Minimum Wage --Prevents-- Wealth Acquisition!

[Boss]

Actually... The one good thing that can be said for NAFTA.

Well you can say many good things about free trade as our Constitution did with the commerce clause. Even back then our genius founders knew that economic development was being slowed because states were protecting themselves from free trade.

The Commerce Clause has nothing to do with foreign trade deals. States are not independent countries... they weren't even that before the Constitution. We're all on the same playing field in the same system, therefore "free trade" between the states is fair and equitable.

The same cannot be said for our foreign trade deals made by imbeciles. We are taking it in the shorts with China and Japan. NAFTA has been disastrous for us because we now export our jobs to Mexico.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Had the US let mexico develop on its own instead making it a trading partner those 20 or 40 million would be in the other side of the border .
Still over your head Ed ?

1000% stupid and liberal as always. Mexico and all of Central South America were always dirt poor and always were coming here. How stupid are you? They are here only because liberals want their vote and because Trump hasn't built his wall yet!! It has nothing to do with NAFTA you total moron.

Yes , Mexico has allways been a poor country.

Try corralating this two images :
A) The purchasing power of mexican wages start collapsing after 1976, which causes immigration to start rising
B) By 1984 wages start to recover
C) In 1994 they collapse again , and never recover their pre-nafta levels

The number of illegals tripled after NAFTA from 4 to 12 million. The cause is the collapse in purchasing power.
But NAFTA has not helped at all in recovering that purchasing power.

Look at how immigration explodes after 1990 and it doesn't stop until Dubya's crisis. Oh , you can thank him on that he, single handedly halted immigration.

On top of that many small corn producers were displaced by cheap corn imports comming from the USA.
It is mostly peasents flooding the USA.

Why are you dishonestly showing graphs regarding legal immigrants from Mexico? No one is opposed to Mexican-born Americans. The argument is not about Mexican-born people. You have seemingly been a reasonable person in other threads. Someone with a little more intelligence than the average liberal and I appreciate that... but this is not characteristic of you, to be promoting a false liberal meme that Republicans are somehow racist against Mexicans. That OUR problem is them dirty Mexicans stinking up the place. No one I know has made that argument, at least not on a mainstream national stage. So why are we continuing to see this 'bait and switch' tactic?

Had the US let mexico develop on its own instead making it a trading partner those 20 or 40 million would be in the other side of the border .
Still over your head Ed ?

1000% stupid and liberal as always. Mexico and all of Central South America were always dirt poor and always were coming here. How stupid are you? They are here only because liberals want their vote and because Trump hasn't built his wall yet!! It has nothing to do with NAFTA you total moron.

Yes , Mexico has allways been a poor country.

Try corralating this two images :
A) The purchasing power of mexican wages start collapsing after 1976, which causes immigration to start rising
B) By 1984 wages start to recover
C) In 1994 they collapse again , and never recover their pre-nafta levels

The number of illegals tripled after NAFTA from 4 to 12 million. The cause is the collapse in purchasing power.
But NAFTA has not helped at all in recovering that purchasing power.

Look at how immigration explodes after 1990 and it doesn't stop until Dubya's crisis. Oh , you can thank him on that he, single handedly halted immigration.

On top of that many small corn producers were displaced by cheap corn imports comming from the USA.
It is mostly peasents flooding the USA.

Why are you dishonestly showing graphs regarding legal immigrants from Mexico? No one is opposed to Mexican-born Americans. The argument is not about Mexican-born people. You have seemingly been a reasonable person in other threads. Someone with a little more intelligence than the average liberal and I appreciate that... but this is not characteristic of you, to be promoting a false liberal meme that Republicans are somehow racist against Mexicans. That OUR problem is them dirty Mexicans stinking up the place. No one I know has made that argument, at least not on a mainstream national stage. So why are we continuing to see this 'bait and switch' tactic?

Boss,
No foul play there : The chart doesn't specify whether that mexican-born population arrived legaly or illegaly into the US.

But let's be honest , most of them are illegal ( I am actually having a hard time finding any data on legal residents , it's probably somehere in the census bureau ) . So here is another chart with allmost the same data , covering a different period of time.

Now , back to my base argument : NAFTA didn't fullfill its promise, increasing the number of wages and the purchasing power in Mexico, hence the continued migration ( that is what I was arguing with special Ed ) .

5 facts about illegal immigration in the U.S.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. We're all on the same playing field in the same system, therefore "free trade" between the states is fair and equitable.
.

wrong wrong wrong!! States had very different ethnic populations, they had their own currencies, their own world views, their own industries, and they had no understanding of economics and so thought crippling protection and trade wars made sense.

Our genius founders knew better!!

 

[Dad2three]

BZZ wrong Bubba, yes Dubya changed Clinton RULES that disallowed SUBPRIME LOANS QUALIFYING FOR THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING GOALS, but ZERO to do with Dubya FORCING F/F TO PURCHASE THE $440 BILLION IN MBS'S FROM THE BANKSTERS IN THEIR WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE BUBBA!1!

BZZZ.. I've already corrected your stupidity regarding this. The actual problem started with the introduction of ARMs back in 1980, something that Carter did.... surprise, surprise! Then repealing Glass-Steagall in 1999, something Clinton did...surprise, surprise! Then you get to Dubya's non-conservative compassionism to make it easy for low-income families to purchase homes. When the bottom fell out on home prices, ALL OF THESE POLICIES resulted in a collapse of the financial sector. To try and blame it all on Bush is typical of the lying piece of shit hack you are.

"Another form of easing facilitated the rapid rise of mortgages that didn't require borrowers to fully document their incomes. In 2006, these low- or no-doc loans comprised 81 percent of near-prime, 55 percent of jumbo, 50 percent of subprime and 36 percent of prime securitized mortgages."

Q HOLY JESUS! DID YOU JUST PROVE THAT OVER 50 % OF ALL MORTGAGES IN 2006 DIDN'T REQUIRE BORROWERS TO DOCUMENT THEIR INCOME?!?!?!?

A Yes.


PLEASE NAME THE LAW REQUIRING OVER HALF OF MORTGAGES TO BE SUBPRIME/LOW DOC LOANS IN 2006? PRETTY PLEASE?



Q WHO THE HELL LOANS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO PEOPLE WITHOUT CHECKING THEIR INCOMES?!?!?

A Banks.

Q WHY??!?!!!?!

A Two reasons, greed and Bush's regulators let them. And then they sold the loan and risk to investors and GSEs clamoring for the loans. Actually banks, pension funds, investment banks and other investors clamored for them. Bush forced Freddie and Fannie to buy an additional $440 billion in mortgages in the secondary market.


June 17, 2004


Builders to fight Bush's low-income plan


NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday.


Home builders fight Bush's low-income housing - Jun. 17, 2004


Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime

Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis.

What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge?

Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye

In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative


Eliot Spitzer - Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime

Actually there were laws in force since the Carter Administration, in the 70s.

In practice, they gave the 3 most powerful (but non-productive) credit rating corporations free reign over the US economy.

Basically, via federal law, all of the 3 major credit reporting agencies decided who was credit-worthy enough to get a loan to buy real estate. Any bank was allowed to give someone a loan, and any insurance company was disallowed from saying, "Hey! this is bullshit!" to those people who obviously can't afford the payments to buy that house.

Didn't matter to the loan company salesmen because they are paid by commission. The more loans they approve, the more moola they get. And the insurance agents had the same motivation. Greed. The more insurance policies they sell, the more money they get paid.

Hell at least you get points for originality Bubba, lol

Hint NO FEDERAL LAW GAVE ANY COMP (MUCH LESS THE CREDIT RATING AGENCIES) " all of the 3 major credit reporting agencies decided who was credit-worthy enough to get a loan to buy real estate"

THAT'S NONSENSE

You just think it's nonsense because you're clueless.

Right Bubba, I give DOZENS of credible links using logic, studies and credible sources, you say it was Carter/Clinton's fault AND LEAVE IT AT THAT? LOL *shaking head*

WEIRD HOW IT JUST HAPPENED TO BUBBLE UNDER DUBYA (LIKE RONNIE';S S&L REGULATOR FAILURE AND HARDING/COOLIDGE'S REGULATOR FAILURE) RIGHT?

 

[Dad2three]

Oh another guy who hasn't outgrown his Randian fetish that has NEVER worked ANYWHERE EVER. Weird

too stupid and 100% liberal!! Our founders were very very Libertarian and they created greatest country in human history by far!! Dumbto3 is so dumb he think our founders were communists

Sure Bubba, sure, THAT'S why they used HEAVY protectionists policies AND had Gov't hand in the economy *shaking head*]


\\

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

WEIRD HOW IT JUST HAPPENED TO BUBBLE UNDER DUBYA

why weird given the W and the country were liberal and let the soviet interventions continue until Fan/Fred held 74% of the subprime Alt A mortgages?

 

[Dad2three]

SURE IS FUKKN WEIRD, YOUR THEORY DIDN'T SEEM TO WORK PRE MIN WAGE IN THE US RIGHT BUBS? lol

Well it seemed to work from 1642 until 1933.

Sure Bubba, PRE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION ON FARMS? lol


Hint there was about 80% of the nation living in ABJECT poverty pre PROGRESSIVE POLICIES LIKE MIN WAGE, SS, UNION RIGHTS, ETC. Grow up and grow a brain and get off your Randian fetish that has NEVER been used successfully EVER ANYWHERE!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

had Gov't hand in the economy *shaking head*]

100% stupid if they our Founders had significant hand in economy through Constitution you would not be so afraid to tell us where. What does your fear teach us? The total illiterate has no idea that our Founders were libertarians

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Randian fetish that has NEVER been used successfully EVER ANYWHERE!

America is Randian or libertarian and is the most successful country in human history by far

 

[Dad2three]

Had the US let mexico develop on its own instead making it a trading partner those 20 or 40 million would be in the other side of the border .
Still over your head Ed ?

1000% stupid and liberal as always. Mexico and all of Central South America were always dirt poor and always were coming here. How stupid are you? They are here only because liberals want their vote and because Trump hasn't built his wall yet!! It has nothing to do with NAFTA you total moron.

Actually... The one good thing that can be said for NAFTA is that it has probably curbed some illegal immigration by providing jobs in Mexico.

• NAFTA has produced a disappointingly small net gain in jobs in Mexico. Data limitations preclude an exact tally, but it is clear that jobs created in export manufacturing have barely kept pace with jobs lost in agriculture due to imports.
• 
  
• 
  
• There has also been a decline in domestic manufacturing employment, related in part to import competition and perhaps also to the substitution of foreign inputs in assembly operations. About 30 percent of the jobs that were created in the maquiladora assembly plants in the 1990s have since disappeared. Many of these operations were relocated to lower- wage countries, particularly China.
  

• Mexican agriculture has been a net loser in trade with the United States, and employment in the sector has declined sharply. U.S. exports of subsidized crops such as corn have depressed agricultural prices in Mexico. The rural poor have borne the brunt of adjustment to NAFTA and have been forced to adapt without adequate government support.
  
  
• Productivity has increased in Mexico over the last decade. NAFTA likely played a significant role, because Mexico cut tariffs deeply and was exposed to competition from its giant neighbors. The desirable growth in productivity may have had the unwanted side effect of reducing the rate of job growth, since fewer new jobs were created as workers already on payrolls produced more.
  
  
• Real wages for most Mexicans today are lower than when NAFTA took effect. The stunning setback in wages is mainly attributable to the peso crisis of 1994-1995. However, during the NAFTA period, productivity growth has not translated into wage growth, as it did in earlier periods in Mexico. Mexican wages are also diverging from, rather than converging with, U.S. and Canadian wages.
  
  
• Income inequality has been on the rise in Mexico since NAFTA took effect, reversing a brief declining trend in the early 1990s. Compared to the period before NAFTA, the top 10 percent of households have increased their share of national income, while the other 90 percent have lost income share or seen no change. Regional inequality within Mexico has also increased, reversing a long-term trend toward convergence in regional incomes.
  
  
• The experience of Mexico confirms the prediction of trade theory, that there will be winners and losers from trade. The losers may be as numerous as, or even more numerous than, the winners, especially in the short-to-medium term. In Mexico, farmers are still struggling to adapt to NAFTA-induced changes.
  
  
• The short-to-medium?term adjustment costs faced by the losers from trade can be severe, and in Mexico the losers are often those segments of society least able to cope with adjustment, due to insufficient skills, meager savings, and limited mobility. It must also be recognized that there may be permanent losers from trade, due to these limitations.
  

Click here to download PDF

 

[Dad2three]

Actually... The one good thing that can be said for NAFTA.

Well you can say many good things about free trade as our Constitution did with the commerce clause. Even back then our genius founders knew that economic development was being slowed because states were protecting themselves from free trade.

Yet the Founders CHOSE to use HEAVY PROTECTIONISTS POLICIES. Go figure, lol

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Yet the Founders CHOSE to use HEAVY PROTECTIONISTS POLICIES. Go figure, lol

if so the total idiot illiterate liberal would not be so afraid to name the policy!! What does his fear teach us??

 

[Dad2three]

Randian fetish that has NEVER been used successfully EVER ANYWHERE!

America is Randian or libertarian and is the most successful country in human history by far

LMAOROG


(Re-)Introducing: The American School of Economics


When the United States became independent from Britain it also rebelled against the British System of economics, characterized by Adam Smith, in favor of the American School based on protectionism and infrastructure and prospered under this system for almost 200 years to become the wealthiest nation in the world. Unrestrained free trade resurfaced in the early 1900s culminating in the Great Depression and again in the 1970s culminating in the current Economic Meltdown.



Closely related to mercantilism, it can be seen as contrary to classical economics. It consisted of these three core policies:

1. protecting industry through selective high tariffs (especially 1861–1932) and through subsidies (especially 1932–70)
2. government investments in infrastructure creating targeted internal improvements (especially in transportation)
3. a national bank with policies that promote the growth of productive enterprises rather than speculation

It is a capitalist economic school based on the Hamiltonian economic program.] The American School of capitalism was intended to allow the United States to become economically independent and nationally self-sufficient.



Frank Bourgin's 1989 study of the Constitutional Convention shows that direct government involvement in the economy was intended by the Founders.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_School_(economics)#cite_note-bourgin-16



The goal, most forcefully articulated by Hamilton, was to ensure that dearly won political independence was not lost by being economically and financially dependent on the powers and princes of Europe. The creation of a strong central government able to promote science, invention, industry and commerce, was seen as an essential means of promoting the general welfare and making the economy of the United States strong enough for them to determine their own destiny.


American School (economics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Randian fetish that has NEVER been used successfully EVER ANYWHERE!

America is Randian or libertarian and is the most successful country in human history by far

LMAOROG


(Re-)Introducing: The American School of Economics


When the United States became independent from Britain it also rebelled against the British System of economics, characterized by Adam Smith, in favor of the American School based on protectionism and infrastructure and prospered under this system for almost 200 years to become the wealthiest nation in the world. Unrestrained free trade resurfaced in the early 1900s culminating in the Great Depression and again in the 1970s culminating in the current Economic Meltdown.



Closely related to mercantilism, it can be seen as contrary to classical economics. It consisted of these three core policies:

1. protecting industry through selective high tariffs (especially 1861–1932) and through subsidies (especially 1932–70)
2. government investments in infrastructure creating targeted internal improvements (especially in transportation)
3. a national bank with policies that promote the growth of productive enterprises rather than speculation

It is a capitalist economic school based on the Hamiltonian economic program.] The American School of capitalism was intended to allow the United States to become economically independent and nationally self-sufficient.



Frank Bourgin's 1989 study of the Constitutional Convention shows that direct government involvement in the economy was intended by the Founders.



The goal, most forcefully articulated by Hamilton, was to ensure that dearly won political independence was not lost by being economically and financially dependent on the powers and princes of Europe. The creation of a strong central government able to promote science, invention, industry and commerce, was seen as an essential means of promoting the general welfare and making the economy of the United States strong enough for them to determine their own destiny.


American School (economics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

100% stupid and illiterate as always. Our Founders govt was 1% the size of today's on an inflation adjusted per capita basis which is why conservatives and libertarians would go back to it if possible and liberals would not. Is that simple enough for the idiot to understand/

 

[Dad2three]

Randian fetish that has NEVER been used successfully EVER ANYWHERE!

America is Randian or libertarian and is the most successful country in human history by far

LMAOROG


(Re-)Introducing: The American School of Economics


When the United States became independent from Britain it also rebelled against the British System of economics, characterized by Adam Smith, in favor of the American School based on protectionism and infrastructure and prospered under this system for almost 200 years to become the wealthiest nation in the world. Unrestrained free trade resurfaced in the early 1900s culminating in the Great Depression and again in the 1970s culminating in the current Economic Meltdown.



Closely related to mercantilism, it can be seen as contrary to classical economics. It consisted of these three core policies:

1. protecting industry through selective high tariffs (especially 1861–1932) and through subsidies (especially 1932–70)
2. government investments in infrastructure creating targeted internal improvements (especially in transportation)
3. a national bank with policies that promote the growth of productive enterprises rather than speculation

It is a capitalist economic school based on the Hamiltonian economic program.] The American School of capitalism was intended to allow the United States to become economically independent and nationally self-sufficient.



Frank Bourgin's 1989 study of the Constitutional Convention shows that direct government involvement in the economy was intended by the Founders.



The goal, most forcefully articulated by Hamilton, was to ensure that dearly won political independence was not lost by being economically and financially dependent on the powers and princes of Europe. The creation of a strong central government able to promote science, invention, industry and commerce, was seen as an essential means of promoting the general welfare and making the economy of the United States strong enough for them to determine their own destiny.


American School (economics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

100% stupid and illiterate as always. Our Founders govt was 1% the size of today's on an inflation adjusted per capita basis which is why conservatives and libertarians would go back to it if possible and liberals would not. Is that simple enough for the idiot to understand/

No you simple idiot, SIZE OF GOV'T?? LOL You mean when the Founders chose the BIG FEDERAL CONSTITUTION over that LIBERTARIAN "Articles of CONfederation" that was more states rights Bubs? lol



WHERE'S MY $10,000 AT DUMMY? You NEVER gave me one POLICY that conservatives have EVER been on the correct side of US history yet Bubs

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

You mean when the Founders chose the BIG FEDERAL CONSTITUTION

big???? when it created a tiny govt 1% the size of todays on an inflation adjusted per capita basis.

See why we say dumbto3. Is any other conclusion possible?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

You NEVER gave me one POLICY that conservatives have EVER been on the correct side of US history yet Bubs

Republican policy was to hang those who spied for the Stalin while liberal policy was to let them them go on theory that Stalin was a great guy on the right side of history!

See why we say dumbto3? Is any other conclusion possible?

 

[Dad2three]

You NEVER gave me one POLICY that conservatives have EVER been on the correct side of US history yet Bubs

Republican policy was to hang those who spied for the Stalin while liberal policy was to let them them go on theory that Stalin was a great guy on the right side of history!

See why we say dumbto3? Is any other conclusion possible?

Keep showing how ignorant you are Bubs, my lil yellow bus friend, lol

 

[Dad2three]

You mean when the Founders chose the BIG FEDERAL CONSTITUTION

big???? when it created a tiny govt 1% the size of todays on an inflation adjusted per capita basis.

See why we say dumbto3. Is any other conclusion possible?

You keep GIVING that nonsense (1% adjusted) like it's true, PLEASE give me a source? lol


YES, THE FOUNDERS CHOSE THE BIG FEDERAL GOV'T CONSTITUTION OVER THE LIBERTARIAN "ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION" STATES RIGHTS ONE! Weird right?

 

[Muhammed]

BZZZ.. I've already corrected your stupidity regarding this. The actual problem started with the introduction of ARMs back in 1980, something that Carter did.... surprise, surprise! Then repealing Glass-Steagall in 1999, something Clinton did...surprise, surprise! Then you get to Dubya's non-conservative compassionism to make it easy for low-income families to purchase homes. When the bottom fell out on home prices, ALL OF THESE POLICIES resulted in a collapse of the financial sector. To try and blame it all on Bush is typical of the lying piece of shit hack you are.

"Another form of easing facilitated the rapid rise of mortgages that didn't require borrowers to fully document their incomes. In 2006, these low- or no-doc loans comprised 81 percent of near-prime, 55 percent of jumbo, 50 percent of subprime and 36 percent of prime securitized mortgages."

Q HOLY JESUS! DID YOU JUST PROVE THAT OVER 50 % OF ALL MORTGAGES IN 2006 DIDN'T REQUIRE BORROWERS TO DOCUMENT THEIR INCOME?!?!?!?

A Yes.


PLEASE NAME THE LAW REQUIRING OVER HALF OF MORTGAGES TO BE SUBPRIME/LOW DOC LOANS IN 2006? PRETTY PLEASE?



Q WHO THE HELL LOANS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO PEOPLE WITHOUT CHECKING THEIR INCOMES?!?!?

A Banks.

Q WHY??!?!!!?!

A Two reasons, greed and Bush's regulators let them. And then they sold the loan and risk to investors and GSEs clamoring for the loans. Actually banks, pension funds, investment banks and other investors clamored for them. Bush forced Freddie and Fannie to buy an additional $440 billion in mortgages in the secondary market.


June 17, 2004


Builders to fight Bush's low-income plan


NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday.


Home builders fight Bush's low-income housing - Jun. 17, 2004


Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime

Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis.

What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge?

Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye

In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative


Eliot Spitzer - Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime

Actually there were laws in force since the Carter Administration, in the 70s.

In practice, they gave the 3 most powerful (but non-productive) credit rating corporations free reign over the US economy.

Basically, via federal law, all of the 3 major credit reporting agencies decided who was credit-worthy enough to get a loan to buy real estate. Any bank was allowed to give someone a loan, and any insurance company was disallowed from saying, "Hey! this is bullshit!" to those people who obviously can't afford the payments to buy that house.

Didn't matter to the loan company salesmen because they are paid by commission. The more loans they approve, the more moola they get. And the insurance agents had the same motivation. Greed. The more insurance policies they sell, the more money they get paid.

Hell at least you get points for originality Bubba, lol

Hint NO FEDERAL LAW GAVE ANY COMP (MUCH LESS THE CREDIT RATING AGENCIES) " all of the 3 major credit reporting agencies decided who was credit-worthy enough to get a loan to buy real estate"

THAT'S NONSENSE

You just think it's nonsense because you're clueless.

Right Bubba

Eat my shit Leroy,

The main reason why people like you stay stupid is not merely your genetics, It's because you cannot admit when you are wrong.