Ross Perot was the smartest man in the room...

2seaoat wrote:Your huffing and puffing and giving half the equation is something which you must learn to control.  Tell me now that you have shown the loss jobs......do you have the figures on job creation under the treaty?   Do you understand the economic growth under the same?   You start with a proposition, and then search for facts to back the same.  Without huffing and puffing......you will find out jobs were created, and we had greater economic growth than without the treaty......this is common economic knowledge, and what you see is economic dislocation without the required compensatory system to address the same is a problem which starts with congress.   The job growth and huge improvements in our GDP and exports is something you must understand which is basic with understanding trade and comparative advantage.

Your huffing and puffing and leaving out half the equation is unbecoming.

Tell us how all the countries involved in those treaties have breached the contract by not following NAFTA, EPA, child labor, etc... agreements in manufacturing products to ship to the United States. How's the air in China? Are the children attending school through at least 10th grade in India?

Of course you knew these things weren't being done and really didn't care because of your materialistic baby boomer needs. When in actuality the underlying idea was to force other countries to comply with these mandates to clean up the environment and educate the masses. But then you've never really cared about such a idealistic notion have you? In reality all you care about is the money coming in to feed your retirement and greed instead of any important issues like these. You must see a rosey little world wearing those...

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYQlDRMhsPI

  

U.S. employment increased over the period of 1993-2007 from 110.8 million people to 137.6 million people.[9] Specifically within NAFTA's first five years of existence, 709,988 jobs (140,000 annually), were created domestically.[10] The mid to late nineties was a period of strong economic growth in the United States. Classical macroeconomic theory suggests that when a country is experiencing economic growth (i.e. GDP is increasing), then there will also be an increase in the participation of the labor force.[11] Thus, because trade liberalization can sometimes contribute to increases in GDP, it can help to bring the rate of unemployment down in a country. The U.S. experienced a 48% increase in real GDP from 1993-2005. The unemployment rate over this period was an average of only 5.1%, compared to 7.1% from 1982-1993, before NAFTA was implemented.

Also, US industrial production, in which manufacturing makes up 78%, saw an increase of 49% from 1993-2005. The period prior to NAFTA, 1982-1993, only saw a 28% increase.[10] In fact, according to NAM, National Association of Manufacturers, NAFTA has only been responsible for 10% of the manufactured goods trade deficit, something opponents criticize the agreement for exacerbating.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAFTA%27s_effect_on_United_States_employment

2seaoat wrote:U.S. employment increased over the period of 1993-2007 from 110.8 million people to 137.6 million people.[9] Specifically within NAFTA's first five years of existence, 709,988 jobs (140,000 annually), were created domestically.[10] The mid to late nineties was a period of strong economic growth in the United States. Classical macroeconomic theory suggests that when a country is experiencing economic growth (i.e. GDP is increasing), then there will also be an increase in the participation of the labor force.[11] Thus, because trade liberalization can sometimes contribute to increases in GDP, it can help to bring the rate of unemployment down in a country. The U.S. experienced a 48% increase in real GDP from 1993-2005. The unemployment rate over this period was an average of only 5.1%, compared to 7.1% from 1982-1993, before NAFTA was implemented.

Also, US industrial production, in which manufacturing makes up 78%, saw an increase of 49% from 1993-2005. The period prior to NAFTA, 1982-1993, only saw a 28% increase.[10] In fact, according to NAM, National Association of Manufacturers, NAFTA has only been responsible for 10% of the manufactured goods trade deficit, something opponents criticize the agreement for exacerbating.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAFTA%27s_effect_on_United_States_employment

I don't think taking the words of the manufacturers is the best idea. They would cook the truth because cheap labor benefits them directly.

Are you trying to say that we are not bleeding jobs to mexico?

Are you trying to say that companies are not moving their businesses to mexico?

In 1997 there were 17.4 million manufacturing jobs; by 2007 that number had slipped to 13.8 million, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data.


I have thought. All this "global thinking" is a bit too much. Each country had or has its own little economic system. Some good, some bad, now we are trying to blend them all together for this utopian one world fuzzy crap. And the large economies are bleeding at the seems. But its ok with some because sharing misery is good and warm and fuzzy.

I think if a company moves it manufactures out of the US, then selling a car( wigit) in the US is going to cost a lot. We have forgotten, they also need our buying power. And if we cant afford to buy their product then someone in America will see a opportunity to provide a service and they will start a business. You know, like how America used to run things.