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: NAFTA passed on Nov. 20, 1993, on the promise of jobs. Oddly enough . . . [View all]OrwellwasRight
(5,209 posts)88. TPP will not repeal NAFTA.
What's your source for that?
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
190 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
NAFTA passed on Nov. 20, 1993, on the promise of jobs. Oddly enough . . . [View all]
ucrdem
May 2015
OP
After seeing the ridiculous distortions launched here daily for the last 6 months
ucrdem
May 2015
#2
But you keep telling us that we don't know what's in the TPP. I asked where the information
rhett o rick
May 2015
#169
What are you talking about? Of course TPP would repeal NAFTA. Or "replace" if you prefer.
Recursion
May 2015
#145
You do realize that there is no such concept as "implied repeal" in international law, don't you?
OrwellwasRight
May 2015
#189
I've heard all the good stuff after NAFTA was either unrelated or just good luck. All the bad stuff
pampango
May 2015
#4
The dot com boom, remember that, was the reason for the rise in jobs in the 90s. . .
brush
May 2015
#103
Got it. When things go well under a Democratic president after NAFTA, he's just lucky there was
pampango
May 2015
#130
The trend existed for 15 years before NAFTA, reversed course after it, then resumed the pre-NAFTA
pampango
May 2015
#134
This is the most shame-faced lie of them all. The dot-com boom destroyed *millions* of jobs
Recursion
May 2015
#147
Yes, the big three were late to the 'game, complacent in their supremacy in the US market...
Spazito
May 2015
#14
There is almost an insular thinking when it comes to discussion of trade agreements...
Spazito
May 2015
#106
So your answer is to sit around and do nothing and just hope for the best?
OrwellwasRight
May 2015
#115
That was a time when countries like India, China, Japan, etc, were not competative...
Spazito
May 2015
#111
The only period of high tariffs in the US in the 20th century was under republicans from 1920-1932.
pampango
May 2015
#135
Agreed. Tariffs did not cause the depression. They caused tremendous income inequality but not
pampango
May 2015
#137
I think a VAT has a lot to offer. While it raises the cost to consumers of all goods, imported and
pampango
May 2015
#139
"The end of the 19th century saw corporations at their height of influence and power"
Joe Turner
May 2015
#140
Good point. Republican administrations tended to raise tariffs (as with the Dingley Act of 1897)
pampango
May 2015
#162
If past is prologue I'd say this is a pretty good argument for nominating Clinton this time around.
ucrdem
May 2015
#10
Other countries don't have that problem. They have tarriffs to protect their products.
rhett o rick
May 2015
#50
Long and short: the talking point that NAFTA gutted US employment appears to be unsubstantiated. nt
ucrdem
May 2015
#17
So much of what is blamed on NAFTA today was a direct result of technological advance.
NCTraveler
May 2015
#31
Are you sure that Sen Kerry is free to discuss it with her? And even with no "public parts"
rhett o rick
May 2015
#53
Are you saying the computer/tech revolution had nothing to do with jobs being created?
kentuck
May 2015
#59
There's a bazillion ways to deny it but it happened. US jobs went up for 6 straight years
ucrdem
May 2015
#56
Yeah, all those great paying service jobs in the new service economy.
Dont call me Shirley
May 2015
#60
Average hourly wages also rose steadily in that period, in current and constant $:
ucrdem
May 2015
#63
I love peas, but not the constant pay cuts we've been forced to swallow
Dont call me Shirley
May 2015
#65
Not for us, barely a rise in early 2000, then cuts cuts cuts cuts cuts since the crash
Dont call me Shirley
May 2015
#68
Nafta, the repeal of key financial safeguards, CFMA, Cafta, they all have caused the financial
Dont call me Shirley
May 2015
#70
Here is what the working poor look like, bravenak. Breaks my heart.
Dont call me Shirley
May 2015
#78
Time for a progressive mass movement creating democratic workplaces. Make the rich obsolete.
Dont call me Shirley
May 2015
#82
I don't for my purposes here, which are to show that Bill delivered on his promises
ucrdem
May 2015
#72
I've shown that passing NAFTA didn't lead to a net job loss, and that the US economy grew
ucrdem
May 2015
#75
So the stats are wrong and the secret hidden invisible truth contradicting them is sacrosanct?
ucrdem
May 2015
#86
You seem to forget that lack of correlation precludes causation, which is all OP's argument needs
Recursion
May 2015
#157
It's statistical correlation. The measure of the accuracy of a numerical relationship between...
Taitertots
May 2015
#175
Sort of. It's a moment of a random variable derived from two random variables.
Recursion
May 2015
#177
The problem with your argument is, this is the same data used to indict NAFTA as a job killer.
ucrdem
May 2015
#174
The purpose of NAFTA was to free corporations from labor and environmental laws.
alarimer
May 2015
#128
Well, they're wrong about average US wages, which rose, and blaming offshoring on NAFTA is dumb.
ucrdem
May 2015
#141
Everybody needs a scapegoat, and here it's "trade". On other sites it's "immigrants"
Recursion
May 2015
#161
That first chart looks horrifying. What years after NAFTA is NAFTA not responsible for?
Romulox
May 2015
#180
Your "notes" make nothing clear. It's just a naked assertion with no facts or reason to back it up.
Romulox
May 2015
#182
The point is that NAFTA didn't wreck the economy 2001-2009. Bush and Cheney did. nt
ucrdem
May 2015
#184