wherever free people making free decisions take them? Sure. And are there things the government could do to protect those jobs and wages by limiting our freedoms? Sure. But anything the government did would make more people worse off in other ways that are harder to see but more costly overall.

When the sewing machine was invented, it certainly hurt the tailors. But it had a net positive effect on everyone else (not just the privileged elitist scum you seem to be worried about) that was far greater than the cost of those tailors' jobs and wages. Had the government intervened on behalf of tailors by banning sewing machines, there would have been a visible benefit for them, an an enormous invisible cost to everybody else, a cost that translates into far more jobs and wages lost than the amount saved for the tailors, but dispersed throughout the whole economy in places nobody could ever identify as related to that cause.And let me just add; You would prefer America was brought down to the Chines peasant level first and then go from there? Dumb ass.

I would go for abolishing the minimum wage if we at the same time abolished all trade agreements and went back to Bilateral trade agreements.

I was a machinist for 20 years and because of NAFTA I lost ground every year. Now I'm no longer able to make a decent living.

[michaelwise]

It is amazing that some here don't recognize that "free" trade is not the root problem, it is monetary policy. No matter how low wages go here, it will still be cheaper to print money and buy stuff from overseas; because we basically get everything for free. You restore sound money and the US would have no choice but to produce exports in order to make money.Free Trade is not fare trade as far as I and others are concerned. I'd prefer the US go it alone and tell the rest of the world to go screw themselves. We gave the world everything we had. They can make do with that till everyone else brings themselves up to the western worlds standards.

[BenIsForRon]

When you say they don't have a choice, do you mean that if they didn't have those jobs with those American companies they would die?

If not, then I'm not sure what you mean by not having a choice.

If so, then of course I don't have a problem with those American companies stepping in and saving them from certain death. How could anyone have a problem with that?

Then you support a system where the only way to be competitive is to support government violence.

The only way for the Chinese to change their situation is to revolt. Corporate investment is not helping the average Chinese laborer, it is helping the factory owners, the real estate owners, and the government officials.

If Americans stop buying their cheap shit, you will see revolt.


When the sewing machine was invented, it certainly hurt the tailors. But it had a net positive effect on everyone else (not just the privileged elitist scum you seem to be worried about) that was far greater than the cost of those tailors' jobs and wages. Had the government intervened on behalf of tailors by banning sewing machines, there would have been a visible benefit for them, and an enormous invisible cost to everybody else, a cost that translates into far more jobs and wages lost than the amount saved for the tailors, but dispersed throughout the whole economy in places nobody could ever identify as related to that cause.

Ok, you have one valid example, but you can't pretend like that is a universal rule. Cheap Chinese peasant labor only benefits the elite. Americans are paying less for their appliances and other pointless bullshit, but can you really say we're seeing an increased standard of living because of it? More so than the 50's or the 60's, when most things were manufactured here in the states?

I think your theory is bunk. All this "free trade" has gotten us with China is less jobs and more money in the pockets of the elite.

[specsaregood]

Free Trade is not fare trade as far as I and others are concerned. I'd prefer the US go it alone and tell the rest of the world to go screw themselves. We gave the world everything we had. They can make do with that till everyone else brings themselves up to the western worlds standards.

It seems that the entire point of my post went over your head or you willfully ignored it.

All your protectionist dreams won't stop the decline of america, at best it might be a bandaid. The US will continue to lose all its manufacturing and exporting of goods as long as the world accepts our debt. Because it is cheaper to print paper, or conjure up digital dollars than it is to actually produce goods.

[michaelwise]

It seems that the entire point of my post went over your head or you willfully ignored it.

All your protectionist dreams won't stop the decline of america, at best it might be a bandaid. The US will continue to lose all its manufacturing and exporting of goods as long as the world accepts our debt. Because it is cheaper to print paper, or conjure up digital dollars than it is to actually produce goods.I look forward to the day when a complete and total economic collapse happens to the US and the rest of the world cuts us dead beats off. Is That the point you were making?

[Trigonx]

It is amazing that some here don't recognize that "free" trade is not the root problem, it is monetary policy. No matter how low wages go here, it will still be cheaper to print money and buy stuff from overseas; because we basically get everything for free. You restore sound money and the US would have no choice but to produce exports in order to make money.

ding!!! ding!! We have a winner!

[specsaregood]

I look forward to the day when a complete and total economic collapse happens to the US and the rest of the world cuts us dead beats off. Is That the point you were making?

Not really no, but at this point it seems you must be purposefully not seeing it. You are stuck on these protectionist ideas when free trade is NOT the problem and your ideas won't stop the hurt. If sound money was restored you too would welcome free trade.

[michaelwise]

Not really no, but at this point it seems you must be purposefully not seeing it. You are stuck on these protectionist ideas when free trade is NOT the problem and your ideas won't stop the hurt. If sound money was restored you too would welcome free trade.I believe in protecting American jobs. Yes I do. And if it means protecting me from 50 cent an hour Chinese peasant wages, then so be it.

[specsaregood]

I believe in protecting American jobs. Yes I do. And if it means protecting me from 50 cent an hour Chinese peasant wages, then so be it.

Unfortunately your protectionist suggestions will have no real effect with our fiat monetary system in place. Focus on sound money and you'll get what you want.

[michaelwise]

Unfortunately your protectionist suggestions will have no real effect with our fiat monetary system in place. Focus on sound money and you'll get what you want.A sound money wish is moot at this point. If Ron Paul was elected president, I would say we had a chance and it would have been a mild depression. Now we must endure a depression 3 times greater than the Great depression. Too fucking bad. Do you know we have a combined personal and national debt greater that 300 trillion dollars as we speak? I laugh at your ignorance of what that means? Remove Social Security that hides the true debt of the US and it gets me ROTFLMAO. http://www.usdebtclock.org/

[erowe1]

And let me just add; You would prefer America was brought down to the Chines peasant level first and then go from there?

No I wouldn't. In most respects we have more freedom than they do. But there are some, such as minimum wages and occupational safety standards, where we are worse off than they are. I want us to stay better than they are in all the ways we are and to fix those ways where we are worse. Getting rid of those regulations wouldn't hurt our economy, it would help it, especially the poor and unemployed.

[erowe1]

Ok, you have one valid example, but you can't pretend like that is a universal rule.

No, I have thousands and thousands of valid examples, because it really is a universal rule.

[erowe1]

If Americans stop buying their cheap shit, you will see revolt.


Engaging in trade with them, and thus saving their lives, doesn't prevent them from revolting. If they choose revolt over their current conditions they can. But they don't, they instead reckon that the consequences of revolution would be worse than the current conditions, conditions that would be worse if not for our trade with them. In other words, removing American trade would leave them with only 2 options, both of which they reckon to be worse than their present conditions: death, and revolt. So again, allowing us to trade with them makes them better off as they themselves define being better off, and their definition is the one that counts.

[BenIsForRon]

Erowe1, under the current conditions, how would the market not favor the company that takes advantage of oppressed people? Free people will never be the cheapest labor solution.

Besides, I've heard many say that China is on the verge of revolution anyway. People aren't seeing a high enough rise in their quality of life in return for how much work they are doing.

[erowe1]

Erowe1, under the current conditions, how would the market not favor the company that takes advantage of oppressed people?

I don't know. But isn't it a good thing when a company takes advantage of (i.e. hires) oppressed people? It's good for the company, it's good for those oppressed people, and it's good for those who purchase that company's products.

[jmdrake]

It is amazing that some here don't recognize that "free" trade is not the root problem, it is monetary policy. No matter how low wages go here, it will still be cheaper to print money and buy stuff from overseas; because we basically get everything for free. You restore sound money and the US would have no choice but to produce exports in order to make money.

My understanding is that NAFTA is not "free trade" but "managed trade". Is your understanding different?

On "free trade" versus "managed trade":

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=866

[jmdrake]

Nobody talks about this, but NAFTA is also the reason why so many Mexicans are moving north. Many that are coming hear are peasant farmers. They lost their land because they couldn't compete with corn coming from subsidized commercial U.S. farms. And many don't qualify for the factory jobs in Mexico because they are illiterate.