How Democrats Lost the Middle Class

69 posts / 0 new

It's kind of shallow to define the middle class by income - What really defines the middle class are values, values that government progams (which replace NGO charity work, the proper source of social support) destroy.

On another note, decrying the increasing disparity of wealth in the USA seems to me no more than useless whining because:
1) What really matters are the man-hours workers, especially the lowest-earning workers, need to put in to afford basic life necessities like housing and healthcare.
2) Complaining that wealth disparity in the USA is widening, and then demanding that wealthy Americans return some of it to less-wealthy Americans, amounts to on the global scale the global 4% or 8% demanding wealth from the global 0.1%. That just looks bad.

Growingtrees's picture
Growingtrees
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Comments

Trees, "On another note, decrying the increasing disparity of wealth in the USA seems to me no more than useless whining because:
1) What really matters are the man-hours workers, especially the lowest-earning workers, need to put in to afford basic life necessities like housing and healthcare.
2) Complaining that wealth disparity in the USA is widening, and then demanding that wealthy Americans return some of it to less-wealthy Americans, amounts to on the global scale the global 4% or 8% demanding wealth from the global 0.1%. That just looks bad."

The last time we had this much wealth disparity was in the 1920's right before the great depression. If one has a job, those man-hours have usually been cut with benefits cut also. If one could put in more man-hours, many more hours need be put in just to keep up with inflation the real rate of inflation, not the lying manipulated rate the federal reserve puts out.

4% or 8%, where do you come up with that bullshit figure?

camaroman's picture
camaroman
Joined:
May. 9, 2012 10:30 am

Democrats drank the open-borders-world-is-flat koolaid. But then again, if we're all neighbors on this big blue marble, at least the Chinese, Indians, etc, now have some infrastructure to pull themselves out of the third world. And they hate the Muslims at least as much as we do, so it's all good. Pass me a bible and a bowl of rice, please.

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

The Middle Class, like most Americans, have become consumers that need mindless entertainment and lazily given up being informed citizens. Spending more money on false negative ads is a winner with too many people.

lovecraft
Joined:
May. 8, 2012 11:06 am

Democrats lost America by supporting unions and handouts for too long. Most Americans believe in hard work, not more entitlements.

Entitlement Society's picture
Entitlement Society
Joined:
Jun. 6, 2012 12:45 pm
Quote chilidog:

Democrats drank the open-borders-world-is-flat koolaid. But then again, if we're all neighbors on this big blue marble, at least the Chinese, Indians, etc, now have some infrastructure to pull themselves out of the third world. And they hate the Muslims at least as much as we do, so it's all good. Pass me a bible and a bowl of rice, please.

Too funny.

As much as we want to blame the righties for all our ills, ain't the Dems embrace of free trade the single most important cause? Well ..... that and the corporate media coupled with rampant American stupidity (as D-Natured mentioned elsewhere today).

Laborisgood's picture
Laborisgood
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Quote Entitlement Society:

Democrats lost America by supporting unions and handouts for too long. Most Americans believe in hard work, not more entitlements.

Pure nonsense. Clinton dealt the death blow to unions in the private sector when he bought into NAFTA 18 YEARS ago. If the Dems are losing ground it's because of their internal war between corporate and liberal Dems. This has prevented them from having a coherent message... that and their cowardice to take on the Right's 30 year organized assault on America's workers. I don't remember any new entitlement legislation over the past 20 years except the GOP's wet kiss to Big Pharma: Medicare D and Obama's big wet kiss to Big Insurance: ObamaCare… but that's hardly gone into effect yet. Your theory is just way off base. But is the resentment on the Right about entitlements real? Sure! That resentment been cynically ginned up by the Right. They take people off the income tax rolls in 2001 then when it suits their purposes complain these people pay no income taxes... and the system is unfair to the rich... who pay LESS per dollar of income, but let's sweep that under the table.

Please don't pass off your own Orwellian Right delusions as reality.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm
Quote Pierpont:

Quote Entitlement Society:

Democrats lost America by supporting unions and handouts for too long. Most Americans believe in hard work, not more entitlements.

Pure nonsense. Clinton dealt the death blow to unions in the private sector when he bought into NAFTA 18 YEARS ago. If the Dems are losing ground it's because of their internal war between corporate and liberal Dems. This has prevented them from having a coherent message... that and their cowardice to take on the Right's 30 year organized assault on America's workers. I don't remember any new entitlement legislation over the past 20 years except the GOP's wet kiss to Big Pharma: Medicare D and Obama's big wet kiss to Big Insurance: ObamaCare… but that's hardly gone into effect yet. Your theory is just way off base. But is the resentment on the Right about entitlements real? Sure! That resentment been cynically ginned up by the Right. They take people off the income tax rolls in 2001 then when it suits their purposes complain these people pay no income taxes... and the system is unfair to the rich... who pay LESS per dollar of income, but let's sweep that under the table.

Please don't pass off your own Orwellian Right delusions as reality.

NAFTA opened up free trade between the USA, Canada, and Mexico. It allowed us access to cheaper goods and made all of the countries involved better off. I'm a big fan of Clinton, because unlike Reagan he balanced the budget. Medicare Part D was a failure, though it would make more sense if the government was able to negotiate drug prices. Clearly Big Pharma played a roll as you said. I'm not a Republican and don't have that much in common with the general party's platform. I'm not a libertarian though either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_trade#Economics_of_free_trade

In a 2006 survey of American economists (83 responders), "87.5% agree that the U.S. should eliminate remaining tariffs and other barriers to trade" and "90.1% disagree with the suggestion that the U.S. should restrict employers from outsourcing work to foreign countries."

Entitlement Society's picture
Entitlement Society
Joined:
Jun. 6, 2012 12:45 pm

Quote: "In a 2006 survey of American economists (83 responders), "87.5% agree that the U.S. should eliminate remaining tariffs and other barriers to trade" and "90.1% disagree with the suggestion that the U.S. should restrict employers from outsourcing work to foreign countries."

Well...fine with me, as long as all other countries do the same thing. However, that would break the rules of the WTO, which according go conservative economist and former Trade Official Peter Morici, allow "developing" countries to enact higher tariffs. According to Morici, China's tariffs are something like 25% on U.S. imports, while ours are a measly 3%. Add the currency advantage of about 30%, and thar's your problem - a structural 50+% cost disadvantage before labor, regulations, or that sinister "Big Government" is factored in.

If you don't wanna listen to the clip, quote by Morici: "In the United States, our average tariff is maybe 2.5% or 3%. In China, it's more like 25%. Under the WTO agreements, which govern all trade internationally, developing countries are given special and deferential treatment. They're permitted to have higher tariffs, and they're permitted to not play by quite the same rules when it comes to the various codes that the WTO has..."

Why nobody talks about this is beyond me.

http://www.dylanratigan.com/2010/12/15/peter-morici/

al3's picture
al3
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

NAFTA and Free trade were the worst things possible for us as a country. Cheaper goods from other countries takes money out of our own country for goods, labor, resources. Money exiting our country will eventually bleed it dry. It's already the leading cause of unemployment. Anyone who prefers to depend upon other countries for products that can be made better in the USA while employing it's populace is a sucker. A sucker born every day.

If you are a supporter of free trade then you'd better not be complaining about the cost of welfare and unemployment benefits in the U.S.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 6:53 am

NAFTA also caused untold economic problems in Mexico which increased the migration into our country. At this time the Mexican economy is in shambles and at near collasp, that's one reason the drug cartels are so strong.

delete jan in iowa
Joined:
Feb. 6, 2011 11:16 am
Quote Bush_Wacker:

If you are a supporter of free trade then you'd better not be complaining about the cost of welfare and unemployment benefits in the U.S.

Well said. Free trade and welfare fit together like a hand in a glove.

For every unpatriotic American jackass making a few bucks off of free trade, there are 10 poor American bastards who are worse off. And the Democrats have sold their soul to the devil by going along with it. Thom keeps saying that which ever party starts pushing protectionism will start winning alot of elections.

Laborisgood's picture
Laborisgood
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Trade is not why we have high unemployment. We have been expanding trade for years. Only recently has unemployment been over 6%. The fact is that trade allows us to get goods on the cheap. Do you want to pay 20% more for your goods? I know that I don't. The reason why we have high unemployment is uncertainty with fiscal policy/regulations and employers can't find skilled workers. If we put tariffs on our goods we're going to start a trade war, prices of goods will go up, and many employers will actually have to cut jobs, because of the added costs to their businesses.

Entitlement Society's picture
Entitlement Society
Joined:
Jun. 6, 2012 12:45 pm

We would come out ahead in a trade war. Our leaders just don't have the balls to stand up to the unpatriotic American Jackasses who are getting rich off of free trade in order to help the other poor American bastards.

Laborisgood's picture
Laborisgood
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote al3:

Quote: "In a 2006 survey of American economists (83 responders), "87.5% agree that the U.S. should eliminate remaining tariffs and other barriers to trade" and "90.1% disagree with the suggestion that the U.S. should restrict employers from outsourcing work to foreign countries."

Well...fine with me, as long as all other countries do the same thing. However, that would break the rules of the WTO, which according go conservative economist and former Trade Official Peter Morici, allow "developing" countries to enact higher tariffs. According to Morici, China's tariffs are something like 25% on U.S. imports, while ours are a measly 3%. Add the currency advantage of about 30%, and thar's your problem - a structural 50+% cost disadvantage before labor, regulations, or that sinister "Big Government" is factored in.

If you don't wanna listen to the clip, quote by Morici: "In the United States, our average tariff is maybe 2.5% or 3%. In China, it's more like 25%. Under the WTO agreements, which govern all trade internationally, developing countries are given special and deferential treatment. They're permitted to have higher tariffs, and they're permitted to not play by quite the same rules when it comes to the various codes that the WTO has..."

Why nobody talks about this is beyond me.

http://www.dylanratigan.com/2010/12/15/peter-morici/

Remember when Japan had a trade surplus with the US? They used that surplus to buy our assets. Then their economy collapsed and they had to sell them off.

Entitlement Society's picture
Entitlement Society
Joined:
Jun. 6, 2012 12:45 pm

You gotta love the form of this argument.

Middle class is not defined by income. Even though "class" is an economic concept.

No, apparently Middle class is defined by "values" which is actually about ethics, not class.

Oh and by the way the values that define the middle class are my values and not yours.

*face palm* The typical egocentrism of the conservative mind.

The middle class is an economic term and it is relational. You are correct that income is a shoddy way of defining middle class because what really defines the middle class is their relationship to other class locations within the spectrum that exists in the US and a particular standard of living as a result of this relationship.

To equate the middle class with a value set would render the concept meaningless. That would mean that someone who makes billions of dollars a year with a particular mind set would be "middle class."

The whole thought process in this thread is just... intellectually weak.

ah2
Joined:
Dec. 13, 2010 9:00 pm
Quote Entitlement Society:

Trade is not why we have high unemployment. We have been expanding trade for years. Only recently has unemployment been over 6%. The fact is that trade allows us to get goods on the cheap. Do you want to pay 20% more for your goods? I know that I don't. The reason why we have high unemployment is uncertainty with fiscal policy/regulations and employers can't find skilled workers. If we put tariffs on our goods we're going to start a trade war, prices of goods will go up, and many employers will actually have to cut jobs, because of the added costs to their businesses.

No way ES. Lincoln understood this best. At the time Britain ruled the world through the use of free trade. Lincoln understood that connecting the East coast with the West coast with the railroad would allow the United States to prosper from within without having to give in to the plutocracy and banking magnates of Europe. He was right. It was called protectionism and that mixed with our own currency started the industrial revolution. The rulers of Europe understood how well it worked in America and Germany planned on a railroad that went deep into foreign territories in order to not have to give in to the British empire. The Trans-siberian railroad was planned to connect up to the west from Russia for the same purposes. Subsequently the British sabotaged all those plans with World War I and World War II. It worked and the British empire once again gained control over the trade markets.

The United States prospered because of the lack of free trade. Costs would not be as much as you think because the competition within the States would be rampant. I would rather see us return to high tariffs and prosper from within. Once the big money corporations saw what was going on they wouldn't be so quick to want to move their businesses out of the country and away from all of the action. That's the only way the United States will ever become the self reliant super power it once was.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 6:53 am
Quote Bush_Wacker:
Quote Entitlement Society:

Trade is not why we have high unemployment. We have been expanding trade for years. Only recently has unemployment been over 6%. The fact is that trade allows us to get goods on the cheap. Do you want to pay 20% more for your goods? I know that I don't. The reason why we have high unemployment is uncertainty with fiscal policy/regulations and employers can't find skilled workers. If we put tariffs on our goods we're going to start a trade war, prices of goods will go up, and many employers will actually have to cut jobs, because of the added costs to their businesses.

No way ES. Lincoln understood this best. At the time Britain ruled the world through the use of free trade. Lincoln understood that connecting the East coast with the West coast with the railroad would allow the United States to prosper from within without having to give in to the plutocracy and banking magnates of Europe. He was right. It was called protectionism and that mixed with our own currency started the industrial revolution. The rulers of Europe understood how well it worked in America and Germany planned on a railroad that went deep into foreign territories in order to not have to give in to the British empire. The Trans-siberian railroad was planned to connect up to the west from Russia for the same purposes. Subsequently the British sabotaged all those plans with World War I and World War II. It worked and the British empire once again gained control over the trade markets.

The United States prospered because of the lack of free trade. Costs would not be as much as you think because the competition within the States would be rampant. I would rather see us return to high tariffs and prosper from within. Once the big money corporations saw what was going on they wouldn't be so quick to want to move their businesses out of the country and away from all of the action. That's the only way the United States will ever become the self reliant super power it once was.

Comparative Advantage:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage

Trade costs, particularly transportation, reduce and may eliminate the benefits from trade, including comparative advantage. Paul Krugman gives the following example.[9]

Using Ricardo's classic example:

Unit labor costs ClothWineBritain100110Portugal9080

In the absence of transportation costs, it is efficient for Britain to produce cloth, and Portugal to produce wine, as, assuming that these trade at equal price (1 unit of cloth for 1 unit of wine) Britain can then obtain wine at a cost of 100 labor units by producing cloth and trading, rather than 110 units by producing the wine itself, and Portugal can obtain cloth at a cost of 80 units by trade rather than 90 by production.

However, in the presence of trade costs of 15 units of labor to import a good (alternatively a mix of export labor costs and import labor costs, such as 5 units to export and 10 units to import), it then costs Britain 115 units of labor to obtain wine by trade – 100 units for producing the cloth, 15 units for importing the wine, which is more expensive than producing the wine locally, and likewise for Portugal. Thus, if trade costs exceed the production advantage, it is not advantageous to trade.

Krugman proceeds to argue more speculatively that changes in the cost of trade (particularly transportation) relative to the cost of production may be a factor in changes in global patterns of trade: if trade costs decrease, such as on the advent of steam-powered shipping, trade should be expected to increase, as more comparative advantages in production can be realized. Conversely, if trade costs increase, or if production costs decrease faster than trade costs (such as via electrification of factories), then trade should be expected to decrease, as trade costs become a more significant barrier.

________________________________________________

As you can see even Krugman supports free trade. Free trade has allowed America to become more of a service economy, rather than manufacturing economy.

By the way, Britain lost its status as a superpower, because its economy was ruined from WW1 and WW2. They actually owed the US billions. The destruction of Europe is what positioned America to be the only superpower in the world after WW2, not protectionism.

Entitlement Society's picture
Entitlement Society
Joined:
Jun. 6, 2012 12:45 pm

Quote Entitlement Society:If we put tariffs on our goods we're going to start a trade war, prices of goods will go up, and many employers will actually have to cut jobs, because of the added costs to their businesses.

What utter nonsense. Without cheap imports to meet domestic demand, domestic manufactures will GLADLY take up the slack and EXPAND domestic production.

You CLAIM you're not a GOPer... and maybe you're not a registered GOPer. But your a doctrinaire far Right winger.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm
Quote Pierpont:

Quote Entitlement Society:If we put tariffs on our goods we're going to start a trade war, prices of goods will go up, and many employers will actually have to cut jobs, because of the added costs to their businesses.

What utter nonsense. Without cheap imports to meet domestic demand, domestic manufactures will GLADLY take up the slack and EXPAND domestic production.

You CLAIM you're not a GOPer... and maybe you're not a registered GOPer. But your a doctrinaire far Right winger.

It would cost consumers more money, because of our high labor cost. So I guess Paul Krugman is to the far right these days? He supports free trade as well. Your ideas of trade are on par with North Korea.

Entitlement Society's picture
Entitlement Society
Joined:
Jun. 6, 2012 12:45 pm

Would you please supply references/links to Krugman supporting free trade?

MEJ's picture
MEJ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Entitlement Society:

Trade is not why we have high unemployment. We have been expanding trade for years. Only recently has unemployment been over 6%. The fact is that trade allows us to get goods on the cheap. Do you want to pay 20% more for your goods? I know that I don't.

Trade is exacly why we have a lack of quality employment. If an increase in the cost of goods came along with an increase in wages and employment (which it would via protectionism), most Americans would jump at it.

Laborisgood's picture
Laborisgood
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

ES, "NAFTA opened up free trade between the USA, Canada, and Mexico. It allowed us access to cheaper goods and made all of the countries involved better off."

Mexico saw a net loss of employment under Nafta, and this at a time when the country's baby boom has about one million young people entering the work force each year. No wonder an estimated half-million Mexicans make the increasingly perilous and militarised crossing to the US each year, double the migration rate before Nafta, which, remember, was promised to end the migration problem by allowing Mexico to "export goods, not people".

No wonder some Mexicans are calling for their own government to renegotiate Nafta on its fifteenth birthday. The wage gap with the US has gotten bigger, not smaller, with US wages nearly six times Mexico's. About half the population can't find formal employment. Poverty rates and inequality are down only slightly, in part because remittances from Mexicans who migrated to the US are up six-fold since Nafta took effect.

In Washington, many people almost take it for granted that Mexico was the big winner from Nafta. After all, the Mexican government got exactly what it wanted from the agreement: exports to the US increased sevenfold, much of it in manufacturing, and foreign direct investment jumped to four times pre-Nafta levels. With inflation down and productivity up, the Mexican economy was ready for takeoff.

It didn't happen. The economy grew slowly – an annual rate of 1.6% per capita. This was low by historical standards. The economy grew 3.5% per year from 1960-79, under the widely criticised policies of "import substitution". And it was low by developing country standards. China, India and Brazil all vaulted ahead of Mexico, following a much less orthodox set of policies that would be illegal for Mexico under Nafta.

camaroman's picture
camaroman
Joined:
May. 9, 2012 10:30 am
Quote camaroman:

In Washington, many people almost take it for granted that Mexico was the big winner from Nafta. After all, the Mexican government got exactly what it wanted from the agreement: exports to the US increased sevenfold, much of it in manufacturing, and foreign direct investment jumped to four times pre-Nafta levels.

The Mexican government wanted was to export their poor to the US, which has worked out just fine for them until the '08 Depression began.

delete jan in iowa
Joined:
Feb. 6, 2011 11:16 am

Quote Entitlement Society:

Quote Pierpont:

Quote Entitlement Society:If we put tariffs on our goods we're going to start a trade war, prices of goods will go up, and many employers will actually have to cut jobs, because of the added costs to their businesses.

What utter nonsense. Without cheap imports to meet domestic demand, domestic manufactures will GLADLY take up the slack and EXPAND domestic production.

You CLAIM you're not a GOPer... and maybe you're not a registered GOPer. But your a doctrinaire far Right winger.

It would cost consumers more money, because of our high labor cost. So I guess Paul Krugman is to the far right these days? He supports free trade as well. Your ideas of trade are on par with North Korea.

GFYS. No, my ideas are along the line of what made this nation great... Hamilton's original economic plan of the 1790s that tariffs are essential to build and protect our economy. It's free trade that is the radical right wing idea because it undercuts our ability to protect gains made as we civilized our rat-eat-rat economy. Would domestic goods cost more? SURE because they include the price of a civilized economy... better wages, benefits, a 40 hour week, overtime, minimum wage, worker safety, pollution controls, vacations, holidays, sick time, prohibitions on child labor, Social Security, workmans comp, 401ks/pensions, etc etc... ALL costs many corporations are dying to evade. Cheap imports are the crack cocaine that provides the temporary illusion of a better lifestyle on the cheap while it undercuts domestic producers and drags down our overall standard of living. Our higher wages/benefits would be more than enough to offset the higher price of domestic goods. Greater standardization would also help.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm
Quote chilidog:

Democrats drank the open-borders-world-is-flat koolaid.

Let's be fair... CORPORATE DLC Dems bought this Kool Aid, not all Dems. NAFTA passed with mostly GOP votes.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1993/roll575.xml

HOUSE.........For...Nay

Democratic..102..156

Republican..132....43

Independent..........1

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=103&session=1&vote=00395#top
Senate

27 Dems for 28 Nay

34 GOP for 10 Nay

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm

Do the actions of Clinton and Obama count for 435 votes?

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Laborisgood:
Quote Entitlement Society:

Trade is not why we have high unemployment. We have been expanding trade for years. Only recently has unemployment been over 6%. The fact is that trade allows us to get goods on the cheap. Do you want to pay 20% more for your goods? I know that I don't.

Trade is exacly why we have a lack of quality employment. If an increase in the cost of goods came along with an increase in wages and employment (which it would via protectionism), most Americans would jump at it.

A lot of those jobs are for low skilled workers who would be living below the poverty line with those jobs. Here's a very good article that explains why America should choose free trade over protectionism:

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/05/why-america-needs-to-support-free-trade

Entitlement Society's picture
Entitlement Society
Joined:
Jun. 6, 2012 12:45 pm
Quote MEJ:

Would you please supply references/links to Krugman supporting free trade?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman

Free trade

Krugman's views on free trade have provoked considerable ire from the anti-globalism movement.[150][151][20] He once famously quipped that, "If there were an Economist's Creed, it would surely contain the affirmations 'I understand the Principle of Comparative Advantage' and 'I advocate Free Trade'."[152][153] However, in the same article, Krugman argues[153] that, given the findings of New Trade Theory,

... free trade is not passé, but ... has irretrievably lost its innocence. Its status has shifted from optimum to reasonable rule of thumb...it can never again be asserted as the policy that economic theory tells us is always right.

Nevertheless, Krugman declares in favor of free trade given the enormous political costs of actively engaging in strategic trade policy (i.e. rent-seeking) and because there is no clear method for a government to discover which industries will ultimately yield positive returns. In the same article, Krugman expressed that the phenomena of increasing returns (of which strategic trade policy depends) does not disprove the underlying truth behind comparative advantage.

______________________________________________

Read his work on New Trade Theory. It's quite brilliant. There are two Paul Krugman's. One, the Nobel Prize winner who contributed brilliant ideas on New Trade Theory. The other is the partisan hack that you can read in the New York Times.

Entitlement Society's picture
Entitlement Society
Joined:
Jun. 6, 2012 12:45 pm
Quote Entitlement Society:
Quote Laborisgood:
Quote Entitlement Society:

Trade is not why we have high unemployment. We have been expanding trade for years. Only recently has unemployment been over 6%. The fact is that trade allows us to get goods on the cheap. Do you want to pay 20% more for your goods? I know that I don't.

Trade is exacly why we have a lack of quality employment. If an increase in the cost of goods came along with an increase in wages and employment (which it would via protectionism), most Americans would jump at it.

A lot of those jobs are for low skilled workers who would be living below the poverty line with those jobs. Here's a very good article that explains why America should choose free trade over protectionism:

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/05/why-america-needs-to-support-free-trade

The Heritage Foundation ..... are you fucking kidding me?

Their conclusion to this load of crap sums it up nicely:

"Conclusion

Free trade is an essential pillar of U.S. economic power and prosperity. It encourages labor force specialization and the exchange of goods and services that other countries do better and at lower cost."

Free trade has essentially made America's labor force bona fide specialists in the food service and big box franchise industries. We are experts in delivering low priced goods and services. Hey, but at least a select few make tons of money in the process.

Laborisgood's picture
Laborisgood
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Arguing about free trade is a waste of time. We don't have free trade. We have highly managed trade. Managed by corporations and governments. In Western mature high cost economies, it's managed by multinationals (favoring importing), and in developing countries, it's managed by governments (favoring export). Comparative advantage means nothing when said advantage is artificially derived by subsidies, currency manipulation etc. etc.

Quoting conservative economist, former trade official, and University of Maryland Econ professor Peter Morici, "In the United States, our average tariff is maybe 2.5% or 3%. In China, it's more like 25%. Under the WTO agreements, which govern all trade internationally, developing countries are given special and deferential treatment. They're permitted to have higher tariffs, and they're permitted to not play by quite the same rules when it comes to the various codes that the WTO has..."

That's the definition of managed trade, not free trade.

http://www.dylanratigan.com/2010/12/15/peter-morici/

al3's picture
al3
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Laborisgood:
Quote Entitlement Society:
Quote Laborisgood:
Quote Entitlement Society:

Trade is not why we have high unemployment. We have been expanding trade for years. Only recently has unemployment been over 6%. The fact is that trade allows us to get goods on the cheap. Do you want to pay 20% more for your goods? I know that I don't.

Trade is exacly why we have a lack of quality employment. If an increase in the cost of goods came along with an increase in wages and employment (which it would via protectionism), most Americans would jump at it.

A lot of those jobs are for low skilled workers who would be living below the poverty line with those jobs. Here's a very good article that explains why America should choose free trade over protectionism:

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/05/why-america-needs-to-support-free-trade

The Heritage Foundation ..... are you fucking kidding me?

Their conclusion to this load of crap sums it up nicely:

"Conclusion

Free trade is an essential pillar of U.S. economic power and prosperity. It encourages labor force specialization and the exchange of goods and services that other countries do better and at lower cost."

Free trade has essentially made America's labor force bona fide specialists in the food service and big box franchise industries. We are experts in delivering low priced goods and services. Hey, but at least a select few make tons of money in the process.

Do you realize that most of the jobs that have gone to China were also for low skilled workers? It sounds like you never gave the article a chance.

Entitlement Society's picture
Entitlement Society
Joined:
Jun. 6, 2012 12:45 pm

Quote Entitlement Society:
Quote Laborisgood:

Quote Entitlement Society:Trade is not why we have high unemployment. We have been expanding trade for years. Only recently has unemployment been over 6%. The fact is that trade allows us to get goods on the cheap. Do you want to pay 20% more for your goods? I know that I don't.

Trade is exactly why we have a lack of quality employment. If an increase in the cost of goods came along with an increase in wages and employment (which it would via protectionism), most Americans would jump at it.

A lot of those jobs are for low skilled workers who would be living below the poverty line with those jobs. Here's a very good article that explains why America should choose free trade over protectionism:

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/05/why-america-needs-to-support-free-trade

Ah gee, YES, or course!!!! That Right wing "think tank" that is funded by nutty far Right wing billionaires that only looks out for the interests of the poor!!!! You're such a transparent dupe or paid shill, your posts are forum trash. But I know... the rules for a shill to get paid are always to seem reasonable and nice.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm
Quote Pierpont:

Quote Entitlement Society:
Quote Laborisgood:

Quote Entitlement Society:Trade is not why we have high unemployment. We have been expanding trade for years. Only recently has unemployment been over 6%. The fact is that trade allows us to get goods on the cheap. Do you want to pay 20% more for your goods? I know that I don't.

Trade is exactly why we have a lack of quality employment. If an increase in the cost of goods came along with an increase in wages and employment (which it would via protectionism), most Americans would jump at it.

A lot of those jobs are for low skilled workers who would be living below the poverty line with those jobs. Here's a very good article that explains why America should choose free trade over protectionism:

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/05/why-america-needs-to-support-free-trade

Ah gee, YES, or course!!!! That Right wing "think tank" that is funded by nutty far Right wing billionaires that only looks out for the interests of the poor!!!! You're such a transparent dupe or paid shill, your posts are forum trash. But I know... the rules for a shill to get paid are always to seem reasonable and nice.

You come across as very uneducated. Did you read the article or just dismiss it immediately? Do you have any independent analysis on the effects of free trade?

Entitlement Society's picture
Entitlement Society
Joined:
Jun. 6, 2012 12:45 pm

I read the article.

Up til I got to the date of May 24, 2004.

This chick probably also wrote an article analyzing how flipping houses is the gare-oan-tede path to riches.

It's a good thing nothing ever changes in your world.

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Entitlement Society:
Quote Laborisgood:
Quote Entitlement Society:
Quote Laborisgood:
Quote Entitlement Society:

Trade is not why we have high unemployment. We have been expanding trade for years. Only recently has unemployment been over 6%. The fact is that trade allows us to get goods on the cheap. Do you want to pay 20% more for your goods? I know that I don't.

Trade is exacly why we have a lack of quality employment. If an increase in the cost of goods came along with an increase in wages and employment (which it would via protectionism), most Americans would jump at it.

A lot of those jobs are for low skilled workers who would be living below the poverty line with those jobs. Here's a very good article that explains why America should choose free trade over protectionism:

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/05/why-america-needs-to-support-free-trade

The Heritage Foundation ..... are you fucking kidding me?

Their conclusion to this load of crap sums it up nicely:

"Conclusion

Free trade is an essential pillar of U.S. economic power and prosperity. It encourages labor force specialization and the exchange of goods and services that other countries do better and at lower cost."

Free trade has essentially made America's labor force bona fide specialists in the food service and big box franchise industries. We are experts in delivering low priced goods and services. Hey, but at least a select few make tons of money in the process.

Do you realize that most of the jobs that have gone to China were also for low skilled workers? It sounds like you never gave the article a chance.

I suffered through some of it and jumped to the final conclusion of the article when it sounded like typical flat earth economic babbling. I'll be the first to admit my shortcomings on economics, but anyone still holding tightly to free trade and supply side economics is clearly either deficient in fundamental economic knowledge or knowingly selling that crap in order to enrich themselves. Free trade and supply side economics do work ..... for a select few, but they are an abysmal failure for the vast majority of Americans who have no greater aspirations than to have a home, raise a family, send the kids to college while not fearing for how they will get by in their retirement years.

As the Heritage Foundation article states: "free trade encourages labor force specialization". For every one specialized labor job created for an American via free trade, we also get an additional 10 shitty jobs in the service sector. We gots piles of shitty service sector jobs out there and all the manufacturing jobs that could do a far better job of supporting a family are now sent elsewhere so a few selfish pricks can live large and whine about how overtaxed they are and how tired they are of supporting all these people who have a precious few good jobs to fight over.

Laborisgood's picture
Laborisgood
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Laborisgood:
Quote Entitlement Society:
Quote Laborisgood:
Quote Entitlement Society:
Quote Laborisgood:
Quote Entitlement Society:

Trade is not why we have high unemployment. We have been expanding trade for years. Only recently has unemployment been over 6%. The fact is that trade allows us to get goods on the cheap. Do you want to pay 20% more for your goods? I know that I don't.

Trade is exacly why we have a lack of quality employment. If an increase in the cost of goods came along with an increase in wages and employment (which it would via protectionism), most Americans would jump at it.

A lot of those jobs are for low skilled workers who would be living below the poverty line with those jobs. Here's a very good article that explains why America should choose free trade over protectionism:

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/05/why-america-needs-to-support-free-trade

The Heritage Foundation ..... are you fucking kidding me?

Their conclusion to this load of crap sums it up nicely:

"Conclusion

Free trade is an essential pillar of U.S. economic power and prosperity. It encourages labor force specialization and the exchange of goods and services that other countries do better and at lower cost."

Free trade has essentially made America's labor force bona fide specialists in the food service and big box franchise industries. We are experts in delivering low priced goods and services. Hey, but at least a select few make tons of money in the process.

Do you realize that most of the jobs that have gone to China were also for low skilled workers? It sounds like you never gave the article a chance.

I suffered through some of it and jumped to the final conclusion of the article when it sounded like typical flat earth economic babbling. I'll be the first to admit my shortcomings on economics, but anyone still holding tightly to free trade and supply side economics is clearly either deficient in fundamental economic knowledge or knowingly selling that crap in order to enrich themselves. Free trade and supply side economics do work ..... for a select few, but they are an abysmal failure for the vast majority of Americans who have no greater aspirations than to have a home, raise a family, send the kids to college while not fearing for how they will get by in their retirement years.

As the Heritage Foundation article states: "free trade encourages labor force specialization". For every one specialized labor job created for an American via free trade, we also get an additional 10 shitty jobs in the service sector. We gots piles of shitty service sector jobs out there and all the manufacturing jobs that could do a far better job of supporting a family are now sent elsewhere so a few selfish pricks can live large and whine about how overtaxed they are and how tired they are of supporting all these people who have a precious few good jobs to fight over.

First of all, without arguing which is better, service vs. manufacturing jobs, you realize that we'd still need those service jobs? Do you also realize that machinery would win out over people? Do you also realize that prices on goods will be raised, putting more businesses out of business?

Entitlement Society's picture
Entitlement Society
Joined:
Jun. 6, 2012 12:45 pm

I thought it was because no one wanted to buy are over priced crap.

People will pay extra for quality look at mercedes and other high end foreign made goods. If we built a premium product people will buy it.

Free trade or not but the product has to be better.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am

Walking through the park and reminiscingggggggg

Haven't heard that argument in decades.

American products weren't crap because of union labor screwing on the bolts.

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Quote Entitlement Society:You come across as very uneducated. Did you read the article or just dismiss it immediately? Do you have any independent analysis on the effects of free trade?

I've read that article years ago and several times since. I'm well aware of all the Right wing propaganda supporting free trade. I've been against it since I voted for Perot in 92. The one who appears uneducated is the one unaware that there is even such a thing as the Orwellian Right but instead passes their crap around as if it were handed down on a slab. The simple truth you are determined to evade is trade doesn't exist in a vacuum. It has implications for our democratic ability to control our own economy and standard of living.

Your hack piece starts out with a lie: "Free trade is again under attack, despite having been, for over a century, the basis of America's wealth."

We did NOT have free trade for all of that period. If we did we'd NOT have cut tariffs for NAFTA, GATT, or WHO. It was our ability to PROTECT our own economy that was the basis for that prosperity.

That article was written in 2004 when the US was still the world's largest exporter. By 2005 we fell to number 2:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_exp-economy-exports&date=2005

as of 2010 now we've sunk to 3ed after China
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_exp-economy-exports

If FREE Trade were so beneficial for our nation, we'd have a POSITIVE trade balance instead of the opposite. Free trade has caused use to sabotage our own industrial base and now can't even produce all that's needed for our own defense. I'm sure that's a comfort to our enemies. It's not to me. Free trade IS good for corporations who don't want to pay the price of a civilized economy but still want to sell at a high profit in our market... and THEY are the ones who pay Heritage to produce such slop for fools like you to eat up.

BTW you seem determined to NOT answer whether you're a paid shill... though if you were, you would not be honest.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm

In the end WE are the ones responsible for building up the Chinese economy with OUR money and OUR technology transfers. They played us for fools and we could not resist ultra cheap labor in a fascist controlled nation. It's a capitalist's wet dream! Now we've created our own economic Frankenstein and soon to be military rival. We've sabotaged our own industrial base, become dependent on China for strategic and rare earth minerals, as well as critical components for our own defense. Ya, free trade was a grand idea! I think it borders on traitorous.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm
Quote Pierpont:

Quote Entitlement Society:You come across as very uneducated. Did you read the article or just dismiss it immediately? Do you have any independent analysis on the effects of free trade?

I've read that article years ago and several times since. I'm well aware of all the Right wing propaganda supporting free trade. I've been against it since I voted for Perot in 92. The one who appears uneducated is the one unaware that there is even such a thing as the Orwellian Right but instead passes their crap around as if it were handed down on a slab. The simple truth you are determined to evade is trade doesn't exist in a vacuum. It has implications for our democratic ability to control our own economy and standard of living.

Your hack piece starts out with a lie: "Free trade is again under attack, despite having been, for over a century, the basis of America's wealth."

We did NOT have free trade for all of that period. If we did we'd NOT have cut tariffs for NAFTA, GATT, or WHO. It was our ability to PROTECT our own economy that was the basis for that prosperity.

That article was written in 2004 when the US was still the world's largest exporter. By 2005 we fell to number 2:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_exp-economy-exports&date=2005

as of 2010 now we've sunk to 3ed after China
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_exp-economy-exports

If FREE Trade were so beneficial for our nation, we'd have a POSITIVE trade balance instead of the opposite. Free trade has caused use to sabotage our own industrial base and now can't even produce all that's needed for our own defense. I'm sure that's a comfort to our enemies. It's not to me. Free trade IS good for corporations who don't want to pay the price of a civilized economy but still want to sell at a high profit in our market... and THEY are the ones who pay Heritage to produce such slop for fools like you to eat up.

BTW you seem determined to NOT answer whether you're a paid shill... though if you were, you would not be honest.

Yes, I'm clearly paid $1000 per post via the Koch Brothers to post on a forum that appears to have like 100 active users. I couldn't think of a better use of capital by them.

Instead of starting a trade war by instituting tariffs why don't we lower the the corporate tax rate for manufacturers to 0%?

Entitlement Society's picture
Entitlement Society
Joined:
Jun. 6, 2012 12:45 pm
Quote chilidog:

Walking through the park and reminiscingggggggg

Haven't heard that argument in decades.

American products weren't crap because of union labor screwing on the bolts.

Nope but the high cost of labor, government regulation and loss of market share caused the companies to cut back on other expenses such as good quaility parts to keep their products competitve in the market place. So the price went up the quality of the product went down and we lost more market share as we are charging a premium price for a substandard product.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am

Manufacturing requires a supply chain which boosts the economy. The service sector just needs a warm body.

lovecraft
Joined:
May. 8, 2012 11:06 am

Quote Entitlement Society:Instead of starting a trade war by instituting tariffs why don't we lower the the corporate tax rate for manufacturers to 0%?

Gee is there a doctrinaire Right wing position you DON'T have Mr.-not-a-Republican? Why should we forgo tax revenue from corporations that benefit from all America has to offer? Or is that the kind of Entitlement Society you find acceptable? No, don't bother playing that double taxation card. Profits can be hidden in any number of ways. And why should we not level the playing field for domestic producers who have to pay all that overhead of a civilized economy when other nations don't? I'm all for free trade for developed nations that have the same costs.... not with nations that can offer cheap imports because they avoid them. Once The US collected a good percentage of its revenues from tariffs. Now it almost nothing.

As for a "trade war" perhaps we should have thought more about entering into such insane agreements. But any reintroduction of tariffs should be done gradually, say over 10 years. What are these nations going to do? Write off the US retail market? I doubt it.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm
Quote Pierpont:

Quote Entitlement Society:Instead of starting a trade war by instituting tariffs why don't we lower the the corporate tax rate for manufacturers to 0%?

Gee is there a doctrinaire Right wing position you DON'T have Mr.-not-a-Republican? Why should we forgo tax revenue from corporations that benefit from all America has to offer? Or is that the kind of Entitlement Society you find acceptable? No, don't bother playing that double taxation card. Profits can be hidden in any number of ways. And why should we not level the playing field for domestic producers who have to pay all that overhead of a civilized economy when other nations don't? I'm all for free trade for developed nations that have the same costs.... not with nations that can offer cheap imports because they avoid them. Once The US collected a good percentage of its revenues from tariffs. Now it almost nothing.

As for a "trade war" perhaps we should have thought more about entering into such insane agreements. But any reintroduction of tariffs should be done gradually, say over 10 years. What are these nations going to do? Write off the US retail market? I doubt it.

We should forgo a corporate tax, because this is a global economy and we want to be globally competitive. Protectionism is the policy of North Korea. Notice how ever since China opened itself up it has gone from one of the poorest countries in the world to the 2nd largest economy. They are essentially following Singapore's policies, but it will take longer, because of a China's rural population.

I believe in many policies that the right is against. I'm open to more research and infrastructure development. I'm strongly against returning to the gold standard. What I'm against is inefficient spending, closing ourselves off to the global economy, and high taxes that make us less competitive in the global economy. I'm a big fan of Lee Kuan Yew and think that the United States could learn a lot from him in order to create sustained economic growth.

Entitlement Society's picture
Entitlement Society
Joined:
Jun. 6, 2012 12:45 pm

Quote Entitlement Society:

We should forgo a corporate tax, because this is a global economy and we want to be globally competitive.

If the way to be "competitive" is to undermine our democracy and standard of living, then the price is too high. But then the Right always valued money more than democracy... unless they can buy that too.

Protectionism is the policy of North Korea. Notice how ever since China opened itself up it has gone from one of the poorest countries in the world to the 2nd largest economy. They are essentially following Singapore's policies, but it will take longer, because of a China's rural population.
I know you're a doctrinaire Right winger but what you're attributing to some magic of the market was simply the West wanting to exploit a hostage workforce because at its core, capitalism is often amoral... and the communist leadership of China dying to leverage that western investment to leapfrog their economy. We were played for fools. You're conveniently, and predictably, sweeping under the rug all the costs there were to the US in terms of technology transfers, that we've created our next biggest rival, and how we've allowed our economy and fiscal health to become dependent on China. Odd that a flaming Progressive cares more about US sovereignty and security than a Right winger... but then since the 80's the US Right has been involved in numerous traitorous activities.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm

Quote Pierpont:Your hack piece starts out with a lie: "Free trade is again under attack, despite having been, for over a century, the basis of America's wealth."

We did NOT have free trade for all of that period. If we did we'd NOT have cut tariffs for NAFTA, GATT, or WHO. It was our ability to PROTECT our own economy that was the basis for that prosperity.

That article was written in 2004 when the US was still the world's largest exporter. By 2005 we fell to number 2:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_exp-economy-exports&date=2005

as of 2010 now we've sunk to 3ed after China
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_exp-economy-exports

If FREE Trade were so beneficial for our nation, we'd have a POSITIVE trade balance instead of the opposite. Free trade has caused use to sabotage our own industrial base and now can't even produce all that's needed for our own defense. I'm sure that's a comfort to our enemies. It's not to me. Free trade IS good for corporations who don't want to pay the price of a civilized economy but still want to sell at a high profit in our market... and THEY are the ones who pay Heritage to produce such slop for fools like you to eat up.

You're EVADING the points I raised. Your relic of an article intends to MISLEAD not inform, but then what can we expect from Heritage. US prosperity didn't come from "free trade" at all since it really didn't exist in its modern form before the Clinton era.... and since then we've become the 3ed biggest exporter when once we were first. The prosperity came from an ability to EXPORT even in a non-free trade environment... not from sabotaging our industrial base and becoming a dumping ground for cheap imports from China.

But then Heritage only exists to provide propaganda that papers over Right wing policies that benefit the rich at the expense of everyone else. Feel free to keep peddling your crap as if it were handed down on a slab.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm
Quote Pierpont:

Quote Entitlement Society:

We should forgo a corporate tax, because this is a global economy and we want to be globally competitive.

If the way to be "competitive" is to undermine our democracy and standard of living, then the price is too high. But then the Right always valued money more than democracy... unless they can buy that too.

Protectionism is the policy of North Korea. Notice how ever since China opened itself up it has gone from one of the poorest countries in the world to the 2nd largest economy. They are essentially following Singapore's policies, but it will take longer, because of a China's rural population.
I know you're a doctrinaire Right winger but what you're attributing to some magic of the market was simply the West wanting to exploit a hostage workforce because at its core, capitalism is often amoral... and the communist leadership of China dying to leverage that western investment to leapfrog their economy. We were played for fools. You're conveniently, and predictably, sweeping under the rug all the costs there were to the US in terms of technology transfers, that we've created our next biggest rival, and how we've allowed our economy and fiscal health to become dependent on China. Odd that a flaming Progressive cares more about US sovereignty and security than a Right winger... but then since the 80's the US Right has been involved in numerous traitorous activities.

I'm not really concerned about our sovereignty, it's not going anywhere anytime soon. As for security, I only am really concerned about terrorists. No nation would ever dare attack our homeland again. If they did, the whole world might come to an end. The truth is that China is probably going to be the most powerful country in world and it's probably going to happen before the end of the 21st century. We could work with them through trade and investment or we can isolate ourselves from them. The truth is we can try and delay China's growth as much as we want, but it's in our best interest when we work together with every nation. A lot of the world's best talent is flocking to Singapore, Hong Kong, and the UAE (specifically Dubai), because they are much more business friendly than the United States. Now, do you want those countries to be the centers of innovation for the 21st century or do you want the US to be? When the US ceases to be the center of innovation it will also cease to be a superpower.

Entitlement Society's picture
Entitlement Society
Joined:
Jun. 6, 2012 12:45 pm

Quote Entitlement Society:A lot of the world's best talent is flocking to Singapore, Hong Kong, and the UAE (specifically Dubai), because they are much more business friendly than the United States. Now, do you want those countries to be the centers of innovation for the 21st century or do you want the US to be? When the US ceases to be the center of innovation it will also cease to be a superpower.

More evasions refusing to defend the issues YOUR Orwellian Right hack piece that claimed "free trade" has been the source of our nation's wealth for a century?

Thanks for admitting you don't give a shit about the US... and as a nation we should be subservient to uncontrollable "market forces". As I said, the US Right has been engaged in traitorous activities for at least 30 years. Thanks for proving me right. I hope your next paycheck from whatever Orwellian Right source pays you for your propaganda postings is satisfied with your mindless if not slavish adherence to such destructive Right wing bullshit.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm
Quote Pierpont:

Quote Entitlement Society:A lot of the world's best talent is flocking to Singapore, Hong Kong, and the UAE (specifically Dubai), because they are much more business friendly than the United States. Now, do you want those countries to be the centers of innovation for the 21st century or do you want the US to be? When the US ceases to be the center of innovation it will also cease to be a superpower.

More evasions refusing to defend the issues YOUR Orwellian Right hack piece that claimed "free trade" has been the source of our nation's wealth for a century?

Thanks for admitting you don't give a shit about the US... and as a nation we should be subservient to uncontrollable "market forces". As I said, the US Right has been engaged in traitorous activities for at least 30 years. Thanks for proving me right. I hope your next paycheck from whatever Orwellian Right source pays you for your propaganda postings is satisfied with your mindless if not slavish adherence to such destructive Right wing bullshit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HoaFWI5S0Q

Entitlement Society's picture
Entitlement Society
Joined:
Jun. 6, 2012 12:45 pm

Currently Chatting

The Death of the Middle Class was by Design...

Even in the face of the so-called Recovery, poverty and inequality are getting worse in our country, and more wealth and power is flowing straight to the top. According to Paul Buchheit over at Alternet, this is the end result of winner-take-all capitalism, and this destruction of the working class has all been by design.

Powered by Drupal, an open source content management system