Skidmore
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jan-13-10 03:46 PM
Original message |
Why are we not demanding the repeal of |
|
1) NAFTA 2) Glass-Steagal
as a place to begin reform in the banking sector and a place to begin with job creation?
|
doc03
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jan-13-10 03:51 PM
Response to Original message |
1. Cause Congress is bought and paid for by |
OneTenthofOnePercent
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jan-13-10 03:54 PM
Response to Original message |
2. Because that would violate Obama's campaign promise. |
|
We Hope that he Changes shit...
If he actually changed anything, then we'd have nothing to hope for. Thus far, Obama is delivering on his Hope/Change campaign... I know I'm still hoping shit changes.
|
Freddie Stubbs
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jan-13-10 03:56 PM
Response to Original message |
3. Because not all of us want NAFTA repealed |
|
Edited on Wed Jan-13-10 03:56 PM by Freddie Stubbs
Anyone remember Smoot–Hawley?
|
Motown_Johnny
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jan-13-10 03:58 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
4. why in the world would you not want NAFTA repealed? |
|
as well as every other similar trade agreement
Do you honestly believe Shrub's BS about service based industries being the future of America?
|
jgraz
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jan-13-10 04:07 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
7. Except the Smoot-Hawley tariffs were largely rolled back in 1944 |
|
Google "Bretton Woods Agreement".
SH has always been the favorite scare tactic for pro-corporate free-traders. It turns out that we had almost 50 years of economic and wage growth with Smoot-Hawley in place. Since NAFTA, wages have remained largely flat.
|
zipplewrath
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jan-13-10 04:18 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
|
You might want to look into that assertion again. It isn't all that clear that it hurt. Whether it helped is even harder to tell. And NAFTA changes wouldn't necessarily be a repeat of SH anyway. Mostly it is a case of ensuring that IF foreign countries want to compete with the american worker, they have to have american style protections FOR those workers, including workman's comp, SS, OSHA, etc. Many foreign countries do (especially since they have better social safety nets and health care access than we do). It's just to prevent some "race to the bottom" kind of feature you need SOME minimum standards. And that include environmental protections as well.
|
WeDidIt
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jan-13-10 03:59 PM
Response to Original message |
5. Glass Steagall was repealed in 1999 |
Jeff In Milwaukee
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jan-13-10 04:01 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
6. That's correct...but... |
|
I think legislation has been introduced in the House to bring it back. Sometime in the past two months or so.
|
progressoid
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jan-13-10 04:18 PM
Response to Original message |
9. Glass-Steagal was repealed - - Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act is the one we and repealed. |
ParkieDem
(417 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jan-13-10 04:18 PM
Response to Original message |
|
probably because its repeal had nothing to do with the financial crisis and nothing to do with the current recession.
|
Vincardog
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jan-13-10 04:22 PM
Response to Reply #10 |
11. Glass-Steagall repeal had nothing to do with the financial crisis? What world do YOU live on? |
ParkieDem
(417 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-14-10 11:37 AM
Response to Reply #11 |
|
I live in the world where the financial crisis was caused by (a) interest rates that were kept artificially low for way too long, and (b)the adoption of mark-to-market accounting for valuation of bank assets. Glass-Steagall and its repeal had nothing to do with the financial crisis -- it didn't cause it, make it better, or make it worse.
|
Vincardog
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-15-10 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #12 |
13. And allowing our BANKS to engage in unregulated SPECULATION putting our money at risk while buying |
|
derivatives betting on our financial failure had no bearing?
I get it you are joking.
You forgot the :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Thu Apr 25th 2024, 01:49 AM
Response to Original message |