I say no.  I also opposed NAFTA.

NAFTA screwed over canada royally and saw to the demise of our conservative government in '93.

I suppose that CAFTA is the Central American Free Trade Area, which I oppose because, like NAFTA, it leads to the "off-shoring" of high paying manufacturing jobs.  Good Lord, GWB and I agree on a political issue.  Quick Cat, get the thermometer!  Am I feverish? 

Seriously, I don't know what GWB's rationale is, but to me, these trade agreements and their results - run-away manufacturing jobs - are devistating our working class (not "middle class") life style.  On the other hand, I have no problem with selective tariff reductions - like Chilean fruit in our winter.  When trade agreements lower the cost of stuff to the consumer and also benefit the producer, that's to the good.  When trade agreements result in job loss, that is hurt the consumer or others, that is not good.

NAFTA screwed over canada royally and saw to the demise of our conservative government in '93.


This issue brings unholy partnerships.  The biggest opposers to NAFTA here in America were Patrick Buchanan and Ralph Nader!

The only ones who support NAFTA and soon-to-be-defeated in May of this year (hopefully) CAFTA are confused liberals and phony republicans.  The democrats may be right, republicans look like they are screwing the American worker just for cheap porducts from slave/child labor.  The republicans need to stop listening to the billion+ a year corporations and that dam* chamber of commerce.  Stop screwing the American workers!

NAFTA did nothing but hurt American and Canadian workers.  When NAFTA was being debated, every supported said it would be good for our workers, and bring a surplus.  Then they said the deficit it created wasn't big.  Now they're saying that trade defitcits are a good thing!  Stop the lies!  The only thing NAFTA has brought about is a weaker dollar and the loss of American manufacturing jobs.  CAFTA will kill the American textile industry, and for what?  Cheaper clothes?  Is it worth it?

This issue brings unholy partnerships.  The biggest opposers to NAFTA here in America were Patrick Buchanan and Ralph Nader!

The only ones who support NAFTA and soon-to-be-defeated in May of this year (hopefully) CAFTA are confused liberals and phony republicans.  The democrats may be right, republicans look like they are screwing the American worker just for cheap porducts from slave/child labor.  The republicans need to stop listening to the billion+ a year corporations and that dam* chamber of commerce.  Stop screwing the American workers!

NAFTA did nothing but hurt American and Canadian workers.  When NAFTA was being debated, every supported said it would be good for our workers, and bring a surplus.  Then they said the deficit it created wasn't big.  Now they're saying that trade defitcits are a good thing!  Stop the lies!  The only thing NAFTA has brought about is a weaker dollar and the loss of American manufacturing jobs.  CAFTA will kill the American textile industry, and for what?  Cheaper clothes?  Is it worth it?


GWB, I think we are going to give lots of people on the board a heart attack!  I must say, without meaning to be offensive, that Maxwell Smart has said similar things regarding the Rebublican party being in the pocket of big business.  On this issue, it looks like at least you and I agree.  I'm not 100% for protectionism, as I think Pat Buchanan is, and I'm certainly not xenophobic, but I see noi reason to subsidize the exportantion of good paying jobs to enhance the profits of transnational corporationsn in the short term.  In the long term, when we arre all asking each other "you want fries with that sir?" those profits, and our country, will look a lot like Bolivia.

Don Carlos and GWB agree on something?  I'm marking that down in my calendar...history has been made. ;D

I went with 'what is CAFTA' then Carlos explained it in his post.  I am against it, too.  Thanks Carlos. :)

What? The Don and GW agreeing? No... No... Nnnnnnnnnnnng (clasps chest) sudden pains shooting through my rib cage. arghhhhh

Oh its okay... it's just that chilli I had earlier repeating on me  ;D

Still nice to see some agreement on this board - now can we get back to bitching at each other ?  ::)

I must appologize to all of you who have experiance appoplexy as a result of my agreeing with GWB  ;)

I have often observed, though, that many sentiments of leftists and conservatives coincide on some issues.  I also oppose "welfare cheats", but I focus my attention at the really big ones at the top rather that at the ones at the bottom of the feeding chain.  I also believe in "personal responsibility", but I understand it in a social and historical context.  On this issue, I think our government has an obligation to protect our working class from the unscrupulious competition of authoritarian givernments that refuse to protect workers' rights.

I object to "free trade agreements" (which are never free, rarely about trade, and frequently not really agreements) not out of xenophobia or isolationism, but because I object to giving corporate-imperial forces more license to exploit the human race. 

BTW, I've been out of the loop for a couple of days.  My piece of cr@p PC killed my web browser and I have to get the d*mn thing reparied.  I'm going Mac next time, that's for sure.  I'll never give Microsoft-in-the-squash another dime I don't have to!

Meanwhile, I borrowed my buddy's laptop for the afternoon!

It looks like I'm the only one in favour of it, then.

I'm a Canadian, and I supported NAFTA 100%, and as an ardent advocate of free trade, I welcome the efforts to establish it in central America.

To me, the world is a better off place when it has as few barriers in it as possible. Giving the poor workers of the developing world a fair chance to have their products compete in our markets creates economic growth for them as well as for ourselves. Free trade is the best way to share the world's wealth, and the best way to create more wealth, as well.

It looks like I'm the only one in favour of it, then.

I'm a Canadian, and I supported NAFTA 100%, and as an ardent advocate of free trade, I welcome the efforts to establish it in central America.

To me, the world is a better off place when it has as few barriers in it as possible. Giving the poor workers of the developing world a fair chance to have their products compete in our markets creates economic growth for them as well as for ourselves. Free trade is the best way to share the world's wealth, and the best way to create more wealth, as well.


What about the working man in 1st world countries?

from what i learned in my course about social activism in Mexico (a bit of central america too) the central american workers are going to be hurt more than American workers since we have better technology here to make better and cheaper products then central american workers can, so central american consumers will be buying goods from the United States to a much greater extent than we'll buy Central American goods here. If the central american products are selling less, which tthey inevitably will be in the event of CAFTA, then the workers there will get paid even less than they do now which is a good way to get the people to revolt.

What about the working man in 1st world countries?


He'll benefit too. As I said, free trade creates economic growth for everyone. I will concede that there might be some initial job losses(with any system, there's going to be some people who would be better off doing it another way. You can't please all of the people all of the time), but I believe that these negative effects will only be in the short term, and that the long term benefits of free trade  outweigh any short term setbacks.

He'll benefit too. As I said, free trade creates economic growth for everyone. I will concede that there might be some initial job losses(with any system, there's going to be some people who would be better off doing it another way. You can't please all of the people all of the time), but I believe that these negative effects will only be in the short term, and that the long term benefits of free trade outweigh any short term setbacks.


I don't really think so. Like Ethan said, it ends up giving the workers in those countries lower wages, as well as the ones here. It is exploitation.

Plus, it depletes the manufacturing base in our country. How can a country remain wealthy in the long-term without making anything ourselves? A strong service economy is good, but it alone cannot make a country wealthy. We have to actually produce. You cannot base an economy entirely upon everyone doing everyone else's laundry. For the service economy to run efficiently, you have to have wealth ALREADY circulating within the economy, because the service industry is about people spending already-created wealth. The only way to CREATE more real wealth in this country is industry.

An economy that is 90 percent services or more(which is the direction we are heading in) cannot sustain itself.

Personally, I like the trade treaty that Tom Clancy proposed in one of his books.

basically, it imposed the same tarrifs and restrictions on imports that other countries imposed on their imports.  In other words, Japan has stiff import tarrifs on any food products.  In reply, we simply place the same tarrifs on exports from Japan.  That way, they either play fiar, or see the loss in their pocketbooks.

I agree with free trade.  It helps our economy, and also the economy of other countries by giving them money they would not have otherwise.  And I am all for every country having a higher standard of living.  After all, it is easier to sell American products to third world countries if they have money in the first place.  That was one reason the old "Yankee Traders" did so well when compared to their "European Colony Traders" in the later part of the 19th century.  They realized that trade was a 2 way street.  Simply exploiting people and giving nothing in return is a loosing strategy in the long term.

So you support fair trade, not just free trade?

It looks like I'm the only one in favour of it, then.

I'm a Canadian, and I supported NAFTA 100%, and as an ardent advocate of free trade, I welcome the efforts to establish it in central America.

To me, the world is a better off place when it has as few barriers in it as possible. Giving the poor workers of the developing world a fair chance to have their products compete in our markets creates economic growth for them as well as for ourselves. Free trade is the best way to share the world's wealth, and the best way to create more wealth, as well.
I'll tell you what, Satish, I invite you to drive down to Lincoln, Nebraska so you can explain to all the people who used to work at Goodyear, Cushman, Square D, and National Crane how NAFTA has made their lives better.  >:(

The only thing free expensive trade benefits are large companies.  Small companies get shafted.  Mexico has every trade barrier imaginable up to stop our small business products from getting in, only billion+ a year companies can get simple products into Mexico.  While at the same time Mexico can dump their crap on us.  We have a minimum wage in this country, we can't compete with China's slave labor.  If we end this trade policy, I'll support fully raising the minimum wage.  It's a win-win.

To anyone who supported NAFTA: where is that trade surplus you promised us?  Bush Sr.?  Clinton?  Anyone?

from what i learned in my course about social activism in Mexico (a bit of central america too) the central american workers are going to be hurt more than American workers since we have better technology here to make better and cheaper products then central american workers can, so central american consumers will be buying goods from the United States to a much greater extent than we'll buy Central American goods here. If the central american products are selling less, which tthey inevitably will be in the event of CAFTA, then the workers there will get paid even less than they do now which is a good way to get the people to revolt.

If we let the international capitalist run the show, they will run it strictly for the greatest short-term gain for the fewest global fat cats.  Latin American workers will suffer more, but that's the way it's been for a hundred years.  Left up to international capital all workers will suffer!!!  Do any of you REALLY believe multinational corporations give one g*dd*m about people who get up in the morning and go work for a buck? 
The bosses and the American Fascist Party (GOP) will not be content until ALL workers are equal.  That is, equally desperate.  When American workers are willing to earn ten cents an hour and sleep on rancid straw mats in concrete barracks, the "jobs" will start returning state side.  We can wait for that day, or we can be ballsy men and women and start tar-and-feathering these fat cats wherever we can grab 'em!

I'll tell you what, Satish, I invite you to drive down to Lincoln, Nebraska so you can explain to all the people who used to work at Goodyear, Cushman, Square D, and National Crane how NAFTA has made their lives better.  >:(


AMEN!

The only thing free expensive trade benefits are large companies.  Small companies get shafted.  Mexico has every trade barrier imaginable up to stop our small business products from getting in, only billion+ a year companies can get simple products into Mexico.  While at the same time Mexico can dump their crap on us.  We have a minimum wage in this country, we can't compete with China's slave labor.  If we end this trade policy, I'll support fully raising the minimum wage.  It's a win-win.

To anyone who supported NAFTA: where is that trade surplus you promised us?  Bush Sr.?  Clinton?  Anyone?


Again, I must agree with GWB and Max (my God, they are also agreeing on this).  I must say that I'm not familiar with Mexico's trade policies under NAFTA, but clearly US manufacturing jobs are heading south, and more so east.  "free" trade can pnly be free, and equitable, when the workers of our trading partners have the same garantees, protections, and rights as our workers (all of which, admittedly increase production costs), and when all the other socially responsible restricions on business (like polution controls - China is the most polluted nation in the world) are applied universally.

I must say (and I guess GWB might object) that to accomplish these ends we would need to support, rather than undermine, the UN and initiatives like the Koyoto Treaty (which Lil' Georgie repudiated) and similar iniciatives.  As a tangent, I am also appauled that Lil' Georgie has refused to become a part of the International Court of Justice.  I guess we still have to protect Henry the K for prolonging the Vietnam War, the genocide in East Timor, and the rise of fasdcism in Chile.

Again, I must agree with GWB and Max (my God, they are also agreeing on this).  I must say that I'm not familiar with Mexico's trade policies under NAFTA, but clearly US manufacturing jobs are heading south, and more so east.  "free" trade can pnly be free, and equitable, when the workers of our trading partners have the same garantees, protections, and rights as our workers (all of which, admittedly increase production costs), and when all the other socially responsible restricions on business (like polution controls - China is the most polluted nation in the world) are applied universally.

I must say (and I guess GWB might object) that to accomplish these ends we would need to support, rather than undermine, the UN and initiatives like the Koyoto Treaty (which Lil' Georgie repudiated) and similar iniciatives.  As a tangent, I am also appauled that Lil' Georgie has refused to become a part of the International Court of Justice.  I guess we still have to protect Henry the K for prolonging the Vietnam War, the genocide in East Timor, and the rise of fasdcism in Chile.

"Democracy" means "let your country get stripped and gang raped by the the IMF, the World Bank, and the corporate oligarchy."  Anything else is communism or fascism on the terms of worldwide Money-God theocracy.
:P

The IMF and the World Bank hjave both shown themselves to be unconcerned with workers' rights or raising the living satandards in 3rd world countries - the only sure fire way to stop "commubist" revolutions.  Fascism they can tolerate, or evan applaude since it insures that the poor will always pay for their austerity measures.

The republicans need to stop listening to the billion+ a year corporations and that dam* chamber of commerce.  Stop screwing the American workers!

Well, just to let you know... Word just got back from Hell, and it is frozen.  :D

Just read that CAFTA is going to be debated on and probably voted on by the end of May of this year.  It looks like a sure thing in the US Senate, but in the US House it is going to be VERY close.  It may lose, God I hope it does.  The trade deficit is already growing faster than a fire ant's nest.

Just read that CAFTA is going to be debated on and probably voted on by the end of May of this year.  It looks like a sure thing in the US Senate, but in the US House it is going to be VERY close.  It may lose, God I hope it does.  The trade deficit is already growing faster than a fire ant's nest.


Yes, our trade deficit is WAY out of control, and Bubba (who signed NAFTA) is partly responsible.  I'm far from being a jingoist protectionist, but trade has to be fair, and it certainly isn't right now.  Chinese "slave labor" can certainly produce much cheaper than our workers evan if they are not organized.  Wal Mart is another problem.  I heard an interview on NPR with a textile manufacturer who stated that Wal Mart told him that if he wanted to continue as a supplier he had to move his production facility to China.  Reluctantly, and at the cost of hundreds of what he called "low wage jobs" he did.  There must be a way to protect ourselves from Wal Mart, and the rest of them.  Seems to me that way is a reinvigorated, and much more political labor movement willing to organize across national boundries. 

If you study labor history you will find that the first unions were very local.  As business became regional, so did labor organizations, and as it became national, so did labor.  Well, business is now transnational.  So...  We need to learn that those slave wage workers in China and elsewhere are more our brothers and sisters than the US bosses we work for.  Where is Big Bill Haywood now that we need him?  Workers of the world unite!  You have nothing to loose but your chains!

Yes, our trade deficit is WAY out of control, and Bubba (who signed NAFTA) is partly responsible.  I'm far from being a jingoist protectionist, but trade has to be fair, and it certainly isn't right now.  Chinese "slave labor" can certainly produce much cheaper than our workers evan if they are not organized.  Wal Mart is another problem.  I heard an interview on NPR with a textile manufacturer who stated that Wal Mart told him that if he wanted to continue as a supplier he had to move his production facility to China.  Reluctantly, and at the cost of hundreds of what he called "low wage jobs" he did.  There must be a way to protect ourselves from Wal Mart, and the rest of them.  Seems to me that way is a reinvigorated, and much more political labor movement willing to organize across national boundries. 

If you study labor history you will find that the first unions were very local.  As business became regional, so did labor organizations, and as it became national, so did labor.  Well, business is now transnational.  So...  We need to learn that those slave wage workers in China and elsewhere are more our brothers and sisters than the US bosses we work for.  Where is Big Bill Haywood now that we need him?  Workers of the world unite!  You have nothing to loose but your chains!


Personally, I think instead of saving money by sending jobs overseas, the "fat cat" CEOs, etc should be taking "fat" pay cuts.  If they keep laying people off, who do they expect to keep buying their products and services?  People who don't have jobs (or have minimum wage jobs) don't spend money.  That also means more people on public assistance.
That does not make sense to me... ???

Personally, I think instead of saving money by sending jobs overseas, the "fat cat" CEOs, etc should be taking "fat" pay cuts.  If they keep laying people off, who do they expect to keep buying their products and services?  People who don't have jobs (or have minimum wage jobs) don't spend money.  That also means more people on public assistance.
That does not make sense to me... ???

What's going on with the corporate executives is nothing more than kleptomania.  It is unrelated to any reasonable idea of "salary" or "compensation."  As Lewis Black said, "Greed isn't a strong enough word here!  It should be called 'piggy piggy piggy piggy piggy piggy pig'!!!"
:o ;D

Personally, I think instead of saving money by sending jobs overseas, the "fat cat" CEOs, etc should be taking "fat" pay cuts.  If they keep laying people off, who do they expect to keep buying their products and services?  People who don't have jobs (or have minimum wage jobs) don't spend money.  That also means more people on public assistance.
That does not make sense to me... ???


Fries with that, sir?  Your logic is imecable.  CEO's certainly are over paid.  As I said above, the answer is to ORGANIZE, ORGANIZE, and ORGANIZE some more.  "It is we who built the factroies, built the cities where they trage, dug the mines and built the workshops, and miles of railroad laid, yet we stand outcast and starving 'midst the wonders we have made, but the union makews us strong."

  SOLIDARITY