Crucial military support from....Canada???

Well now that is a hoot.

Has McLame's alzheimers kicked in already? The sad reality is that he probably has made one too many high G force turns and smushed his brain just enough to cause him to be crazy batshit about now.

I respect McCain, but he has lost his mind.

Flash the Queen of Diamonds at him and he'll come around.

I didnt hear john complain when his wife was determined to be a drug addict and was caught stealing drugs. no complaint at all.

McCain's in bed with Mexi-Canada. McCain/McBush whatever.

The Clinton's helped ruin our jobs and send them overseas. I doubt Hillary is telling the truth about Nafta anyway.

Go Obama

Just heard on the Canadian news that McCain may very well come up to Canada later on this year to talk about wot a swell NAFTA supporter he is. Hope he brushes up on the softwood lumber dispute first and learns how many Canadians are unhappy with the way the dispute resolution mechanism malfunctioned in that ongoing battle.

Essentially, when Obama and Hillary talk about "fixing" NAFTA by putting higher enviromental and labour standards in the core agreement most Canadians are smart enuff to know they are talking about Mexico not us.

In many ways NAFTA is a buzzword that has come to represent legitimate American fears regarding the de-industrialisation of the nation and the subsequent loss of good paying jobs not only to Maxico but also to India and China and Indonesia etc etc. Americans are also worried about an unsustainable trade deficit that is weakening the American dollar and raising the price of oil and other neccessary commodities.

NAFTA is, indeed, a part of that problem but not the biggest part.

Be Well.

So, if America stops shipping jobs to Mexico, Canada will stop shipping oil to America?

McBush has truly lost it.

Canada is getting fat off oil exports-the only real issue is Canada wants what Mexico has-the right to prioritize its own consumption in the event of a production slow down.

Crucial military support from....Canada???

McCain insults Canada by trying to link Canada's commitment to making Afghanistan work to NAFTA.

He's obviously thinking of Iraq with it's "coalition of the billing, bribed and coerced."

Bad Johnny!!

Be Well.

McCain = Bush = NAU

McCain could not do any more to energize millions (including Republicans) of Americans who have seen their own jobs or the jobs of their family members, neighbors, and friends to go out and VOTE DEMOCRAT than to bash the Democrat candidates for wanting to renegotiate NAFTA.

McCain has just proven that he is a globalist who would sell out his country in a NY minute if it helped corporate America. McCain is the Manchurian Candidate who has sold his soul for the presidency.

I told y'all McCain will come at the Dems using national security as the issue and sure enough he babbles how we will fold if we don't have use of the Canadian miliatary. What an old fool. As if Canada -- who has always helped us out (NAFTA or no NAFTA) -- would just sit back and let us be endangered. We are neighbors.

McCain needs NAFTA for the globalists' NAU agenda.

VOTE McCAIN = destruction of the USA

After NAFTA McCain will push thru the Bushes' agenda for CAFTA which Bush is pushing now.

Beware the globalists who seek to destroy the sovereignty of nations.

Bush the oil man just happens to live in Texas which benefited from Nafta. He is all about oil and not alternative energy. How much money is he making from the high oil prices.

McCain is from Arizona which also benefited from Nafta. Does McCain really care about the rest of the Country? Or he he upset that if NAFTA was renegotiated is could hurt Arizona. They are one in the same McCain=McBush.

Canada? Come on McCain we are smarter than that.

Here are the facts. Under Nafta real wages have been stagnant or dropping. Companies have either reduced or stopped providing benefits like health care and retirement. Manufacturing jobs which typically pay well have decreased by hundreds of thousands. Service sector jobs which don't pay well have increased. Is this really what McCain wants the future to look like?

REZN

It's not what McCain wants the future to look like.

It's what the neo-cons want the future to look like.

So the answer to your question is yes, it's exactly what they want.

A poor, jobless, immobile, homeless and demoralized populace is so much easier to control.

I hope McCain campaigns with NAFTA as one of his talking points. Yeah John, you go sell that idea.
That way you won't lose the election based solely on your idiot and crazeeeee ideas about the Iraq war, it will be the economy too stupid.

Is this really just the first step in selling his amnesty program? If he gets everybody wetting their pants about the prospect of canada moving its 2000 troops to northern afghanistan, what will they do if he starts telling the rightys Mexico will shut off its oil if we close the borders?

**** Crucial military support from....Canada???

Posted by Jomama *****

.......when you hear news reports that "coalition forces" fought or were killed in Afghanistan...its a good bet that its Canadian......they have 2,500 soldiers on the ground ...

......they are fighting in the front lines in the worst of the southern provinces and have lost close to 100 soldiers killed......

As typical - you guys look at a head line - never give it any real thought nor challenge the statements - just a bunch of sheep to the press.
First: There is more to the US economy than Manufacturing

Second: The Majority of our oil comes from Mexico and Canada..the two of them make up over 80% of the oil imported into the US. So NAFTA lowered the cost on oil imported.

And 3,NAFTA has been in effect for just over eleven and a half years. According to the absurdly [one-sided] assessment of the EPI, NAFTA has destroyed about 87,000 jobs A YEAR. (1.2M jobs over the 15 years it has been in effect)

The US economy added more than twice that number in a SINGLE MONTH and even that increase of 207,000 is a net number - an increase above and beyond job losses.

Where is the discussion of cheaper goods and energy that resulted and drove economic expansion?

Where is the calculation of jobs created because routers were cheaper and the increase in LAN and WAN infrastructure created a whole new IT sector in the US economy?

That is the problem with all these "feel good" policy's - what is never considered is what is the long term or knock on effects - None of the democrats even think beyond the nose on their face on any policy.

Damn, I thought that Clinton was the one that negoiated the NAFTA thing. Is the senator from NY saying that her husband screwed it up????? WOW!!!

Before the Repugnant trolls start spreading their shit here, NAFTA was approved during the Clinton administration with the support of Clinton but both Reagan and Bush were strong NAFTA supporters - just not able to get the job done during their administrations.

Moneywar - a graphic that only shows jobs lost to NAFTA is patently inaccurate unless it shows also the job gains from NAFTA. You can only argue that NAFTA is totally bad if you can prove that jobs lost >> jobs gained. (Where >> = "much greater"). The fact that Ohio may have been hit inordinately hard by jobs lost to NAFTA does not mean that the entire US was hard hit. What it does mean is that the Government needs to pay attention to local economic disasters caused by NAFTA if that is indeed the case.

And, no, I have no idea if jobs lost to NAFTA >> jobs gained by NAFTA. I do not pretend to be an economist.

And, no, I have no idea if jobs lost to NAFTA >> jobs gained by NAFTA.

Posted by Oldfart

I'm not sure anyone can sort that one out.

Manufacturing jobs have gone off-shore for many reasons and I'm not sure NAFTA is a big player.

Lower wages off-shore, environmental laws here in the US, expensive bennifits for workers here in the US, ever increasing energy costs here in the US, and the list goes on. I don't think you can blame just one thing for the loss of manufacturing jobs.

Flash the Queen of Diamonds at him and he'll come around.

Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2008-03-02 05:58 PM | Reply

Great movie.

I never saw the remake -- by choice.

I agree that we should strengthen it to get more in return, but let's get realistic...the manufacturing jobs are being lost mostly to automation around the world, and education needs to be a priority (perhaps making a college degree mandatory in the US) to raise up the poor and lower middle class.

Education sounds good, but education in what? Even jobs requiring a college degree are being outsourced. There's no reason to believe that the "jobs of the future" are immune from outsourcing.

What happens when all manufacturing jobs are lost due to automation or outsourcing?

What's left is a large, angry proletariat.

Viva la revolucion!

RightToCenter-

Principally, I agree with you. The premise of the argument of those who want to embrace globalization and all its drawbacks is that the future of America is in the exportation of ideas above all else. In that, one would think that the primary focus should be on education...the very thing that makes that possible. Somehow, politicians never got through the whole memo, apparently going brain-dead after the first line of the mission statement. Americans are not entitled to anything in the new world. We need to go out and earn it, or create it.

At a minimum, education standards should be raised for the top students, and funding them needs to be a much higher priority than begging OPEC for more oil production. Our kids are makers or breakers of the future, and if we send them into a global fight armed with only a sense of superiority and entitlement as a result of where they happened to be born, then America is already in its fatal tailspin...and by its own design.

This is where we are heading.

"The Global Trap: Civilization and the Assault on Democracy and Prosperity in 1997 .

In particular, the book is known for defining a possible "20/80 society". In this possible society of the 21st century, 20 percent of the working age population will be enough to keep the world economy going. The other 80 percent live on some form of welfare and are entertained with a concept called "tittytainment", which aims at keeping the 80 percent of frustrated citizens happy with a mixture of deadeningly predictable, lowest common denominator entertainment for the soul, and nourishment for the body."

ROC-

Unlike most liberals, I don't think that globalization is the death of America or the middle class, and feel that there is a systematic shift of the types of manufacturing jobs in the US rather then a wholesale exodus. When you look at the manufacturing jobs that remain, they are mostly higher skilled jobs while the lowest skilled jobs are sent to the poorest countries.

By necessity this is going to require that workers aim higher then a HS Diploma, since they will need training to work in modern manufacturing jobs. For example, this is from an LA Times article in 2006:

Manufacturing, long known for plant closings and layoffs, is now clamoring for workers to fill high-paying, skilled jobs. While millions of manufacturing jobs have been outsourced or automated out of existence during the past decade, many of the remaining jobs require higher skills and pay well -- $50,000 to $80,000 a year for workers with the necessary math, computer and mechanical abilities.

Some manufacturers are so desperate for workers who can program, run or repair the computers and robots that now dominate the factory floor that they are offering recruitment bonuses, relocation packages and other incentives more common to white-collar jobs.

In Ohio, American Micro Products Inc., an electrical parts maker, is offering $1,000 bonuses to workers who recruit technicians, and it is covering moving costs for the new employees. In San Antonio, Toyota cannot find enough qualified applicants for skilled positions at its new plant, even after the state sponsored a training program. In Fontana, California Steel Industries Inc. found it so hard to fill five mechanical and technical positions, some paying $28 an hour, that managers started paying employees to train for the unfilled jobs.

About 90% of manufacturers say they are having trouble filling skilled jobs such as machinists and technicians, according to a survey ... of ... 12,000 manufacturers. Of those manufacturers, 83% said the shortage of skilled workers affected their ability to serve customers. ...
...
When Toyota announced plans to open a new plant with 2,000 jobs in San Antonio, it received 100,000 applications from people eager to work. But for the 200 technician positions that required higher skills, the automaker had trouble finding applicants... Eventually, Toyota hired about 120 skilled workers, mostly by recruiting them from other manufacturers... That helped Toyota, ... but it also shifted the problem of finding skilled workers onto the companies whose employees had been lured away...

Flash the Queen of Diamonds at him and he'll come around.

Posted by Doc_Sarvis

That has to be the most intelligent post you have made in two weeks.

Unlike most liberals, I don't think that globalization is the death of America or the middle class, and feel that there is a systematic shift of the types of manufacturing jobs in the US rather then a wholesale exodus.

Posted by leftcoastlawyer at 2008-03-03 02:16 PM

Its always refreshing to know that some libs actually use their brains to think, for a change...

Well it looks like Europe doesn't have too many nice things to say about Obama and now Canada weighs in cautiously concerned about both Obama and Hillary's NAFTA statements.

Ahhhh, the great uniters doing all they can to win friends abroad.

I agree that we should strengthen it to get more in return, but let's get realistic...the manufacturing jobs are being lost mostly to automation around the world, and education needs to be a priority (perhaps making a college degree mandatory in the US) to raise up the poor and lower middle class.


At a minimum, education standards should be raised for the top students, and funding them needs to be a much higher priority than begging OPEC for more oil production. Our kids are makers or breakers of the future, and if we send them into a global fight armed with only a sense of superiority and entitlement as a result of where they happened to be born, then America is already in its fatal tailspin...and by its own design.


Here we have two posters who throw this out but never really sat down and thought out what they are actually saying. The like the idea of the outsourcing and infact make excuses as to why it should be happening. Although, I find with amusement that they sit with these ideas thinking their job is not threatened.

These two also begin to talk education and the increase of it. I have to say good for you dumb trolls for only 30% of the nation gets university degrees. And just a hint, DO YOU SEE THE UNIVERSITIES OPENING THEIR DOORS SAYING COME ONE CALL ALL WE NEED TO EDUCATE OUR MASSES???????? Nope, because you two would be the first to raise bloody ned to stop such socialist practice.

Not one of them seems to be able to express themselve as to the REAL GOOD VALUE OF NAFTA but throw out there that the people should accept it.

One would have to wonder why? Not much global enterprising thoughts coming from these two, and they are what created the problems in the first place so I am surprised anyone would listen to such people.

Like CC said, NAFTA is the wicked stepchild of the NAU. We should get out of this agreement (and all others). I believe, like our forefathers, that we should stay out of entangling alliances..

Whether talk of revamping NAFTA amounts to more than election-year stumping remains to be seen. Three-way trade has soared and unemployment in the U.S. is substantially lower now than it was 14 years ago

The mighty sheep ROC following the article should have thought about this. 14 years ago, well, that was the end of Bush sr and the beginning of Billy boy.

I wonder, did ROC even think about this and the difference in wages between now and 14 years ago? Unemployment was figured quite differently 14 years ago too. Shall we use those same methods as back than to compute those figures now, ROC would not like that.

In any study of NAFTA, the figures are not positive for the people of the U.S. but we have ROC here pushing the tone like it is the future, and everyone should just give up about it.

Why would any real American do such a thing knowing how it is really bringing down our way of life.

The single ROC can stand on is NAFTA brought cheaper products, so let's move to that, ROC, please tell us WHAT CHEAPER products came from CANADA made by Canada and the same for MEXICO that the U.S. is benefitting from.

What products did does either of those two countries make that the U.S. lacked making or was of less quality and price to justify doing such a open free trade for our business?

Afraid, ROC, you try and make negative points steered at me while you didn't think out the actual realities of what NAFTA is doing? I wonder why that is, is it your opposition towards me or is it towards our future as a productive people.

Posted by moneywar at 2008-03-03 07:32 PM

Seriously, that was a solid post.

Nevertheless, I find your premise to be horribly flawed on multiple levels.

Anyhow, I'll narrow my response (for now) to one question, actually, one premise:

Prior to NAFTA which country had more tariffs: US or Mexico?

After leveling the field, which country gained a competitive advantage?


Why are Mexicans risking the perils of the desert to illegally enter this country to find "shitty" employment?

About 90% of manufacturers say they are having trouble filling skilled jobs such as machinists and technicians, according to a survey ... of ... 12,000 manufacturers. Of those manufacturers, 83% said the shortage of skilled workers affected their ability to serve customers. ...

Think about this slight of language used for the benefit of these offloading business's.

Machinists and technicians were the very first labor jobs offloaded and that began well before nafta.

Why would anyone educate themselves into a position that is known as being off loaded to Russia, China, and such. Those senior techicians and machinists are now working at Walmart telling the college bound kids that machinists and technicians is not money to be spent in school studies.

Why would anyone educate themselves into a position that is known as being off loaded to Russia, China, and such.

Fair question.


I'll answer with a personal anecdote:

My dad became a millionaire in part by getting into the field of accounting at the right time. He retired a partner at one of the big public accounting firms (not Arther Anderson). When I was entering college he advised me against accounting because it wasn't the lucrative industry that it was when he got started.

Another anecdote:

My wife's uncle was a malcontent as an employee. He got fired from several jobs. Eventually, he went into business for himself and ultimately opened up 3 video rental stores (during the 80's and 90's). Ultimately, he sold his business and retired filthy rich - he divides his time between his primary residence in Indiana, on the water...His summer place in Canada where he fishes every day...and his beach house in Aruba. Nowadays, video rental is a dying business with on-Demand, netflix and countless cable and satellite movie channels - not to mention that the outright purchase of most DVD's is around $10 per unit.

$war,


My point being - should my wife's uncle lobby for legislation that outlaws Netflix, just to protect his business?

Prior to NAFTA which country had more tariffs: US or Mexico?

After leveling the field, which country gained a competitive advantage?

Why are Mexicans risking the perils of the desert to illegally enter this country to find "shitty" employment?

Jeff J,

The question here is which country had negative tariffs, more doesn't mean bad, there are reasons for tariffs and it seems strange that your tone is all of the tariffs are bad.

The playing field was never leveled and quite frankly am surprised here that you suggest that this is what NAFTA did. The U.S. has always had the advantage and that leveling really just gave the U.S. big business a huge level up in the advantage.

You mean Mexicans where not risking the desert prior to NAFTA? As far as I know they have been doing that risky journey as long as I have been alive, the only difference here is as of late the government has begun to close its eyes and let them cross. It is and was a Greenspan thing, and a social security thing. NAFTA has nothing to do with the migration but I think you know this.

$war,


You raise excellent points.


Regrettably, my wife is out tonighi so it's upon me to handle the routine of getting my kids to bed.

Sadly, I have to bow out for now.

I'd like to hash this subject out with you because it's an important subject.

I will try to do so over the near future on DR.

I may even do so via private email.


Regardless, my apologies for bailing when you were obviously primed for a quality, serious discussion.

My point being - should my wife's uncle lobby for legislation that outlaws Netflix, just to protect his business?

Well, I see you think lobbying should be a product of our political leanings.

Lobby all he wants, the real issue for the legislation is should they protect your Uncle or protect the future of the nation.

You are asking a very complex questions that have many other questions needing answers before a decision should be even considered.

How many people does this effect? How many jobs does this effect? All those kinds of questions.

The playing field was never leveled

On a level playing field we are all poor - except for the politically connected of course. Exhibit A: Cuba and South Korea.

Tariffs are bad because they hurt consumers of which the poor get hurt the worst.

will try to do so over the near future on DR.

I may even do so via private email.

Regardless, my apologies for bailing when you were obviously primed for a quality, serious discussion.

Posted by JeffJ at 2008-03-03 08:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

Jeff J.,

No problem, either way, I do understand the responsibilities of house concerns when the wifey is away.

Enjoy that kid moment, it is short and missed when they get all growed up and leave.......trust me.

Ray would get into the tariffs with you but it would be a waste of time because you only see it from the wasted austrian idiocy theory direction and if I need to address what you think I would go to the site and read it.

I prefer to actually see the value of those who are able to think for themselves and not be so unrational in such one sided thoughts.

"Tariffs are bad because they hurt consumers of which the poor get hurt the worst."

As if libertarians give a fuck about the poor. How many tax cuts will it take to shut these fuckers up?

... as I watch this country sink into poverty, courtesy of socialists and fascists.

Perhaps the two geniuses above me can explain how higher import prices are good for our economy?

Perhaps the two geniuses above me can explain how higher import prices are good for our economy?

Perhaps the one idiot above me explain how lowering wages is good for our economy?

The simple fact that the one idiot is thinking about this as a single item economic problems explains it all.

Perhaps the one idiot above me explain how lowering wages is good for our economy?

The simple fact that the one idiot is thinking about this as a single item economic problems explains it all.

POSTED BY MONEYWAR AT 2008-03-03 08:41 PM | REPLY |


You murder the English language worse than Roman Marone'.

Inflation, regulation, and taxation are lowering wages. The cost of government is an overhead that has to come out of wages. To add more inflation, regulation and taxation only compounds the problem.

Understand?

You murder the English language worse than Roman Marone'.

So what!

I surprised you didn't include some Obama slam, are you just getting weak in your resolve?

You suprised is you?

"Y'all dumb motha fucka's ain'ts be eatins no Popeyes is ya?"

Inflation, regulation, and taxation are lowering wages. The cost of government is an overhead that has to come out of wages. To add more inflation, regulation and taxation only compounds the problem.

Understand?

Posted by Ray at 2008-03-03 08:50 PM | Reply | Flag

You see ray, it just escapes you how cheaper imports has cost wages to decline.

It is you who just don't understand.


I do like how you have used great generalized boxes to convolute the issue. One point you are extremely narrow, then poof, way way general.

"Inflation, regulation, and taxation are lowering wages."

"Inflation, regulation, and taxation are lowering wages."


That's capitalism for you.

You see ray, it just escapes you how cheaper imports has cost wages to decline.

It is you who just don't understand.


I do like how you have used great generalized boxes to convolute the issue. One point you are extremely narrow, then poof, way way general.
POSTED BY MONEYWAR AT 2008-03-03 09:08 PM | REPLY


What fucking country are you from?

Crasswar-

DO YOU SEE THE UNIVERSITIES OPENING THEIR DOORS SAYING COME ONE CALL ALL WE NEED TO EDUCATE OUR MASSES???????? Nope, because you two would be the first to raise bloody ned to stop such socialist practice.

Actually, in the State of California any citizen who applies to the Cal State University System is GUARANTEED admission to a 4 year University, either UC or Cal State. Maybe other states should be so openminded.

I wonder, did ROC even think about this and the difference in wages between now and 14 years ago? Unemployment was figured quite differently 14 years ago too. Shall we use those same methods as back than to compute those figures now, ROC would not like that.

We have had this discussion, and don't need to rehash it now, suffice it to say that while you don't like how unemployment is figured by the BNS, most reputable economists have no problem with it, and the changes to the establishment survey and adjustments to the farm and non-farm payroll components (which are the major changes in the past 14 years) have been praised as "long overdue."

In any study of NAFTA, the figures are not positive for the people of the U.S. but we have ROC here pushing the tone like it is the future, and everyone should just give up about it.

Why would any real American do such a thing knowing how it is really bringing down our way of life.

Ask Jeff Faux at EPI, he is saying the same things that I am.

For what it's worth.
Your argument goes all the way back to the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in Britian. Luddites argued that machines were the cause of unemployment. What your argument ignores, is that cheaper imports (and manufactured goods) leave consumers with more disposable income to buy other things. Yes workers get displaced, but new jobs open up where consumers spend their disposable income.

This explains the foundation of how societies create wealth, by making ALL consumer goods cheaper and thus enabling the economy to expand elsewhere.

You go right ahead Money. Ignore what I told you and pretend that the cost of government has no effect on wages.

Cont:

The single ROC can stand on is NAFTA brought cheaper products, so let's move to that, ROC, please tell us WHAT CHEAPER products came from CANADA made by Canada and the same for MEXICO that the U.S. is benefitting from.

What products did does either of those two countries make that the U.S. lacked making or was of less quality and price to justify doing such a open free trade for our business?

All I did, Crasswar, was link to an LA Times article which picked a few benefits from NAFTA. While imports from Canada and Mexico have gone up, it is generally better to see what has increased in the US...let's start with agriculture:

Two-way agricultural trade between the United States and Mexico increased 149 percent since 1993 (the year prior to NAFTA implementation), reaching $15.8 billion in 2004. Two-way trade increased 10.9 percent from 2003 to 2004.

Two-way agricultural trade between the United States and Canada increased 112 percent since 1993 and 8 percent with respect to 2003 reaching $21.1 billion in 2004.

Since implementation of the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement, U.S. agricultural exports to Canada have nearly doubled. Canada is now the No. 1 market for U.S. agricultural exports, which climbed from $5.3 billion in 1993 to $9.3 billion in 2003 and on to $9.7 billion in 2004.

Since NAFTA's approval in 1993, U.S. agricultural exports to Mexico have more than doubled. Mexico is now our second largest market, taking over that rank from Japan in 2004. In 1993, Mexico took $3.6 billion worth of U.S. agricultural products compared to $7.9 billion in 2003 and and $8.5 billion in 2004.

Import competition has increased under NAFTA for some commodities, a not unexpected development, as trade barriers begin to come down and trade is subject to open marketing conditions. As the largest of the NAFTA countries and with a booming economy, it is not surprising that U.S. imports from Canada have grown strongly, providing American consumers with a broader array of competitively priced, high-quality products.

In 1993, U.S. goods faced an average tariff barrier at the Mexican border of about 10 percent, five times the 2.07 percent rate that the United States imposed on Mexican goods. With NAFTA, Mexico's average tariff has fallen to about 2 percent. Import licensing and other non-tariff barriers have been eliminated and more than two-thirds of U.S. exports now enter duty-free.

Cont:

U.S. pork producers credit NAFTA with their gains in market share in Mexico for pork products, which increased 3.5 times to $430.7 million between 1993 and 2004 and more than seven-fold to $259.8 million to Canada during the same period. One-year increases from 2003 to 2004 are quite striking: exports to Mexico and Canada surged 93.6 percent and 49 percent, respectively.

Mexico and Canada have become two of the top three U.S. poultry markets in the world: In 2004, U.S. poultry exports to Mexico were valued at $331.1 million while Canada reached $330.3 million (the Russian Federation came in at $530.5 million). Exports to Mexico increased 61.5 percent and 100 percent to Canada since 1993. The export increases from 2003 are remarkable at 27.6 percent for Mexico and 22.8 percent for Canada.

Sales of U.S. corn to Canada and Mexico increased 175 percent and fifteen-fold in value, respectively, between 1993 and 2004. In 1993, Mexico and Canada were ranked 16th and 9th, respectively, in U.S. corn markets worldwide. By 2004, they had risen to 2nd and 4th, respectively. Mexico chose to expedite its market openings for corn under NAFTA in order to provide lower cost food to its increasingly urban population and to ensure sufficient animal feed. Changes in U.S. corn exports in 2004 compared to 2003 are more ordinary than pork and poultry, registering a quite modest 3.5-percent gain to Mexico and a 3.3-percent decline to Canada (and a 3.9-percent decline since the record of $394.6 million worth in 2002).

Exports of U.S. fresh fruits and vegetables to Canada, our top market, reached $1.9 billion in 2004. This is an increase of 45.5 percent since 1993 and 5 percent from 2003. Mexico's growth as a market for these products is even more striking: rising from our fifth largest market in 1993 to third in 2004. Exports to Mexico surged 98 percent from $134 million in 1993 to $265.8 million in 2004. The changes between 2003 and 2004 were mixed: exports to Canada rose 5 percent but declined 0.5 percent to Mexico.

How about these little facts about the NAFTA bogeyman:

From 1993 to 2007, trade among the NAFTA nations more than tripled, from $297 billion to $930 billion. Business investment in the United States has risen by 117 percent since 1993, compared to a 45 percent increase between 1979 and 1993.

U.S. employment rose from 110.8 million people in 1993 to 137.6 million in 2007, an increase of 24 percent. The average unemployment rate was 5.1 percent in the period 1994-2007, compared to 7.1 percent during the period 1980-1993.

U.S. manufacturing output rose by 58 percent between 1993 and 2006, as compared to 42 percent between 1980 and 1993. Manufacturing exports in 2007 reached an all time high with a value of $982 billion.

U.S. business sector real hourly compensation rose by 1.3 percent each year between 1993 and 2007, for a total of 19.3 percent over the full period. During 1979-1993, the annual rate of real hourly compensation rose by 0.8 percent each year, or 11 percent over the full 14-year period.

Canada and Mexico accounted for 37% of the total growth of U.S. agricultural exports since 1993. Moreover, the share of total U.S. agricultural exports destined for Canada or Mexico has grown from 22% in 1993 to 30% in 2007. NAFTA access is most crucial for agriculture, where Mexico has its highest MFN tariffs. Mexico is the top export destination for beef, rice, soybean meal, corn sweeteners, apples and dry edible bean exports. It is the second export market for U.S. corn, soybeans and oils, and third largest for pork, poultry, eggs, and cotton.

"Wait a minute, I thought NAFTA hurt agriculture?"

Why would NAFTA hurt American agriculture? The point was to hurt Latin American agriculture. Mission accomplished.

Wait a minute, I thought NAFTA hurt agriculture?

Wait, are you saying that all or the majority of agriculture in America is benefitting? It sure sounds like that is the tone you are trying to leave.

The North American Free Trade Agreement has had a track record of broken promises for family farmers and ranchers. These broken promises were made to win support during the 1993 Congressional debate over the fate of NAFTA. While farmers were promised they could export their way to lasting economic success, consumers were promised lower food prices. The promised benefits never materialized: farm income has declined, and consumer prices have risen while some agribusinesses -- which lobbied hard for NAFTA and now are avidly promoting its expansion -- have seen record profits.

Gotta go and put the kids to bed (isn't it funny how us conservative types put family obligations over blogging?) but I look forward to the predictable dismissals of these pesky little facts in the am.

To recap, agriculture is up, manufacturing output is up, unemployment is down and real hourly compensation is up over comparable periods pre-NAFTA.

Environmental issues still predominate, as well as some other issues, but I agree with LCL, this isn't the end of the world, and Hillbilly and Obama both know it.

"isn't it funny how us conservative types put family obligations over blogging?"

Obviously a trait exclusive to conservatives.

Crasswar-

NAFTA has nothing to do with putting family farmers out of business, nor with food prices going up because of dramatic increases in the cost to transport the food to market.

Nice deflection, however.

BTW, don't flatter yourself that I have some personal animus towards you, I just have to call BS when you or anyone else is spouting talking points from whatever source without facts to back them up. Just ask Troofy, Boydbadweekcooper, Spud, DBoy, Tad, CocosamIamvile and any other person who talks out of their ass repeatedly.

Goodnight.

Billifidian-

Not necessarily, but I rarely see people on the DR left saying the same thing.

U.S. manufacturing output rose by 58 percent between 1993 and 2006, as compared to 42 percent between 1980 and 1993. Manufacturing exports in 2007 reached an all time high with a value of $982 billion.

Wow!!! We should all believe this.

Since 1993 you say, and yet since 1993 our manufacturing plants have decreased over 50% and yet output rose.

Levi's reporting record output production in manufacturing but wait..........wait..........Le
vi's doesn't have a manufacturing plant in the U.S.

How can that be? How can Levi's claim record production outputs here in the U.S. when they don't have an actual manufacturing plant here in the U.S.

I wonder, do you actually believe the garbage you post and read without actually think about what it is your viewing. Does it really make sense to you?

"Billifidian"

I kinda like it. Maybe I should've used that to transition back to my original handle, given that certain, very weird individuals who don't have a life here obsess over it.

Since 1993 you say, and yet since 1993 our manufacturing plants have decreased over 50% and yet output rose.

In a word: automation.

BTW, don't flatter yourself that I have some personal animus towards you, I just have to call BS when you or anyone else is spouting talking points from whatever source without facts to back them up.

I see you have all the proper sources with well rounded RESEARCH being charted and sourced like mine where..............What a deflection post this became.

Posting articles throwing propaganda out in the beltway with not a single source of actual data mining research is nothing but a so Bushillian tack, I would say this kind of behavior is the same that got bush to attack Iraq.

Most would say getting your kind of data is smart............right ROC.

In a word: automation.

Another bullshit propaganda mainstream farce.

Levi's automated so well that they no longer need manufacturing plants in the U.S. but those poor chinamen are the automated giants. The finger dexterity of those machines is so human like.

NAFTA has nothing to do with putting family farmers out of business, nor with food prices going up because of dramatic increases in the cost to transport the food to market.

Clearly you know very little about the subject, I would suggest you do some research because your are not supporting what you are trying to push.

Another bullshit propaganda mainstream farce.

I've been designing factory machines all my career. What do I know?

I remember when Levi decided to close their American factories. They were losing sales to cheaper imports so they had to import or go out of business.

Ray,

I don't understand, Levi's and production increase in manufacturing gains didn't come from the United States?

You now switch from automation to cheaper import costs, how is that? It made great manufacturing production gains though.........Yahoo!!!!!

Money

I explained why both automation and cheaper imports have a positive effect on our economy in my 9:27 post.

Take the Levi thing up with Rightofcenter.

Automation. It's like the weather. Everybody talks about it but nobody does anything about it.

Maybe some of you fools can address the issue of what people are supposed to do when automation and outsourcing eliminate manufacturing jobs entirely.

And do so without using the tiresome refrain that "education" will cure all evils.

Ray,

I explained why both automation and cheaper imports have a positive effect on our economy in my 9:27 post.

Yes, I understand your post but see you ignored the fact of me asking if you see the negative effects?

Which out weighs the other? Is it benefitting the long term majority?

Anything no matter how bad the policy will have positive effects but doesn't mean they should be policies.

Nulli as usual is correct and education is not even close to correcting this issue. Like I said, we see all the doors are opening and inviting the population to enter the universities.

30% of the nation get the higher educational degrees and has been this way for 80 years. 70% of the nation is the unskilled but nothing is done to stop the loss to those 70%.

Now it doesn't take education to figure out that the economic priority in which the lot has been cast is counter productive to the long term benefit of this nation. Yet, here you stand spouting it is great for the economy. I wonder, what economy are you talking about? Exxons economy or Joe smiths economy.

Take the Levi thing up with Rightofcenter.

What? You mean because the Levi's example blew a hole in your great idea of this productive trade economy?

Levi's is a perfect example of why your austrian theories of economics is old out of date and is naive to even espouse as useful in evaluating the direction of our economy.

Unrational actions is the mere essence of the failed economic theories but blinded unrational followers can't seem to weigh this into their thinking.

Here is what I dont understand about NAFTA, maybe someone can shed some light for me?

It seems (I dont know for sure) that more American Auto Manufacturing has moved from the US to Canada than from the US to Mexico.

Canada has strong unions just like the US and I would assume the cost of doing Business is just as high in Canada as the US. Why are the big 3 moving so many plants to Canada and not Mexico? Would not Mexico be the better choice for cheapness?

Maybe NAFTA isnt the problem. Maybe the problem is the unfriendly Business Climate in some states? Some states are doing very well with NAFTA. Alabama for example. I posted some states earlier. Does anyone have a comparison by state of manufacturing lost/gained? I would bet the states gaining have some similar traits and the states losing also have some similar traits. Would it not make more sense to learn from the states that are doing well in the current system rather than try and change the sytem to benefit the states that have not adapted? What is progressive about that?

Alabama manufacturers exported in 2005 more than $9 billion of the $11 billion in total goods, or 89% of exports.
Over a quarter of Alabama's exports go to neighboring NAFTA countries.

Alabama manufacturing has grown 43% since 2001.
www.nam.org

I think the question should be: What is Alabama doing right that Ohio/Michigan can copy to see some of the same success? Not: What can be changed so Ohio and Michigan can keep doing the same thing?

***** "isn't it funny how us conservative types put family obligations over blogging?"RIGHTOCENTER

Obviously a trait exclusive to conservatives.
Posted by nullifidian ******

......that's why they send all the gay right wingers to represent them in Washington ......they don't have to tuck anyone in at night.......

***** "isn't it funny how us conservative types put family obligations over blogging?"RIGHTOCENTER

Obviously a trait exclusive to conservatives.
Posted by nullifidian ******

......that's why they send all the gay right wingers to represent them in Washington ......they don't have to tuck anyone in at night.......