Quote:
Originally Posted by Vendzilla
I worked high rise construction for several years in down town LA, we can build anything.
The cost of a bloated government over regulating job growth and then making a path for China to become a preferred trade partner by those in the bloated government are to blame, they let the Manufacturing corps move over seas and make it profitable.
Sorry you consider the work force in the US as not capible of manufacturing anything anymore, I guess it happened fast after Clinton passed NAFTA didn't it?
But according to you it's too late, we can't do anything about it. Thats pretty sad.
Use to be the US was about US jobs, Obama has proven thats not the case anymore.
In 1982, of course thats under the president no one on this board liked, Harley Davidson got a special taraff on heavy motorcycles to help Harley complete. They did, supplied a lot of jobs and even had them cancel the special tariff a head of schedule.
|
Ronald Reagan and the conservative Heritage Foundation were the first to propose a free trade agreement in 1980 as part of his measures to get us out of the period of stagflation we were in at the time. Free trade is a core tenant of conservative values.
Quote:
|
Long-Standing Support for Free Trade with Mexico. Ronald Reagan first proposed a free trade agreement between the U.S. and Mexico in his 1980 presidential campaign. Since that time, The Heritage Foundation is proud of the role it has played in articulating President Reagan's vision of free trade in Latin America and around the world. Since the mid-1980s, Heritage analysts have been stressing that a free trade agreement with Mexico not only will stimulate economic growth in the U.S., but will make Mexico a more stable and prosperous country. Heritage has published over three dozen studies stressing the benefits of free trade in North America.
|
http://www.heritage.org/research/rep...rade-agreement
Clinton signed NAFTA into law with largely bi-partisan support, and all the politicians at the time -Republican and Democrat- said that NAFTA would assure Americans cheaper goods while increasing U.S. exports to the rest of the world. Moreover, the American workforce was told NAFTA would stimulate and create an estimated 200,000 jobs annually. They also said NAFTA would reduce illegal immigration from Mexico , would be instrumental in tackling drug trafficking, and would strengthen Mexican democracy and human rights. Well, the cheap goods part they got right.
Corporate and consumer greed is the main cause of it. I posted about this in another thread. Corporations in collusion with the government, under the guise of America becoming a service sector economy, outsourced tons of jobs to third world countries.
The American quality and standard of living will be stagnate over the next few generations, perhaps it will degrade slightly. As the global economy settles in on some equilibrium, developing nations standards of living will need to increase. Until that time, there is nothing that can be done short of out-and-out protectionism. And no self-respecting American consumerbot would ever go for that. Keep in mind that the founding fathers were heavily in support of protectionist policies.
