dagblog - Comments for "The TPP is a bad deal"

Thanks Flavius! I think.

HSG — Sat, 16 May 2015 00:23:15 +0000

In reply to Stick to your guns Hal. There

Thanks Flavius! I think.

Stick to your guns Hal. There

Flavius — Thu, 14 May 2015 02:54:51 +0000

Stick to your guns Hal. There are brilliant people on both sides of this issue,some of them politically left. Trust your gut instincts and hold to your stance.

I think you are mistaken

Peter — Wed, 06 May 2015 18:42:26 +0000

In reply to Oh, there's blame to go

I think you are mistaken about most people becoming greedy in the '90s, some may have felt more affluent if they had stock investments that made them feel more secure about their retirement but i don't think this explains the surge in refinancing of mortgages. Real wage increases had been minimal since the mid '70s and to maintain the level of consumption that many people had become accustomed to they took on ever increasing debt, credit card debt, new auto, boat, other toys and perceived necessities debt. Refinancing or a second mortgage was a way to consolidate those high interest debts and convert them to long term lower interest payments with possibly some remainder for new consumption. People had already been forced to be 'ahead of themselves' because productivity gains were no longer being shared with workers but over consumption was still the metric of success. We have seen what happened when the housing bubble popped, bankruptcy and foreclosure, unemployment and permanently lowered expectations for many previously Middle Class people.

The idea that people won't need to work would make some sense if we had a guaranteed minimum income or well funded retirement plans but the reality is that many people are being forced to join the large and growing surplus population who will never be needed again except for menial or temporary positions in this final stage of Capitalism. They are still useful in that their growing numbers help to drive wages even lower and subdue any demands that those who are working might make.

Let me try it this way - I

PeraclesPlease — Wed, 06 May 2015 18:36:22 +0000

In reply to Thanks trkingmomoe - Grayson

Let me try it this way - I fill up at Shell every week and someone siphons gas from my tank at night. Should I say Shell gas gives bad gas mileage? Trade deals are supposed to account for revenues, profits, taxes. Yes, untaxed business on the internet hurts bricks and mortar shops that pay taxes, and untaxed foreign profits do nothing to help the local system that fosters it while taking government resources to support it. It doesn't have to be that way and used to not be that way. Much is a simple change in tax code. The IRS now makes foreign individual earnings count towards how investment income is taxed, and makes individuals list all their foreign banks. But corporations? Too big to bother, and by the way, have another tax break.

It looks like he is going to

trkingmomoe — Wed, 06 May 2015 17:11:46 +0000

In reply to Thanks trkingmomoe - Grayson

It looks like he is going to make a run for the senate in Florida. This will be an interesting race if he does. South Florida has not been turning out for conservadems in the last few elections. It will be interesting to see how he does as a true blue liberal in the primary against a hand picked conservadem by the state party. Some think this is why he made this video.

Yes, though Clinton pursued a

PeraclesPlease — Wed, 06 May 2015 16:07:26 +0000

In reply to Chuck Shumer points out that

Yes, though Clinton pursued a strong dollar which made exports a real sign of success, while Bush did a weak dollar to increase exports while gutting savings. We spend a lot of time blaming the Chinese for imitating us.

Oh, there's blame to go

PeraclesPlease — Wed, 06 May 2015 16:03:44 +0000

In reply to You can only blame the

Oh, there's blame to go around. People in the 90's got greedy, thought the Dow reflected their own success, every homeowner counted their valuation as bankable and many took out 2nd mortgages and got ahead of themselves. Those in government got complacent or over-confident or accessories to crime. The dotcom bubble made many think it was sustainable and it was more expansive - and we see now it was marginally successful for jobs. But I really think their might be a philosophical breakthrough coming where we understand that we don't all need to work. Obviously old people and kids over the last 80,years were considered off limits (except at WalMart), with France the poster child for early retirement. But it's like a crap shoot, only a certain % "succeed" wildly and that's okay we do something besides shaming. To develop this idea later...

Chuck Shumer points out that

rmrd0000 — Wed, 06 May 2015 15:50:36 +0000

In reply to You can only blame the

Chuck Shumer points out that currency manipulation by China makes US goods more costly, adding to job loss. Democrats want limits on currency manipulation as part of the treaty.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/06/chuck-schumer-currency-manipula...

You can only blame the

trkingmomoe — Wed, 06 May 2015 14:33:36 +0000

In reply to I read part of the EPI one -

You can only blame the corporations for people hating trade deals. They took the jobs out of the country so they could make more money for the investor class. The party that stands up to that is the party that will now hold office. People want jobs and want to make things again. Tax breaks for rich and corporations are nasty words and now secrete trade deals have been added to that lexicon.

This is taking too much time,

PeraclesPlease — Wed, 06 May 2015 12:33:08 +0000

In reply to I see you're in your rant

This is taking too much time, but rant #x:

1) yes, not spending is an option - free trade simplifies barriers, it doesn't remove the cost of imported goods. For example, if "conservatives" insist on burning gas & electricity needlessly, yes, we'll import more oil. The countries below in blue are where we run a surplus.

2) On $2.3 trillion exports growing steadily per year, a deficit of say 10% ($230 billion) is rather sustainable - especially if we think our energy costs will dip significantly in the next 30 years. The only real problem is China, which has kept its market closed to US & other foreign goods, and we've had trouble figuring out how to break open the market (or how to deny ourselves the pleasure of manufacturing there). And I don't think China has any sort of IOU they can walk in and collect on - it's all a bit funny money at that level, and they're better off if the US prospers. The idea that China will have enough of our debt to tell us what to do is fiction.

3) Yes, I've worked in a factory. In some areas it will still make sense to have some domestic production even today. In fact we do have them with greater revenue & productivity than ever - just not the same number of bodies. Sure, we can close off our borders and pay $3 for a pair of socks or whatever our going internal rate will be - including our extortionary health care costs. And pay the climate bill for dyes and solders and silicon dumped in our rivers & air. Of course much of our wealth has been built on dumping our goods on other countries, so expect our exports to dip if we get bitchy. There's a longshot that we can create something here that will make 100x the revenue and employ 10x the people that couldn't easily be made somewhere else with much more profit somewhere else (which tends to kill off most people's/company's benevolence, especially when there's competition that will kill you off as well - hey, even Alabama & Tennessee were stealing Detroit jobs - but they're just getting back for Reconstruction & the dearth of railroads for 100 years ;-) ).

4) so the real issue is some combination of a) how to make corporations pay a fair share on profits & revenues*, including multinationals, and b) either to create enough jobs or finance other rewarding/not-so-rewarding activity/survival for those not working. And yeah, we can go back to our own sweatshops an steel mills as one way of doing this - but automation means it's not nearly as necessary and the cost premium will be significant. Or we figure out a way to translate economic growth at least partially into jobs growth. I still think that our expenses are relevant to our income, and that a lot of our expenses went up arbitrarily or due to oligopolistic reasons and not due to actual costs of production, and that really amounts to theft in several sectors. But no one's going to prosecute - half of our populace seems intent on electing more crime-abettors. Even education's a cash cow rather than relatively free (or heavily subsidized via the GI Bill for "our greatest generation"™).

* and of course keeping corporations from voting/contributing, but that horse has rather left the stable

5) some level of socialism is great - we can manage a 10-20% freeloader rate no problem if our new services economy doesn't require so many workers - let them eat cake, go to school, play in bands, do volunteer work - but we need transfer of payments from that 1% to the bottom 20% if it's going to work - obviously just dire poverty at the bottom isn't a solution, nor is working at WalMart until you're 85. And if expenses actually due go down to lower cost of production elsewhere, then the freeloader bill should decrease as well. But if we allow health monopolies and let the oil producers jack up prices and let Wall Street sell worthless securities with no penalties and make everyone pay $200K+ for the privilege of getting an education and so on and so on, well, it's gonna be a helluva future.

6) a PS item - unions were great as well, but the fuckers managed to gut them and make them un-American to make a real wage, whereas sending guys in uniform at shit wages around the world to lose limbs and lives is now sacred and lofty. I don't make the rules here, I don't understand our priorities - I'm just trying to keep the lines clear - not Mexico blamed for China's part, technology being blamed for Wall Street's theft, etc., etc.