I think that's also a qualifier... consumers in certain markets benefit. Consumers that are being exploited by capital flight aren't really seeing the benefit of these cheaper goods because their wages are so deflated.

 

I think that is more than offset by the hundreds of millions of consumers who have more money to spend because they pay less for imported goods than if they were produced in the US.   And the fact that these hundreds of millions of people have more money to spend is a big boost to the US economy and job creation.  

---

I think that is more than offset by the hundreds of millions of consumers who have more money to spend because they pay less for imported goods than if they were produced in the US. And the fact that these hundreds of millions of people have more money to spend is a big boost to the US economy and job creation.

In theory, that sounds correct. But that's not what happens in practice...


We've had about 25 years of free trade since Clinton came into office. Income has declined, the real wealth of the middle class has declined, and the cheaper goods aren't driving more demand. But opening more markets for the business means, that while there may be less demand, the larger population of consumers world wide allows businesses to still benefit.


Harvard business review even concedes in a 2012 article that demand has decreased goods since free trade policies have been implimented.

---

Here's an interesting article written during the run up of NAFTA.  It's funny, those that were pointing out the problems of free trade back then had it right. Bill Clinton?  Not so much:

 

“Thus lower costs increasingly reflect not economic but political comparative advantage. Americans and workers in other industrial societies pay for this (George, 1992, Cavanaugh et al., 1992) in several ways that more than neutralize modest sporadic consumer price reductions. Indeed the latter have been less ubiquitous than alleged. Importers and wholesalers often use lower costs to boost profit margins. In other cases, lower quality manufacturers (e.g. razor blades, light bulbs, etc.) offset lower prices. Not only do monthly ratings by Consumer Reports reveal the modest quality that numerous "free trade" products offer to American consumers, but steady price inflation--considerably above the official CPI--contradicts the assumptions of those claiming that unregulated markets will engender lower prices during periods of slack demand (i.e. economic stagnation or recession).

 

In tandem with this trend, the depressed domestic economic environment for almost 70% of the population is favorable for new defensively nationalistic labor and populist political movements even in the United States. Thus Wren (1993: 28-29) pinpoints our "real problem [as] the paucity (scarcity) of consumer demand caused by unemployment and falling incomes. Firms won't increase output unless they believe their product will be purchased."

 

http://www.gmu.edu/programs/icar/ijps/vol2_1/Wolpin.htm

---

I think that is more than offset by the hundreds of millions of consumers who have more money to spend because they pay less for imported goods than if they were produced in the US. And the fact that these hundreds of millions of people have more money to spend is a big boost to the US economy and job creation.

20 years of wage stagnation and 62 % lap disagrees with u.

---

Not vote for the same type of politicians who vote for trade deals like TPA and TPP.  That's pretty much the ONLY thing we can do.

 

Not an expert on this, but not sure how that in any way solves the problems. I thought that TPA was primarily a means by which the Executive did the negotiating with foreign parties for an agreement, and Congress voted on it. Seems more procedural than substantive. For example, think of the ideal components in a trade agreement. Why does it matter who writes it as long as it gets passed?

 

Regarding TPP, well, where to start? I mean do you dislike the secrecy, the IP stuff, the medical stuff, the .. well, you get the idea. Again, I imagine you have very specific things you dislike about TPP. What I am trying to get is the inverse. For example, you might say "I agree with Noam Chomsky that TPP increases income inequality. This is bad. We need to negotiate fair wages for all workers as part of any trade agreement." Whatever the reasons you have are, I guess I am trying to get what you think we need in agreements and how they need to be negotiated, rather than just the negative things you don't like. That of course presumes that you think we need trade at all. :thumbsup: I am trying to get an idea of what folks would prefer our representatives enact. Thanks for the answer though, I am not very well versed on this stuff and it gives me an opportunity to learn.

---

<p class="bbc_left">Education is the cheap defense of nations. - Edmund Burke

<p class="bbc_left"> 

<p class="bbc_left">Or is it from Burke? I tried finding the source, and looked through some of his writings, no luck. Anybody with google-fu got a citation of the source?

Not an expert on this, but not sure how that in any way solves the problems. I thought that TPA was primarily a means by which the Executive did the negotiating with foreign parties for an agreement, and Congress voted on it. Seems more procedural than substantive. For example, think of the ideal components in a trade agreement. Why does it matter who writes it as long as it gets passed?


Regarding TPP, well, where to start? I mean do you dislike the secrecy, the IP stuff, the medical stuff, the .. well, you get the idea. Again, I imagine you have very specific things you dislike about TPP. What I am trying to get is the inverse. For example, you might say "I agree with Noam Chomsky that TPP increases income inequality. This is bad. We need to negotiate fair wages for all workers as part of any trade agreement." Whatever the reasons you have are, I guess I am trying to get what you think we need in agreements and how they need to be negotiated, rather than just the negative things you don't like. That of course presumes that you think we need trade at all. :thumbsup: I am trying to get an idea of what folks would prefer our representatives enact. Thanks for the answer though, I am not very well versed on this stuff and it gives me an opportunity to learn.

The details of trade agreements are not well known but we know that super high level corporations are involved in the legal language. Exempting them from any fees or taxes.

---

The details of trade agreements are not well known but we know that super high level corporations are involved in the legal language. Exempting them from any fees or taxes.

 

The country is more and more bought and owned by these corporations.  And despite what some may tell you, these companies and the wealthy don't have our best interests in mind.

---

Here's another good opinion piece about trade. 

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/20...olicy.html

 

"...it won’t be the “one percent” who suffer if the populists get their way; it will be U.S. companies with global supply chains and millions of middle-class American workers and consumers."

---

 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="jj82284" data-cid="726180" data-time="1460371180">
<div>
Let me say from the outset: no one is saying that there is a magic bullet solution that will bring 100% of manufacturing jobs to the us and destroy the world economy.  In America our labor force is used to a higher standard of living than most in the world.  That means that competing with international manufacturers is difficult to start with.  If an American company is going to have a CHANCE of making things here then we have to at least have an even playing field on the rules conditions and tax treatment of that business with other countries.  Right now there is not only a higher cost associated with labor, but cost of compliance with regulation, tax burden, repatriation of offshore profits etc.  

 

To put it simply, if we are going to pay our workers as well as we should, then our regulatory policy and tax policy should be designed to make products as inexpensive to build as possible.  It's asinine to have high wages draconian taxes and regulations and expect companies to come pouring in.  

 

Wage comparison – Note, U.S. and FL are minimum, others are average hourly wages paid to textile workers. U.S. 7.25 , Florida  8.05 , Bangladesh  .21 , Indonesia .35  , Vietnam .52 , Mexico .50 . How do you compete against this?



 

1.) for that increased wage the American worker has to be faster, healthier and better educated.  2.) the other conditions of doing business in this country should be maximized to attract business not scare it away.  


 

Taxes -  you are suggesting we change our corporate tax structure for businesses that manufacture things here? To what?



 

I think hat we should slash or abolish the corporate tax rate in general.  Any profits passed on to the shareholders are taxed as capital gains anyway.  


 

Regulations – So, no more OSHA? A lot of times the regulations we have are good ideas to insure worker safety. Maybe the correct thing is not to gut them, but to require an overseas production facility to meet the same standards. 



 

With all due respect, having a father involved in construction i can assure you of three things 1.) If every job was done by the strict letter of OSHA standards then few people would be able to afford a house.  2.) Not every OSHA regulation is necessary.  Sometimes you have stringent requirements for equipment that has literally nothing to do with your field of service, and 3.) in the 3,000 pages that some companies have in the way of federal regulations (70 new regulations a day from our BETTERS), most of it is gobbldy gook ensuring that the only people with a hope of complying with the law and actually handling the cost of compliance are the rich multinationals who can afford and endless stream of lawyers.  



 

It also doesn't make sense to give countries that institute protectionist policies against our exports full unfettered access to the most desired consumer market in the world.  


 

In the case of China my point is that right now the structure of the current arrangement is mostly irrelevant.  They are notorious currency manipulators, they have make it very hard for us exporters to have access to their markets, they have several tariff walls

 across different sectors of their economy, and their domestic producers are heavily subsidized.  That says nothing of stolen intellectual property and cyber attacks.  

 

What is it about the WTO sanctions and regulations that is ineffective? From what I see here

, they generally worked. We have the previous example of the steel dumping sanctions. Please explain what works better?

 

China still devalues their currency, there are still administrative barriers to US imports, they still have inordinate tariffs that we don't reciprocate, and they still heavily subsidize domestic producers that makes it impossible for us to compete.  Those are four pillars of protectionism and in return we give them nearly unfettered access to the most desirable consumer market in the world resulting in an annual trade deficit in excess of a quarter trillion dollars.  do i really need to have a doctor phil moment here?


 

We have to develop a strategy to curtail trade practices that are not in good faith and make sure that we don't allow our domestic workers to get ripped off.  Specifically Donald Trump has advocated Lowering taxes, simplifying the tax code, freezing the regulatory structure to provide certainty, and most importantly greatly reducing the taxes that we charge companies to bring foreign profits back home (38.8%).  Right now if a company makes a billion dollars in france and wants to bring some of that money back home to build a factory or do R&D they can't!  The last time there was a significant decrease in the repatriation rate the economy saw something like a 360 billion dollar influx of money that the Treasury didn't have to PRINT!!!


 

So reward companies that shift businesses offshore by allowing them to bring back the profits tax-free? Sorry, how does that make sense? I find this 

more persuasive.

 

35% duties on countries cheating us and ripping us off is the end of the world and should be shunned from the public arena of ideas, but chasing down anyone stupid enough to headquarter in this country and put up with unions, high taxes, high labor costs, regulatory compliance, obamacare, unemployment insurance workmans comp etc. and saying that if they dare to earn money abroad that we are going to take a third of their profits no matter what?  You hear that sound?  That would be the mass exodous of any company that can make the trip to set up their parent company and corporate headquarters in Ireland and just sell us their products.  



 

Free trade is a good thing.  It increases options for consumers globally and lower costs globally.  There is a difference between free trade and allowing your entire country to get ripped off.  


 

We have 95 Million people out of the labor force in this country, nearly 50 million on food stamps and we are absorbing millions and millions more into paid medicaid coverage through medicaid expansion.  We can't continue to absorb millions of undocumented workers to put further strain on the social safety net and compete for unskilled labor.  


 

Seems to me the main beneficiaries of undocumented workers are the businesses that hire them, not the workers themselves. Crack down on the problem at the hiring side, problem solved.



 

You're right.  Let's keep allowing them to pour 
across the border and put an even further drain on our schools and social safety nets.  While doing so lets make producers criminally liable for having to interact with government software to verify the citizenship of every worker they hire.  The obamacare website worked out so well.  Let's put criminal fines and penalties on it this time!

 

In some respects licensing for certain sectors of the economy is an impediment.  The solution is to make sure that licensing is common sense and decrease the administrative burdens put on businesses so that DOMESTIC workers and budding entrepreneurs have the ability for professional advancement and we need to redesign the over bloated education system that we already pay for to make that the goal.  There's no need to have even more people competing for jobs and professions that can be filled by a labor force that is already largely out of work.  


 

Common sense licensing is good, but why limit foreign workers? If they can provide similar service, why bar them from coming here? From your perspective, should we also limit software workers from getting green cards? 

 

</div>
</blockquote>
 

40% of college graduates in this country can't pay back their student loans #feelthebern.  of the other 60% most are struggling to.  The answer is to further dilute a weak job market?

 

Here's another good opinion piece about trade. 

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/20...olicy.html

 

"...it won’t be the “one percent” who suffer if the populists get their way; it will be U.S. companies with global supply chains and millions of middle-class American workers and consumers."

 

IF people think we can just run half a billion dollar trade deficits infinitely into the future then they are dreaming!

---

Here's another good opinion piece about trade.

<a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/04/11/donald-trump-and-bernie-sanders-are-delusional-on-trade-policy.html'>http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/04/11/donald-trump-and-bernie-sanders-are-delusional-on-trade-policy.html</a>


"...it won’t be the “one percent” who suffer if the populists get their way; it will be U.S. companies with global supply chains and millions of middle-class American workers and consumers."

Lol, oh no the middle class is gonna suffer. Lol, uh, the middle class is getting decimated and has been getting shafted for quite a while now.


As for consumers, you should read that paper I linked yesterday. It's a pretty accurate depiction of what happens with all the savings multinationals gain from free trade. Especially in markets that are oligopolies, the pressures to compete and have lower costs on products dries up.


These companies get the benefit of higher profits and tend to retain those earnings, or give them back to shareholders in terms of dividends.


And they don't build or hire more because the demand is not increasing, 1 because they aren't lowering prices, and 2 the middle class continues to shrink.

---

Lol, oh no the middle class is gonna suffer. Lol, uh, the middle class is getting decimated and has been getting shafted for quite a while now.

 

I'm amused to see the responses when the Feel the Berners start realizing the truth that they are the target of their own rage. The middle class must, by necessity, be the target of the wealth redistribution, for they possess most of the wealth.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Well, jj, we seem to agree on the currency manipulation thing being a problem, so there's that.  :yes:

 

I don't really have much concern about our tax system forcing all those poor widdle companies to hightail it. 

 

I think your take on safety regulations, while having some merit, misses my point. If regulation is an inappropriate burden trim it down, but require the burden on offshore manufacturers as well, You did not address this at all.

 

Regarding illegal aliens, honestly you sound a bit like you are off on a tangent there. My poit was that I imagine illegal workers have no problem becoming legal. Their employers, however,  get an economic benefit from illegality.

---

<p class="bbc_left">Education is the cheap defense of nations. - Edmund Burke

<p class="bbc_left"> 

<p class="bbc_left">Or is it from Burke? I tried finding the source, and looked through some of his writings, no luck. Anybody with google-fu got a citation of the source?

Here's another good opinion piece about trade. 

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/20...olicy.html

 

"...it won’t be the “one percent” who suffer if the populists get their way; it will be U.S. companies with global supply chains and millions of middle-class American workers and consumers."

 

Marty,  the part about the 'tax' on consumers blithely assumes no change in behavior. Also, while I agree that slapping some universal tariff with a high AEF is not only silly but quite possibly illegal, I think the article ignores what fuels the populist support in the first place. The 'middle-class' has been destroyed by disproportionately strong corporate interests for decades, and folks are lashing out at 'offshoring'. 

 

AEF - Anal extraction factor - where Trump got his 45% number

---

<p class="bbc_left">Education is the cheap defense of nations. - Edmund Burke

<p class="bbc_left"> 

<p class="bbc_left">Or is it from Burke? I tried finding the source, and looked through some of his writings, no luck. Anybody with google-fu got a citation of the source?

I have no problem establishing reciprocity on a base line regulatory structure to protect worker safety. I think its essential to establishing fair trade.


What I said was this idea that every word of the thousands and thousands of pages of regulations placed on businesses were whispered to Thomas Jefferson on the side of mount rushmore is a myth. Most of the regulations are written to close the door on any mom and pop producer being able to grow to a size that threatens a pre-existing conglomerate. We should ho through line by line and decide which is important and which isn't. Now we just add thousands and thousands of pages every year by executive fiat.


As for the tax structure you better be damn worried. Detroit was the economic center of the universe. The businesses were forced out and now the place is like a wasteland. That can be a foreshadowing of the country. Why would you have a draconian tax system forcing companies out just to keep people out of work and on foodstamps. Talk about a negative feedback loop.


Capital goes where it is best treatedindicatofding indicator of economic growth has always been private capital investment not government spending. If we don't develop a climate that encourages capital investment in our markets then another 50 years from now we will all be yelling stories about what it wad like when America was great.


As for immigration, we accept over a million legal immigrants a year. We cannot assimilate the worlds population. Immigration by definition has to be managed and controlled by the state otherwise there is no sovereignty.


Most employers especially in construction are forced to higher workers both legal and illegal under the table because the cost associated with human capital is so high in our system. It can cost between 20 to 30 dollars an hour to pay someone 12 to 15 dollars an hour when you factor in Rica withholding accounting workman comp unemployment general liability insurance etc. Etc. No one talks about that. We need to have a system that encourages hiring workers above board and not one that is driving the country into an underground economy and over reliance on foreign goods.

---

I'm amused to see the responses when the Feel the Berners start realizing the truth that they are the target of their own rage. The middle class must, by necessity, be the target of the wealth redistribution, for they possess most of the wealth.

You're gonna have to elaborate, cuz I don't understand what you are getting at...


As for me, I've been writing about this for a while. Remember, I'm the one that started the TPP thread.


In top of that, it's always been my poison position that the workers and middle class have been getting housed...


Am I missing your point?

---

The Truth about trade is that certain countries (especially communist countries like China) fix the market so that their items are incredibly cheaper than that of other countries (partly because they don't have an EPA guidelines among other agencies meant to keep us safe).  We need to put taxes on all imports from every country so that American goods and services are cheaper and eliminate jobs from being sent overseas.

---

The Truth about trade is that certain countries (especially communist countries like China) fix the market so that their items are incredibly cheaper than that of other countries (partly because they don't have an EPA guidelines among other agencies meant to keep us safe).  We need to put taxes on all imports from every country so that American goods and services are cheaper foreign made goods are more expensive and eliminate jobs from being sent overseas.

 

I corrected that for you.  

 

What you want is a gigantic tax that hundreds of millions of consumers will have to pay for the benefit of a few factory workers.   That's a great way to destroy the American economy.   Everyone who works at a place that sells any sort of imported product will have to try to sell them for hugely inflated prices.  TVs will be much more expensive, computers will be much more expensive, clothing will be much more expensive, everything that is imported will me much more expensive.   Your average consumer will get hammered by drastically higher prices. 

 

And then, don't you think other countries will retaliate? 

 

People seem to think, oh, all we have to do is put a gigantic tax on all imported goods, and magically, jobs will be created in the United States.   But how many jobs will be lost at the same time?   Every industry that sells imported products will see drastically higher prices, which will kill their sales.   How many jobs will be lost at the port of Jacksonville as fewer and fewer container ships dock there?  How many jobs will be lost at Wal-Mart when people can no longer afford the imported products they sell?   Do you want to pay double for the computer you're using right now?  Double for that new TV?   Double for that cell phone you use?  

---

You're right. Unfettered imports really make those unemployment checks go a long way.

---

You're gonna have to elaborate, cuz I don't understand what you are getting at...

As for me, I've been writing about this for a while. Remember, I'm the one that started the TPP thread.

In top of that, it's always been my poison position that the workers and middle class have been getting housed...

Am I missing your point?

Pretty basic: the middle class crybullies feeling the bern are going to get a rude awakening when the government starts sticking it to them. They want to use the government to assuage their jealousy and will only find themselves in the crosshairs. The "rich" don't have enough to pay for it all,even if they confiscate every dollar, the middle class must be the target. They will meet the enemy and he is them.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I corrected that for you.  

 

What you want is a gigantic tax that hundreds of millions of consumers will have to pay for the benefit of a few factory workers.   That's a great way to destroy the American economy.   Everyone who works at a place that sells any sort of imported product will have to try to sell them for hugely inflated prices.  TVs will be much more expensive, computers will be much more expensive, clothing will be much more expensive, everything that is imported will me much more expensive.   Your average consumer will get hammered by drastically higher prices. 

 

And then, don't you think other countries will retaliate? 

 

People seem to think, oh, all we have to do is put a gigantic tax on all imported goods, and magically, jobs will be created in the United States.   But how many jobs will be lost at the same time?   Every industry that sells imported products will see drastically higher prices, which will kill their sales.   How many jobs will be lost at the port of Jacksonville as fewer and fewer container ships dock there?  How many jobs will be lost at Wal-Mart when people can no longer afford the imported products they sell?   Do you want to pay double for the computer you're using right now?  Double for that new TV?   Double for that cell phone you use?  

 

What would we do without Wal-Mart?

---