If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Chron)   NAFTA isn't as evil as Obama and Clinton would like you to think   (chron.com) divider line 92
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

1839 clicks; posted to Business » on 07 Mar 2008 at 12:37 PM (6 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



92 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2008-03-07 10:28:00 AM
I've said it before - go ahead and opt out of NAFTA, you protectionist biatches. You get more oil from Canada than you do from Saudi Arabia, and we'd love to be able to sell it to China or India at a better price. Pull that trigger and let us know how it turns out for you.
 
2008-03-07 10:29:53 AM
Its not NAFTA, its China's most favored nation trade status that is evil. But even if we take that away and bring back all the manufacturing jobs, there would still be a lot of jobs missing. The reason for it is partly my fault, and the fault of people like me.

Many jobs have been taken by machines. Because it is cheaper to purchase a machine for $250,000 that has a 15 year life span that never calls in sick, never strikes, never asks for more pay, and always does the job the same way every time; than it is to pay a human worker $30,000 over the same 15 years.
 
2008-03-07 10:42:48 AM
Code_Archeologist: Its not NAFTA, its China's most favored nation trade status that is evil. But even if we take that away and bring back all the manufacturing jobs, there would still be a lot of jobs missing. The reason for it is partly my fault, and the fault of people like me.

YES. Take MFN away from China, and start taxing anything an American company makes in another country as an import. That would fix a lot of American business issues.

Oh, and force China to float their dollar on the market like everyone else.
 
2008-03-07 11:11:00 AM
submitter: NAFTA isn't as evil as Obama and Clinton would like you to think

That's a limited argument. NAFTA has had disastrous effects on the Mexican economy, particularly in southern Mexico where most of the people are. And that has led to an increase of illegal immigration since 1994.
 
2008-03-07 11:37:31 AM
Knucklepopper: submitter: NAFTA isn't as evil as Obama and Clinton would like you to think

That's a limited argument. NAFTA has had disastrous effects on the Mexican economy, particularly in southern Mexico where most of the people are. And that has led to an increase of illegal immigration since 1994.


Utter and complete bullshiat. The net NAFTA numbers are overwhelmingly positive for all participants. Mexico has a terrible corruption problem and almost no credit market and a hundred other problems but NAFTA ain't one.

I love the Democrat debate on this issue. Hey, Obama supporters, how is the AFL-CIO's trade playbook from the 1970s consistent with hope and change?
 
2008-03-07 12:13:01 PM
I want it all
I want it all
I want it all
and I want it NAU.

//whistles innocently
 
2008-03-07 12:17:11 PM
filth: Utter and complete bullshiat. The net NAFTA numbers are overwhelmingly positive for all participants. Mexico has a terrible corruption problem and almost no credit market and a hundred other problems but NAFTA ain't one.

Hooray, U.S. is the Best!! eh? You sure? Or do you simply like to spout off about how bad Mexico is?
Here's some facts:
Mexico increased its manufacturing jobs by half a million. At the same time, it lost 1.3 million jobs.
Coupled with the 1994 peso devaluation, NAFTA has not led to an increase in wages for Mexicans - but at the same time, goods prices increased.
The end result: the creation of a liberalized economy without the conditions required to react to a sustainment of trade with a superpower.
But that's just the Migration Policy Institute and the Carnegie Endowment for Peace talking. I'm sure filth sitting in mom's basement knows far more than they.
 
2008-03-07 12:39:45 PM
img504.imageshack.us

"NAFTA, NAFTA, cause we hafta"
 
2008-03-07 12:41:47 PM
Yes it is.
 
2008-03-07 12:47:44 PM
Funny that they are arguing about a piece of legislation that was passed a decade before either of them had a chance to vote on it.
 
2008-03-07 12:49:07 PM
NAFTA is like the elementary school teacher that made us play with the greasy, scary, retarted kid- Mexico- when all we wanted to really do was go on the monkey bars with our friend Canada.
 
2008-03-07 12:50:14 PM
Knucklepopper: submitter: NAFTA isn't as evil as Obama and Clinton would like you to think

That's a limited argument. NAFTA has had disastrous effects on the Mexican economy, particularly in southern Mexico where most of the people are. And that has led to an increase of illegal immigration since 1994.


This.

We are flooding Mexican markets with our cheap produce. There is no way that Mexican farmers can compete with subsidized American farmers.
 
2008-03-07 12:50:47 PM
balthan: "NAFTA, NAFTA, cause we hafta"

Is that pic from Quest for Glory IV?
 
2008-03-07 12:51:25 PM
Code Archaeologist

Its not NAFTA, its China's most favored nation trade status that is evil. But even if we take that away and bring back all the manufacturing jobs, there would still be a lot of jobs missing. The reason for it is partly my fault, and the fault of people like me.

Many jobs have been taken by machines. Because it is cheaper to purchase a machine for $250,000 that has a 15 year life span that never calls in sick, never strikes, never asks for more pay, and always does the job the same way every time; than it is to pay a human worker $30,000 over the same 15 years.


You realize that pretty much every country on Earth has MFN status with the US, except the really, really bad ones. Right?
 
2008-03-07 12:51:31 PM
I'm so sick of people bashing NAFTA.

If you have problems it's time to wake up and realize that you are not being competitive and therefore you should make your services (be them resources, tech, whatever) more efficient, more cost-productive, etc, etc.

I know it hurts when a trade agreement makes you realize your weaknesses, but come on. Man up!
 
2008-03-07 12:51:55 PM
Like it or hate it, it's a done deal. there's no going back now.

Besides, a resource hog like the U.S. that has used up most of its natural resources and already offshored most of its industry had better be careful about getting all protectionist. What's left to "protect?"

ucatlas.ucsc.edu
 
2008-03-07 12:53:32 PM
GAT_00: start taxing anything an American company makes in another country as an import. That would fix a lot of American business issues.

Err, okay. Messrs Smoot and Hawley would to offer you their support.

Maybe the 'Great Depression' was just a myth. Yes, I'm sure that's right.
 
2008-03-07 12:53:39 PM
NAFTA is gold for the usa, bad for Canada and Mexico.

And when a country like Canada wins a NAFTA ruling against the usa, america just laughs and doesn't pay up.

Just like when they went ahead and invaded a country against UN code- once again, ignoring a governming body that they helped create in the first place.

Please do not ever wonder the the usa is regarded so poorly by the rest of the world. Greed and arrogance have laid you low.
 
2008-03-07 12:54:06 PM
smokinjayz: If you have problems it's time to wake up and realize that you are not being competitive and therefore you should make your services (be them resources, tech, whatever) more efficient, more cost-productive, etc, etc.

Well it doesn't do a lot of Americans any good when no industry is moving in to replace lost manufacturing jobs.

Of course, if anyone had one of those cushy jobs for a couple decades, they should have plenty of money and should be able to attend school to learn a new vocation.
 
2008-03-07 12:55:20 PM
FriarTuck: NAFTA is like the elementary school teacher that made us play with the greasy, scary, retarted kid- Mexico- when all we wanted to really do was go on the monkey bars with our friend Canada.

Yeah, but not so much.

The maquiladoras in Mexico provide the American industries with cheap labor. Only recently are they losing out to the Chinese.
 
2008-03-07 12:55:41 PM
40below: I've said it before - go ahead and opt out of NAFTA, you protectionist biatches. You get more oil from Canada than you do from Saudi Arabia, and we'd love to be able to sell it to China or India at a better price. Pull that trigger and let us know how it turns out for you.

The anti-NAFTA-ers should just dust off a copy of the old Smoot-Haley act and go ahead and pass a modern version. That worked SO well, the first time around when protectionism tit-for-tat killed international trade and helped the Great Depression settle in to stay.

//Protectionism is like a "Spanish Prisoner" problem - being 100% selfish only works out well
//when - well - never really. Others WILL retaliate and your clever clever plan to advance your
//own interests while screwing everyone else's will have to deal with the response of that
//everyone else eventually.
 
2008-03-07 12:56:57 PM
smokinjayz: I'm so sick of people bashing NAFTA.

If you have problems it's time to wake up and realize that you are not being competitive and therefore you should make your services (be them resources, tech, whatever) more efficient, more cost-productive, etc, etc.

I know it hurts when a trade agreement makes you realize your weaknesses, but come on. Man up!


You act like NAFTA is a perfect agreement with no room for change. While it's had a positive impact in some areas, it has also had devastating impacts elsewhere.
 
2008-03-07 12:59:03 PM
Knucklepopper: filth: Utter and complete bullshiat. The net NAFTA numbers are overwhelmingly positive for all participants. Mexico has a terrible corruption problem and almost no credit market and a hundred other problems but NAFTA ain't one.

Hooray, U.S. is the Best!! eh? You sure? Or do you simply like to spout off about how bad Mexico is?
Here's some facts:
Mexico increased its manufacturing jobs by half a million. At the same time, it lost 1.3 million jobs.
Coupled with the 1994 peso devaluation, NAFTA has not led to an increase in wages for Mexicans - but at the same time, goods prices increased.
The end result: the creation of a liberalized economy without the conditions required to react to a sustainment of trade with a superpower.
But that's just the Migration Policy Institute and the Carnegie Endowment for Peace talking. I'm sure filth sitting in mom's basement knows far more than they.


Do you find Cato or Brookings more credible? Either way, the economic benefits of NAFTA to all participants have been measured by real economists; so read up. Even MPI, which is merely the immigration wing of the Carnegie Endowment, acknowledges that the economic benefits to Mexico have been large.

Your problem here is correlation vs. causation. mexico had a terrible time in the '90s, but it had NOTHING to do with NAFTA, which was practically the only source of job creation during the period.
 
2008-03-07 01:02:11 PM
The Phantom

You act like NAFTA is a perfect agreement with no room for change. While it's had a positive impact in some areas, it has also had devastating impacts elsewhere.

NAFTA's "agreements" are its little protectionist nuggets left over. The crux of it is "no tariffs between these countries". In the long run that will benefit all three. It will also hurt certain industries (and their laborers) in the short run.

Help out people trained in fields where the US no longer has a comparative advantages. Provide stimulus for new industries to set up shop in rural areas devastated by plant closings.

The answer isn't to become protectionist. That would be like banning the sewing machine to protect the jobs of seamstresses.
 
2008-03-07 01:05:34 PM
img89.imageshack.us
 
2008-03-07 01:08:14 PM
I supported NAFTA when it was voted on, becuase I thought that would bring bull fighting to America. I'm still waiting.

/bastids
 
2008-03-07 01:11:07 PM
Knucklepopper -That's a limited argument. NAFTA has had disastrous effects on the Mexican economy, particularly in southern Mexico where most of the people are. And that has led to an increase of illegal immigration since 1994.
The poor Mexicans, what about the average worker in the US?

The_Phantom -We are flooding Mexican markets with our cheap produce. There is no way that Mexican farmers can compete with subsidized American farmers.
Well maybe if they would stop sneaking across the border to pick our produce then they could compete.
 
2008-03-07 01:13:54 PM
muck4doo: I supported NAFTA when it was voted on, becuase I thought that would bring bull fighting to America. I'm still waiting.

You're getting NAFTA confused with the NABFTA.

/North American Bull Fighting Trade Agreement
 
2008-03-07 01:15:25 PM
"We need to become interactive working partners with other countries in this global, multicultural modern 'community' we live in!"

So, what about NAFTA?

"ZOMG!!! DEYS TAKIN OUR JERBS!!!!"

/typical two faced deceptive manipulating bullshiat artists, the lot of them.
 
2008-03-07 01:18:58 PM
I'm much more concerned with the GATT than NAFTA

That and China having MFN trade status
 
2008-03-07 01:20:14 PM
America is only good for making Tobacco, Liquor, tourism, and Guns(military weapons)
 
2008-03-07 01:22:32 PM
3 Gs

I'm much more concerned with the GATT than NAFTA

That and China having MFN trade status


Why? What would you prefer? High tariffs for every country?
 
2008-03-07 01:29:20 PM
They don't think it's evil either, but if you want to win Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana, and the redo of Michigan then you've got to play this game.
 
2008-03-07 01:38:25 PM
This can't be bias coming from a newspaper in a city that is benefiting from it.
 
2008-03-07 02:08:42 PM
Article: In other words, manufacturers in both countries have benefited. As we buy more Mexican goods, Mexico can afford to buy more of ours.

If a Mexican buys an ipod manufactured in China does that benefit U.S. manufacturers? How many of the goods we exported to China are made outside the U.S.?
 
2008-03-07 02:14:36 PM
So other people are realizing that Obama is more of the same trying to disguise himself as something different now? That took longer than expected.

//Like Ron Paul
//Without as much crazy
//Still the best of a bad lot
 
2008-03-07 02:27:31 PM
Yeah NAFTA doesn't play any part of our trade defecit, it just reduces US exports while increasing imports from other counntries.
 
2008-03-07 02:28:37 PM
img1.fark.net tag on vacation?
 
2008-03-07 02:29:14 PM
Code_Archeologist

Its not NAFTA, its China's most favored nation trade status that is evil. But even if we take that away and bring back all the manufacturing jobs, there would still be a lot of jobs missing. The reason for it is partly my fault, and the fault of people like me.

Many jobs have been taken by machines. Because it is cheaper to purchase a machine for $250,000 that has a 15 year life span that never calls in sick, never strikes, never asks for more pay, and always does the job the same way every time; than it is to pay a human worker $30,000 over the same 15 years.


Oh no, the machines! They take our jerbs! You realise the Luddite philosophy you are espousing was proved to be utterly stupid two centuries ago at least?

Here is a simplified model showing why you are fundamentally wrong:

1) In our example economy the average person creates 100 units of wealth, and consumes 100 units of wealth
2) Someone invents a machine that allows 1 person to make 1000 units of wealth instead
3) In an unlimited demand scenario (people always wanting more stuff) that just means you move to have the average person creating 1000 units of wealth, and consuming 1000 units of wealth

So increasing efficiency is always good in the long run (sure it can lead to frictional short term unemployment, retraining needs, etc. but this only has a short term cost) if people always want more stuff.

Now an alternate situation is when people are in range of having everything they possibly could want, which doesn't seem to fit most people in reality, or at least we aren't very close to it yet anyway, even only considering post-industrial countries. If we were to assume that past an average amount of 500 wealth units consumed people can't think of anything else to want then you can get a variety of scenarios between two extremes of production:

1) 50% of people create 1000 wealth units each, and then give away half of it for free (or via some tax/benefit transfer) to the other 50% unemployed people
2) 100% of people work half as long hours and create 500 wealth units each (think Jetsons as the extreme example of where this would lead)

In reality what has happened is mostly the unlimited demand scenario (i.e. increased wealth consumption has taken up the majority of productivity gains), but that some has been traded off in shorter hours being worked in most industries, and a certain amount is also shaved off via the government to make unemployment and retraining into new industries less difficult, thus making unemployed people a larger fraction of the workforce on average as it is less financially disasterous, but equally the larger economy overall can easily absorb that increase without any real pain (everyone on average is still better off than before).
 
2008-03-07 02:36:02 PM
Someone in China is doing my old job right now for one rice patty a week, or whatever. The job I had right after that is in Mexico now where workers are paid daily, so I'm told, because of the job turnover.

It really doesn't matter now why those jobs are gone. Voting for whoever isn't going to bring them back here.
 
2008-03-07 02:39:41 PM
defecit

deficit
FTFM
 
2008-03-07 02:43:45 PM
Free Trade supports the natural division of labor.

Tariffs and quotas are Merchantilism, which is bad for consumers.

You N00Bs need to read the Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith.
 
2008-03-07 02:44:57 PM
Snarfangel:Is that pic from Quest for Glory IV?

Why, yes it is. He was one of the guys in the inn and gave that line, though I don't quite remember the context.
 
2008-03-07 02:54:45 PM
Are we wheeling out the Smoot-Hawley myth again?

From http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/SmootHawley.htm:
"Imports formed only 6 percent of the GNP. With average tariffs ranging from 40 to 60 percent
(sources vary), this represents an effective tax of merely 2.4 to 3.6 percent. Yet the Great Depression resulted in a 31 percent drop in GNP and 25 percent unemployment. The idea that such a small tax could cause so much economic devastation is too far-fetched to be believed."

Again, when globalization starts being a net loss for 50-60 percent of Americans, it seems only right to question just why people should be asked to support economic/trade policy that works against their best interests.

filth
If NAFTA's been so great for Mexico, why are so many Mexicans coming to the US illegally?

smokinjayz
And those without mad skillz can just rot in this new economy.
 
2008-03-07 03:05:45 PM
Well, republicans hate NAFTA, democrats hate NAFTA, and even libertarians hate NAFTA (I think even Nader is against NAFTA, he's a green party guy).

Yet it's still around.

/And apparently only me and fark like it.
//My dad listens to hardcore right-wing radio, they hate NAFTA too.
 
2008-03-07 03:10:36 PM
Elections are about appealing to emotion not reason.
No one wants to deal with reality when they can blame a boogey man.
Manufacturing is like agriculture before it, fewer and fewer people doing more and more.
Agriculture once employed almost everyone, now it doesn't.
China itself lost 15 million jobs over the last few years so it is a lot more about rising productivity and automation than it is about furriners taking our jerbs.
The only way to change that is have government force lower productivity and lower efficiency on the economy so that everyone loses.
 
2008-03-07 03:26:11 PM
Wait... Didn't Bill Clinton initiate NAFTA in the first place?
 
2008-03-07 03:32:40 PM
Hideously Gigantic Smurf: Wait... Didn't Bill Clinton initiate NAFTA in the first place?

Yeah, but his wife was completely against it.

/at least in some states.
//and depending on the latest poll.
///she gets co-credit for all the good things, though.
 
2008-03-07 03:39:31 PM
repost
Link

link Faux explains how globalization is creating a new global political elite-"The Party of Davos"-who have more in common with each other than with their fellow citizens. Their so-called trade agreements (like NAFTA) and the World Trade Organization act as a global constitution that protects only one kind of citizen-the corporate investor. The inevitable result will be a drop in American living standards that will have dramatic political consequences. Faux concludes with an original strategy for bringing democracy to the global economy beginning with a social contract for North America.

Moyers on "obscure section of NAFTA - Chapter 11 - except for multinational corporations who are using it to challenge democracy.
"

also
thread
post
 
2008-03-07 03:44:20 PM
40below :
I've said it before - go ahead and opt out of NAFTA, you protectionist biatches. You get more oil from Canada than you do from Saudi Arabia, and we'd love to be able to sell it to China or India at a better price. Pull that trigger and let us know how it turns out for you.


NAFTA in concept is not a bad idea, but it is implemented poorly in regards to consistent labor rules and so forth.

That said, tough talk from a Canuck. You guys exist because we allow you to. Don't ever forget it, there's always room for a 51st star on the flag.
 
Displayed 50 of 92 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report