NAFTA Withdrawal Would Hurt Economy

[Toro]

I don't hate capitalism and freedom, but I do hate you. Oh, and let us know whenever freedom pops up somewhere.

^^^^^^^^^^

 

[cnelsen]

[Here, phony, stick this up your brain deficit: there ain't no "economy". There are 320 million "economies" in the US. NAFTA hurts Joe 6pack's economy because it costs more to be an American than it does to be a Mexican. So (are you following, Turds-for-Brains?), if ACME, Inc moves production to Mexico, it lowers the demand for labor in the US, which hurts the economies of all the Joe and Jane 6packs, while it helps the economy of ACME (which is what the biggest pack of phonies on the planet--the professional economists--count, because it's easier).

You've just made the argument against specialization, something that was refuted in the 1700s.

By your argument, no one in Wisconsin should be allowed to trade with anyone in Alabama because costs in Alabama are lower than they are in Wisconsin, and that's bad for labor in Wisconsin.

Which is exactly what happened in the 60s and 70s as manufacturing emptied out of the Midwest and moved to the South.

Au contraire, putz. Alabama and Wisconsin operate under the same set of laws and in the same market. It doesn't NECESSARILY cost more to be from either state. Fluctuations in costs of production are normal market phenomenon, which the marketplace evens out over time. Not possible between Mexico and the US.

 

[Marion Morrison]

[Here, phony, stick this up your brain deficit: there ain't no "economy". There are 320 million "economies" in the US. NAFTA hurts Joe 6pack's economy because it costs more to be an American than it does to be a Mexican. So (are you following, Turds-for-Brains?), if ACME, Inc moves production to Mexico, it lowers the demand for labor in the US, which hurts the economies of all the Joe and Jane 6packs, while it helps the economy of ACME (which is what the biggest pack of phonies on the planet--the professional economists--count, because it's easier).

You've just made the argument against specialization, something that was refuted in the 1700s.

By your argument, no one in Wisconsin should be allowed to trade with anyone in Alabama because costs in Alabama are lower than they are in Wisconsin, and that's bad for labor in Wisconsin.

Which is exactly what happened in the 60s and 70s as manufacturing emptied out of the Midwest and moved to the South.

Au contraire, putz. Alabama and Wisconsin operate under the same set of laws and in the same market. It doesn't NECESSARILY cost more to be from either state. Fluctuations in costs of production are normal market phenomenon, which the marketplace evens out over time. Not possible between Mexico and the US.

Or Toro's beloved Canuckistan.

Them Canadian dairy farmers are getting hit hard with the NAFTA repeal, aye?

Aww, too bad!

 

[Toro]

Why NAFTA is bad: #1 U.S. jobs were lost. Really no more needs to be said.

6 Negative Effects of NAFTA

“NAFTA’s got blamed for stuff that it in no way could have been at fault for,” Hanson said.

A good example of this is fabric and clothes. As part of NAFTA, the U.S. made a deal with Mexico. It said, "Listen, we will drop barriers on Mexican clothes if you use American fabric to make them." So that way, Mexico would get jobs making clothing, and America would get jobs making fabric.

The result?
“Fabric production in the United States rose substantially after NAFTA,” said Noel Maurer, associate professor of international affairs and business at George Washington University. “But jobs continued to decline because automation was wiping out jobs.”

So those jobs went to robots. Not really NAFTA’s fault. ...

Most economists who have studied the issue argue that NAFTA’s effect on the net number of jobs was minimal.​

The real reason we talk about NAFTA so much

 

[cnelsen]

I don't hate capitalism and freedom, but I do hate you. Oh, and let us know whenever freedom pops up somewhere.

^^^^^^^^^^

Great argument, Shlomo.

 

[cnelsen]

Why NAFTA is bad: #1 U.S. jobs were lost. Really no more needs to be said.

6 Negative Effects of NAFTA

“NAFTA’s got blamed for stuff that it in no way could have been at fault for,” Hanson said.

A good example of this is fabric and clothes. As part of NAFTA, the U.S. made a deal with Mexico. It said, "Listen, we will drop barriers on Mexican clothes if you use American fabric to make them." So that way, Mexico would get jobs making clothing, and America would get jobs making fabric.

The result?
“Fabric production in the United States rose substantially after NAFTA,” said Noel Maurer, associate professor of international affairs and business at George Washington University. “But jobs continued to decline because automation was wiping out jobs.”

So those jobs went to robots. Not really NAFTA’s fault. ...

Most economists who have studied the issue argue that NAFTA’s effect on the net number of jobs was minimal.​

The real reason we talk about NAFTA so much

SO which is it, bozo? NAFTA so important US will collapse if it's repealed, or NAFTA has no impact at all?

 

[KissMy]

Multinationals are circumventing laws to strip all our wealth. Why even have laws if they only crush those who work & hand wealth to entitled trust-fund babies.

 

[Toro]

Au contraire, putz. Alabama and Wisconsin operate under the same set of laws and in the same market. It doesn't NECESSARILY cost more to be from either state. Fluctuations in costs of production are normal market phenomenon, which the marketplace evens out over time. Not possible between Mexico and the US.

Incorrect.

Labor laws are different in states.

The South had much cheaper wages and much laxer labor laws, so manufacturing moved from the north to the south.

The Rust Belt in the Midwest and Northeast happened 40 years ago because of differing laws and wages within the US, not because of anything outside our country.

 

[anotherlife]

Dissolving nafta will not make a difference. At least not to the individual economies of citizens.

 

[Toro]

SO which is it, bozo? NAFTA so important US will collapse if it's repealed, or NAFTA has no impact at all?

The repeal of NAFTA won't cause the US economy to collapse. That's not what the OP says. What the OP says is that it would be bad for the economy. None of the economists say it would be good for the economy. Repeal of NAFTA might be good for you, but it would come at the expense of someone else.

The reason why it would be bad is because it would make American industry less efficient as it would raise costs.

Those jobs aren't coming back, whether NAFTA exists or not. Manufacturing is being automated. Manufacturing is going through what agriculture went through 100 years ago.

In 1900, agriculture employed nearly half of all Americans. Today, it employs less than 3%. But we produce 50x more agricultural products than we did over a century ago. And nobody is saying we should go back to the farm economy so we can have farm jobs like you guys are saying about manufacturing.

 

[KissMy]

Why NAFTA is bad: #1 U.S. jobs were lost. Really no more needs to be said.

6 Negative Effects of NAFTA

Welcome home Lefty! Screw free markets! Down with Capitalism!

 

[cnelsen]

Au contraire, putz. Alabama and Wisconsin operate under the same set of laws and in the same market. It doesn't NECESSARILY cost more to be from either state. Fluctuations in costs of production are normal market phenomenon, which the marketplace evens out over time. Not possible between Mexico and the US.

Incorrect.

Labor laws are different in states.

The South had much cheaper wages and much laxer labor laws, so manufacturing moved from the north to the south.

The Rust Belt in the Midwest and Northeast happened 40 years ago because of differing laws and wages within the US, not because of anything outside our country.

The Commerce Clause of the Constitution is meant to prevent unfair fiat market distortions between the states. If it was imperfectly enforced, that isn't an argument for NAFTA.

 

[anotherlife]

Multinationals are circumventing laws to strip all our wealth. Why even have laws if they only crush those who work & hand wealth to entitled trust-fund babies.

Old laws are repealed and new laws are enacted to make sure that you see only the money that they want you to see, and to put you away when they like it. Hehe. But this is true actually.

 

[cnelsen]

SO which is it, bozo? NAFTA so important US will collapse if it's repealed, or NAFTA has no impact at all?

The repeal of NAFTA won't cause the US economy to collapse. That's not what the OP says. What the OP says is that it would be bad for the economy. None of the economists say it would be good for the economy. Repeal of NAFTA might be good for you, but it would come at the expense of someone else.

The reason why it would be bad is because it would make American industry less efficient as it would raise costs.

Those jobs aren't coming back, whether NAFTA exists or not. Manufacturing is being automated. Manufacturing is going through what agriculture went through 100 years ago.

In 1900, agriculture employed nearly half of all Americans. Today, it employs less than 3%. But we produce 50x more agricultural products than we did over a century ago. And nobody is saying we should go back to the farm economy so we can have farm jobs like you guys are saying about manufacturing.

Bullshit. When America came to dominate the world in manufacturing, it was during a period of protectionism. Now China dominates. How did they do it? Free trade? Not hardly. Severe protectionism.

Your argument fails.

As for automation, it's a straw man. By your own post, agricultural workers as a percentage of the workforce have declined by 47 percent. Are 47 percent of the American work force sitting b y the side of the road in rural America wondering what to do with themselves? No, they stopped milking cows and started doing something else. There will always be someone willing to pay someone else money in exchange for their labor.

 

[Toro]

The Commerce Clause of the Constitution is meant to prevent unfair fiat market distortions between the states. If it was imperfectly enforced, that isn't an argument for NAFTA.

The Commerce Clause has nothing to do with cost structures and differing labor laws between the states, not to mention cost structures.

The cost structure of manufacturing in Massachusetts and Ohio was 40%-50% higher than it was in Tennessee or Alabama in the h1960s. So manufacturing moved from the North to the South.

That's free trade.

 

[cnelsen]

The Commerce Clause of the Constitution is meant to prevent unfair fiat market distortions between the states. If it was imperfectly enforced, that isn't an argument for NAFTA.

The Commerce Clause has nothing to do with cost structures and differing labor laws between the states, not to mention cost structures.

The cost structure of manufacturing in Massachusetts and Ohio was 40%-50% higher than it was in Tennessee or Alabama in the h1960s. So manufacturing moved from the North to the South.

That's free trade.

And the workers followed. Something not possible when the factories move to Mexico (though the (((globalists))) love the movement of Mexicans here--love those open borders (except for Israel, of course)).

 

[Marion Morrison]

Dissolving nafta will not make a difference. At least not to the individual economies of citizens.

Of course it will, deals will be made in American's favor, rather than placing them at a disadvantage, like NAFTA does.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The US won't be leaving NAFTA.

 

[KissMy]

Dissolving nafta will not make a difference. At least not to the individual economies of citizens.

Of course it will, deals will be made in American's favor, rather than placing them at a disadvantage, like NAFTA does.

Well said Communist Comrade!

 

[Toro]

SO which is it, bozo? NAFTA so important US will collapse if it's repealed, or NAFTA has no impact at all?

The repeal of NAFTA won't cause the US economy to collapse. That's not what the OP says. What the OP says is that it would be bad for the economy. None of the economists say it would be good for the economy. Repeal of NAFTA might be good for you, but it would come at the expense of someone else.

The reason why it would be bad is because it would make American industry less efficient as it would raise costs.

Those jobs aren't coming back, whether NAFTA exists or not. Manufacturing is being automated. Manufacturing is going through what agriculture went through 100 years ago.

In 1900, agriculture employed nearly half of all Americans. Today, it employs less than 3%. But we produce 50x more agricultural products than we did over a century ago. And nobody is saying we should go back to the farm economy so we can have farm jobs like you guys are saying about manufacturing.

Bullshit. When America came to dominate the world in manufacturing, it was during a period of protectionism. Now China dominates. How did they do it? Free trade? Not hardly. Severe protectionism.

Your argument fails.

As for automation, it's a straw man. By your own post, agricultural workers as a percentage of the workforce have declined by 47 percent. Are 47 percent of the American work force sitting b y the side of the road in rural America wondering what to do with themselves? No, they stopped milking cows and started doing something else. There will always be someone willing to pay someone else money in exchange for their labor.

The height of American manufacturing as a percentage of global output was not during a time of protectionism but after WWII for about 30 years when tariffs were falling. Tariffs fell from 40% in 1940 to 5% in the 1980s (thank you Ronald Reagan). During that time, America's share of global capital goods was at an all-time high.

China - which BTW is not part of NAFTA if you weren't aware - did not become a manufacturing powerhouse because of protectionism. It became one because of lower costs, just like the South had a low cost advantage compared to the Midwest. Simple as that. But do you know what? Manufacturing jobs are starting to leave China because wages in China are too high for many low-end manufacturing.

As for automation, sorry, your jobs aren't coming back.

• 83% of respondents indicated they engaged in automation investment in the past five years.
• More than three-quarters (76%) plan to engage in such investment during the next three years.
• 45% indicated their automation investment was part of a broader technology upgrading and 35% said it was a stand-alone investment. The remainder of respondents indicated they engaged in both.

“Automation implementation exhibits characteristics of both capital investment and innovation investment,” observes Cliff Waldman, director of economic studies at the MAPI Foundation. “While deploying machinery into a production line has characteristics of capital equipment investment, it does not appear to be as short-term oriented as capital investment. Automation also does not appear to be an element of business expansion. Rather, it is more like process innovation whose principal goals are cost reduction and product quality improvement.”​

Automation Investment High Among U.S. Manufacturers