| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Granted. If free trade can stop wars, that's certainly a big plus. Having said that, increasing domestic unemployment can lead to *civil* wars (see Arab Spring et al). So unless things are carefully balanced and skillfully led, it can become a choice between foreign wars and civil wars. You don't want MAJOR unhappiness on the home front, and that's what the Western world is currently headed towards, our own Arab Spring time.that the less trade barriers (taxes et al) there are, the easier it is to offshore jobs.There's a couple things to me that are bigger than protecting outdated or inefficient jobs:
1) reducing the amount of armed conflict in the world.
Trade agreements weren't the cause of unemployment in Arab countries. Corrupt governments and reliance on select few industries that largely profited a wealthy few were responsible. You can see the same thing in Venezuela, a highly protectionist country that relies on oil production to prop it's economy up.
Trade agreements only increase unemployment when there's a trade deficit. For example, if the US has a 3% trade deficit with Germany and those two countries sign a more open deal, it can lead to a small increase in unemployment, usually on the order of the size of the trade deal, but this is a % change in unemployment totals, not a flat increase in the unemployment %. Example, right now we're at 4.9%, or just under 8 million people. A 3% increase wouldn't be 7.9%, but rather an additional 240,000, which would increase it to about 5.3%. At the same time though, average wages would also increase, which helps maintain demand and prevent the increase in unemployment leading to a recession (meaning it's easier for those people to go get a new job).
I think we don't just have an obligation to the people of our country, I think we have an obligation to the world. People in Bangladesh deserve to work just as much as people here do. If we could use the leverage of a trade agreement to improve working conditions there and bring that country out of poverty, I think we should do that.
I would agree with you that most trade deals are built around serving the needs of business owners and shareholders. I think that's wrong. I want to see trade deals that improve the lives of workers. That doesn't necessarily mean that we protect jobs where they are now. It means we build a healthy and fair world economy and put in place support for workers who lose their jobs in the process. It might mean some people have to switch careers multiple times in their life, but the world is changing faster and faster. Trying to stop it just means you get run over.
More connected trade also reduces prices. Cheaper clothes, cheaper food, cheaper cars, all this improves the lives of everyone. I don't think everyone should live like we do in the US (maybe we shouldn't live this way either), but certain amenities are crucial for advancing society. For example, one of the most influential modern conveniences in the world is the washing machine.
Ever wash your clothes by hand? It's extremely time consuming. For a small family it can easily take one person a whole day to do a week's worth of washing. If you have a large family, it can take two days. Hans Rosling (a wonderful demographer, check him out) pointed out that because his mother got a washing machine, she had more time to teach him to read, which boosted his education and helped get him where he is today. Poor families that get something so simple suddenly have 1-2 days of free labor they can spend on something more productive, like either working another job, improving their own education or their children's education. Poor families around the world deserve the chance to live better lives, including in this country. The best way to do that is through fair trade.
I'm with you, I don't like a lot of things about the trade agreements so far. That doesn't mean we shouldn't make trade agreements though, we just need to make better ones. As the global economy becomes more efficient, people will have higher wages and access to cheaper goods.
I'm with you, I don't like a lot of things about the trade agreements so far. That doesn't mean we shouldn't make trade agreements though, we just need to make better ones. As the global economy becomes more efficient, people will have higher wages and access to cheaper goods.
It isn't just that we should make trade agreements. It is that we must. Rolling back the clock on globalization isn't an option unless you want a very literal apocalypse. If you made real pains to eliminate trade agreements with the rest of the world you would find within a few hours all of your money ceases to have a value, and shortly there after neither does anyone elses on the planet.
Basically since the 50s it has been global policy to unite the world economically. And it works. Some sentors fillabuster the budget in washington and stocks in Beijing feel it. There are decades of dependency now built into the system. That divorce would literally be apocalyptic.
The perfect case study is the British Vote to leave the EU. That is only just under 2 decades of interdependence, a non-legally binding vote, and one that most people knows will ultimately accomplish very little of meaning (the UK is almost certainly going to end up just in the European Economic zone which basically means it still has to follow all EU regs, but gives up its actual vote for them). And yet tens of thousands of jobs have already moved or disappeared, the value of the currency dropped like a brick in hours. And that, was the UK trying to reduce but not sever ties from the Europe.
If the US tried to divest itself of this massive interconnected mess it has lead the charge in creating, the amount of market chaos would absolutely lead to collapse. This wouldn't be a dipression or recession, it would be fall of Rome territory.
And maybe such a situation seems appealing to some, blow up the system and start over. Just remember that there is a cost here. Not just in wealth, but in lives. Crisis and the potential unity that can stem from it never comes free, it costs lives.
Keep in mind that I don't think trade agreements should be as they are now, where basically the only one actually engaging in free trade is the US. The EU applies regulations to any incoming or outgoing trade, China both aggressively manages its currency and has similar regs on incoming trade. Only the US plays 'fair' in free trade. That really ought to stop. But we cant simply stop trade. As mentioned it is how we have enjoyed the relative peace we have had in the last few decades, and yes, we have had relative peace in the world. It might seem to be ready to blow up at any moment (thank you 24 hour news cycle) but it objectively a less warlike, safer place then it was even a generation ago. That came from globalization.
Free trade itself is a good thing...it doesn't have to come at the expense of the labor force. The problem with existing free trade agreements is that they were built in the misguided belief that what is good for corporations is good for our citizens.
|
If free trade can stop wars, that's certainly a big plus. Having said that, increasing domestic unemployment can lead to *civil* wars (see Arab Spring et al). So unless things are carefully balanced and skillfully led, it can become a choice between foreign wars and civil wars. You don't want MAJOR unhappiness on the home front, and that's what the Western world is currently headed towards, our own Arab Spring time.Trade agreements weren't the cause of unemployment in Arab countries.
I don't think I claimed that. I only claimed that
a) unemployment by itself, inherently, (whatever the cause in each country) was a major cause of Arab Spring
b) proliferation of free trade and decline of protectionism has, for the Western world, increased unemployment as applicable jobs have been offshored
c) rise of unemployment in the West will likely, if it goes far enough, ultimately lead into Arab Spring like scenarios in the West as well
If free trade can stop wars, that's certainly a big plus. Having said that, increasing domestic unemployment can lead to *civil* wars (see Arab Spring et al). So unless things are carefully balanced and skillfully led, it can become a choice between foreign wars and civil wars. You don't want MAJOR unhappiness on the home front, and that's what the Western world is currently headed towards, our own Arab Spring time.Trade agreements weren't the cause of unemployment in Arab countries.I don't think I claimed that. I only claimed that
a) unemployment by itself, inherently, (whatever the cause in each country) was a major cause of Arab Spring
b) proliferation of free trade and decline of protectionism has, for the Western world, increased unemployment as applicable jobs have been offshored
c) rise of unemployment in the West will likely, if it goes far enough, ultimately lead into Arab Spring like scenarios in the West as well
A question about point b): do you think proliferation of free trade and decline of protectionism are mutually inclusive? There's no right answer according to the economists, but do you personally think it's possible to have one without the other?
I think it's a tariff (export/import fees) issue, not a taxation issue, but thanks for the speedy reply.
Free trade itself is a good thing...it doesn't have to come at the expense of the labor force. The problem with existing free trade agreements is that they were built in the misguided belief that what is good for corporations is good for our citizens.I would say trade is a good thing. When you say free trade, I have to ask exactly what you mean by "free trade".
The modern free trade agreements include many things sold under the aegis of free trade that aren't always what we first think of when we hear the term.
I meant a lack of protectionist tariffs.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that the problem isn't free trade, per se. The problem is free trade when all of the benefits accrue to corporations. I'm not sure how to fix it, but I know that putting an end to parking billions offshore to avoid taxes is a good start.
If free trade can stop wars, that's certainly a big plus. Having said that, increasing domestic unemployment can lead to *civil* wars (see Arab Spring et al). So unless things are carefully balanced and skillfully led, it can become a choice between foreign wars and civil wars. You don't want MAJOR unhappiness on the home front, and that's what the Western world is currently headed towards, our own Arab Spring time.Trade agreements weren't the cause of unemployment in Arab countries.I don't think I claimed that. I only claimed that
a) unemployment by itself, inherently, (whatever the cause in each country) was a major cause of Arab Spring
b) proliferation of free trade and decline of protectionism has, for the Western world, increased unemployment as applicable jobs have been offshored
c) rise of unemployment in the West will likely, if it goes far enough, ultimately lead into Arab Spring like scenarios in the West as well
Do you stop reading after the first line? Just curious, cause that's the only part you ever respond to. If you do, that's fine. I'll just make shorter posts.
|
|
No, I just don't see the point of getting deeper into the discussion before the first point has been straightened out. Then once that's done we can move to the second point and hash it out, and so on. In order to deal with point three, we need to have an understanding of the preceding points so we know where we stand.
*paid for 20 minutes of cool*
|
|
So you don't actually want to engage in discourse, you just wish to be contrary.
Untrue. In truth, the fact that I focus on one thing at a time proves my desire to engage in discourse, because I prevent it from ballooning to unmanageable size by taking one point at a time. It's the only way to advance.
I didn't pay for s@&*
*smoke bomb!*backflip!*somersault!*jump!*
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*engages in handing out cookies and generally lightening the mood*
So you don't actually want to engage in discourse, you just wish to be contrary.Untrue. In truth, the fact that I focus on one thing at a time proves my desire to engage in discourse, because I prevent it from ballooning to unmanageable size by taking one point at a time. It's the only way to advance.
There's another way to advance, but I'm not sure humanity is ready for that final step.
I'll get back to you in December...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does it involve Terminators, Infinity Server?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
*engages in handing out cookies and generally lightening the mood*
Haha!
*smoke bomb!*backflip!*somersault!*jump!*
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's complex. Nothing can be as simple as "no protectionist tariffs".
Dude, EVERYTHING is complex. I'm not suggesting otherwise. But "trade agreements = bad" -- which is literally what Trump is selling -- is a load of bull$#%.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
*is glad he keeps a bag of everflowing cookies*
You can keep the mood lighting.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or install mood lighting that's 20% cooler than the old stuff. ;)
Oh ... *passes around tasty cookie-compatible beverages* ... *contented nomming*
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't need to install mood lighting. I figure that Cosmo's job.
I checked the polls today and was happy that for the last few days, any lead Trump had in national polls has at the least evaporated, with Clinton wining by various margins.
Also it amazes me that I think for the last several weeks I have been guaranteed some new hilarity by Trump. I mean I don't recall any major candidate I was so opposed to getting this far with this lack of basic political skill
Today's Hilarity:
Trump Hates Babies
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Trump Hates Babies
Well he hates anyone with bigger hands than him so....
Enquirer says HRC failed a lie detector test during the FBI investigation...LINK
Yeah, I know it's the Enquirer...
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paul Ryan: I'm running for reelection.
Trump: I'm not ready to endorse you.
PR: I never asked for your endorsement.
Me: *Lmao*
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Enquirer says HRC failed a lie detector test during the FBI investigation...LINK
Yeah, I know it's the Enquirer...
Wait, "Ruthless Husband Bill"? He always struck me as more lecherous than ruthless, but YMMV. :P
If free trade can stop wars, that's certainly a big plus. Having said that, increasing domestic unemployment can lead to *civil* wars (see Arab Spring et al). So unless things are carefully balanced and skillfully led, it can become a choice between foreign wars and civil wars. You don't want MAJOR unhappiness on the home front, and that's what the Western world is currently headed towards, our own Arab Spring time.Trade agreements weren't the cause of unemployment in Arab countries.I don't think I claimed that. I only claimed that
a) unemployment by itself, inherently, (whatever the cause in each country) was a major cause of Arab Spring
b) proliferation of free trade and decline of protectionism has, for the Western world, increased unemployment as applicable jobs have been offshored
c) rise of unemployment in the West will likely, if it goes far enough, ultimately lead into Arab Spring like scenarios in the West as well
But the unemployment in Arab Spring countries wasn't the result of the existence of trade agreements. Any linkage to trade agreements would be via the corrupt governments. Regardless of any type of government initiative, a corrupt government will always screw over the poor and working class.
But the unemployment in Arab Spring countries wasn't the result of the existence of trade agreements.As you quoted me above, I never claimed it was.
Yet you keep bringing it into the trade agreement discussion.
More open trade with Arab countries can actually help stabilize them, politically and economically. People who can get jobs, buy food and send their kids to school don't need to start wars or murder their neighbors.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
So today Trump explained what he meant about the election being rigged...
He is upset about the recent court cases which threw out election law changes which were found to be specifically designed to block African-Americans from being able to vote.
'They are letting black people vote! The election is rigged people!'
Meanwhile, the usual even more offensive Trump surrogates are calling for riots in the streets if he loses.
|
|
More open trade with Arab countries can actually help stabilize them, politically and economically. People who can get jobs, buy food and send their kids to school don't need to start wars or murder their neighbors.
Absolutely. And the reverse happens in the West. People lose jobs, the countries destabilize. It's not mutual benefit. Plus for some, minus for others.
I'm not sure of the logic that requiring identification when voting is a big deal.
33 states already have some form of voter identification requirement, varying as to whether or not a given state's restrictions are considered 'strict' or not. All of these states have to have some form of provisional voting in order to receive any federal funding pursuant to the 2002 HAVA. There is absentee balloting and mail-in balloting. There are a plethora of non-drivers license identifications. Every state issues (or has their counties issue, such as Hawaii's practice of leaving motor vehicle practices to the counties) such identification as far as I am aware.
A 2011 article from Politifact Ohio examines the argument with interesting conclusions.
As far as I can tell, the only persons that are outright denied the right to vote are non-citizens, citizens under the age of 18 and convicted felons that have not had their voting privileges restored by the state. i.e., persons who should not be voting to begin with.
Here is a summary of voter ID laws currently in effect across the country.
It seems that the remaining prohibitor is a lack of effort by the voter or deliberate intent to operate 'outside the system'.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure of the logic that requiring identification when voting is a big deal.
33 states already have some form of voter identification requirement, varying as to whether or not a given state's restrictions are considered 'strict' or not. All of these states have to have some form of provisional voting in order to receive any federal funding pursuant to the 2002 HAVA. There is absentee balloting and mail-in balloting. There are a plethora of non-drivers license identifications. Every state issues (or has their counties issue, such as Hawaii's practice of leaving motor vehicle practices to the counties) such identification as far as I am aware.
A 2011 article from Politifact Ohio examines the argument with interesting conclusions.
As far as I can tell, the only persons that are outright denied the right to vote are non-citizens, citizens under the age of 18 and convicted felons that have not had their voting privileges restored by the state. i.e., persons who should not be voting to begin with.
Here is a summary of voter ID laws currently in effect across the country.
It seems that the remaining prohibitor is a lack of effort by the voter or deliberate intent to operate 'outside the system'.
The push for voter id laws is a blantant attempt to disenfranchise certain voters. It is a solution for a problem that doesn't actually exist. The only thing it prevents is people showing up to polling stations to pretend to be someone else. In which you have to actually to the place and stand in line often for hours in order to vote. Its an impractical way to influence an election because it would take a huge number of people with a coordinated effort to actually accomplish anything. And consequently the amount of cases for this actual thing is statistically zero.
What isn't statistically zero is the PHOTO ID laws disproportionately affect the poor and minorities. Many of whom live in places where its actually very difficult to get a government id, particularly since often counties that issue the ids operate during times when normal people are working if they have descent hours at all and they cost money to obtain. If you dont know where your next rent payment is coming from paying money for an ID isn't an option.
This isn't a lack of effort by the voter, there are counties where you can go once a month to get an id, during working hours only. For someone who for instance works on a clocked wage job, that's often not an option. The republicans that have pushed this know this, and they have even let it slip a few times that voter id laws have brought down democratic numbers in certain areas. Which is the actual object. (You can look up john olivers voter id video for actual video of them saying that very thing when asked about voter id laws).
So, its a 'solution' to a non-problem, that doesn't actually effect elections, that disenfranchises specific groups of people for political motivations. And while in your life, getting a government id might not seem like a big deal understand that millions of americans in this country dont share your experience. For many, this is too much of a burdeon, and one they cannot actually achieve with a reasonable amount of effort. That's fine for things that are not civil rights. But its not fine when it stands in the way of someones right to vote.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In the small town I used to live in, the county DMV office was only open every other Tuesday.
Good luck getting an I.D. with those hours.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I the small town I used to live in the county DMV office was only open every other Tuesday.
Good luck getting an I.D. with those hours.
And there are many towns where its actually significantly worse. But even in this example. I bet it was open like 10-3 or something on that Tuesday. If you work an hourly wage without the ability to take time off, it can be effectively impossible to get there.
Voter ID laws are basically a new attempt at a poll tax. A way to put barriers to voting in front of certain people. Its a bigger injustice to democracy and civil rights then the 3 cases of voter fraud of this type (yes 3, not 3000, not 300, 3) Texas has had in the last few years.
Wow! o.O
For obvious reasons I'm accustomed to where I live. Getting an ID is very easy, to the point that very, very few persons should have any problem getting one in short order. The only stumbling block here is self-inflicted.
I the small town I used to live in the county DMV office was only open every other Tuesday.
Good luck getting an I.D. with those hours.
And there are many towns where its actually significantly worse. But even in this example. I bet it was open like 10-3 or something on that Tuesday. If you work an hourly wage without the ability to take time off, it can be effectively impossible to get there.
Voter ID laws are basically a new attempt at a poll tax. A way to put barriers to voting in front of certain people. Its a bigger injustice to democracy and civil rights then the 3 cases of voter fraud of this type (yes 3, not 3000, not 300, 3) Texas has had in the last few years.
Nailed the hours exactly. :-)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wow! o.O
For obvious reasons I'm accustomed to where I live. Getting an ID is very easy, to the point that very, very few persons should have any problem getting one in short order. The only stumbling block here is self-inflicted.
For a middle class person living in an area well served, sure. For me its a minor hastle. I have a job I can take time off of, or I can travel to one of the dmv offices that hold late hours that are slightly out of the way.
For others, the story is very different. If you look up John Olivers video, theres one county that the office wasn't even open once a month.
That and for people who cant take time off you might be asking them to choose for their family to miss a meal so they can go get the ID. Because they literally cant afford to miss work to go to the office that only operates during working hours, and as mentioned often not even many of those. Those are the people that are affected by this. And the politicians pushing the ID laws KNOW THIS. They want those people to struggle to vote. That's the gross truth of this.
Edit: All this to solve a problem that doesn't actually exist. There is literally no justification for it.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wow! o.O
For obvious reasons I'm accustomed to where I live. Getting an ID is very easy, to the point that very, very few persons should have any problem getting one in short order. The only stumbling block here is self-inflicted.
Exactly. You can't take your specific situation and generalize it to the rest of the population. What is easy and only blocked by self-inflicted problems to you and me is an impossibility to others.
More than fair enough.
Regarding work hours interfering: I know how that can be, it was far more tedious back in the pre-internet days, although even then the DMV offices had Saturday hours.
It's a sad, pathetic administration that only offers such sorry service windows as 1/month on a weekday!
Just ... wow.
More than fair enough.
Regarding work hours interfering: I know how that can be, it was far more tedious back in the pre-internet days, although even then the DMV offices had Saturday hours.
It's a sad, pathetic administration that only offers such sorry service windows as 1/month on a weekday!
Just ... wow.
Or it's explicit action by the same legislative body in a separate bill that passes about the same time the id laws pass.
You know to "balance the budget".