Are you following?
You assert a position is bad BECAUSE Perot has that position. I assert he wasn’t wrong about, and specifically that that doesn’t mean he’s right about everything. Now you act like I support other things Timothy McVeigh might do I guess because I guess I have the same position on the invasion of Iraq?
I also don’t think working people benefit from lawlessness (which is what the SQA was pre-NAFTA). The rich and powerful can only be curbed (slightly) by the enaction of laws and protections for the vulnerable. There’s an analogy here to civil rights law.
No, it’s not. NAFTA is FP.
I assert a position on the economy is very likely bad b/c Perot/Trump/Paul VEHEMENTLY endorse it.
To a degree. It’s also not bombs.
No but it killed 28000 Ejidos with 2.5 million farmers.
You don’t think that the foreign policy in central and south america is directly related to economic issues?
Clinton had to push congressional dems to support it and went on tours urging businesses to support it
This +1. Yeah somehow the people who helped create this started “exploiting” it afterwards, weird how that works
And this is a really fucking stupid way to evaluate the world.
it was negotiated by HW, and based on a decade of trade agreements by republicans. pinning it for clinton is misleading.
nafta started a transition of manufacturing jobs into services jobs, which at the time software did not actually count as. the boom only happened because there were thousands of people willing to take that leap before the rest of the world, and a program that helped them do it (and a subsequent Y2K rush). and it was actually something clinton addressed in his campaign although i don’t remember if he lumped it with nafta. it’s been awhile since i rewatched the '92 debates.
consumers is economist speak for everyone. when we talk about M4A, consumers are the primary benefactors, and the losers are insurance industry employees. or you could say, M4A benefactors are also healthcare workers whose industry will be fully funded, rather than carved up by for-profit hospitals.
i think i’d not like to be a HAM worker for a paycheck with cadillac insurance for myself. I would rather have reasonable work-life balance and enjoy living with M4A in a healthier society.
mexico’s consumers immediately started paying less for gas, and all of their stuff was made cheaper. Same with american consumers. no it did not offset the loss of a mexican community farm, but lots of american small farms also benefited. it’s simply not true that benefits were concentrated to corporations.
My initial claim was that Clinton championed NAFTA. You disputed that. He did champion it, and he signed it into law. What’s misleading is you claiming that he didn’t champion it when he in fact did.
So unfortunate that the most powerful man in the world did that, he must have had no choice. Silly me for assigning him due credit for something he was trying to take credit for when it happened. And BTW, I’m happy to allow him to share credit for it with the republicans. He specifically ran for POTUS as a 3rd way Democrat. Which is a euphemism for talk like a liberal enact conservative business-friendly policies. He nailed it.
I do. I just think it’s not obvious to me that NAFTA was clearly bad (like Reagan’s Central American military operations, which I would describe as more quintessentially FP).
I am not sure why you feel the need to be so hostile. I haven’t called the way in which you (or anyone else here) evaluates the merits of complex economic issues mistaken, much less “really fucking stupid”. I will bow out, as I see my thoughts are not welcome.
Yeah and the vote in the House was 102 yea and 156 nay for Democrats. 132 yea and 43 nay for Republicans.
It’s a pretty big reach that NAFTA was a significant contributor to the software industry. The WWW, dot.com, FAANG all happen without NAFTA. NAFTA just happened to go into effect right after Mosaic and right before IE.
My entire adulthood has been pure partisanship outside of funding the military etc so this is just weird to see.
Because it’s not that much different than the funding of the military. It was FP.
eta: Well, because it was a Republican policy being pushed by a Democrat. That’s why conservative Democrats are more dangerous than Republicans. They get a bunch of D votes because of party and they get R votes because of policy.
The harm was concentrated in American communities that had manufacturing plants that were the foundations of their communities packed up and shipped abroad. Ford shareholders might benefit but Dayton, Youngstown, Flint and a hundred other towns were transformed from wealthy working class cities to cities filled with unemployed drug addicts. But at least the syringes they use to inject fentaynl are a little bit cheaper than they might otherwise be.
I agree with you that there can be a better way to engage without the f-ing stupid type comments. I’m glad you are posting ITT & ITF, even though we have some differences in perspective and analysis. Your thoughts are welcome here. Even though, like micro & catface, I’m skeptical about the efficacy of the epistemology behind your assertion.