Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Why I defend NAFTA on DU, in four charts [View all]joshcryer
(62,536 posts)59. Sounds about right.
Shitting on other DUers is par for the course these days.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
296 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
What? You aren't overly-impressed with a power-point oblique Rah-Rah for TPP? nt
99th_Monkey
Jan 2015
#5
I'm "meh" on the TPP because I think we've already picked the low-hanging fruit there
Recursion
Jan 2015
#10
If we are doing something BLINDLY since no one but the 600 Corporations have been
sabrina 1
Jan 2015
#29
Please consider this observation to counter this utter bullshit on NAFTA...
MrMickeysMom
Jan 2015
#123
So, am I wrong that unemployment went down, while median wages went up? (nt)
Recursion
Jan 2015
#124
"We had already been loosing the manufacturing industries by then late 1980's. NAFTA and GATT
pampango
Jan 2015
#168
"We have actually been losing manufacturing jobs since the since the late 1970's"
NewDeal_Dem
Jan 2015
#212
I'm not sure what you mean by 'appear to' peak. These are BLS statistics, so I guess it -did-
NewDeal_Dem
Jan 2015
#237
Reagan expanded the Carter administration's efforts to decontrol and deregulate the economy.
NewDeal_Dem
Jan 2015
#289
"Diversified" in inputs or outputs? Because as you point out most of the inputs are going away
Recursion
Jan 2015
#14
The VAT works very well in Germany and Austria. They fund all sorts of socially positive programs
JDPriestly
Jan 2015
#230
One of the reasons I oppose the trade agreements is that we have no strategy here in America
JDPriestly
Jan 2015
#232
there's no surplus value in robots. also, the corporate tax rate in germany is about 30%.
NewDeal_Dem
Jan 2015
#290
Why do we a trade deficit while Germany with stronger unions and similar wages has a trade surplus?
pampango
Jan 2015
#67
I was responding to a post about our "our horrible, horrendous, awful, spectacularly outrageous
pampango
Jan 2015
#145
I would like to think we could learn, but the basic philosophy of so many in our country is
JDPriestly
Jan 2015
#280
Manufacturing -is- magical, and it's because of manufacturing that we employ fewer farmhands today.
NewDeal_Dem
Jan 2015
#214
Our very large corporations, banks and farming enterprises need to be broken up.
JDPriestly
Jan 2015
#55
If the charts are not directly related to NAFTA, then why use these charts to defend it?
arcane1
Jan 2015
#157
Charts on wages, employment and family income are not relevant to debate on NAFTA?
pampango
Jan 2015
#170
Relevance is a different story. The OP said these charts are not directly related to NAFTA.
arcane1
Jan 2015
#173
Indeed, they are only reflective of the wages, employment levels and family incomes after NAFTA.
pampango
Jan 2015
#175
NAFTA would have worked a lot better if we had not simultaneously pushed MFN status for China
Algernon Moncrieff
Jan 2015
#21
So if NAFTA's destructive tendencies and it's positive contributions cancel each other out...
bluesbassman
Jan 2015
#50
Excellent point. It was the internet bubble which delayed the effects of NAFTA
still_one
Jan 2015
#131
So the technology boom caused manufacturing jobs and wages to increase during Clinton's time.
pampango
Jan 2015
#201
David Simon is also puzzingly convinced that the War on Drugs isn't a racial issue
Recursion
Jan 2015
#88
Right, but they prove it's impossible that NAFTA caused either job losses or wage decreases
Recursion
Jan 2015
#37
You mean "fewer", and I'm not talking about the last 60 years, I'm talking about the last 20.
Spider Jerusalem
Jan 2015
#47
Well, no. Factories had the option of automating or moving to Mexico and then to China
Recursion
Jan 2015
#48
That's massively increasing their living standards from what they were, don't forget that part.
Donald Ian Rankin
Jan 2015
#178
The bottom 75% did get richer. Is that worth nothing to a liberal? Or is it, "If I'm not richer,
pampango
Jan 2015
#196
AFAIK, for people to go from $1/hour to $15/hour they have to go through $2/hr, $5/hr and so on.
pampango
Jan 2015
#286
I hope DU gets tired of calling Recursion a right-winger, when they're obviously not.
Donald Ian Rankin
Jan 2015
#177
Don't you just hate charts? And people who don't agree you about everything? n/t
pampango
Jan 2015
#197
Before trying to grammar pedant, make sure you understand basic grammar.
Donald Ian Rankin
Jan 2015
#295
One should probably read the link before asserting that it proves one's case. n/t
Gormy Cuss
Jan 2015
#296
The National Alliance for Protecting the People's Food and Health is not impressed
Art_from_Ark
Jan 2015
#250
Krugman’s over-confident answers to his own questions proved to be mostly wrong...
MrMickeysMom
Jan 2015
#142
Interesting article, but it assumes that its readers agree on some underlying assumptions
bhikkhu
Jan 2015
#218
You forgot: Manufacturing employment grew after NAFTA until Bush; Democrats are more pro-trade than
pampango
Jan 2015
#65
So when a really good position is presented on something few know much about look at the recs to
kelliekat44
Jan 2015
#68
So, umm... what's funny about that? I missed my grandfather's funeral because I was stationed here
Recursion
Jan 2015
#80
I'll have to wait for "a really good position" to be presented to answer that.
MrMickeysMom
Jan 2015
#143
Yes, thanks. I did so after reading this post. Mostly the usual suspects.
closeupready
Jan 2015
#138
He's right. We really need to stop fighting the last war. NAFTA delivered what was promised.
Recursion
Jan 2015
#87
Thanks to NAFTA, Indiana lost it last remaining bio degradable cellophane factory
B Calm
Jan 2015
#100
Those tax cuts were suppose to make them more competitive in the NAFTA marketplace, LOL.
B Calm
Jan 2015
#114
Yes! Glad you remember...seems like all this is being shoved down the rabbit hole.
Lars39
Jan 2015
#121
Or rickety tables for a permanent yard sale-flea market on an empty lot on Main Street...
Lars39
Jan 2015
#198
In other words, rigorous statistical data or anecdotal evidence? N.T.
Donald Ian Rankin
Jan 2015
#179
Because they're what's important: do people have jobs, and are those jobs making money for them?
Recursion
Jan 2015
#238
WRT your final paragraph, NAFTA may have been a 'good idea,' but labor
KingCharlemagne
Jan 2015
#158
How much of that do you think is attributable to NAFTA, vs other things that happened at the time?
DanTex
Jan 2015
#166
Tell me, why the need to relentlessly push right wing points of view here?
LondonReign2
Jan 2015
#182
Well said. "we'll never get into the necessary policy discussions as long as the MSM leads with
pampango
Jan 2015
#256
Nobody claims that the economic gains of the Clinton era are "proof" that NAFTA was a disaster.
DanTex
Jan 2015
#264
NAFTA did not 'destroy manufacturing jobs in the US' while Clinton was in office. Then
pampango
Jan 2015
#269