Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Economists Toast 20 Years Of NAFTA; Critics Sit Out The Party
NPR ^ | 08 Dec 2013 | Marilyn Geewax

Posted on 12/08/2013 1:14:48 PM PST by Theoria

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-67 next last
To: Theoria

Free Traitors have absolutely ruined this country. When patriots take control again there is going to be retribution. There will be a trial, a verdict, and then quick, merciless retribution.


41 posted on 12/08/2013 4:50:57 PM PST by Count of Monte Fisto (The foundation of modern society is the denial of reality.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver

Whether good or bad, it didn’t change what was already happening. Because of China manipulations, jobs were already on the move. Pretty much every job that left to China was going to move to China.

If there was no NAFTA, than only jobs that went to Canada or Mexico might not have gone, otherwise nothing was going to change.


42 posted on 12/08/2013 4:53:14 PM PST by Jonty30 (What Islam and secularism have in common is that they are both death cults)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Jonty30

Without laws, like NAFTA, encouraging companies to ship jobs overseas China wouldn’t be what it is.

If you hire someone who uses slaves its no different then having slaves yourself.


43 posted on 12/08/2013 4:54:08 PM PST by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Jonty30

So NAFTA is good because it was ineffective? Is that you’re argument?

The corporate income tax, regulation, and oppressive laws have a lot to do with the business unfriendly environment. Which is why business pushed for laws like NAFTA. So they could move their money and investments out of the US.

But hey lets argue semantics while Rome burns.


44 posted on 12/08/2013 5:00:38 PM PST by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver

You’re not getting it. It wasn’t NAFTA that moved jobs to China. China does not have a free trade agreement with the US, therefore whatever free trade agreements the US does have does NOT apply to China.

Needless regulations cost businesses billions of dollars every year. China does not have those regulations, therefore, even if the workers made the same coin as US workers, manufacturers are still ahead by billions of dollars because they don’t have to fill out mountains of paperwork or spend the equivalent of years of research or testing or have to incorporate all the bureaucratic demands into their product.

Now, when you throw in that each worker will only cost you a few dollars per day, compared with a couple hundred dollars per day, for every US worker, it becomes almost impossible for companies to not go to China, especially when, if they don’t, their competitors will.

Part of the problem as well is that, within the US cultural mindset, price is the most important factor as to why a person will buy something. It is because the average American demands cheap prices that corporations must figure out how to give it to them, and that means considering China to set up shop.


45 posted on 12/08/2013 5:07:39 PM PST by Jonty30 (What Islam and secularism have in common is that they are both death cults)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver

I didn’t say NAFTA was a failure, but it’s a statistical fact that millions of jobs, that left the US, did not go to Canada or Mexico. Some did, but not that many.


46 posted on 12/08/2013 5:09:24 PM PST by Jonty30 (What Islam and secularism have in common is that they are both death cults)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Jonty30

Its also fact that NAFTA was a part of a series of efforts to redistribute wealth.


47 posted on 12/08/2013 5:13:26 PM PST by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver

I’m not saying that there wasn’t sneaky agendas involved with NAFTA. It just doesn’t have anything to do with why jobs went to China.


48 posted on 12/08/2013 5:15:19 PM PST by Jonty30 (What Islam and secularism have in common is that they are both death cults)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Jonty30

Again it was part of a series of efforts to redistribute wealth from America to other countries.

While it didn’t DIRECTLY involve shipping jobs to China, it was part of an overall effort to discourage production and accumulation of wealth in the United States.


49 posted on 12/08/2013 5:18:03 PM PST by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Reaganez

Free trade sucks...at least this version does.


50 posted on 12/08/2013 5:26:19 PM PST by dennisw (The first principle is to find out who you are then you can achieve anything -- Buddhist monk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver

All a pure free trade agreement would do is lower the costs of sending goods and service across international borders. Yes, there could be some job losses due to inequities of costs for various reasons, but that would be a consequence, not an intent.

The two biggest reasons why the US is losing out is its inefficient tax code and the regulations businesses must follow to stay in business. For example, there are something like 86,000 pages of tax law. Because it is so huge, virtually everybody in the US, who files taxes, is a criminal. The only to avoid being a criminal, under the tax laws, is to have fulltime accountants who specialize in tax law. As I mentioned earlier, unnecessary regulations is costing everybody huge.

Fix these two things and you will see the economy thrive big-time.


51 posted on 12/08/2013 5:36:00 PM PST by Jonty30 (What Islam and secularism have in common is that they are both death cults)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Reaganez

Corporate tax rates are why we must subsidize industries? How does that make sense?

We tax them just to give them the money back?


52 posted on 12/08/2013 6:10:44 PM PST by Irenic (The pencil sharpener and Elmer's glue is put away-- we've lost the red wheel barrow)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

How much of that is directly caused by local, county and state regulations that are anti-commerce. America itself was supposed to be one giant free trade zone. It isn’t.

There are a whole series of crony capitalist laws stopping people pursuing happiness and productive work.


53 posted on 12/08/2013 6:50:57 PM PST by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Oatka

So they get replaced by robots and technology right here in America and that’s OK? A massive part of the problem is government’s involvement in education. Government has taught that education ends at HS or college. In a dynamic market the lowest skilled workers are always susceptible to replacement. If they kept learning they’d keep developing skills needed in the marketplace.


54 posted on 12/08/2013 6:53:44 PM PST by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: 1010RD

I agree to this perception. Our only disagreement on this would be related what we both might consider crony capitalism. I try to be careful what I label as crony capitalism, because I think certain tax breaks benefit the economy and individual Americans as well.


55 posted on 12/09/2013 10:58:46 AM PST by DoughtyOne (May his name be striken from every tablet stone building and never be said again short of treason!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

I believe we agree, then. My move would be to end the corporate income tax completely. That would end the IRS’s witch hunts against churches and non-profits. It would be the biggest tax liberty bell ringing in a century.


56 posted on 12/09/2013 12:24:56 PM PST by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Oatka

If I want to buy a car, corn, or an orange from Mexico, no big-government statist has a constitutional right to order his troops to stand in my way. I’m a freedom-loving conservative, not a big-government statist out to regulate every little aspect of commerce someone chooses to engage in.

The consumer has every right to seek out the lowest price available for the goods they want to buy. The employee does not have the right to bar their employers from hiring someone who’s willing to do the same job for less money.


57 posted on 12/09/2013 12:35:49 PM PST by JediJones (The #1 Must-see Filibuster of the Year: TEXAS TED AND THE CONSERVATIVE CRUZ-ADE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Reaganez

If I want to hear the anti-free-trade argument that people have a right to demand protectionism for their jobs, I could go a forum for the unions or the web site of that socialist chick who just got elected in Washington state.


58 posted on 12/09/2013 12:38:21 PM PST by JediJones (The #1 Must-see Filibuster of the Year: TEXAS TED AND THE CONSERVATIVE CRUZ-ADE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Reaganez
But over the long term trade creates jobs and better paying jobs. A growing and more prosperous economy but that also requires the right policies at home to educate/train workers and economic liberty within our own domestic economy.

A job is not a lifetime guaranteed welfare benefit. If the need for your job disappears, your new job is to find a different job that someone still needs done in a place where you're willing to live. The consumer and the employer are your bosses, not the other way around.

59 posted on 12/09/2013 12:42:54 PM PST by JediJones (The #1 Must-see Filibuster of the Year: TEXAS TED AND THE CONSERVATIVE CRUZ-ADE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver

We had economic booms in the late ‘90s and mid 2000s.

The liberal socialist welfare state subsidized housing market that caused the 2008 economic crisis has nothing to do with NAFTA. Neither does Obama’s continued massive deficit spending, endless unemployement and welfare checks subsidizing people to not look for jobs, and his over-regulation of business.


60 posted on 12/09/2013 12:45:15 PM PST by JediJones (The #1 Must-see Filibuster of the Year: TEXAS TED AND THE CONSERVATIVE CRUZ-ADE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-67 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson