Lower pay, fewer options, lower standard of living…I don’t know anybody who is better off!
And why bother with cites? Everybody who argues in favor of our current trade model ignores all objections anyway. Why do you bother to ask? The “Globalization True Believers” live by faith alone. :rolleyes:
Oh…and an increase in the wealth of the wealthiest 1% of this country does not mean jack to the Nation. That’s usually the next “argument”.
Well, I have higher pay, more options, and higher standard of living, and so does everyone I know. So my anecdote cancels out yours.
And why bother with cites? Everybody who argues in favor of protectionism ignores all objections anyway. Why do you bother to ask? The “Shut Out the Foreigners True Believers” live by faith alone.
Considering that I am not in particular favor of our current trade model and that I do listen to reasoned arguments, if you had one, it may have been a great time to present it. As an example, I already mentioned that I do not like the huge amount of outsourcing going on. I will add, that I do not like the top 1% getting richer and getting additional tax breaks. However, I have not seen any strong proof our economy is getting worse. In fact it grew at a tremendous rate under NAFTA and Clinton, if case you somehow forgot.
Jim
Nafta is the bellwheather of free trade. Free trade is a mantra pushed by the corporate types who are becoming our owners. The free trade concept is what makes China and India chirp. No nafta is not India, It is just another brilliant way of lowering world wages and making international corporations more profitable.
It has never been free trade. other nations can tariff us at far greter rates than we can. Once the dirty little businessmen sat down to actually create the agreements they sold us out.
Clintons economy was still in America. Perhaps it was the door oppening for what we have now. But who would have thought outsourcing was going to slaughter the middle class in such a short time.The free trade agreements are one sided. International corps have no incentive to fix them.We need an honest corpoprate type to inform the people of what we have done and where we are headed.
Do not benefit from what, exactly? The OP talks about NAFTA. You do realize China and India are in Asia, not North America?
You appear to have changed your own debate now from NAFTA to ‘Free Trade’. You have abandoned Perot for and unnamed and possibly imaginary Businessman. Where else would you like to morph your own debate?
Was free trade okay under Clinton but not under Bush? Maybe the root of the problem is just the very Pro Mega-Corporation approach of the current morally corrupt administration. I am not disagreeing with your point per say. I am just trying to find out what your true complaint is.
I do not think we need a third party Business man as much as we need a reasonably competent and reasonably honest next POTUS. I think we have a good chance of strong improvement from either party. Mind you, I am extremely sympathetic to the Green Party. I have voted for it often. I just believe the Current Bush/Cheney cluster-fuck is an aberration and not the end of America.
Jim
Many large corporations strongly, strongly OPPOSE free trade. You don’t see corporate welfare cases like ADM begging for an end to government subsidies.
God forbid the evil Canadians sell you anything. And we certainly don’t want Indians to make any money.
North American FREE trade act. It is about free trade as it is being done. Perot said we were foolish to believe that the corps had any interest in making America a better place. We could not trust them then. We cant now. Except now it is proven. This harkens back to Howard Beale in Network. The speech given to him was prophetic.There is no America. No Canada . Just business with out borders or concience. The Euro was designed to control Europe . Countries had the individual ability to fght inflation and slowdowns . Individual currency manipulation is gone.Who really runs the Euro?
Leaving aside the whole debate on free trade, why exactly do we need a figure like Perot? I get annoyed whenever people say there is some political crisis and we need a man on horseback to come in and save us. The only one who benefits from that mindset is the guy up on the horse. If you think there’s problems in this country, don’t wait for somebody to rescue you - get to work and start fixing it.
Because we need an insider to come out . It would be nice if an oil man squealed. Our contry has remade in a short time. It is becoming something quite different fron 10 years ago. When Dems bitch ,people call it electioneering. It requires a guy like Kuo ,an insider who is blowing the whistle on the admins using of evangelicals as hypocritical and dishonest. They have the same god the Chinese and Japanese do. Money.
The American people are being dominated by a neuterered press. It accepts the admin position with little fight. It spreads the word of Cheney as he reaches billionaire status.
Real progress is best made when the people are the movers. If you feel there is a problem then educate the public about it. Once they’re convinced, then elected officials will follow them. (And if you find you can’t convince other people, you should be questioning your own beliefs.) But if you try to bypass the public and just rely on a single person “who knows what needs to get done” to come in and take charge, you’re asking to get suckered. The biggest danger to democracy is demagoguery - when people stop trying to understand what’s going on and just blindly follow charismatic leaders.
I don’t know why you’re all so against Ross Perot. I mean, didn’t his standing split the anti-Clinton vote, thus ushering in 8 years of Democrat rule? 
Apparently not. Clinton would likely still have won both elections, albeit 1992 would have been much closer.
Where did that argument come from.? Point is that the change in government to a corporatocracy is well under way. The monied interests have always dominated our politics. It is just now, they are changing the system to their benefit. Some do not see this. They dominate the radio and tv to spread their message. We require an insider to squeal. I hope a Dem take over would help. Except they are almost as corrupted by money as the Repuglicans. Once the door opens I would hope some real American type rich will develop a concience. I cling by my fingernails to hope.
Perot actually developed a party to spread the message. He was not a lone wolf. It can still be done.
Perot was a major architect of your “corporatocracy” and he was not doing anything to destroy it. He was running because he had been edged out of some of the pie (that he felt he had created) and he was a loon. He was no more capable (See General Motors) or interested in destroying a “corporatocracy” than George W. Bush would be. He simply wanted the rules written to support his version instead of someone else’s version and he hoped to lead a “populist” rebellion to give him the power to do it.
He was a major governmental contractor. He made millions off the US gov. He did however recognize the danger if they continued unchecked. He used the system.
Lots of guys. once they get theirs, are willing to close the loopholes after themselves.
Truth is I would have a lot of trouble believing any corporation exec. But as my memory fades ,I like Perot more. His charts were fun and informative. He wasnt like Bush saying it’s true because I said so.
According to the theory of Comparative Advantage, which AFAIK has no significant detractors amongst serious economists, lowering barriers to trade between two countries will inevitably benefit the economies of both countries.
The problem is, Ricardo’s theory says nothing about who in each country will derive the benefits. And the reality is that median household income in the United States in 2005 was almost exactly where it was in 1998 (Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2005, p.31), even though productivity, GDP, etc. have increased by leaps and bounds.
Why should the people of the United States support free trade agreements if the benefits are going to be hogged by the rich? ISTM that free trade should be treated like anything else that benefits one group but doesn’t do much for another: it should be the subject of the usual political horse-trading between the assorted groups - in this case, the vast majority of Americans, and the plutocrats. They want free trade; we want universal, single-payer health insurance, a higher minimum wage, protections of the right to unionize with some actual teeth in them, and stuff like that. I’m all for dealing.
As you say.
I did not vote for him. I have voted for Nader though.
Ross Perot now? Come on, haven’t we given comedians enough material in the past eight years?