Elizabeth Warren proves to be just another special interest hack - comes out against free trade agreement

[coloradoatheist]

You've obviously never worked at a company that was subject to new foreign competition.

You obviously never purchase items either, otherwise you'd realize the price declines and quality improvements in industries that are subject to new foreign competition. In your world, in the 70's, you'd love to just have the option to purchase a shitty, gas guzzling, polluting and relatively unsafe Ford, GM or Chrysler vehicle.

Yeah. I'm in an industry that's been ravaged by competition. Do I care about the foreign competitors? No, other than as a short-term problem it's a non-issue. The quality of outsourced coding leaves a lot to be desired.

What really hurts is the H1-B workers. They're here, working under American managers and getting heavily subsidized by the advantages of living here and the shot at a green card. That's no longer honest competition.

So if a company outsources programming to someone in India that is make 50% of what you make to program is okay but if they pay someone 75% of what you make here it's not honest?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The trade will be way more free with this agreement then the currently insane and arbitrary system of selective quotas, tariffs and other irrational restrictions. Will it be perfectly free? Of course not, there are too many special interest groups that have to be served at the expense of the rest of us to make any kind of deal at all possible. You are letting perfection be the enemy of the good.

While there might be a net value to this agreement that doesn't mean we should sign something so flawed when better agreements could be reached. This is too heaped with skewing things towards corporate interests. You really want to see your OP of this thread become illegal?

Just because something purports to accomplish a good <x> doesn't automatically make it a good thing.

Kyoto had laudible goals--should we have gone along???

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So you'd welcome competition from Chinese prison camps? Complete with being absolutely overjoyed with your superiors reducing your wages to poverty levels, to the point where you'd have to live like a bum on what you earn.

Slave labor isn't free.

I welcome honest competition. That means workers who aren't being coerced or subsidized, that means currencies that float so as to correct trade discrepancies. I do not welcome dishonest competition--anything that violates any of these three conditions. (Note: China violates all three.)

It's interesting how many economically misinformed people exist on the left.

I will concede that the Left is not very good at presenting itself as geniuses on economics. It's better at stating goals than means, it often seems.

Because there often isn't a viable means of accomplishing the stated goals.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

A good reason why you far leftists will never have the political power you desire. You blame the rich for brain washing the masses with their slick advertising to make them "vote against their own interests". The politicians and the elections just HAVE to be bought and the masses just too dumb to know better. You can't understand why the voters don't go for the people you support en masse. Yet it's the toxic economic ideas that infect the left in religious like fashion that turns the mainstream away. Until you realize that, you'll just have to keep using your scapegoat of the "blood suckers" as the voters continue to turn away from them time after time after time, it must be the blood suckers that are at fault because your economic ideas are sacred and infallible and perfect.

You mean the "toxic economic ideas" that has lead to the economy usually performing better under Democratic administrations?

Yeah, those suck.

Because the Republicans are more interested in directing the wealth to their cronies than in the freedom to actually create wealth.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Slave labor isn't free.

I welcome honest competition. That means workers who aren't being coerced or subsidized, that means currencies that float so as to correct trade discrepancies. I do not welcome dishonest competition--anything that violates any of these three conditions. (Note: China violates all three.)

It's interesting how many economically misinformed people exist on the left.

I will concede that the Left is not very good at presenting itself as geniuses on economics. It's better at stating goals than means, it often seems.

Because there often isn't a viable means of accomplishing the stated goals.

Those are arbitrary too. Coercion how? And how much can a country manipulate it's currency? The US manipulates its currency all the time with interest rates and the amount of money it puts into the market. Why is that okay but not deciding to regulate it's currency in a different manner?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

One thing that's not clear to me, what's to stop a country from refusing to or hindering or undermining the judgement of an ISDS? The theoretical loss of sovereignty is obvious, but what enforcement mechanism does it have?

A global fast food company sues the city of Seattle over its minimum wage, and wins an ISDS judgement. The city of Seattle says we ain't changing no law and we ain't paying, have a nice day. The people of Seattle organize a boycott, and the global FFC now can't staff it's locations or move any product. Now what? The city govt arrested and martial law declared? By whom? The state? The Feds? The Super Corporate Police?

My parents had a retirement home on Lake Superior, and my father was interested in Great Lakes issues. One book I read described, among other things, a Canadian businessman who tried to fill a ship with lake water, sail to SE Asia, and sell it. He filled out all of the necessary paperwork, everything legit. When the govt woke up to what he was doing, they moved to stop him. Subsequently, when the GL states and Canada were developing the GL Compact, a consultant was hired to advise how to prevent that from reoccurring. His answer was that they couldn't prevent it, and so should focus on developing their terms of sale. This is at least ten years ago. My point is that this view of markets running the globe has apparently been in the works for some time now. But we never hear about it.

The judgements from ISDS case are monetary, not punitive. The law wouldn't be changed, the offended party would be paid a monetary award paid by the tax payers to compensate for damages. It is turning the relationship between the government and the commercial entities a little more on its ear. Government in the past as a neutral set the ground rules for businesses to compete with in and enforced those rules to assure some degree of fairness and to introduce factors that the commercial transaction wouldn't otherwise take into account, what economists call externalities, worker safety, not polluting, etc. It is now moving further toward the government being responsible for reducing the risk of business and guaranteeing profits. If the government and the people want a clean environment they should pay businesses directly to provide it, for example. Business shouldn't have to pay to now have to clean up their processes because they didn't have to in the past when they went into business. In other words by squatter's rights they have the right to pollute and by taking that right away the government should liable because they changed the rules.

Exactly. There are times that regulations are rigged to favor supporters and I'm all for overturning such laws. However, simply having more strict laws doesn't inherently mean they're wrong.

Note that this problem exists domestically as well as between nations. Look at the battles Uber and Tesla have fought to overturn protectionism codified into law.

A method for overturning such bad laws should exist but it should have a reasonably high burden of proof.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yeah. I'm in an industry that's been ravaged by competition. Do I care about the foreign competitors? No, other than as a short-term problem it's a non-issue. The quality of outsourced coding leaves a lot to be desired.

What really hurts is the H1-B workers. They're here, working under American managers and getting heavily subsidized by the advantages of living here and the shot at a green card. That's no longer honest competition.

So if a company outsources programming to someone in India that is make 50% of what you make to program is okay but if they pay someone 75% of what you make here it's not honest?

The 75% is a subsidized wage. The 50% is not.

The 50% guy isn't free trade, either--the currency doesn't float properly. However, even with that I don't consider India to be a serious threat.

 

[Jayjay]

What really hurts is the H1-B workers. They're here, working under American managers and getting heavily subsidized by the advantages of living here and the shot at a green card. That's no longer honest competition.

What subsidies are you talking about? The American workers also have "the advantages living here", and the reason they don't have a shot at a green card is that they don't need it. Sounds fair enough to me, and it seems that you are only complaining because the H1B workers are actually competitive.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What really hurts is the H1-B workers. They're here, working under American managers and getting heavily subsidized by the advantages of living here and the shot at a green card. That's no longer honest competition.

What subsidies are you talking about? The American workers also have "the advantages living here", and the reason they don't have a shot at a green card is that they don't need it. Sounds fair enough to me, and it seems that you are only complaining because the H1B workers are actually competitive.

They are subsidized by being allowed to be here and the possibility of a green card out of it which would let them in time bring their whole family. Green cards are very valuable.

 

[bilby]

What subsidies are you talking about? The American workers also have "the advantages living here", and the reason they don't have a shot at a green card is that they don't need it. Sounds fair enough to me, and it seems that you are only complaining because the H1B workers are actually competitive.

They are subsidized by being allowed to be here and the possibility of a green card out of it which would let them in time bring their whole family. Green cards are very valuable.

But it's only a subsidy if they are getting something you don't get.

If you and your family are allowed to live and work in the USA, and so are they, where is the subsidy?

You are complaining because they are being given something that you too were given. The only difference is that they had to struggle to get it, while you were given it for free at birth. If anyone can complain here, it is for them to complain that you got a free pass.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

They are subsidized by being allowed to be here and the possibility of a green card out of it which would let them in time bring their whole family. Green cards are very valuable.

But it's only a subsidy if they are getting something you don't get.

If you and your family are allowed to live and work in the USA, and so are they, where is the subsidy?

You are complaining because they are being given something that you too were given. The only difference is that they had to struggle to get it, while you were given it for free at birth. If anyone can complain here, it is for them to complain that you got a free pass.

It's a subsidy if it's something the employer provides them that they don't provide me.

 

[bilby]

But it's only a subsidy if they are getting something you don't get.

If you and your family are allowed to live and work in the USA, and so are they, where is the subsidy?

You are complaining because they are being given something that you too were given. The only difference is that they had to struggle to get it, while you were given it for free at birth. If anyone can complain here, it is for them to complain that you got a free pass.

It's a subsidy if it's something the employer provides them that they don't provide me.

The right to live and work in the US is provided to both you and them by the US government, not their employer. They had to sell their labour to a US employer as a condition; you got yours unconditionally, for being a member of the lucky sperm club.

It is understandable that you, as a member of an exclusive club, object to other people being allowed to join and gain the benefits that you see as yours by right.

Understandable, but in no way laudable, or even excusable.

 

[Jayjay]

What subsidies are you talking about? The American workers also have "the advantages living here", and the reason they don't have a shot at a green card is that they don't need it. Sounds fair enough to me, and it seems that you are only complaining because the H1B workers are actually competitive.

They are subsidized by being allowed to be here and the possibility of a green card out of it which would let them in time bring their whole family. Green cards are very valuable.

Not as valuable as citizenship. And the last time I checked, American citizens are also allowed to stay in America and have in fact better chances of bringing over family members from abroad than mere Green Card would. You just don't like fair competition in your own field.

 

[Jayjay]

But it's only a subsidy if they are getting something you don't get.

If you and your family are allowed to live and work in the USA, and so are they, where is the subsidy?

You are complaining because they are being given something that you too were given. The only difference is that they had to struggle to get it, while you were given it for free at birth. If anyone can complain here, it is for them to complain that you got a free pass.

It's a subsidy if it's something the employer provides them that they don't provide me.

Is it backwards day already? It is a cost to the employer that it doesn't have to provide to you because you already enjoy those privileges. That's the opposite of a subsidy.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's a subsidy if it's something the employer provides them that they don't provide me.

The right to live and work in the US is provided to both you and them by the US government, not their employer. They had to sell their labour to a US employer as a condition; you got yours unconditionally, for being a member of the lucky sperm club.

It is understandable that you, as a member of an exclusive club, object to other people being allowed to join and gain the benefits that you see as yours by right.

Understandable, but in no way laudable, or even excusable.

I do not categorically object to immigrants. I object to said immigrant status being obtained as a job benefit when the employer pays nothing to provide it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

They are subsidized by being allowed to be here and the possibility of a green card out of it which would let them in time bring their whole family. Green cards are very valuable.

Not as valuable as citizenship. And the last time I checked, American citizens are also allowed to stay in America and have in fact better chances of bringing over family members from abroad than mere Green Card would. You just don't like fair competition in your own field.

There's no issue of chance. You either can bring someone over or you can't. There's one case where a green card holder can't bring someone that a citizen can but otherwise it's simply a matter of how long the wait is. Note that once you have a green card it's basically trivial to convert that to citizenship after 5 years.

 

[coloradoatheist]

The right to live and work in the US is provided to both you and them by the US government, not their employer. They had to sell their labour to a US employer as a condition; you got yours unconditionally, for being a member of the lucky sperm club.

It is understandable that you, as a member of an exclusive club, object to other people being allowed to join and gain the benefits that you see as yours by right.

Understandable, but in no way laudable, or even excusable.

I do not categorically object to immigrants. I object to said immigrant status being obtained as a job benefit when the employer pays nothing to provide it.

And you got that right because you were lucky enough to born on the right side of imaginary lines, which should it matter which place on earth that you are born?

 

[ksen]

The right to live and work in the US is provided to both you and them by the US government, not their employer. They had to sell their labour to a US employer as a condition; you got yours unconditionally, for being a member of the lucky sperm club.

It is understandable that you, as a member of an exclusive club, object to other people being allowed to join and gain the benefits that you see as yours by right.

Understandable, but in no way laudable, or even excusable.

I do not categorically object to immigrants. I object to said immigrant status being obtained as a job benefit when the employer pays nothing to provide it.

The employer has to pay a lawyer to keep the paperwork updated.

 

[Axulus]

I do not categorically object to immigrants. I object to said immigrant status being obtained as a job benefit when the employer pays nothing to provide it.

And you got that right because you were lucky enough to born on the right side of imaginary lines, which should it matter which place on earth that you are born?

I think he is claiming that immigrants are accepting jobs that they wouldn't otherwise accept without the possibility of obtaining a green card (or are willing to accept such jobs at substantially lower pay than they would otherwise agree to without the green card benefit). However, no evidence has been provided to substantiate the claim.

 

[arkirk]

And you got that right because you were lucky enough to born on the right side of imaginary lines, which should it matter which place on earth that you are born?

I think he is claiming that immigrants are accepting jobs that they wouldn't otherwise accept without the possibility of obtaining a green card (or are willing to accept such jobs at substantially lower pay than they would otherwise agree to without the green card benefit). However, no evidence has been provided to substantiate the claim.

We start off with Axulus calling Elizabeth Warren a special interest hack because she does not want our country's soverignty to be compromised in such a manner we can no longer protect the environment or consumers from would be importers of harmful imports without paying them for their lost expected profits. I am on board with that special interest.
I think Axulus owes us an explanation of just what he considers a "special interest."