Republicans are more anti-trade than Democrats

[Kal'Stang]

So then how about we raise the minimum wage up closer to $15/hour?

So make the mom and pop stores pay for corporations leaving. Yep, that's going to solve LOTS!

 

[Kal'Stang]

That's either a cop out or you have been living in a cave for 35 years. You have never voted for a Republican?

Why would it be a cop out?

And nope, I've never voted for a Republican. Or a Democrat.

 

[Kal'Stang]

FFS...you don't understand economics....or English:

"Republicans, who claim to stand for free markets, are likely to nominate a crude protectionist..."

It is a clear reference to Trump being a protectionist, a crude one.

Cmon man.

And what is the implication in that?

 

[MrWonka]

So make the mom and pop stores pay for corporations leaving. Yep, that's going to solve LOTS!

Most minimum wage employees do not in fact work at anything even remotely close to a mom and pop.

 

[MrWonka]

You really shouldn't hide behind a specious argument by making stuff up. That usually backfires.

Have you been living under a rock or something? The labor force participation rate is in fact coming back whether you'd like to acknowledge that reality or not.

Free trade never had clear partisan boundaries like other issues.

Ummm.... that's pretty much exactly the point I'm making. It's conservatives who would have you believe there was such a boundary when in reality there is not only no boundary, but republicans would be on the wrong side of it if there was such a boundary.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Most minimum wage employees do not in fact work at anything even remotely close to a mom and pop.

I live in a town of about 5k people. There are only two stores in this town that are not considered a mom and pop store. Safeway and Super1. Guess how many people work at mom and pop stores vs those two.

Either way, your point does not negate what I said. Indeed your point even admits that mom and pop stores are still going to have to pay for the loss of jobs to other countries by simply using the word "most".

 

[MrWonka]

Hell, even Jerry Moonbeam Brown doesn't think the 15 dollar an hour makes any sense economically, but that didn't stop him from signing it

$15 may be excessive, but you operate under the false assumption that what is popular doesn't make economic sense. The reason most liberal states are kicking the crap out of conservative states economically is because a lot of young well educated people want to live in them. If $15 minimum wage makes a lot of smart well educated people move to your state then businesses have no choice, but to follow.

 

[MrWonka]

I live in a town of about 5k people.

Your individual experience does not trump obvious sums of data from around the country.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Your individual experience does not trump obvious sums of data from around the country.

Way to not address my point MrWonka. Guess deflection is the order of the day.

 

[Fenton]

$15 may be excessive, but you operate under the false assumption that what is popular doesn't make economic sense. The reason most liberal states are kicking the crap out of conservative states economically is because a lot of young well educated people want to live in them. If $15 minimum wage makes a lot of smart well educated people move to your state then businesses have no choice, but to follow.

Lol...

California lost 9,000 business HQs and expansions, mostly to Texas, seven-year study says - Dallas Business Journal

What color is the sky in your world ??

 

[gavinfielder]

Have you been living under a rock or something? The labor force participation rate is in fact coming back whether you'd like to acknowledge that reality or not.

Oh, indeed, looks like it is coming up after all. I apologize, it looks like you had a real argument there, at the bottom.

You've already passed the point of specious argument, I suppose you can take whatever you want from that graph.

Ummm.... that's pretty much exactly the point I'm making.

No, it really wasn't. Stop deflecting. This entire thread has been a gigantic partisan hackfest based on obviously very short experience in politics and half-baked preconceptions of what the political parties have been doing the last few decades.

Yes, this is an interesting moment. Your 'analysis' of it is a partisan joke.

 

[countryboy]

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?

You are confusing free market with free trade.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

And what is the implication in that?

There was noting implied, Krugman was explicit in his description of Trump. You, on the other hand, inferred he was referring to all GOP'ers. I think the implication in that is that you didn't understand the words he wrote, that English, like economics, is sometimes baffling to you.

 

[JasperL]

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.

Not close to 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.

I agree - both parties have for some time supported what we call "free trade" but it heavily managed trade that's anything but "free." One good thing Ron Paul used to point out was an actual "free trade" agreement would be at most a few pages long. Instead we have these documents that are negotiated for YEARS, literally, and run into the thousands of pages. It's not "free trade" which is why I don't have any problem writing or amending those agreements to tilt the field a bit back towards U.S. based industry.

 

[MrWonka]

You are confusing free market with free trade.

Free trade would be a necessary first step for a truly free market.

 

[iguanaman]

Not close to an "all-time" low.

View attachment 67200333



I agree - both parties have for some time supported what we call "free trade" but it heavily managed trade that's anything but "free." One good thing Ron Paul used to point out was an actual "free trade" agreement would be at most a few pages long. Instead we have these documents that are negotiated for YEARS, literally, and run into the thousands of pages. It's not "free trade" which is why I don't have any problem writing or amending those agreements to tilt the field a bit back towards U.S. based industry.

Because some trade is more free than others? Why would a nation sign a trade agreement that is "tilted" towards another?

 

[MrWonka]

You've already passed the point of specious argument, I suppose you can take whatever you want from that graph.

Ahhh yes, good old lying with statistics. Only showing a range of 66% to 62% to make the drop look more significant than it actually is. Cut off the last two months of continued improvement.

No, it really wasn't. .... This entire thread has been a gigantic partisan hackfest

No, this thread has been an exercise in pointing out the glaring hypocrisy among conservatives and the sad reality of their low brow voters that continuously get conned into voting for them.

 

[MrWonka]

Way to not address my point.

You didn't make a point. You gave me an individual anecdote which is largely irrelevant in the grand scope of things. The fact of the matter is that the lions share of people making minimum wage do not in fact work for anything close to a "mom and pop." Most true "mom and pop" shops are run almost entirely by two owners and operators. Namely.... the mom and the pop.

 

[MrWonka]

Either way, your point does not negate what I said. Indeed your point even admits that mom and pop stores are still going to have to pay for the loss of jobs to other countries by simply using the word "most".

No it does not. You asserted that yourself out of no where with zero evidence to back it up.

 

[Lovebug]

That's either a cop out or you have been living in a cave for 35 years. You have never voted for a Republican?

You don't have to be Republican to vote for a Republican. Independents vote for the best candidate at the time, not party line. (I am a poet too, or so it seems)

 

[Lovebug]

It is HW Bush that truly exemplifies it as he negotiated the agreement and 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.

So you are saying that, because they were for it, and others went along with it, we cannot agree that free trade (not fair trade mind you) is biting us in the ass, and we'd rather continue on than changing it to profit our country, our working people, our poor?
When will the finger pointing stop in favor or actual change for the better?
Of course people rather buy cheap goods than Made in USA? Why? We don't have jobs to afford higher prices. It is like asking "what was first, the chicken or the egg?"

 

[JasperL]

Because some trade is more free than others? Why would a nation sign a trade agreement that is "tilted" towards another?

Because it's good for corporate profits of huge American companies. That was easy.....

Sheesh, China manipulates their currency, imposes capital controls on money invested there, often requires a China "partner" for investments in that country and otherwise massively subsidizes their manufacturing sector. Just look at the air quality and other environmental regulations that don't exist, their lack of protection of our intellectual property, etc. - those are direct subsidies of Chinese firms relative to the U.S. We don't have anything like "free trade" IN CHINA, but allow them near unlimited and unfettered access to this country. That is not in any way "free trade."

But since we're asking questions, why does a "free trade" agreement need to take years to negotiate and thousands of pages to explain? It doesn't - which is the point. It's not "free trade" but heavily managed trade in which we forego tariffs and other restrictions on imports to this country and gain some concessions on U.S. firms doing business in those countries and relaxing the barriers to our imports, but those concessions are FAR from complete and still impose huge barriers to our products, investments, etc.

 

[MrWonka]

Lol...

California lost 9,000 business HQs and expansions, mostly to Texas, seven-year study says - Dallas Business Journal

What color is the sky in your world ??

California has an economy that rivals Russia. There are about 1000 new companies starting up every single day. Last year there was 5 times more venture capital spent in California than in any other state in the country. California didn't "lose" jobs to Texas it sent jobs to Texas because Texan's are dumb enough to take **** wages to do them. Currently Texas has a 4.4% unemployment rate compared to California at 5.4%. So with all Texas' tax cuts, and corporate giveaways they still only manged a 1% improvement in employment. Meanwhile the just under 95% of Californians who want a job and have one are making almost double the wages that Texans are.

 

[countryboy]

Free trade would be a necessary first step for a truly free market.

So called "free trade" agreements are anything but free. But you knew you purposefully mischaracterized the conservative position when you made this thread.

 

[MrWonka]

So called "free trade" agreements are anything but free. But you knew you purposefully mischaracterized the conservative position when you made this thread

You really don't understand that you positions on the two subjects are direct contradictions of each other do you? Free trade is just an extension of the free market to places outside the United States. When the government blocks free trade it is meddling in the free market to artificially prop up local labor at the expense of consumers.