- Joined
- Mar 21, 2016
- Messages
- 12,130
- Reaction score
- 7,253
- Location
- Charleston, SC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Left
Article said:Republicans (35 percent) are more likely than Democrats (22 percent) to say free trade agreements are bad for the economy.
Republicans, who claim to stand for free markets, are likely to nominate a crude protectionist, leaving Democrats, with their skepticism about untrammeled markets, as the de facto defenders of relatively open trade.
This is done to point out hypocrisy among republicans. They often refer to those who are anti-free trade as "protectionists" using the word as a pejorative. When in reality they themselves are generally the more protectionist.Ones a "defender" the other is a "crude protectionist" said as if its a dirty word.
Aside from that.... I don't know about the economy...but it certainly has put a lot of people out of a job which can't be good.
So which is it? Republican trade policies hurt or they don't? You seem to be on both sides of the issue at the same time.
This is done to point out hypocrisy among republicans. They often refer to those who are anti-free trade as "protectionists" using the word as a pejorative. When in reality they themselves are generally the more protectionist.
If so many people were "put out of a job" how come we have 95% employment today with employment situations continuing to improve for the last 40 consecutive months?
5% unemployment, even if it were appropriately measured or accurate, does not mean 95% employment.If so many people were "put out of a job" how come we have 95% employment today with employment situations continuing to improve for the last 40 consecutive months?
A tepid analysis.Calling Trade agreements "Republican policy" is inaccurate at best. As shown above more republicans are against them than democrats.
No, it was done as a partisan attack.
:roll: Oh yes, employment numbers that the government hands out will always tell the whole story huh? Tell that to the thousands of people that have lost their jobs due to the companies moving their factories over seas or down to Mexico or other countries where they can pay employees a few cents on the dollar. People that were once making 15-30/hr now making 7.25-10/hr because they lost their jobs due to free-trade agreements. Which has only lined the pockets of the rich even more.
5% unemployment, even if it were appropriately measured or accurate, does not mean 95% employment.
The labor force participation rate is 62%. It's worth noting that that's a stagnant number at an all-time low.
A tepid analysis.
The political ground around free trade has been shifting very rapidly the last decade. Up until recently, everyone was for free trade. The Clintons were practically the standard bearer. Still are, really, but it's so unpopular Hillary has to hide it now.
Even the labor force participation rate(aka the new goal post conservatives wanted to use when the unemployment rate we've used for decades looked too good under Obama) has been coming back. That's why unemployment when from 4.9% back up to 5.0% nationally this month. More people came back into the labor force. Considering we are still recovering from one of the worst economic disasters in history our economy is looking very good right now.5% unemployment, even if it were appropriately measured or accurate, does not mean 95% employment.
The labor force participation rate is 62%. It's worth noting that that's a stagnant number at an all-time low.
The political ground around free trade has been shifting very rapidly the last decade. Up until recently, everyone was for free trade. The Clintons were practically the standard bearer. Still are, really, but it's so unpopular Hillary has to hide it now.
First, that NYT article was nothing but an opinion puff peace that is clearly anti-republican. Obvious in the first paragraph...
Ones a "defender" the other is a "crude protectionist" said as if its a dirty word.
Aside from that.... I don't know about the economy...but it certainly has put a lot of people out of a job which can't be good.
Because polls have a liberal bias? Are you denying the polls or what? Lining the pockets of the rich is suddenly something the Republicans are against? That has been their goal since Reagan.
Name one Republican (Trump is not) that was/is against any free trade agreements?
I don't think you're reading Krugman correctly. He has been a vocal advocate of free trade for many years and has been critical of the DNC for being anti free trade in the past. IOW, he has always been critical of protectionists, which Trump most certainly is. And as far as "crude" goes, do you have any doubt that Trump *is* crude?
Because his use of the word "crude" is not referring to republicans - he's clearly referring to Trump.
People that were once making 15-30/hr now making 7.25-10/hr
1: Polls that are conducted by the media often are biased so I don't even bother to look at them. Doesn't matter to me whether its a liberal rag or a conservative rag.
2: I'm not Republican so can't speak for them.
That might be more believable if the first word in that sentence hadn't been "Republicans". Or do you think that Krugman wasn't trying to make an implication there?
Poll: Americans prefer low prices to items "Made in the USA" - CBS News
Interesting as Paul Krugman made a similar argument recently and got attacked by Bernie supporters and right wingers as being crazy, but this poll seems to back that claim up quite well.
http://www.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=h...de-labor-and-politics.html?smid=pl-share&_r=1
The reality is that most of the people losing manufacturing jobs in this country are blue collar white men in relatively rural areas. Maybe it shouldn't be such a surprise that Trump is doing so well with his anti-trade stances. This just kind of goes to show what democrats have long said that huge chunks of the republican voting block are the ones hurt the most by their policies. Too bad Republicans just rope them in with guns and god.
The point here is that there is a clear divide between the establishment types that generally get into office and the masses of republican voters. You say Trump is not a republican, but the reality is he's getting close to 50% of republican voters to support him. So if those people aren't republicans than what is the real republican party even made out of? It's just a bunch of rich ****s looking out for profits that have been coning millions of dumb racist white southerners into voting against their own best interests for decades.
You really shouldn't hide behind a specious argument by making stuff up. That usually backfires.Even the labor force participation rate(aka the new goal post conservatives wanted to use when the unemployment rate we've used for decades looked too good under Obama) has been coming back.
You've gone from tepid to both tepid and hack. Free trade never had clear partisan boundaries like other issues. You're working on a paradigm of "all democrats are liberal" and "all republicans are neoliberal" and that's not just a flawed picture, it's flat out ignorant of recent political history. The Democratic party has been led by neoliberals for a long time--this is the New Democrat coalition, and together with its other major conservative faction (Blue Dogs), was firmly supportive of free trade.It's a delicate balance. Unions generally don't like free trade because it hurts their bargaining power, yet Democrats are generally far more supportive of Unions because we know them to be beneficial for the workers as a whole. Democrats want what is best for both consumers and workers, but the reality is most consumers are workers.
It's easier for Republicans because they only seem to care about corporate profits. The problem they have is that only about 5% of the population truly benefits from their policies yet they have to con millions more into voting for them in order to have a chance at holding office. Unfortunately for them Trump has stolen their Gods and Guns people and then also went anti-trade as well. This has left the establishment republicans with nothing but the wealthy to support them, and that's not a winning combination.
I didn't say they are, I said they were. The New Democrats were firmly free-trade, and both Clintons exemplify it.LOL Now Democrats are the standard bearer of free trade? That is comically false.
I didn't say they are, I said they were. The New Democrats were firmly free-trade, and both Clintons exemplify it.
And yet not only did Bill Clinton sign NAFTA, Hillary also calls the TPP the gold standard of free trade agreements.It is HW Bush that truly exemplifies it as he signed NAFTA 1st and it was the Reagan Admistration that proposed it. Republicans are the father and mother of free trade. Clinton just went along for the ride. Sort of like the banking deregulation from Phil Gramm.
And yet not only did Bill Clinton sign NAFTA, Hillary also calls the TPP the gold standard of free trade agreements.
In her 2014 memoir Hard Choices, she wrote:
"Because TPP negotiations are still ongoing, it makes sense to reserve judgment until we can evaluate the final proposed agreement. It’s safe to say the TPP won’t be perfect -- no deal negotiated among a dozen countries ever will be -- but its higher standards, if implemented and enforced, should benefit American businesses and workers."
In fairness to Clinton, the TPP was still under negotiation when Clinton made the "gold standard" comment. The partners only finalized the deal this year. It’s quite possible the deal looks dramatically different than it did at the early stages of negotiations, when Clinton was at the State Department -- something Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill pointed out to us for this fact-check. The negotiations have been conducted in secret, so it’s hard for us to assess that ourselves. Also, as secretary of state, she spoke as a representative of the Obama administration, which was and remains wholeheartedly in favor of the deal.
Our ruling
Clinton said when she was secretary of state, she was reserving judgment but "hoped (the Trans-Pacific Partnership) would be the gold standard."
She’s twisting her 2012 remarks a bit. Clinton said, "This TPP sets the gold standard in trade agreements," which is a more confident claim than if she had said she "hoped" it would meet that standard. This is in contrast to more recent comments where Clinton said she had concerns about the deal and that she ultimately opposes it.
The statement is distorting her previous comments. We rate it Half True.
So then how about we raise the minimum wage up closer to $15/hour?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?