General Discussion

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)

169. But you keep telling us that we don't know what's in the TPP. I asked where the information

Fri May 22, 2015, 11:06 AM

May 2015

comes from that says that the agreements in the TPP will supersede those in NAFTA. I hadn't read that anywhere. And even if they do, what makes you sure they will an improvement. Those that issued NAFTA made promises just like now. It's like Charlie Brown trying to kick the football. Lucy says, "Trust us Charlie Brown, this secret trade agreement won't be as bad as the last one."

Pres Obama is saying "Trust me. This time your government won't frack you." How can we trust big corporations?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

190 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

NAFTA passed on Nov. 20, 1993, on the promise of jobs. Oddly enough . . . [View all] ucrdem May 2015 OP

NAFTA gets a bad rap, and it wasn't great, but... JaneyVee May 2015 #1

After seeing the ridiculous distortions launched here daily for the last 6 months ucrdem May 2015 #2

Ironically, the TPP is a repeal of NAFTA... JaneyVee May 2015 #3

Seems like that would make passing TPA a no-brainer ucrdem May 2015 #5

Where does it say that the TPP will repeal NAFTA? nm rhett o rick May 2015 #48

Wow, you don't even know what TPP is? Recursion May 2015 #144

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

You've obviously confused me with someone else Recursion May 2015 #172

TPP will not repeal NAFTA. OrwellwasRight May 2015 #88

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

Please cite your source for this assertion. Thanks. myrna minx May 2015 #105

Not enough desks to bang my head against Recursion May 2015 #146

LOL, thanks Recursion! ucrdem May 2015 #149

You do know that the "unemployment rate" OrwellwasRight May 2015 #87

I've heard all the good stuff after NAFTA was either unrelated or just good luck. All the bad stuff pampango May 2015 #4

Amazing how the pattern repeats isn't it. ucrdem May 2015 #7

The dot com boom, remember that, was the reason for the rise in jobs in the 90s. . . brush May 2015 #103

So "all the good stuff after NAFTA was either unrelated or just good luck"? pampango May 2015 #125

Well.. kenfrequed May 2015 #127

Got it. When things go well under a Democratic president after NAFTA, he's just lucky there was pampango May 2015 #130

*sigh* kenfrequed May 2015 #131

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

Were you there in the late 90s? brush May 2015 #168

Was I where? Recursion May 2015 #171

Trade agreements, whether bilateral or multinational, are mixed bags as to... Spazito May 2015 #6

hey thanks. ucrdem May 2015 #8

You're very welcome! Spazito May 2015 #9

Yes, there will be some displacements, but a lot of what NAFTA gets blamed for ucrdem May 2015 #11

Yes, the big three were late to the 'game, complacent in their supremacy in the US market... Spazito May 2015 #14

I haven't looked at the details of NAFTA ucrdem May 2015 #16

The TPP is much, much bigger than NAFTA, it is actually... Spazito May 2015 #20

thanks Spazito . . . ucrdem May 2015 #30

Thank you for providing a thread where some depth can be introduced... Spazito May 2015 #37

Thank you for this post. Fact are always good.n/t 1StrongBlackMan May 2015 #108

You're welcome... Spazito May 2015 #113

Baloney. OrwellwasRight May 2015 #92

There is almost an insular thinking when it comes to discussion of trade agreements... Spazito May 2015 #106

You didn't even read my post. OrwellwasRight May 2015 #114

It's not unlikely. It's a fact. OrwellwasRight May 2015 #91

NAFTA was a mixed bag, some good, some bad Spazito May 2015 #98

Well, then why do you support OrwellwasRight May 2015 #104

I am for fair trade, there is no free trade in reality... Spazito May 2015 #109

So your answer is to sit around and do nothing and just hope for the best? OrwellwasRight May 2015 #115

Wow, I have tried to have a reasonable, polite discussion with you... Spazito May 2015 #117

Saying there is no such thing as global labor solidarity OrwellwasRight May 2015 #190

NAFTA is a failed deal Joe Turner May 2015 #112

Nowhere will you find I stated NAFTA was a good deal, nowhere... Spazito May 2015 #116

I am saying NAFTA failed Joe Turner May 2015 #118

We will have to agree to disagree then n/t Spazito May 2015 #120

Actually It is Very Possible Rilgin May 2015 #93

Am I to understand you believe there should be no trade agreements... Spazito May 2015 #99

Why do we have to have trade agreements? Joe Turner May 2015 #110

That was a time when countries like India, China, Japan, etc, were not competative... Spazito May 2015 #111

Those very same countries you mentioned all are protectionist Joe Turner May 2015 #122

"When America was on the rise" jberryhill May 2015 #132

America was already the industrial superpower prior to WWII Joe Turner May 2015 #133

The only period of high tariffs in the US in the 20th century was under republicans from 1920-1932. pampango May 2015 #135

Tariffs being blamed for the great depression Joe Turner May 2015 #136

Agreed. Tariffs did not cause the depression. They caused tremendous income inequality but not pampango May 2015 #137

The beautiful quality of "net balances" Joe Turner May 2015 #138

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

That's not true Art_from_Ark May 2015 #159

Good point. Republican administrations tended to raise tariffs (as with the Dingley Act of 1897) pampango May 2015 #162

There is a reason for this. kenfrequed May 2015 #129

Thank you ... historical facts are always good. n/t 1StrongBlackMan May 2015 #107

If past is prologue I'd say this is a pretty good argument for nominating Clinton this time around. ucrdem May 2015 #10

And speaking of downsides does anyone remember these: ucrdem May 2015 #12

I think a lot of trade bashing is human nature. sufrommich May 2015 #13

Yeah there's that, but I think policy plays a huge role. ucrdem May 2015 #15

Other countries don't have that problem. They have tarriffs to protect their products. rhett o rick May 2015 #50

People are bashing TPP, not trade eridani May 2015 #90

Long and short: the talking point that NAFTA gutted US employment appears to be unsubstantiated. nt ucrdem May 2015 #17

Your claim that NAFTA created these jobs is also unsubstantiated Mnpaul May 2015 #74

If it is such a great deal why is it a secret? newfie11 May 2015 #18

I suppose it comes down to credibility. ucrdem May 2015 #19

Not really... AZ Progressive May 2015 #21

Really. ucrdem May 2015 #22

So you're biased zipplewrath May 2015 #33

No, other parties want to have a say in the outcome of the deal. OrwellwasRight May 2015 #94

So the unemployment rate is higher now than over 20 years ago!? Rex May 2015 #23

Yes, but Bill left office in Jan. 2001. ucrdem May 2015 #25

True he left us with a surplus, something it seems only modern Dem POTUSes can do. Rex May 2015 #43

It's roughly at 1993 (ie, pre-NAFTA) levels Recursion May 2015 #148

Uh yeah...no. Hell Hath No Fury May 2015 #24

Blaming decades of bad policy on NAFTA is unrealistic. ucrdem May 2015 #26

+1 moondust May 2015 #34

Now plot real wages zipplewrath May 2015 #27

Boom! whatchamacallit May 2015 #28

Possibly but I can't find anything showing real wages over the same span. ucrdem May 2015 #29

Took me less than one minute - Hell Hath No Fury May 2015 #38

Wages in current and constant $ appear to have risen in the period 1994-2000. ucrdem May 2015 #40

You do realize that NAFTA didn't end in 2000, right? OrwellwasRight May 2015 #95

+1 Marr May 2015 #101

Here you go Recursion May 2015 #150

Yep. That's the real pattern in the carpet. ucrdem May 2015 #151

Try this place zipplewrath May 2015 #178

So much of what is blamed on NAFTA today was a direct result of technological advance. NCTraveler May 2015 #31

Yes, that's a very good point. ucrdem May 2015 #32

No it's not zipplewrath May 2015 #35

Technically there are no public parts ucrdem May 2015 #36

Again you presume zipplewrath May 2015 #47

She says she's read it. So there goes the secrecy claim. ucrdem May 2015 #49

It is a secret zipplewrath May 2015 #51

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

Somebody cannot read English OR Graphs Demeter May 2015 #39

Be careful now madokie May 2015 #41

Facts? We don't need no facts. ucrdem May 2015 #45

free trade sabbat hunter May 2015 #42

Look at unemployment skyrocket after the Wall Street thefts of 2008. Rex May 2015 #44

Unemployment rate went down in spite of NAFTA... kentuck May 2015 #46

In his world, NAFTA created over 20 million new jobs. Elwood P Dowd May 2015 #54

Look, jobs AND real wages steadily rose for six straight years after NAFTA, ucrdem May 2015 #55

Are you saying the computer/tech revolution had nothing to do with jobs being created? kentuck May 2015 #59

I don't believe that six year run of good times was a coincidence, no. ucrdem May 2015 #61

No, it wasn't a coincidence. kentuck May 2015 #102

Nope. Technology destroyed jobs. By the trainload. No more travel agents. Recursion May 2015 #158

producers of hard drives were more or less a one-time shot Mnpaul May 2015 #119

Did the job go to Mexico or Canada? Recursion May 2015 #163

I think the frame production went to Mexico for a couple of years Mnpaul May 2015 #176

How many of those jobs were temporary, contract, or low-wage? arcane1 May 2015 #52

There's a bazillion ways to deny it but it happened. US jobs went up for 6 straight years ucrdem May 2015 #56

Replacing one union job with two Walmart part-time jobs is still an "increase" arcane1 May 2015 #62

K&R.. thanks ucr Cha May 2015 #57

Thanks Cha! ucrdem May 2015 #58

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

Apparently, we're supposed to accept quantity over quality now. arcane1 May 2015 #64

I love peas, but not the constant pay cuts we've been forced to swallow Dont call me Shirley May 2015 #65

Fine, we'll replace you with an H1B visa applicant and call it "growth" arcane1 May 2015 #66

Employment went up, average hourly wages went up, unemployment went down. ucrdem May 2015 #67

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

Yes that's been the pattern, but the crash happened after Bill had left office. ucrdem May 2015 #69

Nafta, the repeal of key financial safeguards, CFMA, Cafta, they all have caused the financial Dont call me Shirley May 2015 #70

Yes. bravenak May 2015 #76

Here is what the working poor look like, bravenak. Breaks my heart. Dont call me Shirley May 2015 #78

It is a tragedy that we live like this. These are the jobs that we create. bravenak May 2015 #80

Time for a progressive mass movement creating democratic workplaces. Make the rich obsolete. Dont call me Shirley May 2015 #82

The rich are unnecessary. bravenak May 2015 #85

I agree that the 80' dollars went a lot further Mnpaul May 2015 #121

OK. Now you only need a model of the economy that explains why... Taitertots May 2015 #71

I don't for my purposes here, which are to show that Bill delivered on his promises ucrdem May 2015 #72

You havent shown anything non-trivial Taitertots May 2015 #73

I've shown that passing NAFTA didn't lead to a net job loss, and that the US economy grew ucrdem May 2015 #75

You didn't show that at all. Taitertots May 2015 #77

I think your post is going over the OPs head by a mile. Rex May 2015 #81

So the stats are wrong and the secret hidden invisible truth contradicting them is sacrosanct? ucrdem May 2015 #86

Yeah. I had high hopes 3 or 4 posts ago. But in all fairness... Taitertots May 2015 #89

You seem to forget that lack of correlation precludes causation, which is all OP's argument needs Recursion May 2015 #157

If and only if the statistical model is coherent. Taitertots May 2015 #165

Well, those words clearly mean different things in your field than in mine Recursion May 2015 #167

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

Sigh. More people should take stats. Correlation does not imply causation Recursion May 2015 #153

I've taken graduate econometrics. Have you? Taitertots May 2015 #164

You caught me. I got a masters in EE but skipped prob & stats Recursion May 2015 #166

The problem with your argument is, this is the same data used to indict NAFTA as a job killer. ucrdem May 2015 #174

A lot of the opposition to NAFTA was steeped in anti-Latino bigotry WestSideStory May 2015 #79

Yes there was that, I'd forgotten about that too. ucrdem May 2015 #84

Yes, that's a great way to shut down OrwellwasRight May 2015 #97

NAFTA was a disaster for the Mexican workers as well Mnpaul May 2015 #123

A whole lotta McJobs. cherokeeprogressive May 2015 #83

Then why did median wages go *up*? Recursion May 2015 #154

Your chart says the employment rate has gone from 61% to 59% since NAFTA. pa28 May 2015 #96

In the context of the baby boom retiring? It's damn good news Recursion May 2015 #155

Cool MFrohike May 2015 #100

It was offset by the dotcom bubble and Greenspan monetary pumping LittleBlue May 2015 #124

Six years of steady job and wage increases is not a "sudden jolt." ucrdem May 2015 #142

The tech boom destroyed *MILLIONS* of jobs. MILLIONS. Recursion May 2015 #156

Right... kenfrequed May 2015 #126

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

Better view: ucrdem May 2015 #143

Not to be mean but your graph doesn't really help your case Johonny May 2015 #170

Even the AFL-CIO says it only cost the U.S. 700,000 jobs. Drunken Irishman May 2015 #152

Very revealing. ucrdem May 2015 #160

Everybody needs a scapegoat, and here it's "trade". On other sites it's "immigrants" Recursion May 2015 #161

Oh nonsense. The banking sector hasn't "restructured" (read: been gutted.) Romulox May 2015 #179

Trojan-in-chief? Stellar May 2015 #173

That first chart looks horrifying. What years after NAFTA is NAFTA not responsible for? Romulox May 2015 #180

2001-2009. The notes I added make that clearer: ucrdem May 2015 #181

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

That's just too simplistic and facile. NAFTA was a policy pushed by Republicans, in the first place. Romulox May 2015 #185

Bush and Cheney crashed the economy, not NAFTA. ucrdem May 2015 #187

Just a naked assertion. Failure has many fathers. nt Romulox May 2015 #188

International trade is simply going to happen treestar May 2015 #183

Yes and the interesting thing is that killing TPP kills a big batch of new regulations. ucrdem May 2015 #186