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
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: Mr. Sanders peddles fiction on free trade [View all]Jarqui
(10,122 posts)11. That's one study's cherry picking opinion
But many, many others do not agree
NAFTA at 20: One Million U.S. Jobs Lost, Higher Income Inequality
Economic Policy Institute Fast Track to Lost Jobs and Lower Wages
http://www.epi.org/blog/fast-track-to-lost-jobs-and-lower-wages/
More than 5 million U.S. manufacturing jobs were lost between 1997 and 2014, and most of those job losses were due to growing trade deficits with countries that have negotiated trade and investment deals with the United States.
Towns, house values or homes, kids educations, etc got lost along with a significant drop in income and no safety net for a lot of them.
You walk around some of the towns in the rust belt with that article and they'll beat the living shit out of you for insulting the complete devastation of their lives and the unconscionable lack of compassion.
These people learned a trade. Did a bunch of what they were supposed to. And they got the rug pulled put from under them. And the only group of folks who made out well in long term on this deal, were the 1% Bernie talks about.
The notion of what they're spinning is an affront to the millions who suffered and lost their life's savings. I could go on and on. To me, it's like claiming the bombing of Hiroshima was a good thing for Japan or the slaughter of Jews in WWII was a good thing for Israel because their spreadsheets studying those events calculated a few positive numbers.
I was on a White House think tank studying NAFTA for Bush in 1989. We knew full well what NAFTA was going to do and tried to stop it. We at least got Bush to back off. Bill comes along, doesn't study it or look carefully - at the very least in how to implement it to lessen the damage and decides to make himself part of the history books.
And these economic gains Clinton touts, we knew it was going to be short term gain for long term pain. It was obvious. "Hey, look at me!! As president my numbers look really good!!" - only if you really believe what corporate America rightfully suckered Clinton with was good for the country. It wasn't. All you have to do is objectively look around at what the country was like in the early 90s and what it is like now. A bunch of the wealth and prosperity is gone - drained out of the US to other shores. The biggest culprit for that are these trade deals.
Their spreadsheet behind that article overlooks what really happened to American human beings. To me, it is offensive. This trade deal and how it was implemented was devastation on good, honest, hard working, decent Americans, blindsided when their own country sold them out for the welfare of corporations. I don't give a shit what they try to come up with. What I'm saying will be what the history books record - not some stupid spreadsheet analysis trying to prop up some lame politicians in Washington scrambling to save their jobs.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
118 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
People complain I use personal experience, but my experience in corporate America
hollysmom
Mar 2016
#1
You can't look at one industry to gauge the impact of trade. Many Mexican farmers have jobs
Hoyt
Mar 2016
#60
When Mexico wises up, it will be better to have economic activity to tax and jobs to require
Hoyt
Mar 2016
#113
I see you have a Buddha avatar. Nice compassionate attitude you have there.
liberal_at_heart
Mar 2016
#13
Yeah it arguably affects cities worse because when the economy is gone then
Cheese Sandwich
Mar 2016
#94
We make most of the heavy plant and machinery other countries use in their factories
Recursion
Mar 2016
#91
The millions of people who lost their jobs know the truth. You are going on my ignore list.
liberal_at_heart
Mar 2016
#20
Tell that to the people who used to work at the 10 - 12 factories that used to exist nearby.
Vinca
Mar 2016
#10
The problem is every time a factory closes people say "NAFTA". Even if it went to China
Recursion
Mar 2016
#68
Don't believe that's true, but it would be less than one percent of jobs if it were.
Hoyt
Mar 2016
#61
Not surprising that you failed to point out that household/consumer debt has exponentially increased
brentspeak
Mar 2016
#107
"NAFTA did not cause the huge job losses feared by the critics, Uh huh.
cherokeeprogressive
Mar 2016
#37
Personal experience is very meaningful. Similar things happened every where.
Bread and Circus
Mar 2016
#42
Somewhere there must be a thorough analysis of the number of jobs shipped elsewhere
Jitter65
Mar 2016
#115
It is moving there in an attempt to survive against cheaper/better products made elsewhere. It's sad
Hoyt
Mar 2016
#62
People want high quality, inexpensive stuff. Carrier, Toyota, Samsung, etc., are proof of that.
Hoyt
Mar 2016
#66
In the context of about 50 million net new jobs having been created since then
Recursion
Mar 2016
#78
The data are very clear: the last 20 years were much better than the 20 years before them
Recursion
Mar 2016
#74
TPP is in the Democratic Party Platform for a reason. Anti-NAFTA spin is pushed hard by the RW
ucrdem
Mar 2016
#97
Nope. Sept 26, 1960: "I'm not satisfied until every American enjoys full constitutional rights.
ucrdem
Mar 2016
#104
And then he left the Freedom Riders totally unprotected against the white mobs.
Ken Burch
Mar 2016
#105