NAFTA-Part 2 Soon Allow Millions More American Jobs To Be Shipped Overseas

[dustup]

• Tweet

Giant Sucking Sound Part 2? The NAFTA Of The Pacific Will Soon Allow Millions More American Jobs To Be Shipped Overseas

The United States is negotiating one of the biggest free trade agreements in history and there is barely a peep about it on the news.  Years ago, Ross Perot warned that if NAFTA was implemented there would be a "giant sucking sound" as millions of jobs left this country.  It turns out that he was right.  Starting on Tuesday, the next round of negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (also known as the "NAFTA of the Pacific") will begin in Chicago.  We have already seen the Obama administration push hard for free trade agreements with Panama, South Korea and Colombia and the administration is making the Trans-Pacific Partnership a very high priority.  Membership in the "NAFTA of the Pacific" already includes Brunei, Chile, New Zealand and Singapore.  The United States, Australia, Peru, Malaysia and Vietnam are scheduled to join.  Canada, Japan and South Korea are also reportedly considering membership.  So once this "free trade" agreement is ratified, will we hear another "giant sucking sound" as millions more of our jobs are shipped overseas?
Look, it is not really that complicated.  If you are a giant U.S. corporation, you can either make stuff here, or you can make stuff overseas where it is far, far less expensive to do so.
To greedy corporate executives, there are a lot of advantages to moving operations out of the country....

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/giant-sucking-sound-part-2-the-nafta-of-the-pacific-will-soon-allow-millions-more-american-jobs-to-be-shipped-overseas

[foodserver]

dustup,

I know your heart's in the right place but you're going the wrong way here.  Your first warning sign should be that dagon, coit and John will be all over this in agreement with you.

Your SECOND warning sign is that Ron Paul is opposed to these free trade agreements as well, BUT for reasons that apparently would surprise you.

Ron Paul's free trade agreement is the same as mine.

If it's legal to buy and sell within the United States--it should be legal for other countries to buy from and sell to the same market.  No exemptions exceptions or import duties.  THAT should be your "free trade agreement."  We don't need no stinking book of import export regulations.  It is absolutely none of the government's business what American citizens buy from whom.

An "American" product in my opinion (and Paul's) is the product (or service) the consumer wants, regardless of the race, creed, color, religion, gender or nationality of the seller.  THAT is the "American way" and THAT attitude is what's gotten this country where it is today.  You are free to with hold your own personal business from someone based upon any of the reasons previously listed or any other reason you care to.

YOU ARE (should) NOT (be) free, to tell others how to decide who THEY buy from (or sell to).  Ron Paul is on MY side on this--NOT yours.

Long term, do you REALLY think it's smart to protect providers of "inferior" products and services (as determined by the consumer) buy allowing them to "put the fix in" with import export regulations?? (hint, dagon, John, IM2 and coit say YES!!)

Better to allow the maker of the "best mousetrap" to prevail and look at what the government may be doing (can you spell Obamacare, cap n trade? and eternal regulation?) to stop that--not "put the fix in" with protection.  (What are we--pussies that need protection?)

Ron Paul doesn't think so and neither should you.  

I respect you dustup and appreciate your presence at this site--but reconsider--please...

PS.  one person's "greed" is another person's "ambition".  What is the difference between the two?  My own personal opinion is that "ambition" is working to pursue your own interests without "breaking the rules" and by that I mean rules "in the eight color crayon box" not some jive bureaucratic bullshit. Greed is pursuit of gain BY breaking the rules.  What I notice for most people is that the difference depends upon whose ox is being gored.  YOU hoping to win the lottery is "ambition" someone you don't know or happen to dislike because they're not a part of your culture, race, religion, nationality or whatever OR who already has "MORE" than you--trying to build a better mouse trap is somehow "greedy."  This is wrong imo

[dustup]

dustup,

I know your heart's in the right place but you're going the wrong way here.  Your first warning sign should be that dagon, coit and John will be all over this in agreement with you.

Your SECOND warning sign is that Ron Paul is opposed to these free trade agreements as well, BUT for reasons that apparently would surprise you.

Ron Paul's free trade agreement is the same as mine.

If it's legal to buy and sell within the United States--it should be legal for other countries to buy from and sell to the same market.  No exemptions exceptions or import duties.  THAT should be your "free trade agreement."  We don't need no stinking book of import export regulations.  It is absolutely none of the government's business what American citizens buy from whom.

An "American" product in my opinion (and Paul's) is the product (or service) the consumer wants, regardless of the race, creed, color, religion, gender or nationality of the seller.  THAT is the "American way" and THAT attitude is what's gotten this country where it is today.  You are free to with hold your own personal business from someone based upon any of the reasons previously listed or any other reason you care to.

YOU ARE (should) NOT (be) free, to tell others how to decide who THEY buy from (or sell to).  Ron Paul is on MY side on this--NOT yours.

Long term, do you REALLY think it's smart to protect providers of "inferior" products and services (as determined by the consumer) buy allowing them to "put the fix in" with import export regulations?? (hint, dagon, John, IM2 and coit say YES!!)

Better to allow the maker of the "best mousetrap" to prevail and look at what the government may be doing (can you spell Obamacare, cap n trade? and eternal regulation?) to stop that--not "put the fix in" with protection.  (What are we--pussies that need protection?)

Ron Paul doesn't think so and neither should you.  

I respect you dustup and appreciate your presence at this site--but reconsider--please...

PS.  one person's "greed" is another person's "ambition".  What is the difference between the two?  My own personal opinion is that "ambition" is working to pursue your own interests without "breaking the rules" and by that I mean rules "in the eight color crayon box" not some jive bureaucratic bullshit. Greed is pursuit of gain BY breaking the rules.  What I notice for most people is that the difference depends upon whose ox is being gored.  YOU hoping to win the lottery is "ambition" someone you don't know or happen to dislike because they're not a part of your culture, race, religion, nationality or whatever OR who already has "MORE" than you--trying to build a better mouse trap is somehow "greedy."  This is wrong imo

DOH! You better reread the topic foodserver if you think I favor free trade agreements! The article emphasizes the second wave of destruction of loosing more jobs in America.......due to the FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS!

Actually, Paul's position, unlike that of more opportunistic libertarians, is to oppose WTO and NAFTA precisely because they are not about so-called "free trade... in practice." As Paul said on the floor during the CAFTA debate:

   " If we were interested in free trade, as the pretense is, you could initiate free trade in one small paragraph. This bill is over 1,000 pages, and it is merely a pretext for free trade. At the same time we talk about free trade, we badger China, and that is not free trade. I believe in free trade, but this is not free trade. This is regulated, managed trade for the benefit of special interests. That is why I oppose it."
************************
Free trade agreements threaten national sovereignty
I opposed both the North American Free Trade Agreement and the World Trade Organization, both of which were heavily favored by the political establishment. Many supporters of the free trade market supported these agreements. Nearly six decades ago when the International Trade Organization was up for debate, conservatives and libertarians agreed that supranational trade bureaucracies with the power to infringe upon American sovereignty were undesirable.
Source: The Revolution: A Manifesto, by Ron Paul, p. 96 Apr 1, 2008
************************
GATT-Book of Ron Paul
GATT
Statement Opposing Unconstitutional “Trade Promotion Authority”
December 6, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 103:3
The loss of national sovereignty inherent in government-managed trade cannot be overstated. If you don’t like GATT, NAFTA, and the WTO, get ready for even more globalist intervention in our domestic affairs. As we enter into new international agreements, be prepared to have our labor, environmental, and tax laws increasingly dictated or at least influenced by international bodies. We’ve already seen this with our foreign sales corporation tax laws, which we changed solely to comply with a WTO ruling. Rest assured that TPA will accelerate the trend toward global government, with our Constitution fading into history.

[foodserver]

DOH! You better reread the topic foodserver if you think I favor free trade agreements!

I realize you don't.  I also realize Paul doesn't, but I've explained why.  Paul doesn't favor "free trade agreements" because he doesn't think the government has any business making any kind of "agreement" to produce free trade.

Free trade is achieved by the government doing nothing.

No "agreement" is necessary.  

Just butt the fuck out and let buyers and sellers trade amongst themselves in the free market.

Paul says,

" If we were interested in free trade, as the pretense is, you could initiate free trade in one small paragraph.* This bill is over 1,000 pages, and it is merely a pretext for free trade. At the same time we talk about free trade, we badger China, and that is not free trade. I believe in free trade, but this is not free trade. This is regulated, managed trade for the benefit of special interests. That is why I oppose it."

Yes, this is an accurate description of Paul's views...

I'm assuming you oppose FTA's because you oppose free trade if it has results you disapprove of. (outsourcing)  If I misunderstood--good.  I think outsourcing is a natural part of a changing economy.  The USA is a great source of innovation.  When a product or service is conceived of--it is often at the edge of then available technology and it's manufacture in the USA is the most practical.  As technology advances and the skill level of the labor required becomes lower, it becomes practical for it to be produced overseas and new products must be developed to replace the old.  The cycle then repeats itself.  But outsourcing or no, the important thing is to have free unfettered access to foreign markets by US consumers and sellers.

Free trade is not a means to an end--it is the end--the satisfaction of the consumer the ultimate end...

*if you look at my fifth sentence in my original post, you'll see I'm on the same page with Paul...

[dustup]

DOH! You better reread the topic foodserver if you think I favor free trade agreements!

I realize you don't.  I also realize Paul doesn't, but I've explained why.  Paul doesn't favor "free trade agreements" because he doesn't think the government has any business making any kind of "agreement" to produce free trade.

Free trade is achieved by the government doing nothing.

No "agreement" is necessary.  

Just butt the fuck out and let buyers and sellers trade amongst themselves in the free market.

Paul says,

" If we were interested in free trade, as the pretense is, you could initiate free trade in one small paragraph.* This bill is over 1,000 pages, and it is merely a pretext for free trade. At the same time we talk about free trade, we badger China, and that is not free trade. I believe in free trade, but this is not free trade. This is regulated, managed trade for the benefit of special interests. That is why I oppose it."

Yes, this is an accurate description of Paul's views...

I'm assuming you oppose FTA's because you oppose free trade if it has results you disapprove of. (outsourcing)  If I misunderstood--good.  I think outsourcing is a natural part of a changing economy.  The USA is a great source of innovation.  When a product or service is conceived of--it is often at the edge of then available technology and it's manufacture in the USA is the most practical.  As technology advances and the skill level of the labor required becomes lower, it becomes practical for it to be produced overseas and new products must be developed to replace the old.  The cycle then repeats itself.  But outsourcing or no, the important thing is to have free unfettered access to foreign markets by US consumers and sellers.

Free trade is not a means to an end--it is the end--the satisfaction of the consumer the ultimate end...

*if you look at my fifth sentence in my original post, you'll see I'm on the same page with Paul...

So am I foodserver.....what's your point?  I was with Paul in my posting the original Topic.....I was with Paul in my second post and I am with Paul in my third post......

[foodserver]

So am I foodserver.....what's your point?  I was with Paul in my posting the original Topic.....I was with Paul in my second post and I am with Paul in my third post......

I guess my "point" was that I may have misunderstood where you were coming from.  If so that is good news.

My second point, I think, is that we could well experience "outsourcing" even with Dr. Paul style free trade. The desired end is NOT US companies winning every battle for the consumer dollar.  The desired end is the consumer having ALL of the choices available to them, regardless of the impact upon current manufacturers operating in the US.

[dustup]

I guess my "point" was that I may have misunderstood where you were coming from.  If so that is good news.

My second point, I think, is that we could well experience "outsourcing" even with Dr. Paul style free trade. The desired end is NOT US companies winning every battle for the consumer dollar.  The desired end is the consumer having ALL of the choices available to them, regardless of the impact upon current manufacturers operating in the US.

Yes, true......we are cool....

[ivanm]

Giant Sucking Sound Part 2? The NAFTA Of The Pacific Will Soon Allow Millions More American Jobs To Be Shipped Overseas

The United States is negotiating one of the biggest free trade agreements in history and there is barely a peep about it on the news.  Years ago, Ross Perot warned that if NAFTA was implemented there would be a "giant sucking sound" as millions of jobs left this country.  It turns out that he was right.  Starting on Tuesday, the next round of negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (also known as the "NAFTA of the Pacific") will begin in Chicago.  We have already seen the Obama administration push hard for free trade agreements with Panama, South Korea and Colombia and the administration is making the Trans-Pacific Partnership a very high priority.  Membership in the "NAFTA of the Pacific" already includes Brunei, Chile, New Zealand and Singapore.  The United States, Australia, Peru, Malaysia and Vietnam are scheduled to join.  Canada, Japan and South Korea are also reportedly considering membership.  So once this "free trade" agreement is ratified, will we hear another "giant sucking sound" as millions more of our jobs are shipped overseas?
Look, it is not really that complicated.  If you are a giant U.S. corporation, you can either make stuff here, or you can make stuff overseas where it is far, far less expensive to do so.
To greedy corporate executives, there are a lot of advantages to moving operations out of the country....

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/giant-sucking-sound-part-2-the-nafta-of-the-pacific-will-soon-allow-millions-more-american-jobs-to-be-shipped-overseas

I think I am catching on to Obama's act.  He thinks by promoting free trade with sweat shop nations that is will mean cheaper goods for his minions, and to hell with Amercan based companies.  However, the dumb ass overlooks the fact that domestic companies offer jobs for American workers, not overseas companies. His answer may be to tax the piss out of the rich so his minions can have a free lunch.

I got news for that imbecile.  Rich people can transfer their wealth overseas too.  I once knew a man that set himself up as a corporate entity in the Camay islands and afterwards he was not known anymore as a US taxpaying citizen to the IRS.  Power to him I say.