- Thread starter
- #21
That’s true. The confirmed Russian interference did not prevent her from campaigning in those states.So she lost the states because she thought they were in the bag…………political blunder and not Russia Russia Russia......Hillary would have signed TPP which would have cost us more...........
And she wouldn't have went toe to toe with trade abuses against our country as Trump has done.
Which is exactly why they lost traditional states in the election.............The Trade Unions turned Red for Trump...........and the rest is history.......
She lost there because she didn’t campaign there.
The largest trade union, NAM; has this on their website:
View attachment 200506
While they do recognize some disparities in NAFTA, they support the multi-national agreement. As we will see in the not-too-distant future, needlessly picking fights with our allies is stupid.
nam.org
Russia’s interference in the election, criminal hacking that Trump’s team was well aware of, is well documented.
I remember the Unions jumping ship and arguing over the TPP..........some ready to endorse Trump over it.........
In this interconnected age, voluntarily leaving the markets of your trading partners is dumb. Trump sold them BS; they bought it. As did you.
So I keep hearing all these arguments, "oh all those people are being replaced by robots" as the company moves its manufacturing to Mexico. What? No robots in Mexico?
They can build the cars anywhere, so, if other countries make it difficult for the source being from America, to in effect, destroy your economy and jobs, America will return the favor of cars made in Canada or Europe. This whole global argument is bunk, because it's not as if there is some special skillset available in Canada or Mexico that isn't available in America.
Competition=lower prices.
No competition=higher prices.
Erecting barriers to keep competition out means higher prices. Oldest law in economics.
Globalization has little to do with it in the micro. In the macro where you not only have to worry about economics but politics, national influence, etc…. allowing your international competitions to supplant your influence in one arena gives them a foothold in the others.
Subsidized competition = fewer jobs in the U.S.
Fair competition and tariffs = more jobs in the U.S.
Erecting fair barriers means no trade deficit. Trade deficits matter, funding government matters, jobs and tax revenue matter.