It's not "cool" to not know what one is talking about...

[Tehon]

Yes, I did cite Peterson Institute's study. Peterson is hardly the only source I cited; moreover, the sources I cited are hardly the only ones that present and analyze (while fully disclosing their methodology) the objective/empirical measures of the impacts of NAFTA specifically or free trade in general and that also attest to the net gains from free trade/NAFTA outstripping the net losses.

Who benefits most and/or who benefits least really doesn't matter so long as most people and the nation as a whole realizes a net benefit rather than a net loss. Why? Because the matter is macroeconomic not personal; it's policy made on a large scale with the aim of benefitting the nation on a similar scale.

It doesn't bother me that folks criticize a given macroeconomic policy. All such policies have "winners and losers," and we can all be sure the "losers" will always gripe about having lost in the exchange. What I find totally unacceptable is that the gripers do so without perspective and without giving credence to all aspects of the matter.

• Not acceptable to me: "I disapprove of free trade because I lost my job because of NAFTA."
• Acceptable to me: "I disapprove of free trade because I lost my job because of NAFTA. Even though the nation and people on the whole are better off due to NAFTA, I still prefer free trade. Yes, I know restricted trade will cause price increases and trade wars, but I still prefer it to free trade."

After all, the consideration of any national level policy is not about any one or few thousand people, it's about what's best for the overwhelming majority of people. The first bullet's expression ignores that underlying theme; the second one does not. That is why I can at least respect the speaker of the second bullet's thoughts; that person has made it clear they know the full scope of their preference. They aren't not pretending or intimating that what's good for them is good for most other folks. That's honest. There's integrity in it.

Free trade Will even itself out in the long we wittnesed that with Japan, we are witnessing that with China, Mexico is a fluke in that ideology being so close to the U.S.

Its taken along time for the industrial revolution to circle the globe, but it will complete it's circle unless technology stops it in it's tracks with 3 d printers and such.

The TPP is going to build a new economic zone of cheap exploitable labor (Vietnam) that is going to counter rising costs in China. Then there are the other costs associated with free trade like the loss of sovereignty of the peoples governments to protect their own interests against the rapaciousness of the capitalists. There is no end to the desire for more profit.

It likely will, but so what if it does?

• China's workers will become ticked off because they demand higher wages than do Vietnamese workers and companies don't want to pay higher wages. Unskilled U.S. workers' situation won't change merely because the companies seeking low cost labor move from China to Vietnam.
• The price of goods produced by even lower cost laborers will go down or go up more slowly. As a consumer, I'm okay with that. Aren't you?

The price of goods produced by even lower cost laborers will go down or go up more slowly. As a consumer, I'm okay with that. Aren't you?

Not really no, I'm not okay with the exploitation of people.

Sorry, but worker exploitation is too far off from the theme of the OP. I'm happy to discuss that with you in a thread that is more directly themed on that topic.

Lol, it doesn't get any more basic than this, which is what I thought was the point of the thread. Understanding the basics.

 

[Hiryuu]

Anyone can look up a definition or fact, but that doesn't mean they have a clue what to do with it. Knowing something, and making it useful or keeping it in perspective are completely different matters. You may know how many termites it would take to eat the average redwood tree in ten years, but if it means you start spraying the forest with poisonous pesticides to get rid of the termites and kill half the vegetation ... You are still an idiot.

 

[320 Years of History]

Free trade Will even itself out in the long we wittnesed that with Japan, we are witnessing that with China, Mexico is a fluke in that ideology being so close to the U.S.

Its taken along time for the industrial revolution to circle the globe, but it will complete it's circle unless technology stops it in it's tracks with 3 d printers and such.

The TPP is going to build a new economic zone of cheap exploitable labor (Vietnam) that is going to counter rising costs in China. Then there are the other costs associated with free trade like the loss of sovereignty of the peoples governments to protect their own interests against the rapaciousness of the capitalists. There is no end to the desire for more profit.

It likely will, but so what if it does?

• China's workers will become ticked off because they demand higher wages than do Vietnamese workers and companies don't want to pay higher wages. Unskilled U.S. workers' situation won't change merely because the companies seeking low cost labor move from China to Vietnam.
• The price of goods produced by even lower cost laborers will go down or go up more slowly. As a consumer, I'm okay with that. Aren't you?

The price of goods produced by even lower cost laborers will go down or go up more slowly. As a consumer, I'm okay with that. Aren't you?

Not really no, I'm not okay with the exploitation of people.

Sorry, but worker exploitation is too far off from the theme of the OP. I'm happy to discuss that with you in a thread that is more directly themed on that topic.

Lol, it doesn't get any more basic than this, which is what I thought was the point of the thread. Understanding the basics.

Blue:
The themes and structure of the thread:

• It's not cool to not know what one is talking about.
• Therefore one should not talk about things one doesn't understand well (know what one is talking about).
  • Offered an example of a topic, the economics of free trade and NAFTA in particular, about which folks have a lot to say, but it's clear to people who do know the topic very well, that many people who say things about economics (economic policy) don't know economics very well, not even the basics of economics.
• There are ample easily accessible ways to obtain highly credible information about whatever it is one may care to talk about.
• Therefore there's no excuse for not knowing what one is talking about.

 

[320 Years of History]

Anyone can look up a definition or fact, but that doesn't mean they have a clue what to do with it. Knowing something, and making it useful or keeping it in perspective are completely different matters. You may know how many termites it would take to eat the average redwood tree in ten years, but if it means you start spraying the forest with poisonous pesticides to get rid of the termites and kill half the vegetation ... You are still an idiot.

You wrote....

AFTA has a greater impact on US jobs losses than cows farting in field have on climate change.

Insofar as you wrote that "pearl" of comparison/contrast...

• Please tell me what makes any sense about comparing/contrasting the quantitative impact of NAFTA with the impact of cow flatulence on climate change?
• Please tell me why it makes any sense at all to compare/contrast the economic impact of NAFTA on U.S. jobs with anything other than what the economic impact on U.S. jobs would have been had nothing changed and NAFTA not been implemented?

Go on, "non-idiot," have at it...elucidate us....

 

[Hiryuu]

Go on, "non-idiot," have at it...elucidate us....

I will start with the fact you think you can speak for us. That's what is at the core of the analogy, and by all means you can think you are brilliant. You make logical, passionate arguments that support your general approach just about everywhere in the CDZ, but unfortunately you would argue with a wall if you thought you were correct in doing so. None of it makes you correct, and you apply as much opinion as fact or logic, then try to call it all the same.

Why the heck would I go about educating you for no damn reason, and that pretty much sums up the OP ...
I would be more interested in anything worthwhile you had to offer, than running around acting like I need to be schooling everyone.

 

[320 Years of History]

Go on, "non-idiot," have at it...elucidate us....

I will start with the fact you think you can speak for us. That's what is at the core of the analogy, and by all means you can think you are brilliant. You make logical, passionate arguments that support your general approach just about everywhere in the CDZ, but unfortunately you would argue with a wall if you thought you were correct in doing so. None of it makes you correct, and you apply as much opinion as fact or logic, then try to call it all the same.

Why the heck would I go about educating you for no damn reason, and that pretty much sums up the OP ...
I would be more interested in anything worthwhile you had to offer, than running around acting like I need to be schooling everyone.

Just answer the question:

You wrote....

AFTA has a greater impact on US jobs losses than cows farting in field have on climate change.

Insofar as you wrote that "pearl" of comparison/contrast...

• Please tell me what makes any sense about comparing/contrasting the quantitative impact of NAFTA with the impact of cow flatulence on climate change?
• Please tell me why it makes any sense at all to compare/contrast the economic impact of NAFTA on U.S. jobs with anything other than what the economic impact on U.S. jobs would have been had nothing changed and NAFTA not been implemented?

 

[Hiryuu]

Just answer the question:

You wrote....

AFTA has a greater impact on US jobs losses than cows farting in field have on climate change.

Insofar as you wrote that "pearl" of comparison/contrast...

• Please tell me what makes any sense about comparing/contrasting the quantitative impact of NAFTA with the impact of cow flatulence on climate change?
• Please tell me why it makes any sense at all to compare/contrast the economic impact of NAFTA on U.S. jobs with anything other than what the economic impact on U.S. jobs would have been had nothing changed and NAFTA not been implemented?

It doesn't make any sense making a direct comparison you nitwit; that's the point. You made an ambiguous statement about what you could or couldn't prove as far as the impact of NAFTA on jobs, so I made an ambiguous comparison with ambiguous farting facts in response. It isn't that hard to understand, unless of course you thought what you said meant a damn thing to start with ...

You have got to be the dumbest smart person I have encountered in a long time. You cannot see past your logic at the crud staring you in the face. "Lighten up junior", that's what the heck it meant.

 

[320 Years of History]

Yet another example of someone talking and not knowing what they are talking about....

Kayleigh McEnany, speaking on CNN:

"Well, look, [Mr. Obama] opened up room for ISIS to grow, by not leaving a stay-behind force in Iraq, by invading Libya, invading Syria, allowing ISIS to grow from a small contingency to 40,000 strong.​

Hugh Hewitt:

"Last night you said the president was the founder of ISIS. I know what you meant. You meant that he created the vacuum, he lost the peace."​

Trump:

"No, I meant he's the founder of ISIS."
​

As absurd as Trump's remarks earlier this week were, anyone with half a brain just figured Trump was speaking topologically. Well, from his response to Mr. Hewitt, it's pretty clear that Trump had no such intent. Nope, not at all...He literally means Mr. Obama founded ISIS just as Bill Gates founded Microsoft.

Forget rhetoric. Forget political hyperbole. Donald Trump actually believes Barack Obama to literally be the founder of ISIS! The man truly has lost his mind, or it's been gone for some time....I don't know which.

What could inspire him to say Mr. Obama founded ISIS? Some possibilities:

• Truly extant racism/bigotry inculcated by his father?
  
  
  
  Fred Trump, Donald's father, whom he idolized his entire life, has been tied to the KKK. Donald's longtime butler recently made some strongly racist rants against Barack Obama. Do we really think Trump didn't know about his butler's views? This paints a picture of a Trump whose views are aligned much more closely with those of his white supremacist supporter, David Duke, than he'd like us to believe.
  
  
• He's genuinely a political fascist? Perhaps entirely of his own choosing; perhaps by dint of influence of his father and/or his father's associates.
  
  
  
  
  
  Even though Trump has said everything and anything, a few clear themes have managed to emerge from his campaign thus far: The rejection of immigration, naked appeals to white identity politics, protectionism, and contempt for elites are all part of the familiar mix of American politics, under the heading of "populism." Trump yet has a long track record of praising authoritarian governments. He praised Putin recently, and in a 1990 Playboy interview, he praised the government of China over its Tiananmen crackdown. He also praised North Korea's leader Kim Jong Un. Trump speaks as someone who plainly believes that the best form of government is authoritarian government, and the best regime is one where there is a Putin-like (or Trump-like) guy in charge.
  
  Donald Trump's entire worldview, as can be determined from his entire life and public record, is pretty much of one thing: the worship of strength. Hence the obsession with status, wealth, and fame. Hence the misogyny, the racism, and the bullying.
  
  When one worships strength and domination, one is liable, as Pilate, to ask "What is truth?" Truth, in Trump's eyes, is but a tool. Or, as Mussolini put it:

If relativism signifies contempt for fixed categories and those who claim to be the bearers of objective immortal truth, then there is nothing more relativistic than Fascist attitudes and activity. From the fact that all ideologies are of equal value, we Fascists conclude that we have the right to create our own ideology and to enforce it with all the energy of which we are capable.
-- "Diuturna"​

• He truly doesn't factually know what he's talking about.

 

[320 Years of History]

Just answer the question:

You wrote....

NAFTA has a greater impact on US jobs losses than cows farting in field have on climate change.

Insofar as you wrote that "pearl" of comparison/contrast...

• Please tell me what makes any sense about comparing/contrasting the quantitative impact of NAFTA with the impact of cow flatulence on climate change?
• Please tell me why it makes any sense at all to compare/contrast the economic impact of NAFTA on U.S. jobs with anything other than what the economic impact on U.S. jobs would have been had nothing changed and NAFTA not been implemented?

It doesn't make any sense making a direct comparison you nitwit; that's the point. You made an ambiguous statement about what you could or couldn't prove as far as the impact of NAFTA on jobs, so I made an ambiguous comparison with ambiguous farting facts in response. It isn't that hard to understand, unless of course you thought what you said meant a damn thing to start with ...

 

[Hiryuu]

Ditto, like I said, "It's just over your head" ...

 

[320 Years of History]

Ditto, like I said, "It's just over your head" ...

​

 

[Hiryuu]

​

Great advice, because your head just doesn't understand ...
And to think, you started this thread wondering how people could be so daft, and provide an abundance of examples at every turn.

 

[320 Years of History]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/15175444/

Case in point of someone just not knowing what they are talking about. The member claims "no other nation has [birthright citizenship]," yet 30 nations, including Canada, do.

I don't take issue with folks saying "I think," or "as far as I know," or "unless I'm mistaken" or "I suspect" or "I guess" or something indicating they realize they are writing something they haven't confirmed what they are writing is indeed so. Is exercising that small bit of discursive/intellectual integrity really asking too much? I don't even understand the point of making a claim one hasn't verified.

 

[320 Years of History]

And here's yet another illustration of my responding to someone not knowing what they are talking about. In this one, you'll see that the member's lack of awareness is due solely to indolence.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/15190403

 

[320 Years of History]

Here again we have a member who's either incredibly slothful or just "ignernt."

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/15192178/

It's not so much that the person is incorrect; it's that he is talking about Social Security tax in response to a post about federal income tax. Maybe he just wants to be contrarian or something....

 

[320 Years of History]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/15205027/

 

[320 Years of History]

And here's yet another illustration of my responding to someone not knowing what they are talking about. In this one, you'll see that the member's lack of awareness is due solely to indolence.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/15190403

And from the very same member we now have a second illustration of their indolence.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/15473518/

 

[320 Years of History]

And yet another illustration of a member not knowing what they are talking about and not paying attention to the details pertaining to what they aim to discuss. In this case, the member has not only ignored the content in a news article, one that the other member cited on their own, s/he has also failed to pay attention to the timing of the article's publication.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/15542810/

 

[GaryDog]

You can demonstrate to just about any trump supporter that "x=x" using photographic, scientific, witness and notarized evidence, but they will insist on "x=y" if "y=beneficial to trump"


Sometimes you catch unintentionally comedic moments where they agree to an argument against y when they're confused about the nature of x. That's always enjoyable.

Problem is, they're often too stupid to understand they've been had. So my pleasure is enjoyed alone.

 

[320 Years of History]

Here we have a member who clearly is not aware of the Founding Father's views, and yet s/he attempts to qualify them as being the views of "right wing extremists.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/15587394/

And as if that weren't bad enough, the member, upon seeing my response in refutation of his misrepresentation of the Founders', asserts that he's unwilling to read the available information, information that is all but "laid at his feet," that would both broaden and correct his understanding.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/15587489/