3 ms·

There an interesting thing there. Bernie, believe or not, was very much against globalization, TPP and open borders in general: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v

by rdtsc 9y ago

There an interesting thing there. Bernie, believe or not, was very much against globalization, TPP and open borders in general: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf-k6qOfXz0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf-k6qOfXz0 Listen to how he says it, it's a thing he really hates. This is not fluke or anything, Chomsky another leftist thinker also has been anti-NAFTA well, since it was signed pretty much: https://chomsky.info/secrets03/ https://chomsky.info/secrets03/ Notice how he correctly predicted an influx of poor South American farmers who are pretty much forced to abandon their family to come and wash toilets and pick crops here.

dragonwriter 9y ago
Pretty much all leftists figures (and even most Democrats) were against NAFTA when it was signed; it was an sign of the serious rift in the Democratic Party at the time that Clinton had to rely on unanimous (or nearly so) Republican support and weak support from his own party to secure NAFTA passage. > Notice how he correctly predicted an influx of poor South American farmers who are pretty much forced to abandon their family to come and wash toilets and pick crops here. Mexico is not South America, and the basically linear increase in Mexicans coming to the US started before NAFTA.
- rdtsc 9y ago
  > Mexico is not South America You're right of course, the N in NAFTA, what was I thinking. I mean to say South of the border I think. > basically linear increase in Mexicans coming to the US started before NAFTA. One of the goals of NAFTA was to decrease it. With the idea that skilled jobs would be provided locally. But that didn't happen. I found this study http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1870355016300052 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1870355016... looking at 20 years after NAFTA. 10 years ago in 2007 there was this article which I had saved in my bookmarks: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/18/weekinreview/18uchitelle.html http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/18/weekinreview/18uchitelle.h... it also talks about the effects on jobs in Mexico and how many of the promises didn't materialize. So I think Chomsky was pretty good at predicting what would happen.

by rdtsc 9y ago

dragonwriter 9y ago

Pretty much all leftists figures (and even most Democrats) were against NAFTA when it was signed; it was an sign of the serious rift in the Democratic Party at the time that Clinton had to rely on unanimous (or nearly so) Republican support and weak support from his own party to secure NAFTA passage. > Notice how he correctly predicted an influx of poor South American farmers who are pretty much forced to abandon their family to come and wash toilets and pick crops here. Mexico is not South America, and the basically linear increase in Mexicans coming to the US started before NAFTA.

rdtsc 9y ago
> Mexico is not South America You're right of course, the N in NAFTA, what was I thinking. I mean to say South of the border I think. > basically linear increase in Mexicans coming to the US started before NAFTA. One of the goals of NAFTA was to decrease it. With the idea that skilled jobs would be provided locally. But that didn't happen. I found this study http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1870355016300052 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1870355016... looking at 20 years after NAFTA. 10 years ago in 2007 there was this article which I had saved in my bookmarks: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/18/weekinreview/18uchitelle.html http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/18/weekinreview/18uchitelle.h... it also talks about the effects on jobs in Mexico and how many of the promises didn't materialize. So I think Chomsky was pretty good at predicting what would happen.