Russia ready for talks. Ukraine must undergo ' denazification '

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

My position is the same with China: their human rights record is a tragedy, but not something I regard as a priority for us to police. We and the other leading democracies should get together on some trade policy that would act as a carrot and a stick to gradually bring China into line when it comes to human rights, but as long as they're only focused within their own borders, that's not a particularly pressing issue. If, on the other hand, China were to follow Putin's lead and try to seize Taiwan with military force, that would be an immediate issue calling for worldwide embargo and military aid to Taiwan.

Right. you like their human slavery system to help destroy the american middle class.

you're kind of a globalist sicko.

[Mina]

Right. you like their human slavery system to help destroy the american middle class.

I like the way free trade has improved quality of life in China even as it has improved it for the American middle class. I recognize that before the WTO went into force, in 1994, people in both countries were worse off than they are today. That doesn't mean everything is perfect in either, but at least we've been moving in the right direction. As I said, I'd like to see us work in concert with other wealthy democracies to accelerate that process -- to put China in a position where it needs to steadily and diligently clean up its human rights act in order to preserve low-tariff access to any of the leading consumer economies. Unfortunately, that kind of coordinated approach will run into opposition from the kind of moron who treats any multinational cooperation as "new world order" globalism, to be feared and loathed.

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

I like the way free trade has improved quality of life in China even as it has improved it for the American middle class. I recognize that before the WTO went into force, in 1994, people in both countries were worse off than they are today. That doesn't mean everything is perfect in either, but at least we've been moving in the right direction. As I said, I'd like to see us work in concert with other wealthy democracies to accelerate that process -- to put China in a position where it needs to steadily and diligently clean up its human rights act in order to preserve low-tariff access to any of the leading consumer economies. Unfortunately, that kind of coordinated approach will run into opposition from the kind of moron who treats any multinational cooperation as "new world order" globalism, to be feared and loathed.

it has ruined the middle class in america.

a bunch of cheap shit doesn't make up for all jobs being outsourced.




Why the Global 1% and the Asian Middle Class Have Gained the Most from Globalization


https://hbr.org/2016/05/why-the-glob...referral=00060

It is by now well-known that the period from the mid-1980s to today has been the period of the greatest reshuffle of personal incomes since the Industrial Revolution. It’s also the first time that global inequality has declined in the past two hundred years. The “winners” were the middle and upper classes of the relatively poor Asian countries and the global top 1%. The (relative) “losers” were the people in the lower and middle parts of rich countries’

[Mina]

it has ruined the middle class in america.

When I compare were we are today to where we were before the WTO, I just don't see evidence of the Middle Class being ruined. We have higher median real incomes (despite significantly fewer hours worked), lower poverty rates, lower unemployment, a higher share of people covered by health insurance, and a more livable country in almost any measurable way (e.g., lower violent crime rates).

In what sense has the Middle Class been ruined?

Your link basically argues that although people are better off now in absolute terms, inequality has grown, and that's something people feel keenly enough that they don't care that they're better off. I guess I'm different, in that Schadenfreude doesn't drive me the same way. For example, would you rather have a replay of the Clinton years (people got richer across the board.... but the rich got richer faster than others, thanks to a booming stock market, so inequality rose), or of the late Bush years (people got poorer across the board... but the rich got poorer faster than others, thanks to a stock market implosion, so inequality fell). I'd go with the Clinton years in a heartbeat. But if Schadenfreude is your thing, maybe you're happy to get poorer, as long as you get the joy of watching others lose ground even faster.

Even having said that, though, I think Branko Milanovic's argument doesn't hold together, since inequality was actually rising MUCH FASTER before the WTO era. For example, between 1974 and 1994 (first year of the WTO), the GINI coefficient (a standard measure of income inequality) rose 0.061 points. Between 1994 and 2014 it rose 0.024. So, it was growing over two and a half times as fast in the two decades before the WTO than the two decades after. That's not at all the pattern we'd predict if global trade were a driver for inequality.

In fact, the fastest pace of income inequality growth was actually right BEFORE the WTO, in the late 1980's and early 1990's. That wasn't about any great trade liberalization, since Reagan and Bush had failed to get the WTO reforms or NAFTA passed. Instead, it was about upper-class tax cuts, social spending cuts, minimum wage stagnation, and other policies designed to help the economic aristocracy and hurt the middle class.

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

When I compare were we are today to where we were before the WTO, I just don't see evidence of the Middle Class being ruined. We have higher median real incomes (despite significantly fewer hours worked), lower poverty rates, lower unemployment, a higher share of people covered by health insurance, and a more livable country in almost any measurable way (e.g., lower violent crime rates).

In what sense has the Middle Class been ruined?

Your link basically argues that although people are better off now in absolute terms, inequality has grown, and that's something people feel keenly enough that they don't care that they're better off. I guess I'm different, in that Schadenfreude doesn't drive me the same way. For example, would you rather have a replay of the Clinton years (people got richer across the board.... but the rich got richer faster than others, thanks to a booming stock market, so inequality rose), or of the late Bush years (people got poorer across the board... but the rich got poorer faster than others, thanks to a stock market implosion, so inequality fell). I'd go with the Clinton years in a heartbeat. But if Schadenfreude is your thing, maybe you're happy to get poorer, as long as you get the joy of watching others lose ground even faster.

Even having said that, though, I think Branko Milanovic's argument doesn't hold together, since inequality was actually rising MUCH FASTER before the WTO era. For example, between 1974 and 1994 (first year of the WTO), the GINI coefficient (a standard measure of income inequality) rose 0.061 points. Between 1994 and 2014 it rose 0.024. So, it was growing over two and a half times as fast in the two decades before the WTO than the two decades after. That's not at all the pattern we'd predict if global trade were a driver for inequality.

In fact, the fastest pace of income inequality growth was actually right BEFORE the WTO, in the late 1980's and early 1990's. That wasn't about any great trade liberalization, since Reagan and Bush had failed to get the WTO reforms or NAFTA passed. Instead, it was about upper-class tax cuts, social spending cuts, minimum wage stagnation, and other policies designed to help the economic aristocracy and hurt the middle class.

Im sorry you're not observant and are disconnected from reality.

of course sending as much work overseas as possible to maximize short term profits destroys the working class.

That's what the data shows, and that's why trump keeps winning, despite globalist liars like you.

[moon]

Oh, I hurt the poor little puppet's feelings. Cry to your troll-farm mates, Tovarisch. Nobody here gives a fuck.

And you are aligned with whom, exactly ?

Haw, haw............................................haw .

Remember- you kicked it off- just like fucking Zelensky.

[moon]

My position is the same with China:

So-- you have a ' position ' on China ?

Pompous poseur.

Haw, haw.............................haw.

[Mina]

of course sending as much work overseas as possible to maximize short term profits destroys the working class.

What we get when we lower trade barriers is better access to foreign markets. Whether that will help or hurt people is something that can be tested with the data. As you know, since the WTO, pretty much every measure of well-being for the middle class has improved.

That's what the data shows, and that's why trump keeps winning...

Are you talking about that loser who twice failed to get the popular vote?

[Mina]

And you are aligned with whom, exactly ?

I'm aligned with the truth. That's a strange concept, I know, for those of you who taking your marching orders from Putin.

[Mina]

So-- you have a ' position ' on China ?

Of course I do. Ask Putin what your position is on the topic and then get back to me.

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

What we get when we lower trade barriers is better access to foreign markets. Whether that will help or hurt people is something that can be tested with the data. As you know, since the WTO, pretty much every measure of well-being for the middle class has improved.



Are you talking about that loser who twice failed to get the popular vote?

blah blah blah.

yes it's good for the 1%. everyone acknowledges that.

it's shit for everyone else.

[Mina]

byes it's good for the 1%. everyone acknowledges that.

Actually, if you reread, the indicators I've been talking about are relevant to the middle class, not the 1%. Compare where we are today to where we were the year before the WTO and NAFTA. Are real MEDIAN incomes up or down? Is the poverty rate up or down? How about the unemployment rate? Crime rates? Home ownership rates? Are household debt payment eating up more or less of disposable personal income?

Answer those questions honestly and you should spot the issue with your talking points.

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

Actually, if you reread, the indicators I've been talking about are relevant to the middle class, not the 1%. Compare where we are today to where we were the year before the WTO and NAFTA. Are real MEDIAN incomes up or down? Is the poverty rate up or down? How about the unemployment rate? Crime rates? Home ownership rates? Are household debt payment eating up more or less of disposable personal income?

Answer those questions honestly and you should spot the issue with your talking points.

My talking points are spot on.

Im happy with my position.

You're a globalist cretin.

[Mina]

Im happy with my position.

I have no doubt. For people who don't care about facts, even a position that is clearly at odds with all available evidence can be satisfactory. For me, though, I come at things from the opposite direction entirely. I don't start with the conclusion. I start by researching the data, then I form my conclusions around what I find. When it comes to NAFTA and the WTO, the simple fact is that during the couple decades directly before them, things were getting worse for the middle class, whereas in the decades since, things have improved. Those are facts, and they helped me to come to conclusions about global trade.

You're [teaching me a lot].

I know I am. You're welcome.

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

I have no doubt. For people who don't care about facts, even a position that is clearly at odds with all available evidence can be satisfactory. For me, though, I come at things from the opposite direction entirely. I don't start with the conclusion. I start by researching the data, then I form my conclusions around what I find. When it comes to NAFTA and the WTO, the simple fact is that during the couple decades directly before them, things were getting worse for the middle class, whereas in the decades since, things have improved. Those are facts, and they helped me to come to conclusions about global trade.



I know I am. You're welcome.

these are the facts.

It is by now well-known that the period from the mid-1980s to today has been the period of the greatest reshuffle of personal incomes since the Industrial Revolution. It’s also the first time that global inequality has declined in the past two hundred years. The “winners” were the middle and upper classes of the relatively poor Asian countries and the global top 1%. The (relative) “losers” were the people in the lower and middle parts of rich countries’

https://hbr.org/2016/05/why-the-glob...referral=00060