5 ms·

I'm quite certain that's sarcasm. If it were actually true you'd have already googled the subject and be quietly reading right now. Edit: what the hell, I'll p

I'm quite certain that's sarcasm. If it were actually true you'd have already googled the subject and be quietly reading right now. Edit: what the hell, I'll play your game. "Critics of the TPP reference the failures of NAFTA, which was first conceived during this period by the original champion of trickle-down, Ronald Reagan. Leading up to the 1994 elections, NAFTA garnered bipartisan support, but lone wolf, Independent candidate Ross Perot warned of the "giant sucking sound" that America would hear if NAFTA passed and American jobs were drawn south. Global Trade Watch's assessment of NAFTA's "20 year legacy" demonstrates just how right Perot was. An estimated one million jobs have been lost to NAFTA. It's put downward pressure on wages, and exacerbated America's income gap. And while pre-NAFTA, the U.S carried a trade surplus with Mexico, and was just $26 billion in the hole with Canada--as of 2014, we had a combined trade deficit with both countries of $177 billon." From the following article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/heather-gautney/why-the-transpacific-part_1_b_6598604.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/heather-gautney/why-the-transp... So, in summary: it suppresses wages, costs jobs, and exacerbates income inequality. Market efficiencies created by globalization also have a tendency to drive all but the largest players out of any given market. Surely you don't claim lowered wages and pressure on small to medium sized businesses to try to compete on a global scale are in any way beneficial to the larger populace? You don't honestly believe having access to cheap goods is more beneficial than plentiful, well-paying jobs? Edit: some additional light reading: http://www.citizen.org/nafta http://www.citizen.org/nafta

wpietri 11y ago
If you believe that trade hurts workers, shouldn't we also cut off trade between the states? I think it's hard to deny that in general free trade produces net benefits. (If it didn't, then we would presumably each make all of our own stuff and never trade.) I could well believe that a particular trade deal has problems or is even net bad, and I don't have a strong opinion on NAFTA. But but even if NAFTA is bad says very little about whether all trade is bad.
- knieveltech 11y ago
  I said unregulated trade hurts workers, not all trade. Stating unregulated trade hurts workers isn't a "belief". It's not like it's a faith-based assertion lacking any real world evidence to support it. Trade tarrifs have been used as a revenue stream for the federal government and as a protective measure for domestic industry since the 1700s. The heart of the issue is working class humans benefit from a certain level of market inefficiency. Having many small local concerns engaged in a a particular market segment is inefficient as each has to capitalize equipment and labor force to do essentially the same thing. When the market "optimizes" one of two things happen, wages in that market segment make a run for the bottom, and smaller concerns either consolidate through a series of mergers and acquisitions or they are squeezed out of the market. What you're arguing in favor of is one of the major market forces that is driving income inequality in the US. Are you proposing that trickle down economics actually work?
  - wpietri 11y ago
    I am not proposing that trickle-down economics work. Again, if you believe that unregulated trade hurts workers, shouldn't we stop trade between the US states? My guess is no. Because it's not like your proposing an optimum economy size for maximum worker friendliness. You're just opposing a kind of change from the status quo. I agree that too much industry consolidation is a problem for workers. But I don't think that's a problem of trade. That's a problem that comes whenever you a) increase disparity in power between workers and employers and b) decrease opportunity to switch to a different employer. If we had a situation where no countries traded but each country allowed monopolies to form, workers would be screwed. If, on the other hand, we have free trade but vigorous enforcement of anti-trust and merger review, I think workers can do pretty well. I also agree that increasing trade can shift what industries do well in particular locales, which is good for some workers but bad for others. The obvious solution there is not to protect the inefficient jobs, but to tax the people doing better (some workers, all consumers) and pay for excellent retraining, and to pension off the workers who can't be retrained, and/or fund nonprofits to employ them doing something societally valuable but not profitable. As an example, look at the American auto industry. As a Michigander, I know how devastating the rise of import cars was. But honestly, that industry needed some devastation. They produced low-quality, low-reliability products and then milked consumers on repairs and flim-flam sales techniques. They did provide jobs, but often pretty terrible ones. And none of this was necessary; it's just that consolidation (which, remember, happened without trade) made a cozy oligopoly, leaving management to focus on exploitation. 40 years later they are still struggling to break this pattern, but at least now Americans can buy decent cars at reasonable prices. If you want to hear the costs of your protectionist approach, listen to this TAL episode: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/403/NUMMI http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/403/N... Listen to the pain in the GM workers' voices. Listen to the change that came from working for one of those foreign companies. And then tell me again of how workers benefit from economic inefficiency.
aianus 11y ago
I wasn't being sarcastic, I wanted to hear your reasoning so I could attempt a rebuttal and here it is: With respect to your argument, I would consider Mexicans and Canadians to be part of the 'greater population' I was referring to. Sure, globalization is terrible if you're used to making $20/h with no education in a factory in Detroit. Globalization is great if you're a Chinese peasant who can now earn a meal in an hour at the factory instead of 12h of subsistence farming. Overall I'm pretty sure it's a net positive to humanity at the expense of the American lower-middle class.
- Retra 11y ago
  I don't have a stake in this discussion either way, but it seems to me that you're not quantifying the tradeoffs properly (not that I expect you to, really.) It could very well be the case that the improved earnings of that Chinese peasant are vastly disproportionate to the loss experienced by the factory worker in Detroit. The middle-man transferring the money from one market to the other could be pocketing most of it, leaving the majority of people worse of and in a far weaker political position. And while it may seem to be a net positive to humanity, that could very easily be a relativistic perspective that breaks down in the long term.
  - woah 11y ago
    So, do you believe that there should be no trade allowed between countries at all? What is the right amount of trade, and how did you determine what that is? Is it possible that your determination is wrong?
    - Retra 11y ago
      Of course it's possible that I'm wrong. All I'm saying is that it could go either way. Converting high-quality work for few in exchange for low quality work for many is not an inherently valuable proposition. (Because it often creates extremely-high-quality work for a very few.) You need more information to determine if it is the right thing to do.
icebraining 11y ago
NAFTA isn't free trade. That's the lies the capitalists play with. NAFTA is a mechanism for heavily regulating trade, setting quotas, etc - in essence, state-granted monopolization. https://c4ss.org/content/5231 https://c4ss.org/content/5231
landryraccoon 11y ago
You're saying only Americans matter. Workers in Mexico and China have the same inherent worth as Americans do, and they benefit from free trade.

wpietri 11y ago

If you believe that trade hurts workers, shouldn't we also cut off trade between the states? I think it's hard to deny that in general free trade produces net benefits. (If it didn't, then we would presumably each make all of our own stuff and never trade.) I could well believe that a particular trade deal has problems or is even net bad, and I don't have a strong opinion on NAFTA. But but even if NAFTA is bad says very little about whether all trade is bad.

knieveltech 11y ago
I said unregulated trade hurts workers, not all trade. Stating unregulated trade hurts workers isn't a "belief". It's not like it's a faith-based assertion lacking any real world evidence to support it. Trade tarrifs have been used as a revenue stream for the federal government and as a protective measure for domestic industry since the 1700s. The heart of the issue is working class humans benefit from a certain level of market inefficiency. Having many small local concerns engaged in a a particular market segment is inefficient as each has to capitalize equipment and labor force to do essentially the same thing. When the market "optimizes" one of two things happen, wages in that market segment make a run for the bottom, and smaller concerns either consolidate through a series of mergers and acquisitions or they are squeezed out of the market. What you're arguing in favor of is one of the major market forces that is driving income inequality in the US. Are you proposing that trickle down economics actually work?
- wpietri 11y ago
  I am not proposing that trickle-down economics work. Again, if you believe that unregulated trade hurts workers, shouldn't we stop trade between the US states? My guess is no. Because it's not like your proposing an optimum economy size for maximum worker friendliness. You're just opposing a kind of change from the status quo. I agree that too much industry consolidation is a problem for workers. But I don't think that's a problem of trade. That's a problem that comes whenever you a) increase disparity in power between workers and employers and b) decrease opportunity to switch to a different employer. If we had a situation where no countries traded but each country allowed monopolies to form, workers would be screwed. If, on the other hand, we have free trade but vigorous enforcement of anti-trust and merger review, I think workers can do pretty well. I also agree that increasing trade can shift what industries do well in particular locales, which is good for some workers but bad for others. The obvious solution there is not to protect the inefficient jobs, but to tax the people doing better (some workers, all consumers) and pay for excellent retraining, and to pension off the workers who can't be retrained, and/or fund nonprofits to employ them doing something societally valuable but not profitable. As an example, look at the American auto industry. As a Michigander, I know how devastating the rise of import cars was. But honestly, that industry needed some devastation. They produced low-quality, low-reliability products and then milked consumers on repairs and flim-flam sales techniques. They did provide jobs, but often pretty terrible ones. And none of this was necessary; it's just that consolidation (which, remember, happened without trade) made a cozy oligopoly, leaving management to focus on exploitation. 40 years later they are still struggling to break this pattern, but at least now Americans can buy decent cars at reasonable prices. If you want to hear the costs of your protectionist approach, listen to this TAL episode: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/403/NUMMI http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/403/N... Listen to the pain in the GM workers' voices. Listen to the change that came from working for one of those foreign companies. And then tell me again of how workers benefit from economic inefficiency.

aianus 11y ago

I wasn't being sarcastic, I wanted to hear your reasoning so I could attempt a rebuttal and here it is: With respect to your argument, I would consider Mexicans and Canadians to be part of the 'greater population' I was referring to. Sure, globalization is terrible if you're used to making $20/h with no education in a factory in Detroit. Globalization is great if you're a Chinese peasant who can now earn a meal in an hour at the factory instead of 12h of subsistence farming. Overall I'm pretty sure it's a net positive to humanity at the expense of the American lower-middle class.

Retra 11y ago
I don't have a stake in this discussion either way, but it seems to me that you're not quantifying the tradeoffs properly (not that I expect you to, really.) It could very well be the case that the improved earnings of that Chinese peasant are vastly disproportionate to the loss experienced by the factory worker in Detroit. The middle-man transferring the money from one market to the other could be pocketing most of it, leaving the majority of people worse of and in a far weaker political position. And while it may seem to be a net positive to humanity, that could very easily be a relativistic perspective that breaks down in the long term.
- woah 11y ago
  So, do you believe that there should be no trade allowed between countries at all? What is the right amount of trade, and how did you determine what that is? Is it possible that your determination is wrong?
  - Retra 11y ago
    Of course it's possible that I'm wrong. All I'm saying is that it could go either way. Converting high-quality work for few in exchange for low quality work for many is not an inherently valuable proposition. (Because it often creates extremely-high-quality work for a very few.) You need more information to determine if it is the right thing to do.

icebraining 11y ago

NAFTA isn't free trade. That's the lies the capitalists play with. NAFTA is a mechanism for heavily regulating trade, setting quotas, etc - in essence, state-granted monopolization. https://c4ss.org/content/5231 https://c4ss.org/content/5231

landryraccoon 11y ago

You're saying only Americans matter. Workers in Mexico and China have the same inherent worth as Americans do, and they benefit from free trade.