Is CAFTA Un-American?

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: Milton Bradley 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.

It's closer to the free market than what we have now. Plus, it promotes globalization, which in turn promotes a free world market.

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.

The US is the market for Chinese manufactured products, for one. For two, the very products they're sending us back after they manufacture them are American products, not Chinese products.

China might as well cut off its own head if it decides to do anything harmful to America.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Libertarian I agree with the arugements by libertarian congressman Ron Paul (R - TX); [i]"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.

Ron Paul's reading of the Constitution is so damned bizarre. Before the beginning of King George's war Ron Paul proposed issuing "letters of marque and reprisal" as provided by the the Constitution. He was either unaware or unconcerned that letters of "marque and reprisal" had effectively been written out of international law by about 1850.

As Bishop points out, the ratifiation of international treaties is a key provision of the Constitution. Yes, the Congress is granted powers to "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations", which seems to be exactly what they were doing by voting to ratify the trade agreement. To claim that CAFTA is unconstitional is merely silly.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: bishop 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?

Regulations were loosened by previous administrations that allowed for the outsourcing of jobs, which continues in this economic environment to this day.

Quote by: bishop 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.

The point to be taken from this excerpt, is that the signed treaties are not being honored. To meet the criteria for "free trade" under the agreements, the product must be more mobile that the factory that creates it. When American corporations moved to China, (or any other country) they violated the terms of the contract, and screwed tha American people. Of course, there is no punishment handed down for the violations, they merely keep the Billions of dollars in profit, and continue to try to compete with the other treaty violators in the brutal environment that the violatons have created. I guess that means outsourcing even more jobs. Oh well, they'll get over it, right?

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 It's closer to the free market than what we have now. Plus, it promotes globalization, which in turn promotes a free world market.

Free citizens require a free market. It is a founding priciple of capitalism. Without it, the government operates like the mob, and we could literally make a case that the governmet is involved in racketeering, and coersion. (farmers being a particularly good example)

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 The US is the market for Chinese manufactured products, for one. For two, the very products they're sending us back after they manufacture them are American products, not Chinese products. China might as well cut off its own head if it decides to do anything harmful to America.

Its nice of you to point out that the people preaching to us about energy conservation, and emissions can afford to ship raw material to China to have it assembled, and shipped back. Way to help Global Warming corporate America.


And again, its about treaty violations, not trading with China.

[RickSp]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 It's closer to the free market than what we have now. Plus, it promotes globalization, which in turn promotes a free world market.

Quote by: Milton Bradley Free citizens require a free market. It is a founding priciple of capitalism. Without it, the government operates like the mob, and we could literally make a case that the governmet is involved in racketeering, and coersion. (farmers being a particularly good example)

Exactly. Free markets are necessary for a free society. What is unclear to me, MB, is why you argue against a treaty which, even incrementally, moves us closer to free trade. Of course CAFTA isn't perfect. Far from it. But if we do not make incremental steps we will never get any closer to our goals.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: Milton Bradley Free citizens require a free market. It is a founding priciple of capitalism. Without it, the government operates like the mob, and we could literally make a case that the governmet is involved in racketeering, and coersion. (farmers being a particularly good example)

Agree 100%.

However, we can't just turn off the government like a light switch. We have to have the freer markets gradually disemble it. CAFTA is a step in that direction.

Its nice of you to point out that the people preaching to us about energy conservation, and emissions can afford to ship raw material to China to have it assembled, and shipped back. Way to help Global Warming corporate America. And again, its about treaty violations, not trading with China.

I really could care less if China, or any country, violates a treaty so long as their actions result in a freer market.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: RickSp Exactly. Free markets are necessary for a free society. What is unclear to me, MB, is why you argue against a treaty which, even incrementally, moves us closer to free trade. Of course CAFTA isn't perfect. Far from it. But if we do not make incremental steps we will never get any closer to our goals.

I argue against both trading with people who refuse to honor the signed agreements, and the wording of the agreements.


I should not have to explain why it is bad business to trade with people who will not honor the agreement.


The wording of these treaties is the machanism Ross Perot warned us about with his "Giant Sucking Sound" speech in his bid for the Presidency. Just like all other legislation that comes out of Washington, they are ripe with loopholes to be exploited by large corporations.


As I mentioned before, there are no real penalties for violating these treaties, so we need a much harder lined policy towards these practices, and some way to punnish the offenders, or they will just continue to put American at a competitive disadvantage. Intentionally.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Agree 100%. However, we can't just turn off the government like a light switch. We have to have the freer markets gradually disemble it. CAFTA is a step in that direction.

Oddly, when they decided to disreguard the rules, and ethics that got their companies to the top, they changed their behavior just like flipping a switch.

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 I really could care less if China, or any country, violates a treaty so long as their actions result in a freer market.

Thats the problem. People know this, and continue to exploit us. Unfortunately, the poorer the person, the less likely they are to be exploiting the system, and the more likely they are to be paying for it, both financially, and with reduced wages, and benefits.

[RickSp]

Listen to Ross Perot and his populist nonsense, well, what do you expect?

There has been no "giant sucking sound" of jobs and investment heading south. In the past decade, the U.S. economy has added a net 18 million new jobs. America's unemployment rate is actually lower today than it was in the year before NAFTA went into effect. Since NAFTA, about 400,000 Americans have qualified for trade adjustment assistance under a special program for workers displaced by imports from Mexico, but that is a small number when spread over a decade and when compared to the millions of jobs being eliminated and created every quarter in the U.S. economy. Though U.S. investment in Mexico has increased, American cash hasn't exactly been gushing southward. In the past four years, America's direct manufacturing investment in Mexico has averaged $1.9 billion a year, a fraction of the $200 billion invested annually in our domestic manufacturing capacity. In fact, U.S. companies invest far more each year in other high-wage, high-standard economies, such as those of Western Europe and Canada, than they do in such developing countries as Mexico.

After 10 Years, NAFTA Continues to Pay Dividends

[Milton Bradley]

When you allow the government to compile the statistics of the positive side the agruemnet, it looks pretty good.


Show me some of the numbers for damages done directly attributable to rule violations.


That might be be a little bit tougher of case to make. Thus it would be most difficult to post link after link of outsourced jobs, lost wages, and benefits, reductions of pensions, etc.


The time to catch the facts about this type of legislation is when its on the floor be discussed by Congrss. Like GATT., and NAFTA before it, the debate about CAFTA rages, and the truth comes out, but the legislation will ultimately become law anyway, in spite of all the obvious problems, and the lack of penalties for treaty violators.


Its criminal.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Milton Bradley When you allow the government to compile the statistics of the positive side the agruemnet, it looks pretty good.

Great. It all must be a conspiracy!

The link I quoted was from Cato, obviously a front for big government. Yah, that's it.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: RickSp Great. It all must be a conspiracy! The link I quoted was from Cato, obviously a front for big government. Yah, that's it.

No, but you have to admit there there is no machanism to account for the other side of the story.


Those stories are told on 60 Minutes years after the fact.

[bishop]

Quote by: milton Regulations were loosened by previous administrations that allowed for the outsourcing of jobs, which continues in this economic environment to this day.

so, i'll repeat the question i asked you last time around - do you think the government should tell business where it can and cannot create jobs? apparently you do like a little big brother in your diet, on particular issues of course.

Quote by: milton The point to be taken from this excerpt, is that the signed treaties are not being honored. <etc...>

as i previously stated, the real issue is whether/not our trade representatives are not actively lodging disputes at the wto. you were also vague about how, specifically, china has violated its obligations under the wto. you've also ignored cases that have been brought to the wto and have been resolved in our favor. there've been loads of other rulings found in our favor. typically, when we take a case to the wto, the two main reasons are to protest dumping by an exporter, to protest subsidies, or to protest discriminatory business/trade policies. if you want to focus on china, which has nothing to do with cafta, there's the recent ruling on semi-conductors found in our favor:

http://www.ustr.gov/Document_Library...onductors.html

about nafta resulting in a net job loss.. again, another example of people not doing their own homework. i've researched the raw data, because i am not one to lazily listen to the numbers put forth by pundits/politicians. you can go straight to bls, which is a public academic research instutution, and pull up the numbers for yourself. you just need to get the numbers of jobs created during nafta's time, and the number of jobs lost. the difference is your net jobs lost/created under nafta. numbers always make a much more compelling argument than reciting what so-and-so said about the issue. i have a feeling that while you're ready to question government figures, you've never even bothered to research the numbers yourself. if you want to present some numbers for job losses due to dumping, then you can do that - rather than request them from others. that's information to support your argument, not anyone else's.

evidence has also been shown that a protectionist measure such as bush's steel tariffs can cost tens/hundreds of thousands of jobs (est. 200,000 from steel tarifffs alone).

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: Milton Bradley Oddly, when they decided to disreguard the rules, and ethics that got their companies to the top, they changed their behavior just like flipping a switch.

Who are you talking about?

Thats the problem. People know this, and continue to exploit us. Unfortunately, the poorer the person, the less likely they are to be exploiting the system, and the more likely they are to be paying for it, both financially, and with reduced wages, and benefits.

We're not paying for anything.

CAFTA is just a way for Central American companies to trade their products to us with less taxes on them. IE, their products can be sold in America cheaper.

Nothing wrong with that.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: bishop so, i'll repeat the question i asked you last time around - do you think the government should tell business where it can and cannot create jobs? apparently you do like a little big brother in your diet, on particular issues of course.

I believe that to be one of the true functions of the Federal government. To protect me from foreign aggressors, combative, or economic.

P.S. My economic number is in my signature comrad, and its indicative of just how wrong you are. I only advocate wise free trade, not protectionism.

Quote by: bishop as i previously stated, the real issue is whether/not our trade representatives are not actively lodging disputes at the wto. you were also vague about how, specifically, china has violated its obligations under the wto. you've also ignored cases that have been brought to the wto and have been resolved in our favor. there've been loads of other rulings found in our favor. typically, when we take a case to the wto, the two main reasons are to protest dumping by an exporter, to protest subsidies, or to protest discriminatory business/trade policies. if you want to focus on china, which has nothing to do with cafta, there's the recent ruling on semi-conductors found in our favor: http://www.ustr.gov/Document_Library...onductors.html about nafta resulting in a net job loss.. again, another example of people not doing their own homework. i've researched the raw data, because i am not one to lazily listen to the numbers put forth by pundits/politicians. you can go straight to bls, which is a public academic research instutution, and pull up the numbers for yourself. you just need to get the numbers of jobs created during nafta's time, and the number of jobs lost. the difference is your net jobs lost/created under nafta. numbers always make a much more compelling argument than reciting what so-and-so said about the issue. i have a feeling that while you're ready to question government figures, you've never even bothered to research the numbers yourself. if you want to present some numbers for job losses due to dumping, then you can do that - rather than request them from others. that's information to support your argument, not anyone else's. evidence has also been shown that a protectionist measure such as bush's steel tariffs can cost tens/hundreds of thousands of jobs (est. 200,000 from steel tarifffs alone).

I could care less about favorable rulings in the WTO. The WTO is just a mechanism in place to force compliance on countries that want loans from the World Bank. The WTO is yet another group of men working towards eradicating soveriegnty, and nation states.

Quote by: bishop you were also vague about how, specifically, china has violated its obligations under the wto.

My problem is with corporate America violating the agreements, and the government officials who let it continue to happen. Admittedly, I don't like our governments position on dealing with the Chinese because they counterfeit our currency. Sorry if I confused you by lumping them all together as treaty violators.


The new jobs created in the U.S. are crap, minimum wage, or temporary positions without benfits. Who cares if the Bush administration creates jobs for all the illegals flooding the border. I want my manufacturing base back. The loss of munufacturing jobs is directly attributable to GATT, and NAFTA, and is precisely as Ross Perot described in his speech. Corporate America is being forced to compete with treaty breakers, and rule violators, and the bottom line is that they will outsource jobs, and break treaties themselves if forced to compete at a disadvantage. Who pays? The little guy.


Justice is served.
:rolleyes:

[RickSp]

Quote by: Milton Bradley I believe that to be one of the true functions of the Federal government. To protect me from foreign aggressors, combative, or economic. The new jobs created in the U.S. are crap, minimum wage, or temporary positions without benfits. Who cares if the Bush administration creates jobs for all the illegals flooding the border. I want my manufacturing base back. The loss of munufacturing jobs is directly attributable to GATT, and NAFTA, and is precisely as Ross Perot described in his speech. Corporate America is being forced to compete with treaty breakers, and rule violators, and the bottom line is that they will outsource jobs, and break treaties themselves if forced to compete at a disadvantage. Who pays? The little guy.

Bizarre. You want to believe this whining Ross Perot populist wholly unsupported by the facts crap, fine. You might however show enough intellectual honesty to stop claiming that you support "free trade" while espousing typical protectionist clap-trap.

[Osborn F Enready]

NO TRADE by America today resembles in any fashion "Free Trade".

Many of you obviously don't know that free trade means a "lack of" restrictions.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready NO TRADE by America today resembles in any fashion "Free Trade". Many of you obviously don't know that free trade means a "lack of" restrictions.

And what do you propose? Do you stand against every incremental step toward freer trade or will you "hold high the banner of pure principle" and settle for doing absolutely nothing at all?

[Osborn F Enready]

Rick, it has been shown over history the right path to take.

The less interference the government has with trade, the more the system grows, the more the people benefit, the more stable the society, the more supply and demand works AS INTENDED.

What we have now is a regulated mess, that literally stifles trade with our country.

Does outsourcing not SHOW THIS PLAINLY??

[RickSp]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Rick, it has been shown over history the right path to take.

What exactly are you saying here? Of course, free trade benefits everyone. The question here is how to get there.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready The less interference the government has with trade, the more the system grows, the more the people benefit, the more stable the society, the more supply and demand works AS INTENDED. What we have now is a regulated mess, that literally stifles trade with our country. Does outsourcing not SHOW THIS PLAINLY??

Yes, we need more free trade. But, again, what is your point? Do you oppose CAFTA because is isn't perfect? Because it only promotes "freer" trade, instead of some theoretical "free trade"? How in hell will we get anywhere unless we start taking the first steps?