Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 61 to 77 of 77
  1. #61  
    Quote Originally Posted by Iago View Post
    I had hoped this thread was going to be substantive and interesting. At least it started out that way. Republicans.....always talking out of both sides of their mouths.
    As did I. Although I completely agree with you, I believe it can now be seen that there was never any hope that this particular thread could intelligently serve the subject adequately.
  2.    #62  
    Quote Originally Posted by lifes2short View Post
    As did I. Although I completely agree with you, I believe it can now be seen that there was never any hope that this particular thread could intelligently serve the subject adequately.
    2short you are weak.Share info on how your party contributed to are current trade issues....You must be in denial...very sad indeed.You want to play yet you dont like truth...You just want to defend.
  3.    #63  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Well at least you've articulated a more moderate view point.

    Riddled with rhetoric from both sides I fear...

    So on to the "what do we do about it?" Do you have specific ideas for solving the problem(s)?
    hmm that a great question that nobody has the answer to I feel.How are you supposed to make the dollar worth more when your coming close to no longer owning it...Very tricky fix
    My point of this thread was to hear members feed back to see who would blame who and come to the realization that both the republicans and democrats are to blame.It really comes down to Both partys as ive stated in every either post it seems.This is not about taking side yet coming together

    I do wish 2short would step up without denial.Division and the blame one party over the either game gives no answers just excuses.
    Last edited by slingbox; 10/14/2007 at 03:47 PM.
  4. #64  
    Sling, you've got leftover homework you keep avoiding.

    Since the Democrats started all this evil {regardless of the fact that the trade deficit with China began at $6B under Reagan in 1985 as shown here:, what was the name and date of this mysterious US Free Trade Agreement President Clinton signed with China as you state here:

    Quote Originally Posted by slingbox
    The Chinese would take Clinton and Gore back in a heartbeat as well.They were best friends as seen in the signing of the free Trade agreement under Clinton's watch
  5.    #65  
    Intresting info f,sure

    The high price of 'free' trade
    NAFTA's failure has cost the United States jobs across the nation

    by Robert E. Scott

    Since the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was signed in 1993, the rise in the U.S. trade deficit with Canada and Mexico through 2002 has caused the displacement of production that supported 879,280 U.S. jobs. Most of those lost jobs were high-wage positions in manufacturing industries. The loss of these jobs is just the most visible tip of NAFTA's impact on the U.S. economy. In fact, NAFTA has also contributed to rising income inequality, suppressed real wages for production workers, weakened workers' collective bargaining powers and ability to organize unions, and reduced fringe benefits.

    NAFTA is a free trade and investment agreement that provided investors with a unique set of guarantees designed to stimulate foreign direct investment and the movement of factories within the hemisphere, especially from the United States to Canada and Mexico. Furthermore, no protections were contained in the core of the agreement to maintain labor or environmental standards. As a result, NAFTA tilted the economic playing field in favor of investors, and against workers and the environment, resulting in a hemispheric "race to the bottom" in wages and environmental quality.

    False promises

    Proponents of new trade agreements that build on NAFTA, such as the proposed Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA), have frequently claimed that such deals create jobs and raise incomes in the United States. When the Senate recently approved President Bush's request for fast-track trade negotiating authority1 for an FTAA, Bush called the bill's passage a "historic moment" that would lead to the creation of more jobs and more sales of U.S. products abroad. Two weeks later at his economic forum in Texas, the president argued, "[i]t is essential that we move aggressively [to negotiate new trade pacts], because trade means jobs. More trade means higher incomes for American workers."

    The problem with these statements is that they misrepresent the real effects of trade on the U.S. economy: trade both creates and destroys jobs. Increases in U.S. exports tend to create jobs in this country, but increases in imports tend to reduce jobs because the imports displace goods that otherwise would have been made in the United States by domestic workers.

    President Bush's statements—and similar remarks from others in his administration and from members of both major parties in Congress—are based only on the positive effects of exports, ignoring the negative effects of imports. Such arguments are an attempt to hide the costs of new trade deals, in order to boost the reported benefits. These are effectively the same tactics that led to the bankruptcies of Enron, WorldCom, and several other major corporations.

    The impact on employment of any change in trade is determined by its effect on the trade balance, the difference between exports and imports. Ignoring imports and counting only exports is like balancing a checkbook by counting only deposits but not withdrawals. The many officials, policy analysts, and business leaders who ignore the negative effects of imports and talk only about the benefits of exports are engaging in false accounting.

    NAFTA supporters frequently tout the benefits of exports while remaining silent on the effects of rapid import growth (Scott 2000). Former President George H.W. Bush, whose administration negotiated NAFTA, recently claimed that "two million NAFTA-related jobs have been created in the United States since 1993" (Bush 2002). But any evaluation of the impact of trade on the domestic economy must include the impact of both imports and exports. If the United States exports 1,000 cars to Mexico, many American workers are employed in their production. If, however, the United States imports 1,000 cars from Mexico rather than building them domestically, then a similar number of Americans who would have otherwise been employed in the auto industry will have to find other work.

    Another critically important promise made by the promoters of NAFTA was that the United States would benefit because of increased exports to a large and growing consumer market in Mexico. This market, in turn, was to be based on an expansion of the middle class that, it was claimed, would grow rapidly due to the wealth created in Mexico by NAFTA. Thus, most U.S. exports were predicted to be consumer products destined for consumption in Mexico.

    In fact, most U.S. exports to Mexico are parts and components that are shipped to Mexico and assembled into final products that are then returned to the United States. The number of products that Mexico assembles and exports—such as refrigerators, TVs, automobiles, and computers—has mushroomed under the NAFTA agreement. Many of these products are produced in the Maquiladora export processing zones in Mexico, where parts enter duty free and are re-exported to the United States in assembled products, with duties paid only on the value added in Mexico. The share of total U.S. exports to Mexico that is represented by Maquiladora imports has risen from 39% of U.S. exports in 1993 to 61% in 2002.2 The number of such plants increased from 2,114 in 1993 to 3,251 in 2002 (INEGI 2003a, 2003b).

    Growing trade deficits and job losses

    NAFTA's impact in the United States, however, has been often obscured by the "boom-and-bust" cycle that drove domestic consumption, investment, and speculation in the mid- and late 1990s. Between 1994 (when NAFTA was implemented) and 2000, total employment rose rapidly in the United States, causing overall unemployment to fall to record low levels. But unemployment began to rise early in 2001, and 2.4 million jobs were lost in the domestic economy between March 2001 and October 2003 (BLS 2003). These job losses have been primarily concentrated in the manufacturing sector, which has experienced a total decline of 2.4 million jobs since March 2001. As job growth has dried up in the economy, the underlying problems caused by U.S. trade deficits have become much more apparent, especially in manufacturing.

    The United States has experienced steadily growing global trade deficits for nearly three decades, and these deficits accelerated rapidly after NAFTA took effect on January 1, 1994. For the purposes of this report it is necessary to distinguish between exports produced domestically and foreign exports, which are goods produced in other countries but exported to the United States, and then re-exported from the United States. Foreign exports made up 11.6% of total U.S. exports to Mexico and Canada in 2002. However, because only domestically produced exports generate jobs in the United States, our trade calculations are based only on domestic exports. Our measure of the net impact of trade, which is used here to calculate the employment content of trade, is the difference between domestic exports and total imports.3 We refer to this as "net exports," to distinguish it from the more commonly reported gross trade balance. However, both concepts are measures of net trade flows.

    Although U.S. domestic exports to its NAFTA partners have increased dramatically—with real growth of 95.2% to Mexico and 41% to Canada—growth in imports of 195.3% from Mexico and 61.1% from Canada overwhelmingly surpass export growth, as shown in Table 1. The resulting $30 billion U.S. net export deficit with these countries in 1993 increased by 281% to $85 billion in 2002 (all figures in inflation-adjusted 2002 dollars). As a result, NAFTA has led to job losses in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, as shown in Figure 1. Through September 2003, the U.S. goods trade deficit with Mexico and Canada has increased 12% over the same period last year (U.S. Census Bureau 2003a). Job losses for the remainder of 2003 are likely to grow at a similar rate.

    NAFTA's effects on foreign direct investment

    NAFTA contained a number of unique provisions designed to provide special protections for investors in order to encourage foreign direct investment in chapter eleven of the agreement, which concerned investment. Chapter eleven specifically outlaws a number of performance requirements, including 1) exporting a given percentage of goods; 2) achieving a given level of domestic content; 3) transfering technology; and 4) other limits on the use of foreign exchange (NAFTA Secretariat 2003, article 1106). These types of measures were used by both Mexico and Canada to encourage development of their domestic economies, and to maximize the benefits they obtained from foreign indirect investment (FDI).

    In addition, NAFTA included unprecedented guarantees to protect the value of corporate investments and even the rights to earn profits in the future arising out of changes in government regulations or policy. In particular, NAFTA created specific clauses that provide for compensation for lost investments and loss of future profits due to regulations that are "tantamount to expropriation" (NAFTA Secretariat 2003, article 1110). No other part of NAFTA has generated as much controversy as this "investor state" clause. To date, 27 cases have been reviewed under this clause by companies alleging that their foreign investments or their right to earn profits in other countries have been expropriated (Hemispheric Social Alliance 2003, 68-74). These claims, several of which have resulted in damages paid or regulations rescinded, have had a chilling effect on government efforts to regulate private businesses throughout the hemisphere.

    The enormous surge in FDI entering Mexico and Canada after 1994 was clearly driven in large part by the signing of NAFTA. NAFTA essentially represented an ironclad commitment on the part of the Mexican and Canadian governments to a development strategy hinging on attracting foreign investment by harmonizing investment deregulation with standards in the United States. Substantial deregulatory reforms undertaken during the 1980s did not lead to increasing foreign direct investment in Mexico. NAFTA was the next step in trying to assure foreign investors that Mexico was an attractive place to invest. The Congressional Budget Office (1993) describes this strategy as follows:

    The key to this [development] strategy is to attract and productively absorb foreign capital. In addition to making Mexico more attractive for U.S. investors (because of the investment provisions of the agreement), NAFTA reduces doubts that other foreign investors may have about the permanency of Mexico's economic reforms—that is, it helps to lock in those reforms and so reduce the risk involved in investment.

    Research by Monge-Naranjo (2002) shows that the passage of NAFTA immediately translated into significant increases in FDI into Mexico, in large part because NAFTA made Mexico an attractive export platform for labor-intensive manufacturing. A recent report from the World Bank reaches a similar conclusion: "In particular, a conservative estimate of NAFTA's influence would suggest that it is responsible for increasing FDI in Mexico by about 70%" (Cuevas, Messmacher, and Werner 2002).

    NAFTA has resulted in a huge surge of foreign direct investment into Canada and Mexico, as shown in Figure 2. This figure measures changes in the stock of FDI over 10-year periods, before and after NAFTA took effect (IMF 2003).4 Between 1983 and 1992, before NAFTA, the stock of FDI in Mexico increased by $23 billion U.S. dollars. In the decade after NAFTA, between 1993 and 2002, the stock of FDI increased $124 billion, an increase of 435% over the decade before NAFTA.

    In Canada, the story is much the same. Between 1983 and 1992, before NAFTA, the stock of FDI in Canada increased by $44 billion U.S. dollars. In the decade after NAFTA, between 1993 and 2002, the stock of FDI increased $202 billion, an increase of 354% over the decade before NAFTA.

    Inflows of FDI, along with bank loans and other types of foreign financing, have funded the construction of thousands of Mexican and Canadian factories that produce goods for export to the United States. Canada and Mexico have absorbed $326 billion in FDI from all sources since 1993. One result is that the United States absorbed 84% of Mexico's total exports in 2002, up from 77% in 1993.5 The growth of U.S. imports from these factories has contributed substantially to the growing U.S. trade deficit and the related job losses. The growth of foreign production capacity in these factories has played a major role in the rapid growth in exports to the United States.

    Job losses in all 50 states

    All 50 states and the District of Columbia have experienced a net loss of jobs under NAFTA (see Table 2). Exports from every state have been offset by faster rising imports. Table 2 provides detailed estimates of job gains due to the growth in exports, job losses due to changes in imports, and the trade balance for each state. In every case, many more jobs are lost due to growing imports than are gained by increasing exports.

    Net job loss figures range from a low of 719 in Alaska to a high of 115,723 in California. Other hard-hit states include New York, Michigan, Texas, Ohio, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Florida, Indiana, North Carolina, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Georgia, and Tennessee, each with more than 20,000 jobs lost. These states all have high concentrations of industries where a large number of plants have moved to Mexico (such as motor vehicles, textiles and apparel, computers, and electrical appliances). Manufacturing industries were responsible for 78% of the net jobs lost under NAFTA, a total of 686,700 manufacturing jobs.

    While job losses in most states are modest relative to the size of the economy, it is important to remember that the promise of new jobs was the principal justification for NAFTA. According to NAFTA's promoters, the new jobs would compensate for the increased environmental degradation, economic instability, and public health dangers that NAFTA brings (Lee 1995, 10-11). If NAFTA does not deliver an increase in net jobs, it can't provide enough benefits to offset the costs it imposes.

    Long-term stagnation and growing inequality

    NAFTA has also contributed to growing income inequality and to the declining relative wages of U.S. workers without college degree, who made up 72.1% of the workforce in 2001 (Mishel et al. 2003, 163). NAFTA, however, is but one contributor to a larger process of globalization and growing structural trade deficits that has shaped the U.S. economy and society over the last few decades.6 Rapid growth in U.S. trade and foreign investment as a share of U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) has played a large role in the growth of inequality in income distribution in the last 20 years. NAFTA has continued and accelerated international economic integration, and thus contributed to the growing tradeoffs that have accompanied this integration process.

    The growth in U.S. trade and trade deficits has put downward pressure on the wages of workers without a college degree, especially those who have no formal education beyond a high school degree. This group includes most middle- and low-wage workers, including the 68.5% of the total workforce with the lowest pay, those earning a wage that is equal to 200% or less of poverty level wages in 2001 (Mishel et al. 2003, p. 134). In March 2000, the base year used for data, these workers earned wages of $16.93 or less per hour (See Appendix 1). These U.S. workers bear the brunt of the costs and pressures of globalization (Mishel et al. 2003, 181-89).

    A large and growing body of research has demonstrated that expanding trade has reduced the price of import-competing products and put downward pressure on the real wages of workers engaged in producing those goods. Trade, however, is also expected to increase the wages of the workers producing exports, but growing trade deficits have meant that the number of workers hurt by imports has exceeded the number who have benefited through increased exports. Because the United States tends to import goods that make intensive use of skills of less-educated workers in production, it is not surprising to find that the increasing openness of the U.S. economy to trade has reduced the wages of less-educated workers relative to other workers in the United States.7

    Globalization has put downward pressure on the wages of less-educated workers for three primary reasons. First, the steady growth in U.S. trade deficits over the past two decades has eliminated millions of manufacturing jobs and job opportunities in this country. Most displaced workers find jobs in other sectors where wages are much lower, which in turn leads to lower average wages for all U.S. workers. Recent surveys have shown that, even when displaced workers are able to find new jobs in the United States, they face a reduction in wages, with earnings declining by an average of over 13% (Mishel et al. 2001, 24). These displaced workers' new jobs are likely to be in the service industry, the source of 98% of net new jobs created in the United States between 1989 and 2000, and a sector in which average compensation is only 81% of the manufacturing sector's average (Mishel et al. 2003, 177). This competition also extends to export sectors, where pressures to cut product prices are often intense.

    Second, the effects of growing U.S. trade and trade deficits on wages goes beyond just those workers exposed directly to foreign competition. As the trade deficit limits jobs in the manufacturing sector, the new supply of workers to the service sector (from displaced workers plus young workers not able to find manufacturing jobs) depresses the wages of those already holding service jobs. The growth in import competition and capital mobility under NAFTA has also contributed to stagnant and falling wages in the United States (Bronfenbrenner 1997a).

    Finally, "threat effects" arise when firms threaten to close plants and move them abroad while bargaining with workers over wages and working conditions. Employers' credible threats to relocate plants, outsource portions of their operations, and purchase intermediate goods and services directly from foreign producers can have a substantial impact on workers' bargaining positions. The use of these kinds of threats is widespread. A Wall Street Journal survey in 1992 reported that one-fourth of almost 500 American corporate executives polled admitted that they were "very likely" or "somewhat likely" to use NAFTA as a bargaining chip to hold down wages (Tonelson 2000, 47). In a unique study of union organizing drives in 1993 though 1995, it was found that more than 50% of all employers made threats to close all or part of their plants during organizing drives (Bronfenbrenner 1997b). This study also found that plant closing threats in National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) union certification elections nearly doubled following the implementation of NAFTA, and that threat rates were substantially higher in mobile industries, where employers can credibly threaten to shut down or move their operations in response to union activity.

    Bronfenbrenner updated her earlier study with a new survey of threat effects in 1998 and 1999, five years after NAFTA took effect (Bronfenbrenner 2000). In her updated study, Bronfenbrenner found that most employers continue to threaten to close all or part of their operations during organizing drives, despite the fact that, in the last five years, unions have shifted their organizing activity away from industries most impacted by trade deficits and capital flight (e.g., apparel and textile, electronics components, food processing, and metal fabrication). According to the updated study, the threat rate increased from 62% to 68% in mobile industries such as manufacturing, communications, and wholesale distribution. The threat rate was only 36% in immobile industries such as construction, health care, and education. Meanwhile, in 18% of union certification election campaigns with threats, the employer directly threatened to move to another country, usually Mexico, if the union succeeded in winning the election.

    In the context of ongoing U.S. trade deficits and rising levels of trade liberalization, the pervasiveness of employer threats to close or relocate plants may conceivably have a greater impact on real wage growth for production workers than actual import competition. There are no empirical studies of the effects of such threats on U.S. wages, so such costs have been underappreciated.

    NAFTA's effects on workers throughout the hemisphere

    Further study of NAFTA by researchers in Canada and Mexico has shown that workers in all three countries have been hurt, but for different reasons (Faux et al. 2001). In Mexico, real wages have fallen sharply and there has been a steep decline in the number of people holding regular jobs in paid positions. Many workers have been shifted into subsistence-level work in the "informal sector," frequently unpaid work in family retail trade or restaurant businesses. Additionally, a flood of subsidized, low-priced corn from the United States has decimated farmers and rural economics. In Canada, a decade of heightened competition with the United States is eroding social investment in public spending on education, health care, unemployment compensation, and a wide range of other public services.

    NAFTA, globalization, and the U.S. economy

    The U.S. economy created 21 million jobs between 1992 and March 2001 (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2003c). All of those gains are explained by growth in domestic consumption, investment, and government spending. The growth in the overall U.S. trade deficit eliminated production supported by three million jobs in the same period (Scott 2001). Thus, NAFTA and other sources of growing trade deficits were responsible for a change in the composition of employment, shifting workers from manufacturing to other sectors and, frequently, from good jobs to low-quality, low-pay work.

    Since the onset of recession in early 2001, trade-displaced workers have been especially hard hit. Workers have experienced longer unemployment spells, and they have found it much more difficult to get new jobs. Many have concluded that their jobs in manufacturing will never come back. The growth of the trade deficit since early 2001 has contributed to an absolute decline of jobs, not just a shift in jobs from manufacturing to other sectors.

    When trying to identify the causes behind trends such as the disappearance of manufacturing jobs, the rise in income inequality, and the decline in wages in the United States, NAFTA and growing trade deficits only provide part of the picture. Other major contributors include deregulation and privatization, declining rates of unionization, sustained high levels of unemployment, and technological change. While each of these factors has played some role, a large body of economic research has concluded that trade is responsible for at least 15% to 25% of the growth in wage inequality in the United States (U.S. Trade Deficit Review Commission 2000, 110-18). In addition, trade also has indirect effects on wage inequality by contributing to many of these other causes. For example, the decline of the manufacturing sector attributable to increased globalization has resulted in a reduction in unionization rates, since unions represent a larger share of the workforce in this sector than in other sectors of the economy.

    Although NAFTA is not responsible for all U.S. labor market problems, it has made a significant contribution to the state of the U.S. economy, both directly and indirectly. Without major changes in NAFTA to address unequal levels of development and enforcement of labor rights and environmental standards, continued integration of North American markets will threaten the prosperity of a growing share of the U.S. workforce. Expansion of a NAFTA-style agreement, such as the proposed Free Trade Agreement of the Americas, will only worsen these problems. Past experience suggests that workers have good reasons to be concerned as NAFTA enters its second decade.

    November 2003

    The author thanks Adam Hersh for his research assistance, and Josh Bivens for comments on earlier drafts.

    EPI gratefully acknowledges the support of the Ford Foundation for the Workers and the Global Economy project

    Appendix 1: Methodology used for job loss estimates

    This study uses the model developed in Rothstein and Scott (1997a and 1997b). This approach solves four problems that are prevalent in previous research on the employment impacts of trade. Some studies look only at the effects of exports and ignore imports. Some studies include foreign exports (transshipments)—goods produced outside North America and shipped through the United States to Mexico or Canada—as U.S. exports. The trade data used in many studies are usually not adjusted for inflation. Finally, a single employment multiplier is often applied to all industries, despite differences in labor productivity and utilization. 8

    The model used here is based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics' 192-sector employment requirements table, which was derived from the 1992 U.S. input-output table and adjusted to 2000 price and productivity levels (BLS 2003a), in real, chain-weighted 1996 dollars. This model is used to estimate the direct and indirect effects of changes in goods trade flows in each of these 192 industries. This study updates the 1987 input employment requirements table used in earlier reports in this series (Rothstein and Scott 1997a, 1997b; Scott 1996).

    We use three-digit, SIC-based industry trade data (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1996, 2003b), deflated with industry-specific, chain-weighted price indices (BLS 2001), which were updated using industry-specific producer price indexes (BLS 2003b). These data are concorded from HS to SIC (1987) classifications using conversion tables on the Census CDs. The SIC data are then concorded into the BLS sectors using sector-plans from the BLS (2003a). State-level employment effects are calculated by allocating imports and exports to the states on the basis of their share of three-digit, industry-level employment for 2000 (U.S. Census Bureau 2001).
    Last edited by slingbox; 10/14/2007 at 04:21 PM.
  6.    #66  
    Quote Originally Posted by lifes2short View Post
    Sling, you've got leftover homework you keep avoiding.

    Since the Democrats started all this evil {regardless of the fact that the trade deficit with China began at $6B under Reagan in 1985 as shown here:, what was the name and date of this mysterious US Free Trade Agreement President Clinton signed with China as you state here:
    Come on do the math and give some number on how much it increased under Clinton
    Lets call that you homework 2short

    Here I will help get you started...your friend Bill like I said was fighting to bring chinia as a big player and got wheels turning.

    Clinton makes final push for trade pact with China
    Last Updated: Friday, November 10, 2000 | 11:59 PM ET
    CBC News
    The White House is still lobbying hard to try to secure enough votes to get a trade bill passed that will given China better access to U.S. markets.
    But some big unions continued their campaign to stop the legislation in the divided House of Representatives Sunday night, urging undecided Democrats to vote against the law.

    The final showdown is expected by Wednesday.

    50 Chinese dissidents use chain to protest bill in Washington

    The bill would give China what's known as "permanent normal trade relations" (PNTR) with the United States.

    It would eliminate annual reviews of Beijing's trade status, and permanently guarantee Chinese products the same low-tariff access to the U.S. that most other countries enjoy.

    The bill could also help China became a member of the World Trade Organization.

    Continue Article

    Labour groups, such as the AFL-CIO, argue the law will cost hundreds of thousands of American workers their jobs. They also say it could further restrict human rights in China.

    But U.S. President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, maintains the trade bill will benefit the U.S. economy. He also says it might speed up democratic reform in China.

    Two out of three Democrats in the House of Representatives are expected to vote against the bill, which is supported by Republican leaders and the business community.

    Many large companies like PNTR because they say it's a two-way street, eventually giving U.S. investors access to 1.3 billion potential customers.

    The legislation is also backed by two leading presidential candidates: Texas Gov. George W. Bush, a Republican, and Vice President Al Gore, a Democrat.

    The trade pact needs 218 votes to get through the 435-member House. The White House hopes to deliver about 70 Democratic supporters, and is counting on the Republicans for the rest.

    But on Sunday both sides said there were too many undecided Democrats to determine whether the legislation would pass.

    If it gets through the House, the bill would be easily approved in the Senate in June.

    The fight is a familiar one to Canadians. Some groups have opposed Ottawa's decision to expand trade relations with China, arguing that Beijing is being rewarded for human rights violations. They also say jobs will be lost to the lower-paid Chinese
    Last edited by slingbox; 10/14/2007 at 02:52 PM.
  7.    #67  
    Alittle more help for my friend 2short

    Clinton blames anti-China crowd for scuttling deal with Zhu

    Tuesday, April 13, 1999


    WASHINGTON -- After four of the blossoming Japanese cherry trees on the edge of the Tidal Basin mysteriously were hacked down, park police laid in wait at night to catch the vandals.

    Sure enough, the midnight marauders reappeared: A band of three beavers, sharp front teeth at the ready, swam up out of the murky shallows to "harvest" the trees again in the furtherance of their unauthorized federal dam project.

    This led to a fierce clash of interests between environmentalists ("Save the trees!") and animal-rights activists ("Save the beavers!"). One lesson: In natural struggles for survival, as in political relations between powers, painful priorities must be imposed and ameliorating compromises made.

    Another lesson taught in the defense of Beauty (the blossoms in their springtime glory) against the attack of Truth (the beavers instinctively demonstrating the validity of their work ethic) was this: Do not demonize your opponents when they want to let you lose with honor.

    Let us consider the way President Clinton handled the visit of China's remarkable prime minister, Zhu Rongji.

    Zhu's goal was to gain our support for China's admission to the World Trade Organization. He was willing to make some concessions about opening his protected markets to U.S. exporters, but unwilling to stop the campaign to crush all attempts to form a democracy in Communist China.

    Clinton's goal was to accept the commercial easements -- while paying lip service to human rights -- and make the deal. But at the last minute he double-crossed his own trade negotiators and embarrassed Zhu by scuttling the agreement.


    John Sweeney, head of the AFL-CIO, who wants protection from cheap Chinese goods, is why. In years past, Clinton could afford to ignore Sweeney's protectionism, as well as liberal Democrats who have seen how trade has led only to more repression. That's because he had the support of business-dominated Republicans on this issue.

    But now that callous business-is-business support is eroding. The stolen nuclear secrets and the funneling of Chinese money into his stolen election make Republicans nervous, thereby giving Sweeney much more leverage on Clinton.

    In scuttling the deal, Clinton needed someone to blame. It couldn't be Zhu; he had come a long way on trade. Couldn't be labor or human-rights liberals who saved him from removal. Certainly couldn't be himself, although his easy assumption of GOP dogma that trade would lead to freedom had backfired. He decided to take the vast-right-wing-conspiracy route.

    The culprit? "The anti-China crowd in America," he said, had a notion "that if someone wants to have a relationship with us, they should agree with us about everything."

    How's that for polarizing rhetoric?

    He has now divided Americans who think about China at all into "the anti-China crowd" of simpletons vs. -- who? The mirror image would be "a pro-China crowd in America that thinks that if we want to have a relationship with someone, we should agree with them about everything."

    Such foolish oratory makes impossible a realistic American attitude toward China. It invites us back to the who-lost-China, pre-Nixon days of isolation and hostility.

    We who are now labeled by our president "the anti-China crowd" are indeed anti-Communist, but believe we must deal with Beijing across a range of fronts, using trade and cultural contacts as levers for diplomatic compromise and political progress. Trade is good, but it is not all, and we have seen in China and Russia how its profits can be misused by a power elite to stunt the growth of freedom.

    We can combat China's penetration of our labs without rancor, and expect Beijing to understand an improvement of our surveillance of their military. But we should exhibit outrage at the subversion of our political process with foreign money; that's beyond the pale of national competition, and when added to sustained cultural aggression in Tibet and missile intimidation of Taiwan, causes consequences.

    The pro-China crowd disagrees. (See? It's so easy to pin a pejorative label on opponents.) We'll have to await a new president for a subtly realistic approach that China will respect.

    Meanwhile, the anti-beaver crowd has humanely trapped two of the predators of our cherry trees. The eager rodents will be released in the wilds of Maryland. Tidal Basin blossoms are now safer. Spring is possible.
  8.    #68  
    hmm some more help for 2short
    Bill Clinton, NAFTA, and Michigan
    June 1 2007 Comments Print Friendly Page

    Later this month, former President Bill Clinton will visit Grand Rapids to speak at the Economics Club of Grand Rapids annual dinner. In response to his visit, Media Mouse is continuing a series of pieces examining the legacy of Clinton. Yesterday we covered Clinton's Iraq policy and today we will examine Bill Clinton and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

    In his signing statement, President Clinton was praised by Vice President NAFTA as an issue that was able to "transcend ideology" and gain bipartisan support. Clinton compared the signing of NAFTA to the fall of the Berlin wall, while promising that "NAFTA means jobs.
    American jobs, and good-paying American jobs." Clinton promised that "NAFTA will create 200,000 American jobs in the first two years of its effect" and "a million jobs in the first five years of its impact." Of course, this did not happen.

    For residents of Michigan, the impacts of the NAFTA have hit close to home. As corporations have moved jobs outside of the United States to maximize profits by paying lower wages and to escape regulations, the economy in Michigan has suffered. According to the Economic Policy Institute, all fifty states have experienced job loss due to NAFTA, although Michigan is among the hardest hit states. The Economic Policy Institute has determined that Michigan lost over 63,000 jobs due to NAFTA. In a 2004 video produced by Media Mouse titled "The Adventures of the NAFTA Bunny," Media Mouse documented several thousand jobs lost in West Michigan at area companies ranging from Electrolux (2,700) to Johnson Controls (885).

    While explaining that "jobs moving to Mexico" is a result of NAFTA is commonplace in Michigan and around the United States, less examined is the role of Bill Clinton in passing NAFTA. NAFTA was negotiated and signed under the Bush administration, but was ratified in Congress in 1993 following an aggressive push by Bill Clinton who made NAFTA a major legislative priority. Clinton aggressively promoted NAFTA as part of his agenda despite public opposition of 2-to-1 against the trade agreement. Clinton joined the rest of his administration and corporate lobbyists in a "full-court press" for votes on NAFTA, making it a "do or die" vote. In order to secure the votes for its passage, Clinton aggressively lobbied Republicans and offered money for pork projects in exchange for votes, while organizing a series of ineffective "side agreements" that were designed to counteract opposition from the labor and environmental movements.

    The ratification of NAFTA and its subsequent results fit within a larger foreign policy goal of the Clinton administration of advancing United States interests, summarized by Clinton's Treasury Secretary who stated that "I'm tired of a level playing field...We should tilt the playing field for U.S. businesses." Moreover, NAFTA helped to advance the interests of the global ruling class, with NAFTA making a significant amount of money for the ruling elite in government and the private sector. NAFTA was pushed with the support of the media system, despite the fact that much of the public was opposed to the deal. Clinton would continue passing similar trade deals throughout his administration, with the Clinton/Republican alliance pushing through the World Trade Organization (WTO) and China's being granted PNTR. However, while the effects of NAFTA on workers in Canada, Mexico, and the United States as well as who the likely benefactors would be received attention in the alternative press at the time, the full story on NAFTA has still been largely ignored by the corporate media.

    The effects of NAFTA has been the subject of a plethora of books, studies, and articles, and cannot be exhaustively covered within this article. The effect on jobs in the United States, mentioned previously, has been significant. The United States government has certified that more than 525,000 jobs were specifically lost to NAFTA as companies took advantage of provisions in NAFTA making it easier and more profitable to relocate to Mexico. Corporations based in the United States have also used the threat of moving to Mexico as a way of weakening unions and union organizing drives. Many of the workers who have been displaced by NAFTA have found significantly lower paying jobs in the service industry, which offers pay of twenty-three to seventy-seven percent less and few or no benefits. According to Public Citizen, "NAFTA has aggravated the problem of deindustrialization and helped perpetuate the stagnation of real wages for millions of hard-working Americans and their families."

    In Mexico, over 1.5 million farmers have lost their farm-based livelihoods due to the flood of United States corn, while wages in the manufacturing sector fell from an average of $5 per day to $4 per day. Prices paid to corn farmers, once the backbone of Mexico's agricultural sector, have fallen by 70%. As a result, half of the Mexican work force works on less than $8 per day. Furthermore, a third of the 800,000 jobs created in Mexico by NAFTA--many in the low-wage maquiladora sector--have left Mexico and relocated to Asia. Thousands of Mexicans have been displaced from their homes due to changes in the agricultural sector, and have relocated to the border region where they live in poor conditions and work low-wage jobs.

    NAFTA also has effects on national sovereignty and democracy. Rights and protections within NAFTA gave preferential treatment to foreign investors. In many cases, this treatment exceeds what is available under domestic law, with NAFTA provisions allowing corporations located within any of the three countries to sue the other countries over regulations--including health, zoning, or environmental regulations--that impede a corporation's ability to make profit. This has happened, with Canada reversing its ban on a gasoline additive called MMT, which destroys catalytic converters and is a suspected neurotoxin, after U.S. Ethyl Corporation filed a NAFTA Chapter 11 case for $201 million alleging the public health policy violated its NAFTA rights. In Mexico, the government was required to pay U.S.-based Metalclad Corporation $16 million in compensation after a Chapter 11 claim that the denial of a municipal construction permit for a toxic waste facility in an environmentally sensitive zone near the city of Guadalcazar violated its NAFTA rights. Moreover, these cases are filed in secret under NAFTA's Chapter 11 rules, making oversight next to impossible.
    Last edited by slingbox; 10/14/2007 at 03:40 PM.
  9.    #69  
    I must now give up on 2short for he has not demonstrated input to this thread of the exception of blaming me for misleading you..Both Party's are to blame as Ive stated many times in this thread yet a couple felt otherwise thus I was bombarded by questions yet there was no fact within there argument .How petty can it get when we are always trying to stick up are dukes when were wrong and not admit mistakes that are made.This thread was meant for all Parties to come together and learn facts of are current job market and lagging borders.. not blaming each ether.We hear enough of that in DC.
    Last edited by slingbox; 10/14/2007 at 04:08 PM.
  10. #70  
    Quote Originally Posted by slingbox View Post
    Come on do the math and give some number on how much it increased under Clinton
    Lets call that you homework 2short
    Answered on page-1. You even responded to it. Are you so torn by politics that you can't come to terms with the trade deficit's moderate growth under BushI and Clinton, yet exploding over the past 6 years? Really?;postcount=20

    The bill you refer to only brought China into the WTO, which raised the practice standards necessary to maintain membership; made China's trade status permanent vs the annual reauthorization of the same agreement. It changed nothing else. This was no Free Trade Agreement in the sense of NAFTA or CAFTA.

    ...not blaming each ether.We hear enough of that in DC.
    You really have the nerve to post that immediately after flooding with anti-Clinton rhetoric Op-Ed after anti-Clinton rhetoric Op-Ed?
  11.    #71  
    So you want to blame it on the Republicans only then.So it,s all there fault...Grow up man lol..Read the 7 articles that Ive posted and pic those apart...If you can

    Quote Originally Posted by lifes2short View Post
    The bill you refer to only brought China into the WTO, which raised the practice standards necessary to maintain membership; made China's trade status permanent vs the annual reauthorization of the same agreement. It changed nothing else. This was no Free Trade Agreement in the sense of NAFTA or CAFTA.]:
    Clinton basically pulled china more into world trade if I'm reading you correct or as the Article states.Young one you will make any excuse to dispels any blame from the dems.You are lost.I will post more articles for you to chew on today ..And stop pulling up that stupid grid on all your post...It's getting old my friend

    Quote Originally Posted by lifes2short View Post
    You really have the nerve to post that immediately after flooding with anti-Clinton rhetoric Op-Ed after anti-Clinton rhetoric Op-Ed?
    Freaken crybay that cant face facts that his party had something to do with the Trades deficit...Your pathetic 2short but I will still help you with more reading material because you look more silly when you post your rebuttals lol

    Not an insult just a fact 2short..Your a left wing nut lol lol

    Both Republican and Democrats are responsible for the Free Trade Fiasco that this country..Sorry the truth hurts.I will keep helping you with more tasty facts wont like
    Last edited by slingbox; 10/15/2007 at 09:34 AM.
  12.    #72  
    April 10, 2005

    Bush, Clinton, Bush: Trade Deficit Just Worsens
    by Rooster Research
    In summary, the U.S. annual goods and services deficit became wider in 2004, as reported by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis and the U.S. Census Bureau, growing from $ 496.5 billion in 2003 to $617.7 billion in 2004, driven lower by imports increasing twice as quickly as exports. While there was an increase in exports in goods and services, imports continue to grow, across the geographic board (example: China: $124.1 B to $162 B, Japan: $66 B to $ 75.2 B and the European Union: $97.9 B to $110.0 B).
    Last edited by slingbox; 10/15/2007 at 10:27 AM.
  13.    #73  
    Whats scary.. this article is from 1999 and the deficit has risen substantially.

    The U.S. Trade Deficit
    Are We Trading Away Our Future?

    By Robert E. Scott

    Madam Chair and members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me to testify on the impacts of large and chronic trade deficits on the American economy. This afternoon I will discuss the causes and consequences of the steady growth in the U.S. trade deficit, and then suggest policies that could improve the U.S. trade position.

    The Changing Effects of Trade on American Workers [1]
    In the 1950s and 1960s, the U.S. was the world's leading export powerhouse. The Marshall plan helped provided the capital needed to rebuild Europe and Japan, and fueled a tremendous demand for U.S. exports.

    During this period, the U.S. ran a substantial trade surplus, of about one percent of Gross Domestic Product, as shown in Figure 1. The U.S. also benefited initially from strong export demand in a wide range of industries, from low-tech textiles and apparel to sophisticated aircraft and machine tools.
    Last edited by slingbox; 10/15/2007 at 10:28 AM.
  14.    #74  
    Intresting read...
    The High Cost of the China-WTO Deal
    Administration's own analysis suggests spiraling deficits, job losses

    by Robert E. Scott

    No one can predict the future. But the Clinton Administration is confidently forecasting that the huge U.S. trade deficit with China will improve if Congress accords China permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) in order to accommodate Beijing's membership in the World Trade Organization (WTO). President Clinton claims that the recently signed trade agreement with China "creates a win-win result for both countries" (Clinton 2000, 9). He argues that exports to China "now support hundreds of thousands of American jobs," and that "these figures can grow substantially with the new access to the Chinese market the WTO agreement creates" (Clinton 2000, 10). Others in the White House, such as Kenneth Liberthal, the special advisor to the president and senior director for Asia affairs at the National Security Council, echo Clinton's assessment:

    "Let's be clear as to why a trade deficit might decrease in the short term. China exports far more to the U.S. than it imports [from] the U.S….It will not grow as much as it would have grown without this agreement and over time clearly it will shrink with this agreement."
  15.    #75  
    I'm not buying it..This seems to be like another smoke screen seeing Bush is in Current talks with South Korea to open more flood gates.

    Trade Deficit Lowest in Seven Months
    Thursday October 11, 9:40 pm ET
    By Martin Crutsinger, AP Economics Writer
    Falling Dollar Pushes Exports to Record Levels and Helps Lower Trade Deficit

    WASHINGTON (AP) -- The falling dollar led more foreigners to buy American in August, helping to push the trade deficit down to the lowest point in seven months. That was welcome news for the Bush administration as it tries to deal with a Congress unhappy over huge trade imbalances and 3 million lost manufacturing jobs.
  16. #76  
    Quote Originally Posted by slingbox View Post
    I'm not buying it..This seems to be like another smoke screen seeing Bush is in Current talks with South Korea to open more flood gates.

    Trade Deficit Lowest in Seven Months
    Thursday October 11, 9:40 pm ET
    By Martin Crutsinger, AP Economics Writer
    Falling Dollar Pushes Exports to Record Levels and Helps Lower Trade Deficit

    WASHINGTON (AP) -- The falling dollar led more foreigners to buy American in August, helping to push the trade deficit down to the lowest point in seven months. That was welcome news for the Bush administration as it tries to deal with a Congress unhappy over huge trade imbalances and 3 million lost manufacturing jobs.
    No offense, but I know how to create google searches and subscribe to RSS feeds just fine, thank you. This thread has become a bucket of articles that are all over the map and I am politely advising you that you've probably lost a lot of interest by both sides of the isle by now.

    Perhaps you can suggest in your own words - using bullet points - how to fix something that is obviously broken by both parties to get things back on track? Just an idea....
  17.    #77  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    No offense, but I know how to create google searches and subscribe to RSS feeds just fine, thank you. This thread has become a bucket of articles that are all over the map and I am politely advising you that you've probably lost a lot of interest by both sides of the isle by now.

    Perhaps you can suggest in your own words - using bullet points - how to fix something that is obviously broken by both parties to get things back on track? Just an idea....
    Thanks for your input Moderateinny.The point of articles was to pull interest into the current state of free trade creating conversion on the topic.It doesn't seem to be a topic that many want to addresses of the exception of party didn't do it blame game which has soured this thread.
    If ether's add there comments , articles ....This thread will live.
    If it falls into the many threads of lost topics in the TC assembly line so be it...
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

Posting Permissions