'Free Trade' Means Less Employment

[JBeukema]

Despite promises that free trade agreements would increase job creation in the U.S., close to 700,000 jobs have been lost as a result of the passage of NAFTA in 1993, according to a new study by Economic Policy Institute senior economist Robert Scott.
According to the analysis, if NAFTA had not been enacted, tariffs on goods passing between the two countries not eliminated, and important features of Mexico's social welfare state not eradicated in 1994, U.S. trade with Mexico would have supported approximately 1.5 million jobs in 2010 in the U.S.

That number came in at just under 800,000 last year, however. In other words, on average more than 40,000 jobs in the U.S. have been lost each year since the passage of NAFTA due to the growing trade deficit with that country.

 

[sparky]

The government's failure to craft any form of trade policy to counter China's predatory trade practices has cost the nation more than 5.5 million manufacturing jobs since allowing China to join the WTO. Last year alone, America's trade deficit with China hit a record $273 billion.

"We're in the middle of an economic war with China," said Milton Magnus, president of Leeds, Alabama-based M&B Hangers, America's last maker of metal coat hangers, who also destroys his old machines, which are designed and built in-house. "The Chinese want what we have and we're just sitting back and giving it to them."

American businesses are the chief casualty. Nearly 40 percent of factories with more than 250 workers closed down last decade. Chinese practices such as cheap labor, currency manipulation, technology theft and illegal subsidies are all part of the playbook that China has used for rapid economic growth.


Consequences and Casualties of Trade War | Economy In Crisis

 

[sparky]

[B]3. The U.S. government will lose the ability to regulate the American banking industry.[/B]This trade deal was negotiated before the financial collapse of 2008. It contains all sorts of Wall Street financial services provisions, including; bans on regulations limiting the size of banks and insurance companies, prohibitions against barring the sale of risky derivatives and limits on capital controls. The greed that caused the failed derivatives market and allowed banks to create the housing bubble cannot be stopped or limited in any way, per the KORUS FTA. Provisions in it will supersede any regulations we put in place to protect ourselves. This alone will be extremely devastating to the American economy.

4. The KORUS FTA will allow foreign monopolies to take over U.S. industries.
The agreement will make any laws or regulations that would stop companies from becoming monopolies illegal. This will make preventing foreign takeovers impossible. With our open stock markets, not only will South Korean companies have access to buy us out with the money they stockpile from our balance of trade deficit, but they will be able to buy whole industries – and we will be financially and legally helpless to stop them.

5. Korea will be able to insource low-wage jobs to the U.S., but American companies will NOT get the same access to South Korea.
The KORUS FTA has terms that grant extreme rights for foreign investors within the U.S. that would allow them to play by very different rules. The scope of what can be challenged in the U.S. is extremely broad. This means that while South Korean companies will be able to come here and do practically whatever they like, American companies will not be able to do the same in Korea's state run system. It is the height of stupidity to even consider this!

Could Our Elected Legislators be Our Enemies In Disguise? | Economy In Crisis

 

[editec]

FREE TRADE as WE are allowing it to play out has got to be the dumbest policy this nation has ever allowed to happen.

It's either very dumb (assuming our POLS are serious about this nation's economic health) or economic treason (assuming they aren't dumb).

Take your pick, folks.

Its one motive or the other for these stupid policies.

But since it is OBVIOUS that these policies benefit some very slect segments of our society, I', going for this as ECONOMIC TREASON, myself.

Why?

I cannot believe anybody in Congress is so stupid that they really thinkj putting Ameircans out of work was a good thing for thius nation.

 

[uscitizen]

Ross was right! And so was I.

that big sucking sound of NAFTA.

Have we done CAFTA yet?

SHAFTA?

 

[sparky]

 

[Bern80]

FREE TRADE as WE are allowing it to play out has got to be the dumbest policy this nation has ever allowed to happen.

It's either very dumb (assuming our POLS are serious about this nation's economic health) or economic treason (assuming they aren't dumb).

Take your pick, folks.

Its one motive or the other for these stupid policies.

But since it is OBVIOUS that these policies benefit some very slect segments of our society, I', going for this as ECONOMIC TREASON, myself.

Why?

I cannot believe anybody in Congress is so stupid that they really thinkj putting Ameircans out of work was a good thing for thius nation.

Yeah, beacuse inexpensive products are just stupid. God, I hate paying less for things.

 

[uscitizen]

FREE TRADE as WE are allowing it to play out has got to be the dumbest policy this nation has ever allowed to happen.

It's either very dumb (assuming our POLS are serious about this nation's economic health) or economic treason (assuming they aren't dumb).

Take your pick, folks.

Its one motive or the other for these stupid policies.

But since it is OBVIOUS that these policies benefit some very slect segments of our society, I', going for this as ECONOMIC TREASON, myself.

Why?

I cannot believe anybody in Congress is so stupid that they really thinkj putting Ameircans out of work was a good thing for thius nation.

Yeah, beacuse inexpensive products are just stupid. God, I hate paying less for things.

Ahh now we have a glimmering of why some of the public supports NAFTA.

Self centered focus groups?

 

[sparky]

 

[Bern80]

FREE TRADE as WE are allowing it to play out has got to be the dumbest policy this nation has ever allowed to happen.

It's either very dumb (assuming our POLS are serious about this nation's economic health) or economic treason (assuming they aren't dumb).

Take your pick, folks.

Its one motive or the other for these stupid policies.

But since it is OBVIOUS that these policies benefit some very slect segments of our society, I', going for this as ECONOMIC TREASON, myself.

Why?

I cannot believe anybody in Congress is so stupid that they really thinkj putting Ameircans out of work was a good thing for thius nation.

Yeah, beacuse inexpensive products are just stupid. God, I hate paying less for things.

Ahh now we have a glimmering of why some of the public supports NAFTA.

Self centered focus groups?

And apparently YOUR little focus group doesn't see that it is in fact NOT arguing in favor of a better U.S. standard of living.

 

[Wiseacre]

Let me explain it this way:

With free trade:

You make $100 a week. You pay $20 for a pair of shoes made offshore for your kid, leaving you
$80 for other stuff.


Without free trade:

You make $100 a week. You pay $40 on the shoes made here for your kid, leaving you $60 for other stuff. Or maybe you pay $40 for the shoes made offshore cuz the US Gov't put a $20 tariff on the imported shoes but the US shoe company went out of business cuz nobody wants to buy $40 shoes.

 

[JBeukema]

FREE TRADE as WE are allowing it to play out has got to be the dumbest policy this nation has ever allowed to happen.

It's either very dumb (assuming our POLS are serious about this nation's economic health) or economic treason (assuming they aren't dumb).

Take your pick, folks.

Its one motive or the other for these stupid policies.

But since it is OBVIOUS that these policies benefit some very slect segments of our society, I', going for this as ECONOMIC TREASON, myself.

Why?

I cannot believe anybody in Congress is so stupid that they really thinkj putting Ameircans out of work was a good thing for thius nation.

Yeah, beacuse inexpensive products are just stupid. God, I hate paying less for things.

You're kinda stupid, aren't you?

 

[JBeukema]

Yeah, beacuse inexpensive products are just stupid. God, I hate paying less for things.

Ahh now we have a glimmering of why some of the public supports NAFTA.

Self centered focus groups?

And apparently YOUR little focus group doesn't see that it is in fact NOT arguing in favor of a better U.S. standard of living.

averale real income and standard of living have been on the decline for 40 years

 

[editec]

FREE TRADE as WE are allowing it to play out has got to be the dumbest policy this nation has ever allowed to happen.

It's either very dumb (assuming our POLS are serious about this nation's economic health) or economic treason (assuming they aren't dumb).

Take your pick, folks.

Its one motive or the other for these stupid policies.

But since it is OBVIOUS that these policies benefit some very slect segments of our society, I', going for this as ECONOMIC TREASON, myself.

Why?

I cannot believe anybody in Congress is so stupid that they really thinkj putting Ameircans out of work was a good thing for thius nation.

Yeah, beacuse inexpensive products are just stupid. God, I hate paying less for things.

Oh you're paying more for those than I suspect you realize, Bern.

In the form of welfare, and higher taxes to make uup for the millions of Americans who cannot pay their share of taxes because they lost their jobs to FREE TRADE.

I seriously doubt that any saving you've enjoyed as a result of free trade aren't more than lost in the problems associated with it.

Try looking past the OBVIOUS and start thinking more deeply about the other effects FT is having, would be my advice.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Despite promises that free trade agreements would increase job creation in the U.S., close to 700,000 jobs have been lost as a result of the passage of NAFTA in 1993, according to a new study by Economic Policy Institute senior economist Robert Scott.
According to the analysis, if NAFTA had not been enacted, tariffs on goods passing between the two countries not eliminated, and important features of Mexico's social welfare state not eradicated in 1994, U.S. trade with Mexico would have supported approximately 1.5 million jobs in 2010 in the U.S.

That number came in at just under 800,000 last year, however. In other words, on average more than 40,000 jobs in the U.S. have been lost each year since the passage of NAFTA due to the growing trade deficit with that country.

Amazing.

According to a recently published, peer reviewed, study free trade actually increase employment.

Trade and Unemployment: What Do the Data Say?

That study actually says “A 10 percentage point increase lowers the equilibrium rate of unemployment by about 0.76 percentage points.” In other words, free trade creates jobs.

This is where critical thinking skills come in. I have two conflicting opinions, one written by a guy who subtitles his blog "Marxism Fresh Daily," and the other is written by 3 European economics professors. Which should I give more credence too? Personally, I take the paper where I can actually read and analyze the data for myself over a blog.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Ahh now we have a glimmering of why some of the public supports NAFTA.

Self centered focus groups?

And apparently YOUR little focus group doesn't see that it is in fact NOT arguing in favor of a better U.S. standard of living.

averale real income and standard of living have been on the decline for 40 years

How is that at all relevant to the discussion of free trade?

 

[Bern80]

Ahh now we have a glimmering of why some of the public supports NAFTA.

Self centered focus groups?

And apparently YOUR little focus group doesn't see that it is in fact NOT arguing in favor of a better U.S. standard of living.

averale real income and standard of living have been on the decline for 40 years

And I can not wait for you to show me how if everyone had paid more for things for the last 40 years how standard of living would have increased instead.

 

[Bern80]

And apparently YOUR little focus group doesn't see that it is in fact NOT arguing in favor of a better U.S. standard of living.

averale real income and standard of living have been on the decline for 40 years

How is that at all relevant to the discussion of free trade?

He believes it is releveant because he is an idiot who thinks decline of standard of living, which is debatable in of itself, is directly and predominantly linked to a growing global economy.

 

[Bern80]

FREE TRADE as WE are allowing it to play out has got to be the dumbest policy this nation has ever allowed to happen.

It's either very dumb (assuming our POLS are serious about this nation's economic health) or economic treason (assuming they aren't dumb).

Take your pick, folks.

Its one motive or the other for these stupid policies.

But since it is OBVIOUS that these policies benefit some very slect segments of our society, I', going for this as ECONOMIC TREASON, myself.

Why?

I cannot believe anybody in Congress is so stupid that they really thinkj putting Ameircans out of work was a good thing for thius nation.

Yeah, beacuse inexpensive products are just stupid. God, I hate paying less for things.

Oh you're paying more for those than I suspect you realize, Bern.

In the form of welfare, and higher taxes to make uup for the millions of Americans who cannot pay their share of taxes because they lost their jobs to FREE TRADE.

I seriously doubt that any saving you've enjoyed as a result of free trade aren't more than lost in the problems associated with it.

Try looking past the OBVIOUS and start thinking more deeply about the other effects FT is having, would be my advice.

No ed. The problem with you lefties is make things far more complex than they are. You can seriously doubt all you want, but only a moron with no perspective would think what I'm gaining in pay less for things is being lost through higher taxes. I understand you're a lefty, but most of the time you seem to have a pretty level head. But that has to be one of the dumbest things you've ever said. In light of the fact that for most of the last half century we've averaged about 7% unemployment. What would it have been in your fairly tale world? And you understand that based on how enemployment is calculated you really can't get any lower than about 5%? And you want to convince me I would have seen signifcantly lower taxes as a result? You really are dreaming.

 

[editec]

Yeah, beacuse inexpensive products are just stupid. God, I hate paying less for things.

Oh you're paying more for those than I suspect you realize, Bern.

In the form of welfare, and higher taxes to make uup for the millions of Americans who cannot pay their share of taxes because they lost their jobs to FREE TRADE.

I seriously doubt that any saving you've enjoyed as a result of free trade aren't more than lost in the problems associated with it.

Try looking past the OBVIOUS and start thinking more deeply about the other effects FT is having, would be my advice.

No ed. The problem with you lefties is make things far more complex than they are.


Really? I had no idea macro-economics was such a simple subject.

You can seriously doubt all you want, but only a moron with no perspective would think what I'm gaining in pay less for things is being lost through higher taxes.

Okay, guess I must be a moron.

Part of my flawed thinking must stem from the fact that much of what we are losing isn't easily quantifiable, of course.

But hey, let's just pretend that everything that makes up the quality of our lives can be put into an accounting ledger, shall we?

I understand you're a lefty, but most of the time you seem to have a pretty level head.

Left and right are really relative terms, amigo.

To you I no doubt appear leftist, but to many leftists I appear to be an apologist for the right.

But that has to be one of the dumbest things you've ever said.

I'll try harder. I'm fairly sure I can come up with things that you'll believe are even dumber than that.

In light of the fact that for most of the last half century we've averaged about 7% unemployment.

Assuming you buy into those numbers, I'm sure you're accurate.

What would it have been in your fairly tale world?

Less, obviously.

And you understand that based on how enemployment is calculated you really can't get any lower than about 5%?

That's the current theory of a healthy macro-economy...one that has about a 5% unempliyment rate, true.

And you want to convince me I would have seen signifcantly lower taxes as a result? You really are dreaming.

WEll I cannot know what YOUR taxes would be, but I can tell you that in part the reason that the middle class's share of the taxes is so low is because our incomes have been declining (in purchaing terms) for about the last 40 years.

The shortage has to be made up, and guess what segment of the population has been taking on the neck?

The affluent upper middle class, mostly.

If that's the socioeconomic class you're in?

yes, I feel pretty confident that you are paying more taxes than you would if our frade policies weren't nuts.

Can I prove it?

No.

It merely follows logically based on the assumption that more workers who are paid better working in manufacuting jobs CAN PAY higher share of the total taxes than less workers whose jobs are in the poorer paid SERVICE sectors.

Now I know this flies in the face of everything you have been taught to believe, but THINK about it.

What I am proposing is not socialism, nor communism, it is economic NATIONALISM.

What you are proposing (and what our economy is becoming) is really economic INTERNATIONISM.