It was also lobbied by US companies which are always looking to outsource and save money, and in the end, take jobs from Americans. [/quote]
Exactly! It is a pure capitalist move, which benefitted the investors (shareholders of the American companies), and f*ck the american worker.
It was purely done to cut production costs, the same way German jobs were moved to Eastern Europe, american production jobs went to China and jobs in the American and British service sector (call centers) to India. I think the only thing which saved us from this type of outsourcing is that there are not too many Indians who speak fluent German.
I dissagree with everthing you said, particularly the above. You see, something like that is much milder thatn calling someone “idiot” and “Tinwalt” and “moron” and other such things. I have been trying not to use similar insults, and only resort to the above when the level of perpesterousness goes just too far.[/quote]
From another thread, but directly relevant to the above;
IRONMAN wrote: Holy guano Batboy. You’re wack. There is no nation today over which Britain has the political authority to dissolve it’s government. You are in outers space dude. Come back
IRONMAN wrote: She said it was so and waved her wand and it was magically delicious! Sure. I imagine the Aussies fell for that one eh? They just went along with it eh? Puleeeeze. Come back to Earth. Come back!
So that’s one “Holy guano Batboy”, one “you’re wack”, one "you are in outer space dude.Come back.etc etc.
All in response to a factual and proven post.
The only person posting anything preposterous was you.
If you had been back to that thread, Ironman you would have found this link : http://whitlamdismissal.com/overview/
Read it, please.
Now, you were wrong. It wasn’t a matter of opinion, you were just plain out and out wrong.
And it is precisely that kind of casual, condescending insulting of other posters when they are right and you’re wrong, that has people on your case.
Trying checking facts before posting opinions as the truth.
Opinions, yours, mine, anyones, are just that, opinions.
They are not facts.
You can call it what you like, but the fuel for such a decision is liberal. That does not change with whatever label you want to put on it. The decision was not fueled by capitalism, but by politics. As I have said, in the US, Moderates and Conservatives would not make such a decision. Clinton was the most liberal president the US has had in a long time.
Had you read my post instead of only Jan’s, you would have seen where I stated:
“The decision to do something like that which benefited them more than the US is purely liberal in cause. Moderates and Conservatives would not make such a decision.”
You can call it what you like, but the fuel for such a decision is liberal. That does not change with whatever label you want to put on it. The decision was not fueled by capitalism, but by politics. As I have said, in the US, Moderates and Conservatives would not make such a decision. Clinton was the most liberal president the US has had in a long time.[/quote]
Yeah, I’ll go with that… Clinton was pretty liberal if you think about it.
Yea, those comments are milder than calling someone an “idiot” or a “moron”. Thanks for pointing that out. BTW, when I do make such a comment, it is only after considerable ranting and name-calling that I am prompted to respond in similar kind.
Had you read my post instead of only Jan’s, you would have seen where I stated:
“The decision to do something like that which benefited them more than the US is purely liberal in cause. Moderates and Conservatives would not make such a decision.”
Please read my posts before responnding to them.[/quote]
Ironman, I have read your posts. This brings us back to the different interpretations of “liberal”. The economic liberalism evident in the NAFTA is conservative, right wing. It is very different from social liberalism, which is more a left wing trait. The NAFTA benefitted the US more than any other signatory; the US is the major trading power, the strongest economy. Why else would the Mexican revolutionary left (such as the EZLN) so vocally oppose NAFTA?
To add: I am aware that NAFTA may have cost US jobs, however it has removed barriers to US trade in Latin America. NAFTA benefits the US corporations, and thus the Government. Free Trade is not a purely Democrat fixation - I think you’ll find the Republicans are pretty keen on it too.
The financially conservative (low spending) ones, who often have libertarian ideas on social topics
and the social conservative (state in the bedroom, often religious, who believes in a class system, where everybody stays in “his place”, often racist and ultranationalistic).
Secondly, since NAFTA is an American/NorthAmerican/South American political and economic policy, is was the result of liberal politics as defined by the US perception of liberalism, and not that of the UK. Therefore, it’s liberal politics that got it done!
I disagree that the US benefits more from NAFTA than other North/South American countries. NAFTA has already cost thousands of American jobs. It does less service to the American worker that he or his brother is out of a job or must take a lower paying job than it does to have a corporation make more money and share their profits less. People who do not work for a company that reaps large profits do not make a slary from that company, receive medial benefits, enroll in that company’s 401k retirement plan, or receive any other benefits from that company. Furthermore, companies that make large profits do not cruise the streets and pass out money to non-employees and say, “Hey! Come get some of our money that we earned by paying a Nicaraguan 50 cents per hour!”
The trickle-down of their profits into the pockets of the average American by way of the companies spending does not happen. The company that profits by outsourcing spends their profits on purchasing supplies to make thier products more from foreign countries where they get them cheaper, and they do not buy their materials from the US as much. The materials are bought from other countries, the product is manufactured in other countries, and the American worker is left without seeing a dime of what that company does. The only one who benefits is the governement, who charges import and excise taxes and sales taxes. The American citizen does not see nearly as much of the company’s profits entering American society as he does seeing it go right back out to other countries.
If an American company buys it’s raw materials in Brazil, ships them to Equador to made into a product, and then ships that product to the US for the American consumer to purchase, who in the US is profiting except the government? And even the govenrment’s profit from taxes is reduced, since such an agreement insures low import and excise taxes so that the member countries do not have to pay much of it. Do you see what I mean? NAFTA is bad for the US on all counts.
But the company’s profits do not trickle down to the citizens of the country. They go right back out. The government employs a very small percentage of the population, so that does not help Joe Blow buy diapers for his child or put gasoline in his car.
I disagree that the US benefits more from NAFTA than other North/South American countries. NAFTA has already cost thousands of American jobs. It does less service to the American worker that he or his brother is out of a job or must take a lower paying job than it does to have a corporation make more money and share their profits less. People who do not work for a company that reaps large profits do not make a slary from that company, receive medial benefits, enroll in that company’s 401k retirement plan, or receive any other benefits from that company. Furthermore, companies that make large profits do not cruise the streets and pass out money to non-employees and say, “Hey! Come get some of our money that we earned by paying a Nicaraguan 50 cents per hour!”
The trickle-down of their profits into the pockets of the average American by way of the companies spending does not happen. The company that profits by outsourcing spends their profits on purchasing supplies to make thier products more from foreign countries where they get them cheaper, and they do not buy their materials from the US as much. The materials are bought from other countries, the product is manufactured in other countries, and the American worker is left without seeing a dime of what that company does. The only one who benefits is the governement, who charges import and excise taxes and sales taxes. The American citizen does not see nearly as much of the company’s profits entering American society as he does seeing it go right back out to other countries.[/quote]
BINGO!
And this exactly what Bush junior and Allan Greenspan have been preaching for the whole time “Outsourcing is good for the economy!”
My arrse, it is good for the top ten percent of the population who owns the companies. And at the same time they make sure that the working conditions in the poorer countries don’t improve “because worker’s rights and trade unions are bad for the economy”, to make sure that the production costs stay down.
Spot on. NAFTA does not help the workers of any country - not the South Americans who are pressed into hideously low paid jobs for US corporations or the US workers laid off by those same corporations. What it does do however is feed the pockets of the senior management of those companies - the people who fund political parties, both Democrat and Republican.
As well as removing restrictions upon US firms outsourcing labour, NAFTA also removed the rights of other American countries to impose their restrictions. This allowed US goods to compete in their markets. I can see your problem with NAFTA - I’d feel the same - but it is not there for the benefit of the poorer nations or of US workers, only for the benefit of US big business.
Spot on. NAFTA does not help the workers of any country - not the South Americans who are pressed into hideously low paid jobs for US corporations or the US workers laid off by those same corporations. What it does do however is feed the pockets of the senior management of those companies - the people who fund political parties, both Democrat and Republican.
As well as removing restrictions upon US firms outsourcing labour, NAFTA also removed the rights of other American countries to impose their restrictions. This allowed US goods to compete in their markets. I can see your problem with NAFTA - I’d feel the same - but it is not there for the benefit of the poorer nations or of US workers, only for the benefit of US big business.[/quote]
Yup. That’s a total fluck up right there. But really you have to blame Clinton for it, not Bush. All Bush did was keep the pace with it. It would not have been good for him to jump out of an agreement with those nations then and piss them off royally. Although, I still think he should have had it re-written and the time span reduced or something, even though that would still piss off those countries. And consider also, if he did pull the US from it, it would tell other countries that the US does not honor it’s agreements with other countries, and that would have longer-reaching negative effects in the US’s relations with them. BUT! He didn’t have to support it as much as he has, even if he knows it’s not good for the US. He’s not innocent by any means. I like Bush, but he dropped the ball on that one, at least by some measure. It’s Clinton though - he’s the dumbazz that got that crap going. I can’t stand Clinton. He’s a moron. How can a nation with so many savy people elect such a man as president? I just don’t understand how Americans do some of the stupid things they do sometimes.
Yes, and although 50 cents per hour is good for a lot of those people, and it’s a start for them, it’s not really helping them. Because once those jobs start up, the factories that actually pay them and are paid by agreement by the US companies charge that employee ridiculous prices for their lunches, and for other things, and the price of their rent and clothes goes up immediately because the opportunist retailers in the area take advantage of those poor people, just to steal that money right back from them! It’s immoral! IF US companies are to do something like that, why not own the facilities themselves and give the employees cheaper lunches in a cafeteria and such, instead of contracting with another country’s "slum-loard mentality slave-labor-thinking employer to get and pay workers? It’s a discrace all around.
