Hardnosed political discussion . . .

#201
#201
(OldVol @ May 2 said:
My understanding of NAFTA:

Proponents: They declared it would open up free markets in Mexico and South America, raising wages in those countries, thus opening up new markets for American enterprise and reduce to a trickle the influx of illegal immigration in America. That's the cliffs notes version.

Opponents: It will destroy the manufacturing motivation in America, sending companies South at the expense of the American working man, driving wages down here and having little to nothing to do with discouraging illegal immigration.

Well, in my opinion the opponents were more correct than the proponents.

It has done nothing to drive down illegals, it has driven down American low-end wages and it has not opened up markets in Mexico because, as I've said before, the Mexico and South American governments are run by crooks, cheats and criminals who are not about to share the wealth with the poverty stricken citizens of their respective countries.
Click to expand...

The question is where would we be now without NAFTA? According to the opponents then wages would be higher and therefore, more illegals would be coming. With unemployment at about 4.6% we've pretty much tapped out the US labor market (see economic thoughts on theoretical full-employment). Increasing upward wage pressure would also likely have inflationary effects.

Also without NAFTA (based on opponents view), global disparities in wealth would be even greater.

Finally, without NAFTA type agreements -- there would be less competitive forces driving innovation in the US. Isolationist trade policies insulate nations in the short-term from competition but lead to long-term stagnation. See countries like North Korea and much of the former Eastern Bloc for example.

The biggest problem I see with free-trade policies such as NAFTA is that the transition from one economic base to another hits some citizens much harder than others (e.g. textile workers). Countries such as India do a better job of educating the workforce for the inevitable shifts in employment bases.

 
#204
#204
(volinbham @ May 2 said:
The question is where would we be now without NAFTA? According to the opponents then wages would be higher and therefore, more illegals would be coming. With unemployment at about 4.6% we've pretty much tapped out the US labor market (see economic thoughts on theoretical full-employment). Increasing upward wage pressure would also likely have inflationary effects.

Also without NAFTA (based on opponents view), global disparities in wealth would be even greater.

Finally, without NAFTA type agreements -- there would be less competitive forces driving innovation in the US. Isolationist trade policies insulate nations in the short-term from competition but lead to long-term stagnation. See countries like North Korea and much of the former Eastern Bloc for example.

The biggest problem I see with free-trade policies such as NAFTA is that the transition from one economic base to another hits some citizens much harder than others (e.g. textile workers). Countries such as India do a better job of educating the workforce for the inevitable shifts in employment bases.
Click to expand...

In my opinion, treaties similar to NAFTA can never work when your partners are crooked, cheating, embezzling dogs like Vicente Fox (sp) and the corrupted Mexican government.

If partner governments are honest in their dealings, then such treaties could benefit both parties.
 
#205
#205
(jdsa @ May 3 said:
This struck me as a discussion worthy piece about tax cuts, so I'm posting it just to hear what other people think.

http://biz.yahoo.com/y/fpcol/23905/:http:/.../economist/4065

I read something else the other day about the national debt during Bush's term in office essentially equaling the amount of debt run up by all the previous presidents combined.

Anyway. . .
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more, which is why I am all for the Fair Tax. Funny how people will buy into his rational thought a lot quicker than they will buy into another truism, this time concerning wages: A hike in minimum wages leads to higher costs, and therefore, higher prices.
 
#206
#206
(UTGRADnNC @ May 2 said:
Sorry OldVol....I agree with pretty much everything you're saying, it's just a tough spot for me. Reason why is, that I had something come back in the mail about a month ago at work.

A**shole cut clippings out of a WalMart flyer, put them in the prepaid envelope and sent it back....Really set my temper ablaze.

Didn't mean to call your buddy insane...Sometimes the credit card companies do deserve a swift kick, but liek I said, it's a hot issue with me.
Click to expand...

As I often tell my sons, "That Einstein guy was onto something when he said, 'Everything is relative'."

When you've had personal experience with a thing, it always gives you some special perspective that others who have not had that experience can never understand.

I don't know what type work you do that you'd receive things back in prepaids, but I've always said I'd hate to have to make a living in phone sales or other similar sale pitches.
 
#207
#207
I read something else the other day about the national debt during Bush's term in office essentially equaling the amount of debt run up by all the previous presidents combined.

Anyway. . .
Click to expand...

Who is the only president to maintain a debt free administration?
 
#210
#210
As hard as it is to believe, there were presidents whose actions and approval ratings make George W. Bush look like the descendent of George Washington himself.
 
#211
#211
(OrangeEmpire @ May 5 said:
Who is the only president to maintain a debt free administration?
Click to expand...

Presidents don't appropriate money. They can push an agenda and use the veto, but it's Congress that holds the purse.
 
#214
#214
Bad news (for some) - oil fell below $70 yesterday and Bush's approval ratings went up.
 
#215
#215
More bad news (for the same folks) -- despite the high gas prices, retail sales were up and the Dow is about 200 points from an all time high.
 
#216
#216
Funny how the price went down $2 a barrel and the price at the pump didn't move - but if it goes up $2 a barrel we jump $.05.
 
#218
#218
I also find it humorous that when they "threaten" to investigate that the price of both barrels and at the pump stabilize. No - there is no price gouging going on there...not at all.
 
#219
#219
My guess would be that if you followed the daily fluctuations in oil prices you would find no connection between change in prices (direction of change (up/down) or stability (lack of change)) and the threat of investigation.

 
#220
#220
(VOLracerx @ May 5 said:
I also find it humorous that when they "threaten" to investigate that the price of both barrels and at the pump stabilize. No - there is no price gouging going on there...not at all.
Click to expand...

Or could it be that commoditites investors simply decided to sell off and take profits once oil hit $75 per barrel?
 
#221
#221
As evidence -- show where the 1) points of stability are and 2) where the threats of investigation occurred.

The only discernable trend is the overall upward trend which is news to nobody.


[attachmentid=5170]
 

Attachments

  • clfclose.gif
    clfclose.gif
    18 KB · Views: 2
#222
#222
bham if your going to quote from a story quote the whole thing. oil prices are back up over 70 dollars a barrel today. job claims rose the most since hurricane katrina. there was some bad with the good. i will agree though there was some good. :biggrin2:
 
#224
#224
(volinbham @ May 5 said:
As evidence -- show where the 1) points of stability are and 2) where the threats of investigation occurred.

The only discernable trend is the overall upward trend which is news to nobody.
[attachmentid=5170]
Click to expand...

I was merely making an observation - not making a factual statement based on empirical evidence. What i would like to see is the correlation between the price per barrel increase and the price per gallon of gas increase- can you find that?
 
#225
#225
The mystery to me is that SUV and pickup truck sales remain strong.
I think prices will continue to rise until driving habits noticably change.

I know this has been discussed to no end here, sorry if I turn out to be the umpteenth person to say the exact same thing...
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top