4 ms·
The blunt trauma might be NAFTA, which came into force in 1994.
by pdog 9y ago
The blunt trauma might be NAFTA, which came into force in 1994.
- logicchains 9y agoThere's actually a relatively non-controversial theory in economics that such trade agreements will decrease low-skilled wages in the richer country, at least in the short term: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factor_price_equalization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factor_price_equalization. Economists generally consider this acceptable however as the models used suggest the benefit to the poor country and overall increase in global utility is greater than the loss faced by low-skilled workers in the richer country.
- icantdrive55 9y agoAnd let's hope these Economists are right? Right now it doesn't look to rosey for a lot of us. That mad rush to the border did take place. And who knows what other damage it has done? I wonder if there has ever been another country who seemed to have so much experiment so much with theories? (They were not Economists who passed NAFTA, it was good old Lobbiests. I wish Economists were passing laws--some days.)
- CodeWriter23 9y agoNAFTA: A continuation of the Union Busting going back to PATCO. Which was during the Reagan administration. Please be especially aware, my point is NOT to engage partisan politics. My point is to illustrate that Partisanship itself is a false dichotomy; both parties in the US take turns redistributing wealth toward the rich, at any cost, and then deploy Partisanship against citizens, turning us against each other to distract us from their bad acts. I call it "Mining Town 2.0".