Korean Job Discussion Forums

[mack4289]

Hilary Clinton is against the Korus FTA and I've read elsewhere that so are the other Democrats (http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN0939324020070609?feedType=RSS). So I can choose from economically irresponsible candidates who want to pull out of the US' unwinnable war or from economically responsible candidates who want to continue the US' unwinnable war? Don't any of these people remember that Bill Clinton stole the other party's best ideas and it helped him leave office after 2 terms with a 65% approval rating (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2001-01-16-clinton-next.htm)? You'd figure Hilary would, considering she was married to him.

[Bibbitybop]

The article, here:

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN0939324020070609

said NOTHING about other democrats. You shouldn't lump all dems together, nor should you slam "other democrats" when they aren't in the article.

I'm not a Clinton fan, but in her defense, she said:

[mack4289]

Here's the source for the other Democrats:

http://joongangdaily.joins.com/article/view.asp?aid=2876588

"All three leading Democratic presidential candidates, senators Barack Obama, John Edwards and Clinton, have expressed concern about the free trade deal with Korea.
In a recent interview with ABC News, Obama spokeswoman Jen Psaki said, �Senator Obama does not support the Korea free trade agreement in its current form.�
�[President] Bush should shut down all trade negotiations with Korea until they prove their willingness to open their market to American automobiles and other U.S. products and agree to trade fairly,� Edwards said in February 2007."

Here's why I think this quote, �It will hurt the U.S. auto industry, increase our trade deficit, cost us good middle-class jobs and make America less competitive,� will be proven wrong. It will hurt the big carmakers. But with their union costs, do they have any choices besides a slow death or a fast one? I say the faster the better. If the big American carmakers go under, that'll free up more investment capital for new American car companies and make those new companies more viable. If the American auto industry is going to survive, it should take a page from the low cost American airlines. Airlines like Southwest and Jet Blue saw the big carriers had an outdated business model and started undercutting them. Something similar will have to happen in the US for us to have a viable auto industry.

The jobs created by these low cost car companies won't replace the $20/hour, full benefits kind of jobs that will be lost when the big carmakers go under. But if what you do requires a low degree of training, why should you get such high compensation? The less the low-training, high wage kind of jobs exist in America, the more motivated Americans will be to get more educated, which will be beneficial for America. That's why in an open economy one of government's most vital responsibilities is to expand access to higher education, something the Democrats are trying to do (http://www.usnews.com/usnews/biztech/articles/061110/10collegeloans.htm).

Cost us good middle class jobs? Yeah, probably in the short term. But cheaper goods, besides costing us jobs in the short term, keep inflation down, which makes access to investment capital easier. When you have easy access to capital, it becomes easier to start your own business and attract investors for it. It creates the ideal environment to encourage innovation.

Some people are probably thinking, "What if I don't want to start my own business? What if I just want a decent paying job with some security?" Well, don't think those jobs will be so easy to get in a more protected economy. In protected economies, you have the opposite inflation scenario, so that investment goes down and an economy stagnates. The most talented people leave those kinds of economies and take their innovative ideas elsewhere. Businesses that should've been wiped out by superior competition stagger along, propped up by investments that should be going to more efficient businesses. Starting more efficient businesses is more difficult, since the higher interest rates make loans more risky. Unions hold more sway, keeping wages artificially high and fighting for unconditional job security, which keeps unemployment high.

One of the biggest mistakes the supporters of free trade have made is failing to ackowledge its shortcomings and pretending like it will instantly create jobs and opportunities for everyone. It won't. It just does a better job of it than any other system we've come up with.

[Scotticus]

[Bibbitybop]

Mack, now I understand your statements more with the link and the good argument.

Scotticus, though I hate current administration, I took look on the same bright side of the falling dollar and my loans.

[pkang0202]

Clinton is a freaking idiot.

""It will hurt the U.S. auto industry, increase our trade deficit, cost us good middle-class jobs and make America less competitive."

The FTA is going to HURT the US automobile industry??? HELLO!?!??! The US automobile industry has been hurting for over 20 years.

Cost us good middle class jobs? Where? What industry? I'm sure Samsung USA, Hyundai USA, and other Korean companies that have US operations are creating MORE middle class jobs than are lost due to the FTA. Not only will the FTA allow more Korean companies to do business in the US, it'll also allow MORE US businesses to enter in Korea.

Make America less competitive?? Come on Hillary. America is competing against Indians, Chinese, Japanese, and the EU. An FTA with Korea is but a small ripple in that Tsunami of economies.


As for Bill Clinton, I gotta give the man props. He pretty much did nothing in office and the country loved him for it.

[dutchy pink]

Hillary neither opposes nor stands for anything. She will be saying the exact opposite thing next week.

[mack4289]

I only meant economically responsible in terms of promoting free trade. As for government spending, Clinton did a much better job with that. Unfortunately for the American dollar, Bush has bought into the "big government to achieve conservative goals" kind of thinking. Oh, and aren't there some wars going on somewhere? Those can get a little pricey.

[Bibbitybop]

[Scotticus]

[Bibbitybop]

[mack4289]

So if Clinton did nothing, how did we get a balanced budget, welfare reform, NAFTA, the bombings in Yugoslavia, the failed disaramament plan with North Korea, Defense of Marriage Act, Don't Ask, Don't Tell, etc? All this and he faced impeachment for perjuring himself about a BJ.

By the way, do you think there's been a single BJ in the White House since Clinton left? I think I heard a comedian do a joke about this one time.

[pkang0202]

[superacidjax]

[mack4289]