CDZ NAFTA - good or bad?

S

SingleVoyce

Senior Member
Dec 29, 2015
139
14
56
Donald Trump constantly criticizes NAFTA, calling it "the worst trade deal ever" and claiming that it "has destroyed our country" and promises to withdraw from it if he is elected President.

Do the facts of NAFTA actually justify this rhetoric?

The link below contains some facts about the impact of NAFTA on our economy:

http://www.cfr.org/trade/naftas-economic-impact/p15790
 
I'll read the article later but trade works if it is done fairly, seems kinda obvious. When Japan and China manipulate their monetary system to provide lower prices, then you have problems. In terms of work, I'll link two sites below that give a sense of auto work and how much your car benefits your nation's workers. (pass them on) After housing, automobiles are big sale and profit items. People also forget or miss automation and technology advances. When I started work, technology was mechanical, today it is often automated. Where fifty people once worked to provide a service, now only a few do the same work. Americans need to copy Japan's keiretsu, a system in which they collaborate rather than pretend some imaginary market god is in control. It's kinda funny that Americans buy cars made in German, Korea, and Japanese unions and then castigate their own. Shows you how much corporate propaganda controls the American mind.

2015

http://www.levelfieldinstitute.org

"While it may come as no shock that luxury-car maker Mercedes-Benz came out atop the list of least-recalled brands, with an average 0.41 units recalled per vehicle sold, General Motors, with nearly 100 million vehicles recalled since 1985, actually placed third-best, with 0.65 cars and trucks recalled per unit sold.

Of the 15 major automakers surveyed, Hyundai Motor Company can lay claim to having the worst ratio, with 1.15 vehicles recalled for every model sold since it introduced the Excel to U.S. buyers in 1986. Other brands found to have recalled more cars than they sold in the U.S. over the last 30 years (needless to say this represents a number of cars for which multiple campaigns were initiated) include Mitsubishi, Volkswagen and Volvo; Chrysler broke even, so to speak, with a one-to-one sales-to-recall ratio. (Scroll down for the full results.)" Automakers With The Lowest (And Highest) Recall Rates

'Toyota leads in recalls again in 2013, with tally topping 5 million vehicles'
http://www.autonews.com/article/201...ls-again-in-2013-with-tally-topping-5-million

'Toyota's Out-of-Control Gas Pedals, 2009 & 2010, Size of Recall: 9 million vehicles Models Affected: 2004-2010 Toyota Avalon, Camry, Corolla, Matrix, Highlander, Prius, RAV4, Tundra, Tacoma and various Lexus models.'....Company officials have estimated the cost of the blunder will top $5 billion after all is said and done, making it the costliest recall ever recorded.' 5 Of The Largest Car Recalls In History

896,600 Reasons to Care About the Trans-Pacific Partnership
Press Releases
Alabama Steelworkers Fight for Their Jobs, Angered By Korea Trade Deal


this site
The giant has awakened, the silent majority is silent no more...
The giant has awakened, the silent majority is silent no more...
 
Every American should view anything coming out of the Council on Foreign Relations like the OP's article, with a healthy dose of skepticism. This is a globalist organization that has it's own goals in mind, not ours.

NAFTA is good Mexico bad for us.
 
"NAFTA - good or bad?

It's a good thing.

SingleVoyce said:
Donald Trump constantly criticizes NAFTA, calling it "the worst trade deal ever" and claiming that it "has destroyed our country" and promises to withdraw from it if he is elected President.
Click to expand...

Given the wealth of highly credible information from unbiased sources that shows NAFTA provides net positive returns to the U.S. economy, the burden on Trump when he calls NAFTA "the worst trade deal ever" is to identify specific terms of the NAFTA agreement that he sees as being so bad as to justify that claim -- quantitatively and qualitatively. Has he done that? No.
The CRS is not the only objective organization to examine NAFTA's impact on the U.S. economy.
  • NAFTA’s and CUSFTA’s Impact on International Trade (2004) -- For folks who like to know what the math behind the conclusions is, this is a good article.
    • "NAFTA and CUSFTA have had a substantial effect on international trade quantities, but less effect on prices and welfare in member and non-member countries. Intra North American trade increased most rapidly in commodities where the greatest trade preferences were conferred, even though Canada and the US appear to be high cost producers of many of these commodities. The share of EU imports of the same commodities coming from North America declined. Welfare calculations using the estimated parameters and the paper’s simple static model suggest almost zero welfare impact on member and non-member countries. Of some concern is the possibility that NAFTA and CUSFTA actually increased North American output and prices in many highly-protected sectors by driving out imports from non-member countries."
  • The Effects of NAFTA and United States Farm Policies on Illegal Immigration and Agricultural Trade (2012) -- This is another one that publishes the math behind it's conclusions. This is an article that NAFTA opponents might want to cite as it at least shows some specific negative impacts in the agricultural industry, even though the net impact is not negative. This study analyzes NAFTA (1) theoretically through trade and migration theory and (2) empirically through econometric and simulation analysis of the effects of U.S. farm subsidies and trade liberalization on illegal immigration and agricultural trade between the United States and Mexico.
    • "Using the estimated equations, a dynamic simulation analyzes the effects of NAFTA and U.S. farm policies. The results of the simulation analysis are consistent with the theoretical findings. Specifically:"
      • "NAFTA increased the illegal labor flow to U.S. agriculture by about 3,092 laborers and increases commodity trade by $17.10 billion by the end of NAFTA."
      • "A decrease in subsidies paid to agricultural producers contracts the illegal labor flow to U.S. agriculture by an average of about 1,352 workers and commodity trade by $3.42 billion over the simulation period."
Take a look at that; that is astounding!
I'm dying to see someone explain how some 1700 illegal immigrants is not a reasonable price to pay for $13B in economic gains. Frankly and hypothetically speaking, if someone told me that in order to realize $13B I would have to "look the other way" when 1700 people flow illegally across the border, so long as they "flowed" without being seen -- I'm not willing to just watch folks "stroll" illegally across the border -- I wouldn't spend any resources to look for or interdict them.
 
NAFTA is the least of our (the USA's) worries.

China is the biggest problem and it needs to be fixed.
 
320 Years of History said:
"NAFTA - good or bad?

It's a good thing.

SingleVoyce said:
Donald Trump constantly criticizes NAFTA, calling it "the worst trade deal ever" and claiming that it "has destroyed our country" and promises to withdraw from it if he is elected President.
Click to expand...

Given the wealth of highly credible information from unbiased sources that shows NAFTA provides net positive returns to the U.S. economy, the burden on Trump when he calls NAFTA "the worst trade deal ever" is to identify specific terms of the NAFTA agreement that he sees as being so bad as to justify that claim -- quantitatively and qualitatively. Has he done that? No.
The CRS is not the only objective organization to examine NAFTA's impact on the U.S. economy.
  • NAFTA’s and CUSFTA’s Impact on International Trade (2004) -- For folks who like to know what the math behind the conclusions is, this is a good article.
    • "NAFTA and CUSFTA have had a substantial effect on international trade quantities, but less effect on prices and welfare in member and non-member countries. Intra North American trade increased most rapidly in commodities where the greatest trade preferences were conferred, even though Canada and the US appear to be high cost producers of many of these commodities. The share of EU imports of the same commodities coming from North America declined. Welfare calculations using the estimated parameters and the paper’s simple static model suggest almost zero welfare impact on member and non-member countries. Of some concern is the possibility that NAFTA and CUSFTA actually increased North American output and prices in many highly-protected sectors by driving out imports from non-member countries."
  • The Effects of NAFTA and United States Farm Policies on Illegal Immigration and Agricultural Trade (2012) -- This is another one that publishes the math behind it's conclusions. This is an article that NAFTA opponents might want to cite as it at least shows some specific negative impacts in the agricultural industry, even though the net impact is not negative. This study analyzes NAFTA (1) theoretically through trade and migration theory and (2) empirically through econometric and simulation analysis of the effects of U.S. farm subsidies and trade liberalization on illegal immigration and agricultural trade between the United States and Mexico.
    • "Using the estimated equations, a dynamic simulation analyzes the effects of NAFTA and U.S. farm policies. The results of the simulation analysis are consistent with the theoretical findings. Specifically:"
      • "NAFTA increased the illegal labor flow to U.S. agriculture by about 3,092 laborers and increases commodity trade by $17.10 billion by the end of NAFTA."
      • "A decrease in subsidies paid to agricultural producers contracts the illegal labor flow to U.S. agriculture by an average of about 1,352 workers and commodity trade by $3.42 billion over the simulation period."
Take a look at that; that is astounding!
I'm dying to see someone explain how some 1700 illegal immigrants is not a reasonable price to pay for $13B in economic gains. Frankly and hypothetically speaking, if someone told me that in order to realize $13B I would have to "look the other way" when 1700 people flow illegally across the border, so long as they "flowed" without being seen -- I'm not willing to just watch folks "stroll" illegally across the border -- I wouldn't spend any resources to look for or interdict them.
Click to expand...
The numbers you are quoting originate from a "dynamic simulation with estimated equations". My experience with simulations and models is they are extremely prone to the GIGO syndrome: Garbage In Garbage Out. I would not have much confidence in the '1700 illegals in exchange for 13.1 billion in economic gain' assertion.
 
MarathonMike said:
320 Years of History said:
"NAFTA - good or bad?

It's a good thing.

SingleVoyce said:
Donald Trump constantly criticizes NAFTA, calling it "the worst trade deal ever" and claiming that it "has destroyed our country" and promises to withdraw from it if he is elected President.
Click to expand...

Given the wealth of highly credible information from unbiased sources that shows NAFTA provides net positive returns to the U.S. economy, the burden on Trump when he calls NAFTA "the worst trade deal ever" is to identify specific terms of the NAFTA agreement that he sees as being so bad as to justify that claim -- quantitatively and qualitatively. Has he done that? No.
The CRS is not the only objective organization to examine NAFTA's impact on the U.S. economy.
  • NAFTA’s and CUSFTA’s Impact on International Trade (2004) -- For folks who like to know what the math behind the conclusions is, this is a good article.
    • "NAFTA and CUSFTA have had a substantial effect on international trade quantities, but less effect on prices and welfare in member and non-member countries. Intra North American trade increased most rapidly in commodities where the greatest trade preferences were conferred, even though Canada and the US appear to be high cost producers of many of these commodities. The share of EU imports of the same commodities coming from North America declined. Welfare calculations using the estimated parameters and the paper’s simple static model suggest almost zero welfare impact on member and non-member countries. Of some concern is the possibility that NAFTA and CUSFTA actually increased North American output and prices in many highly-protected sectors by driving out imports from non-member countries."
  • The Effects of NAFTA and United States Farm Policies on Illegal Immigration and Agricultural Trade (2012) -- This is another one that publishes the math behind it's conclusions. This is an article that NAFTA opponents might want to cite as it at least shows some specific negative impacts in the agricultural industry, even though the net impact is not negative. This study analyzes NAFTA (1) theoretically through trade and migration theory and (2) empirically through econometric and simulation analysis of the effects of U.S. farm subsidies and trade liberalization on illegal immigration and agricultural trade between the United States and Mexico.
    • "Using the estimated equations, a dynamic simulation analyzes the effects of NAFTA and U.S. farm policies. The results of the simulation analysis are consistent with the theoretical findings. Specifically:"
      • "NAFTA increased the illegal labor flow to U.S. agriculture by about 3,092 laborers and increases commodity trade by $17.10 billion by the end of NAFTA."
      • "A decrease in subsidies paid to agricultural producers contracts the illegal labor flow to U.S. agriculture by an average of about 1,352 workers and commodity trade by $3.42 billion over the simulation period."
Take a look at that; that is astounding!
I'm dying to see someone explain how some 1700 illegal immigrants is not a reasonable price to pay for $13B in economic gains. Frankly and hypothetically speaking, if someone told me that in order to realize $13B I would have to "look the other way" when 1700 people flow illegally across the border, so long as they "flowed" without being seen -- I'm not willing to just watch folks "stroll" illegally across the border -- I wouldn't spend any resources to look for or interdict them.
Click to expand...
The numbers you are quoting originate from a "dynamic simulation with estimated equations". My experience with simulations and models is they are extremely prone to the GIGO syndrome: Garbage In Garbage Out. I would not have much confidence in the '1700 illegals in exchange for 13.1 billion in economic gain' assertion.
Click to expand...

Yes, when one puts "garbage" into a program, one will get "garbage" results out of it. The thing about that, however, is that if one is going to challenge a study on that basis, then it's incumbent upon the challenger to show what aspects of the data input or the operations performed on the data by the program make the data be "garbage."

Since you've made the claim that you don't accept the study's results based on "GIGO theory," do tell, specifically what about the data used in the study or how the researchers processed them indicates GIGO is in play? I'm not saying you are wrong. I'm saying show me how and why you are correct because I read the study and I'm okay with accepting the results, but perhaps I missed something you see in the discussion about the data and/or how it was processed.
 
320 Years of History said:
MarathonMike said:
320 Years of History said:
"NAFTA - good or bad?

It's a good thing.

SingleVoyce said:
Donald Trump constantly criticizes NAFTA, calling it "the worst trade deal ever" and claiming that it "has destroyed our country" and promises to withdraw from it if he is elected President.
Click to expand...

Given the wealth of highly credible information from unbiased sources that shows NAFTA provides net positive returns to the U.S. economy, the burden on Trump when he calls NAFTA "the worst trade deal ever" is to identify specific terms of the NAFTA agreement that he sees as being so bad as to justify that claim -- quantitatively and qualitatively. Has he done that? No.
The CRS is not the only objective organization to examine NAFTA's impact on the U.S. economy.
  • NAFTA’s and CUSFTA’s Impact on International Trade (2004) -- For folks who like to know what the math behind the conclusions is, this is a good article.
    • "NAFTA and CUSFTA have had a substantial effect on international trade quantities, but less effect on prices and welfare in member and non-member countries. Intra North American trade increased most rapidly in commodities where the greatest trade preferences were conferred, even though Canada and the US appear to be high cost producers of many of these commodities. The share of EU imports of the same commodities coming from North America declined. Welfare calculations using the estimated parameters and the paper’s simple static model suggest almost zero welfare impact on member and non-member countries. Of some concern is the possibility that NAFTA and CUSFTA actually increased North American output and prices in many highly-protected sectors by driving out imports from non-member countries."
  • The Effects of NAFTA and United States Farm Policies on Illegal Immigration and Agricultural Trade (2012) -- This is another one that publishes the math behind it's conclusions. This is an article that NAFTA opponents might want to cite as it at least shows some specific negative impacts in the agricultural industry, even though the net impact is not negative. This study analyzes NAFTA (1) theoretically through trade and migration theory and (2) empirically through econometric and simulation analysis of the effects of U.S. farm subsidies and trade liberalization on illegal immigration and agricultural trade between the United States and Mexico.
    • "Using the estimated equations, a dynamic simulation analyzes the effects of NAFTA and U.S. farm policies. The results of the simulation analysis are consistent with the theoretical findings. Specifically:"
      • "NAFTA increased the illegal labor flow to U.S. agriculture by about 3,092 laborers and increases commodity trade by $17.10 billion by the end of NAFTA."
      • "A decrease in subsidies paid to agricultural producers contracts the illegal labor flow to U.S. agriculture by an average of about 1,352 workers and commodity trade by $3.42 billion over the simulation period."
Take a look at that; that is astounding!
I'm dying to see someone explain how some 1700 illegal immigrants is not a reasonable price to pay for $13B in economic gains. Frankly and hypothetically speaking, if someone told me that in order to realize $13B I would have to "look the other way" when 1700 people flow illegally across the border, so long as they "flowed" without being seen -- I'm not willing to just watch folks "stroll" illegally across the border -- I wouldn't spend any resources to look for or interdict them.
Click to expand...
The numbers you are quoting originate from a "dynamic simulation with estimated equations". My experience with simulations and models is they are extremely prone to the GIGO syndrome: Garbage In Garbage Out. I would not have much confidence in the '1700 illegals in exchange for 13.1 billion in economic gain' assertion.
Click to expand...

Yes, when one puts "garbage" into a program, one will get "garbage" results out of it. The thing about that, however, is that if one is going to challenge a study on that basis, then it's incumbent upon the challenger to show what aspects of the data input or the operations performed on the data by the program make the data be "garbage."

Since you've made the claim that you don't accept the study's results based on "GIGO theory," do tell, specifically what about the data used in the study or how the researchers processed them indicates GIGO is in play? I'm not saying you are wrong. I'm saying show me how and why you are correct because I read the study and I'm okay with accepting the results, but perhaps I missed something you see in the discussion about the data and/or how it was processed.
Click to expand...

Obviously I am not privy to the input data used by this simulation. My response was intended to point out that it is dangerous to state the resuts of a simulation as an accurate fact. People not familiar with simulations all too often accept the results at face value, e.g. Climate Change. In a politically charged world, everything should be questioned.
 
MarathonMike said:
320 Years of History said:
MarathonMike said:
320 Years of History said:
"NAFTA - good or bad?

It's a good thing.

SingleVoyce said:
Donald Trump constantly criticizes NAFTA, calling it "the worst trade deal ever" and claiming that it "has destroyed our country" and promises to withdraw from it if he is elected President.
Click to expand...

Given the wealth of highly credible information from unbiased sources that shows NAFTA provides net positive returns to the U.S. economy, the burden on Trump when he calls NAFTA "the worst trade deal ever" is to identify specific terms of the NAFTA agreement that he sees as being so bad as to justify that claim -- quantitatively and qualitatively. Has he done that? No.
The CRS is not the only objective organization to examine NAFTA's impact on the U.S. economy.
  • NAFTA’s and CUSFTA’s Impact on International Trade (2004) -- For folks who like to know what the math behind the conclusions is, this is a good article.
    • "NAFTA and CUSFTA have had a substantial effect on international trade quantities, but less effect on prices and welfare in member and non-member countries. Intra North American trade increased most rapidly in commodities where the greatest trade preferences were conferred, even though Canada and the US appear to be high cost producers of many of these commodities. The share of EU imports of the same commodities coming from North America declined. Welfare calculations using the estimated parameters and the paper’s simple static model suggest almost zero welfare impact on member and non-member countries. Of some concern is the possibility that NAFTA and CUSFTA actually increased North American output and prices in many highly-protected sectors by driving out imports from non-member countries."
  • The Effects of NAFTA and United States Farm Policies on Illegal Immigration and Agricultural Trade (2012) -- This is another one that publishes the math behind it's conclusions. This is an article that NAFTA opponents might want to cite as it at least shows some specific negative impacts in the agricultural industry, even though the net impact is not negative. This study analyzes NAFTA (1) theoretically through trade and migration theory and (2) empirically through econometric and simulation analysis of the effects of U.S. farm subsidies and trade liberalization on illegal immigration and agricultural trade between the United States and Mexico.
    • "Using the estimated equations, a dynamic simulation analyzes the effects of NAFTA and U.S. farm policies. The results of the simulation analysis are consistent with the theoretical findings. Specifically:"
      • "NAFTA increased the illegal labor flow to U.S. agriculture by about 3,092 laborers and increases commodity trade by $17.10 billion by the end of NAFTA."
      • "A decrease in subsidies paid to agricultural producers contracts the illegal labor flow to U.S. agriculture by an average of about 1,352 workers and commodity trade by $3.42 billion over the simulation period."
Take a look at that; that is astounding!
I'm dying to see someone explain how some 1700 illegal immigrants is not a reasonable price to pay for $13B in economic gains. Frankly and hypothetically speaking, if someone told me that in order to realize $13B I would have to "look the other way" when 1700 people flow illegally across the border, so long as they "flowed" without being seen -- I'm not willing to just watch folks "stroll" illegally across the border -- I wouldn't spend any resources to look for or interdict them.
Click to expand...
The numbers you are quoting originate from a "dynamic simulation with estimated equations". My experience with simulations and models is they are extremely prone to the GIGO syndrome: Garbage In Garbage Out. I would not have much confidence in the '1700 illegals in exchange for 13.1 billion in economic gain' assertion.
Click to expand...

Yes, when one puts "garbage" into a program, one will get "garbage" results out of it. The thing about that, however, is that if one is going to challenge a study on that basis, then it's incumbent upon the challenger to show what aspects of the data input or the operations performed on the data by the program make the data be "garbage."

Since you've made the claim that you don't accept the study's results based on "GIGO theory," do tell, specifically what about the data used in the study or how the researchers processed them indicates GIGO is in play? I'm not saying you are wrong. I'm saying show me how and why you are correct because I read the study and I'm okay with accepting the results, but perhaps I missed something you see in the discussion about the data and/or how it was processed.
Click to expand...

Obviously I am not privy to the input data used by this simulation. My response was intended to point out that it is dangerous to state the resuts of a simulation as an accurate fact. People not familiar with simulations all too often accept the results at face value, e.g. Climate Change. In a politically charged world, everything should be questioned.
Click to expand...

Red:
Obviously you didn't read the document. You most certainly are privy to the data used. The document authors don't literally lay the data in your lap, but they do tell you what data set they used and they provide a link to website from which one may obtain it. I looked, and it took me all of 30 seconds to find it.


Blue:
As shown by the "red" statement and the fact that you are indeed privy to the data used for the study, you are keen to question things that don't fit some vision residing in your mind, but you aren't keen actually go find the answers.

I don't have a problem with questioning things. I question all sorts of things. Where I have problems with questioning is as follows:
  • I have a problem with questioning things and not then answering them.
  • I have a problem with folks using the mere fact that they raised a question as an indication that that which they questioned is invalid or inaccurate.
  • I have a problem with folks using questions as innuendos when the questioner is unwilling or unable to refute the assertions they challenge with rigor equal to that which supports the assertions they challenged.
 
SingleVoyce said:
Donald Trump constantly criticizes NAFTA, calling it "the worst trade deal ever" and claiming that it "has destroyed our country" and promises to withdraw from it if he is elected President.

Do the facts of NAFTA actually justify this rhetoric?

The link below contains some facts about the impact of NAFTA on our economy:

http://www.cfr.org/trade/naftas-economic-impact/p15790
Click to expand...

There was offshoring of jobs before, but nafta put it on steroids. I've seen some statistics where it did better for the country, and statistics where it did worse. In my own experience, people who lost their jobs to nafta got lesser paid jobs and cut back on expenses, or got two jobs to make up for the loss. I heard Nafta would be bad for Mexican farms and it was, since USA flooded Mexico with it's subsidized agriculture products. It created a mass exodus to the big cities of Mexico and to the USA. Anybody ever see a company go to Mexico or China and then see the product that company produces have a big price drop? Just asking. Ford's building a plant in Mexico. Let's see if those cars come with a much cheaper price. Right.
 
jasonnfree said:
SingleVoyce said:
Donald Trump constantly criticizes NAFTA, calling it "the worst trade deal ever" and claiming that it "has destroyed our country" and promises to withdraw from it if he is elected President.

Do the facts of NAFTA actually justify this rhetoric?

The link below contains some facts about the impact of NAFTA on our economy:

http://www.cfr.org/trade/naftas-economic-impact/p15790
Click to expand...

There was offshoring of jobs before, but nafta put it on steroids. I've seen some statistics where it did better for the country, and statistics where it did worse. In my own experience, people who lost their jobs to nafta got lesser paid jobs and cut back on expenses, or got two jobs to make up for the loss. I heard Nafta would be bad for Mexican farms and it was, since USA flooded Mexico with it's subsidized agriculture products. It created a mass exodus to the big cities of Mexico and to the USA. Anybody ever see a company go to Mexico or China and then see the product that company produces have a big price drop? Just asking. Ford's building a plant in Mexico. Let's see if those cars come with a much cheaper price. Right.
Click to expand...

That's an interesting question. I was unable to locate any information about prices before and after any company moved manufacturing to Mexico. There are many examples relative to China (e.g. Apple products). Anyway - in the process of trying to find that info, I came across the following article about what it means to be "made in USA" and I thought it was interesting though somewhat off topic:

Products Made in America - Consumer Reports Magazine
 
jasonnfree said:
There was offshoring of jobs before, but nafta put it on steroids. I've seen some statistics where it did better for the country, and statistics where it did worse. In my own experience, people who lost their jobs to nafta got lesser paid jobs and cut back on expenses, or got two jobs to make up for the loss. I heard Nafta would be bad for Mexican farms and it was, since USA flooded Mexico with it's subsidized agriculture products. It created a mass exodus to the big cities of Mexico and to the USA. Anybody ever see a company go to Mexico or China and then see the product that company produces have a big price drop? Just asking. Ford's building a plant in Mexico. Let's see if those cars come with a much cheaper price. Right.
Click to expand...

Red:
Addressed already. The figures below come from here: The Effects of NAFTA and United States Farm Policies on Illegal Immigration and Agricultural Trade
320 Years of History said:
Take a look at that; that is astounding!
Click to expand...

Net immigration boost of some 1700 people doesn't strike me as anything we in the U.S. can rightly call a "mass exodus."

Blue (relative price):
I have to ask, do you want to have a discussion of the impact of free trade on prices, relative prices, which derives from comparative advantage? Or do you want to discuss the price of specific products, price level or nominal price, which is a function of things other than free trade -- monetary factors/policy (inflation is but one), marketing decisions, and microeconomic choices? I cannot tell which because you are in your paragraph above conflating disparate concepts.

Let's begin the some basic and relevant economic definitions for this discussion. These aren't a matter of whether I think the terms should or should not be be defined as show. It is how economists define them and use them accordingly. Period.

Types of Prices -- Definitions (copy paste from what amounts to being a standard economics textbook provided solely for convenience)

Nominal and Real Prices
  • The "nominal price" of a good is its value in terms of money, such as dollars, French francs, or yen.
  • The "relative" or "real price" is its value in terms of some other good, service, or bundle of goods.
The term "relative price" is used to make comparisons of different goods at the same moment of time. The term "real price" tends to be used to make comparisons of one good to a group or bundle of other goods across different time periods, such as one year to the next. For example:
  • Nominal price:
    • That CD costs $18.
    • Japan's science and technology spending costs its taxpayers about 3 trillion yen per year.
  • Relative price:
    • A year of college costs about the value of a Toyota Camry.
    • Those tickets to see Lady Gaga cost me three weeks' worth of food.
  • Real price:
    • The real price of coffee rose in the last year, so to buy a pound of coffee I now have to skip a day of croissants or buy fewer songs on iTunes.
    • My cost of living rose 2% last year in real terms.
Looking at the definitions above, one sees that economics has terms for and distinguishes among the various nature of prices. Common sense tells one that a layperson, someone not schooled in economics, most likely will not. Rather such individuals will focus their thoughts in terms of the prices they pay at the checkout counter or the wage they earn at work. That lay folks when considering free trade don't often think of prices in terms of relative prices, that they don't consider wages as just another price -- "wage" is just a term for the price of labor -- and that they don't think of employers as consumers of labor, though understandable, is a consequence of not incorporating comparative advantage into their ponderings and results in their failing to grasp (thus they disagree with) what economics/economists assert regarding the gains of free trade, most especially when the discussion the turns to free trade and wages. Be that as it may, the price gains from free trade are relative price gains not nominal price gains.


With definitions out of the way, let's get back to the topic at hand. Now fortunately for me (because I won't have to write it all out myself), there is a great "discussion" that took place between three blog writers wherein they address in general and nuanced terms how free trade lowers prices. I strongly suggest reading them because since they have done so and done it well, I'm not going to to.
Additionally, The Economist has a great "connecting the dots" essay on the matter of free trade, prices and politics that is well worth reading.


Blue and Pink (correlating nominal price with relative price):
I'm not at all clear on why you asked the "pink-blue" question because the answer to it is readily available. I'll point you to some sites that will facilitate your obtaining an objective, empirical, answer to your question, but I'm not going to do it for you. You strike me as the sort who needs to do it for yourself because my simply telling you the answer that the research will produce is almost certain, IMO, to result in a reply saying I'm wrong.

(That's been the trend with so many other economic points that I've made or explained here, and I see no reason to think it won't repeat itself. I'm preparing to end my term on USMB, so I'm at the point of saying "I'll do my best in a discrete sense to help folks 'get it' -- the economics of things -- but I'm no longer willing to forcefully argue the point with folks who routinely show by their remarks that they don't really understand economics. That's not an insult; it's not about members here. It's about me and what it is about me is apathy. I truly don't any longer care enough to bother.) ​

One thing worth noting is that one's choice of prior year can have a huge impact on whether a price has become more impactful to consumers. That, along with other things, can be seen in the graphic below.

​

Here're some sites that one may use to examine how relative and nominal prices have changed over time (pay close attention to whether prices shown are inflation adjusted or not):
There you go. You should be able to figure out using those resources each of the following:
  • The rate of price change before and after the implementation of free trade agreements and China's entry into the WTO (the impact of that being that the U.S. can't arbitrarily impose tariffs on imported Chinese goods)
  • The relative cost of goods/services over time
  • The impact of price changes on individuals in various income brackets
  • The change in the price of comparably functional goods/services (e.g., an electric typewriter vs. a word processing software package, or a typewriter vs a word processing package, a personal computer and printer)
  • Get a sense of how technology has affected the prices of things
  • Roughly measure the impact of technology in our lives and thus the corresponding price impact.
 
Trade promotes peace and prosperity on balance. It causes short-term pain in some areas, and long-term gain for all. Small-minded people like Trump, however, will exploit the short-term pain for some for political purposes, without regard for the long-term consequences.
 
GaryDog said:
Trade promotes peace and prosperity on balance. It causes short-term pain in some areas, and long-term gain for all. Small-minded people like Trump, however, will exploit the short-term pain for some for political purposes, without regard for the long-term consequences.
Click to expand...

Trump, like other pols, also exploit the fact that very few folks fully understand the economics of free trade and constrained trade and no pols or news outlets that I'm aware of make any effort whatsoever to actually explain those details so that voters/listeners become well informed about those details before arriving at their conclusions about them.

I understand the practical reasons why pols don't do so; it's just not the kind of thing one can cover in a tweet or five minute speech/press conference. News organizations don't do so for their own pragmatic reasons: the information itself is not sensational enough to attract viewers, thus ratings, thus advertisers, thus revenue. The combination of the pols' and news outlets' reasons for not publicizing the information results in huge swaths of the citizenry having to make decisions about the merit and demerits of economic policy based on conventional wisdom, aka "common sense."

Now, as anyone who's ever taken principles of macroeconomics will readily attest, the way economics actually works and what it actually "says" and what "common sense" would lead one to intuit are rarely aligned. The consequence of that, however, is, again, that many citizens embrace sophistic lines of thought about economic policy, and insofar as most folks aren't wealthy enough that the errors in their thinking have little to no real impact on their lifestyle. Once one by one's vote authorizes politicians to implement economic policies that are in fact deleterious to one's overall and long term financial well being, it's too late to undo it and the long term impacts are being felt. That even as citizens suffer the impacts they still have not obtained or been given the information needed to "now" make a better decision doesn't help.

For example, consider NAFTA. NAFTA was touted as a free trade agreement that would create jobs. Well NAFTA is a free trade agreement. It did reduce restrictions on trade among the U.S., Canada and Mexico. It did create jobs, although not many of them. What folks, in particular non college degree holding folks, didn't figure out on their own, and what nobody told them either by implication or directly, was that the jobs that would be created would be ones they at the time lacked the skills to obtain and that if they wanted to get those jobs, they'd need to develop new skills.

Given that, what NAFTA wrought was at the worst job displacement not job loss and at the best minimal new job creation. The Economic Policy Institute’s Robert Scott, an economist, wrote in a Sept. 2006 report that "[e]xport growth since 1994 [when NAFTA went into effect] supported an additional 1 million U.S. jobs, while imports displaced domestic production that would support 2 million jobs." That’s a net "displacement," not an actual "loss," of 1 million jobs. That assessment, however, is not universally agreed upon. The Carnegie Endowment's John J. Audley et al wrote, "NAFTA’s net effect on jobs in the United States has been minuscule, given the size of the U.S. economy and the importance of other trading partners. The best models to date suggest that NAFTA has caused either no net change in employment or a very small net gain of jobs." Also in 2004, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service evaluated four studies on the subject, including the Carnegie Endowment’s, and said that "NAFTA had little or no impact on aggregate employment." It also concluded, contrary to Scott’s report, that "NAFTA did not cause the widening U.S. trade deficit with Mexico."

That NAFTA's implementation coincided with the Technology Revolution which resulted in vast process automation implementations further confounds lay folks' ability to isolate the impact of NAFTA on job/job type availability (or lack thereof) from automation's impact on it. We look at technology and think of it as a good thing, moreover. We like the digital gizmos in our cars and homes. We like our computer chips that enable and automate all sorts of things for us. And we don't much see robots unless we work somewhere where robots operate as well. Thus most folks, I suspect, don't really have a good sense of just how pervasive technology automation has shifted the nature of work from tangible to intangible.

Politicians, their strategists and aides are well aware of all these things at a very detailed level, and they also are well aware that most folks aren't. That lack of detailed understanding among the polity allows politicians to "spin" pretty much anything anyway they want to in order to appeal to voters and thereby keep their elected offices.

P.S.
It also doesn't help that most folks are reluctant to put in the time on their own to get informed even the general level of understanding the principles of macroeconomics despite the fact that doing so would require reading and studying only about 500 pages of information that will be useful for the remainder of one's life, which amounts to reading just over a page a day for a year. I've seen that demonstrated over and over right here on USMB. Repeatedly I've posted links to the economic information folks need to understand things like the economic impacts of free trade, incidence of a tax, "loopholes" in the tax code, etc., and I can count on one hand the number of folks who have responded to those posts with remarks that reflect an awareness of the information found at the links I included.
 
It really comes down to politicians being rendered unable to tell the truth to their constituencies, i.e., things are changing, and they''ll leave you behind if you don't improve your skillset.

Jimmy Carter learned the hard way that you cannot tell the truth to the American people as a politician and expect to keep your job. Hence I shoot a jaundiced eye toward anyone who bemoans the unique dishonesty of politicians, as if we expect - in fact DEMAND - any different.
 
GaryDog said:
It really comes down to politicians being rendered unable to tell the truth to their constituencies, i.e., things are changing, and they''ll leave you behind if you don't improve your skillset.

Jimmy Carter learned the hard way that you cannot tell the truth to the American people as a politician and expect to keep your job. Hence I shoot a jaundiced eye toward anyone who bemoans the unique dishonesty of politicians, as if we expect - in fact DEMAND - any different.
Click to expand...

I don't at all chide the politicians for their prevarication and paltering because, as you note, they are responding to the stimuli they receive from the electorate. I do, however, chide pols for not acting to raise our national/cultural ethics. They are leaders and doing that is part of leading. Now as for what I bemoan, well, it's the nature of the the polity and culture that provides the stimuli that leads to pols' being manipulative as they are.
 
Vehicles assembled in the USA but are sold in Mexico are tariffed by the Mexican government. But vehicles sold in the USA that are assembled in Mexico are not tariffed? Why do you think that companies like Ford move vehicle assembly to Mexico? It's simple they don't want to pay UAW wages and benefits. It is simply less expensive to build your products in Mexico and ship them to the consumers in the USA.

H Ross Perot said that the great sucking sound heard when NAFTA was signed was our jobs leaving the country.
 
Southern Dad said:
Vehicles assembled in the USA but are sold in Mexico are tariffed by the Mexican government. But vehicles sold in the USA that are assembled in Mexico are not tariffed? Why do you think that companies like Ford move vehicle assembly to Mexico? It's simple they don't want to pay UAW wages and benefits. It is simply less expensive to build your products in Mexico and ship them to the consumers in the USA.

H Ross Perot said that the great sucking sound heard when NAFTA was signed was our jobs leaving the country.
Click to expand...

I don't know what objective information you have in mind and that inspired the remarks above. Are you referring to the 2009 retaliatory tariff action? Perhaps you are referring to this: For a candidate who argues that free trade has led to the hollowing-out of U.S. manufacturing, the most ironic cut may be that car companies are building in Mexico rather than the United States, largely because it has freer trade than the United States does with the rest of the world.

I don't know what you are talking about. I cannot find anything supporting your assertion. I can find lots that does not support it. The closest thing to it that I have found is this:

Other information I came upon while attempting to verify your claim:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Would you consider Donald Trump a good businessman?

< Previous Thread

Robot Technology's Dissemination Throughout Manufacturing

Next Thread >

Similar threads

shockedcanadian
Justin Trudeau and Donald Trump had some bad moments and some oddly friendly ones — but here’s what will really matter if Trump is re-elected
Replies
14
Views
419
JoeB131
JoeB131
H
Trump election win would be 'calamitous' for Australian trade
2
Replies
37
Views
902
Blaster
Blaster
Luckyone
40 Million Jobs Depend on Trade
Replies
10
Views
121
Concerned American
Concerned American
Sherlock Holmes
Trump wills and wonts
11 12 13
Replies
250
Views
1K
BackAgain
BackAgain
D
Kamala Harris and the Ukrainian crisis
Replies
11
Views
312
zaangalewa
zaangalewa

Latest Discussions

Dont Taz Me Bro
Congressman Jeff Van Drew (R-NJ) Claims Drones are Iranian
2
Replies
29
Views
130
LAUGHatLEFTISTS
L
CrusaderFrank
After the Smear Hit job on Hegseth, MSM should not be invited to Press briefings
2 3 4
Replies
65
Views
520
JoeB131
JoeB131
Road Runner
Zone1 Mary
11 12 13
Replies
245
Views
2K
ding
ding
Luckyone
Is Ben Wikler the Future of the Democratic party? Nominee for President 2028?
2
Replies
33
Views
86
Thinker101
Thinker101
berg80
Would a trump supporter like to take a shot at explaining this?
Replies
12
Views
25
Billiejeens
B
View more…

Forum List

Back
Top