NAFTA superhighway will cause boom in the caltrop business

On 5 Sep 2006 12:54:44 -0700, wrote:

>Retitled:

You say I was flattened by someone saying that after NAFTA 37 million
US jobs were lost to those south of us.

The only problem is that that is not only false, it is probably the
most absurd claim on Usenet in a week.

After Nafta, the US created a TON of good jobs, averaging 200,000 MORE
jobs every month, month in, month out, year in, year out.

AND those new jobs added to our economy were better paying jobs than
the old ones.

AND no logic whatsoever was offered to rebut the logic of what I said
in this post.

Indeed the logic of saying - the US lost nearly forty million jobs -
even though the number of people working in the US exploded upward -

would suggest we should change our laws so that other countries impose
BIG TARIFFS on our goods, while we continue to let their goods in here
at almost no tariff cost.

This time, please read and UNDERSTAND what I wrote.

Simply making up ludicrously false stuff to "rebut" it - is against
the rules.

>
>Tracey1212 wrote:
>> George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr. wrote:
>> > On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 05:46:14 GMT, Speeders & Drunk Drivers are
>> > MURDERERS > wrote:
>> >
>> > >I suspect there will be a run on roofing nails too. We need to bring
>> > >a halt to this merger with mexico that Bush and the congressional
>> > >traitors of both parties are stuffing down our throats.
>> >
>> > I bought a copy of NAFTA, and read the parts which were readable. Lots
>> > of it was not readable - consisting of long lists of all kind of stuff
>> > and what the current and future tariff rates would be. Twine, twisted,
>> > cotton, 13 percent. Twine, twisted, nylon 13 percent on and on and on.
>> > But the actual comprehensible part, on the rules? It was clear to me
>> > that what Nafta does is
>> >
>> > level the playing field. To the benefit of the US.
>> >
>> > Remember all the talk about how the playing field was rigged against
>> > us? It was. Example - Mexico. We were paying a tariff of about 3
>> > percent on average for stuff made in Mexico sold in the US. But they
>> > were screwing our goods, charging the Mexicans a fifteen percent
>> > tariff, on average, for our goods. That was a playing field really
>> > tilted against us. It wasn't fair.
>> >
>> > So what Nafta does is mainly stop them from screwing us. They have
>> > agreed to lower their tariffs way down, to zero for a whole bunch of
>> > stuff. And we agree to lower our tariffs on their stuff, often to
>> > zero.
>> >
>> > So instead of playing on an unfair playing field, we can now compete
>> > with Mexican goods on a level playing field.
>> >
>> > Why in God's name would you be opposed to that?
>> >
>> > WHy do you favor the old system, where our companies got royally
>> > screwed when they tried to sell stuff into Mexico?
>> >
>> > While their stuff got off so light when it came in here?
>> >
>> > THere is also a chapter on a court to resolve disputes. Seems
>> > reasonable to me to have a court to resolve cheating etc. I don't see
>> > a problem with that.
>> >
>> > AND THATS IT. That's all NAFTA is.
>> >
>> > It's not the Spawn of Satan.
>
>> Nearly 37 million US jobs have been deported south of the border to
>> some latin dump as a result of NAFTA. So, why would you be opposed to
>> that, dingbat?

On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 12:32:28 -0700, "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr."
> wrote:

>On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 05:46:14 GMT, Speeders & Drunk Drivers are
>MURDERERS > wrote:
>
>>I suspect there will be a run on roofing nails too. We need to bring
>>a halt to this merger with mexico that Bush and the congressional
>>traitors of both parties are stuffing down our throats.
>
>I bought a copy of NAFTA, and read the parts which were readable. Lots
>of it was not readable - consisting of long lists of all kind of stuff
>and what the current and future tariff rates would be. Twine, twisted,
>cotton, 13 percent. Twine, twisted, nylon 13 percent on and on and on.
>But the actual comprehensible part, on the rules? It was clear to me
>that what Nafta does is
>
>level the playing field. To the benefit of the US.
>
>Remember all the talk about how the playing field was rigged against
>us? It was. Example - Mexico. We were paying a tariff of about 3
>percent on average for stuff made in Mexico sold in the US. But they
>were screwing our goods, charging the Mexicans a fifteen percent
>tariff, on average, for our goods. That was a playing field really
>tilted against us. It wasn't fair.
>
>So what Nafta does is mainly stop them from screwing us. They have
>agreed to lower their tariffs way down, to zero for a whole bunch of
>stuff. And we agree to lower our tariffs on their stuff, often to
>zero.
>
>So instead of playing on an unfair playing field, we can now compete
>with Mexican goods on a level playing field.
>
>Why in God's name would you be opposed to that?
>
>WHy do you favor the old system, where our companies got royally
>screwed when they tried to sell stuff into Mexico?
>
>While their stuff got off so light when it came in here?
>
>THere is also a chapter on a court to resolve disputes. Seems
>reasonable to me to have a court to resolve cheating etc. I don't see
>a problem with that.
>
>AND THATS IT. That's all NAFTA is.
>
>It's not the Spawn of Satan.
>

And you're another gover-media plant. America plans on annexing mexico
and americans are finding that out.

On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 17:24:26 -0700, "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr."
> wrote:

>On 5 Sep 2006 12:54:44 -0700, wrote:
>
>>Retitled:
>
>You say I was flattened by someone saying that after NAFTA 37 million
>US jobs were lost to those south of us.

I agree, that 37 million is false.

>The only problem is that that is not only false, it is probably the
>most absurd claim on Usenet in a week.
>
>After Nafta, the US created a TON of good jobs, averaging 200,000 MORE
>jobs every month, month in, month out, year in, year out.

I would venture to say that these figures are only for the first years
following the agreement when it benefited the US.

>AND those new jobs added to our economy were better paying jobs than
>the old ones.

Can you give me a cite? I've not been able to find much in this vein.

>AND no logic whatsoever was offered to rebut the logic of what I said
>in this post.
>
>Indeed the logic of saying - the US lost nearly forty million jobs -
>even though the number of people working in the US exploded upward -

What type of jobs where created in this period?

>would suggest we should change our laws so that other countries impose
>BIG TARIFFS on our goods, while we continue to let their goods in here
>at almost no tariff cost.

When is the US going to stop subsidies of agricultural products?

>This time, please read and UNDERSTAND what I wrote.
>
>Simply making up ludicrously false stuff to "rebut" it - is against
>the rules.
>
>>
>>Tracey1212 wrote:
>>> George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr. wrote:
>>> > On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 05:46:14 GMT, Speeders & Drunk Drivers are
>>> > MURDERERS > wrote:
>>> >
>>> > >I suspect there will be a run on roofing nails too. We need to bring
>>> > >a halt to this merger with mexico that Bush and the congressional
>>> > >traitors of both parties are stuffing down our throats.
>>> >
>>> > I bought a copy of NAFTA, and read the parts which were readable. Lots
>>> > of it was not readable - consisting of long lists of all kind of stuff
>>> > and what the current and future tariff rates would be. Twine, twisted,
>>> > cotton, 13 percent. Twine, twisted, nylon 13 percent on and on and on.
>>> > But the actual comprehensible part, on the rules? It was clear to me
>>> > that what Nafta does is
>>> >
>>> > level the playing field. To the benefit of the US.
>>> >
>>> > Remember all the talk about how the playing field was rigged against
>>> > us? It was. Example - Mexico. We were paying a tariff of about 3
>>> > percent on average for stuff made in Mexico sold in the US. But they
>>> > were screwing our goods, charging the Mexicans a fifteen percent
>>> > tariff, on average, for our goods. That was a playing field really
>>> > tilted against us. It wasn't fair.
>>> >
>>> > So what Nafta does is mainly stop them from screwing us. They have
>>> > agreed to lower their tariffs way down, to zero for a whole bunch of
>>> > stuff. And we agree to lower our tariffs on their stuff, often to
>>> > zero.
>>> >
>>> > So instead of playing on an unfair playing field, we can now compete
>>> > with Mexican goods on a level playing field.
>>> >
>>> > Why in God's name would you be opposed to that?
>>> >
>>> > WHy do you favor the old system, where our companies got royally
>>> > screwed when they tried to sell stuff into Mexico?
>>> >
>>> > While their stuff got off so light when it came in here?
>>> >
>>> > THere is also a chapter on a court to resolve disputes. Seems
>>> > reasonable to me to have a court to resolve cheating etc. I don't see
>>> > a problem with that.
>>> >
>>> > AND THATS IT. That's all NAFTA is.
>>> >
>>> > It's not the Spawn of Satan.
>>
>>> Nearly 37 million US jobs have been deported south of the border to
>>> some latin dump as a result of NAFTA. So, why would you be opposed to
>>> that, dingbat?

George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr. wrote:
> On 5 Sep 2006 12:48:22 -0700, "Tracey1212" > wrote:
>
> >
> >George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr. wrote:
> >> On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 05:46:14 GMT, Speeders & Drunk Drivers are
> >> MURDERERS > wrote:
> >>
> >> >I suspect there will be a run on roofing nails too. We need to bring
> >> >a halt to this merger with mexico that Bush and the congressional
> >> >traitors of both parties are stuffing down our throats.
> >>
> >> I bought a copy of NAFTA, and read the parts which were readable. Lots
> >> of it was not readable - consisting of long lists of all kind of stuff
> >> and what the current and future tariff rates would be. Twine, twisted,
> >> cotton, 13 percent. Twine, twisted, nylon 13 percent on and on and on.
> >> But the actual comprehensible part, on the rules? It was clear to me
> >> that what Nafta does is
> >>
> >> level the playing field. To the benefit of the US.
> >>
> >> Remember all the talk about how the playing field was rigged against
> >> us? It was. Example - Mexico. We were paying a tariff of about 3
> >> percent on average for stuff made in Mexico sold in the US. But they
> >> were screwing our goods, charging the Mexicans a fifteen percent
> >> tariff, on average, for our goods. That was a playing field really
> >> tilted against us. It wasn't fair.
> >>
> >> So what Nafta does is mainly stop them from screwing us. They have
> >> agreed to lower their tariffs way down, to zero for a whole bunch of
> >> stuff. And we agree to lower our tariffs on their stuff, often to
> >> zero.
> >>
> >> So instead of playing on an unfair playing field, we can now compete
> >> with Mexican goods on a level playing field.
> >>
> >> Why in God's name would you be opposed to that?
> >>
> >> WHy do you favor the old system, where our companies got royally
> >> screwed when they tried to sell stuff into Mexico?
> >>
> >> While their stuff got off so light when it came in here?
> >>
> >> THere is also a chapter on a court to resolve disputes. Seems
> >> reasonable to me to have a court to resolve cheating etc. I don't see
> >> a problem with that.
> >>
> >> AND THATS IT. That's all NAFTA is.
> >>
> >> It's not the Spawn of Satan.
> >
> >Nearly 37 million US jobs have been deported south of the border to
> >some latin dump as a result of NAFTA. So, why would you be opposed to
> >that, dingbat?
>
> That's illogical. Please explain the mechanism whereby a reduction of
> our tariffs on their stuff from three percent to zero, while they
> reduce their tariffs on our stuff from 15 percent to zero
>
> could possibly cost us jobs?

Ummmmmm, cuz they still can't afford our stuff??? Didja notice the
millions crossing our border cuz they need a job? Guess you can't add 1
+ 1 and come up with 2.

So when US manufacturers move to Mexico and pay $5/day, they can bring
their stuff back free. But those Mexican workers, with those outsourced
jobs, still can't afford US goods at $5/day.

Is this stuff ready that tricky?

>
> How would that work in your mind? What sane business decisions before
> and after NAFTA would lead to the result you claim?
>
> And it's not true, what you said about zillions of lost jobs. First,
> as part of Nafta, a fund was created to compensate US workers who lost
> their job because of Nafta. The number of US workers seeking
> compensation was tiny. It was like 80,000 or something. A very very
> small number for the size of our workforce.
>
> After NAFTA passed, the US created jobs at a furious pace, averaging
> about two hundred thousand new jobs every month. Month in and month
> out, year in and year out. We had FABULOUS job growth following Nafta.

You're claiming: "cause and effect"? Got proof? (This ought to be
good.)

I, otoh, thought it was Clinton's tax legislation. Hey, haven't you
argued the same thing in bygone years...yeah, ya did. Flip-flop,
flip-flop.


>
> When a US broom maker loses his job beacuse Mexico makes brooms for
> less, but then gets a job as a concierge in a hotel, that is not
>
> a lost job
>
> it's a change of jobs
>
> And the new jobs created after NAFTA passed paid more than average,
> too.
>
> The claim that a guy making tools in Ohio had to get a job at
> McDonalds - is refuted by the economic data.
>
> Which shows - newly created jobs in the US paid more on average than
> the old jobs.
>
> If you think you're right - explain the logic.
>
> How could leveling the playing field harm us rather than help us.
>
> Should we now change tariffs - so the UK imposes a twenty percent
> tariff on our goods while we impose a three percent tariff on theirs?
> Is that what you want?
>
> Why?

George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr. wrote:
> On 5 Sep 2006 12:48:22 -0700, "Tracey1212" > wrote:
>
> >
> >George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr. wrote:
> >> On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 05:46:14 GMT, Speeders & Drunk Drivers are
> >> MURDERERS > wrote:
> >>
> >> >I suspect there will be a run on roofing nails too. We need to bring
> >> >a halt to this merger with mexico that Bush and the congressional
> >> >traitors of both parties are stuffing down our throats.
> >>
> >> I bought a copy of NAFTA, and read the parts which were readable. Lots
> >> of it was not readable - consisting of long lists of all kind of stuff
> >> and what the current and future tariff rates would be. Twine, twisted,
> >> cotton, 13 percent. Twine, twisted, nylon 13 percent on and on and on.
> >> But the actual comprehensible part, on the rules? It was clear to me
> >> that what Nafta does is
> >>
> >> level the playing field. To the benefit of the US.
> >>
> >> Remember all the talk about how the playing field was rigged against
> >> us? It was. Example - Mexico. We were paying a tariff of about 3
> >> percent on average for stuff made in Mexico sold in the US. But they
> >> were screwing our goods, charging the Mexicans a fifteen percent
> >> tariff, on average, for our goods. That was a playing field really
> >> tilted against us. It wasn't fair.
> >>
> >> So what Nafta does is mainly stop them from screwing us. They have
> >> agreed to lower their tariffs way down, to zero for a whole bunch of
> >> stuff. And we agree to lower our tariffs on their stuff, often to
> >> zero.
> >>
> >> So instead of playing on an unfair playing field, we can now compete
> >> with Mexican goods on a level playing field.
> >>
> >> Why in God's name would you be opposed to that?
> >>
> >> WHy do you favor the old system, where our companies got royally
> >> screwed when they tried to sell stuff into Mexico?
> >>
> >> While their stuff got off so light when it came in here?
> >>
> >> THere is also a chapter on a court to resolve disputes. Seems
> >> reasonable to me to have a court to resolve cheating etc. I don't see
> >> a problem with that.
> >>
> >> AND THATS IT. That's all NAFTA is.
> >>
> >> It's not the Spawn of Satan.
> >
> >Nearly 37 million US jobs have been deported south of the border to
> >some latin dump as a result of NAFTA. So, why would you be opposed to
> >that, dingbat?
>
> That's illogical. Please explain the mechanism whereby a reduction of
> our tariffs on their stuff from three percent to zero, while they
> reduce their tariffs on our stuff from 15 percent to zero
>
> could possibly cost us jobs?
>
> How would that work in your mind? What sane business decisions before
> and after NAFTA would lead to the result you claim?
>
> And it's not true, what you said about zillions of lost jobs. First,
> as part of Nafta, a fund was created to compensate US workers who lost
> their job because of Nafta. The number of US workers seeking
> compensation was tiny. It was like 80,000 or something. A very very
> small number for the size of our workforce.
>
> After NAFTA passed, the US created jobs at a furious pace, averaging
> about two hundred thousand new jobs every month. Month in and month
> out, year in and year out. We had FABULOUS job growth following Nafta.
>
> When a US broom maker loses his job beacuse Mexico makes brooms for
> less, but then gets a job as a concierge in a hotel, that is not
>
> a lost job
>
> it's a change of jobs
>
> And the new jobs created after NAFTA passed paid more than average,
> too.
>
> The claim that a guy making tools in Ohio had to get a job at
> McDonalds - is refuted by the economic data.

oops, sorry for responding twice, I didn't read down far enough to see
this freakin' gem of an assertion. But your comment is sheer bull****.
You got a cite? Not averaged numbers cuz like even Krugman admits: If
Bill Gates walks into a bar, the average net worth of the patrons rises
by hundreds of millions of dollars.

I would refer you to the 2/1/99 of Fortune magazine's cover story
"Finished at Forty". The article reported that over the age forty,
losing one's job means a huge pay cut because being hired by another
company at the same position and pay grade is rare today. Have
machinist jobs kept pace with population growth? No. Manufacturing is
being out sourced, or have you missed the stories on TV?

>
> Which shows - newly created jobs in the US paid more on average than
> the old jobs.

Bull****. Manufacturing has severely contracted, service jobs (sales,
nursing aides, gardeners, maids) don't pay anywhere near that. In the
'90s, programming jobs were expanding, yes. But now those same jobs are
being outsourced. Or being given to H1B visa holder at half the pay of
a US citizen.


>
> If you think you're right - explain the logic.
>
> How could leveling the playing field harm us rather than help us.

Define playing field, tariffs are a small part of the complete economic
playing field.


>
> Should we now change tariffs - so the UK imposes a twenty percent
> tariff on our goods while we impose a three percent tariff on theirs?
> Is that what you want?
>
> Why?

So our workers are not at a tariff imposed disadvantage but can compete
in the UK and US markets on quality.


Well, I'd need to know what business you're in in order to give you a
more complete answer. Are you in a "protected" profession, like one
requiring US citizenship. Or membership in a self-restricting
professional group (legal, medical, plumber, etc)? My bet is you are
protected by some regulation. Otherwise you would not be so ready to
tell others to suck it up and be a man, but not yourself willing to
compete with others....or me.

On 6 Sep 2006 01:22:39 -0700, wrote:

>
>George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr. wrote:
>> On 5 Sep 2006 12:48:22 -0700, "Tracey1212" > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr. wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 05:46:14 GMT, Speeders & Drunk Drivers are
>> >> MURDERERS > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >I suspect there will be a run on roofing nails too. We need to bring
>> >> >a halt to this merger with mexico that Bush and the congressional
>> >> >traitors of both parties are stuffing down our throats.
>> >>
>> >> I bought a copy of NAFTA, and read the parts which were readable. Lots
>> >> of it was not readable - consisting of long lists of all kind of stuff
>> >> and what the current and future tariff rates would be. Twine, twisted,
>> >> cotton, 13 percent. Twine, twisted, nylon 13 percent on and on and on.
>> >> But the actual comprehensible part, on the rules? It was clear to me
>> >> that what Nafta does is
>> >>
>> >> level the playing field. To the benefit of the US.
>> >>
>> >> Remember all the talk about how the playing field was rigged against
>> >> us? It was. Example - Mexico. We were paying a tariff of about 3
>> >> percent on average for stuff made in Mexico sold in the US. But they
>> >> were screwing our goods, charging the Mexicans a fifteen percent
>> >> tariff, on average, for our goods. That was a playing field really
>> >> tilted against us. It wasn't fair.
>> >>
>> >> So what Nafta does is mainly stop them from screwing us. They have
>> >> agreed to lower their tariffs way down, to zero for a whole bunch of
>> >> stuff. And we agree to lower our tariffs on their stuff, often to
>> >> zero.
>> >>
>> >> So instead of playing on an unfair playing field, we can now compete
>> >> with Mexican goods on a level playing field.
>> >>
>> >> Why in God's name would you be opposed to that?
>> >>
>> >> WHy do you favor the old system, where our companies got royally
>> >> screwed when they tried to sell stuff into Mexico?
>> >>
>> >> While their stuff got off so light when it came in here?
>> >>
>> >> THere is also a chapter on a court to resolve disputes. Seems
>> >> reasonable to me to have a court to resolve cheating etc. I don't see
>> >> a problem with that.
>> >>
>> >> AND THATS IT. That's all NAFTA is.
>> >>
>> >> It's not the Spawn of Satan.
>> >
>> >Nearly 37 million US jobs have been deported south of the border to
>> >some latin dump as a result of NAFTA. So, why would you be opposed to
>> >that, dingbat?
>>
>> That's illogical. Please explain the mechanism whereby a reduction of
>> our tariffs on their stuff from three percent to zero, while they
>> reduce their tariffs on our stuff from 15 percent to zero
>>
>> could possibly cost us jobs?
>>
>> How would that work in your mind? What sane business decisions before
>> and after NAFTA would lead to the result you claim?
>>
>> And it's not true, what you said about zillions of lost jobs. First,
>> as part of Nafta, a fund was created to compensate US workers who lost
>> their job because of Nafta. The number of US workers seeking
>> compensation was tiny. It was like 80,000 or something. A very very
>> small number for the size of our workforce.
>>
>> After NAFTA passed, the US created jobs at a furious pace, averaging
>> about two hundred thousand new jobs every month. Month in and month
>> out, year in and year out. We had FABULOUS job growth following Nafta.
>>
>> When a US broom maker loses his job beacuse Mexico makes brooms for
>> less, but then gets a job as a concierge in a hotel, that is not
>>
>> a lost job
>>
>> it's a change of jobs
>>
>> And the new jobs created after NAFTA passed paid more than average,
>> too.
>>
>> The claim that a guy making tools in Ohio had to get a job at
>> McDonalds - is refuted by the economic data.
>
>oops, sorry for responding twice, I didn't read down far enough to see
>this freakin' gem of an assertion. But your comment is sheer bull****.
>You got a cite?

Robert Reich, when he was Secretary of Labor, often said that the
complaint that the new jobs created under Clinton were low-paying jobs
was false. That the Department of Labor had data to show that the
newly created jobs paid more, on average, than the already-existing
jobs.

It was a claim made over and over by various Clinton administration
figures, and never once did I hear or see anyone provide any evidence
to the contrary. Had it not been true, then the anti-Clinton forces
would have published some sort of refutation and I very likely would
have seen that.

Robert Reich is a brilliant man, had access to the appropriate data,
would not likely have said it were it not true, and was never to my
knowledge refuted on that point.

google has mainly current pages, not pages from the pre-bush years,
but if you are interested i'm sure you can find it after a while.



Not averaged numbers cuz like even Krugman admits: If
>Bill Gates walks into a bar, the average net worth of the patrons rises
>by hundreds of millions of dollars.

Do the new jobs pay more than the old ones?

Until recently wages rose for all income groups, so the Bill Gates
issue would not be so germane. Only recently have we seen economic
gains accrue only to the wealthy.


>
>I would refer you to the 2/1/99 of Fortune magazine's cover story
>"Finished at Forty". The article reported that over the age forty,
>losing one's job means a huge pay cut because being hired by another
>company at the same position and pay grade is rare today. Have
>machinist jobs kept pace with population growth? No. Manufacturing is
>being out sourced, or have you missed the stories on TV?

Manufacturing has lost jobs since WWII I think.

And it's nothing compared to farming.

The more relevant question is whether the amount of manufactured goods
has gone down or up, whether farm production has gone down or up.

If we could have a world where all manufacturing and all farming was
done by a single worker, who pushed a button to start the robots, then
that would be great. Because stuff would be just about free.

And the rest of us could work at more interesting tasks, such as
clothing design, movie making, restaurant chef, author, etc.

And we're getting there. That's what's going on with manufacturing
jobs - we are finding ways to get the production from machines.

Will breaking all the machines be good for us, or bad for us?
>
>>
>> Which shows - newly created jobs in the US paid more on average than
>> the old jobs.
>
>Bull****. Manufacturing has severely contracted, service jobs (sales,
>nursing aides, gardeners, maids) don't pay anywhere near that.

I have a service job. I get paid a lot more per hour than factory
workers.

That service jobs on average pay less than manufacturing jobs on
average does not refute that

until the job crash of the Bush years

the newly created jobs paid more, on average, than the old jobs.





In the
>'90s, programming jobs were expanding, yes. But now those same jobs are
>being outsourced. Or being given to H1B visa holder at half the pay of
>a US citizen.

Homes in Silicon Valley sell for almost absurdly high prices. Seems to
me somebody there is making a lot of money.


>
>
>>
>> If you think you're right - explain the logic.
>>
>> How could leveling the playing field harm us rather than help us.
>
>Define playing field, tariffs are a small part of the complete economic
>playing field.

and the only one changed by NAFTA, which is what this thread is about
>
>
>>
>> Should we now change tariffs - so the UK imposes a twenty percent
>> tariff on our goods while we impose a three percent tariff on theirs?
>> Is that what you want?
>>
>> Why?
>
>So our workers are not at a tariff imposed disadvantage but can compete
>in the UK and US markets on quality.

exactly. So why in God's name would you oppose NAFTA?
>
>
>Well, I'd need to know what business you're in in order to give you a
>more complete answer. Are you in a "protected" profession, like one
>requiring US citizenship. Or membership in a self-restricting
>professional group (legal, medical, plumber, etc)? My bet is you are
>protected by some regulation. Otherwise you would not be so ready to
>tell others to suck it up and be a man, but not yourself willing to
>compete with others....or me.

It is true that it's very easy for me to be happy about immigration. I
get new clients who can't compete with me.

I was on a plane when NAFTA passed congress. I was flying in coach.
The pilot announced the passage of NAFTA, and after a brief delay we
heard a roar from First Class. They loved it, we in the back were
indifferent.

And that's probably why the press has been so one-sided in its
coverage of free trade laws - the reporters, and the papers - aren't
at any risk of competition.

But that doesn't mean that I'm wrong. Personally, I don't much care
about money. I am blessed and can make money with not much more effort
that it would take to pluck it from trees were it to grow on them.

I chose to move to a rural area, at a nintey percent pay cut, because
my former work wasn't worth the money

My dog, a standard poodle, took me to the mountains to camp and in
doing that he taught me the meaning of life. For me, and for him.

So all this is just an intellectual exercise for me, and my personal
stake in it is not what's leading me to the answers I give you.

On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 01:57:42 GMT, kirtland > wrote:

>On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 17:24:26 -0700, "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr."
> wrote:
>
>>On 5 Sep 2006 12:54:44 -0700, wrote:
>>
>>>Retitled:
>>
>>You say I was flattened by someone saying that after NAFTA 37 million
>>US jobs were lost to those south of us.
>
>I agree, that 37 million is false.
>
>>The only problem is that that is not only false, it is probably the
>>most absurd claim on Usenet in a week.
>>
>>After Nafta, the US created a TON of good jobs, averaging 200,000 MORE
>>jobs every month, month in, month out, year in, year out.
>
>I would venture to say that these figures are only for the first years
>following the agreement when it benefited the US.
>
>>AND those new jobs added to our economy were better paying jobs than
>>the old ones.
>
>Can you give me a cite? I've not been able to find much in this vein.

We need to be able to put a date on Google. Google as of this date.

Robert Reich, when Secretary of Labor, often pointed out that the
claim the new Clinton-created jobs were just for McDonalds was false.
That the newly created jobs actually paid more than the old jobs.
Other Clinton figures made that claim. Never saw any one provide any
evidence to the contrary. But my source is only - the words coming
from their mouths.

But I'd bet you ten to one they weren't lying.

>
>>AND no logic whatsoever was offered to rebut the logic of what I said
>>in this post.
>>
>>Indeed the logic of saying - the US lost nearly forty million jobs -
>>even though the number of people working in the US exploded upward -
>
>What type of jobs where created in this period?

cable tv system consulting

My ex girl friend did that one - and made millions per year


>
>>would suggest we should change our laws so that other countries impose
>>BIG TARIFFS on our goods, while we continue to let their goods in here
>>at almost no tariff cost.
>
>When is the US going to stop subsidies of agricultural products?
>
>>This time, please read and UNDERSTAND what I wrote.
>>
>>Simply making up ludicrously false stuff to "rebut" it - is against
>>the rules.
>>
>>>
>>>Tracey1212 wrote:
>>>> George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr. wrote:
>>>> > On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 05:46:14 GMT, Speeders & Drunk Drivers are
>>>> > MURDERERS > wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > >I suspect there will be a run on roofing nails too. We need to bring
>>>> > >a halt to this merger with mexico that Bush and the congressional
>>>> > >traitors of both parties are stuffing down our throats.
>>>> >
>>>> > I bought a copy of NAFTA, and read the parts which were readable. Lots
>>>> > of it was not readable - consisting of long lists of all kind of stuff
>>>> > and what the current and future tariff rates would be. Twine, twisted,
>>>> > cotton, 13 percent. Twine, twisted, nylon 13 percent on and on and on.
>>>> > But the actual comprehensible part, on the rules? It was clear to me
>>>> > that what Nafta does is
>>>> >
>>>> > level the playing field. To the benefit of the US.
>>>> >
>>>> > Remember all the talk about how the playing field was rigged against
>>>> > us? It was. Example - Mexico. We were paying a tariff of about 3
>>>> > percent on average for stuff made in Mexico sold in the US. But they
>>>> > were screwing our goods, charging the Mexicans a fifteen percent
>>>> > tariff, on average, for our goods. That was a playing field really
>>>> > tilted against us. It wasn't fair.
>>>> >
>>>> > So what Nafta does is mainly stop them from screwing us. They have
>>>> > agreed to lower their tariffs way down, to zero for a whole bunch of
>>>> > stuff. And we agree to lower our tariffs on their stuff, often to
>>>> > zero.
>>>> >
>>>> > So instead of playing on an unfair playing field, we can now compete
>>>> > with Mexican goods on a level playing field.
>>>> >
>>>> > Why in God's name would you be opposed to that?
>>>> >
>>>> > WHy do you favor the old system, where our companies got royally
>>>> > screwed when they tried to sell stuff into Mexico?
>>>> >
>>>> > While their stuff got off so light when it came in here?
>>>> >
>>>> > THere is also a chapter on a court to resolve disputes. Seems
>>>> > reasonable to me to have a court to resolve cheating etc. I don't see
>>>> > a problem with that.
>>>> >
>>>> > AND THATS IT. That's all NAFTA is.
>>>> >
>>>> > It's not the Spawn of Satan.
>>>
>>>> Nearly 37 million US jobs have been deported south of the border to
>>>> some latin dump as a result of NAFTA. So, why would you be opposed to
>>>> that, dingbat?

On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 10:21:46 -0700, "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr."
> wrote:

>On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 01:57:42 GMT, kirtland > wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 17:24:26 -0700, "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr."
> wrote:
>>
>>>On 5 Sep 2006 12:54:44 -0700, wrote:
>>>
>>>>Retitled:
>>>
>>>You say I was flattened by someone saying that after NAFTA 37 million
>>>US jobs were lost to those south of us.
>>
>>I agree, that 37 million is false.
>>
>>>The only problem is that that is not only false, it is probably the
>>>most absurd claim on Usenet in a week.
>>>
>>>After Nafta, the US created a TON of good jobs, averaging 200,000 MORE
>>>jobs every month, month in, month out, year in, year out.
>>
>>I would venture to say that these figures are only for the first years
>>following the agreement when it benefited the US.
>>
>>>AND those new jobs added to our economy were better paying jobs than
>>>the old ones.
>>
>>Can you give me a cite? I've not been able to find much in this vein.
>
>We need to be able to put a date on Google. Google as of this date.
>
>Robert Reich, when Secretary of Labor, often pointed out that the
>claim the new Clinton-created jobs were just for McDonalds was false.
>That the newly created jobs actually paid more than the old jobs.
>Other Clinton figures made that claim. Never saw any one provide any
>evidence to the contrary. But my source is only - the words coming
>from their mouths.
>
>But I'd bet you ten to one they weren't lying.

The data from the Clinton years appears to prove this out.

What I have found is that during the Clinton years, unemployment went
down, budget deficit went to a surplus and GDP increased. This is a
sign that the GDP went up due to increased consumer spending (more
jobs and cash) and investment (increase) in spite of decreased
government spending (budget surplus).

Under the Bush administration, the GDP went up due to federal
government spending (on credit), investment (lowering taxes) and
consumer spending (on credit). If you deduct the US debt that financed
the GDP, it is actually way lower than in the Clinton years.

The US is like someone buying a house, furnishing it with expensive
furniture and toys, all on credit, using new credit cards to pay older
credit card payments and saying to the world "Look how prosperous I
am."

Eventually this person will run out of credit and have to start paying
the bills - or go bankrupt.

>>>AND no logic whatsoever was offered to rebut the logic of what I said
>>>in this post.
>>>
>>>Indeed the logic of saying - the US lost nearly forty million jobs -
>>>even though the number of people working in the US exploded upward -
>>
>>What type of jobs where created in this period?
>
>cable tv system consulting
>
>My ex girl friend did that one - and made millions per year

America as changed from a manufacturing based to a service based
economy. I'm not sure if that will be sustainable in the long term. A
balance must be kept between the two. Services only re-cycle money
whereas commodities and value added manufacturing create wealth.

>>>would suggest we should change our laws so that other countries impose
>>>BIG TARIFFS on our goods, while we continue to let their goods in here
>>>at almost no tariff cost.
>>
>>When is the US going to stop subsidies of agricultural products?
>>
>>>This time, please read and UNDERSTAND what I wrote.
>>>
>>>Simply making up ludicrously false stuff to "rebut" it - is against
>>>the rules.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Tracey1212 wrote:
>>>>> George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr. wrote:
>>>>> > On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 05:46:14 GMT, Speeders & Drunk Drivers are
>>>>> > MURDERERS > wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> > >I suspect there will be a run on roofing nails too. We need to bring
>>>>> > >a halt to this merger with mexico that Bush and the congressional
>>>>> > >traitors of both parties are stuffing down our throats.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > I bought a copy of NAFTA, and read the parts which were readable. Lots
>>>>> > of it was not readable - consisting of long lists of all kind of stuff
>>>>> > and what the current and future tariff rates would be. Twine, twisted,
>>>>> > cotton, 13 percent. Twine, twisted, nylon 13 percent on and on and on.
>>>>> > But the actual comprehensible part, on the rules? It was clear to me
>>>>> > that what Nafta does is
>>>>> >
>>>>> > level the playing field. To the benefit of the US.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Remember all the talk about how the playing field was rigged against
>>>>> > us? It was. Example - Mexico. We were paying a tariff of about 3
>>>>> > percent on average for stuff made in Mexico sold in the US. But they
>>>>> > were screwing our goods, charging the Mexicans a fifteen percent
>>>>> > tariff, on average, for our goods. That was a playing field really
>>>>> > tilted against us. It wasn't fair.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > So what Nafta does is mainly stop them from screwing us. They have
>>>>> > agreed to lower their tariffs way down, to zero for a whole bunch of
>>>>> > stuff. And we agree to lower our tariffs on their stuff, often to
>>>>> > zero.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > So instead of playing on an unfair playing field, we can now compete
>>>>> > with Mexican goods on a level playing field.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Why in God's name would you be opposed to that?
>>>>> >
>>>>> > WHy do you favor the old system, where our companies got royally
>>>>> > screwed when they tried to sell stuff into Mexico?
>>>>> >
>>>>> > While their stuff got off so light when it came in here?
>>>>> >
>>>>> > THere is also a chapter on a court to resolve disputes. Seems
>>>>> > reasonable to me to have a court to resolve cheating etc. I don't see
>>>>> > a problem with that.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > AND THATS IT. That's all NAFTA is.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > It's not the Spawn of Satan.
>>>>
>>>>> Nearly 37 million US jobs have been deported south of the border to
>>>>> some latin dump as a result of NAFTA. So, why would you be opposed to
>>>>> that, dingbat?

On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 01:45:39 GMT, Speeders & Drunk Drivers are
MURDERERS > wrote:

>And you're another gover-media plant. America plans on annexing mexico
>and americans are finding that out.

Is that what your $3 ho gf told you?
She's in there with you; that should be a hint as to the info she
gives you.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 05:46:14 GMT, Speeders & Drunk Drivers are
MURDERERS > wrote:

>I suspect there will be a run on roofing nails too. We need to bring
>a halt to this merger with mexico that Bush and the congressional
>traitors of both parties are stuffing down our throats.

Actually, Bush signed it without congressional approval, from
what I've read, although I don't think you could expect congress to
disapprove of it openly. They've been a rubber stamp organization for
whatever he's wanted so far, pretty much. The Dems talk a good game
about being against things like the "Total Information Awareness
System", but they actually didn't shut it down, and they salivate over
the possibility of another Clintonesque president being in office and
authorizing it's use with authority he doesn't really have, just like
Bush.