Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Let's ask the question from a different angle: had NAFTA not been passed, would there now be significantly more (or better) American jobs? The answer, as far as I can tell, is no. And MadSkillz, while the impacts on Mexican workers are not trivial, they also have nothing to do inherently with whether NAFTA is beneficial to the United States, which is the point of the rhetoric of Trump and Sanders.
The quality of American blue-collar jobs has been declining since the 1970s. The proximate causes are:
- Technology increasing productivity such that fewer laborers are needed to produce a given quantity of goods.
- The failure of redistributive policies such as welfare and minimum wages to keep up with changes in GDP.
- The reversal of many protections for workers and unions under Republican governments.
- The globalization of finance allowing wealthy businesses and individuals to hide income from taxation.
- The dismantling of U.S. macroeconomic policies centered around the industrialization of developing nations, allowing those nations to participate in the global economy and therefore buy U.S. goods.
- China's emergence as a cheap global manufacturer.
edited 3rd May '17 4:45:30 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!""House to vote Thursday on healthcare as Trump presses Republican ranks" - http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-healthcare-idUSKBN17Z1LH
@mega However much damage one wants to assign to the US because of NAFTA, it was much worse in Mexico. It crippled the country.
This was from the New York Times:
As heavily subsidized U.S. corn and other staples poured into Mexico, producer prices dropped and small farmers found themselves unable to make a living. Some two million have been forced to leave their farms since Nafta. At the same time, consumer food prices rose, notably the cost of the omnipresent tortilla.
As a result, 20 million Mexicans live in “food poverty”. Twenty-five percent of the population does not have access to basic food and one-fifth of Mexican children suffer from malnutrition. Transnational industrial corridors in rural areas have contaminated rivers and sickened the population and typically, women bear the heaviest impact.
Not all of Mexico’s problems can be laid at Nafta’s doorstep. But many have a direct causal link. The agreement drastically restructured Mexico’s economy and closed off other development paths by prohibiting protective tariffs, support for strategic sectors and financial controls.
Nafta’s failure in Mexico has a direct impact on the United States. Although it has declined recently, jobless Mexicans migrated to the United States at an unprecedented rate of half a million a year after Nafta.
Workers in both countries lose when companies move, when companies threaten to move as leverage in negotiations, and when nations like Mexico lower labor rights and environmental enforcement to attract investment.
Farmers lose when transnational corporations take over the land they supported their families on for generations. Consumers lose with the imposition of a food production model heavy on chemical use, corporate concentration, genetically modified seed and processed foods. Border communities lose when lower environmental standards for investors affect shared ecosystems.
The increase in people living in poverty feeds organized crime recruitment and the breakdown of communities. Increased border activity facilitates smuggling arms and illegal substances.
There's a reason why Bill Clinton militarized the border when he signed NAFTA. He knew the immigration wave that was coming as a result.
edited 3rd May '17 4:49:36 PM by MadSkillz
Man that goalpost moved so fast I think it broke the sound barrier.
Mad it doesn't matter what NAFTA did to Mexico, because that's completely irelivent to a discussion of if it had a negative impact on US manufacturing jobs and if Sanders is full of crap to act as if it did.
Plus this not like Sanders gives a dam about people in Mexico, he doesn't give much fo a dam about Americans outside of Vermont, so the idea that he'd care about Mexican jobs is absurd.
Stop dodging the question Mad, or at least dodge it in a way that's not so painfully obvious.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranMad it doesn't matter what NAFTA did to Mexico, because that's completely irelivent to a discussion of if it had a negative impact on US manufacturing jobs and if Sanders is full of crap to act as if it did.
Plus this not like Sanders gives a dam about people in Mexico, he doesn't give much fo a dam about Americans outside of Vermont, so the idea that he'd care about Mexican jobs is absurd. Stop dodging the question Mad, or at least dodge it in a way that's not so painfully obvious.
But that's not where I'm trying to take the argument.
I'm seeing the idea being espoused that NAFTA isn't so bad and I'm bringing up that well no, it actually is kinda bad even if what Fighteer is saying true.
It's not moving the goal posts because I'm playing in a different soccer field.
I just need to lay out the problems here:
Places like rural Appalachia and the rural south are some of the poorest areas in our country. People used to work for one big industry, but when the industry left, the jobs left as well. Many of these places have poor infrastructure and under-educated citizenry as well.
So, basically what we need to do is improve education and infrastructure to incentivize companies to move there, and diversify there economies, so it is not just based around one industry.
@LSBK: With interest in the various other explanations for why the "perfect" presidential candidate lost waning thanks to the short attention span of the public, Sanders is the current punching bag of the centrist media. There's also the matter of him likely being a significant factor in the 2020 primaries even if he doesn't run (and hopefully he won't given his age). Attacks on Warren are also ratcheting up, and many of the forumgoers now despise her as well for the exact same reasons as Sanders. Keith Ellison (and various others associated with Sanders) are also getting hit, though not as badly since he's not really considered a contender for the 2020 nomination.
In other words, it's internal party politics spilling over into the base and into their media allies.
edited 3rd May '17 5:17:02 PM by CaptainCapsase
The movie group I'm in is watching a US politics-themed movie right now (it started 15 minutes ago). It's called My Fellow Americans.
Here's the plot:
If anyone wants to stop inside and join us, we're at https://cytu.be/r/TroperCoven
I hope it's okay to bring that up. It's American politics related. If not, I'm sorry; please let me know.
We essentially have 4 different factions pretending to be 2 parties.
The Progressives (unofficially headed by Sanders), Establishment Dems(Obama/Clinton Wing), Tuesday Republicans(John Mc Cain and his men) and the Tea Party(Rand Paul's wing).
edited 3rd May '17 5:15:48 PM by MadSkillz
Relevant to the current discussion because it talks about positive stuff that happened for Mexican-American relations as a result of NAFTA...and how Donald's bluster might screw it up. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/05/mexicos-revenge/521451/
Summary version: Open economic activity along the border brought the border towns close together and improved relations with Mexico greatly (that and the end of the Cold War making the US anticommunism no longer an issue). Mexico also looked to the US because they were leery of the growing overtures made by China. If US-Mexico relations do go sour, China is going to look like a much better business deal and populist Mexican politicians are already making lots of scowly faces at the US.
edited 3rd May '17 5:23:41 PM by Elle
x7 And in the spirit of "explanations for why Hillary lost", let me share with you all this article: 538 (part of their "The Real Story Of 2016" series): The Comey Letter Probably Cost Clinton The Election
. The series is an attempt to explain which factors caused the election results and an analysis of how the media treated the election, this article in particular presents the idea that Comey's letter (and the way the media reacted to it) was a big factor, having costed her between 1% and 3% and ultimately flipping PA, MI, WI and maybe even FL, NE-2, AZ, and NC.

Depends on who you go to for information. Fighteer brought an economist up. I can bring up the Economic Policy Institute up which disagrees with those ideas.
I'm not disagreeing with what's being said btw. I'm still figuring it out which is which.
But besides jobs, there is still a lot of stuff in NAFTA that's actively bad like protecting trans-national corporations from national labor and environmental laws. I mean it did make it easier to exploit and bully workers in America and Mexico.
Fair enough but I don't think they should be dichotimized. They're weld to each other imo.
edited 3rd May '17 4:38:10 PM by MadSkillz