- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Tom Donohue is livid. Re: NAFTA
Posted on 10/10/17 at 7:28 pm to teke184
Posted on 10/10/17 at 7:28 pm to teke184
quote:
I think you mean the drug trade is the Mexican government.
They’re butt puppets of the cartels, not vice versa.
Yes that is what I meant and your clarification is exactly what I mean. If we do not legalize drugs then we may need to take over the cartels operation of the Mexican Country
This post was edited on 10/10/17 at 7:29 pm
0
Posted on 10/10/17 at 7:32 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
So what? If humans aren't as productive as other means, then we can either whine about it, or focus elsewhere where we have more value. They aren't entitled to a job. . Just like those minimum wage workers who demand a living wage, they aren't entitled to a job or set wage. And they can't whine when technology replaces them, especially when they hasten it.
So I'll assume you're down with the UBI? It's going to be interesting in the coming years when 40-50% of the population is not required to participate in the economy due to automation/robotics/AI. Idle time is the devils time.
Posted on 10/10/17 at 7:35 pm to Bass Tiger
quote:Obviously there are a ton of things to work out, and depend on the government not doing what it always does, but getting rid of the entitlement society and replacing it with a UBI is something that I feel better about all the time.
So I'll assume you're down with the UBI?
Posted on 10/10/17 at 7:50 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
What about them? They've decreased while output and productivity increased. Clearly they are becoming less of a necessity and have been replaced by more productive means.
Okay.
quote:
And what is politics going to do about it?
Address the issue, i.e., the “squeaky wheel” like politicians always do.
quote:
Make companies forgoe technology and innovation and hire workers instead?
Nah. Just level the playing field with trading partners. For example see the current actions by the Commerce Department against Bomardier that saved many Boeing jobs and profits.
quote:
So what? If humans aren't as productive as other means, then we can either whine about it, or focus elsewhere where we have more value. They aren't entitled to a job. . Just like those minimum wage workers who demand a living wage, they aren't entitled to a job or set wage. And they can't whine when technology replaces them, especially when they hasten it.
Yeah, I agree. However if you are a politician and you don’t address the issue your opponent will.
quote:
OK. That's why I pointed I cited trends here in America. The trends are obvious. Trump can tap into it all he wants, but a leader would focus on tapping into substantive solutions not ideas that are a temporary band aid to appease some emotional reminiscing.
In terms of NAFTA Trump wants to nix it and enter into bilateral trade deals instead. I get the impression that he believes these multinational trade deals hamper our negotiation power.
In terms of China, he’s using our current trade relations to effect NK.
Posted on 10/10/17 at 7:51 pm to Bass Tiger
quote:Mead merged with another paper company in 2001-2002. They consolidated production and sold off extra machinery. They were probably selling the machinery (with training) to some company in Mexico.
Who's dwelling on the past dipshit? The family's moved on just like the plant did. The cogent point of the post was NAFTA was the primary reason that MEAD moved production to Mexico, for cheap labor and less stringent environmental laws.
Your family's jobs weren't moved.
Posted on 10/10/17 at 7:52 pm to GumboPot
Can't read all that shite
Posted on 10/10/17 at 7:56 pm to buckeye_vol
(no message)
This post was edited on 2/14/18 at 11:32 pm
Posted on 10/10/17 at 7:57 pm to culsutiger
Posted on 10/10/17 at 8:06 pm to GumboPot
quote:
Mexico is a key partner of the United States in fighting drug trafficking and stemming illegal immigration across the U.S. southern border.
No its fricking not. Quit reading right there.
Posted on 10/10/17 at 8:10 pm to culsutiger
"Who cares if O.J. murdered those people. They would have ended up loosing the jobs anyway."
Basically what supporters of NAFTA are saying.
Basically what supporters of NAFTA are saying.
This post was edited on 10/10/17 at 8:17 pm
Posted on 10/10/17 at 8:10 pm to mmcgrath
quote:
Mead merged with another paper company in 2001-2002. They consolidated production and sold off extra machinery. They were probably selling the machinery (with training) to some company in Mexico.
Your family's jobs weren't moved.
You so smart, I'll let my brother know who was a supervisor over plant maintenance know he's FOS. Mead was the name of the corporation until they merged with Westvaco, now it's a conglomerate called West Rock.
Here's their current locations,
Plant locations for Mead Westvaco/West Rock
Posted on 10/10/17 at 8:12 pm to culsutiger
great to see what passes for an "application of logic" amongst protectionists
Posted on 10/10/17 at 8:13 pm to culsutiger
quote:No. The murders were unequivocally caused by the murderer, OJ or otherwise. And this was a sudden interruption, counter to the long-term trend.
Let me apply your logic to another situation.
"Who cares if O.J. murdered those people. They would have ended up dying anyway."
It would be like "look the stimulus worked, unemployment is lower after it was implemented so we were obligated to pass it."
In other words, it's using the long-term trend, following some event, to argue causation of the event, while ignoring the trend prior to the event and the data independent of the event that also followed it and is part of the aggregate data used to justify causation, had a similar trend as the aggregate.
An amusing comparison, but someone clever enough to come up with it, should be able to use that to come up with an apt comparison instead.
Posted on 10/10/17 at 8:20 pm to 90proofprofessional
quote:When one holds the same view as Bernie Sanders regarding trade, then that's usually sign that emotion has largely replaced logic.
great to see what passes for an "application of logic" amongst protectionists
But if a person also fails to see the similarities with Bernie's minimum wage arguments, and is completely against that, then somehow Bernie Sanders is at least more logically consistent in his illogical reasoning.
This post was edited on 10/10/17 at 8:21 pm
Posted on 10/10/17 at 8:26 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
When one holds the same view as Bernie Sanders regarding trade
that's when one has taken on the mantle of protectionist filth, the less-recognizable yet equally-ugly sister of prog filth
Posted on 10/10/17 at 8:43 pm to 90proofprofessional
quote:Prog filth reasoning for government meddling in wages
that's when one has taken on the mantle of protectionist filth, the less-recognizable yet equally-ugly sister of prog filth
1. Fair wager
2. Ignores costs passed into consumer
3. Ignores company replacing jobs with technology
4. Argues that the fair wages will have a multiplier impact on the economy
5. Ignores arguments that people should take personal responsibility and adapt to market (acquire new skills, work their way up, move,etc.)
6. Uses data from leftist sources who support their cause
7. Ignores the majority of data, which comes from research on all sides of spectrum that is counter to their cause
8. Uses highly emotional anecdotes, regardless of their lack of generalization
9. Argues corporations as evil.
10. Presents themselves altruistic and willing to sacrifice, even to their own detriment despite no evidence to support rhetoric, but plenty against it.
11. Ignores entirety of history in the ineffectiveness and often harm done by government meddling, it will get it right this time.
Protectionist filth reasoning for government meddling in trade
1. Fair trade
2. Ignores costs passed into consumer
3. Ignores company replacing jobs with technology
4. Argues that the fair wages will have a multiplier impact on the economy
5. Ignores arguments that people should take personal responsibility and adapt to market (acquire new skills, work their way up, move,etc.)
6. Uses data from leftist sources who support their cause
7. Ignores the majority of data, which comes from research on all sides of spectrum that is counter to their cause
8. Uses highly emotional anecdotes, regardless of their lack of generalization
9. Argues corporations as evil.
10. Presents themselves altruistic and willing to sacrifice, even to their own detriment despite no evidence to support rhetoric, but plenty against it.
11. Ignores entirety of history in the ineffectiveness and often harm done by government meddling, it will get it right this time.
This post was edited on 10/10/17 at 8:56 pm
Posted on 10/10/17 at 8:52 pm to buckeye_vol
oof.
Posted on 10/10/17 at 8:56 pm to buckeye_vol
(no message)
This post was edited on 2/14/18 at 11:32 pm
Posted on 10/10/17 at 9:08 pm to culsutiger
quote:
You're trying to use the increases in labor productivity that have been occurring regularly for hundreds of years to obfuscate the consequences of NAFTA.
and you compared NAFTA to actual murder with a straight face
also:
Posted on 10/10/17 at 9:16 pm to 90proofprofessional
(no message)
This post was edited on 2/14/18 at 11:49 pm
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News