TPP has spawned massive propaganda and lies, especially concerning NAFTA and all the other fake

[Elwood P Dowd]

free trade agreements of the past 20+ years. I call them fake free trade agreements because that's exactly what they are. They are nothing more than investment/outsourcing scams to put more money in the pockets of Wall Street, the mega-rich, corporate executives, and certain Washington politicians and lobbyists. To add insult to injury, they also give these same people the power to change or modify our existing local, state, and federal laws. All you have to do is put a little more makeup and lipstick on the pig, give it a feel good name like "Free Trade" or "Partnership" and boom, some people will break a leg trying to race to the front of line to get their cheerleader pom-pom.

The propaganda and lies are now off the charts. So off the charts that we are now told that the 22 million net new jobs created under Clinton were the result of NAFTA. Do people claiming this have no shame?
Like poster Kentuck said, that logic is like claiming the rooster crowing before dawn caused the sun to come up.

Here are a few links from mostly people we know that are longtime loyal progressive Dems concerning the devastating effects of NAFTA.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lori-wallach/nafta-at-20-one-million-u_b_4550207.html

http://www.epi.org/publication/nafta-legacy-growing-us-trade-deficits-cost-682900-jobs/

http://www.aflcio.org/Issues/Trade/NAFTA/NAFTA-Made-Outsourcing-Easy

http://economyincrisis.org/content/nafta-jobs-losses-continue-mount

http://billmoyers.com/2015/04/16/fast-track-lost-jobs-lower-wages/

http://ourfuture.org/20150225/obamas-tpp-promises-echo-clintons-nafta-promises

http://www.ratical.org/co-globalize/NAFTA@7/us.html

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-north-american-free-trade-agreement-nafta-resulted-in-increasing-unemployment

http://teamster.org/magazine/2014/winter/nafta-20

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/02/25/obamas-trans-pacific-partnership-promises-echo-clintons-nafta

http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/unbound/polipro/pp9707.htm

http://fpif.org/nafta-20-state-north-american-worker/

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/04/24/1379889/-Concerning-NAFTA-s-Unintended-Impacts

http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2011/05/ohio_one_of_the_leaders_in_job.html

http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/03/21/the-nafta-scorecard/

http://deltafarmpress.com/job-loss-textile-imports-surpasses-1-million

[cali]

1. thanks for creating a great resource thread, elwood.

[yourout]

2. K & fricking R.

[jwirr]

3. K&R There is a difference between jobs and corporate profits and power.

[daleanime]

4. K&FuckingR......

[bvar22]

5. DURec!

It is getting absurd.
How ANYONE, except a 1%er, can support these agreements is beyond my comprehension.

[Enthusiast]

21. One of the mysteries.

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[Phlem]

6. Why is this so F*ing hard to understand for some people.

They'll toy with ya and keep you distracted in the social equality ring but when it comes to money, they F you every F*ing time.

[pampango]

7. True. It can only be said that the 99% did well under Clinton after NAFTA, not that NAFTA caused it.

... we are now told that the 22 million net new jobs created under Clinton were the result of NAFTA.

Anyone who claims that all the employment gains under Clinton were due to NAFTA is blowing hot air, as is anyone who claims the job losses under Bush were due to NAFTA.

Clinton was far better at managing the economy, though not perfect, than Reagan or either Bush. (Not unique to Clinton. The 99% almost always does better under Democratic presidents.) Much of the economic gains and losses was due to this, not NAFTA.

Trade with Mexico is 3% of our economy. Our trade deficit with Mexico is less than 1/2 of 1% of our economy. Trade with Mexico neither creates nor destroys millions of jobs. Trade is a good thing but the health of workers and the middle class is more a function of other government policies like progressive taxes, union support and safety nets than of trade.

[Mnpaul]

9. That can't be said either

I discovered some interesting facts last night. Unemployment fell from '94 to 2000 but so did new car sales. We added 20 million people but sold fewer new cars. There was a slight uptick 98-01 but after that sales continued to fall. This tells me that there wasn't a big uptick in prosperity.

[pampango]

10. Jobs (manufacturing and overall) and wages (manufacturing and overall) rose and unemployment fell.

It is interesting that car sales did not increase.

[Mnpaul]

12. Manufacturing output went up

but not the number of jobs - according to this chart from the Fed.
http://ramblingman.com/2013/03/manufacturing-output-in-the-u-s-is-at-an-all-time-high/

[pampango]

15. The number of manufacturing jobs went up too.

This graph is a little easier for me to read.

[Mnpaul]

18. This could be due to...

Americans building the equipment for the factories in other countries that took our jobs.

[pampango]

19. We can speculate as to why manufacturing employment rose but rise it did. n/t

[Recursion]

58. That was (and still is) a lot of our manufacturing output

And, remember, US manufacturing output right now is higher than it has ever been in US history. We just don't employ nearly as many people to do that as we used to. A lot like US farm output.

But, yes, heavy plant and machinery is one of our three biggest export sectors, and looks to be for a long time.

[JDPriestly]

44. Proving how deceptive statistics can be depending on their context.

"Trade with Mexico is 3% of our economy. Our trade deficit with Mexico is less than 1/2 of 1% of our economy."

We have a very large economy, but that 3% means jobs. Our trade deficit with Mexico is only a tiny part of our overall trade deficit. A lot of our trade deficit is due to our trade agreements with other countries like China and Colombia, et al. Canada gets a lot of the money we could be spending in the US.

Those numbers are utterly misleading.
=
The trade agreements are indefensible. We don't go down the list of all of them when we speak of them. NAFTA is a sort of shorthand for the not small number of trade agreements we already have.

The TPP (and other trade agreements) = a corporate coup.

We could have individual trade agreements, country by country, that we might actually be able to enforce and keep an eye on. These agreements that include a lot of different countries are difficult, really impossible, to enforce. We should not join them.

[blackspade]

8. excellent read

[ucrdem]

11. There's a lot baloney in your source list.

But never mind. If you're this heavily invested in pernicious media narratives no amount of actual information is going to change your mind. My only question is why anyone puts any stock in conventional wisdom at all.

[Elwood P Dowd]

13. I'm sure you would rather I post some of YOUR favorite links such as........

TPP pom-poms available at the following.

https://www.gop.com/

http://www.heritage.org/

http://www.cato.org/

[ucrdem]

14. If you get in the habit of making stuff up

it's easy to lose track of reality. That seems to be a common affliction in these parts.

[pampango]

17. Could you reference times when ucrdem has linked to any of those sites?

And you don't want to know the far-right sites where anti-"TPP pom-poms are available".

[ucrdem]

57. Thank you. nt

[Trajan]

51. +1,000,000 ....

The right wing 'Austrian Choir' in DU are ill placed here ... it's frustrating to hear the right wing talking points in our forums ...

[ucrdem]

56. Incidentally YOUR very first link is straight-up RW bullshit so I wouldn't give myself airs:

Another fine production of a Libertarian propaganda organ that dishonestly hides Bush-Cheney's catastrophic economic failure by conflating it with Bill and Barack's success:

"NAFTA at 20: One Million U.S. Jobs Lost, Higher Income Inequality"
Lori Wallach, Director, Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch
Posted: 01/06/2014

First of all, the article is linked to an online study that is mostly missing:

http://www.citizen.org/documents/NAFTA-at-20.pdf

Yes I understand that docs sometimes get messed up but she's had nearly two years to fix it. I wonder why she hasn't.

Secondly, the entire premise of the report is that the state of the US economy of Jan. 1, 2014, can be ascribed to the passage of NAFTA in 1993. It cannot. The torpid mess we've been living for the last 15 years is the result of BUSH-CHENEY policies, not Bills, not Barack's. This is so dishonest on the face I can't believe anyone would have the nerve to post it here. It shouldn't need to be explained but since you made nasty remarks I suppose I'm obliged to point out that the premises of your argument are pure right wing propaganda. If you want to see how NAFTA really shook out see the graphs posted here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026700031

and here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6703062

No net US job loss, no "downward pressure" on wages, steady decreases in unemployment, and steady increases in US employment, for the six straight years after NAFTA went into effect on Jan. 1 1994 -- until Bill Clinton left office. THEN the US economy including employment went straight into the toilet. But keep pointing fingers at other DUers instead of owning up to your own eagerness to believe RW lies.

[ucrdem]

59. .

[Elwood P Dowd]

60. Public Citizen is right wing bullshit? Just how low can you go? The right wingers hate Public Citzen

and any other site that questions their love of fake free trade deals. Then you go back to your total bullshit saying NAFTA created a gazillion jobs and post your own bullshit post as a link to prove it. Pitiful.

There are multiple links I posted from longtime, proven Democratic progressives.

[CharlotteVale]

16. K&R

[Enthusiast]

20. Kicked and recommended a whole bunch!

[billhicks76]

22. Where Are The Globalization Cheerleaders?

Usually you can smell them before they enter. I know it's coming. Same crowd every time insisting that we are stupid and immature. Today I learned that the prefix idio in idiocy means self. How is that not surprising.

[Elwood P Dowd]

31. A couple of the usual suspects finally jumped in as usual.

The rest are probably over at Heritage or CATO re-loading their TPP shooters.

[Agschmid]

24. I don't really see you getting banned for that.

Why would you think that? That's pretty much something half of DU writes everyday lately...

Waffles anyone?

[Rhiannon12866]

25. Well, except for using the term "Democrat Party"

[Agschmid]

26. See that slipped right by me...

I read too fast.

[Rhiannon12866]

27. That's pretty much a red flag for DUers...

[BillZBubb]

28. If you want to have any credibility...

It is the Democratic party. Writing "democrat party" is the equivalent of writing "I am a republican".

[GP6971]

29. Have you read this

site's TOS? I'm guessing probably not. Enjoy.

[Mnpaul]

30. Here is another great link to add to your list

A very comprehensive assessment of NAFTA.
http://www.citizen.org/documents/NAFTAs-Broken-Promises.pdf

[Populist_Prole]

32. Thanks for the post. Bookmarked for reference

Oh, and a pox on corporatists, their minions, and the Third-Way trojan horse crowd.

[dgibby]

33. K&R! Thanks, Elwood. n/t

[jopacaco]

34. No to corporate trade agreements

I work in a Central Maine town that used to have a very solid middle class because many of the citizens worked manufacturing shoes. They were paid decent wages and made a high quality product. Shortly after NAFTA, the shoe jobs went away and have not been replaced. Many with the wherewithal left town and those with no way out remained. The free and reduced lunch numbers in school are now around 90%, a strong indicator of poverty. It is very sad to see. I fear that many more towns will see the same if the TPP passes.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

49. ^

real life repercussions.

[raouldukelives]

35. K&R We have the best democracy multinational corporations can buy. nt

[JEB]

36. K&R&bookmark

Thank you!

[Angry Dragon]

37. We need FAIR TRADE

[erronis]

38. Maybe we need to take control of the economic engine again

We've allowed the banks and corporations to control our spending, our incomes, our wallets, and our lives.

Would it be possible for a large segment of the country to live in a dollar-less society? Getting off the grid for energy, jobs, groceries, housing, etc.?

What would the bloodsuckers to to fund their lifestyles if they couldn't control our lives?

[Dont call me Shirley]

42. Worker owned democratic workplaces!

[JDPriestly]

45. The TPP could be used to make partnerships and small enterprise very difficult

to keep above water.

[Dont call me Shirley]

46. Not surprising. TPP and it's evil triplets TISA & TTIP are all about transferring all property to

the few. Borderless Corporate "Countries"

[erronis]

47. How? I haven't had a chance to digest the full TPP

Are you saying that the TPP will put many existing small businesses difficult to continue?

My idea was a bit more outside of normal corps/partnerships. Let's take as many of our personal exchanges (getting my hair cut, buying some fresh vegetables, servicing your computer, etc.) - let's take those out of the claws of the credit-card service fees, the banksters.

I have been delighted when I tell a physician that I don't have any insurance and s/he says that the price for the procedure is far less. I think is pretty common for the other less-developed countries like ours and since we are rapidly spiraling into an economic vortex - it should be ours also.

[truedelphi]

50. I very much agree with your ideas. n/t

[rhett o rick]

39. To those that take this seriously, there is only one choice for president in 2016.

It will be an uphill battle for 99% to throw off the yoke of the Oligarchs but with Sen Sanders we can give it a hell of a try.

[tiptonic]

40. Bill Clinton

NAFTA will be Bill Clintons legacy, worse than monica. He signed it.

[cui bono]

41. Rec #100!

[Dont call me Shirley]

43. K & R

[truedelphi]

48. proud to be rec number 110! n/t

[BootinUp]

52. I get it

you are not in favor of trade agreements.

[Elwood P Dowd]

53. This not a trade agreement, its an investment/outsourcing scam written by corporate lawyers

and USTR flunkies who have ties to the corporate world. Most of it is not about trade, but about more corporate control over our economy, our laws, our regulations, and our sovereignty. They slap a pretty name on these scams like "free trade" or "partnership" to fool people.

[BootinUp]

54. I feel like the dutch boy

holding his finger in the dyke. I hope that any agreements are influenced by the left so that my children do not suffer more than they already do.

[Michigan-Arizona]

55. K&R n/t