SERVING THE QUANTITATIVE FINANCE COMMUNITY

tagoma
Posts: 18254
Joined: February 21st, 2010, 12:58 pm

Re: Trump -- the last 100 days

The original NAFTA was a terrible deal. Somehow they managed to shift millions of jobs to mexico without improving wages in mexico.
It was also supposed to solve the illegal immigration problem, which instead is far worse now than it was when NAFTA was passed.
As Viscount Melbourne said of Ireland, "What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass."

Your statements above are somewhat inconsistent from other sources e.g. Wikipedia which is the 1st google query result for NAFTA.
Most economic analyses indicate that NAFTA has been beneficial to the North American economies and the average citizen,[6][7][8] but harmed a small minority of workers in industries exposed to trade competition.[9][10] Economists hold that withdrawing from NAFTA or renegotiating NAFTA in a way that reestablishes trade barriers will adversely affect the U.S. economy and cost jobs.[11][12][13] However, Mexico would be much more severely affected by job loss and reduction of economic growth in both the short term and long term.[14]
When you get pregnant you have to be prepared to poop in diapers. I mean you know you get the whole package if you sign up. And it actually is a good point you are making here the very stable genius must be smart enough to foresee possible negative externalities (for the US) of the free trade he praises.

ppauper
Posts: 70239
Joined: November 15th, 2001, 1:29 pm

Re: Trump -- the last 100 days

if you look at a different wiki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAFTA%27s ... employment
you get more accurate figures.
The trade deficit with Mexico has risen from $2 billion in 1994 to$60 billion in 2015.
According to that wiki,
see the argument of the proponents of NAFTA as being one-sided because they only take into consideration export-oriented job impact instead of looking at the trade balance, also known as net exports. They argue that increases in imports ultimately displaced the production of goods that would have been made domestically by workers within the United States
You get people like the CFR arguing that exports to Mexico have increased therefore jobs have been created, but the counterpoint is that imports have increased far more than exports leading to a significant net job loss.
And the lost jobs were well-paying manufacturing ones

U.S.-Mexico trade and job displacement after NAFTA

from the economic policy institute
there's a 22 page pdf file
they put job losses by 2010 (so eight years ago now) at 682,900
According to their study, 61% of the net job losses due to trade with Mexico under NAFTA, or 415,000 jobs, were relatively high paying manufacturing jobs.
That's net jobs, so far more jobs were lost than were created

I suppose if there are over 300 million people in the US, a net job loss of 682,000 is "a small minority"

from back in 2003, same institute
The high price of ‘free’ trade
NAFTA’s failure has cost the United States jobs across the nation

they quote Bush I as saying in 2002 that “two million NAFTA-related jobs have been created in the United States since 1993”
Two million jobs? that's wonderful. But that's jobs created by exports, and the trade gap has widened so more jobs have been lost to imports than gained by exports and the article goes on to say,
But any evaluation of the impact of trade on the domestic economy must include the impact of both imports and exports. If the United States exports 1,000 cars to Mexico, many American workers are employed in their production. If, however, the United States imports 1,000 cars from Mexico rather than building them domestically, then a similar number of Americans who would have otherwise been employed in the auto industry will have to find other work.
When NAFTA was being proposed,
Prominent economists and U.S. government officials predicted that the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) would lead to growing trade surpluses with Mexico and that hundreds of thousands of jobs would be gained (Hufbauer and Schott 1993; President Clinton 1993).
We have massive deficits not growing surpluses

bearish
Posts: 4707
Joined: February 3rd, 2011, 2:19 pm

Re: Trump -- the last 100 days

The only way to keep a large number of "relatively high paying manufacturing jobs" for uneducated Americans is to throw up massive anti free trade measures, which have many negative side effects, including higher domestic prices and thus lower purchasing power for the US population at large. That may be the right answer, but should not be confused with support of free (or, for that matter, fair) trade.

ppauper
Posts: 70239
Joined: November 15th, 2001, 1:29 pm

Re: Trump -- the last 100 days

on the contrary, genuine free trade, with no tariffs, barriers or subsidies, would benefit the US, but that's not what these "free trade deals" are

bearish
Posts: 4707
Joined: February 3rd, 2011, 2:19 pm

It would absolutely benefit the US at large, but not the large swath of people in the US with virtually no marketable skills who would like to make $25 per hour + the most expensive health care in the world. Curiously, that seems to correlate really well with the Trump base. bearish Posts: 4707 Joined: February 3rd, 2011, 2:19 pm Re: Trump -- the last 100 days This seems relevant in context. On the disastrous consequences of fully protecting an industry against international competition: Jones Act. tagoma Posts: 18254 Joined: February 21st, 2010, 12:58 pm Re: Trump -- the last 100 days President Trump unveiling its poor recruitment process. He doesn't seem to weigh that a mediocre POTUS team could send the whole country against the wall. I'm even not mentioning the audio made public that is strongly inconsistent with President Trump's twit. ppauper Posts: 70239 Joined: November 15th, 2001, 1:29 pm Re: Trump -- the last 100 days President Trump is too kind-hearted. He gave Omarosa something which most people never get, a second chance. Still, it's not like she was in senior role. bearish Posts: 4707 Joined: February 3rd, 2011, 2:19 pm Re: Trump -- the last 100 days So the soft-hearted old man just randomly hired unqualified people. That was a core plank of his platform, I seem to remember... ppauper Posts: 70239 Joined: November 15th, 2001, 1:29 pm Re: Trump -- the last 100 days she had a job conducting outreach to black communities She was qualified for the job, the issue seems to have been that she constantly missed meetings and was nasty to her coworkers. "Does not play well with others" as it were. General Kelly cleaned house when he first came in and wanted to get rid of her then, When Gen. Kelly came on board he told me she was a loser & nothing but problems. I told him to try working it out, if possible, because she only said GREAT things about me – until she got fired!' Odd that omarosa being fired gets so much airtime while the story below about a much more senior obama official seems to have got little if any a fascinating video has just been made public of William Mendoza (the director of the White House Initiative on American Indian and Alaska Native Education under Obama) Surveillance footage shows one of President Obama's senior officials following a woman around a DC Metro station and taking a picture up her skirt with his cell phone This was over 2 years ago, when obama was still in office, and we're only learning about it now His arrest and conviction were never made public until DailyMail.com acquired the report of the investigation and the footage through a Freedom of Information Act request. (snip) Mendoza was arrested and charged in November 2016 after the woman, as well as three others, complained about his behavior cops. He pleaded guilty to a charge of attempted voyeurism in January 2017, was given suspended 90-day prison sentence, one year’s probation and was fined$100. He has not worked in public office since stepping down.
(snip)
The married father-of-three was caught carrying out the vile act on July 5, 2016
He pleaded guilty to attempted voyeurism and resigned from his job
This was with a government issued phone during work hours

the timeline raises some questions
The incident occured in July 2016 but he wasn't arrested and charged until November 2016. There was an election on November 8, 2016.
From elsewhere, he was charged on November 25, 2016.
Did they perhaps wa it until after the election?
He pled guilty in January 2017 and resigned his job. But President Trump took office on January 20, 2017, when he'd have been out of work anyway. I hope resigning from his job wasn't part of the plea bargain.
It's not the first time he's been in the news
White House Indian education official accused of assaulting Native American over Redskins
The official in charge of a White House initiative on American Indian education allegedly pummeled a Native American student who was visiting Washington, D.C., for displaying his support for the Washington Redskins.
The incident allegedly occurred when Barrett Dahl, an autistic college student from Oklahoma, showed up at a powwow in Washington wearing a Redskins football jersey, which he told Oklahoma's News 9 he viewed as source of cultural pride.

bearish
Posts: 4707
Joined: February 3rd, 2011, 2:19 pm

Re: Trump -- the last 100 days

Trump oddly seems to think that the release of a tape having him using the "n-word" would hurt him. Given the whole pussy thing, I think it's going to work in his favor. One has to consider who his base is!

ppauper
Posts: 70239
Joined: November 15th, 2001, 1:29 pm

Re: Trump -- the last 100 days

if such a tape existed, it would have been released long ago

I'm surprised the media are interested in this
There was little if any coverage by the mainstream media when we learned during the 2016 election that the n-word was one of the racial epithets favored by Hillary
Hillary's Former White House Chef Says She Called Black Servant The ‘N-Word’
America dodged a bullet when she lost

tagoma
Posts: 18254
Joined: February 21st, 2010, 12:58 pm

Re: Trump -- the last 100 days

While the importance of respect for teammates is being discussed --
Trump on Miss Manigault : "lowlife"  "dog"

ppauper
Posts: 70239
Joined: November 15th, 2001, 1:29 pm

Re: Trump -- the last 100 days

omarosa held 4 jobs in 2 years in the clinton administration
glowing references
According to the new issue of PEOPLE, the former political appointee — who spoke glowingly of her White House days — was banished from four jobs in two years with the Clinton administration.
At her last one, “she was asked to leave as quickly as possible, she was so disruptive,” says Cheryl Shavers, the former Under Secretary for Technology at the Commerce Department, where Omarosa worked several weeks in 2000. “One woman wanted to slug her.”
Manigault-Stallworth, 30, was also bounced from a previous position at Commerce, says another former administration official, “because she couldn’t get along with people.”
At her first White House gig, answering invitations received by Vice President Al Gore, “she didn’t do her job, and it got everybody in trouble,” says a former Gore staffer.
from elsewhere
But numerous former staff members in that office said that she was pushed out of an entry-level, \$25,000-a-year job replying to invitations to Mr. Gore after 13 months, leaving a pile of unanswered correspondence under her desk. “She was the worst hire we ever made,” said Mary Margaret Overbey, Mr. Gore’s former office administrator.
Ms. Manigault transferred to a job as deputy associate director of presidential personnel, then eight months later moved to the Commerce Department. In her statement, she said she performed well in that job. But Cheryl Shavers, then the agency’s under secretary for technology administration, disagreed, saying Ms. Manigault “was unqualified and disruptive,” so “I had her removed.”

bearish
Posts: 4707
Joined: February 3rd, 2011, 2:19 pm

Re: Trump -- the last 100 days

So, having applied his incredibly bad judgment to hire some person he obviously knew pretty well, when it didn't quite work out the way he wanted, he calls her a dog. A very stable genius, indeed.