Forum Thread

60,000 Factories lost due to trade deals.

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 1 - 15 of 22 1 2 Next
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Ed Schultz and others claim 60,000 Factories lost due to trade deals . Amazingly people challenge not the number but the reason for the number. Critics claim the 2008 crash was responsible for a number of those lost. In the short sight they are correct but there is an explanation that consolidates the source for the manufacturing loss. Bill Clinton. I forget exactly when but I became critical of Clinton early in his term saying he was focusing on being President of the world , not the United States. He is the reason for the 60,000 loss. Not only did NAFTA cause losses but also his support for financial change. Especially the CFMA that can be directly blamed for 2008. Ed Schultz can cite a single cause for the 60,000 loss. Bill Clinton.
  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    There is a reason that Ed Schultz was fired from MSNBC. He was pretty loose with the facts. Okay, let me share some facts:

    NAFTA: NAFTA was negotiated under President George H. W. Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, and Mexican President Carlos Salinas, each responsible for spearheading and promoting the agreement, ceremonially signed the agreement in their respective capitals on December 17, 1992. The House of Representatives passed the Act on November 17, 1993, 234-200. The agreement's supporters included 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats. The bill passed the Senate on November 20, 1993, 61-38. Senate supporters were 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats. Clinton signed it into law on December 8, 1993; the agreement went into effect on January 1, 1994.

    Clinton Years: In 1992, the year before Bill Clinton became president, 10 million Americans were unemployed, the country faced record deficits, and poverty and welfare rolls were growing. Family incomes were losing ground to inflation and jobs were being created at the slowest rate since the Great Depression.

    After President Clinton took office, economic growth averaged 4.0 percent per year, compared to average growth of 2.8 percent during the Reagan-Bush years. The economy grew for 116 consecutive months, the most in history. The Clinton economy created more than 22.5 million jobs, —the most jobs ever created under a single administration, and more than were created in the previous 12 years. Of the total new jobs, 20.7 million, or 92 percent, are in the private sector.

    When Bill Clinton left office, the unemployment rate was 4.4 percent.

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------

    Okay if I wanted to play the Ed Schultz game (or your game), I would just leave it there and let you draw your own conclusions on how NAFTA affected American jobs. However, determining jobs lost versus jobs gained under NAFTA is far more complex. As I have read numerous reports by noted economists with an unbiased perspective, quantifying the net effect of jobs by NAFTA is nearly impossible because of all the other effects which collectively were much greater than the effect of NAFTA. As I wrote in my blog article, What is really happening to jobs in America,

    Automation and the advent of faster and smaller computers is certainly the biggest “job changer”, but also implementation of improved productivity measures, market forces and competition, supply and demand of consumer products and services, booms and busts (bubbles), e-commerce and internet shopping, tax policies that reward companies that ship jobs overseas, corporate policies on wages and benefits, government tax and spending programs (e.g. stimulus vs austerity), changing demographics of the work force (e.g. millennials vs baby boomers), retirements, part time work, and, of course, political shenanigans in Congress by the Party of ‘Hell No You Can’t’.

    The bottom line from economists is that NAFTA had a negligible NET effect on jobs. Some jobs were lost and some gained, but the net effect overall is seen as positive on the economy. And now you're talking like the Commodities Futures Modernization Act caused 60,000 jobs to be lost. Wow. To put the CFMA into perspective,

    H.R. 5660 (the "CFMA") was consolidated into H.R. 4577, the "Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY 2001". The House passed the Conference Report and, therefore, H.R. 4577 in a vote of 292-60. The Senate passed the Conference Report, and therefore H.R. 4577, by "unanimous consent." Bill Clinton signed H.R. 4577, including H.R. 5660, into law on December 21, 2000 when Congress had already left on Christmas vacation. President's usually don't veto appropriations bills right before Christmas even if it contains things the president doesn't like.

    Yes there are parts of the CFMA that were snuck in by Phil Graham at the last minute, but the CFMA was not a stand alone law; it was passed as a part of the yearend appropriations act, much like Congress does every year consolidating legislation at budget crunch time.

    Oh and when Barack Obama took office in January 2009, the economy was shedding 700,000 jobs a month!

  • Center Left
    Independent
    Central, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    International freight transportation is a business that I was in for 30 years. Obviously with everything being imported, it's very cost effective. So, greed being a key player.....slave labor in asian nations caused many factory owners to say, I can make it cheaper quite easily. Thus factories moved to various asian nations. China being a key player the last 15 - 20 years. Blame whichever politician you want but Billy Joe found out he can make his widgets with next to no rules and labor at crazy low levels. Billy Joe gets rich, and he lowers his widget price when selling to Walmart. Yeah, that is probably Bill Clintons fault (SARCASM)
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Clinton had international prominence from the very beginning. You present less than fractional responsibility for Clinton. Even less than that. But the overall net when personal interest supersedes national interest is the :"Clinton Effect". All tho negligible when spun into a Clinton defense the culmination of an international instead of national focus ends up with a smoking gun that nobody fired. The net result of the Clinton agenda was international. No greater proof than the Clinton Foundation benefiting international causes with funding benefiting from the Celebritas of a former USA President. That is fuel to the fire of growing Nationalism and Isolationism. Now the argument that the Clinton Foundation that benefits from an American President has its hands tied preventing help to Flint Michigan. Another case of America's deprived deprived !!!
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt, You said:"Oh and when Barack Obama took office in January 2009, the economy was shedding 700,000 jobs a month!" Do you believe there is an income gap and that it is widening? I guess that your statement about shedding 700,000 jobs infers a turn around in that number credited to Obama. Oh, and gasoline was also dancing around five dollars a gallon.
  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Chet -- I was trying to add some perspective on the jobs lost due to factory closures and trade deals. Factories close for a variety of reasons, but the favorite whipping post of unions is trade deals. The Union funded EPI says 600,000 jobs were lost to NAFTA, but that number is highly disputed by neutral economists. The net job loss due to NAFTA is near zero. On the other hand, in 2008 and early 2009, 5.2 million jobs were lost due to the economic conditions of the Great Recession. Here's what I wrote in my blog article from May 2015, The Strategy behind the “Party of No” to obstruct job growth:

    "To refresh people’s memories, on the day that President Obama took office, the economy was in a nosedive, and jobs were being shed at the rate of 700,000 jobs per month. The election year 2008 alone saw the loss of 3.6 million jobs, the worst year for job losses since 1939, when the statistics started being kept. Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman declared in January 2009 that the United States was “headed for another Great Depression”. It sure appeared that way as an additional 1.6 million jobs were lost in the first two months of 2009 before Obama could get approval of an economic stimulus package to halt the carnage and start turning the economy around."

    Ed Schultz never seems to delve into exactly how or why these jobs were really lost. Rather the focus is always on trade deals and how bad they are for the country; and all manufacturing jobs lost are somehow attributed to trade deals. That's where I disagree with my union friends, Bernie Sanders and Ed Schultz.

    Oh and to correct you, gasoline prices in January 2009 had dived to $1.79 a gallon.

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt, To assume the Presidency in 2009 was an act of courage. To continue to campaign in the latter part of 2008 deserves the medal of honor. Please note that Obama connected himself with the recent drop of gasoline prices. I say that his mentioning of the drop was to infer he had something to do with the lower gasoline prices. This is somewhat disingenuous because his official position is for high gasoline prices. But as far as today there is no clear number of new jobs created by Obama. Hillary is doing a great job of applauding Obama's record while saying she is going to make improvements citing voter anger. Nobody denies the disturbances making Bernie and Trump viable candidates. It would appear that the Sanders Trump phenomenon is only surpassed by the ungrateful populace revolting over the results of a two term president. Fair or not fair people are dissatisfied for some reason.
  • Center Left
    Independent
    Central, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Chet, Who controls the manufacturing jobs ? He or she who owns the factory...... Primary objective ? Maximum profits. Simple way to ensure that ? Drastically lower costs. It's about rich people wanting and getting more. Pick who you want to paint as the bad guy but it's just money making more money.
  • Democrat
    Hot Springs Village, AR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    I'm sure that NAFTA had some effect on employment in this country but certainly not the only reason for 60,000 plant closings. (It's actually many more in 2016) The"2nd industrial revolution" has had much more to do with it as technology has increased productivity per employee almost exponentially. Of course, slave labor overseas has contributed greatly as well.

    At a minimum the standard work week should be decreased to 32 hours or even less while individual income should not decrease. That is a tall order, I admit given our national religion of "free market capitalism." Retraining is the capitalists answer which is nonsense as replacing positions in kind with more highly skilled jobs is not even close to being in the cards. Counting on the private free market to provide employment anything close to a labor participation rate of even 70% is a dream worthy of a neoclassical economist only. It just isn't going to happen. The only hope is for government, wise government, to step in.

  • Center Left
    Independent
    Central, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Read my posts. It's about 3 things. What's the lowest amount I can produce it at. How can I sell the maximum numbers (I will give you a hint - lowest landed costs) what's the maximum profit level. It's all about rich people maximizing profits. Politicians are just a side note.
  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    TJ Wrote: Read my posts. It's about 3 things. What's the lowest amount I can produce it at. How can I sell the maximum numbers (I will give you a hint - lowest landed costs) what's the maximum profit level. It's all about rich people maximizing profits. Politicians are just a side note.
    Just watch "Shark Tank"; ask Mr. Wonderful how much "margin" you should have on your product. These elections show exactly that "money" rules; not the "working or unemployed " people. Castle Lords and Outcasts, which means we are are back into the Middle Ages; ask Trump, living in his gold plated apartment. The only difference is that the "guns" are here to stay instead of the bow and arrows.
  • Democrat
    Hot Springs Village, AR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Dutch Wrote:
    TJ Wrote: Read my posts. It's about 3 things. What's the lowest amount I can produce it at. How can I sell the maximum numbers (I will give you a hint - lowest landed costs) what's the maximum profit level. It's all about rich people maximizing profits. Politicians are just a side note.
    Just watch "Shark Tank"; ask Mr. Wonderful how much "margin" you should have on your product. These elections show exactly that "money" rules; not the "working or unemployed " people. Castle Lords and Outcasts, which means we are are back into the Middle Ages; ask Trump, living in his gold plated apartment. The only difference is that the "guns" are here to stay instead of the bow and arrows.
    Politicians are enablers of corporations in monopoly positions who can determine their margins without fear of competition. The GOP is a wholly owned subsidiary of the monopoly and oligopoly class.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    What did Hillary win ? An opportunity for improvement or a stonewalling battle from Republicans that learned what people really think about them.

    "Intuitively obvious to the most casual observation." It is no secret to anybody that the object of any business is to marginalize any liability, develop assets and destroy competition. That is what business does as standard operating practices and the result is business is an event, not an institution. That is fine, great, because it develops a successful strategy. The downside is the attraction for short term profitable returns on invested money. Some people think that is all business is about. It is downside because it eliminates labor and earned income. There is no long term positive outlook for the working class. A Thriving growing stock market is an illusion of success if based on speculative trading and not growth and earnings. The first rumblings of unrestful dissatisfaction came from the support of a socialist and a TV star for presidential candidates. Many hint at the solution but are limited by the reality of opposing the success of the stock market. MMT alludes to the solution with the importance of GDP but stops short of a plan for real capitalization of an evonomy and the importance of Product in GDP. MMT works around the status quo parading deficit spending as capitalization for the economy. The consensus is loss of labor is collateral damage of a successful market and progress. Hillary initially campaigned supporting a successful Obama Presidency and regardless of her feelings she had to do that to get support from Obama. She has a lot of unhappy people to deal with. Her first couple of weeks in office will display the prospects of her presidency. Right off the start I can see the Republicans opposing, challenging and stonewalling her. The Republicans got a good lesson on what the majority of Americans think. Will it be sore losers or a growing USA?

  • Independent
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Let us not forget the impact of financialization and the idiocy of "shareholder value" on companies.
  • Independent
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Let us not forget the impact of financialization and the idiocy of "shareholder value" on companies.