4 ms·

This is also true. They were foolish to vote for the kind of person who left them jobless. They thought it wise to vote for the only person promising them somet

This is also true. They were foolish to vote for the kind of person who left them jobless. They thought it wise to vote for the only person promising them something. The latter happened because they're too superficial: most districts vote out the honest, well-performing folks early. That superficial "he-said-she-said" stuff is what they need to stop doing the most.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
toomuchtodo 9y ago
> They were foolish to vote for the kind of person who left them jobless. Clinton's policies would've left them just as jobless (by way of her supporting the TPP, finishing off those crippled by NAFTA, which was a project of Clinton's husband during his presidential stint). When in doubt, vote for the person who says they'll burn everything down, which appears to be on schedule.
- nickpsecurity 9y ago
  A great, Democrat example of: "most districts vote out the honest, well-performing folks early." Leave us to Trump or Hillary by the end of it. Russian roulette has better odds of success.
  - toomuchtodo 9y ago
    I'd like to point out that the DNC argued in a court room that it's totally within their right to pick their candidate while smoking cigars in a back room, votes be damned; nobody voted for that. https://medium.com/theyoungturks/dnc-we-can-legally-choose-candidate-over-cigars-in-back-room-e3026730e252 https://medium.com/theyoungturks/dnc-we-can-legally-choose-c... We could have voluntarily decided that, ‘Look, we’re gonna go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way,’” Bruce Spiva, lawyer for the DNC, said during a court hearing in Carol Wilding, et al. v. DNC Services Corp
    - mistermann 9y ago
      And pro-Democrat voters enthusiastically avoid this fact. The state of politics in the West is just terrible.
- woodruffw 9y ago
  I think it's worth noting that there's a big gap in the perception of NAFTA (and its ilk) and their actual consequences. In terms of actual consequences NAFTA has had almost no effect on the US economy, either positive or negative: a 2003 CBO report found that it had increased the US's GDP by only a few billion dollars[1]. Different sides have presented job loss and gain in different industries over the last 20 years as evidence of enormous failure or success, but the reality is that the 20+ million growth in overall employment since NAFTA has probably been normal economic growth. The real benefits of agreements like NAFTA for the US are geopolitical stability and economic dominance - Mexico is asymmetrically dependent upon us for trade, and that dependency has been central to their willingness to cooperate in border migration and drug policing efforts (which are arguably terrible uses of power, but are good examples of the influence brought by trade). The TPP presents (or presented) similar opportunities in Asia. I don't reject the claim that people feel disenfranchised by trade agreements, or that the industrial-service shift has harmed millions of previously middle-class Americans. However, trade agreements can't be blamed for either of those: the first is a political talking point, and the second is unavoidable in a developed country with a chronic aversion to new job training and safety nets for workers. [1]: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/14461 https://www.cbo.gov/publication/14461
  - mistermann 9y ago
    > In terms of actual consequences NAFTA has had almost no effect on the US economy, either positive or negative: a 2003 CBO report found that it had increased the US's GDP by only a few billion dollars[1]. Compared to speculation as to what the economy would have been without NAFTA. > The real benefits of agreements like NAFTA for the US are geopolitical stability and economic dominance Which the US didn't have before? If anything, the US is far less dominant now. > The TPP presents (or presented) similar opportunities in Asia. Asia is eating the US's lunch without China even being competitive at the top of the value chain, which isn't too far away. When they achieve that, things will start to deteriorate even more rapidly.
    - woodruffw 9y ago
      > Compared to speculation as to what the economy would have been without NAFTA. Sure, but it's just that: speculation. The reality is that the economy and jobs market have both grown, with no aid or detriment from NAFTA. > Which the US didn't have before? If anything, the US is far less dominant now. In terms of our relationships with Mexico and Canada? We're 50% of Mexico's imports [1], and 54% of Canada's [2]. I can't really dispute the feeling that we're less dominant. All I can say is that agreements like NAFTA and TPP are designed and refined with US economic interests in mind. When we leave the negotiating table, we lose our primary chance at advantageous trade agreements. > Asia is eating the US's lunch without China even being competitive at the top of the value chain, which isn't too far away. When they achieve that, things will start to deteriorate even more rapidly. If this is true, then trade agreements are especially vital. Developing economies need investment, and they're going to get it one way or another. [1]: http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/mex/ http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/mex/ [2]: http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/can/ http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/can/
- mbreese 9y ago
  NAFTA went into force under Clinton, but was negotiated by Bush. By the time Clinton came around, it was a done deal waiting for congressional approval. Bush tried to get it done before he left office, but ran out of time.
Pyxl101 9y ago
> They were foolish to vote for the kind of person who left them jobless. What 'kind' of person are you referring to? I think you might be over-generalizing. Trump has long been opposed to outsourcing American jobs, reportedly. In any case, we should differentiate between the actions of individual business owners, and the policy that establishes the playing field. For example, current US corporate tax policy creates a strong incentive for many businesses to keep their cash overseas, and not repatriate it and pay the tax. You can criticize each individual company that operates in this way, such as Apple, but if you want to fix the problem, you need to look to policy solutions like changing the tax law. A person can be in favor of changing policy even while they optimize within the current policy framework. For example: a wealthy person might be in favor of a tax on the wealthy even as they personally employ all available techniques to reduce their tax burden; there is no contradiction. No rational citizen will pay higher tax than the code obligates. Criticizing individuals who optimize their actions within the current policy framework isn't productive. We should expect everyone to operate according to the current policies, laws, and incentives -- and if we don't like those, then we should change them through the political process. So even if you consider Trump as somehow in the same category as company owners who ship jobs overseas, the point that you shouldn't overlook Trump's stated policy objective to create jobs in the US and remove the incentives to ship them overseas.
- nickpsecurity 9y ago
  "What 'kind' of person are you referring to? I think you might be over-generalizing. Trump has long been opposed to outsourcing American jobs, reportedly." How many employees does he have overseas? And how much does he depend on overseas goods when generating his wealth or power despite local ones available? I have a guess on one aspect given he spends a lot of time on Twitter using a smartphone that isn't 100% American despite he and others here having ability to fund one. Decent reasons, too, if we're talking espionage.
  - mistermann 9y ago
    The parent comment addressed this phenomenon, although in a different context: > A person can be in favor of changing policy even while they optimize within the current policy framework. For example: a wealthy person might be in favor of a tax on the wealthy even as they personally employ all available techniques to reduce their tax burden; there is no contradiction. No rational citizen will pay higher tax than the code obligates. If you manufacture in the US while all your competitors manufacture overseas, you will go bankrupt, and would largely lose the ability to advocate for returning manufacturing the the US. Whether Trump is being honest in his promises is beside the point.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

toomuchtodo 9y ago

> They were foolish to vote for the kind of person who left them jobless. Clinton's policies would've left them just as jobless (by way of her supporting the TPP, finishing off those crippled by NAFTA, which was a project of Clinton's husband during his presidential stint). When in doubt, vote for the person who says they'll burn everything down, which appears to be on schedule.

nickpsecurity 9y ago
A great, Democrat example of: "most districts vote out the honest, well-performing folks early." Leave us to Trump or Hillary by the end of it. Russian roulette has better odds of success.
- toomuchtodo 9y ago
  I'd like to point out that the DNC argued in a court room that it's totally within their right to pick their candidate while smoking cigars in a back room, votes be damned; nobody voted for that. https://medium.com/theyoungturks/dnc-we-can-legally-choose-candidate-over-cigars-in-back-room-e3026730e252 https://medium.com/theyoungturks/dnc-we-can-legally-choose-c... We could have voluntarily decided that, ‘Look, we’re gonna go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way,’” Bruce Spiva, lawyer for the DNC, said during a court hearing in Carol Wilding, et al. v. DNC Services Corp
  - mistermann 9y ago
    And pro-Democrat voters enthusiastically avoid this fact. The state of politics in the West is just terrible.
woodruffw 9y ago
I think it's worth noting that there's a big gap in the perception of NAFTA (and its ilk) and their actual consequences. In terms of actual consequences NAFTA has had almost no effect on the US economy, either positive or negative: a 2003 CBO report found that it had increased the US's GDP by only a few billion dollars[1]. Different sides have presented job loss and gain in different industries over the last 20 years as evidence of enormous failure or success, but the reality is that the 20+ million growth in overall employment since NAFTA has probably been normal economic growth. The real benefits of agreements like NAFTA for the US are geopolitical stability and economic dominance - Mexico is asymmetrically dependent upon us for trade, and that dependency has been central to their willingness to cooperate in border migration and drug policing efforts (which are arguably terrible uses of power, but are good examples of the influence brought by trade). The TPP presents (or presented) similar opportunities in Asia. I don't reject the claim that people feel disenfranchised by trade agreements, or that the industrial-service shift has harmed millions of previously middle-class Americans. However, trade agreements can't be blamed for either of those: the first is a political talking point, and the second is unavoidable in a developed country with a chronic aversion to new job training and safety nets for workers. [1]: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/14461 https://www.cbo.gov/publication/14461
- mistermann 9y ago
  > In terms of actual consequences NAFTA has had almost no effect on the US economy, either positive or negative: a 2003 CBO report found that it had increased the US's GDP by only a few billion dollars[1]. Compared to speculation as to what the economy would have been without NAFTA. > The real benefits of agreements like NAFTA for the US are geopolitical stability and economic dominance Which the US didn't have before? If anything, the US is far less dominant now. > The TPP presents (or presented) similar opportunities in Asia. Asia is eating the US's lunch without China even being competitive at the top of the value chain, which isn't too far away. When they achieve that, things will start to deteriorate even more rapidly.
  - woodruffw 9y ago
    > Compared to speculation as to what the economy would have been without NAFTA. Sure, but it's just that: speculation. The reality is that the economy and jobs market have both grown, with no aid or detriment from NAFTA. > Which the US didn't have before? If anything, the US is far less dominant now. In terms of our relationships with Mexico and Canada? We're 50% of Mexico's imports [1], and 54% of Canada's [2]. I can't really dispute the feeling that we're less dominant. All I can say is that agreements like NAFTA and TPP are designed and refined with US economic interests in mind. When we leave the negotiating table, we lose our primary chance at advantageous trade agreements. > Asia is eating the US's lunch without China even being competitive at the top of the value chain, which isn't too far away. When they achieve that, things will start to deteriorate even more rapidly. If this is true, then trade agreements are especially vital. Developing economies need investment, and they're going to get it one way or another. [1]: http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/mex/ http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/mex/ [2]: http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/can/ http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/can/
mbreese 9y ago
NAFTA went into force under Clinton, but was negotiated by Bush. By the time Clinton came around, it was a done deal waiting for congressional approval. Bush tried to get it done before he left office, but ran out of time.

Pyxl101 9y ago

> They were foolish to vote for the kind of person who left them jobless. What 'kind' of person are you referring to? I think you might be over-generalizing. Trump has long been opposed to outsourcing American jobs, reportedly. In any case, we should differentiate between the actions of individual business owners, and the policy that establishes the playing field. For example, current US corporate tax policy creates a strong incentive for many businesses to keep their cash overseas, and not repatriate it and pay the tax. You can criticize each individual company that operates in this way, such as Apple, but if you want to fix the problem, you need to look to policy solutions like changing the tax law. A person can be in favor of changing policy even while they optimize within the current policy framework. For example: a wealthy person might be in favor of a tax on the wealthy even as they personally employ all available techniques to reduce their tax burden; there is no contradiction. No rational citizen will pay higher tax than the code obligates. Criticizing individuals who optimize their actions within the current policy framework isn't productive. We should expect everyone to operate according to the current policies, laws, and incentives -- and if we don't like those, then we should change them through the political process. So even if you consider Trump as somehow in the same category as company owners who ship jobs overseas, the point that you shouldn't overlook Trump's stated policy objective to create jobs in the US and remove the incentives to ship them overseas.

nickpsecurity 9y ago
"What 'kind' of person are you referring to? I think you might be over-generalizing. Trump has long been opposed to outsourcing American jobs, reportedly." How many employees does he have overseas? And how much does he depend on overseas goods when generating his wealth or power despite local ones available? I have a guess on one aspect given he spends a lot of time on Twitter using a smartphone that isn't 100% American despite he and others here having ability to fund one. Decent reasons, too, if we're talking espionage.
- mistermann 9y ago
  The parent comment addressed this phenomenon, although in a different context: > A person can be in favor of changing policy even while they optimize within the current policy framework. For example: a wealthy person might be in favor of a tax on the wealthy even as they personally employ all available techniques to reduce their tax burden; there is no contradiction. No rational citizen will pay higher tax than the code obligates. If you manufacture in the US while all your competitors manufacture overseas, you will go bankrupt, and would largely lose the ability to advocate for returning manufacturing the the US. Whether Trump is being honest in his promises is beside the point.