President Bush and his advisers are puzzled and worried.

Economic liftoff took place right on schedule in July when the tax cuts took effect. In the last six months of 2003, the economy blazed along on a growth path of 6 percent. But where are the jobs?

Last week's jobs report, with hundreds of thousands giving up the search for work, and manufacturing jobs disappearing for the 43rd straight month, jolted the White House. What is going on?

They're calling it a jobless recovery. Wrong. Millions of jobs are being created. They're just not being created here in the United States.

The reasons can be traced to these four acronyms: NAFTA, GATT, WTO, PNTR. These are the trade treaties and global institutions that have permitted the historic substitution of foreign labor for American labor, to the enrichment of the transnational companies that look upon the Congress as a wholly owned subsidiary.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37516

The arguments behind those treaties were to give US manufacturers unrestricted access to other markets. The only problem with that is the USA IS not competitive it appears. How would the elimination of the treaties increase the competitiveness of US manufacturers?

With or without the treaties those jobs would be going overseas. It is a result of globalizeation a process that one country will never stop. The recent economic improvement is being led by asia not the US. The US is recieving the side benefit as a result of Asian success. Thats why jobs are being created overseas because that is where the economic boom is not here in the US.

Without those treaties perhaps you could restrict the flow of foriegn products into the US by making them more expensive but the net result would be that those countries would restrict US trade too exacerbateing the trade deficit even worse than it is now. The issue isnt the treaties it is the lack of innovation and competitiveness of US companies. If in truth there is a thing as a "US" company today, many are multinationals with much more alliegance to their stockholders than one individual country.

Did you know, that at one point when the US was a weak country-in-founding, that every college taught in the United States taught that protectionism was GOOD?

But when the US industries pulled so far ahead of the world, World War II destroyed any competition, they changed their tune to "Free Trade!"

But now, with the education system doing so much poorer than other industrialized countries, and the economic situation, people start wondering again if these agreements are just resulting in a net loss.

Did you know, that at one point when the US was a weak country-in-founding, that every college taught in the United States taught that protectionism was GOOD?

They once taught the world was flat too!

But you did hit on a primary problem though, how can a country which is 20th in maths and sciences, a country in which 2/3 of the graduates in electrical engineering are foriegn ever hope to compete on a level playing feild?

If a man wants to have sex with a particular woman, yet that woman does not consent, is she being a "protectionist"?

If I was the woman and you were the man I would say "intelligent" would be a better descriptor ;)

But in all honesty if you look at in terms of trade she is simply choosing not to buy and that would not be protectionist. But if her daddy required that you pay a fee and told your buddy that he could forgo the fee then yes I guess he would be a protectionist.

The reasons can be traced to these four acronyms: NAFTA, GATT, WTO, PNTR.

What BS. If you spend much more than you actually have, and don't manage to fill the gaps it creates it's not the fault of those treaties and institutions.

It's the fault of your policy.

How can there be a jobs "crisis" if unemployment is at historically low levels?

This is nothing but a "manufactured crisis" by the DNC, NBC, ABC, CBS, and CNN for an election year.

Here's a tip for some of you.
Do yourselves a favor and pick up a copy of "Investors Business Daily".

Powerboss you might want to take a look at the actual unemployment number. It measures Unemplyment claims not actual joblessness. It does not measure the underemployed and it doesnt measure those whose benefits have run out. I know a numbber of other countries use a Household survey approach to this number I dont know if it is more accurate or useful but I do know that the present system we use has holes that many economist I have read say can miss 2-4 % of actual unemployment.

Thanks. I'm well aware of all the numbers.

http://news.google.com/news?num=30&hl=en&edition=us&q=cluster:www%2eforbes%2ecom%2fmarkets%2fnewswire% 2f2004%2f03%2f15%2frtr1299468%2ehtml

Driverlady-

Losing battle. I've tried talking with Powerboss about unemployment and how it understates the number of unemployed and he doesn't believe me.

The fact remains, millions of Americans are out of jobs. More than when Bush took office.

Originally posted by Manu
Driverlady-

Losing battle. I've tried talking with Powerboss about unemployment and how it understates the number of unemployed and he doesn't believe me.




Do you honestly believe there is an employment "crisis" right now?



The fact remains, millions of Americans are out of jobs. More than when Bush took office.

Have you looked at teh household survey?

What you seem to fail to take into account is the number of people that startup new businesses.

Secondly, what do you attribute the loss of jobs to?
At what point in time did the economy, and in turn the employment issue, turn sour?
Why?


What is astounding is that whenever a Republican is in office the media and Democrats paint a false picture of us having crisis after crisis.
It seems they all disappear whenever a Demcrat is elected.
Its laughable.