General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forumspostulater
(5,075 posts)And it sucked the jobs right along with it.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)That is why China can afford fast trains, but we can't.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)and we, for several stupid reasons, are not.
Plucketeer
(12,882 posts)Who would keep the oil and rubber companies fat???
daleanime
(17,796 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)BeyondGeography
(39,374 posts)I think he promised an answer on running by the end of April.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Originally, Hillary promised one around in January 2015, then July 2015, then April 2015.
A lot of factors affect the date of announcement.
BeyondGeography
(39,374 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)Zorra
(27,670 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)hifiguy
(33,688 posts)RUN!
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Bare minimum
Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)aikoaiko
(34,170 posts)The trade deficit could go up, but we could still be selling more to China, right?
Curmudgeoness
(18,219 posts)since before the trade deals, we were not selling anything to them. But that is not the point. The point is that we were told that if we opened up the market to a country the size of China, we would open up a vast untapped market for our goods. That is not what happened.
Here is the export and import info on China by year:
https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c5700.html
erronis
(15,297 posts)It would have been nice to see pretty graphics on a year-by-year basis but it doesn't take more than a few scrolls down the page to see that the "Giant Sucking Sound" is getting louder every year.
Curmudgeoness
(18,219 posts)aikoaiko
(34,170 posts)Clinton promised more exports to China and that happened.
He didn't promise a trade gap reduction.
Curmudgeoness
(18,219 posts)if we are going to focus on the exact wording without including the rest of what we were told about the benefits to the US.
"I promise that I will not punch you." "I didn't say that I wouldn't kick you or bite you or shoot you." Doesn't matter much if you make me feel safer, but are just playing word games.
From what I see of our production and exports, we are exporting raw materials to China, and they are refining them and shipping them back to us as finished products. So increasing exports to China is a sleazy way to sell us something.
merrily
(45,251 posts)"Good grief" was all I managed.
As if Americans hearing "we'll sell more of out things" are not intended to have visions of a booming economy in the USA and all that comes with that.
Now, we're supposed to parse every word and phrase six ways to Sunday like Frank Luntz meets Newt Gingrich.
New Democrats need to hand out Politician to English dictionaries at every campaign stop.
merrily
(45,251 posts)arcane1
(38,613 posts)It's really clear when presented that way. Thanks for the link!!
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)We sell them capital. That is, we give them our money for their stuff.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)to take our resources and manufacture goods that they sold back to us. They wanted to tax goods that we made so their goods would be cheaper. It's time for another revolution not another "Frackin Free Trade Agreement."
merrily
(45,251 posts)Las Vegas casino owner, building casinos in China or wanting to. I did not pay close attention.
So, yeah, they are getting the money to buy, like the USA did after the Depression, and then some.
tularetom
(23,664 posts)See how it all works? We make a stupid decision, and a few years later when everybody has forgotten we did it, we attempt to repair it by making yet another stupid decision. And we blame the first stupid decision.
Sen. Sanders in spot on in his observation, but a trade agreement that excludes China is not the solution to a spiraling trade deficit with China.
appalachiablue
(41,144 posts)aggiesal
(8,916 posts)[font color=red size=10]S[/font]outhern
[font color=red size=10]H[/font]emisphere
[font color=red size=10]A[/font]sian
[font color=red size=10]F[/font]ree
[font color=red size=10]T[/font]rade
[font color=red size=10]A[/font]greement
As heard on the Thom Hartmann show.
appalachiablue
(41,144 posts)Maedhros
(10,007 posts)The Picts had proven a thorn in the side of the burgeoning Romano-Celt kingdom by raiding the British coast from their homeland in what is now Scotland. The 5th century warlord known as Vortigern ("Great King" sought help against the Picts, and in AD 449 invited the Germanic twins Hengist and Horsa to come to Britain and rid the land of the pernicious Picts. The twins had other plans, however, and usurped the throne from Vortigern and established their own kingdoms.
Maybe Obama is trying the same gambit: the Chinese economy is threatening America, so he is inviting international corporations to come deal with the Chinese and provide economic security to the U.S.. However, like Hengist and Horsa, I imagine the corporations have a different end-game in mind.
gregcrawford
(2,382 posts)gordianot
(15,238 posts)China has expressed interest in joining TPP as a financial reform. If that happens what is the outcome? Since this is all being negotiated in secret how does China know? At this juncture I do not think anyone knows for certain what is on the table including Bernie Sanders. Anyone's guess?
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)gordianot
(15,238 posts)Maybe on purpose? I see no positive scenarios or good spin.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)If the benefits to ordinary Americans are real, then there should be some detailed explanations available as to why.
But there aren't.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)Look at you, getting all first millennium.
I loved the story, but I missed a significant part of the point. How does inviting corporations to deal with the Chinese make the USA more economically secure?
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)I think Obama believes that the TPP provisions that grant so many benefits to international corporations will give them what they need to keep the Chinese at bay.
merrily
(45,251 posts)nationalize the fed
(2,169 posts)Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)Do you people understand exactly how much you are acting like the Tea Party?
"Not pure enough! Get the fuck out!"
nationalize the fed
(2,169 posts)right over the middle class
Here's some "Party" Purity for ya
"The truth of the matter is that my policies are so mainstream that if I had set the same policies that I had back in the 1980s, I would be considered a moderate Republican."- President Barack Obama
During an interview with Noticias Univision 23, the network's Miami affiliate newscast, Obama pushed back against the accusation made in some corners of south Florida's Cuban-American and Venezuelan communities that he wants to instill a socialist economic system in the U.S.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)zeemike
(18,998 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)and recommended a whole bunch!
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)chknltl
(10,558 posts)This shows me that Bill Clinton was wrong. I see nowhere in this OP that Senator Sanders is in agreement with Bill Clinton regarding Clinton's statement.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)being better capitalists than we are.
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)China is a one-party state, with real power lying with the Chinese Communist party. The country is governed under the constitution of 1982 as amended, the fifth constitution since the accession of the Communists in 1949. The unicameral legislature is the National People's Congress (NPC), consisting of deputies who are indirectly elected to terms of five years. The NPC decides on national economic strategy, elects or removes high officeholders, and can change China's constitution; it normally follows the directives of the Communist party's politburo. The executive branch consists of the president, who is head of state, and the premier, who is head of government. The president is elected by the NPC for a five-year term and and is eligible for reelection. The premier is nominated by the president and approved by the NPC. Administratively, the country is divided into 22 provinces, five autonomous regions, and four municipalities. Despite the concentration of power in the Communist party, the central government's control over the provinces and local governments is limited, and they are often able to act with relative impunity in many areas.
Read more: China: Government http://www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/world/china-government.html#ixzz3YcZkIuOk
China has experienced tremendous economic growth since the late 1970s. In large part as a result of economic liberalization policies, the gross domestic product (GDP) increased tenfold between 1978 and 2006, and foreign investment soared during the 1990s. In 2007 China passed Germany to become the world's third-largest economy, and in 2010 it passed Japan to become the second-largest. These gains obscure, however, the fact that per capita wealth is still significantly less than that of many smaller economies. China's challenge in the early 21st cent. will be to balance its largely centralized political system with an increasingly decentralized economic system and increase domestic consumption to diminish its economy's great dependence on exports for growth.
Agriculture is by far the leading occupation, involving almost 50% of the population, although extensive rough, high terrain and large arid areasespecially in the west and northlimit cultivation to only about 15% of the land surface. Since the late 1970s, China has decollectivized agriculture, yielding tremendous gains in production. Even with these improvements, agriculture accounts for only 12% of the nation's GDP. Despite initial gains in farmers' incomes in the early 1980s, taxes and fees have increasingly made farming an unprofitable occupation, and because the state owns all land, farmers have at times been easily evicted when croplands are sought by developers. Additional land reforms adopted in 2008 allow farmers to transfer land use rights.
Read more: China: Economy http://www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/world/china-economy.html#ixzz3Yca2WCVO
AuntPatsy
(9,904 posts)bigwillq
(72,790 posts)WillyT
(72,631 posts)blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)PosterChild
(1,307 posts)Since the dollars have to come back to the US to be worth anything? Well, basically , they GIVE us the dollars back, for nothing in return.
What they do is peg the yuan to just below the exchange rate that would prevail if trade were balanced. To keep the control the exchange rate they buy US Treasury bonds. For about next to nothing in interset, at times negative interest. In other words, they ship us a whole lot of stuff, then give us our money back.
Ultimately this won't work out good for them. The danger here is that when things unwind, their economy could crash and, given the interdependent global economy it could cause a lot of collateral damage.
Wouldn't be a bad idea to enter into some sort of a regional trade deal with them and to start putting some pressure on them to move away from this gambit.
YOHABLO
(7,358 posts)redruddyred
(1,615 posts)what alternate reality is he living in.
mother earth
(6,002 posts)SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)It is crazy to put food on the world market.
midnight
(26,624 posts)country would be replaced with jobs that were not even aware of. We some how were going to magically create jobs.
greyl
(22,990 posts)Did Bill say Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China would reduce the trade deficit?
AzDar
(14,023 posts)Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)I'm kinda betting she doesn't.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)progree
(10,908 posts)Well, there is this twitter from https://twitter.com/SenSanders
https://twitter.com/SenSanders/status/591982757808484352
You can also see it on the twitter feed on the left side of Sander's senate website, and scroll down to April 25.
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)(not a Twitter fan)