'Free Trade' Means Less Employment

[Bern80]

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.



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?




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.



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



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



Less, obviously.




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.

I have thought about it ed and what we're talking about AT BEST is a 2% difference in the employment rate. Maybe you're not saying what it sounds like you're saying, but what it sounded to me like you were saying is that had we had whatever trade policy you would deem as 'good' would have made for less unemployement, which 'of course' (I say that sarcastically because what government would have done to tax rates as result of that difference is certainly no garuantee) would have caused government to lower taxes enough to compensate for the extra I am paying for goods and services because my only option is to buy american. We weren't talking about intangibles it didnt' seem like. We were talking about how much would be coming out of my pocket your way vs. my way.

 

[Toro]

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?

It's not relevant because it's not true.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

It's not relevant because it's not true.

Neither is the OP, which I suspect that JB will realize after he reads the report I linked to. He won't admit it though, he will just start posting like he believed in free trade the entire time.

 

[Wiseacre]

I'm not sure why oponents of free trade aren't getting the reality of the situation. Okay, say there's no free trade at all. Country X can make a product and ship it here cheaper than we can make it here. So, we slap a tariff on it. Expand the concept, that's a lot of tariffs on a lot of products imported into the USA.

What happens next? All those countries that we slapped a tariff on? They retaliate, and we got trade wars going on. Yeah, that'll be good for our foreign relations, won't it. Wonder how many foreign investors and entrepeneurs that might've come here to start or expand a business decide not to? Hmm, some lost jobs and tax revenue there, right?

But what's the end result for the American consumer? He/she has to pay more for the product, in fact more for all those products we used to get cheaper from overseas. How much fewer goods and services do you think the American consumer can now afford? Used to get 10 things, but now only 5. Result: lower standard of living.

But, did we save any jobs? Guess so, for those companies and industries where we laid a tariff on somebody. But, we also lost jobs on those companies and industries where foreign companies laid tariffs on us. Does it even out? NO, cuz now the American consumer is buying fewer items cuz everything is more expensive. Discretionary spending? Nope, no more of that unless you're a rich guy. Of course, our exports will be almost non-existent right, cuz those other contries won't buy our stuff after they tariffed our asses or even denied us access to their markets. So, more jobs lost there too.

Are you guys getting the picture yet?

 

[Bern80]

I'm not sure why oponents of free trade aren't getting the reality of the situation. Okay, say there's no free trade at all. Country X can make a product and ship it here cheaper than we can make it here. So, we slap a tariff on it. Expand the concept, that's a lot of tariffs on a lot of products imported into the USA.

What happens next? All those countries that we slapped a tariff on? They retaliate, and we got trade wars going on. Yeah, that'll be good for our foreign relations, won't it. Wonder how many foreign investors and entrepeneurs that might've come here to start or expand a business decide not to? Hmm, some lost jobs and tax revenue there, right?

But what's the end result for the American consumer? He/she has to pay more for the product, in fact more for all those products we used to get cheaper from overseas. How much fewer goods and services do you think the American consumer can now afford? Used to get 10 things, but now only 5. Result: lower standard of living.

But, did we save any jobs? Guess so, for those companies and industries where we laid a tariff on somebody. But, we also lost jobs on those companies and industries where foreign companies laid tariffs on us. Does it even out? NO, cuz now the American consumer is buying fewer items cuz everything is more expensive. Discretionary spending? Nope, no more of that unless you're a rich guy. Of course, our exports will be almost non-existent right, cuz those other contries won't buy our stuff after they tariffed our asses or even denied us access to their markets. So, more jobs lost there too.

Are you guys getting the picture yet?

Is it ironic at all that these anti-free traders are the very same people who piss and moan about the special interests of corporate america and political favors politicians do for corporations, tax breaks for the wealthy, etc.? If tariffs aren't the biggest political favor government can do for business, what is?

 

[uscitizen]

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.

Now I remember who tried to convince me how offshoring was good for America.

LOL
thanks for the reminder.

 

[uscitizen]

The cheaper products has hidden the declining real wages of working americans for a couple of decades. That has reached a breaking point though and reality must set in.
We must learn to be satisfied with less.

Economic issues like this are like huge stones, lots of inertia and slow down slowly, but also very hard to speed back up.

 

[Brutus]

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.

Now I remember who tried to convince me how offshoring was good for America.

LOL
thanks for the reminder.

there are 2 rules in trade:

1) the more people you trade with( whether across town or across the globe) the richer you get, the fewer you trade with the poorer you get.

2) to compete internationally you need world class goods and services. The more libtards prevent trade the more second class we will become.

 

[uscitizen]

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.

Now I remember who tried to convince me how offshoring was good for America.

LOL
thanks for the reminder.

there are 2 rules in trade:

1) the more people you trade with( whether across town or across the globe) the richer you get, the fewer you trade with the poorer you get.

2) to compete internationally you need world class goods and services. The more libtards prevent trade the more second class we will become.

Umm a few other things come into play.
Labor costs.
and balance of trade just to name a couple.

 

[Brutus]

'Free Trade' Means Less Employment

or so the liberals thought when they passed Hawley Smoot to restrict free trade and thus collapsed world trade by 40%, and drove unemployment to 20% in the Great Depression.

 

[Brutus]

Umm a few other things come into play.
Labor costs.
and balance of trade just to name a couple.

they may come into play but they don't change the rules even a tiny little bit

 

[Brutus]

Umm a few other things come into play.
Labor costs.
and balance of trade just to name a couple.

they may come into play but they don't change the rules even a tiny little bit


once again the rules are:

1) the more people you trade with( whether across town or across the globe) the richer you get, the fewer you trade with the poorer you get.

2) to compete internationally you need world class goods and services. The more libtards prevent trade the more second class we will become.

 

[uscitizen]

'Free Trade' Means Less Employment

or so the liberals thought when they passed Hawley Smoot to restrict free trade and thus collapsed world trade by 40%, and drove unemployment to 20% in the Great Depression.

And you attitude caused this major recession. Which may degenerate into a depression before it is all over.

We are not even halfway thru this yet.

 

[GHook93]

And who is the President that inacted NAFTA, dropped trade barriers and got China into the WTO (not to mention kicked off the mortgage bubbled that burst into a crisis) - Bill "Worst President in History" Clinton!

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

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.

 

[Brutus]

'Free Trade' Means Less Employment

or so the liberals thought when they passed Hawley Smoot to restrict free trade and thus collapsed world trade by 40%, and drove unemployment to 20% in the Great Depression.

And you attitude caused this major recession. Which may degenerate into a depression before it is all over.

We are not even halfway thru this yet.

you are 100% confused. This recession is a housing recession!!

 

[uscitizen]

Yes clowntoon finished up on NAFTA it was set up by Reagan though.
Tell all the facts.

 

[uscitizen]

'Free Trade' Means Less Employment

or so the liberals thought when they passed Hawley Smoot to restrict free trade and thus collapsed world trade by 40%, and drove unemployment to 20% in the Great Depression.

And you attitude caused this major recession. Which may degenerate into a depression before it is all over.

We are not even halfway thru this yet.

you are 100% confused. This recession is a housing recession!!

LOMA, yap sure... and was supposed to be over in 6 months according to experts like those espousing the virtues of free trade and offshoring, etc.

 

[Brutus]

Yes clowntoon finished up on NAFTA it was set up by Reagan though.
Tell all the facts.

the fact is that almost all economists on both sides support free trade. Even the Europeans support it. That ought to tell you something!!

 

[Brutus]

LOMA, yap sure... and was supposed to be over in 6 months according to experts like those espousing the virtues of free trade and offshoring, etc.

of course you are a liar. No one in his right mind said it would be over in 6 months. If all economists here and in liberal Europe support free trade who are you to disagree?

 

[uscitizen]

Yes clowntoon finished up on NAFTA it was set up by Reagan though.
Tell all the facts.

the fact is that almost all economists on both sides support free trade. Even the Europeans support it. That ought to tell you something!!

That most economists are wrong?
That the old rules no longer apply in a global economy?
Or that yes it works for the corporations but not the countries citizens/workers?

Who do economists serve?