Obama risks trade war with China

[Unkotare]

To 'whom'

 

[expat_panama]

...tell us all about the "Prosperity" we're experiencing due to NAFTA?...

My pleasure.

In '93 when Clinton signed NAFTA only 120 million people had jobs and total private wealth was $24 trillion. Now we've got 140 million people working with a total wealth of $57T. Sure, we're a bit worse off with Obama's past three years of fighting trade and business, but even he can't stop completely America's growing power in the world's marketplace.

 

[Unkotare]

Name a free trade agreement since WWII that was allowed to expire.

Have you considered that is because free trade is beneficial and not everyone is as stupid as you?

Free trade is beneficial, but beneficial to who [sic]?

A great many people all along the process.

 

[Old_Liberal]

Ok


http://www.freetradealliance.org/ad...y/Benefits on NAFTA on letterhead 5-2009.pdf


NAFTA: A Decade of Success | Office of the United States Trade Representative


NAFTA Benefits Arizona | Daniel Griswold | Cato Institute: Daily Commentary

Prosperity generally refers to the middle class. .

Only to moronic lefties transparently attempting to use class warfare rhetoric to avoid actual facts.

It's not working for ya.

I know the middle is of no importance to the repubs the cons, but to me it is of the greatest importance. And free trade is destroying the middle. For one simple reason. A consumptioin based economy that no longer makes what it consumes will impoverish some and shrink the middle. That is a hard cold fact, and you just need elementary arithmetic to figure that out.

If all of the jobs sent to cheap labor were back, we would not have the unemployment and underemployment rates that we have today, and the middle would not have shrunk as it has. And we would have less poor. Even a village idiot could see something as basic as this.

Oh yes there is class warfare being waged, and the special interests won!

 

[expat_panama]

...Free trade has shrunk the middle class. And that is the only thing that matters here...

The middle class has definately not shrunk, it's as fat as ever.

Nevertheless we shouldn't ignore the lower classes and think they don't matter, they do! Same with the upper classes, all classes are human beings and deserve respect. Once we agree on that we can look at the material improvements all classes have enjoyed over the past three decades since NAFTA was signed. In the mean time it's good that we at least agree that America as a whole is better off.

 

[Unkotare]

Prosperity generally refers to the middle class. .

Only to moronic lefties transparently attempting to use class warfare rhetoric to avoid actual facts.

It's not working for ya.

I know the middle is of no importance to the repubs the cons,!

That kind of partisan nonsense brands you as just another irrelevant hack. You have nothing to say, you are just here to play on a 'side.' Run along, junior.

 

[Old_Liberal]

...Free trade has shrunk the middle class. And that is the only thing that matters here...

The middle class has definately not shrunk, it's as fat as ever.

Nevertheless we shouldn't ignore the lower classes and think they don't matter, they do! Same with the upper classes, all classes are human beings and deserve respect. Once we agree on that we can look at the material improvements all classes have enjoyed over the past three decades since NAFTA was signed. In the mean time it's good that we at least agree that America as a whole is better off.

Unbelievable! Yes, I am afraid the middle has shrunk, and we have more new poor.

America is not better off, unless you are referring to the upper crust. They of course are much better off these days.

Just because our communist made widgets are cheaper does not equate to middle america being better off. There is more involved here than the lower retails of cheap commie labor.

Those folks who lost their jobs to communists are no longer getting the same bargain from cheap chinese goods as they once were. In fact for the underemployed, these cheaper goods cost more as a percentage of their income than prior to the off shoring of consumer good production.

There is a war against the middle, against upward mobility of the poor. In the rush to max out profits by cheap foreign labor, one of the important engines that created the middle is no longer here, and there is nothing that can replace it. Not everyone in fact, are capable of this new dreamed up economy people speak about. There are too many fucking "ifs" involved here.

The simple truth that few can see is our economy is based upon consumption. The optimum benefits to the middle comes when we make what we consume. As you move away from that, the middle suffers, shrinks and the poor class increases. This has been a trend since free trade/off shoring started. This trend will continue, unless our economic model is changed to something resembling sanity.

 

[Unkotare]

If all of the jobs sent to cheap labor were back, we would not have the unemployment and underemployment rates that we have today, and the middle would not have shrunk as it has. And we would have less poor.

Your childlike notions about economics and significant distance from reality make you a left-wing demagogue's wet dream.

 

[Old_Liberal]

Only to moronic lefties transparently attempting to use class warfare rhetoric to avoid actual facts.

It's not working for ya.

I know the middle is of no importance to the repubs the cons,!

That kind of partisan nonsense brands you as just another irrelevant hack. You have nothing to say, you are just here to play on a 'side.' Run along, junior.

So, you think that the return of the Pubs to rule, and the changed economic model is just coincidental?

You think the deregs on banking that originated from the Pubs, has nothing to do with the crash of 08? Hint, hint. The crash could have never occurred under the old, sound, regulated banking and finance sector. The S and L crisis was also due to deregs. WHO originated those deregs?

Look at the votes on NAFTA, who voted for it. That will tell you why we are where we are today, in so far as middle america is concerned. Granted Clinton signed it, but the democrats in congress did not support it.

Who created NAFTA? Pubs and special interests, in secret, during Bush Sr. term. No sir, don't try and tell me the Pubs ain't responsible, and pulled some dems with em. That ain't partisan thats a fact.

I will grant you that too many dems have joined the Pubs on this change, but it originated from the cons.

 

[Old_Liberal]

If all of the jobs sent to cheap labor were back, we would not have the unemployment and underemployment rates that we have today, and the middle would not have shrunk as it has. And we would have less poor.

Your childlike notions about economics and significant distance from reality make you a left-wing demagogue's wet dream.

I live in the real world, not some ideological wet dream. If you cannot recognize what the return of consumer goods manufacturing jobs would do to the unemployment numbers, you are running on one sick brain cell. Don't try to make this rocket science. It isn't, at this level.

 

[Unkotare]

I know the middle is of no importance to the repubs the cons,!

That kind of partisan nonsense brands you as just another irrelevant hack. You have nothing to say, you are just here to play on a 'side.' Run along, junior.

So, you think that the return of the Pubs.

The return of 'what'? Communicate like a big boy if you want to have a discussion.

 

[Unkotare]

If all of the jobs sent to cheap labor were back, we would not have the unemployment and underemployment rates that we have today, and the middle would not have shrunk as it has. And we would have less poor.

Your childlike notions about economics and significant distance from reality make you a left-wing demagogue's wet dream.

I live in the real world, not some ideological wet dream. .

You have proven exactly the opposite time and time again here.

 

[expat_panama]

...Free trade has shrunk the middle class. And that is the only thing that matters here...

The middle class has definately not shrunk, it's as fat as ever. Nevertheless we shouldn't ignore the lower classes and think they don't matter, they do...

...the middle has shrunk, and we have more new poor. America is not better off...

Whoa this is getting out of hand, the poor don't matter, now the poor matter but the rich don't matter --conversations don't work that way. Madscientist started this saying we're less prosperous than we were 30 years ago. I quoted Fed and BLS numbers that show America with more wealth and more jobs. OK, not everyone likes reality and its hard numbers and lots of people find it easier simply believing all is lost.

A matter of personal choice, but it makes conversation impossible though...

 

[Bill Angel]

Communist China will never run a trade deficit with America. You know why? Because corporate greed does not create their economic policy. They fashion their policy to benefit the communist state, as America used to construct agreements to benefit this nation, instead of a few special interests.

Figures show that other countries hold 4.7 TRILLION dollars worth of US Treasury securities, of which China holds 1.1 TRILLION.

If the US economic engine can't sustain servicing this level of debt (an issue the Republicans were focusing attention on last year in Congress) then a global economic meltdown could occur, which would drag China down with it.

What would be the consequences to China if its holdings of US Government securities were devalued by 50%?

 

[Flopper]

Have you considered that is because free trade is beneficial and not everyone is as stupid as you?

Free trade is beneficial, but beneficial to who [sic]?

A great many people all along the process.

And how have American workers whose jobs have been shipped overseas benefited?

 

[Old_Liberal]

The middle class has definately not shrunk, it's as fat as ever. Nevertheless we shouldn't ignore the lower classes and think they don't matter, they do...

...the middle has shrunk, and we have more new poor. America is not better off...

Whoa this is getting out of hand, the poor don't matter, now the poor matter but the rich don't matter --conversations don't work that way. Madscientist started this saying we're less prosperous than we were 30 years ago. I quoted Fed and BLS numbers that show America with more wealth and more jobs. OK, not everyone likes reality and its hard numbers and lots of people find it easier simply believing all is lost.

A matter of personal choice, but it makes conversation impossible though...

OK, SO HOW CAN AMERICA HAVE MORE JOBS WITH AN UNEMPLOYMENT RATE OF PERHAPS 18 PER CENT?

The success of an economy surely has to take notice of the unemployment and underemployment rate. No?

The wealth in america has been increased largely by the top earners. Middle class wages have been stagnant for over 10 years. As it was shrinking.

 

[edthecynic]

Have you considered that is because free trade is beneficial and not everyone is as stupid as you?

Free trade is beneficial, but beneficial to who [sic]?

A great many people all along the process.

To benefit from free trade you must first understand the Law of Comparative Advantage, and produce goods and trade goods accordingly.

 

[Old_Liberal]

Your childlike notions about economics and significant distance from reality make you a left-wing demagogue's wet dream.

I live in the real world, not some ideological wet dream. .

You have proven exactly the opposite time and time again here.

I have lived under both economic models, since I grew up in the 50s. I have seen what the old one yielded and what the new one yields. The old one created history's largest middle class. The new one will reverse that. By design. Which you cannot see. Your ideology has blinded you to reality.

 

[Old_Liberal]

Free trade is beneficial, but beneficial to who [sic]?

A great many people all along the process.

To benefit from free trade you must first understand the Law of Comparative Advantage, and produce goods and trade goods accordingly.

To benefit from free trade one needs a large poor workforce that will work for much less than the nation that hold the largest consumer market on earth.

The US will never run trade surpluses with a nation like communist china. Yet in our past we aimed for surpluses. At the end of the day, there are winners and losers in trade. We lost. Yet we stay the course only because of the power of special interests upon policy.

Do you know of any examples where the workers prospered in an economic model based upon consumption, but in which those workers did not make what was consumed? In the entire history of the world? If so, I want to see how they could pull off the impossible. A

 

[Old_Liberal]

Communist China will never run a trade deficit with America. You know why? Because corporate greed does not create their economic policy. They fashion their policy to benefit the communist state, as America used to construct agreements to benefit this nation, instead of a few special interests.

Figures show that other countries hold 4.7 TRILLION dollars worth of US Treasury securities, of which China holds 1.1 TRILLION.

If the US economic engine can't sustain servicing this level of debt (an issue the Republicans were focusing attention on last year in Congress) then a global economic meltdown could occur, which would drag China down with it.

What would be the consequences to China if its holdings of US Government securities were devalued by 50%?

The inevitable meltdown. By the way, china is buying up a very large quanity of gold. Tons and tons of it. But they do look to the future, as orientals tend to do.