Is CAFTA Un-American?

[RVonse]

Quote by: bishop studies have shown that jobs lost due to nafta are around 700,000.. in the same time, however, some 20 million new jobs have been created nationwide. and, something that my second chart shows is that while jobs some manufacturing jobs were lost due to nafta, more were created resulting in a net gain of manufacturing jobs. if you want to look solely at manufacturing, those jobs increased during nafta and were growing until the recession. nafta was ratified in 1994 i believe - show me the loss in manufacturing jobs due to nafta, please.... ?

But your data is contradicting your own argument! Looking at your graph go to 1994 and observe that manufacturing employement is about 16,000. Then at 2005 it has decreased to 14,000. And you can't blame that on the recession because during that same period (according to your first graph) overall (manufacturing plus the service sector) jobs increased.

The data you present appears to make a bad case for USA manufacturing jobs and NAFTA.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: bishop no, you didn't reiterate anything.. you repeated the same line without backing up your argument. i kind of doubt that you have read any of the trade agreements that we are party to, but, i want just one SPECIFIC example.. give me a specific clause from a specific trade agreement, and explain to me how the company violated the rule. if you can't do that, i'm just going to assume that you're talking out of your ass.

The clause says "that the product produced must be more mobile than the facility that creates it."


Any American company that relocates its factory outside of the US is in violation of the treaty. Every damned story about manufacturing jobs leaving the country covered in the media is an example of a treaty violation. Pick one. Pick the 64,000 jobs that left for China from the textile industry from North Carolina.


That last post only illustrates that there is a reading comprhension problem on that end of this dialog.

Quote by: bishop it seems to be you have an aversion to look at the bigger picture while you're wallowing in the situation where you happen to live. you ever hear of the term "labor mobility"? americans do it all the time - you move to where job opportunities are good. ohio isn't the only dustbowl out there that has manufacturing jobs. in fact, the rest of the country seems to be doing pretty well aside from a couple areas, including ohio.

I better be pretty damned mobil to move to China, where all the factories are relocating.


It was not possible to move ones entire operation out of the country until the loosened regulations, and all of this is bogus legislation is just corprate dollars at work subverting our laws so they can turn a bigger profit for the shareholders.


So I ask, what is the point of having all these contracts drawn up if the players with all the money refuse to abide by the rules?


Why would politicians allow legislation with such obvious loopholes ( these issues were pointed out before NAFTA ever became law ) to be passed without fixing said loopholes?



How can any treaty make it into law without an adequate machanism to impose penaties on the violators?


Allow me to provide my answer to those last questions.


Special interest lobbying, and corporate dollars, thats why. Tilting the playing field ever more in favor of those that already have all the money.

[bishop]

Quote by: RVonse But your data is contradicting your own argument! Looking at your graph go to 1994 and observe that manufacturing employement is about 16,000. Then at 2005 it has decreased to 14,000. And you can't blame that on the recession because during that same period (according to your first graph) overall (manufacturing plus the service sector) jobs increased. The data you present appears to make a bad case for USA manufacturing jobs and NAFTA.

in post #79, i said this:

Quote by: bishop also, you ought to be very careful when talking about the labor movements due to nafta post-2000... i don't believe many jobs are moving to mexico right now. for the most part, they're moving to asia - and asia isn't a member of the nafta agreement. in fact, mexican jobs have been moving to asia.

i'm talking specifically about the effects of nafta. i don't see how you can really continue counting nafta into 2005 - when most of the manufacturing jobs have been relocated during the late 90's. why not just keep blaming nafta for future job losses 20 years from now if you want to pursue that train of logic. i don't have data (yet) about where the jobs have gone post-recession, but from the bits of information that i've seen - jobs are leaving mexico and job creation (by american multinationals) has become very low. if you have some information of your own, please present it.


i also think it is more accurate to look at labor for manufacturing in two time periods. 1. nafta to pre-recession. 2. recession - present.

[bishop]

Quote by: milton The clause says "that the product produced must be more mobile than the facility that creates it."

which clause would that be? from which trade agreement??

you must not know what you're talking about and hoping i follow you along - because if you did, you would've cited this mysterious clause when i asked the first time.

Quote by: milton Any American company that relocates its factory outside of the US is in violation of the treaty. Every damned story about manufacturing jobs leaving the country covered in the media is an example of a treaty violation. Pick one.

heh.. so besides this mysterious clause that doesn't exist - you're now saying that any american job that leaves the country is illegal (under the stipulations of the imaginary clause of course).. and you don't consider yourself to be a protectionist?!?

Quote by: milton It was not possible to move ones entire operation out of the country until the loosened regulations, and all of this is bogus legislation is just corprate dollars at work subverting our laws so they can turn a bigger profit for the shareholders.

yes, this is creating a bigger profit for shareholders.. and, like the facts that i put up that you conveniently have no response for - the result of this ended up being job growth (and wage growth).. but since you can't refute any of what has been presented with some facts, stick to this unsubstantiated rhetoric.


can't answer your other questions until you can actually point out this mysterious clause to us.. the one that you've now built your house of cards argument around.

[Milton Bradley]

bishop, you seem to be selectively ignorant.


The problem is the use of the term "free trade", as used in treaties like GATT, NAFTA, and CAFTA. The problem is how "free trade" has been defined by the W.T.O. and the other NGO's that oversee these things. The problem is our governments role in the disenfranchising of American citizens.


You need to reread my original post in this topic with that in mind.


What you are doing, is attempting to turn this into a purely economic discussion. What I am attempting to point out is that this is a word definition trick. "Free Trade", as defined in our foreign trade policies is not free trade at all.


Where is my free market?

[tman_ndsu08]

Milton, free trade is defined as trade between countries that doesn't get taxed.

That's it.


If Americans lose their jobs indirectly because the market demands goods that can be supplied cheaper by other countries, SO BE IT!!!

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Milton, free trade is defined as trade between countries that doesn't get taxed. That's it. If Americans lose their jobs indirectly because the market demands goods that can be supplied cheaper by other countries, SO BE IT!!!

Go ahead, and attempt to prove that. I dare you.


That still does nothing to address the problem of our government role in "desiring" Globalism, word definition tricks that can be exploited by corporations.


What we have here is a government created economic environment that enables the rich to rob from the poor.


I sure wouldn't want to be the guy who advocates such thing in ignorance, or even worse, the guy who promotes it knowing the implications his policies have.

[bishop]

Quote by: Milton Bradley bishop, you seem to be selectively ignorant. The problem is the use of the term "free trade", as used in treaties like GATT, NAFTA, and CAFTA. The problem is how "free trade" has been defined by the W.T.O. and the other NGO's that oversee these things. The problem is our governments role in the disenfranchising of American citizens. You need to reread my original post in this topic with that in mind. What you are doing, is attempting to turn this into a purely economic discussion. What I am attempting to point out is that this is a word definition trick. "Free Trade", as defined in our foreign trade policies is not free trade at all. Where is my free market?

thanks for the hot air.. how about pointing out this mysterious clause that you've repeatedly mentioned? you can't answer that question for the same reason why you can't refute the numerical facts that i cited - because you have no clue what you're talking about. your house of cards asserts that these trade agreements are bad - yet you can't prove it when i challenge you with/for facts.

i'm not trying to turn it into a "purely economic" discussion.. i'm trying to turn it into an intellectual discussion that is mentally deeper than citing something ross perot once said. i'm trying to justify my opinion with some real facts.

[RickSp]

MB, if you want to call yourself anything but a protectionist, go to a damned library and read a little economics. Figure out what "comparative advantage" means to start with.

Trade, even trade that sends jobs overseas, almost invariably creates more jobs than it destroys by several times. Your repeated assertion that US companies which move production offshore somehow violates trade agreements is crazy. And your "rich robbing from the poor" mantra is past tiresome.

Globilization can be disruptive, messy and painful, but it is the best chance of prosperity in both the developed and developing countries and is the only real hope for peace. Populist protectionism means merely more war and bigger government.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: Milton Bradley Go ahead, and attempt to prove that. I dare you. That still does nothing to address the problem of our government role in "desiring" Globalism, word definition tricks that can be exploited by corporations. What we have here is a government created economic environment that enables the rich to rob from the poor. I sure wouldn't want to be the guy who advocates such thing in ignorance, or even worse, the guy who promotes it knowing the implications his policies have.

No one is robbing anyone.

This is free trade, both ways.

You have no argument.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: bishop thanks for the hot air.. how about pointing out this mysterious clause that you've repeatedly mentioned? you can't answer that question for the same reason why you can't refute the numerical facts that i cited - because you have no clue what you're talking about. your house of cards asserts that these trade agreements are bad - yet you can't prove it when i challenge you with/for facts. i'm not trying to turn it into a "purely economic" discussion.. i'm trying to turn it into an intellectual discussion that is mentally deeper than citing something ross perot once said. i'm trying to justify my opinion with some real facts.

You keep bringing up Ross Perot. What I keep trying to bring to your attention is the testimony of Charles Schumer that is linked in post # 16 of this thread.


What you require is posted in post # 16.


You obviously have not investigated this or you could not make the assertions that you make. (disreguarding the fact that they are off topic, and missing the point completely)


The problem is in the language of the GATT, NAFTA, and CAFTA treaties, and the WTO's definition of the term "free trade".

[bishop]

heh.. i find your endless shifting to be pretty laughable.. you still haven't mentioned this mysterious clause which makes the activities of u.s. companies illegal. i'll keep requesting that until you can admit that you made it up.

and you have provided ZERO evidence to refute the numerical facts that i've given you.. facts that show that overall employment increased under nafta as well as manufacturing employment. facts that showed that wages have increased, including wages paid to manufacturing workers. what is your response? you ignore all of that information, and offer some limp wristed semantical complaint that the phrase "free trade" is misleading. WOW, that is deep! i could give a damn what they call it, when the facts show that it's growing jobs and increasing wages. they could call it "poop trade" for all i care..

and your 47 page transcript... it admits itself that it has no solution for the current situation. the entire point of that transcript was simply to point out that today's concepts of comparative advantage is different today than it has been in the past. no shit sherlock. it also does nothing to refute the points i've made.

[Caduceus]

Sorry guys, but the simple fact is that on the world market, American workers are hopelessly uncompetitive. We can't support unrestricted free trade without consciously sacrificing the quality of life to which we've become accustomed.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: Caduceus Sorry guys, but the simple fact is that on the world market, American workers are hopelessly uncompetitive. We can't support unrestricted free trade without consciously sacrificing the quality of life to which we've become accustomed.

Exactly.

And it actually doesn't even matter whether we support free trade or not, globalization is already starring to run its course.

Big companies like Wal Mart, etc. are already employing the cheaper labor of other countries.

Good for them! hopefully the whole world will follow suit.

[Caduceus]

Well, regardless of the ideological benefits of free trade, the simple truth is that other countries just don't practice it. Look at the thriving Japan, which has rigorous controls on trade and still survives with a superior export-based economy. American companies are moving there because that's the only way they can enjoy both American and Japanese markets.