so let's show DMD we can stay on "issues"

[Azazello1313]

Does AZ then support opening up trade with Cuba? I do.

 

when "trade" would simply enable dictators who avow they are our eternal enemies, obviously it doesn't make much diplomatic sense to do so. I'm not a big fan of free trade with north korea or iran either, are you?

[Bill Swerski]

we have trade with china, but it's not "free", there are tarriffs and such involved both ways. so that's a slightly different situation, each side trying to negotiate terms by which they get the most advantage. it's still to our advantage to have freer trade with china, but we obviously need to be mindful of what they're doing to try and steer trade terms to their own national advantage.

 

The fact that the Chinese economy is so dependent on us is what's keeping them from yanking out their investments and sending our country into economic chaos. Not to mention the fact that it serves as a nice war deterrent. There definitely are advantages to having any sort of trade with another powerful nation, even if it isn't "free" trade.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

Such a poor country is Mexico (from Wiki):

 

The economy of Mexico is the 12th largest in the world[citation needed], with a gross domestic product (by PPP estimate) that surpassed a trillion dollars in 2004,[1] measured in purchasing power parity. Mexico has a free market and export-oriented economy and is firmly established as an upper middle-income country. According to the World Bank's latest available figure (September 14, 2007), it has the highest income per capita in Latin America, in market exchange rates and the second in purchasing power parity.[2] Mexico is the only Latin American member of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. According to Golmansachs BRIMC review of emerging econimies, by 2050 Mexico will be the 6th largest economy in the world behind China, USA, India, Japan, and Brazil. [3].

[Ursa Majoris]

Such a poor country is Mexico (from Wiki):

 

The economy of Mexico is the 12th largest in the world[citation needed], with a gross domestic product (by PPP estimate) that surpassed a trillion dollars in 2004,[1] measured in purchasing power parity. Mexico has a free market and export-oriented economy and is firmly established as an upper middle-income country. According to the World Bank's latest available figure (September 14, 2007), it has the highest income per capita in Latin America, in market exchange rates and the second in purchasing power parity.[2] Mexico is the only Latin American member of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. According to Golmansachs BRIMC review of emerging econimies, by 2050 Mexico will be the 6th largest economy in the world behind China, USA, India, Japan, and Brazil. [3].

Plus the richest man in the world is a Mexican, surpassing two Americans.

 

So why is Mexico poverty stricken still? Wealth non-distribution, same as China.

[Azazello1313]

 

Well here's the deal, all the arguments that support NAFTA and other free trade agreements require me to tell Americans with lives and bills and families that they are dinosaurs because a job they've done for 15 years is obsolete because some dude in the Sudan is willing to do the same job for a euro a day. The lightbulb still needs screwed in so the job is not obsolete. There isn't an American anywhere that couldn't be replaced by someone in a thrid world country willing to work for a fraction of what you make. And what happens to that guy and his family with 15 years left on his mortgage? You are really going to tell me that someone who goes to work everyday, turns in an honest day's work and then goes home to be with his family is a $hitbag because he's not taking night classes on how to build silicone free solar panel? Screw him but we have to bail out Bear Sterns and 3-5 airline companies every decade? I call BS.

 

The next argument in support of "free trade" is to relax government regulations concerning pollution and protection of injured workers, saftey requirements, protection of pensions and minimum wages because those evils restrict "America's" companies from competing with foreign companies. I'm not sure why any rational person would see that as a good thing. American and Delta didn't voluntarily ground those planes yesterday.

 

Finally, huddlers argue that by trading and working with these nations, we force them to be more like us. BS, China still has horrible human rights and environmental policies despite all the trade with the United States and being awarded the Olympics. China even sells weapons and technology to nations we consider our enemies. Or we can look to how our nearly 100 years of dependence on middle eastern oil has brought western culture, democracy and peace to the middle east. Where has that ever worked? And it seems odd to me that many that support "free trade" still support embargoes against Iran and Cuba. Does McCain support those embargoes?

 

If you mean "free trade" in the sense that the companies of other nations and their MNCs should be required to pay wages above the poverty level, to respect the environment, their trading partners can't have foreign policy goals that are in opposition to American foreign policy and so on then fine, I support free trade. But "free trade" under the guise of making it easier for American MNCs to function without any respect for American workers and the environment doesn't seem to benefit anyone, well I guess it probably benefits people who retire and cash in $10,000,000.00 worth of stock options.

 

The federal government is charged with promoting the general welfare and securing the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. I'm pretty positive the framers were talking about American people not Exxon.

 

 

this is a pretty well argued post, I will try and drive at some of the individual points that haven't already been discussed when I get a few minutes. but for now I just want to ask one small observation: people (like randull via hillary) often like to generalize about democrats being "progressive" and republicans being "reactionary". well, club, your post (and the whole lou dobbs schtick, and anti-trade economics in general) sounds awfully reactionary to me. if your statement, "There isn't an American anywhere that couldn't be replaced by someone in a thrid world country willing to work for a fraction of what you make" is true, well then our country is totally f8cked one way or the other, all of our wealth is illusory, and everything we do until the denoument is just band-aids to slow it down. thankfully though, your statement is NOT true.

Edited March 27, 2008 by Azazello1313

[Ursa Majoris]

if your statement, "There isn't an American anywhere that couldn't be replaced by someone in a thrid world country willing to work for a fraction of what you make" is true, well then our country is totally f8cked one way or the other, all of our wealth is illusory, and everything we do until the denoument is just band-aids to slow it down. thankfully though, your statement is NOT true.

Interestingly, it's the lower end jobs that don't need a degree that can't possibly be done by some guy in the Sudan. Electrician, nurse, garbage collector, auto mechanic, crane operator, truck driver, bus driver (automation might eventually sabotage those last three but outsourcing won't).

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

Interestingly, it's the lower end jobs that don't need a degree that can't possibly be done by some guy in the Sudan. Electrician, nurse, garbage collector, auto mechanic, crane operator, truck driver, bus driver (automation might eventually sabotage those last three but outsourcing won't).

 

No, but if you really a free trade purist, then you should be open to open borders so that labor like capital can flow into the country and provided the most cost effective solutions.

[Azazello1313]

Such a poor country is Mexico (from Wiki):

 

The economy of Mexico is the 12th largest in the world[citation needed], with a gross domestic product (by PPP estimate) that surpassed a trillion dollars in 2004,[1] measured in purchasing power parity. Mexico has a free market and export-oriented economy and is firmly established as an upper middle-income country. According to the World Bank's latest available figure (September 14, 2007), it has the highest income per capita in Latin America, in market exchange rates and the second in purchasing power parity.[2] Mexico is the only Latin American member of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. According to Golmansachs BRIMC review of emerging econimies, by 2050 Mexico will be the 6th largest economy in the world behind China, USA, India, Japan, and Brazil. [3].

 

63rd in the world in per capita GDP, according to the IMF. below lithuiania, latvia, poland, libya, malaysia. of course, if your goal is to knock them down below namibia and iran, repealing NAFTA would be a great way to do it.

[yo mama]

 

Well here's the deal, all the arguments that support NAFTA and other free trade agreements require me to tell Americans with lives and bills and families that they are dinosaurs because a job they've done for 15 years is obsolete because some dude in the Sudan is willing to do the same job for a euro a day. The lightbulb still needs screwed in so the job is not obsolete. There isn't an American anywhere that couldn't be replaced by someone in a thrid world country willing to work for a fraction of what you make. And what happens to that guy and his family with 15 years left on his mortgage? You are really going to tell me that someone who goes to work everyday, turns in an honest day's work and then goes home to be with his family is a $hitbag because he's not taking night classes on how to build silicone free solar panel? Screw him but we have to bail out Bear Sterns and 3-5 airline companies every decade? I call BS.

I totally agree with you the bail out crap. I say let Bear Sterns burn and force the other lending institutions to watch.

 

Regarding the rest of your comments above, yes: you tell the family the bad news. The writing has been on the wall for a while now and refusing to recognize it is part of the reason that family is where they are today. I get that some guy in Sudan can do it cheaper, so that the job itself isn't obsolete. But if we keep overpaying the American work force to do things other people can do more cheaply then companies (like the automakers, for example) will eventually die and that US worker is out of job anyway. Refusing to deal with the core issue of the changing nature of our economy, under the banner of protecting "our way of life" might work out okay for this current generation of skilled laborers. But when Ford goes bankrupt before that guy's 15 year mortgage is paid off, what have we actually accomplished? Other than delaying the inevitable. I say its better to look the problem squarely in the eye today and prepare for tomorrow than pretend there's no problem at all.

 

And I took classes at night, and still take classes to keep my skills current, and always will if I want to keep my well-paying job. That's part of staying hungry and competitive. And we need more of that, not less, for our National economy to thrive. We've become fat and lazy, and I suspect our scrappy forefathers would be the first to point that out to us if they could.

Edited March 27, 2008 by yo mama

[Azazello1313]

I totally agree with you the bail out crap. I say let Bear Sterns burn and force the other lending institutions to watch.

 

Regarding the rest of your comments above, yes: you tell the family the bad news. The writing has been on the wall for a while now and refusing to recognize it is part of the reason that family is where they are today. I get that some guy in Sudan can do it cheaper, so that the job itself isn't obsolete. But if we keep overpaying the American work force to do things other people can do more cheaply then companies (like the automakers, for example) will eventually die and that US worker is out of job anyway. Refusing to deal with the core issue of the changing nature of our economy, under the banner of protecting "our way of life" might work out okay for this current generation of skilled laborers. But when Ford goes bankrupt before that guy's 15 year mortgage is paid off, what have we actually accomplished? Other than delaying the inevitable. I say its better to look the problem squarely in the eye today and prepare for tomorrow than pretend there's no problem at all.

 

And I took classes at night, and still take classes to keep my skills current, and always will if I want to keep my well-paying job. That's part of staying hungry and competitive. And we need more of that, not less, for our National economy to thrive. We've become fat and lazy, and I suspect our scrappy forefathers would be the first to point that out to us if they could.

 

[Ursa Majoris]

I totally agree with you the bail out crap. I say let Bear Sterns burn and force the other lending institutions to watch.

 

Regarding the rest of your comments above, yes: you tell the family the bad news. The writing has been on the wall for a while now and refusing to recognize it is part of the reason that family is where they are today. I get that some guy in Sudan can do it cheaper, so that the job itself isn't obsolete. But if we keep overpaying the American work force to do things other people can do more cheaply then companies (like the automakers, for example) will eventually die and that US worker is out of job anyway. Refusing to deal with the core issue of the changing nature of our economy, under the banner of protecting "our way of life" might work out okay for this current generation of skilled laborers. But when Ford goes bankrupt before that guy's 15 year mortgage is paid off, what have we actually accomplished? Other than delaying the inevitable. I say its better to look the problem squarely in the eye today and prepare for tomorrow than pretend there's no problem at all.

 

And I took classes at night, and still take classes to keep my skills current, and always will if I want to keep my well-paying job. That's part of staying hungry and competitive. And we need more of that, not less, for our National economy to thrive. We've become fat and lazy, and I suspect our scrappy forefathers would be the first to point that out to us if they could.

My heart is with Club's post but my head is with this one.

 

There's how we think it should be and there's how it really is, to paraphrase Tom Berenger in Platoon.

[westvirginia]

My heart is with Club's post but my head is with this one.

 

There's how we think it should be and there's how it really is, to paraphrase Tom Berenger in Platoon.

 

Well said, big bear.

[Yukon Cornelius]

You know, I was serious.

yup

[Yukon Cornelius]

That's part of staying hungry and competitive. And we need more of that, not less, for our National economy to thrive. We've become fat and lazy, and I suspect our scrappy forefathers would be the first to point that out to us if they could.

i agree with this also..... but u cant just blame the workers/unions for that.....

[Jimmy Neutron]

I totally agree with you the bail out crap. I say let Bear Sterns burn and force the other lending institutions to watch.

 

Regarding the rest of your comments above, yes: you tell the family the bad news. The writing has been on the wall for a while now and refusing to recognize it is part of the reason that family is where they are today. I get that some guy in Sudan can do it cheaper, so that the job itself isn't obsolete. But if we keep overpaying the American work force to do things other people can do more cheaply then companies (like the automakers, for example) will eventually die and that US worker is out of job anyway. Refusing to deal with the core issue of the changing nature of our economy, under the banner of protecting "our way of life" might work out okay for this current generation of skilled laborers. But when Ford goes bankrupt before that guy's 15 year mortgage is paid off, what have we actually accomplished? Other than delaying the inevitable. I say its better to look the problem squarely in the eye today and prepare for tomorrow than pretend there's no problem at all.

 

And I took classes at night, and still take classes to keep my skills current, and always will if I want to keep my well-paying job. That's part of staying hungry and competitive. And we need more of that, not less, for our National economy to thrive. We've become fat and lazy, and I suspect our scrappy forefathers would be the first to point that out to us if they could.

 

This YoYo Ma guy is pretty smart for a cellist.

[Bill Swerski]

This YoYo Ma guy is pretty smart for a cellist.

 

[Azazello1313]

so what about this idea of pursuing a free trade treaty with the EU? good idea, bad idea? we already have pretty mututally favorable trade terms with the big EU players, this would just make it even more open.

[Yukon Cornelius]

This YoYo Ma guy is pretty smart for a cellist.

or lawyer

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

I totally agree with you the bail out crap. I say let Bear Sterns burn and force the other lending institutions to watch.

 

Regarding the rest of your comments above, yes: you tell the family the bad news. The writing has been on the wall for a while now and refusing to recognize it is part of the reason that family is where they are today. I get that some guy in Sudan can do it cheaper, so that the job itself isn't obsolete. But if we keep overpaying the American work force to do things other people can do more cheaply then companies (like the automakers, for example) will eventually die and that US worker is out of job anyway. Refusing to deal with the core issue of the changing nature of our economy, under the banner of protecting "our way of life" might work out okay for this current generation of skilled laborers. But when Ford goes bankrupt before that guy's 15 year mortgage is paid off, what have we actually accomplished? Other than delaying the inevitable. I say its better to look the problem squarely in the eye today and prepare for tomorrow than pretend there's no problem at all.

 

And I took classes at night, and still take classes to keep my skills current, and always will if I want to keep my well-paying job. That's part of staying hungry and competitive. And we need more of that, not less, for our National economy to thrive. We've become fat and lazy, and I suspect our scrappy forefathers would be the first to point that out to us if they could.

 

Lots of good thoughts in this thread.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

so what about this idea of pursuing a free trade treaty with the EU? good idea, bad idea? we already have pretty mututally favorable trade terms with the big EU players, this would just make it even more open.

 

On the surface at least, sounds like a good idea to me.

[yo mama]

i agree with this also..... but u cant just blame the workers/unions for that.....

Oh, I wasn't trying to. In fact, my father was a union mechanic for a Ford dealership. He didn't even have his high school diploma when I was born. But he saw the future, worked 12-14 hours a day (still does), then worked his way up to becoming a service manager so he could afford to send both his kids to college. He knew we'd never meet with his level of success by taking his same path, and he forced us to adapt. So I'm not picking on guys who turn a wrench for a living: one of those guys raised me, gave me his blue collar work ethic, but steered me into the white collar world because he foresaw what was happening to the American economy. I guess my point is that its time for the rest of America to accept the way of thinking my parents adopted more than 25 years ago.

Edited March 27, 2008 by yo mama

[Ursa Majoris]

so what about this idea of pursuing a free trade treaty with the EU? good idea, bad idea? we already have pretty mututally favorable trade terms with the big EU players, this would just make it even more open.

I wonder what difference it will make both to existing Euro-US trade and to trade elsewhere? Is it a form of Western protectionism in that making the terms more favorable between Europe and the US by default would logically make trade with other countries less favorable by however small a degree?

 

I have no idea whether this is right or wrong but I'm interested to know.

[Puddy]

DMD once had a sigline or made a comment that nothing good can come out of a 100 post thread. This one is almost there without mudslinging.

 

 

[Yukon Cornelius]

Oh, I wasn't trying to. In fact, my father was a union mechanic for a Ford dealership. He didn't even have his high school diploma when I was born. But he saw the future, worked 12-14 hours a day (still does), then worked his way up to becoming a service manager so he could afford to send both his kids to college. He knew we'd never meet with his level of success by taking his same path, and he forced us to adapt. So I'm not picking on guys who turn a wrench for a living: one of those guys raised me, gave me his blue collar work ethic, but steered me into the white collar world because he foresaw what was happening to the American economy. I guess my point is that its time for the rest of America to accept the way of thinking my parents adopted more than 25 years ago.

i agree and was also pushed away form the blue collar stuff all my high school buddies went to..

but we need blue collar ... what will become of the middle class.. who will buy stuff... not biaching you or anyone just saying that not everyone can make 100 g's and those that make 25 aren't going to make the economy very strong as there buying power is nill except for food and booze.

 

well most of the eu is socialist or semi socialist.... were will that lead??

[Clubfoothead]

I totally agree with you the bail out crap. I say let Bear Sterns burn and force the other lending institutions to watch.

 

Regarding the rest of your comments above, yes: you tell the family the bad news. The writing has been on the wall for a while now and refusing to recognize it is part of the reason that family is where they are today. I get that some guy in Sudan can do it cheaper, so that the job itself isn't obsolete. But if we keep overpaying the American work force to do things other people can do more cheaply then companies (like the automakers, for example) will eventually die and that US worker is out of job anyway. Refusing to deal with the core issue of the changing nature of our economy, under the banner of protecting "our way of life" might work out okay for this current generation of skilled laborers. But when Ford goes bankrupt before that guy's 15 year mortgage is paid off, what have we actually accomplished? Other than delaying the inevitable. I say its better to look the problem squarely in the eye today and prepare for tomorrow than pretend there's no problem at all.

 

And I took classes at night, and still take classes to keep my skills current, and always will if I want to keep my well-paying job. That's part of staying hungry and competitive. And we need more of that, not less, for our National economy to thrive. We've become fat and lazy, and I suspect our scrappy forefathers would be the first to point that out to us if they could.

 

I certainly understand that some jobs become obsolete over time. My biggest concern is it seems to me the people who support the idea that one should let the fair market render some jobs obsolete is that they don't advocate government assistance for the people being rendered obsolete. It's not just s time issue, it is a money issue as well. I can't believe it helps the economy to take a bunch of middle class folk, rendern their jobs obsolete only to be replaced with jobs that make less money. And I certainly feel that a company that cannot make a profit under the requirements of doing business in America are as much a dinosaur as the $80.00 an hour lightbulb changer.

 

Believe it or not, I love our standard of living in America. I love it so much, I feel it is the obligation of the federal government to protect it if the free market cannot or does not.

 

so what about this idea of pursuing a free trade treaty with the EU? good idea, bad idea? we already have pretty mututally favorable trade terms with the big EU players, this would just make it even more open.

 

I fell much more comfortable with it to the extent I think the europeans have a desire to protect their standard of living. I don't know if their companies do or don't but I feel like their people do. It does seem like the eurpoeans have a lot more state-owned corporations which probably have competitive advantages over privately run American companies. So then you have me advocating the government helping them, which I don't like, unless dinosaurs like my dad and my father-in-law and a few of my friends have some protection too. And if the theory is correct that trading with countries improves relations (I'm not saying it is true) but if it is, I could go for improved relations with europe. If we are going to have friends on this planet, we maybe should start there.

 

I don't know.