Is CAFTA Un-American?

[gr8fuldaniel]

According to this poll on CNN, 94% of those polled, say NAY.

Do you think the Central American Free Trade Agreement should be approved or rejected by Congress? Approved 6% 517 votes Rejected 94% 7943 votes Total: 8460 votes

What say you?

[RickSp]

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel According to this poll on CNN, 94% of those polled, say NAY. What say you?

If Americanism means ludite protectionism, I suppose CAFTA is un-American. If America supports free trade, then opposition to CAFTA is un-American.

[Cephus]

Depends on what you mean by 'free trade'. If that means no tariffs on any incoming products, even though they are manufactured by basically slave labor making 10-cents an hour in countries with no environmental laws, etc. then that's just damn stupid. You'll flood the market with cheap products that no American company can compete with, and you won't get any buyers in other countries because they can make stuff cheap.

[Whodoe!]

Personally, I don’t get the plan. It seems too corporate in its short-sighted vision. That is, over-commitment to short-term economic effects without caring about or planning for what happens later. Just meet your earnings report NEXT quarter and damn the rest to whom or whatever inherits future quarters. It feels like a bubble gets created that everyone knows will burst later.

I also don’t see a plan to care for the workers who get moved up by cheap labor (produced products) coming in under them. That wording is as confusing as the problem. Today’s one dollar laborer pushes up the two dollar laborer and so on until you reach the fifty dollar laborer who is in debt at high, and often usury interest rates. That fifty dollar laborer is pushed completely out of the workplace, their debt goes boom and they lose or panic-spend their pension.

Of course, I don’t understand any part of foreign policy taking place in the Americas south of Texas. That specifically includes immigration controls, illicit drugs and foreign relations.

[northtexan]

Quote by: RickSp If Americanism means ludite protectionism, I suppose CAFTA is un-American. If America supports free trade, then opposition to CAFTA is un-American.

If Americanism means fair trade, then opposition to CAFTA is American.

If Americanism means capitulation to global corporate control, running rampant over national character and sovereignty, workers' rights, environmental protection, and economic well-being of all, then Americanism is dead.

Did CAFTA actually pass? CAFTA was recorded to have passed the House by two votes. Apparently at least one representative recorded to have not voted subsequently claimed to have voted 'no'.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: Cephus Depends on what you mean by 'free trade'. If that means no tariffs on any incoming products, even though they are manufactured by basically slave labor making 10-cents an hour in countries with no environmental laws, etc. then that's just damn stupid. You'll flood the market with cheap products that no American company can compete with, and you won't get any buyers in other countries because they can make stuff cheap.

So?

It's called globalization. Just because we have hoarded most of the world's finite amount of wealth, doesn't mean we should get to hang on to most of it forever.

It's going to happen one way or another, you can't stop it with socialism.

Capitalism will find a way.

[RickSp]

Right. "Fair trade" is a just a good marketing term for protectionism. Trade creates jobs and protectionism destroys them. Losing ten jobs for every one saved is not a good idea.

Tangled Threads of Protectionism

One of the textile industry's oldest problems is again under focus: how to adjust in the face of changing technology, tastes, and economic fundamentals. Politicians are calling, not surprisingly, for a populist solution – protect jobs by raising walls against imports. Trade protectionism as a band-aid for job loss is ineffective; the ultimate solution, for governments, businesses, and individuals, is to innovate, educate, and adjust to new economic realities.

[oranged]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 So? It's called globalization. Just because we have hoarded most of the world's finite amount of wealth, doesn't mean we should get to hang on to most of it forever. It's going to happen one way or another, you can't stop it with socialism. Capitalism will find a way.

I don't quite see what you're saying. Are you saying that socialists are trying to make America hold on to it's wealth? I'm a socialist, and I don't want people in Central America to work in slave labor. I want them to have perfectly good high paying jobs just like most Americans.

[G. Adams]

For a proper socialist system to emerge, that area has to have fully gone through a capitalist phase, as it is capitalism that breaks down the old order, creates new infrastructure and more fully industrialises a country. If we want to see socialism, or any left wing system emerge properly in south america that doesn't include authoritarian methods, I'm afraid we're going to have to encourage capitalism. Which means free trade. I'm in support of all free trade agreements between almost every country. The only ones I'd hold back are the handful of oppressive, backwards countries, like Zimbabwe and Uzbekistan.

[RVonse]

Quote by: RickSp Right. "Fair trade" is a just a good marketing term for protectionism. Trade creates jobs and protectionism destroys them. Losing ten jobs for every one saved is not a good idea. Tangled Threads of Protectionism

You make a decent argument. The fallacy of it is in the fact that labor has not internationally organized yet. Sooner or later it will of course but it will be after much pain experienced here and other countries. To engage in CAFTA right now without labor protections or unions will be of great injustice to workers of non-industrialized nations. Because the monopoly of capital needs to be put in check by the monopoly of organized unions. Thats the way it naturally occured in America and Europe long ago. Without that you have slave labor conditions throughout Central America and unemployement in America.

[Gorgo]

Quote by: G. Adams Which means free trade

"Free Trade" means an equal playing field with lack of coercion. That does not exist in the world. What "Free Trade" has come to mean is to destroy unions and all forms of protest and let transnational corporations to be free to do what they want.

[RickSp]

Quote by: RVonse You make a decent argument. The fallacy of it is in the fact that labor has not internationally organized yet. Sooner or later it will of course but it will be after much pain experienced here and other countries. To engage in CAFTA right now without labor protections or unions will be of great injustice to workers of non-industrialized nations. Because the monopoly of capital needs to be put in check by the monopoly of organized unions. Thats the way it naturally occured in America and Europe long ago. Without that you have slave labor conditions throughout Central America and unemployement in America.

Given the events of this week your post is interesting. So we cannot enter into agreements to reduce tariffs and increase trade until all workers join unions? Only 12.5% of US workers choose to be represented by unions, and the labor movement overall is in complete disarray with the pullout of the SEIU, the service workers union, and the Teamsters from the AFL-CIO this week.

It is hard to see how it makes sense to wait for unions to organize in Central America when they are arguably in decline in the US.

In one respect, though, you are right. In their opposition to CAFTA, the labor unions are trying to use their political clout to achieve in Congress what they have failed to accomplish in the marketplace. In this case, they failed by only two votes.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Gorgo "Free Trade" means an equal playing field with lack of coercion. That does not exist in the world. What "Free Trade" has come to mean is to destroy unions and all forms of protest and let transnational corporations to be free to do what they want.

Your definition of "free trade" is a fantasy used to argue for protectionism. It will never be achieved. The classic (given how overused the term is on these boards I hate to use it, but here goes) strawman. Free trade involves a willing buying and a willing seller, nothing more. Over time markets tend to level "playing fields" but your "equal playing field" is just protectionist fiction.

[Gorgo]

Quote by: RickSp Over time markets tend to level "playing fields" but your "equal playing field" is just protectionist fiction

I don't understand at all what you are saying here. For instance, what I hear you saying is something akin to, "well, we have to have slavery because "free people" is a strawman argument. I don't think you're saying that, so could you please clarify?

Can we both agree that there is no such thing at the present moment as any kind of "free trade?" Are you saying that this is a good thing that this system of slavery exists?

[G. Adams]

By free trade all I mean is that subsidies, tariffs and trade barriers are removed between states. I obviously support the growth of of unions, and the idea of international unions is one of the most appealing ideas for the future of the left. But for international unions to be built, we need the workers to realise their challenges are similar across borders. Putting trade on a more balanced level is the only way I can concieve of working to that end.

[Milton Bradley]

Osborn and I, being good citizens ( your laughter here ) were watching C-SPAN the other day during the World Trade conference talks. We learned that our elected politicians are playing a little "word definition" trick with us, the American people.


We learned that there two definitions of the term "Free Trade".


To talk to an economist, they would tell you that free trade means the ability of any person to buy any product from any other person without government interference, no matter where that person may reside.


The definition of "free trade" used in government documents such as N.A.F.T.A. , G.A.T.T. , the World Monetary Fund , and The World Trade Organization is quite different. They're definition of free trade specifically states that the products being produced are more mobile than the facility that creates them.


As we see in our current economy, they is a massive outflux of jobs leaving the U.S. for foreign shores, and it all seem to come from companies that trade on the Stock Exchange. The fact that they are responsible to show the most profit for the shareholders means they must seek the cheapest operating cost, witch means outsourcing to the cheapest product available. Many even move there factories, thereby violating the treaty we signed, and negating any good effcts it might have had here at home.



My whole point of this post is that the way we are operating now, with the current rules in effect, is that companies that trade on any stock exchange, are continually, and perpetually disenfranchizing any American who does not already have money. By operating under the premise of most profit for the shareholder, they must seek the biggest profit margin, and under current rules, that means outsourcing jobs, and importing goods that violate the previous signed agreements.



The question is ... How do we go about changing the laws/rules we have had stuck up our backsides?



Here is the transcript to that program.
http://www.brookings.edu/comm/events/20040107.htm

[Lilith]

I just wish that they would quite chopping down the rainforests in South America.

That just breaks my heart.

Anyhoo back on topic......

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: oranged I want them to have perfectly good high paying jobs just like most Americans.

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?

[Sandy]

CAFTA passed i n the House of Representatives by 2 freakin votes. Damn!!!!

[tman_ndsu08]

Oh Darn!!!

Americans are going to be getting cheaper goods!!! NO!!!!!!

Shoot! DAB NABBIT!!!