In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On November 06 2016 00:24 zlefin wrote: RiK you fail to grasp that america has already used its position to negotiate favorable trade deals.
I think the way they see it the problem is that those trade deals are made with American corporations in mind, not the people. I don't really know enough about economics or trade deals to verify if this is really the case, but it's a common complaint with trade deals also here in Europe.
On November 06 2016 00:24 zlefin wrote: RiK you fail to grasp that america has already used its position to negotiate favorable trade deals.
I think the way they see it the problem is that those trade deals are made with American corporations in mind, not the people.
This is a simplistic view. The trade deals are complex and create problems for different regions in the country. But they also benefit the poor due to the low price of durable goods. Trade is not the cause of many of the problems for US citizens like high cost of healthcare, housing, inability to save, wage stagnation and so on. And getting ride of it won't fix any of those problems.
On November 06 2016 00:24 zlefin wrote: RiK you fail to grasp that america has already used its position to negotiate favorable trade deals.
I think the way they see it the problem is that those trade deals are made with American corporations in mind, not the people.
The corporations that employ and are owned by american people. and Trump is one of those corporations. so I don't see trump doing any better a job at it, given where his interests are.
they may see things any way they like, they're just often very ill-informed on the topics.
On November 06 2016 00:24 zlefin wrote: RiK you fail to grasp that america has already used its position to negotiate favorable trade deals.
mostly trump is using false attributions, which makes sense with how many other false things he spews.
But China did it better because we see a lot of things that say "made in China" and that is bad.
That is kind of weird btw.
If you see a lot of stuff "made in China", that means that the chinese make stuff, and you get to use it. Unless you are into making stuff, that is probably a good deal.
On November 06 2016 00:24 zlefin wrote: RiK you fail to grasp that america has already used its position to negotiate favorable trade deals.
I think the way they see it the problem is that those trade deals are made with American corporations in mind, not the people.
The corporations that employ and are owned by american people. and Trump is one of those corporations. so I don't see trump doing any better a job at it, given where his interests are.
they may see things any way they like, they're just often very ill-informed on the topics.
Probably true, but it's only a few American people who own those corporations (rather than the working class people in middle America that the GOP is supposed to represent) and the fact that he is one of those owners doesn't dispute the complaints about the trade deals, it only restates the simple fact that Trump is a douchebag.
On November 06 2016 00:24 zlefin wrote: RiK you fail to grasp that america has already used its position to negotiate favorable trade deals.
mostly trump is using false attributions, which makes sense with how many other false things he spews. he can't actually get better trade deals, and is mostly just going to cause trade wars.
To a negative effect though.
It use to be that one person alone is enough to support a family.
On November 06 2016 00:24 zlefin wrote: RiK you fail to grasp that america has already used its position to negotiate favorable trade deals.
mostly trump is using false attributions, which makes sense with how many other false things he spews.
But China did it better because we see a lot of things that say "made in China" and that is bad.
That is kind of weird btw.
If you see a lot of stuff "made in China", that means that the chinese make stuff, and you get to use it. Unless you are into making stuff, that is probably a good deal.
America has a love affair with being a nation of manufactures, with large numbers of highpaying jobs for low skill labor that someone will be able to for until they retire. Selling things to the world. It is sort of a silly dream and not in line with how our nation has progressed. But politicians love to sell it to people in rural states.
On November 06 2016 00:24 zlefin wrote: RiK you fail to grasp that america has already used its position to negotiate favorable trade deals.
I think the way they see it the problem is that those trade deals are made with American corporations in mind, not the people.
The corporations that employ and are owned by american people. and Trump is one of those corporations. so I don't see trump doing any better a job at it, given where his interests are.
they may see things any way they like, they're just often very ill-informed on the topics.
Probably true, but it's only a few American people who own those corporations (rather than the working class people in middle America that the GOP is supposed to represent) and that doesn't dispute the complaints about the trade deals, it only restates the simple fact that Trump is a douchebag.
actually a lot of people own parts of those corporations, through their retirement savings. and being employed by them still matters too.
I think there may well be issues with the effects of the trade agreements, but that the best fixes aren't done by modifying the trade agreements themselves, but by modifying internal legislation so that the benefits of the trade are spread around better.
On November 06 2016 00:24 zlefin wrote: RiK you fail to grasp that america has already used its position to negotiate favorable trade deals.
I think the way they see it the problem is that those trade deals are made with American corporations in mind, not the people.
The corporations that employ and are owned by american people. and Trump is one of those corporations. so I don't see trump doing any better a job at it, given where his interests are.
they may see things any way they like, they're just often very ill-informed on the topics.
Probably true, but it's only a few American people who own those corporations (rather than the working class people in middle America that the GOP is supposed to represent) and the fact that he is one of those owners doesn't dispute the complaints about the trade deals, it only restates the simple fact that Trump is a douchebag.
At least he didn't do NEARLY as much level of crimes as Hillary.
On November 06 2016 00:24 zlefin wrote: RiK you fail to grasp that america has already used its position to negotiate favorable trade deals.
mostly trump is using false attributions, which makes sense with how many other false things he spews. he can't actually get better trade deals, and is mostly just going to cause trade wars.
To a negative effect though.
It use to be that one person alone is enough to support a family.
America's debt doubled since DNC came in power.
People ARE disgruntled at the system.
the negative effect isn't from the trade deals. so no, not to a negative effect.
people aren't getting less money than they used to, the standard of living increased, higher standard of living costs more (except where defrayed by improvements in technology, which also happened a lot).
also, certain things like housing regulations forced up prices a lot.
I recognize people are disgruntled, I argue over whether their proposed fixes actually fix anything, or are simply pipe dreams.
On November 06 2016 00:24 zlefin wrote: RiK you fail to grasp that america has already used its position to negotiate favorable trade deals.
mostly trump is using false attributions, which makes sense with how many other false things he spews. he can't actually get better trade deals, and is mostly just going to cause trade wars.
To a negative effect though.
It use to be that one person alone is enough to support a family.
America's debt doubled since DNC came in power.
People ARE disgruntled at the system.
It is more complex than that. The Democrats did not have a choice but to run up that tab due to the failures of the Bush administration in regulating the economy. It was necessary to avoid an even deeper recession.
On November 06 2016 00:24 zlefin wrote: RiK you fail to grasp that america has already used its position to negotiate favorable trade deals.
mostly trump is using false attributions, which makes sense with how many other false things he spews. he can't actually get better trade deals, and is mostly just going to cause trade wars.
To a negative effect though.
It use to be that one person alone is enough to support a family.
America's debt doubled since DNC came in power.
People ARE disgruntled at the system.
I am also a person that is not very happy with the wealth distribution, but that "1 person could support a family" thing is silly. You could still have one person support a family if you were willing to live like in the 1950s. But most people want a higher standard of living than that.
Actually, thinking more about that, you can still live pretty well with one person supporting the family. You just can't live off of one person on minimum wage. If you have, for example, one skilled plumber in the family, that should easily grant you enough money for a 2-3 room apartment, food and a car if you don't live in an expensive neighborhood.
On November 06 2016 00:24 zlefin wrote: RiK you fail to grasp that america has already used its position to negotiate favorable trade deals.
I think the way they see it the problem is that those trade deals are made with American corporations in mind, not the people.
The corporations that employ and are owned by american people. and Trump is one of those corporations. so I don't see trump doing any better a job at it, given where his interests are.
they may see things any way they like, they're just often very ill-informed on the topics.
Probably true, but it's only a few American people who own those corporations (rather than the working class people in middle America that the GOP is supposed to represent) and that doesn't dispute the complaints about the trade deals, it only restates the simple fact that Trump is a douchebag.
actually a lot of people own parts of those corporations, through their retirement savings. and being employed by them still matters too.
I think there may well be issues with the effects of the trade agreements, but that the best fixes aren't done by modifying the trade agreements themselves, but by modifying internal legislation so that the benefits of the trade are spread around better.
Have you read through the trade deals yourself while having a comprehensive understanding of both local and global economics? I haven't, and thus I couldn't possibly argue with you on the finer details of these deals. I understand (in broad terms) how things work with regards to retirement funds and working for a company, but that's about it for me. Beyond the suggestion that trade deals could possibly encourage work to be moved overseas (either by products being imported or work being outsourced) I'm at a loss.
I do know with some certainty that people feel they get the short end of the stick, and that's enough to get them riled up.
On November 06 2016 00:24 zlefin wrote: RiK you fail to grasp that america has already used its position to negotiate favorable trade deals.
I think the way they see it the problem is that those trade deals are made with American corporations in mind, not the people.
The corporations that employ and are owned by american people. and Trump is one of those corporations. so I don't see trump doing any better a job at it, given where his interests are.
they may see things any way they like, they're just often very ill-informed on the topics.
Probably true, but it's only a few American people who own those corporations (rather than the working class people in middle America that the GOP is supposed to represent) and that doesn't dispute the complaints about the trade deals, it only restates the simple fact that Trump is a douchebag.
actually a lot of people own parts of those corporations, through their retirement savings. and being employed by them still matters too.
I think there may well be issues with the effects of the trade agreements, but that the best fixes aren't done by modifying the trade agreements themselves, but by modifying internal legislation so that the benefits of the trade are spread around better.
Have you read through the trade deals yourself while having a comprehensive understanding of both local and global economics? I haven't, and thus I couldn't possibly argue with you on the finer details of these deals. I understand (in broad terms) how things work with regards to retirement funds and working for a company, but that's about it for me. Beyond the suggestion that trade deals could possibly encourage work to be moved overseas (either by products being imported or work being outsourced) I'm at a loss.
I do know with some certainty that people feel they get the short end of the stick, and that's enough to get them riled up.
I have read them in part, and read up on them in detail at times. Ideally we'd have people who specialize in that and are trustworthy doing that; sadly politicians make a point of muddying the waters to benefit themselves, which degrades trust.
Many people feel things that simply aren't true.
Some people did get the short end of the stick off trade deals, but many other people benefitted from cheaper goods. Which is why the solution isn't doing less trade, or making better trade deals (substantially better deals aren't possible), but making internal changes to our laws to make sure the benefits of the trade are spread around better. Alot of the job losses are due to technology and automation rather than work going overseas.
On November 06 2016 00:24 zlefin wrote: RiK you fail to grasp that america has already used its position to negotiate favorable trade deals.
mostly trump is using false attributions, which makes sense with how many other false things he spews. he can't actually get better trade deals, and is mostly just going to cause trade wars.
To a negative effect though.
It use to be that one person alone is enough to support a family.
America's debt doubled since DNC came in power.
People ARE disgruntled at the system.
The purchasing power of the dollar is better than ever. The problem isn't trade, or debt, or any of the other things you think it is. The problem is that all the dollars are at the top of the population due to wage stagnation, a problem largely attributable to the exact kind of tax policies that Reagan started, Bush exacerbated and Trump plans to further. You really think the American aristocracy is going to disappear because Trump abolishes estate taxes?
On November 06 2016 00:24 zlefin wrote: RiK you fail to grasp that america has already used its position to negotiate favorable trade deals.
I think the way they see it the problem is that those trade deals are made with American corporations in mind, not the people.
The corporations that employ and are owned by american people. and Trump is one of those corporations. so I don't see trump doing any better a job at it, given where his interests are.
they may see things any way they like, they're just often very ill-informed on the topics.
Probably true, but it's only a few American people who own those corporations (rather than the working class people in middle America that the GOP is supposed to represent) and that doesn't dispute the complaints about the trade deals, it only restates the simple fact that Trump is a douchebag.
actually a lot of people own parts of those corporations, through their retirement savings. and being employed by them still matters too.
I think there may well be issues with the effects of the trade agreements, but that the best fixes aren't done by modifying the trade agreements themselves, but by modifying internal legislation so that the benefits of the trade are spread around better.
Have you read through the trade deals yourself while having a comprehensive understanding of both local and global economics? I haven't, and thus I couldn't possibly argue with you on the finer details of these deals. I understand (in broad terms) how things work with regards to retirement funds and working for a company, but that's about it for me. Beyond the suggestion that trade deals could possibly encourage work to be moved overseas (either by products being imported or work being outsourced) I'm at a loss.
I do know with some certainty that people feel they get the short end of the stick, and that's enough to get them riled up.
I have read them in part, and read up on them in detail at times. Ideally we'd have people who specialize in that and are trustworthy doing that; sadly politicians make a point of muddying the waters to benefit themselves, which degrades trust.
Many people feel things that simply aren't true.
Some people did get the short end of the stick off trade deals, but many other people benefitted from cheaper goods. Which is why the solution isn't doing less trade, or making better trade deals (substantially better deals aren't possible), but making internal changes to our laws to make sure the benefits of the trade are spread around better. Alot of the job losses are due to technology and automation rather than work going overseas.
On November 06 2016 00:24 zlefin wrote: RiK you fail to grasp that america has already used its position to negotiate favorable trade deals.
I think the way they see it the problem is that those trade deals are made with American corporations in mind, not the people.
The corporations that employ and are owned by american people. and Trump is one of those corporations. so I don't see trump doing any better a job at it, given where his interests are.
they may see things any way they like, they're just often very ill-informed on the topics.
Probably true, but it's only a few American people who own those corporations (rather than the working class people in middle America that the GOP is supposed to represent) and that doesn't dispute the complaints about the trade deals, it only restates the simple fact that Trump is a douchebag.
actually a lot of people own parts of those corporations, through their retirement savings. and being employed by them still matters too.
I think there may well be issues with the effects of the trade agreements, but that the best fixes aren't done by modifying the trade agreements themselves, but by modifying internal legislation so that the benefits of the trade are spread around better.
Have you read through the trade deals yourself while having a comprehensive understanding of both local and global economics? I haven't, and thus I couldn't possibly argue with you on the finer details of these deals. I understand (in broad terms) how things work with regards to retirement funds and working for a company, but that's about it for me. Beyond the suggestion that trade deals could possibly encourage work to be moved overseas (either by products being imported or work being outsourced) I'm at a loss.
I do know with some certainty that people feel they get the short end of the stick, and that's enough to get them riled up.
I have read them in part, and read up on them in detail at times. Ideally we'd have people who specialize in that and are trustworthy doing that; sadly politicians make a point of muddying the waters to benefit themselves, which degrades trust.
Many people feel things that simply aren't true.
Some people did get the short end of the stick off trade deals, but many other people benefitted from cheaper goods. Which is why the solution isn't doing less trade, or making better trade deals (substantially better deals aren't possible), but making internal changes to our laws to make sure the benefits of the trade are spread around better. Alot of the job losses are due to technology and automation rather than work going overseas.
Why is it beneficial to have cheaper goods ?
cheaper goods to buy, i.e. they can get more goods for the same amount of money. or buy the same goods and have more money leftover for other things.
On November 06 2016 00:24 zlefin wrote: RiK you fail to grasp that america has already used its position to negotiate favorable trade deals.
I think the way they see it the problem is that those trade deals are made with American corporations in mind, not the people.
The corporations that employ and are owned by american people. and Trump is one of those corporations. so I don't see trump doing any better a job at it, given where his interests are.
they may see things any way they like, they're just often very ill-informed on the topics.
Probably true, but it's only a few American people who own those corporations (rather than the working class people in middle America that the GOP is supposed to represent) and that doesn't dispute the complaints about the trade deals, it only restates the simple fact that Trump is a douchebag.
actually a lot of people own parts of those corporations, through their retirement savings. and being employed by them still matters too.
I think there may well be issues with the effects of the trade agreements, but that the best fixes aren't done by modifying the trade agreements themselves, but by modifying internal legislation so that the benefits of the trade are spread around better.
Have you read through the trade deals yourself while having a comprehensive understanding of both local and global economics? I haven't, and thus I couldn't possibly argue with you on the finer details of these deals. I understand (in broad terms) how things work with regards to retirement funds and working for a company, but that's about it for me. Beyond the suggestion that trade deals could possibly encourage work to be moved overseas (either by products being imported or work being outsourced) I'm at a loss.
I do know with some certainty that people feel they get the short end of the stick, and that's enough to get them riled up.
I have read them in part, and read up on them in detail at times. Ideally we'd have people who specialize in that and are trustworthy doing that; sadly politicians make a point of muddying the waters to benefit themselves, which degrades trust.
Many people feel things that simply aren't true.
Some people did get the short end of the stick off trade deals, but many other people benefitted from cheaper goods. Which is why the solution isn't doing less trade, or making better trade deals (substantially better deals aren't possible), but making internal changes to our laws to make sure the benefits of the trade are spread around better. Alot of the job losses are due to technology and automation rather than work going overseas.
Why is it beneficial to have cheaper goods ?
cheaper goods to buy, i.e. they can get more goods for the same amount of money. or buy the same goods and have more money leftover for other things.
Except other type of goods increase - housing, energy (which have something to do with the increase in distance travelled by goods, or the condition of production in third world countries with low energy efficiency) - while their income don't increase (mainly due to the fact that the surplus of profit made through the price decrease is not reinvested in the economy and does not benefit the workers, which also have something to do with the liberalisation). At the end of the day, the purchasing power of the common household does not increase despite the price decrease in certain goods.
On November 06 2016 00:24 zlefin wrote: RiK you fail to grasp that america has already used its position to negotiate favorable trade deals.
I think the way they see it the problem is that those trade deals are made with American corporations in mind, not the people.
The corporations that employ and are owned by american people. and Trump is one of those corporations. so I don't see trump doing any better a job at it, given where his interests are.
they may see things any way they like, they're just often very ill-informed on the topics.
Probably true, but it's only a few American people who own those corporations (rather than the working class people in middle America that the GOP is supposed to represent) and that doesn't dispute the complaints about the trade deals, it only restates the simple fact that Trump is a douchebag.
actually a lot of people own parts of those corporations, through their retirement savings. and being employed by them still matters too.
I think there may well be issues with the effects of the trade agreements, but that the best fixes aren't done by modifying the trade agreements themselves, but by modifying internal legislation so that the benefits of the trade are spread around better.
Have you read through the trade deals yourself while having a comprehensive understanding of both local and global economics? I haven't, and thus I couldn't possibly argue with you on the finer details of these deals. I understand (in broad terms) how things work with regards to retirement funds and working for a company, but that's about it for me. Beyond the suggestion that trade deals could possibly encourage work to be moved overseas (either by products being imported or work being outsourced) I'm at a loss.
I do know with some certainty that people feel they get the short end of the stick, and that's enough to get them riled up.
I have read them in part, and read up on them in detail at times. Ideally we'd have people who specialize in that and are trustworthy doing that; sadly politicians make a point of muddying the waters to benefit themselves, which degrades trust.
Many people feel things that simply aren't true.
Some people did get the short end of the stick off trade deals, but many other people benefitted from cheaper goods. Which is why the solution isn't doing less trade, or making better trade deals (substantially better deals aren't possible), but making internal changes to our laws to make sure the benefits of the trade are spread around better. Alot of the job losses are due to technology and automation rather than work going overseas.
Why is it beneficial to have cheaper goods ?
cheaper goods to buy, i.e. they can get more goods for the same amount of money. or buy the same goods and have more money leftover for other things.
Except other type of goods increase - housing, energy (which have something to do with the increase in distance travelled by goods, or the condition of production in third world countries with low energy efficiency) - while their income don't increase (mainly due to the fact that the surplus of profit made through the price decrease is not reinvested in the economy and does not benefit the workers, which also have something to do with the liberalisation). At the end of the day, the purchasing power of the common household does not increase despite the price decrease in certain goods.
no, the other types of goods do not increase in cost as a result of the trade deal, they may or may not increase through other means. if the travel distance was such that the cost of travel made the goods more expensive overall, then they would've been produced locally instead.
EPT
