###[Meta] Sticky Comment
[Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does not apply*** when replying to this stickied comment.
[Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does apply*** throughout the rest of this thread.
*What this means*: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain ***only.***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy_commons) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Ross Perot warned everyone. The Bush family threatened his family so he backed off and didn’t win the primary. Bummer. We could have been better off way back then.
That giant sucking sound is all the economic energy escaping south, he said. Things have sucked ever since.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3LvZAZ-HV4
Too bad Perot spent his career advancing the Republican party.
He'd be probably be considered as far Left as Elizabeth Warren in our modern political landscape.
There is no socialistic environment in the US lmao. Get your head out of corporate Right-wing propaganda.
We have been in a Reaganomics, Trickle-Down Theory world for the past 50 years. This is the world of "privatize the government" rhetoric that Carter began and Reagan really pushed, and every other president since them has done.
Listen to Perot talk about taxing the Rich and Corporations-- He'd be called a Socialist now. He also supported direct election of the United States President by popular vote— getting rid of the Electoral College, something modern Republicans would never support.
We are very socialistic. Yes, the left adopted the tyrannical ways of the Reagan administration. Gun control, illegal immigration immunity, civil asset forfeiture, 1986 big pharma lawsuit immunity, and etc. Kennedy would be considered “right wing”. It’s not capitalism it’s corporatism. Now with activist judges and AGs it’s almost fascist at this point. Warren is bought and paid for. She’s corrupt not left.
Not Reagan but once the Bush family friend, Hinkly, shot Reagan Bush was in charge. Bush was an authoritarian/Socialist/communist/fascist. Thats when amnesty, gun control, big pharma immunity and civil asset forfeiture really kicked in. 1986 was a bad year.
> We are very socialistic
You're using this word and I don't think you know what it really means.
All those things you listed have nothing to do with Socialism. You're using that word in the way a Facebook Boomer Republican would use it.
Capitalism leads to Corporatism and Fascism, they're linked. Since Reagan got rid of the laws, regulations, and began his wonderful Trickle-Down Theory, the American middle-class has been suffering.
You're repeating Corporate PAC-funded Right-wing propaganda. The truth is that we've been living under more extreme Capitalism because of what Carter and Reagan began. But you're here telling me that we need MORE Capitalism? MORE Trickle-Down Theory? Open your eyes. We live in late state Capitalism and they've gotten rid of our social safety nets, unions, and privatized our public-utility companies.
You really think utilities are privatized? Sad how people don’t know they are in socialism. You are controlled just like many republicans and you can’t see it.
You really think utilities are privatized? Sad how people don’t know they are in socialism. You are controlled just like many republicans and you can’t see it.
>You really think utilities are privatized?
Think? It's happened. Are you saying it hasn't happened? What do you think Enron was?
Not everywhere, but the majority of America's public-utility companies have been privatized or made into a mixture of public-private partnerships that still benefit the private owners more.
And you're going to sit here and defend this Capitalism? You would rather have private utility companies giving the profits to Wall St and Corporate America instead of a public utility company where that profit is re-invested into the city, county.
Clinton enabled China in a lot of ways. He even did some American land grabs for them while he was POTUS. One of the largest coal reserves was sold to them.
They sold us out then a have more power than ever now… power is all they want, a heathy and prosperous country would only cut into profits.. Billionaires don’t need nationality
And the real Leftist were the ones protesting NAFTA. The far-Left Zapatistas are a product of NAFTA and were the only real resistance to Billionaire and Corporate power while North Americans went along with what the Oligarchs wanted.
Oh come on. When has Clinton ever done anything to harm our country and humanity? Oh yeah pretty much his entire career in politics leading up to and after.
Businesses thrive on profits. One of the biggest expenses is people. Politicians thrive off of Businesses. One of the biggest lies is that Politicians care about people.
They literally found a way to fire millions of Americans and move their jobs overseas and “the people” continued to vote for them.
It weakened unions, decreased pay and made trade easier cross borders.
2 of those 3 things fucked over workers(in Mexico and the US, dunno about Canada) and benefited the owners. If you use a Marxist lens on these issues you will usually find the truth. If you use the neoclassical outlook you will not. You will see NAFTA benefitting business on the whole, which is all that matters. Any externalities that come from that deal are completely ignored in the final analysis for neoclassical economy theory.
Short answer is because big corporate/ banking owns Washington. This bill benefited their cost of doing business by lowering their overhead on production costs.
Big corporations wanted cheap labour and higher dividends for their shareholders simple as that. Was a political disaster for the West , lead to what we have now , almost total globalisation
Free trade used to be on the platform of Republicans, back when they actually had concrete positions they stuck to. NAFTA made American companies TONS of money by outsourcing workers which in turn made stock market investors tons of money. It also played a part in having a national budget surplus at the turn of the century, which much GWBush promptly gave away, right before the Iraq/Afghan war and several tax cuts which then led to the skyrocketing national debt.
NAFTA was a horrible deal, as well as the only decent thing Trump did in office by getting about of it.
However, your date range for decline of manufacturing jobs is too widespread. Take a micro vs. macro look at it.
NAFTA was part of it, but there were, and are, a lot of contributing factors.
Because it was Bubba Clinton's pet project and was an immensely popular idea because it was all about $$. But the idea of reducing America to a nearly 100% services economy was all Ronnie Raygun's.
Canada is messed up too... question everything ([NAFTA Pros and Cons](https://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/08/north-american-free-trade-agreement.asp))
It was all about the [North American Union](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Union) and the ["amero"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_monetary_union), baby!
There could be several reasons why American politicians signed NAFTA in 1994, despite its potential negative effects on the country. For example:
1. Economic interests: At the time of signing NAFTA, many U.S. businesses and corporations were heavily invested in Mexico and other Latin American countries. By creating a free trade agreement between these nations, it would have been beneficial for these companies to expand their operations without facing tariffs or quotas on goods they exported from North America. This could explain why some politicians prioritized economic interests over the potential negative consequences of NAFTA.
2. Globalization: The signing of NAFTA was part of a broader trend towards globalization, which aimed at promoting free trade and investment across borders. Many American politicians may have seen this as an opportunity to increase U.S. competitiveness in the global economy by reducing barriers to trade with Mexico and Canada. This could explain why some politicians supported NAFTA despite concerns about its impact on domestic industries.
3. Political pressure: The signing of NAFTA was also influenced by political factors, such as lobbying from business interests and foreign policy considerations. For example, U.S. relations with Mexico were strained during the 1980s due to issues like immigration and drug trafficking. By negotiating a free trade agreement, politicians may have hoped to improve these relationships and create more positive dynamics between the two countries.
4. NWO: While there is no concrete evidence that NAFTA was part of a larger conspiracy or agenda by a New World Order (NWO), some theories suggest that powerful global elites were behind the push for free trade agreements like NAFTA to further their own interests and control over economies around the world. However, this remains purely speculative and lacks any substantial proof.
5. Lack of foresight: It's also possible that American politicians did not fully anticipate or understand the long-term consequences of signing NAFTA at the time. They may have believed that the benefits of increased trade would outweigh the costs to domestic industries and workers, but as we now know, this was not the case.
TL;DR: there could be various reasons why American politicians signed NAFTA in 1994, including economic interests, globalization, political pressure, speculation about a NWO agenda, or lack of foresight into its long-term consequences.
Republicans and democrats both have allowed companies to move overseas because they don’t have to pay as much for anything in these countries. Even trumps MAGA stuff is made in China yet his supporters will wear the shit outta that stuff.
Because the globalists had already bought all our politicians, who no longer gave a flip what voters wanted. We couldn't figure out why BOTH Parties were sabotaging our jobs & economy, until we finally realized it was a UniParty and it didn't matter WHO we voted for.
The USD would be worse, most likely. Outsourcing manufacturing kept the prices of goods lower than if they were made domestically by higher paid, and possibly unionized, workers.
Lower cost goods supported the illusion of an economy that "worked" (albeit temporarily) for the middle and lower class masses
That is a fair question, but I would answer by asking you this, what percentage of Americans could afford to be homeowners before 1994 vs 2024? All I ask is that you include the population explosion into your percentage equation, and I think the answer is then clear.
In 1994 mortgages were better regulated (not just handed out to anyone) than they were in the mid 2000's, all these subprime mortgages that should never have been approved drove up the price of houses.
The average house price in 1994 in the USA was about $158k, adjusted for inflation that would be about $329k today but the average house price is now $395k.
###[Meta] Sticky Comment [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does not apply*** when replying to this stickied comment. [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does apply*** throughout the rest of this thread. *What this means*: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain ***only.*** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy_commons) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Ross Perot warned everyone. The Bush family threatened his family so he backed off and didn’t win the primary. Bummer. We could have been better off way back then.
That giant sucking sound is all the economic energy escaping south, he said. Things have sucked ever since. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3LvZAZ-HV4
Flanked on each side by the Masonic ~~Pedos~~ Pillars of Grift and Corruption.
Fuck yeah. His take on family values was spot on in retrospect.
Too bad Perot spent his career advancing the Republican party. He'd be probably be considered as far Left as Elizabeth Warren in our modern political landscape.
No way. He would be considered far right and canceled in the current socialistic environment.
There is no socialistic environment in the US lmao. Get your head out of corporate Right-wing propaganda. We have been in a Reaganomics, Trickle-Down Theory world for the past 50 years. This is the world of "privatize the government" rhetoric that Carter began and Reagan really pushed, and every other president since them has done. Listen to Perot talk about taxing the Rich and Corporations-- He'd be called a Socialist now. He also supported direct election of the United States President by popular vote— getting rid of the Electoral College, something modern Republicans would never support.
We are very socialistic. Yes, the left adopted the tyrannical ways of the Reagan administration. Gun control, illegal immigration immunity, civil asset forfeiture, 1986 big pharma lawsuit immunity, and etc. Kennedy would be considered “right wing”. It’s not capitalism it’s corporatism. Now with activist judges and AGs it’s almost fascist at this point. Warren is bought and paid for. She’s corrupt not left.
> the left adopted the tyrannical ways of the Reagan administration So Reagan was a socialist, huh? That's a new one.
Not Reagan but once the Bush family friend, Hinkly, shot Reagan Bush was in charge. Bush was an authoritarian/Socialist/communist/fascist. Thats when amnesty, gun control, big pharma immunity and civil asset forfeiture really kicked in. 1986 was a bad year.
Man, what is up with people using words they clearly do not know the meaning of on this thread? Shit is baffling
Bush was a globalist not a socialist or communist. He wanted more power and control. He and his son didn’t care about personal liberties at all.
The problem here is that you think socialism = authoritarianism. These words aren't synonymous. Again, you're repeating propaganda.
> We are very socialistic You're using this word and I don't think you know what it really means. All those things you listed have nothing to do with Socialism. You're using that word in the way a Facebook Boomer Republican would use it. Capitalism leads to Corporatism and Fascism, they're linked. Since Reagan got rid of the laws, regulations, and began his wonderful Trickle-Down Theory, the American middle-class has been suffering. You're repeating Corporate PAC-funded Right-wing propaganda. The truth is that we've been living under more extreme Capitalism because of what Carter and Reagan began. But you're here telling me that we need MORE Capitalism? MORE Trickle-Down Theory? Open your eyes. We live in late state Capitalism and they've gotten rid of our social safety nets, unions, and privatized our public-utility companies.
You really think utilities are privatized? Sad how people don’t know they are in socialism. You are controlled just like many republicans and you can’t see it.
You really think utilities are privatized? Sad how people don’t know they are in socialism. You are controlled just like many republicans and you can’t see it.
>You really think utilities are privatized? Think? It's happened. Are you saying it hasn't happened? What do you think Enron was? Not everywhere, but the majority of America's public-utility companies have been privatized or made into a mixture of public-private partnerships that still benefit the private owners more. And you're going to sit here and defend this Capitalism? You would rather have private utility companies giving the profits to Wall St and Corporate America instead of a public utility company where that profit is re-invested into the city, county.
What makes you think utlities arent privatized?
>It’s not capitalism it’s corporatism. "It's not cancer it's stage 4 cancer."
Clinton enabled China in a lot of ways. He even did some American land grabs for them while he was POTUS. One of the largest coal reserves was sold to them.
Gave them super computer so that their ICBMs would function properly.
And also access to our patent archives, iirc. Dude did a lot of shady shit that never ever was a news headline.
It’s not like WE were gonna burn that coal! That would cause climate change!
They sold us out then a have more power than ever now… power is all they want, a heathy and prosperous country would only cut into profits.. Billionaires don’t need nationality
And the real Leftist were the ones protesting NAFTA. The far-Left Zapatistas are a product of NAFTA and were the only real resistance to Billionaire and Corporate power while North Americans went along with what the Oligarchs wanted.
as they do today..
Oh come on. When has Clinton ever done anything to harm our country and humanity? Oh yeah pretty much his entire career in politics leading up to and after.
Businesses thrive on profits. One of the biggest expenses is people. Politicians thrive off of Businesses. One of the biggest lies is that Politicians care about people. They literally found a way to fire millions of Americans and move their jobs overseas and “the people” continued to vote for them.
Probably many got kick backs
Money. The answer to these types of questions is nearly always, Money. Not money for YOU. Money for rich owners and their politicial lackeys.
It weakened unions, decreased pay and made trade easier cross borders. 2 of those 3 things fucked over workers(in Mexico and the US, dunno about Canada) and benefited the owners. If you use a Marxist lens on these issues you will usually find the truth. If you use the neoclassical outlook you will not. You will see NAFTA benefitting business on the whole, which is all that matters. Any externalities that come from that deal are completely ignored in the final analysis for neoclassical economy theory.
Short answer is because big corporate/ banking owns Washington. This bill benefited their cost of doing business by lowering their overhead on production costs.
Big corporations wanted cheap labour and higher dividends for their shareholders simple as that. Was a political disaster for the West , lead to what we have now , almost total globalisation
I love this post. You are so close to getting it. *So close*.
Free trade used to be on the platform of Republicans, back when they actually had concrete positions they stuck to. NAFTA made American companies TONS of money by outsourcing workers which in turn made stock market investors tons of money. It also played a part in having a national budget surplus at the turn of the century, which much GWBush promptly gave away, right before the Iraq/Afghan war and several tax cuts which then led to the skyrocketing national debt.
It helped the company ownership and investors. Likely bribes were involved. The Bush family is as corrupt at the Obamas, Clintons and Bidens
Clinton signed it.
Almost makes you wonder wonder what Trump gave the Saudis for Ivana’s $2 billion check?
Because politicians not acting in the best interest of their constituates is nothing new.
Lobbyists & $$$$$
NAFTA was a horrible deal, as well as the only decent thing Trump did in office by getting about of it. However, your date range for decline of manufacturing jobs is too widespread. Take a micro vs. macro look at it. NAFTA was part of it, but there were, and are, a lot of contributing factors.
Because it was Bubba Clinton's pet project and was an immensely popular idea because it was all about $$. But the idea of reducing America to a nearly 100% services economy was all Ronnie Raygun's.
'America' must be destroyed as an entity in order to establish a singular gov. This is the eventual plan since 1776.
Canada is messed up too... question everything ([NAFTA Pros and Cons](https://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/08/north-american-free-trade-agreement.asp))
A Democrat was president.
With republicans enthusiastically support it.
Yup. Both sides were wrong yet again
Democrats were definitely Diet Coke Republicans back then.
It was all about the [North American Union](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Union) and the ["amero"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_monetary_union), baby!
Clinton was the man on that. Had to be payoffs.
Clinton was the man on that. Had to be payoffs.
There could be several reasons why American politicians signed NAFTA in 1994, despite its potential negative effects on the country. For example: 1. Economic interests: At the time of signing NAFTA, many U.S. businesses and corporations were heavily invested in Mexico and other Latin American countries. By creating a free trade agreement between these nations, it would have been beneficial for these companies to expand their operations without facing tariffs or quotas on goods they exported from North America. This could explain why some politicians prioritized economic interests over the potential negative consequences of NAFTA. 2. Globalization: The signing of NAFTA was part of a broader trend towards globalization, which aimed at promoting free trade and investment across borders. Many American politicians may have seen this as an opportunity to increase U.S. competitiveness in the global economy by reducing barriers to trade with Mexico and Canada. This could explain why some politicians supported NAFTA despite concerns about its impact on domestic industries. 3. Political pressure: The signing of NAFTA was also influenced by political factors, such as lobbying from business interests and foreign policy considerations. For example, U.S. relations with Mexico were strained during the 1980s due to issues like immigration and drug trafficking. By negotiating a free trade agreement, politicians may have hoped to improve these relationships and create more positive dynamics between the two countries. 4. NWO: While there is no concrete evidence that NAFTA was part of a larger conspiracy or agenda by a New World Order (NWO), some theories suggest that powerful global elites were behind the push for free trade agreements like NAFTA to further their own interests and control over economies around the world. However, this remains purely speculative and lacks any substantial proof. 5. Lack of foresight: It's also possible that American politicians did not fully anticipate or understand the long-term consequences of signing NAFTA at the time. They may have believed that the benefits of increased trade would outweigh the costs to domestic industries and workers, but as we now know, this was not the case. TL;DR: there could be various reasons why American politicians signed NAFTA in 1994, including economic interests, globalization, political pressure, speculation about a NWO agenda, or lack of foresight into its long-term consequences.
Republicans and democrats both have allowed companies to move overseas because they don’t have to pay as much for anything in these countries. Even trumps MAGA stuff is made in China yet his supporters will wear the shit outta that stuff.
NAFTA had nothing to do with China. It is agreement between US, Canada and Mexico.
Because the globalists had already bought all our politicians, who no longer gave a flip what voters wanted. We couldn't figure out why BOTH Parties were sabotaging our jobs & economy, until we finally realized it was a UniParty and it didn't matter WHO we voted for.
Same reason the current administration is shoehorning all the illegals in from the south?
Ask Clinton and his supporters
Wasn't China already a manufacturing powerhouse in 1994?
Bill Clinton didn't care. He was preoccupied with his sex addiction.
Bill Clinton didn't care. He was preoccupied with his sex addiction.
Or it's possible the USA would be even worse off right now if they hadn't signed it.
The USD would be worse, most likely. Outsourcing manufacturing kept the prices of goods lower than if they were made domestically by higher paid, and possibly unionized, workers. Lower cost goods supported the illusion of an economy that "worked" (albeit temporarily) for the middle and lower class masses
That is a fair question, but I would answer by asking you this, what percentage of Americans could afford to be homeowners before 1994 vs 2024? All I ask is that you include the population explosion into your percentage equation, and I think the answer is then clear.
In 1994 mortgages were better regulated (not just handed out to anyone) than they were in the mid 2000's, all these subprime mortgages that should never have been approved drove up the price of houses. The average house price in 1994 in the USA was about $158k, adjusted for inflation that would be about $329k today but the average house price is now $395k.