Now is not the time to renegotiate or cancel NAFTA - Bush

[Shogun]

um, because the shogun is a crowd favorite.

 

[manifold]

And then some...

 

[Toro]

HAHAHA!

Holy shit, Toro, I didn't figure you'd be so pathetic as to assume that quoting the NORTH COUNTY TIMES is more indicative of our economic situation than a fucking SENATOR WHO PREDICTED toyota's takeover of the world market from GM over TEN fucking years ago.

Its from the Associated Press and quotes several economists.

Its not surprising you failed to miss the point and focus on something completely irrelevant.

Oh, and Greenspan isn't my hero. Nice try on the deflection though.

 

[Toro]

Yea, i'd say a senator who has tangible examples of Americans losing their jobs to Nafta is a bit more substantial than theoretical science. But, given the nature of economics in general, are you sure you really want to bring up SOFT opinion based sciences?

After all, for a senator YOU seem to think was wrong you sure are eating crow after I posted the fruition of Reigle's Toyota prediction, eh?
'

I mean, he was SO WRONG about GM and TOYOTA that just the other day it was reported that TOYOTA now DOMINATES the global auto market! HA!


Yea, you sure are one to give lectures on who knows what, dude.

Your assertion of the lack of tangible examples once again demonstrates your ignorance of the subject at hand. Its like watching an obnoxious unfunny comedian on stage. On the one hand, you feel sorry and wish he'd get off the stage. On the other, because he's so obnoxious, there's a certain amusement watching someone totally out of their depth.

Thanks for the observation on the decline of the auto industry. Its not like the decline of the American auto industry was well known long ago to anyone paying attention, long before the senator made his breathtaking assertion. Oh, but it had everything to do with tariffs, not with a better-made cheaper car.

Have you gone out and overpaid for your inferior car yet? You'll be better off, you know.

Oh, and where's the senator from Texas saying that global warming is a myth? He's right, you know, and doesn't have a vested interest at all because he represents his constituents.

 

[Toro]

Well, Toro is logged out and no reply for 30 minutes. Therefore, in accordance with USMB rules, I hereby declare Shogun the official victor. Now he can go about picking the pieces of Toro's ass chocolate out of his teeth after the unofficial pwning he's been viciously dealt at the hands of the aforementioned Toro.

Some of us have a job!

Why is Shogun on here in the middle of the day?

Must have been because of NAFTA...

 

[Ravi]

Some of us have a job!

Why is Shogun on here in the middle of the day?

Must have been because of NAFTA...

A mexican woman took his job.

 

[Toro]

Like I said.. I hope you didn't pay for your education with anything of value.

Oh, my education is of value, all right. I don't have to worry about a lot of things.

Since most of my tangles are with GOP cheerleaders on this board, you aren't going to get an argument out of me on the administration's attempt to manipulate information.

But this argument of little relevance does not change the fact that over the past 10 years, there have been 8 million more jobs created than lost in manufacturing which pay more than the average wage of manufacturing.

I linked the best selling econ 101 textbook in the country. Its extremely readable. Get another if you have a problem with Mankiw. It doesn't matter. They all have the same concepts, which you are lacking, so any one will do.

 

[Shogun]

Its from the Associated Press and quotes several economists.

Its not surprising you failed to miss the point and focus on something completely irrelevant.

Oh, and Greenspan isn't my hero. Nice try on the deflection though.

Then I would imagine you should have cited original sources. Don't blame me if you were taught that a fucking blog is solid evidence.

 

[Shogun]

Your assertion of the lack of tangible examples once again demonstrates your ignorance of the subject at hand. Its like watching an obnoxious unfunny comedian on stage. On the one hand, you feel sorry and wish he'd get off the stage. On the other, because he's so obnoxious, there's a certain amusement watching someone totally out of their depth.

Thanks for the observation on the decline of the auto industry. Its not like the decline of the American auto industry was well known long ago to anyone paying attention, long before the senator made his breathtaking assertion. Oh, but it had everything to do with tariffs, not with a better-made cheaper car.

Have you gone out and overpaid for your inferior car yet? You'll be better off, you know.

Oh, and where's the senator from Texas saying that global warming is a myth? He's right, you know, and doesn't have a vested interest at all because he represents his constituents.

Hey we can exchange opinions of how phenomenally stupid we think each other is. Clearly, since you ran to the shit talking instead of offering rebuttal, you have nothing left to offer.

after all, deflecting with "global warming" bullshit instead of your supposed big bad economic education is probably the telltale sign of a guy who knows that the hell he is talking about.


If you are such a pussy as to run screaming to the ad hominems then fucking A. I don't know if you caught this yet but I enjoy the added layer of letting you know how blatant it is that you are avoiding my evidence like the black death itself. In fact, you remind me of a scene from good will hunting.


<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/xnp8VDc8MEc&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/xnp8VDc8MEc&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Im sure you can figure out which character sounds like your goofy fucking clutch on neokeynesian economics...




ps, you didn't like how I exposed your little text book hero's failure in the EXACT same topic that we are debating here, did you? Im sure if you insist that Im just not educated enough it will take the sting away from that five finger bitchslap glowing on your face.

 

[Toro]

Then I would imagine you should have cited original sources. Don't blame me if you were taught that a fucking blog is solid evidence.

Because what is really important is not that an economist from Merrill Lynch or Lehman Brothers or Goldman Sachs or an economic think tank. What really matters is the mast head at the top of the web page. It doesn't matter if a blog author on economics references a book by another economist. What matters is that it is a blog - a completely discredited medium - regardless of the sources cited.

 

[Shogun]

Oh, my education is of value, all right. I don't have to worry about a lot of things.

Since most of my tangles are with GOP cheerleaders on this board, you aren't going to get an argument out of me on the administration's attempt to manipulate information.

But this argument of little relevance does not change the fact that over the past 10 years, there have been 8 million more jobs created than lost in manufacturing which pay more than the average wage of manufacturing.

I linked the best selling econ 101 textbook in the country. Its extremely readable. Get another if you have a problem with Mankiw. It doesn't matter. They all have the same concepts, which you are lacking, so any one will do.

Oh you mean the guy whose very own WIKI page illustrates his FAILURES in the exact subject of this thread?

oh.. that guy, eh?

hell, best selling mean what again? Ann coutler is a best selling author. so what. a million dumb shits buying a book doesn't mean that the premise of the book is true. As, given the FACT of my evidence ranging from a decade old debate all the way to yesterdays announcement of the FRUITION of that debate, will tell you.

You can cry that I don't know the jargon all day long.. it still won't make it less true that REALITY, not your silly fucking blog links, validates that me and the Senator are telling you. I understand if your defensive reaction to realizing what a waste of time and money your education was is to lash out. I don't blame you for not wanting to comprehend your failure even if the soft science that you think rules is only one of many. hell, I prefer behaviourism over freudian theories too.. BUT, Id have to abandon what I WISH were the case when it becomes clear that I am wrong about behaviourist theories. Likewise, you may identify with a particular theoretical fraternity but you certainly don't have a monopoly on economic opinions. Name dropping the author of your text book is probably less impressive that you think it should be. In fact, it's pretty funny that you seem to think your OPINION is the final standard of the soft science of economics.

 

[Toro]

ps, you didn't like how I exposed your little text book hero's failure in the EXACT same topic that we are debating here, did you? Im sure if you insist that Im just not educated enough it will take the sting away from that five finger bitchslap glowing on your face.

No, its just that this has become boring.

"See this is what a senator said."

"SEE THIS IS WHAT A SENATOR SAID!"

zzzzzzzzzzzz

When you start talking to an evil Mexican who has taken some good American's job, and he only speaks Spanish, do you yell at them because if only you were louder, they'd understand you.

"Neokeynsian". LOL. That's a new one.

Putting "neo" in front of a term doesn't make you sound smart. Especially when you have no idea what the term means.

 

[Toro]

hell, best selling mean what again? Ann coutler is a best selling author. so what. a million dumb shits buying a book doesn't mean that the premise of the book is true. As, given the FACT of my evidence ranging from a decade old debate all the way to yesterdays announcement of the FRUITION of that debate, will tell you.

Is this a joke? Did you really just compare Anne Coulter to a Harvard economist, one of the most prominent economists in the country, one who is widely acknowledged by his peers as being one of the brightest minds in his discipline, one who served on the highest offices an economist can serve in the country, one whose textbooks are the most widely distributed throughout Universities in this country?

You are comparing him to a shrill hack?

Are you kidding?

I think that's all we need to know about your arguments and cognitive abilities, Shogun.

Out.

 

[Shogun]

No, its just that this has become boring.

"See this is what a senator said."

"SEE THIS IS WHAT A SENATOR SAID!"

zzzzzzzzzzzz

When you start talking to an evil Mexican who has taken some good American's job, and he only speaks Spanish, do you yell at them because if only you were louder, they'd understand you.

"Neokeynsian". LOL. That's a new one.

Putting "neo" in front of a term doesn't make you sound smart. Especially when you have no idea what the term means.

HA!

CLEARLY, you should be giving people advice on who to read about on economics.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N._Gregory_Mankiw

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Keynesian_economics


yea, id get bored and run away too if I were having my ass handed to me in such fashion. I mean, who WOULDN'T take your word (and that of some blog) that a senator from ten years ago was full of shit when the, uh, headlines this week, uh, well shit. I guess they PROVE him right after all.

Like I said, dude. email the DOL and tell them how wrong they are. Your dreamboat economist turned out to be deficient in the exact same ascpet of this thread and YOUR position. Given the reality of the endangered specie that is American Manufacturing you might wanna sit on your goofy fucking claims that more manufacturing jobs are available these days than they used to be. Suggesting such has the same fucking ring to it as the last stupid fucking arguement your dreamboat economists made when hoping no one would compare the SOL allowed by wal mart service jobs to a middle class supporting factory job that their parents had.


tenez, bitch.

 

[Shogun]

Is this a joke? Did you really just compare Anne Coulter to a Harvard economist, one of the most prominent economists in the country, one who is widely acknowledged by his peers as being one of the brightest minds in his discipline, one who served on the highest offices an economist can serve in the country, one whose textbooks are the most widely distributed throughout Universities in this country?

You are comparing him to a shrill hack?

Are you kidding?

I think that's all we need to know about your arguments and cognitive abilities, Shogun.

Out.

yea, I did. Since being a best selling author means two things: jack and shit. Do you want a long list of other titles that made the best selling list but don't amount to shit? Did you think you are the only person in the US that reads for christs sake?


I guess you didn't want to address the criticisms of your dreamboat economist, eh? figures, I'd hate for you to have to call the rest of the economic world uneducated because they don't fall in line with your opinion.




yea, someone was Pwned alright. It makes sense that you would talk shit and run away after yet one more of your retarded fucking posts have been dismantled.

 

[Toro]

You can cry that I don't know the jargon all day long.. it still won't make it less true that REALITY, not your silly fucking blog links, validates that me and the Senator are telling you. I understand if your defensive reaction to realizing what a waste of time and money your education was is to lash out. I don't blame you for not wanting to comprehend your failure even if the soft science that you think rules is only one of many. hell, I prefer behaviourism over freudian theories too.. BUT, Id have to abandon what I WISH were the case when it becomes clear that I am wrong about behaviourist theories. Likewise, you may identify with a particular theoretical fraternity but you certainly don't have a monopoly on economic opinions. Name dropping the author of your text book is probably less impressive that you think it should be. In fact, it's pretty funny that you seem to think your OPINION is the final standard of the soft science of economics.

I missed this as I was blinded by your ridiculous comparison of Coulter to Mankiw. However, its an intelligent observation.

I certainly do not have a monopoly on economic opinion. I also understand that we all are prone to confirmation biases, myself included. But I also know that knowledge is based on empirical observation. The academic discipline to come to that empirical conclusion relies on a body of work that has been developed and peer-tested over time.

Economics is not a science similar to physics or chemistry since we cannot set up a scientific experiment with a control group to test a hypothesis. You cannot, after all, collapse an economy just to see what happens.

However, what you can do is backtest data and isolate the factors to draw empirical conclusions about what has occurred in the past. That does not mean it is always correct, but when different studies are conducted and the conclusions are similar, it increases the confidence we have that the conclusion is correct.

There are many factors which effect all aspects of the economy. But you have to test multiple factors, not just assume a priori that one factor you have observed is the cause of the outcome.

And, empirically, there is no evidence to suggest that NAFTA has had any net effect on job losses.

 

[Shogun]

well, I'll stand by the comparison to ann coulter since having a best seller means nothing... this was your reason for pushing your particular economist, yes? Not to mention, that the very school of economics that you are drawing from has the same sinkhole attached to it that we are discussing now (as cited above).


I appriciate that we are on the same page regarding soft sciences. Still, I think that a senator that called greenspan out for the same short sighted application of his economic opinion pretty much NAILED predicting our trade differeneces with japan and the results thereof. I take this as evidence of the same short sightedness that applies to Nafta.


anyway. Have a great evening.

 

[Toro]

anyway. Have a great evening.

you too.

 

[manifold]

Clearly, since you ran to the shit talking instead of offering rebuttal, you have nothing left to offer.

Sorry, the beautifully sweet irony was just too rich to pass by without acknowledgement.

 

[indago]

CNN — LOU DOBBS TONIGHT — Aired April 24, 2008 - 19:00 ET

LOU DOBBS, CNN ANCHOR: President Bush was in New Orleans this week. He met there with Mexican President Felipe Calderon and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Those three leaders vigorously, and some might say vacuously, defended NAFTA. President Bush even claimed NAFTA created a new era of prosperity along our border with Mexico.

Well as Casey Wian now reports, the reality, as it often is with this president, is very different.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

WIAN (voice-over): Don't mess with NAFTA, proclaims the leaders of the United States, Canada, and Mexico at their summit in New Orleans this week. They claim the 14-year-old North American Free Trade Agreement has benefited all three North American nations. President Bush even said NAFTA is responsible for an economic boom along the border.

BUSH: I wish people could remember what the border looked like between Texas and Mexico before NAFTA. I mean, it was poor, really poor, on both sides of the border. If you go down there today there's prosperity on both sides of the border, and that's in our nations' interests.

WIAN: Post-NAFTA personal income in counties along the border has grown slightly faster than income in other counties in the same states. But overall the region remains impoverished. According to the advocacy group, Border Counties Coalition, 22 of the 24 U.S. border counties have unemployment rates that are double the national average. Without prosperous San Diego County, border counties would rank last in per capita income and last in unemployment if they were considered a 51st state. The group also says more than half a million children or 27 percent of the youth population in border counties live in poverty.

BUSH: People who say let's get rid of NAFTA because they flow away a political line must understand this has been good for America.

WIAN: The president warned that scrapping NAFTA would increase illegal immigration, a threat echoed by Mexican president, Felipe Calderon.

FELIPE CALDERON, PRESIDENT OF MEXICO (through translator): It would be a sudden loss of economic opportunities that would lead to even greater migratory pressure with the United States.

WIAN: Supporters of NAFTA say it's needed to remain economically competitive with Asia and Europe.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WIAN: But opponents point to the rapid increase in illegal immigration in the years following NAFTA, plus the loss of four million manufacturing jobs in the United States during the past decade is clear evidence that NAFTA is not working for U.S. workers — Lou.

DOBBS: Absolutely not. I suppose that's a little embarrassing. I shouldn't say that. It wouldn't be embarrassing to this White House to see that statistic that those border counties would represent the 51st — as the 51st state would be the poorest state in the union. I mean, how can this administration, this White House — isn't there anyone in this administration who has the intellectual integrity to meet or at least approach the level of their ideological fervor?

WIAN: Perhaps their definition of prosperity is a little bit different than yours and mine, but given these economic statistics we just reported on, and given the drug cartel violence that's spilling across both sides of the border, it's hard to, you know, to support the argument that the border region is prosperous by any stretch of the imagination, Lou.

DOBBS: I'll give Stephen Harper, the prime minister of Canada a pass. But to see President Bush and President Calderon laughing about the state of the quality of life along that border when we have a State Department warning out on the border for Americans, when we have still Mexico sending across that border the largest — the highest percentage of our methamphetamines, cocaine, marijuana, and heroin coming into this country.

That is an ugly and disgusting attitude on the part of those two — those two leaders. Thank you very much for straightening the record out, Casey, as we will continue to try to do with this administration no matter what.

WIAN: Absolutely.

DOBBS: Casey Wian, thank you.