Are you fucking kidding? Free trade has been a Republican principle for a long long time.
Yeah, what made it stand out was that he (as a Democratic President) was supporting free trade and bucking the labor unions.
By that reasoning we should have started experiencing these problems in 1965.
Where do you get this stuff, I’d love to see the source of these notions that you express on this board.
Where did I say that capital is completely free here (I think there are very few restrictions on capital, a reporting requirement is not much of a restriction and rules against insider trading seem to be reasonable restrictions on capital)?
Where did I compare capital flow in the SU with capital flow in North Korea and Cuba?
What I said (and you quoted) was: Capital is just as free in other industrialized nations as it is in ours.
Democrats have signed onto it. She’s right in that both parties have capitulated to this free trade scam. They’re both woefully out of touch with the American public on this issue.
What makes you think they are unintended? Or unanticipated?
And they’re not harmful to EVERYONE.
That would imply that America has been scammed.
(And if you say yes they were, then you’re right…)
Creative destruction would only be beneficial to most Americans if those who lost well paying jobs in unprofitable companies and dying industries could find well paying jobs in profitable companies and rising industries. That has not been happening for a long time.
If I know smitty, and I believe I do, his focus is always on the economy rather than on the individual.
The way he explains creative destruction implies that widespread wage and/or employment loss could conceivably make the economy stronger, despite cutting purchasing power and consumer confidence and boosting unemployment payouts. I wonder how he’d explain that without restoring to offshoring, or doctrinair trickle-down.
From 1921 to 2000 Republican presidents occupied the White House for 40 years; Democratic presidents occupied it for the other 40 years. During this time there was more than twice as much economic growth under Democratic presidents as there was under Republican presidents.
There was even more economic growth under Franklin Roosevelt’s first two terms than during the eight years Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge were president. What growth did happen during the administrations of Harding and Coolidge was erased during the Hoover administration.
During the 1920s and since 1980 Republican economic policy has emphasized tax cuts for the rich. Since the inauguration of Franklin Roosevelt Democrat economic policy has emphasized policies that directly benefit those who are not rich.
Prosperity does not trickle down from trickle down economics because rich people only hire people if they have more customers. Prosperity does trickle up from trickle up economics because when people who are not rich have more money, they buy more goods and services. These inspire employers to hire more people in order to produce those goods and services.
That doesn’t explain the childish partisan-Republican usage “the Democrat Party”.
The point that msmith and others are pushing is that it doesn’t matter what happens to workers, as long as growth occurs.
Think of it as the Ethiopian aid scenario. Food and money were sent en masse into Ethiopia. Therefore they were getting money and food. The problem is that Government and paramilitary forces, or whatever, were hoarding a lot of the food and using a lot of the money to buy weapons. The food and money were there; a lot of it did not reach the people at large. A lot did, not a lot also got hoarded by the people on top.
This is what is happening with growth here. Growth is happening; but almost all of it is being captured by the captains of industry.
As long as the rich get richer it doesn’t matter if the working class falls behind.
Go with that and you can predict every argument that comes hence.
That was then; this is now. Now, Democrats (Clinton) sign NAFTA and make deals (Obama) to give away American jobs to S.Korea and Brazil. (And if you think those countries will sign deals to import stuff from us and actually follow through? You got another thing comin’.)
Republican ideas are immediately and brutally destructive. Democrats nowadays are spineless. Don’t get me wrong, I’d rather vote for a spineless shepherd like a Democrat than a Republican wolf…
but really, level with me here…
where is our modern day Roosevelt? I’ll take either one, Teddy or FDR, thankyouverymuch. Republican or not, Teddy Roosevelt was more of a Democrat than any modern day Democrat. Look him up - in his time, he was super progressive.
And what I responded with is “no it isn’t.”
Some countries have different taxation rules on capital. More taxation is something some people (not everyone) believes is “less free.” Some have additional regulations on investment.
Perhaps I wasn’t clear in my response - I was using NK and Cuba as extreme examples, but Japan, for instance, has some very restrictive rules on investing capital - in terms of what we think - especially foreign investment. (Or had in the past, I haven’t been involved in opening a business in Japan for a decade or longer).
I know but Susanan often seems to focus on the Democrats complicity in this stuff and entirely forget Republicans were frequently there first, and most vociferously.
The taxation is on profit not on the capital. You can move the capital around pretty much at will. Believing that taxing the profits from investment gains makes the capital less free displays a very inaccurate perspective on the nature of capital. A WEALTH tax (like real estate taxes) might be be doing what you are talking about and even THEN, capital is free to move from one investment to another, in fact this is one of the rationales for a wealth tax, to prompt wealth to invest in things with higher returns.
Perhaps I am being unclear. Msmith said that Americas outstanding productivity comes in part from the flexibility of our economy. I said that our labor is pretty flexible compared to other economies, our capital is not really much more free than it is in other economies. Sure its not exactly the same but its not restrictions on capital that is hampering their productivity compared to ours.
Ehm, I dunno about that. It comes across to me like she expects the Republicans to be plutocratic d-bags but that the Democrats betrayed her by not living up to their heritage. That would be my reason for agreeing with her: siding with the Democrats over the Republicans is turning out to be a case of choosing incompetence over the kind of malevolence that makes it hard to NOT believe the Devil is a real being.
Susanann? Some clarifications here?
There have been times in the past when economic inequality has increased, but most people advanced somewhat, so they did not care. Most Americans are worse off economically than in 2000, while corporations are more profitable than ever before. This might be politically sustainable if the Republican Party can continue to exploit the culture resentments of low income whites, but that exploitation is not conducive to a healthy society. A true conservative, that is to say one whose conservatism is more profound than a hatred of taxes and gun control laws, should find this disturbing. Conservatives should wonder what it is that they are trying to conserve.
Karl Marx said that the natural inclination of capitalism is to build wealth while spreading poverty. He did not predict Keynesian economic policies that counteracted this tendency. Because of de regulation and tax cuts for the rich, what Marx said is happening again.
The flexibility of our economy consists largely of the willingness of employees to take pay cuts and longer work hours in order to avoid being fired. I think most Americans would prefer an inflexible economy where they could be sure of secure jobs and pay raises every year that beat inflation.
Wouldn’t that just cause more inflation, requiring higher pay raises, leading to more inflation?
And why should employees get *job *security when manufactures don’t have *selling *security? Guarantee me that my business will increase sales faster than inflation and I’ll guarantee you a job.
Maybe if the government was my only customer…
Republicans in Maine are trying to pass legislation reducing the minimum wage by over $2.00 per hour for people under 20 and allowing children to work more hours at these sub standard wages than allowed before. Now you are going to have children competing with adults for even minimum wage jobs. It is a race to the bottom in wages. You know I have never been more afraid in my life, to see and live through the destruction of my country as a first world nation and to see the destruction of the middle class while the top 10% thrive beyond all reasonable expectations. I don’t know why there are not riots in the streets. Why can’t the majority see whats happening???
http://couleeregion.com/forum/general-discussion/maine-wants-children-work-sub-minimum-wage
It did not cause inflation during the 1990s when the unemployment rate declined so jobs were secure.
Many Democrat politicians do not understand why the United States began to take a right turn with the election of Richard Nixon in 1968. It happened because of social issues. It did not happen because most blue collar workers became so affluent that they no longer needed or wanted the economic reforms of the New Deal.
President Obama needs to prove what President Franklin Roosevelt did prove, that the government can make a positive difference in the lives of ordinary Americans. Otherwise white male blue collar workers will continue to think, “The Democrats never did me any good. At least the Republicans won’t raise my taxes and take my guns.”