Those unemployment rates they publish are misleading because they don't include people who gave up looking or who have been unemployed long enough to no longer receive benefits (it's only 6 months. ) It also doesn't show people only able to obtain part time work or making way less that they were before. Free markets are one of the worst ideas humans ever invented. As I said before, If I could eliminate either religion or capitalism from the world it would be a very tough choice. Right now I'd choose cpaitalism - at least if people weren't impoverished because of it they'd be less likely to be religious. Poverty in the US is as bad as it gets outside the 3rd world.

The increase in wages hasn't matched the increase in productivity.  Your reliance solely on the minimum wage is an inaccurate measure.  The median income should be measured and the outlying statistics on the bell curve have to be removed to get a good indication on how well the working people's wages are doing.  The figures show poverty is increasing and wages are stagnant, if not dropping.  If you want to go by the minimum wage then, if the wage matched economic growth, the minimum wage would be over $10 an hour.

As for Mexico, poverty has increased and wages have decreased 20% since NAFTA was implemented contrary to your claims of increased wages for Mexican workers.  The number of people illegally crossing the border has increased, in a large part, due to American agricultural subsidies.  Mexican farmers couldn't compete with cheap American products like corn and lost their farms.  Mexico no longer had the trade barriers to protect their farming jobs, so many had to make the urban shift or move to America to look for work.  I see parallels to the shift of labor during industrialization and the Dust Bowl.  An influx of labor tends to result in lower wages, not higher wages as you have predicted.

Your arguement is that 107,000 jobs were created in 2007?  More people entered the workforce in 2007 than that.  Your figure shows a decrease in employment.  $46 billion in an economy that is in the trillions is paltry.  Do you care to match those figures with the numbers of jobs lost to overseas employers?  107,000 doesn't match the millions lost.

The foreign companies that come to America don't create new jobs, they take over the jobs that had previously existed.  When a Belgian beer company took over Anheuser-Busch they did not create more jobs, they laid off a few thousand and kept the same employees who were already there.

England isn't part of NAFTA.

Not everyone is paid the minimum wage.  I might as well inform you I live in Kansas, the minimum wage is $2.85, some states don't have a minimum wage.  It's perfectly legal for people to not be paid the minimum wage by their employer as the wage is paid by the customer in tips.  Regardless, the vast majority of Americans aren't paid the minimum wage so those figures are irrelevant.

The top exports to America from Mexico are automobiles and electronics which Mexico used to import from America before NAFTA.  If I throw in China to the mix (6% tariff through MFN status) we practically imported no finished goods from China (outside of opium).  Since 2000 over 3 million manufacturing jobs have been lost, as well as over half a million white collar jobs.

The market doesn't always set the price, that has already been proven by the manipulation of the commodity trading market.  Your claim was that the prices would be reduced by the removal of trade barriers or the replacement with cheaper foreign labor.  That isn't the case.  The consumer price index continues to show an increase, never a decrease.

The government that passed NAFTA is irrelevant.  The unemployment figures are fixed in this country to produce a more positive result for the executive branch which determines how the figures are counted.  Here's an example, let's say you have four people.  One of those people has a job, another works two jobs, one person was recently laid off, the other person hasn't been able to find work for a year.  What would the rate of unemployment be?  If you said 50% then you are wrong, the correct calculation is 0%.   The first person is employed, the second person is counted twice, that ignores the third person because the second one has been counted twice, and the fourth isn't counted because he is considered a "discouraged worker" so he is considered employed.  That's why the 6.1% figure is inaccurate.  It double or triple counts people with multiple jobs, excludes students who don't work, and ignores the chronically unemployed.  The accurate figure would be somewhere between 10 and 12%.

Some rich SHIT for ya,

  rrs VIP poster Mazid the Raider, mentioned this link else where,
http://www.cnbc.com/id/26603489
   "America is more communist than China is right now."

  U.S. Socialism and welfare for the rich. Remember also that health care is a non issue for rich and elected high ranking goverment folks.
 
Also see the 8 min video

  "You could talk a little about if the government bailout is socialism, if it's capitalism, should the government have allowed them to fail (as in a free market), possible moral implications of saving the (some of) biggest businesses in the country and not lifting a finger to help any of the people who are directly losing their homes."  ETC

   Yeah, Off with their heads, eat the rich fucks ..... NOW people.     

 

You will always have the outlaying statistics on the bell curve, there will always be extremes. I gave you the minimium wage numbers because I had access to them. Most people make more tham minimum wage and their wages do keep up with productivity. NAFTA has had very little effect on the wages and GDP because trade with Mexico makes up a small percentage of total US trade.

I am very much against agricultural subsidies, but they too have nothing to do with NAFTA. I did not predict that in influx of labour will result in higher wages. It will create surplus supply of labour therefore, lower average wages. I'm not sure if your figures for Mexico are right (no source) but there are obviously other factors at play here - Mexico's own economic cycles (Mexico has had several severe recessions in 1982-1983 and 1995 and another recession in 2001 being especially significant), peso's exchange rate against the dollar, etc. You can blame everything on NAFTA just as you can't credit NAFTA with everything.

Not sure about that. That 107,000 jobs are ONLY the jobs created by FDI. They're not ALL the jobs created in America that year. It's a 20% increase from 2006, and if the trend continues, foreign investment will be the source of MORE jobs each year. Where do you get your "lost millions of jobs"? Care to quote a source?

 That's aquisition. In case of takeovers there will always be cuts. The fact whether the firm taking over is domestic or foreign makes little difference to the people getting laid off. It's normal for the company who just bought a smaller one to wanna cut costs.

Yeah but I used England as an illustration what happens when there are barriers. US could probably get rid of its trade deficit if it got rid of trade barriers with the EU - the Euro and the Sterling are stronger than the dollar, which would make EU's imports from US grow tremendously, as it is cheaper for Europeans right now to buy US goods than Euro goods. This, in turn would probably lower the prices in Europe. This is how free trade lowers prices.

Exactly. Most Americans make MORE than minimum wage which proves my point that wages have risen with productivity. Didn't I read somewhere that states which don't have their own minimum wage must pay the federal minimum wage? The situation you described sounds like a job in a restaurant. That is normal, it is the same here in the UK - places like restaurants where people tip substantially are allowed to pay a lower-than-normal minimum wage as a result of high tips.

Well, if 3.5 mln jobs were lost since 2000,  then nearly 3.5 mln jobs were also created, because US unemployment rate between Jan 2000 and now is only different by 2%. In Jan 2000 it was 4.0%, August 2008 it is 6.1%. Unemployment rates fluctuate with business cycles, and again, NAFTA and free trade is not to blame. Care to be reminded that one of the biggest displays of protectionism, which you so much defend, coincided (and most economists agree that it deepended) the Great Depression? I'm talking about the infamous Smoot-Hawley tarrif of the 1930 where the government implemented a 60% tarrif on 3,200 imports...

.

Of course prices will always climb - that is a normal state of things. But as long as inflation is contained within a reasonable bracket than that's just part of the natural cycle of business. But yes, unless we have a monopoly or central planning, or state intervention - the price is set by the equilibrium of demand and supply, that is both consumers and producers are happy with what each is paying and producing. I assure you, if everyone suddenly decided not to buy any more Nikes their price would automatically decrease rather fast. The owners of Nike could AFFORD to decrease the prices of Nikes because of the cheap foreign labor. They would still be making profits - just not as big as they are making now. Naturally, because they want to maximize profits, and Americans keep on buying the Nikes at the current price, there is no reason for them to consider price reduction.

 

That is just your estimate and no offense, but I'd rather take the figures calculated by expert statistitians.

Yeah, I might yet study economics more seriously, and the internet is a great help. Anyhow, the system of today is "innately" evil, or let's just say not socially healthy. I am not singling out individuals or groups so much, but I can use them as examples of money wealth concentration to make obvious how wacked our system is. 

You say "sheer hard work", or some say, even intelligence, and I say tell that to the toiling coal miners and school teachers. Look, no workers, no one gets rich. It's that simple.

My basic plea is for true fair taxation and wages, which demands a cut off point of personal wealth. I haven't figured out what the dollar figure would be, but a few million dollars might be reasonable. A billion, no way. This is one earth, one race, all for one, one for all. 

If we hypothetically distributed all wealth equally in a test community of say 5,000. what system would we approve that would allow for money vacuum cleaning systems created by the clever? Sure disparity is natural, but we must have protective fair tax law enforced. Rethink on what a bank is and should be.

Every excuse I have heard from the super rich about being over taxed is non sense. It is not their money. All money is OUR money, our system.

Yeah, wish I knew more about all this, but what I see is appalling. We need no super fat cats at the top.  

 

No need to get rude. If you have weak nerves see a specialist. My arguments were not from "my ass" but from official statistical websites, such as Bureau of Labor Statistics.

And I can post links too. Check out this one, for example, on the effects of NAFTA on both, the US and Mexican economy

http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=4247&type=0

 

No, I did NOT confuse the mean and minimal wage (btw, i thought you mentioned median not mean originally). I said I quoted minimum wage because those where the sources I had access to. Nowhere did I claim that the minimum wage represents medium wage (nor median.) You are not the only person in the world who studied statistics, believe it or not, and while I would never strive to comprehand this subject matter so far as to get a doctorate in it, I did take a stats class and have a basic idea how things work.

 

In overall conclusion I would say that NAFTA is too small to have had a huge impact on either Mexican or American economy. Mexico, especially has been under tremendous other pressures, such as inflationary pressures as well as severe recessions, which, free trade or not, are not going to help their current national accounts look good. Having said that, NAFTA represents an idea of free trade, trade without artificially imposed barriers. There are numerous examples of countries which chose economical isolationism and barriers to trade and had their economies fold like a house made of cards. (USSR, all the Warsaw Pact states (up untill 1989), Cuba, North Korea..)

 

 

 

 

So what? I did look at the minimal wage to illustrate a point. I never made a CLAIM that I was quoting mean wages. I'm still confused as to why you're so upset.

 

I'm really sorry you got angry.

 

The whole point of this topic is not to vote for McCain anyway.

Sarge, do you think invading Iraq was the right thing to do? Why don't we have a big presence in Africa?

I'm not even going to pretend that i can relate to what it's like to actually be over in Iraq dealing with everything you're going through, but there are some points in your comment i have to address.

"And if they do decide to keep us over here, keep in mind that they are keeping their own children over here, too."

all you have to do is look at how the deployment of Prince William was handled to realize that having their own children in Iraq will really have no effect on ordinary troops, because it's most likely that they will be removed or reassigned in order to protect them and those around them. But their enlistment is most definitely not going to end the war, in general, any sooner.

" If Obama gets into office with his anti-gun laws, that's going to be a lot of money out of my pocket. "

If you're planning on making money by selling automatic weapons to gang members and drug dealers, then Obama's anti-gun laws will definitely impact your finances. Otherwise, you're just buying into McCain attack spin. Weapon technology and development for use in combat is not going to vanish the day Obama takes office, no matter what the Karl Rove's of the world say.

"Who better to manage the military than two parents of servicemembers?"

Palin's views on Russia, Pakistan, the Bush Doctrine, Iran, etc. completely negate the "parent of a service member" aspect as a qualification, and you can google a book's worth of information on her that further demonstrates her inability to handle any leadership position, let alone VP.

McCain's military know-how is nowhere near as impressive in reality as it is in his own mind, and the extreme level of dishonesty, lack of comprehension, off the cuff decision making, and delusion with international affairs that he's demonstrated over the last few decades couldn't possibly make anyone feel at ease with him as commander in chief.

Is Obama the absolute best choice to manage the military? I can't say "without a doubt yes", but his willingness to consider international affairs from multiple angles combined with his temperment and judgement make me think he's a long ways from being the worst. like me, he has children who will very soon be of age to enter the military, and preventing them from ever having to go to war in the first place is fairly substantial motivation.

I'd say it's more like choosing to have a pencil or a running chainsaw shoved up your ass.

djneibarger

Hey, thanks wise man, that's a way rocking site you have ....

http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=djneibarger

http://www.derekneibarger.com/

Obama might be right off the centre but that's still a long way
Having read both of his books, he doesn't seem to show the symptoms of RWA at all.

You're correct - he may not evidence the symptoms of a RWA [Right Wing Authoritarian] Personality [Disorder] because that chart only reflects he is a 'moderate conservative' based on his 'political compass' from his speeches, his platform and his voting record on policies. The 'right authoritarian' category on that chart doesn't refer to Obama's personality as 'right authoritarian', but only his 'political compass' based on his speeches, platform and particularly his voting record.  The 'right' refers to what he's voted for and supports economically and the 'authoritarian' is the social context of his voting, speeches and platform [as opposed to anarchism/Libertarian].

Do note that even though in all reality he is firmly in the right authoritarian block as a 'moderate conservative' he is to the left of and down from Palin who's dangerously close to Hitler level of fascist [right] authoritarianism and Stalin's communist level of [left] totalitarianism. 

For me at least, the anti-corporatist and SECULAR Nader would be the only viable choice for neither getting shit on or pissed on again by our Fed Gov't;-] And the only way 3rd party candidates are going to start making some form of political impact is if American voters stop asking to be pissed on instead of shit on by intentionally choosing from the 'lesser of 2 evils'.

You're almost off the charts being so far down there to the left as a raging anarchist Matt! Based on this in 'good' consciense you can only rationally chose to vote for Nader like myself;-] I'm never seen anyone come out that far left and libertarian as a full blown anarchist! Personally I came out -5.25 and -6.25 on the chart you see here

Even a long time leftist retired NYC civil rights lawyer good buddy of mine isn't near the 'leftist anarchist' you be Matt coming out closer to where I'm at. Actually I see that as a very positive indication of your political views or compass;-]

What scientific criteria are you using to label Obama as an authoritarian?  Recalling my readings on Altemyers' research Obama doesn't fit into the category.  Since the website doesn't mention an author or any research validating their findings or showing their methodology on how they reached their conclusions why should it be held as anything other than a vanity website?

NARAL has a new bumper sticker out (can get on their site for a $15 or more donation)

 

McCain / Palin: 15th Century solutions for the 21st Century.

Thanks good Thomathy. I've been doing more early day sober posting, and have softened the satire, which I so often poorly write. My health did take a dive recently so I've not been so humorus, but I'm bouncing back. You'll probably see some more Rum fueled posts coming. Heck I like being silly! Being god is usually quite fun ....   LOL.

Truth be told, its not my place to say weather or not it was the right thing to do.  I'm just a machine gunner.  From my experience in the field, however, I do have to say that yes, it was the right thing to do.  In response to the weapons of mass destruction bullshit, yeah, I hear you guys didn't hear on the news when we found a fuckload of weaponized anthrax in that basement in Baghdad, did you?  Didn't think so.  As for oil, I saw my first oil refinery today.  Its only been fourteen fucking months, but I saw one! 

But we've done a lot of good over here. 

As for Africa?  Shit.  I carry an M240B medium machine gun and I tell my assistant gunner when to give me more ammo or change my barrel.  That's how much political pull I have.  Then again, if it was truly up to me, fuck the Iraqi people, they'd either be vaporized or walking tumors after I irradiated this whole fucking shitheap with a couple dozen thermonuclear warheads. 

Hi Sarge. I think it is your place to say. I simply think the method of "improving" Iraq and getting our hands on that oil was wrong. I ponder if we could have simply buddied up again with Sadam, bought him off with a trillion dollars, saving over 4 trillion, and spared the estimated 1 million dead plus 10 times injured Irags'. What is you opinion on the mental damage of those Iraqs' left living. Is not something seriously wrong with war ? 

   Umm anthrax , H bombs, come see in America ....

Getting our hands on oil?  Are you serious?  Do you really believe everything those left-wing fucknuts babble about?  This shit over here has nothing to do with oil.  I've been over here fourteen goddamn months so far and I saw my first oil refinery over here three days ago.  But goddammit, I saw weaponized anthrax within a month of getting my boots on the ground.

No, I don't agree with our method of 'improving' Iraq, as I previously stated I think Iraq would be much improved as a solid glass plate with high levels of residual radiation.  As for my opinion of the mental damage of the Iraqis left alive, fuck them. These fuckers are absolutely worthless.  They're lazy, unless it comes to emplacing explosives, they're cowards, they're all batshit crazy, believing in their bullshit Allah and whatnot.  Fuck these people.  Fuck these people so much.  I have no sympathy for them, I have no compassion for them.  Fuckin' Hadji motherfuckers.  The only reason this country isn't the shithole it was is because every time one of these idiots decides to be stupid, we kill them. 

There is something seriously wrong with these people.

As for 'buddying up' with Saddam, you are out of your fucking skull.  I think you are listening to those left-wing fucknuts entirely too much.  The world doesn't run off cotton candy and sugar and love, its a much harder, much grittier existence than you realize.  You can't buy these people off and expect that your money will keep them loyal to you.  Their minds operate on that batshit crazy level that makes no sense to atheists like you and me.  There was no 'buying off' Saddam, just as there will be no 'buying off' Osama (if that fucknut is still alive). 

But, as I stated, I'm just a gunner.  My political pull extends to the gun crew I run and no further.

 

I think the whole WMD argument is a hard sell these days. A little anthrax and some non-weapons grade yellow cake uranium and a couple of long range missiles (that still weren't long range enough to get here) are hardly weapons of mass destruction.

This whole campaign seems to be about expansion, control, and yes, oil. Sarge, if you need validation for killing members of the global community, "batshit crazy" or not, you'll have to at least acknowledge that these people are only a threat to American citizens because we have been shipping American citizens into their land for several years now. The WMD ship has sailed, so give it a rest.

Speaking of oil, I heard a report the other day on NPR (I think) that was talking about all the untapped oil reserves in that area and how the Iraqi government would be hopefully drilling within next couple years. The profits would go to the Iraqi government and the businesses and invest, of course, but it would greatly increase the supply of oil and you know how supply and demand works, I assume. We don't have to fly an American flag over the tops of the refineries and oil rigs for everyone else on the planet to see what's happening.

 

You're over here?  You went through the CBRN decontam with me?  You've seen the chemical labs under Baghdad?  The fact is that I'm over here and I've seen this shit with my own eyes, hell with your kool-aid.  And I wish to hell it was all about oil.  I just picked up a 1968 Mercury Montego MX while I was home on leave and I've got an old-school Ford 302 under that hood to feed.  If this shit was really about oil, I wouldn't be paying four bucks a gallon of gas. 

 

Again, I wish to hell it was a war for oil.  If gas went back to 65 cents a gallon again, that would be fucking awesome.  I wouldn't drop fifty bucks every time I wanted to fill my Montego.  It'd be great.  But if someone could tell me how this was a war for oil in a way that made a shred of sense, that'd be awesome. 

 

Oil companies are generating the highest profits they ever have, if I'm not mistaken (and I'm not). Not to be one of those crazed conspiracy theorists, but it must be nice for two oil men to leave the White House and step back into their old game with even higher profit margins than ever before.

 

 

 

All I know is that it was a fucking nightmare to get the NBC specialists out there and it was even worse to do the decontamination and the shots afterwards.  That shit sucked.  And the Nuclear, Biological and Chemical warfare specialists (guys who are trained to deal with Nuclear, Biological and Chemical threats) said it was weapons-grade anthrax.  As I've stated before - I'm a fucking gunner.  That's it.  I hump a gun and a load that weighs more than me.  Yeah, I get it, I'm not college educated, my job is much more physically demanding than it is mentally, and okay, so the Infantry doesn't have a reputation as the sharpest tacks in the pack.  Roger that.  Furthermore, I can't present said 'evidence', unless you wish I would've taken a sample and mailed it to you.  And that's just stupid.  Photographs of that shit is strictly prohibited and since that incident, they've confiscated everyone's cameras and sorted through everyone's laptops for photos of shit we're not supposed to have.

I've already pointed out that my opinions are rather closed-minded.  Also, believe it or not, I've had better things to do than sit on my ass and watch CNN nonstop.  Truth be told, I haven't had a chance to watch the news in over a year now.  Furthermore, I firmly believe everything you see on the news is a flat-out lie.   One way or the other, its all got an agenda behind it.  And I'd like to remind you that the news media does not exist to deliver the news - it exists to make money. 

Either way, you're just as brainwashed by the side you agree with as I am on my side.  Doesn't make you right.  Doesn't make me right.  Its two ways of looking at things.  Its funny, you know, I'm sitting over here wondering how you can possibly think some of the shit you've said holds an ounce of water and you're probably wondering the exact same thing as me.  Good thing you've found something you're passionate about.  Maybe you'll find some way to do something about it, too. 

Rock on, man.

The Republicans have never had a problem with lying.  Presenting their case for WMD at the UN they told lie after lie.  So I was absolutely shocked to hear them admit there were no WMD.  However I am amused by the 9/11 Troofers who think the Bush regime plotted the terrorist attacks.  Somehow they managed to do that but couldn't hide some biological/chemical weapons in Iraq to be found?

Thinking about our illegal occupation of Iraq it really burns me to think that the thousands of Americans dying and over a million dead Iraqis, four million refugees, that this doesn't concern the Republicans.  But when some shareholders lose money in the stock market because they invested in the wrong bank then there's a crisis that needs immediate action to fix the problem.  I suppose it's just the working and middle class kids dying, the rich can always hire someone to fight their wars, but the moment a rich person has to wait before he buys his 10th house, or 13th car for fear he might not be able to afford it, then that's considered a real crisis.

I think I may just watch that clip where Letterman rips on McCain for 10 minutes for ditching an appearance on his show.  That'll cheer me up.

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/McCain_mocked_by_Letterman_after_Late_0924.html