U.S.-China trade has cost 2.3 million U.S. jobs: report

Cawacko, let me ask you this.

In the past 25 years, since the adoption of conservative-inspired neoliberal trade deals, we've gone from being the world's largest creditor nation to the world's largest debtor nation; we've gone from being the world's largest maker of manufactured goods to the worlds largest importer of manufacture goods; our trade deficits dwarf those of other nations; and our manufacturing base has been decimated. We still kick ass in financial services, but that's just pushing money around on paper. It makes a few people rich, but its not really producing anything tangible.


Does that sound like a successful trade policy?
 
Cypress said:
Cawacko, let me ask you this.

In the past 25 years, since the adoption of conservative-inspired neoliberal trade deals, we've gone from being the world's largest creditor nation to the world's largest debtor nation; we've gone from being the world's largest maker of manufactured goods to the worlds largest importer of manufacture goods; our trade deficits dwarf those of other nations; and our manufacturing base has been decimated. We still kick ass in financial services, but that's just pushing money around on paper. It makes a few people rich, but its not really producing anything tangible.


Does that sound like a successful trade policy?
Click to expand...

Even the kick ass in finiancial stuff has come into serious question lately. I don't think the rest of the world will be following our lead on that in the future.
Once burned.
 
Cypress said:
Cawacko, let me ask you this.

In the past 25 years, since the adoption of conservative-inspired neoliberal trade deals, we've gone from being the world's largest creditor nation to the world's largest debtor nation; we've gone from being the world's largest maker of manufactured goods to the worlds largest importer of manufacture goods; our trade deficits dwarf those of other nations; and our manufacturing base has been decimated. We still kick ass in financial services, but that's just pushing money around on paper. It makes a few people rich, but its not really producing anything tangible.


Does that sound like a successful trade policy?
Click to expand...

I don't have a bunch of statistics in front of to back up what I'm going to say but I will find them because on the whole there is not a question that trade liberalization has been an overall benefit to the U.S.

In a global economy there is no way to keep high priced manufactoring jobs onshore and charging American consumers higher amounts as a result. Capital is going to find its most efficient allocation and thus basic jobs get transfered to places like China and American consumers get access to more goods at a cheaper price as a result.

America kicks ass not just at financial services but at entrepreneurship and innovation. Look at the role the U.S. has played in the technological revolution. Those are not static union type jobs I know. When you brag about Clinton creating more jobs than the Bush's what did Clinton support? He supported free trade and technological innovation which go together. He did not create jobs by throwing up tariffs and becoming an isolationist.

Globalization is here and its not going away. The U.S. is not going to be able to bring back the economy of the '50's and '60's.
 
It's funny how I used to be Dixie. Saying people just need to adapt or die like it's cute and charming. But that was before I realized the true meaning of fiat currency and the arbitrary creation of value based on totalitarian power.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Nope. That's just the deceptive meme you're buying into. We will soon reject all the trade deals that weaken american workers, even if the CEO class complains about it.
Click to expand...
doesn't matter the damage is done.

How can we weaken US workers any more in industries that have already moved out ? Zero from zero is still zero.
 
So, the question is what do we do from here? Can we afford to back away from the global market? For that matter, for all the complaining, could we have afforded to back away from the global market n the first place? Seems to me moderate protectionism was tried about 30 years ago - and it failed miserably.

Here is a thought: could it be we have come to expect a standard of living that is simply unsustainable in the long run?
 
the turbo-libs would get the depression they so long for if we backed away from global trade. I honestly think that if the lower class and median worker wages went up 5% for 5 yrs in a row they would trade that for a depression.
 
Good Luck said:
So, the question is what do we do from here? Can we afford to back away from the global market? For that matter, for all the complaining, could we have afforded to back away from the global market n the first place? Seems to me moderate protectionism was tried about 30 years ago - and it failed miserably.

Here is a thought: could it be we have come to expect a standard of living that is simply unsustainable in the long run?
Click to expand...

Yep that is another way to look at it and why I say the golden age of America is past.

In a global market economy the standard of living we enjoyed in America is impossible to sustain, and will drop further.
 
uscitizen said:
Yep that is another way to look at it and why I say the golden age of America is past.

In a global market economy the standard of living we enjoyed in America is impossible to sustain, and will drop further.
Click to expand...
But is the inability to sustain the standard of living we have come to view as "normal" due to globalization, or is it simply the fact that we are an ever increasing population depending on finite resources?

Or, is it because the standard of living we have come to view as "normal" is built on over consumption and waste? Why do families of four need 6 bedrooms and 5 bathrooms, 3 or more cars, etc.? Why is it we think building things to be replaced when they break instead of repaired is economically "efficient"?

Multiple factors are involved with the decline we are facing. Some of them are avoidable, like waste and over consumption. That takes a change in attitude and expectations. There was a time when families, on average, were larger, yet expectations for housing were smaller. A 3 bedroom house with 1.5 bathrooms for a family of six was considered very adequate, four bedrooms luxurious. Houses today seem to need a room for every member of the family, including the dog, the cat, and the fish tank. We need to lower our expectations back down to a reasonable (and sustainable) level. (Easier said than done. But OTOH reality, it seems, is going to give our expectations an adjustment whether we want to or not.)

And some factors are not avoidable. Globalization occurred as a natural consequence to the use of advancing technology in communications and transportation. No set of free trade laws would make a difference if we still took 3-6 months to cross the oceans in ships limited to under 100 tons cargo capacity. We'd still be an economy 90+% dependent on domestic production.

And no set of protectionist laws will adequately isolate our economy from world influence when fast easy transportation in the millions of tons allows inexpensive access to the world's products. Which is why our attempt in the late 70s failed so miserably.
 
Good Luck said:
But is the inability to sustain the standard of living we have come to view as "normal" due to globalization, or is it simply the fact that we are an ever increasing population depending on finite resources?

Or, is it because the standard of living we have come to view as "normal" is built on over consumption and waste? Why do families of four need 6 bedrooms and 5 bathrooms, 3 or more cars, etc.? Why is it we think building things to be replaced when they break instead of repaired is economically "efficient"?

Multiple factors are involved with the decline we are facing. Some of them are avoidable, like waste and over consumption. That takes a change in attitude and expectations. There was a time when families, on average, were larger, yet expectations for housing were smaller. A 3 bedroom house with 1.5 bathrooms for a family of six was considered very adequate, four bedrooms luxurious. Houses today seem to need a room for every member of the family, including the dog, the cat, and the fish tank. We need to lower our expectations back down to a reasonable (and sustainable) level. (Easier said than done. But OTOH reality, it seems, is going to give our expectations an adjustment whether we want to or not.)

And some factors are not avoidable. Globalization occurred as a natural consequence to the use of advancing technology in communications and transportation. No set of free trade laws would make a difference if we still took 3-6 months to cross the oceans in ships limited to under 100 tons cargo capacity. We'd still be an economy 90+% dependent on domestic production.

And no set of protectionist laws will adequately isolate our economy from world influence when fast easy transportation in the millions of tons allows inexpensive access to the world's products. Which is why our attempt in the late 70s failed so miserably.
Click to expand...

Globalization is an economic ideology whereby no government can block an activity a business deems profitable. Nothing is INEVITALBE ABOUT IT. It's not just about a standard of living decline, it's about a mentally programmed shift in loyalties towards the ideologies of international fascism, despite the consequences on any specific population. Globalization is carte blanche for internationalist fascists.
 
we are not going to and ARE not declining. God the turbo-libs have won the battle on the fictional fall of the American Economy. It's still growing just slower, the middle is stagnating but the rich are getting richer.
 
Topspin said:
we are not going to and ARE not declining. God the turbo-libs have won the battle on the fictional fall of the American Economy. It's still growing just slower, the middle is stagnating but the rich are getting richer.
Click to expand...

See if it feels like a decline when some greedy asshole sends your job overseas.
 
Cypress said:
You think this was an accident, or somehow all unintentional?

This was exactly what the wall street republicans, and corporate-sponsored Dems had in mind when the passed NAFTA, WTO, and China MFN.

A downward pressure on labor costs and wages in the United States.

People like Cawacko, Damocles, and Stuperfreak actually bought into the nonsense that William F Buckley, Ronald Reagan, George Bush, and Alan Greenspan were actually valiantly trying to improve the status, power, and wage potential of america's working middle class. Is it possible to be any more foolish that to believe scions of the conservative movement and america's rich investor were invested in improving the power and status of Joe and Jane working class american?
Click to expand...

This is a great quote/thread from 2008. Look at what Cypress wrote here and in subsequent posts. It's about free trade hurting the working class Americans. Is his rhetoric really all that different than Trump's today? This was Bernie Sanders rhetoric as well.

But now that Trump is the one proposing tariffs and speaking about the trade deficit being bad all of a sudden certain folks have found religion on free trade.
 
Forget about thinking corporations give a crap about America, or American workers. When Welsh was heading GE, He said he wishes he could put every manufacturing plant on a barge and move it wherever he got the best deal. They don't care about American workers of its economy. International corporations are loyal to profits, just profits.
 
Nordberg said:
Forget about thinking corporations give a crap about America, or American workers. When Welsh was heading GE, He said he wishes he could put every manufacturing plant on a barge and move it wherever he got the best deal. They don't care about American workers of its economy. International corporations are loyal to profits, just profits.
Click to expand...

Ok and? That has what to do with trade and the trade deficit supposedly costing jobs? This is liberals in '08 saying what Trump claims now. But being a socialist maybe it's irrelevant to you
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top