Platform Molding

[King of the Americas]

To Jocko:

No, you're a psycho that no self-respecting party would allow past security at the convention.

*Your opinion is your own, often times alone.

But pray tell, how do you see global trade unfolding if you were in charge and able to direct all trade practices between the US and other nations? The more detail the better. Maybe if you explained benefits beyond your trite meme of "better days better ways" crap someone might actually agree with you.

The floor is yours. Tell us how the next 20 years will unfold under your amendment.

*THAT our trade with specific nations should depend on their willigness to adopt 'proper' labor and environmental standards. Those nations with reduced or subdued standards would be subjected to higher tarrifs. The sole point being to raise the standards globally, by providing more access to the free markets, by becoming more like the model we set forward.

Specifics... I think it would difficult and intellectually dishonest of anyone to say, "If I were in charge I'd do this, and everything would be fine." I have never claimed that 'I' could make things perfect. But I did say that WE could make things "better"...IF We are willing and able to work together to enact "better ways".

I am not exactly sure what your point is, or that you have one, other than attempting to "poke the goat".

 

[King of the Americas]

To Kodiak:

Now KOA, if you had proposed this- "The United States should absolve its union with the UN, and instead return to bi-laterial diplomatic negotiations.", you would've had my complete support.

*Then may I suggest you attend the Convention and offer to amend my Amendment? However, I don't think withdrawl from the U.N. has nation wide support.

 

[Kodiak]

Re: To Kodiak:

Now KOA, if you had proposed this- "The United States should absolve its union with the UN, and instead return to bi-laterial diplomatic negotiations.", you would've had my complete support.

*Then may I suggest you attend the Convention and offer to amend my Amendment? However, I don't think withdrawl from the U.N. has nation wide support.

Ditto your WTO/NAFTA amendment...

 

[King of the Americas]

To Central Scrut:

True or False?

"NAFTA & the WTO have allowed endless jobs and resources to leave the country WITHOUT the same labor and environmental standards that the United States has deemed worthy to adopt."

Please feel free to elaborate...

---

How does outsourcing benefit the American worker?

---

That I CHOOSE not to make use of all this board's functions has nothing to to with the validity of my Amendment.

 

[Kodiak]

Re: To Central Scrut:

How does outsourcing benefit the American worker?

Here is an excellent unbiased look at American outsourcing that examines some of the pro and cons.


Hmmm...

A Boeing that competes with AirBus by outsourcing, or a Boeing that doesn't outsource, doesn't compete, and eventually doesn't exist (unless you suddenly approve of corporate subsidies, KOA...).

 

[Jocko]

Re: To Jocko:

*Your opinion is your own, often times alone.

Indeed, but never yet on the subject of you or your loony ideas. Or do you have the entire board blocked?

*THAT our trade with specific nations should depend on their willigness to adopt 'proper' labor and environmental standards. Those nations with reduced or subdued standards would be subjected to higher tarrifs. The sole point being to raise the standards globally, by providing more access to the free markets, by becoming more like the model we set forward.

And have you considered what happens when other nations tell us they won't trade with us any more? You do realize we have billions and billions in trade DEFICITS every month, right? The world can do without us better than we can do without them in most cases.

So please explain how you will handle it when the whole world doesn't agree with your idea of "fair trade."

Specifics... I think it would difficult and intellectually dishonest of anyone to say, "If I were in charge I'd do this, and everything would be fine." I have never claimed that 'I' could make things perfect. But I did say that WE could make things "better"...IF We are willing and able to work together to enact "better ways".

In other words, you really haven't thought about it. Typical. And you even topped the sundae of ignorance with the ripe cherry of your empty slogan. Perfect!

See my initial comment about your being a psycho that every self-respecting party would be well-advised to keep at a safe distance.

I am not exactly sure what your point is, or that you have one, other than attempting to "poke the goat".

Of course, how silly of me to forget. Questioning your loopy BS is nothing more than poking a goat. I would never poke a goat. It's cruel and inhumane. I reserve my sadism for the lower orders of life, such as yourself.

Either put up or shut up. Really. Your BS is tiresome.

And seriously, CS is right. LEARN TO USE THE FRIGGIN' QUOTE FUNCTION. Demonstrate some of this intellect you keep boasting about for once.

 

[Jocko]

Re: To Central Scrut:

True or False?

---

That I CHOOSE not to make use of all this board's functions has nothing to to with the validity of my Amendment.

False. It has everything to do with your "choosing" ingorance and obstinance. In other words... you, sir, are a schmuck.

 

[Jocko]

Re: Re: To Central Scrut:

A Boeing that competes with AirBus by outsourcing, or a Boeing that doesn't outsource, doesn't compete, and eventually doesn't exist (unless you suddenly approve of corporate subsidies, KOA...).

Oh, there's nothing "sudden" about KOA's love of the nanny state and subsidies for everyone under the sun.

Alas, this will surely fall on deaf ears as it requires the reader to think ahead and see beyond his own nose, never KOA's strong points.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Re: To NoZed Avenger:

You Wrote:

I didn't think you had any support for that claim.

*Firstly, it wasn't MY claim. If you'lll read my response, I said that a fellow Senior Classmate of mine mentioned NAFTA as early as 1994. Then I quoted his characterization. I don't see any NEED to provide support for this claim, since it was not my own.

I have a feeling that this is going to be a wasted effort, but I'll break it down at least once.

You stated:

Regardless of who's mistake it was to put pen the actual legislation, the results have been devastating to American labor markets, worker's rights abroad, and the environment.

That was the alleged problem that your new platform point was supposed to address. The above is your claim. You here state that "the results have been devastating to American labor markets, worker's rights abroad, and the environment."

I'd like to see some actual support for the devastation that has been wrought by NAFTA.

Part of this, as I tried to impart through my second question, would be an analysis of that barriers were supposedly done away with by NAFTA so that we could see how much a part NAFTA truly played in bringing about the "devastat[ion] to American labor markets, worker's rights abroad, and the environment."

If you have something other than empty rhetoric and slogans, I am willing to look at it. However, I some knowledge of the tariff situation with Canada and Mexico (the two countries you mentioned above) prior to NAFTA, and I frankly doubt that any real evidence for your position exists.

If there is something that I have previously overlooked, please present it: I am perfectly willing to re-examine my prior conclusions.

That I don't know the 'exact' number when it comes to what terrifs were lost is of no consequence. Unless you are suggesting that these things were NOT affect by NAFTA...

If you don't know the "exact" number for the tariffs, do you have even a rough figure for the average tariff rate with Mexico and/or Canada pre-NAFTA?

N/A

 

[King of the Americas]

That was the alleged problem that your new platform point was supposed to address. The above is your claim. You here state that "the results have been devastating to American labor markets, worker's rights abroad, and the environment."

I'd like to see some actual support for the devastation that has been wrought by NAFTA.

*A simple google search of "devastation by NAFTA":

http://www.laprensa-sandiego.org/archieve/november21-03/nafta1.htm

http://dailybeacon.utk.edu/issues/v79/n18/avato.18v.html

http://dkd.net/davekidd/politics/nafta.html

Now, these probably aren't the 'qualified reports' you were looking for, but they are other people saying the same thing I said, at length.

It is the truth, NAFTA & the WTO have allowed jobs and resources to LEAVE the U.S. without the same labor and environmental standards that we have adopted HERE.

THAT is why corporations outsource, because it is cheaper, much cheaper to ignore or evade American Standards, by moving elsewhere.

Now, what is your argument, exactly? Any of you???

In regards to specifically what tarrif rates we lost, I am still researching. However, it is my understanding that they may hve varied greatly, based upon the nature of the product, where it was coming from, as well as who it would be consuming it for what purpose.

For example the tarrif rate may be different on tequila than on baby food.

But again, what they were 'exactly' is of no consequence. That the present rate on tarrifs is causing harm. This harm is a result of NON-compliance and or evasion of American adopted standards.

What evidence do YOU have to suggest that I am in error?

 

[NoZed Avenger]

*A simple google search of "devastation by NAFTA":

http://www.laprensa-sandiego.org/archieve/november21-03/nafta1.htm

http://dailybeacon.utk.edu/issues/v79/n18/avato.18v.html

http://dkd.net/davekidd/politics/nafta.html

Now, these probably aren't the 'qualified reports' you were looking for, but they are other people saying the same thing I said, at length.

They are at least sources -- though none actually giving anything other than opinions. Only the first seems to try and actually cite numbers from real research, but the use of the numbers is bad, economically speaking.

So, we have La Prensa; a senior's one page report for a poli-sci class, and a letter written by a collection of political action committees. (Essentially, an AFL-CIO position paper, signed on by various labor organizations looking for protectionism)

It is interesting that the first source alleges over 700,000 jobs have left the US for Mexico under NAFTA, while the latter two sources blame higher unemployment within Mexico itself on
NAFTA.

According to your sources, read in toto, not only has NAFTA shifted jobs to Mexico, it also made jobs completely disappear by eliminating jobs in Mexico itself. . . .

I don't suppose you have a mechanism for how that is supposed to have happened?

None of your sources even try to estimate the number of jobs created in any country -- all negative numbers are simply assumed to flow from NAFTA.

None of your sources even try to estimate whether any economic growth was generated by the lower cost -- and therefore neither calculated any benefits to consumers in either country (through lower costs) or tried to figure out what net effect there was for jobs. If an economic boost was felt, the general increase in the economy meant jobs created elsewhere.

And none of your sources make a serious effort to determine how many jobs would have left the US or what level of unemployment in Mexico would exist in the absence of NAFTA's adoption. Free clue: this last bit is why the level of tariffs with Mexico prior to NAFTA would be important for your claim.

These sources are calls for protectionism, plain and simple, without any serious arguments being offered aside from general hand-wringing. Each of them points to an alleged negative impact and stops all analysis. There is not even an attempt to look at the net effects -- overall -- and try to determine whether it is good or bad policy.

But again, what they were 'exactly' is of no consequence.

I thought I had asked if you had even a vague idea about the tariff levels -- why do you keep acting like I am asking for "exact" figures?

That the present rate on tarrifs is causing harm. This harm is a result of NON-compliance and or evasion of American adopted standards.

What evidence do YOU have to suggest that I am in error?

Well, you are here reversing the burden of proof -- apparently because you haven't done sufficient homework to support a proposal that you brought up.

I will offer this -- it should be fairly easy to locate estimates for an average tariff rate for trade with Mexico from any number of sources. It was low. Very low. Likewise, the tariff rates between the US and Canada was even lower. I'd like to see a real showing that the devastating changes that you are alleging can actually be tied to a reduction of those rates (tied to it with more than empty rhetoric, anyway).

 

[NoZed Avenger]

In regards to specifically what tarrif rates we lost, I am still researching.

And here is the crux of the matter. First you create a proposal, then you start researching. In order to actually propose a measure to fix a problem, it is usually a better idea to reverse those steps.

N/A

 

[King of the Americas]

Sir, you are ignoring the heart of my argument.

"Rates" are of NO consequence.

That this outsourcing is occuring WITHOUT our adopted standards is the argument I am making here, and it seems to be the one argument htat you haven't addressed.

I began this argument with what NAFTA is doing NOW, and how it is adversely affecting American Workers and the Environment.

You are attacking my lack of knowledge about the tarrif rates before NAFTA was applied...

Who gives a flying f*ck!?

Look, when they close a factory in Detriot, and move it to Mexico, what happens?

Are you suggesting that corporation AREN'T outsourcing American jobs for lower wages elsewhere?

The above links aren't the things I used to draw the conclusions I have. You asked for 'reports', so I gave you several.

Look, you are either in support of American Labor and Environmental Standards, or your aren't.

ALL that I am saying is that outsourcing should include our labor standards, as well.

 

[Jocko]

......and that's the game folks. Thanks for playing. Funny, usually KOA goes into his second page before the meltdown. Must be losing his touch.

KOA, some more free advice: You don't have to take my suggestions, because we both know I can't stand you. But if you had taken up NoZed on his VERY generous tutelage, you may have learned something from this exercise. You should be nicer to those who are trying to help you.

I've tried in the past, but now I just sit back and enjoy the comedy. Don't blow it with more people just because you've got an ego the size of your state.

Edited to add: You should print out every thread of yours that ends like this, and keep a file. Sooner or later, even you must recognize the pattern.

 

[Jocko]

By the way, KOA, another thought just occured to me. You've always been a staunch advocate of NOT imposing American ideals abroad; in fact, I recall you blaming 9/11 on America agressively imposing its culture on other nations and peoples.

Yet now you clamor for exactly the opposite- for what are work condition standards, minum wages and the like if not the implementation of American ideals? We, as a society, believe a citizen should work 40 hours a week, for a reasonable wage; the laws reflecting those standards are very much a part of our culture, which you have warned so stridently against exporting.

What gives?

 

[ceo_esq]

The Amendment that I offered and had ratified by Precinct 18 of Cooke County in Texas was that "The United States should absolve its union with the WTO & NAFTA, and instead return to bi-laterial trade negotiations."

Absolve means "to pronounce clear of guilt or blame". The good folk of Precinct 18 presumably meant dissolve.

Kind of a shame that it's no longer permitted to administer literacy tests to prospective voters.

 

[WildCat]

Here's something for you to chew on, KOA: What if the EU decided to end all trade w/ America until we adopted their labor and environmental standards? You know, universal health care, 6 weeks paid vacation, jobs for life (you wouldn't believe how hard it is to fire someone in many European countries), end all use of GM foods, etc.

Do you now see the problems w/ your proposals?

Here's something else for you to consider: The labor unions in this country don't give a damn about the economy as a whole. Their sole interest is protecting union jobs to preserve the influence and power of the labor unions. If the whole country went to hell in a handbasket they wouldn't care as long as the union jobs remained.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Re: To Central Scrut:

True or False?

"NAFTA & the WTO have allowed endless jobs and resources to leave the country WITHOUT the same labor and environmental standards that the United States has deemed worthy to adopt."

Please feel free to elaborate...

---

How does outsourcing benefit the American worker?

---

That I CHOOSE not to make use of all this board's functions has nothing to to with the validity of my Amendment.

The same arguments were made 20 years ago when all the automotive jobs were going to Mexico. And this country experienced unprecidented growth over those 20 years. Or maybe I'm just imagining that.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

I began this argument with what NAFTA is doing NOW, and how it is adversely affecting American Workers and the Environment.

Be fair. You began this argument with unproven assumptions regarding adverse effects that you discerned without the need for analysis, research, or a working knowledge of economics.

You are attacking my lack of knowledge about the tarrif rates before NAFTA was applied...

Who gives a flying f*ck!?

If you really want to determine the actual effects of NAFTA -- as opposed to repeating a mantra -- you need that information. I have already indicated why.

The Chairman of the Fed was recently asked about similar complaints re: NAFTA, globalization, calls for protectionism, etc.

"These alleged cures could make matters worse rather than better. They would do little to create jobs and if foregners were to retaliate, we would surely lose jobs. . . ."

- Alan Greenspan

Some of the same remarks can be found here: http://money.cnn.com/2004/02/20/news/economy/fed_greenspan/

I know it is hard for Greenspan to match up against the college senior writing for a university paper that you cited, but he's all I could find on a quick search.

Are you suggesting that corporation AREN'T outsourcing American jobs for lower wages elsewhere?

Are you seriously suggesting that NAFTA is the primary culprit for "outsourcing"? If so, the note about the actual tariff rates pre-NAFTA would help show why that contention is a weak one.

The above links aren't the things I used to draw the conclusions I have. You asked for 'reports', so I gave you several.

Actually, I never asked for 'reports' per se, despite your use of quotation marks. I said, in part, the following:

[N/A]
I'd like to see some actual support for the devastation that has been wrought by NAFTA.

Part of this, as I tried to impart through my second question, would be an analysis of that barriers were supposedly done away with by NAFTA so that we could see how much a part NAFTA truly played in bringing about the "devastat[ion] to American labor markets, worker's rights abroad, and the environment."
(emphasis added)

Instead of any support for your position, you offered 'reports' that -- according to this latest message, specifically aren't sources used by you to come to your conclusions -- which makes me wonder why they were mentioned.

Indeed, I get the distinct impression that I spent more time looking at your "sources" than you did -- which is probably why I noticed that 2 of your 3 sources claim that NAFTA hurt employment in Mexico, while the first argues that it hurt employment in the US. I am still wondering how those positions can be reconciled.

N/A

 

[WildCat]

Indeed, I get the distinct impression that I spent more time looking at your "sources" than you did -- which is probably why I noticed that 2 of your 3 sources claim that NAFTA hurt employment in Mexico, while the first argues that it hurt employment in the US. I am still wondering how those positions can be reconciled.
N/A

Holy crap, they must be lost in the desert! We should send a search party pronto!