Is CAFTA Un-American?

[G. Adams]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Unfortunately, this is the thing that socialists simply don't understand about the world: they can't. Physically, it's impossible. There is a finite amount of wealth in the world, just like there is a finite amount of carbon or heat. Here's an example. Let's say that there are 101 countries in the world. Let's also say that there is 1000000 dollars in the world. Right now, Americans own 900000 of the world's dollars, while the other 100 countries own 100000 (so each of the other countries own 1000). This is not an exact model, I know, I'm just making a point. What you're suggesting is that Americans keep the 900000 that they own, and that all of the other 100 countries also own 900000! Unfortunately, as you can see, there would have to be 90900000 dollars in the world for this to be possible. But there are only 1000000 dollars in the world, so it's impossible. I already know what you're going to say: "LOL!!111 JSUT MKAE MROE MNOEY!!!!111111". Ok, yes, you could do that. You could simply make 89900000 more dollars and introduce them into the world's economy. The net effect of this, however, is that the value of money goes way...way down. So, overall, it would be no different than if you simply split the original 1000000 a 101 ways and gave each country their equal share. However, if socialists would wake up to the real world, you would understand that globalization is exactly what I just discribed!!! Globalization = spreading around the wealth to all the countries of the world, instead of concentrating it in a couple countries and leaving others with nothing. The overall effect of globalization is that American's quality of living will go down, but other countries's will go way...way up! Isn't that exactly what you want?

You know I used the exact same argument to support socialism for a long time. If there is a finite amount of wealth, which I happen to agree with you about, it seems all the more reason to share it. Under capitalism, it is impossible for everyone to have a fair, reasonable shot at life, because the wealth is already owned and held back by others. But I kept hearing from pro-capitalists that their is infinite wealth, because new industries spring up everyday. But that's crap. I'm not talking about physical wealth, I'm talking about wealth value. And wealth value is not infinite, or else money would have no value.

Drifting there....

As I see it, from a left wing perspective, we must have a free trade world, as in the economists opinion of it, for the benefits of both capitalists and socialists. There should be no borders to trade. Capitalists will benefit from the opening and balancing of markets and socialists will benefit from a globalised labour force, rather than a fractured one. Those who oppose free trade are typically the protectionist, nationalist mercentalist types, or conversely, those who want to retain the hard gotten gains of the left. The problem with this, as I see it, is that the left is entrenching itself into a nationalist mindset, of what "we" gained. I'm afraid if we want to see some advance of the left it must be outside of this nationalist model, which means sacrificing some of the gains made, at least in the short-mid term.

[Gorgo]

"Free Trade" is the definition of socialism. That would be where everyone owns everything. That does not exist, and is not what CAFTA, NAFTA, WTO and the World Bank, and the wars for "freedom" and "democracy" are about. What they are about is more slavery. Everyone wants globalization, hardly anyone but transnational corporations want the results of these scams.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: G. Adams As I see it, from a left wing perspective, we must have a free trade world, as in the economists opinion of it, for the benefits of both capitalists and socialists. There should be no borders to trade. Capitalists will benefit from the opening and balancing of markets and socialists will benefit from a globalised labour force, rather than a fractured one. Those who oppose free trade are typically the protectionist, nationalist mercentalist types, or conversely, those who want to retain the hard gotten gains of the left. The problem with this, as I see it, is that the left is entrenching itself into a nationalist mindset, of what "we" gained. I'm afraid if we want to see some advance of the left it must be outside of this nationalist model, which means sacrificing some of the gains made, at least in the short-mid term.

There must be borders on trade. Totalitarian China can operate as a single entity, and drive eveybody else out of business ( on any given product) before recouperating its costs when it controls the market share.


We see this in mirco scale every day in the U.S. with the bedding industry. Any local munufacturer can prevent a similarly sized competitor from gaining market share locally by lowering its price, sometimes below cost, until the other guy capitulates. Then, they raise the prices back up, and recover their losses,minus the competition.

[bishop]

i don't have a problem with cafta, nor do i see it as being unamerican.. i don't particularly see it as proamerican either.. it's simply a capitalist agreement for more open and unhindered trade between us and central american countries. to me, those who would call cafta unamerican are apologists for the failure of organized labor in this country.

i think some perspective is desperately needed. people complain about the loss of jobs, but the fact of the matter is that these jobs will most likely continue to disappear with or without cafta. it's not as if we don't already have trade agreements with these countries - cafta simply decreases trade barriers more than what was previously the case. the only way to protect all of these jobs would be to enact tarrifs on every country who's currency is worth less than our own. doing that would severely disrupt the economy and would likely result in a big drop in consumption, which will grow into broad job losses across multiple job sectors (not just manufacturing). a lesser example - bush's steel tariffs - they cost the economy about $700 through pass-through inflation and resulted in the loss of some 200,000 steel manufacturing jobs.

rather than this idiotic call (imo) to protect our jobs, labor should look for ways to be more efficient and productive. the inflexibility of labor is a big reason for their failure. just taking a look at their pension plans is evidence enough. imagine being able to retire and have a pension that gives you the average of your last 3 years of service... yes, that'd definitely be a cushy pension, but as far as business goes, it's completely uneconomical. labor doesn't want to get with the program though - they just want to hold on to whatever they have. this will not help them whatsoever.

the passage of cafta doesn't limit u.s. labor's rights whatsoever. labor needs to get with the program and learn to compete. i think this has finally sunk into their heads, since several groups just left the alf-cio.

one other thing that cafta can accomplish will be to lower our trade deficit with china, which would definitely be a good thing.

[bishop]

Quote by: Milton Bradley We see this in mirco scale every day in the U.S. with the bedding industry. Any local munufacturer can prevent a similarly sized competitor from gaining market share locally by lowering its price, sometimes below cost, until the other guy capitulates. Then, they raise the prices back up, and recover their losses,minus the competition.

as far as international trade is concerned, that's illegal under the wto's anti-dumping rules.

i realize that this situation continues to happen - but imo, it represents a failure on the part of our trade representatives to fight to ensure that we aren't being taken advantage of.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: G. Adams You know I used the exact same argument to support socialism for a long time. If there is a finite amount of wealth, which I happen to agree with you about, it seems all the more reason to share it. Under capitalism, it is impossible for everyone to have a fair, reasonable shot at life, because the wealth is already owned and held back by others. But I kept hearing from pro-capitalists that their is infinite wealth, because new industries spring up everyday. But that's crap. I'm not talking about physical wealth, I'm talking about wealth value. And wealth value is not infinite, or else money would have no value. Drifting there.... As I see it, from a left wing perspective, we must have a free trade world, as in the economists opinion of it, for the benefits of both capitalists and socialists. There should be no borders to trade. Capitalists will benefit from the opening and balancing of markets and socialists will benefit from a globalised labour force, rather than a fractured one. Those who oppose free trade are typically the protectionist, nationalist mercentalist types, or conversely, those who want to retain the hard gotten gains of the left. The problem with this, as I see it, is that the left is entrenching itself into a nationalist mindset, of what "we" gained. I'm afraid if we want to see some advance of the left it must be outside of this nationalist model, which means sacrificing some of the gains made, at least in the short-mid term.

Absolutely, G. Absoultely!

We need a free trade world. 100% agree.


And let me tell you, you're absolutely right about value. There is a finite amount of things that have value in this world. There is no such thing as infinite value. You can make as much paper money as you can print, sure, but the value of the money is always finite.


Of course, there will be the crys from the developed countries about losing their money to the developing nations, but that is already happening. The developing nations are taking all the manufactuing jobs away because they have such cheap labor.

You can't stop it, no matter how hard you try.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: Milton Bradley before recouperating its costs when it controls the market share.

The usual falacy presented by anti capitalists who don't have a clue about econmics.

The same argument could apply just as well to wal mart.


Here's the simply principle which you lack: once the market share is controlled by one group, you claim they will increase the price. Once they increase the price, there will just be another retailer that comes along and undercuts them! You can't win as a monopoly unless you keep your prices as low as they've ever been!

[Libertarian]

I agree with the arugements by libertarian congressman Ron Paul (R - TX);

"I oppose CAFTA for a very simple reason: it is unconstitutional. The Constitution clearly grants Congress alone the authority to regulate international trade. The plain text of Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 is incontrovertible. Neither Congress nor the President can give this authority away by treaty, any more than they can repeal the First Amendment by treaty. This fundamental point, based on the plain meaning of the Constitution, cannot be overstated. Every member of Congress who votes for CAFTA is voting to abdicate power to an international body in direct violation of the Constitution.

We don’t need government agreements to have free trade. We merely need to lower or eliminate taxes on the American people, without regard to what other nations do. Remember, tariffs are simply taxes on consumers. Americans have always bought goods from abroad; the only question is how much our government taxes us for doing so."


Full article at: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul254.html


When something is unconstitutional than it should not be passed. And CAFTA will go against one of the main founding documents of this nation; the Constitution.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 The usual falacy presented by anti capitalists who don't have a clue about econmics. The same argument could apply just as well to wal mart.

I am not, nor have I even been an anti-capitalist.


I just happen to realize that one cannot have fair trade with a Totalitarian government. They refuse to honor the signed agreements. They counterfeit our money. They are operating on a whole different level than the U.S. would like to admit. You must have trade barriers against those who will not honor their word. You must have trade barriers against those who would manipulate your naive "can't we all just get along" mentality.


I am a proponet of the free market system, but that is not what is in place in the United States any more. What we have is Federal regulation


When was the last time you heard the term "supply, and demand"?


That is a necesarry term in a free market, yet its gone from the terminology of todays news reports, and stock market analysis.

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Here's the simply principle which you lack: once the market share is controlled by one group, you claim they will increase the price. Once they increase the price, there will just be another retailer that comes along and undercuts them! You can't win as a monopoly unless you keep your prices as low as they've ever been!

What company is going to undercut the economic might of China smart guy?

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Libertarian I agree with the arugements by libertarian congressman Ron Paul (R - TX); "I oppose CAFTA for a very simple reason: it is unconstitutional. The Constitution clearly grants Congress alone the authority to regulate international trade. The plain text of Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 is incontrovertible. Neither Congress nor the President can give this authority away by treaty, any more than they can repeal the First Amendment by treaty. This fundamental point, based on the plain meaning of the Constitution, cannot be overstated. Every member of Congress who votes for CAFTA is voting to abdicate power to an international body in direct violation of the Constitution. We don’t need government agreements to have free trade. We merely need to lower or eliminate taxes on the American people, without regard to what other nations do. Remember, tariffs are simply taxes on consumers. Americans have always bought goods from abroad; the only question is how much our government taxes us for doing so." Full article at: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul254.html When something is unconstitutional than it should not be passed. And CAFTA will go against one of the main founding documents of this nation; the Constitution.

That is by law the bottom line on all legislation, or was at one time. Too bad that oath to honor, and protect the constitution is just a show to gain public support for puppets of the international bankers.

[Libertarian]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Here's the simply principle which you lack: once the market share is controlled by one group, you claim they will increase the price. Once they increase the price, there will just be another retailer that comes along and undercuts them! You can't win as a monopoly unless you keep your prices as low as they've ever been!

The ideal of a monopoly is that there is one group that controls all of that product. With the abilities that they hold (ex. production, market, ease of use, etc.) they will hold there ground against any persons or other groups that try and take market share. If that monopoly is truly a monopoly, they control so much that no group would be big enough to take control back, thus allowing that certain group in control to inflate or deflate prices as they see fit.

[bishop]

the notion that cafta is unconstitutional is laughable.. treaties are entirely constitutional, and cafta is a treaty. and, congress knew the terms of cafta, agreed to them, and ratified the treaty. if it turns out that congress doesn't like cafta's decisions, they can vote to withdraw from the organization.

[Milton Bradley]

The notion that "Free Trade" as defined those legal treaties is laughable. We have been hoodwinked, bamboozled, swindled.


These are attempts to subsidize socialism at the American taxpayers expense. Our elected officials have no business funneling jobs to non-Americans in the current economic environment. Unless they're traitors that is.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Milton Bradley The notion that "Free Trade" as defined those legal treaties is laughable. We have been hoodwinked, bamboozled, swindled.

That should actually read


"The notion that "Free Trade" as defined those legal treaties is actually free, fair trade, is laughable. We have been hoodwinked, bamboozled, swindled.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: Milton Bradley I am not, nor have I even been an anti-capitalist.

Capitalists promote unregulated trade.

I just happen to realize that one cannot have fair trade with a Totalitarian government. They refuse to honor the signed agreements. They counterfeit our money. They are operating on a whole different level than the U.S. would like to admit. You must have trade barriers against those who will not honor their word. You must have trade barriers against those who would manipulate your naive "can't we all just get along" mentality.

CAFTA is the central american free trade act. Why all the talk about China?

But at the fundamental level, China maybe have a totalitarian goernment, but they have a very free market economy! That's the reason they're growing so fast.

Eventually, the spirit of the free market will take over China from the bottom up, and the totalitarian government will dissolve away into a laissez faire government. The sooner this happens, the better.

I am a proponet of the free market system, but that is not what is in place in the United States any more. What we have is Federal regulation When was the last time you heard the term "supply, and demand"? That is a necesarry term in a free market, yet its gone from the terminology of todays news reports, and stock market analysis.

Dispite US regulation of its own market, the basic rules of economics still exactly predict what will happen. Not sure what you were trying to say.

What company is going to undercut the economic might of China smart guy?

Any company that can sell cheaper than they can. Every company. Anyone on the street, the black market. Where ever, when ever, however.

You act as if China could afford to take us over some how. China owns billions of dollars of the US debt. The reason that they're growing so fast is because they trade SO much of their stuff to us. If the US were no longer around, who would China trade with?!

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: Libertarian The ideal of a monopoly is that there is one group that controls all of that product. With the abilities that they hold (ex. production, market, ease of use, etc.) they will hold there ground against any persons or other groups that try and take market share. If that monopoly is truly a monopoly, they control so much that no group would be big enough to take control back, thus allowing that certain group in control to inflate or deflate prices as they see fit.

And this type of fairy tale was concocted to give socialists power.

The situation you discribe has never happened, isn't happening now, nor can it possible every happen in any sector at any time.


I suppose we should be afraid of the great pink dragon who comes every night and eats all of our equity? LOL!

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: Milton Bradley The notion that "Free Trade" as defined those legal treaties is actually free, fair trade, is laughable. We have been hoodwinked, bamboozled, swindled.

How so?

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Capitalists promote unregulated trade.

Not with known adversarries, well unless you are a Bush, and the government has to pass sedition legislation to stop you.

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 CAFTA is the central american free trade act. Why all the talk about China?

You are the one that brought up socialism.

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 But at the fundamental level, China maybe have a totalitarian goernment, but they have a very free market economy! That's the reason they're growing so fast. Eventually, the spirit of the free market will take over China from the bottom up, and the totalitarian government will dissolve away into a laissez faire government. The sooner this happens, the better.

What does that have to do with them violating our signed treaties, and counterfeitting our money?

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Dispite US regulation of its own market, the basic rules of economics still exactly predict what will happen. Not sure what you were trying to say.

You talk like the free trade agreements are the free market in action. Nothing could be further from the truth. What you have here is government regulated trade with most favored nation trading status. (thanks to Clinton) That is anything but a free market.

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Any company that can sell cheaper than they can. Every company. Anyone on the street, the black market. Where ever, when ever, however. You act as if China could afford to take us over some how. China owns billions of dollars of the US debt. The reason that they're growing so fast is because they trade SO much of their stuff to us. If the US were no longer around, who would China trade with?!

Sorry to tell you this, but China does have the economis might to topple many, many US business one product at a time. A US business only has thier own venturte capital to use, whereas China can focus an entire nations wealth into toppling its competition, hence the Totalitarian tag on the title.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Milton Bradley The notion that "Free Trade" as defined those legal treaties is actually free, fair trade, is laughable. We have been hoodwinked, bamboozled, swindled.

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 How so?

I provided this link already in a previous post.
http://www.brookings.edu/comm/events/20040107.htm


Obviously you have no idea what you are talking about, and thats why I have to refute your posts line by line..

[bishop]

Quote by: milton Our elected officials have no business funneling jobs to non-Americans in the current economic environment. Unless they're traitors that is.

they aren't doing anything for or against jobs.. they're simply permitting the free flow of capital and lowering trade barriers. perhaps you think government should tell business where they can and cannot create jobs?

and 47 page links don't explain/refute anything.. at the least, point out which part you think we should pay special attention to. i can toss out all sorts of links to refute your points, but that would be one pitiful sort of debate.