General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Keith Ellison: [View all]JHan
(10,173 posts)You already know my views on this.
Every market model has winners and losers, there's nothing new about this.
Politifact did a great analysis of competing arguments on the exact number of jobs lost to NAFTA - just to draw an example . EPI claimed the deal about 851,000 jobs . However research by other groups claimed otherwise including a Congressional bipartisan report which concluded that the effects claimed by EPI, and other critics, were overstated: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/mar/07/bernie-s/sanders-overshoots-nafta-job-losses/
Regardless of how you feel about NAFTA, none of the estimations in that link, even by NAFTA's harshest critics, match the impact of technology on job loss. Between 2000-2010 alone, there was a loss of 5.6 million jobs due to technological advancements, according to Center for Business and Economic Research, Ball State University.
Each one of these links below spell it out, including cost benefit analyses, of the impact of automation on the auto industry and how even 3D printing could revolutionise and affect employment in small - medium businesses:
How Robots Will Redefine Competitiveness
The Truth About Trade, What Critics Get Wrong About the Global Economy
The Future of Employment: How susceptible are jobs to computerisation?
U.S manufacturing is alive and well but not creating jobs
Of course I want trade deals to be better, with fair labor and environment standards, but the TPP tried to include that and was demonized because the fuss was those provisions ( which, I admit, could have gone even further) couldn't be enforced. What this critique misses is that any country in an agreement seeks to adhere to all provisions than risk defying them - the delicious irony is that critics using this enforcement argument about the TPP also claimed out of the other side of their mouths, and without a shred of awareness, that no trade deal should trump domestic laws .
Now that the TPP is dead, Vietnam and Japan ,and the other pacific rim countries involved in the TPP deal, are looking to China - the next logical big player after the U.S - for a similar deal. However those same labor and environment provisions in the TPP will be absent from whatever agreement they make with China because China doesn't care about such things.
*Slow clap*
And this move will lock American business completely out of the Asia Market - I don't need to spell out the effects on of this back home.
Ruining and tearing up existing agreements, or imposing tariffs to punish trade partners or scapegoating trade agreements for problems caused by national policy or poor choices made at state or federal level is just wrong.
But back to Keith Ellison - the artful smears of Perez as "establishment" , the false dichotomy of progressives and "establishment" continues to be harmful when the point is about party structure and stability vs anarchy and disorder. Keith participated, played the rules, got his endorsements, so did Perez , and Perez won. If Progressives who supported Keith, and despised Perez, really believed in what they claimed, they'd have supported Jehmu Greene - the only candidate who promised she'd get rid of super delegates and caucuses and push grass roots activism ( which everyone agreed on anyway)
All of this talk about "listening to the progressive wing" is nonsensical - Tom and Keith are aware of the issues, and attempts by those on the outside who used the DNC chair vote as a proxy fight to dust up a feud or cause mayhem because their guy didn't win is beyond disgusting.