[QUOTE=RickJay] Sam, remember when Jean Chretien opposed NAFTA? Remember how his opposition magically vanished once he was the PM? Obama will do the same and I’ll bet money on it.
[/QUOTE]
I do, and I think you’re right. Obama and Hillary are simply playing to big labor. If one of them actually gets into power, they’re going to see that it’s not quite as simple as they thought.
BTW, I think the same is true of Obama’s plan to get out of Iraq immediately. If he becomes president, a few briefings with the joint chiefs and a few frantic phone calls from allies will have him singing a different tune.
Sam and others, every candidate knows that what they say in an election is 70% fluff. I’d like to think most voters know this as well.
Obama represents Progress not Perfection. He understands the economy is in a negative flux, he understands a withdrawl from Iraq isn’t going to happen on 1/21/2009 and he understands he is in it for the long haul. I’d hope most of the proletariat voting for him know this about not just him but any candidate.
Obama represents Progress not Perfection. He understands the economy is in a negative flux, he understands a withdrawal from Iraq isn’t going to happen on 1/21/2009 and he understands he is in it for the long haul. I’d hope most of the proletariat voting for him know this about not just him but any candidate.
[/QUOTE]
I would also hope they realise that anybody, no matter what party gets in, is going to have problems with Iraq. There is no easy fix, as the bull has already been in that china shop for years now and it’s well and truly fucked.
What is needed IMO is that the public send a message to it’s political leaders that the kind of arrogance and short-sightedness that put the bull into the shop in the first place will no longer be tolerated.
I expect to see lots of right wing war supporters who railed against critics of the commander and chief during war time suddenly start criticising their new Dem POTUS if BO or HRC get in.
Seems that Obama is fibbing here - at least it certainly seems so. I don’t believe he wants to piss off all of Canada, and the Canadian ambassador’s story seems plausible on that basis - which means that his campaign promises in Ohio are bunk.
Seems that Obama is fibbing here - at least it certainly seems so. I don’t believe he wants to piss off all of Canada, and the Canadian ambassador’s story seems plausible on that basis - which means that his campaign promises in Ohio are bunk.
[/QUOTE]
Interesting how you lump it all on Obama. Did you read the entire article? I just read it then re-read it and if you notice the comments on the bottom, most Canadians responding have disdain not just for Obama, but Clinton and the democratic party as a whole. In fact, several of the comments say they would lean towards Obama over Clinton to see how he would renegotiate the terms of NAFTA, and how he would react to Canada putting a much higher tax on energy exports going to the US plains states. Manitoba, New Foundland could sell their energy to other places, and the beef and soft wood coming from Canada would be threatened to go overseas.
That article only says that an Obama staffer called Flaherty to say look beyond the rhetoric. Canadians aren’t dumb by a far share, and most of the Canadians in the comments section do not put the blame on Obama, they cite the flawed American System and the way they would counter a renegotiation would be by heavily taxing the energy sold to the US.
If Obama can lighten the load at all - even a little - to make the US not look like such a bully - that would be a good thing.
[QUOTE=Phlosphr]
Interesting how you lump it all on Obama. Did you read the entire article? I just read it then re-read it and if you notice the comments on the bottom, most Canadians responding have disdain not just for Obama, but Clinton and the democratic party as a whole. In fact, several of the comments say they would lean towards Obama over Clinton to see how he would renegotiate the terms of NAFTA, and how he would react to Canada putting a much higher tax on energy exports going to the US plains states. Manitoba, New Foundland could sell their energy to other places, and the beef and soft wood coming from Canada would be threatened to go overseas.
That article only says that an Obama staffer called Flaherty to say look beyond the rhetoric. Canadians aren’t dumb by a far share, and most of the Canadians in the comments section do not put the blame on Obama, they cite the flawed American System and the way they would counter a renegotiation would be by heavily taxing the energy sold to the US.
If Obama can lighten the load at all - even a little - to make the US not look like such a bully - that would be a good thing.
[/QUOTE]
And yet his rhetoric says that he’ll do the opposite - bully his neighbors even more to accept a deal more favorable to American interests.
I find it amazing that in this, and the other thread, you guys are willing to just shrug and say, “Hey, he’s lying. All politicians lie.” That just tells me that people are seeing in Obama whatever they want to see, and ignoring the reality. Since when should politicians get a pass for stupid and dangerous ideas because, well, they won’t really do that anyway? How else are you supposed to judge them, if not by what they say they’ll do when elected?
[QUOTE=Sam Stone]
And yet his rhetoric says that he’ll do the opposite - bully his neighbors even more to accept a deal more favorable to American interests.
I find it amazing that in this, and the other thread, you guys are willing to just shrug and say, “Hey, he’s lying. All politicians lie.” That just tells me that people are seeing in Obama whatever they want to see, and ignoring the reality. Since when should politicians get a pass for stupid and dangerous ideas because, well, they won’t really do that anyway? How else are you supposed to judge them, if not by what they say they’ll do when elected?
[/QUOTE]
All he has ever said is he will renegotiate NAFTA. Renegotiate and cancel were never synonyms as far as I can tell. Calling up the Ambassador of a trading partner to reassure him that we’re not going isolationist protectionist sounds like nothing but a courtesy call to me.
People are blowing this WAY out of proportion. A candidate promises to lean a certain way in certain circumstances. The President does not come with a magic wand that reverses trends that occurred over decades. So he’s leaning in the direction of favoring US workers. Yes, people will be disappointed that he isn’t Dumbledore and can’t just conjure their hopes and dreams from thin air, it will be part of the cost of doing business, the more fanatical will complain about his lies during the campaign, but all campaigns are rhetoric, they are professions of ideology. Unfortunately somewhere along the way, “I will try to accomplish this.”, became, “I will accomplish this.”, we expect to be lied to and will accept nothing less. It’s the nature of the doublespeak that we all employ. Obama is being held to a higher standard, as that is what his high flying rhetoric expects of him. It’s natural, but intelligent people shouldn’t feel betrayed because they bought into rhetoric naively. That’s a vice for idiots.
[QUOTE=mswas]
All he has ever said is he will renegotiate NAFTA. Renegotiate and cancel were never synonyms as far as I can tell.
[/QUOTE]
The deal has no provisions for renegotiation. One of the main things Canada and Mexico thought they were buying was permanence.
Obama and HRC do both seem to be pandering some on NAFTA. But I think that they’d follow through to the letter of their promise. They will threaten to pull out if core aspects are not renegotiated. They will be renegotiated over a period of years but changed very little. Promise kept.
I never like pandering and am not pleased to see Obama join in that election period ritual. The fact that he panders less than other candidates is small comfort.
Man, I’m hearing an awful lot of “don’t worry, Obama wouldn’t really do this stuff - it’s just rhetoric” justification from Obama people these days. Somewhat surprising for a candidate who’s claim to fame is supposed to be his honesty and straight talk.
[QUOTE=Sam Stone]
Man, I’m hearing an awful lot of “don’t worry, Obama wouldn’t really do this stuff - it’s just rhetoric” justification from Obama people these days. Somewhat surprising for a candidate who’s claim to fame is supposed to be his honesty and straight talk.
[/QUOTE]
Sam do you vote? Are you registered to vote where you are from? If so, are all the candidates you have ever voted for 100% squeeky clean, polished, make no mistakes candidates? Just a question really.
[QUOTE=Mosier]
American businesses have to compete with an arm tied behind their back, considering minimum wage and providing health care and environmental restrictions and litigation and on and on. If the government is going to impose these restrictions on American businesses, they’ve already abandoned the idea of “free trade”, and should take at least some steps to protect American business from foreign competitors that don’t have to follow the same rules.
[/QUOTE]
You do know that one of your NAFTA partners, Canada, does all of theses things as well, right?
As Rickjay mentions in his post, all jurisidictions in Canada, Federal, provincial and territorial, have minimum wage laws, occupational health and safety laws, labour standards laws, and environmental laws.
Is the beef with NAFTA really aimed at Mexico? or is it just that NAFTA is becoming the whipping boy for jobs being shipped across the Pacific to cheaper Asian labour markets? If that’s the real objection, you’ll hear exactly the same complaints up in Canada, about Canadian jobs of that type going overseas. The US jobs that get outsourced to cheap labour markets aren’t coming north, because our labour market isn’t cheaper than the US labour market.
[QUOTE=Phlosphr]
Interesting how you lump it all on Obama. Did you read the entire article?
[/QUOTE]
Well, given that Obama is the topic of the OP, I think Mr. Moto is just staying on topic. I know that’s rare in GD threads, but I certainly don’t think he should be criticised for it…
[QUOTE=Sam Stone]
Man, I’m hearing an awful lot of “don’t worry, Obama wouldn’t really do this stuff - it’s just rhetoric” justification from Obama people these days. Somewhat surprising for a candidate who’s claim to fame is supposed to be his honesty and straight talk.
[/QUOTE]
That’s because most of us understand the credible commitment problem. We can make pretty educated guesses on what candidates can and cannot credibly commit to. It really isn’t all that complicated.
[QUOTE=RickJay]
By which you mean solely Mexico. NAFTA involved three countries, one of which has generally higher standards of minimum wage and health care coverage, so obviously it can’t be that country that’s the problem.
There’s four problems with htis, though. Well, there’s a dozen problemns with this line of thinking, really, but I’ll concentrate on four
If it’s true that the problem is that one NAFTA partner has low minimum wages and such, then why is it that the other one, Canada, ALSO has a significant trading surplus with the USA? If the business simply migrates to where there are low employment standards, there should not be any business left in Canada, which has higher minimum wages, no “at will” employment rules, year-long maternity leave, and tax-supported universal medicare. Yet over the course of FTA/NAFTA, Canada’s net exports to the USA have grown, not shrunk. That directly contradicts the theory that business just goes wherever employment rules are more lax.
Given #1, there must be factors at play besides employment rules that would motivate a business to stay somewhere. An obvious one would be that workers are not all created equal. A country with better educated and better trained workers will offer the employer to chance to get more out of their workers. American workjers are, in fact, among the most productive workers in the world. They’re much likelier than Mexican workers to be healthy, literate, and technically educated (that’s not a shot against Mexicans, it’s just the prevailing conditions.)
American workers are more expensive than Mexican workers because they’re worth more. The prevailing wage and benefit rates are not some sort of accident; they reflect worth. You get what you pay for.
Mexicans are coming across the border and finding jobs in the States. Which doesn’t really compute with the notion that the jobs are moving to Mexico.
The “we need to stop our businesses from moving work elsewhere” mantra ignores the fact that it’s American companies who benefit from owning businesses there. The profits flow into American coffers and are turned into economic activity in the USA. Lower prices benefit American firms and consumers. You can’t pull the jobs back and ignore the loss of all the benefits. Here in Canada we have people arguing against both sides; they bitch that free trade costs jobs, and then they bitch when other countries move jobs here, claiming that foreign ownership existing in Canada is bad because the profits go to other countries. So the exact same thing is bad when it goes one way, and it’s bad when it goes the other, as if the two phenomena inhabited totally different universes with reversed laws of economics. It’s amazing to watch.
I’ve pointed this out before and never really gotten a coherent response, but just ask yourself what would happen if American states engaged in the same level of protectionism among themselves as sovereign nation-states do. Imagine if you lived in Virginia and were not allowed to move to Maryland, DC, Pennsylvania or South Carolina without going through an arduous immigration process, and your company could not export anything to any other state without paying tariffs, and all the goods you wanted to buy that were produced elsewhere were 30% more expensive due to tariffs imposed by the Commonwealth of Virginia. But, hey, Virginia companies won’t move to Baltimore now. Does that strike anyone as being a good idea?
Now, as to the Barack Obama issue, he’s going to do what every politician does on this issue, which is campaign against it and then act differently when he gets into the White House. Sam, remember when Jean Chretien opposed NAFTA? Remember how his opposition magically vanished once he was the PM? Obama will do the same and I’ll bet money on it.
[/QUOTE]
No3 .It is both. originally industry started to ship manufacturing to Mexico. Then it found even cheaper wages and no restrictions in environment in India. Then even cheaper in China. That is the trend .
You can not ship farming ,building and infrastructure ,and service in dustry jobs abroad. That is why they want them to come here to cut wages.
4. Not American businesses. They are international corporations. Even beloved Halliburton moved its offices to the middle east as it looted American taxpayers.
[QUOTE=Maeglin]
That’s because most of us understand the credible commitment problem. We can make pretty educated guesses on what candidates can and cannot credibly commit to. It really isn’t all that complicated.
[/QUOTE]
It’s one thing to not be able to give a firm commitment on something, or to give vague answers because you don’t want to trap yourself. It’s quite another to write up a detailed policy that you have no intention of following through on.
You guys would never let this slide if it was anyone but Obama doing this.
BTW, the ‘senior Obama adviser’ who called Canada to tell them Obama doesn’t mean anything he says about NAFTA was none other than Austan Goolsbee. I wondered why Goolsbee, who is a staunch free trader, was going along with this anti-NAFTA nonsense. Apparently he’s not. He’s working behind the scenes to undo the damage. I wonder how long it will be before Goolsbee leaves the team entirely? And with him will go Obama’s fig leaf of centrism.
Does it bother any of you that our corporations have sown the seeds of our destruction.? Our corporations have made China an enormous monetary force. They are able to rearm and spread the word of government controlled capitalism as the way to go. They have made billions and are growing bigger everyday.
Their willingness to provide cheap labor and allow pollution has shown the dark way to quick wealth.
If China is a Communist country and is fundamentally in conflict with us, how do we justify making them rich and powerful.? They can disrupt our country in so many ways now. Enjoy it while you can.
BTW, the ‘senior Obama adviser’ who called Canada to tell them Obama doesn’t mean anything he says about NAFTA was none other than Austan Goolsbee. I wondered why Goolsbee, who is a staunch free trader, was going along with this anti-NAFTA nonsense. Apparently he’s not. He’s working behind the scenes to undo the damage. I wonder how long it will be before Goolsbee leaves the team entirely? And with him will go Obama’s fig leaf of centrism.
[/QUOTE]
He’s not alone Sam in an article fingering Goolsbee also this:
Goolsbee is not going anywhere, I’ll stand by that claim.
