Economy US Farmers helpless as TPP boosts Australia and Canada.

ultramanhyata said:
So share a link to a piece you have read that you believe effectively sells the TPP as a working and middle class-friendly trade agreement.
Click to expand...

I did that multiple times 2016. It's a dead issue now just like Ralph Nader's career
 
PolishHeadlock said:
Lol
Click to expand...
https://epi.3cdn.net/fdade52b876e04793b_7fm6ivz2y.pdf
https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordeba...-suffered-and-the-united-states-felt-its-pain

"As heavily subsidized U.S. corn and other staples poured into Mexico, producer prices dropped and small farmers found themselves unable to make a living. Some two million have been forced to leave their farms since Nafta. At the same time, consumer food prices rose, notably the cost of the omnipresent tortilla."
 
PolishHeadlock said:
It's midnight on Saturday and you want me to dig up pro TPP articles to counter your 2015 Ralph Nader article....

That's sad
Click to expand...

Then do it tomorrow. There is no urgency. I'm watching the fights anyway. But I'll look forward to something, I assume, from a progressive heavy hitter like Krugman. Or Summers. lol
 
ultramanhyata said:
Then do it tomorrow. There is no urgency. I'm watching the fights anyway. But I'll look forward to something, I assume, from a progressive heavy hitter like Krugman. Or Summers. lol
Click to expand...

Krugman wasn't big on TPP, pretty neutral from what I remember
 
PrinceOfPain said:
I mean, without even getting into hiw 'needed' McDonald's is (it's not at all), your point seems to be that the existence of a job is sufficient evidence for the necessity of the job. No society in human history has ever "needed" burger flippers - lesst of all the most industrially productive and technologically advanced nation in history. So, maybe you shouldn't be trying to judge the validity of other people's points.

Anyway, like petrol attendants (whose pointlessness is evidenced by the fact that they do not consistently exist in countries with petrol stations) the fast food worker is not 'needed'. That is not a particularly contributory member of society. And yes, if it is a job being done by an adult, then something has already gone wrong, because it is a job that is hardly worth the time of a human at all.

Grocery store bag packer is pretty similar - in that it's a role that exists for the convenience of the consumer, but that's about it - it is not a "needed service", it's a make-work convenience.

So, back to the actual question: do you think this is a description that fits the american farmer?
And don't get so defensive, i'm not assuming it isn't. I am just apprehensive.
Click to expand...


You could pay that to anything. Do you "need" electricity? Some parts of the country dont.
 
7437 said:
You could pay that to anything. Do you "need" electricity? Some parts of the country dont.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that was a flawed logic. Do we NEED to grow soy beans for society to function. Is corn absolutely vital to a human diet? No.
 
What does my boy Bernie say? This was one area he agreed with Donal
 
PrinceOfPain said:
I mean, without even getting into hiw 'needed' McDonald's is (it's not at all), your point seems to be that the existence of a job is sufficient evidence for the necessity of the job. No society in human history has ever "needed" burger flippers - lesst of all the most industrially productive and technologically advanced nation in history. So, maybe you shouldn't be trying to judge the validity of other people's points.

Anyway, like petrol attendants (whose pointlessness is evidenced by the fact that they do not consistently exist in countries with petrol stations) the fast food worker is not 'needed'. That is not a particularly contributory member of society. And yes, if it is a job being done by an adult, then something has already gone wrong, because it is a job that is hardly worth the time of a human at all.

Grocery store bag packer is pretty similar - in that it's a role that exists for the convenience of the consumer, but that's about it - it is not a "needed service", it's a make-work convenience.

So, back to the actual question: do you think this is a description that fits the american farmer?
And don't get so defensive, i'm not assuming it isn't. I am just apprehensive.
Click to expand...

Not everyone is capable of being a policeman, doctor or accountant - I never understand why people shit on McDonald's or other low wage earners - at least they are trying.

What proletariat endeavor puts beans on your table?
 
That was a pretty good bait and switch there homey...

You know what helped farmers? NAFTA did, but at the cost to the middle class. The TPP is nice and all, but it won't benefit the middle class in the US
Click to expand...

So NAFTA hurt middle class farmers and the way it was worded made me think ahh.. US middle class farmers... Polish laughs at you and you respond with this.

ElKarlo said:
https://epi.3cdn.net/fdade52b876e04793b_7fm6ivz2y.pdf
https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordeba...-suffered-and-the-united-states-felt-its-pain

"As heavily subsidized U.S. corn and other staples poured into Mexico, producer prices dropped and small farmers found themselves unable to make a living. Some two million have been forced to leave their farms since Nafta. At the same time, consumer food prices rose, notably the cost of the omnipresent tortilla."
Click to expand...

So i am like damn... US lost 2 million middle class farmers since NAFTA? But lol and behold those 2 millions jobs lost were Mexican farming jobs because NAFTA benefited the US so much on that front we were able to flood Mexico with our produce and bankrupt so many Mexican farms who couldn't sell their goods...
 
SaiWa said:
That was a pretty good bait and switch there homey...



So NAFTA hurt middle class farmers and the way it was worded made me think ahh.. US middle class farmers... Polish laughs at you and you respond with this.



So i am like damn... US lost 2 million middle class farmers since NAFTA? But lol and behold those 2 millions jobs lost were Mexican farming jobs because NAFTA benefited the US so much on that front we were able to flood Mexico with our produce and bankrupt so many Mexican farms who couldn't sell their goods...
Click to expand...
Yep, it wrecked Mexican farmers as much as it wrecked US manufacturers . Was a bad deal for both countries and really started the massive immigration from Mexico
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,882
Messages
55,451,166
Members
174,783
Latest member
notnormal

Share this page

Back
Top