Eliseo Rabadán Fernández
Registrado: 12 Oct 2003
Mensajes: 567
Ubicación: España
|
 Publicado: Mie Jul 20, 2005 12:02 pm Título del mensaje: Estados Unidos y el CAFTA en la estrategia lobal |
 |
|
La revista semanal norteamericana The Nation, publica un blog ( que se traduce por bitácora en español ) sobre los efectos del Tratado de libre comercio de Centro América, y me permito copiar el blog enviado por John Nichols, y las respuestas de lectores "on-line" del mismo.
Resulta , a mi juicio, interesante, porque podemos ver cómo , al igual que sucedera con el NAFTA , el Tratado de Libre Comercio de Norte América(EEUU-México-Canadá), que ya cumplió 11 años de vigencia( desde 1994)
hay , dentro de los EEUU tanto opositores como defensores de tales tratados comerciales.
Pero además, podemoos comprobar cómo se analizan tales tratados en un contexto en el que se toma en cuenta no sólo la cuestión laboral , interna , de los EEUU, sino también los efectos que tendrÃa el (difÃcil) posible rechazo al NAFTA, para la lucha con China y Corea, en el puro ámbito comercial.
La situación de Estados Unidos, para mantener la hegemonÃa no sólo en centro América ( y Caribe) pasa no ya únicamente por el control de etapas pasadas sobre los regÃmenes polÃticos( por ej. sobre el Sandinismo ) sino que ahora debe tratar de controlar que los Estados de Iberoaméric, en casi permanente crisis económica , caigan en la nueva órbita China, que como sabemos, va adquiriendo una capacidad de invesión y comercial que comienza aparentemente a preocupar.
España, a lo que podemos comprobar, parece seguir "en babia" all respecto, y ya ni siquiera somos capaces , con un Gobierno maniatado por los partidos nacionalistas catalán, gallego y vasco, de solventar asuntos tan serios comola gravÃsima carencia de aguas para sostener la economÃa de regiones que se estan viendo al borde de la ruina por las estrategias demagógicas e ineficaces del Gobierno de Zapatero.
Mientras otros Estados buscan situarse para la nueva situación geostratñegica mundial, España , al parecer, sigue en babia. Una pena, pero es sÃ, en efecto.
| Cita: |
BLOG | Posted 07/19/2005 @ 11:26am
Countering Doublespeak
SEE ALL POSTS
EMAIL THIS POST
PERMALINK
COMMENTS (38)
The House of Representatives is moving toward a vote on the proposed Central American Free Trade Agreement, and the spin machines of the White House and the corporate special interests - along with their amen corner in the media - are working overtime.
These are the days when the big lies get told - as we learned more than a decade ago when the Clinton White House was busy working with congressional Republicans to win support for the North American Free Trade Agreement and more recently when Congress debated establishing permanent normal trade relations with China.
To counter the Orwellian twists of facts and figures that are sure to come from the White House and its political allies, fair trade campaigners (www.citizenstrade.org and www.wiscotrader.org) have come up with a top 10 list of trade doublespeak - and the facts to counter it:
No. 10: Our trade deficit actually shows how strong the economy is. That's a lot like arguing that the more you go into debt, the richer you really are. Here's what happened with NAFTA: Our trade deficit with those countries is 12 times bigger than before the pact - it shot up from $9 billion in 1993 to $111 billion last year. A high trade deficit weakens our economy.
No. 9: CAFTA slows immigration. This same false promise was made under NAFTA, and we all witnessed the opposite result of increased immigration from Mexico. CAFTA has back-door provisions that may make U.S. immigration laws and visa requirements in violation of the agreement, and unenforceable.
No. 8: CAFTA opens a substantial market for U.S.goods. Central America has some of the poorest countries in the world, and the aggregate economy of the six CAFTA nations is minuscule. "Add up the six CAFTA economies and you get a market the size of New Haven, Conn.," points out trade analyst Alan Tonelson of the U.S. Business and Industry Council. Tonelson concludes that CAFTA is a "classic outsourcing agreement" - an arrangement in which the only significant U.S. export would be manufacturing jobs to poor, low-wage nations.
No. 7: CAFTA helps the working poor of Central America. Since NAFTA, real wages for Mexican workers have fallen. Over 1.5 million displaced Mexican subsistence farmers were turned into unemployed masses. Mexico is becoming poorer. Today, 40 percent of Central America's workers earn less than $2 a day. Their employment rights are routinely abused, and CAFTA will require these countries to merely enforce their own weak and unfair labor laws. CAFTA is about making corporations, not Central American workers, richer.
No. 6: CAFTA helps farmers. The poor of Central America will not be buying cheese from Wisconsin or corn from Iowa. Under CAFTA, barriers to agricultural imports from these countries would be removed immediately, while barriers to U.S. exports wouldn't be lifted for anywhere from 10 to 20 years - thereby crippling U.S. agricultural producers. Many state-level farm organizations publicly oppose CAFTA. The National Association of State Departments of Agriculture passed a resolution against CAFTA because farm products aren't adequately protected by the agreement. CAFTA will hurt the American farmer, but funnel money to large agribusiness corporations who do business overseas.
No. 5: CAFTA is essential for national security. This desperate plea by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is a last-ditch effort by a failing administration to resuscitate CAFTA using fear and divisiveness. Short of votes in Congress, with a flawed strategy, they are attempting to scare the American people into support. Nobody really thinks al-Qaida has splinter cells in Costa Rica. We won't be fooled into believing Osama bin Laden is hiding out in the Dominican Republic.
No. 4: CAFTA is a relatively small trade agreement. CAFTA is the largest trade agreement before our country since NAFTA, and a critical steppingstone toward creation of a 34-nation Free Trade Area of the Americas. It has become a national referendum on failed trade policies of the past, and the outcome will set a course for our future dealings with China. For local and state government, CAFTA would become the highest law of the land, determining rules on procurement, health care, zoning and immigration.
No. 3: CAFTA helps the American worker. Just the opposite. When companies in other countries are allowed to race to the basement, employment conditions for our American workers deteriorate. We get less pay, fewer benefits and reduced health care coverage. CAFTA is the Wal-Mart of trade deals. CEOs justify actions by the need to stay competitive and keep prices low. Big corporations then get all the breaks, and the profits, while workers' rights and wages are forsaken.
No. 2: Trade deals always pass in Congress; so will CAFTA. Right now, a majority of House members, including a significant number of Republicans, oppose CAFTA. Another sizable bloc of GOP House members is uncommitted. For CAFTA to pass, over two dozen House members will have to breakcommitments to vote against it, and every single uncommitted member will need to vote for it. That's not likely to happen, as polling shows opposition to outsourcing and CAFTA is growing. The more Americans find out about it, the less they like it.
No. 1 doublespeak: CAFTA trade policies create jobs and stimulate economic growth. It's the Big Lie. When we import more, and our trade deficit grows, we lose jobs, and export our wealth to other countries. We lost an estimated 900,000 net jobs to NAFTA. Outsourcing the American economy to other countries is a failing strategy for our future.
COMMENTS
Posting a comment requires registration. Click here to register.
I have never seen so much misleading and blantantly incorrect information in one column. I think John Nichols with the help of Citizens Trade have set a record for inaccuracy that only maybe Paul Krugman could beat.
1)Trade deficit: First of all 80% of Central American goods already enter the US duty-free, while US goods face high tariffs. Lowering tariffs will increase US exports thereby lowering the trade deficit. In other words, the increase in our exports will be far more than the increase in imports, because their imports already have duty-free access. No matter how phobic you are of free trade you have to admit that. Second, a trade deficit can be a bad thing, but it is also a sign of the strength of our economy versus the rest of the world. Even Krugman would concede that. The irony is that while far left nation readers on the one hand whine about the trade deficit,part of the reason we have one is becasue of the poor performance of welfare state economies like france and germany and the inability of other economies to buy as much as we do.
2)Immigration: It didn't work with NAFTA becasue of the Peso crisis and the failure of mexico to couple free trade with adequate economic infastructure and deal with corruption.
3)DR-CAFTA region is already the 12th largest US export market. it would be the second largest in all of latin america, so while it is small it has very important potential, not to mention it is the 6th largest growth market. I wonder why nichols forgot to mention all of this.
4)Free trade has proven to benefit all parties involved, which i know nation readers can't accept. While there are losers and winners, the winners far outweigh the losers. period. Once again what happened to mexico had nothing to do with NAFTA. Free trade is only part of a much broader solution to economic stagnation and poverty reduction.
5) the vast majority of farm associations support CAFTA. Once again the few farm products that will be outcompeted oppose it, while everyone from meat to soy to pork to sweetners support it. This is probably one of the most misleading parts of the column.
6) while addressing all of the inaccurate statements in this column would take days, it should be noted that the 900,000 jobs has nothing to do with NAFTA. In fact many objective analyses(no i am not talking about economic policy institute, which is anything but objective)including the BLS has pointed out that job loss in the manufacturing sector is due overwhelmingly to technology, not free trade. Job loss due to free trade is put at only about 2-5% while at the same time being open to free trade has generated millions more jobs than it has ever cost us. Our manufacturing sector has been declining for the last 50 years. to pretend it is because of free trade is ridiculous. Our economy is more advanced than any on earth and we have become a highly service oriented economy for the past 50 years. NAFTA has very little if anything to do with this.
7) one final point: the best way to improve the situation in central america is through engagement with an advanced economy like ours. CAFTA provides $40 million to help enforcement of labor laws, more than any other agreement ever. Even if it provided nothing, the best way to improve labor and enviromental standards is through economic development, not protectionsim.
I know that this will probably not change people's minds, but at least it may encourage them to actually look at the facts and try to understand the economics rather than rely on the nation to explain (or massively distort) the issue. CAFTA is not a one stop solution but it a step in the right direction.
Posted by CMBENNETT23 07/19/2005 @ 2:01pm
oh by the way...
a high trade agreements only hurts the economy if foreign investors decide to pull their money out of the US. While we dont want it to be too high, unless some other country outperforms us then we will always have a trade deficit. Plus there is not really anywhere else that investors are able to find a bettr investment. CAFTA would lower the trade deficit, not increase it. Also while i understand that out of ignorance one blames " big corporations" (as if they all have the same agenda, but somehow compete with each other) for everything, it is small business that will benefit most from CAFTA and which is most hurt by tariffs and trade restrictions.
Posted by CMBENNETT23 07/19/2005 @ 2:09pm
If you know that this will probably not change people's minds, I suggest not wasting your time.
Personally, being unemployed American citizen since birth, and seeing Mexicans working in jobs that I have applied for, is frustrating.
Free Trade is of no benefit to the people at large. It only benefits those in the higest income brackets, i.e. the top 20% - and only for a short term period at that.
It's looking like America will become more and more militarized, the rich will have to start buying up armored humvees so they can commute to work without fear of retaliation by the disenfranchised masses.
Posted by ROB.OLYWA 07/19/2005 @ 2:10pm
Everyone should read the whole bill, the fine print as we call it, not just the free trade part. Perplexed
Posted by PERPLEXED 07/19/2005 @ 2:39pm
Hey I am an active progressive and I have good feelings about opening trade barriers, reducing tarriffs and really allowing others to compete freely. Please we are losing elections and losing the support of independents with such openly partesan diatribes against free trade. CAFTA in NOT all that bad an agreement. Let's save our powder for the really worthy battles, like winning back the House!
BTW CM Bennet - well stated argument! But please do not throw brickbats at my dear friend Paul Krugman.
Posted by TOM SIMON 07/19/2005 @ 2:43pm
Another point for you anti-CAFTA folks including Mr Nichols; What better proposal do you have for the huge investment currently in process in Central America by the Chinese and South Koreans. My wife is from El Salvador and every week we see and hear about this activity. We will be in even more trouble economically if we dont' cement our economic relationships with our CA neighbors instead of letting Asia dominate and dictate our economic future.
Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 07/19/2005 @ 3:20pm
CAFTA: We don't haf'ta!
Loosing the reins on global corporate exploitation is not, surprise, surprise, a remedy for a utopia.
Let's go ahead and start arguing with the apologist for corporate exploitation above. Another one of these sociopathic exploiters masquerading as a "disinterested technocrat" has emerged.
Cmbennet: I have some questions about what you write:
"... Lowering tariffs will increase US exports thereby lowering the trade deficit ..."
We heard this last time (NAFTA). The opposite occured. Please explain in detail how things are different this time.
"Second, a trade deficit can be a bad thing, but it is also a sign of the strength of our economy versus the rest of the world ..."
Even the far right wing in America is not pretending that the national trade deficit at this point is anything less than a disaster! Domestic and foreign economic bodies alike agree that the US trade deficit must go down, not up. Even the Bush administration is having to address the trade deficit. How can you claim that the trade deficit is good?
"... The irony is that while far left nation readers on the one hand whine about the trade deficit,part of the reason we have one is becasue of the poor performance of welfare state economies like france and germany and the inability of other economies to buy as much as we do ...
a) We are all buying on DEBT now, this is NOT good, the average American household has 9,000 dollars in credit card debt alone because of the buying. The national consumer debt is at this point considered to be on the edge of a precipice. This is bad, not good.
b) There are a large number of very right wing economists, such as Paul Craig Roberts, who believe that the trade deficit is one of the worst things facing the American economy. I don't know if PCR (Reagan Treasury appointee, former editor at WSJ and National Review) counts as a "far left nation reader" but perhaps, if he doesn't, you need to consider how isolated your personal viewpoint regarding the trade deficit seems to be.
"... Immigration: It didn't work with NAFTA becasue of the Peso crisis and the failure of mexico to couple free trade with adequate economic infastructure and deal with corruption ..."
Assuming that you way say is true, which I don't, but simply taking it for granted, what makes you think Costa Rica is going to be any more effective than Mexico was in for example dealing with "corruption"?
"... DR-CAFTA region is already the 12th largest US export market. it would be the second largest in all of latin america, so while it is small it has very important potential, not to mention it is the 6th largest growth market ..."
Nichols did mention the following:
Add up the six CAFTA economies and you get a market the size of New Haven, Conn.," points out trade analyst Alan Tonelson of the U.S. Business and Industry Council. Tonelson concludes that CAFTA is a "classic outsourcing agreement" - an arrangement in which the only significant U.S. export would be manufacturing jobs to poor, low-wage nations.
Given that the (far left commie pinko leftist queer godless) US Business and Industry Council seems to believe that the six economies together have represent a market the size of New Haven, CT, why should the US sacrifice yet more manufacturing jobs as well as guarantee so many other problems just to open up a single small city for export?
"... Free trade has proven to benefit all parties involved, which i know nation readers can't accept ...
There seems to be an entire world of real information suggesting that you are completely wrong. Reiterating utopian dogma doesn't make it real. Sorry about that.
"... while addressing all of the inaccurate statements in this column would take days, it should be noted that the 900,000 jobs has nothing to do with NAFTA ..."
Have you heard the word "manufacturing" before? The US used to do that. Look, two of my closer friends regularly fly to Thailand and Mexico, respectively. Each of these figures is a top-level technical manufacturing manager and what they are doing is flying to these other countries where the manufacture of, for example, all the hard drives made by a major American-based physical storage concern are being made or engaged in similar management of offshore manufacturing. The manufacturing they oversee used to exist in the US. In particular, the Guadalajara, Mexico facility was opened AFTER NAFTA specifically because of what NAFTA allowed. Care to comment on manufacturing jobs not going south because of NAFTA? I know personally of a few thousand that did.
"... one final point: the best way to improve the situation in central america is through engagement with an advanced economy like ours. CAFTA provides $40 million to help enforcement of labor laws, more than any other agreement ever. Even if it provided nothing, the best way to improve labor and enviromental standards is through economic development, not protectionsim ...
One great way to help foreign countries is to demand that corporations be required to respect first-world labor protections everywhere, and what you call "protectionism" in fact has protected and continues to protect the workforces and economies of certain developed nations that have net trade surpluses, health care for everyone, and better environmental protections than the US does. It's true that the corporate rich in these countries is not as staggeringly far ahead in wealth accumulation with the respect to the rest of the populations of these nations as is the case in the US, but, oh well.
We don't need CAFTA. This pact is just another discredited corporate exploitation agreement. It's time for a realistic assessment of globalization and formulation of policies that allow for the general well-being of the many, not just the rich and well-connected few.
Posted by ZERO 07/19/2005 @ 3:25pm
If Asia is to be confronted it isn't in Central America, with a trade pact that is likely to increase our trade deficit. The national trade deficit is the source of power held by China over the US. Increasing that trade deficit, and relying more on foreign (asian) banks to finance our resulting debt, is a recipe for letting Asia dictate our economic future.
Posted by ZERO 07/19/2005 @ 3:26pm
Neither side in the free trade debate ever explains clearly to the American people that: 1. With the planet dieing, free trade is a trivial priority. 2. Any economic dream based on infinitely growing consumption is going to fail. 3. The "American standard of living" is doomed. It was based upon a military hegemony which has crumbled. We will either negotiate much of it away to help create to gradually increasing social justice, or terrorists recruited from the world's poor will simply destroy it.
Posted by JBETTERL 07/19/2005 @ 3:31pm
Zero-"We don't need CAFTA. This pact is just another discredited corporate exploitation agreement. It's time for a realistic assessment of globalization and formulation of policies that allow for the general well-being of the many, not just the rich and well-connected few."
Zero, just for a moment, let us all consider your statement which has been regurgitated on numerous occasions by ant-trade folks. But you and the like never have any specific alternative policies that would accomplish your vision. So, we are left with either doing nothing which only lets other nations take an economic advantage on us or to implement what may well be flawed policies but at least keep moving the process forward. It is benefits no one here or abroad to only complain about someone elses proposals while have nothing to supplant them with.
Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 07/19/2005 @ 3:35pm
I have to wonder which right-wing think tank CM Bennet crawled out of, but the tip off had to be characterizing Nation readers as far left. Then again in this country perhaps that's true but only some right-wing toady would use such language. And I strongly object to his charge that John Nichols or The Nation would knowingly lie. What right-wingers don't get is that the strength of publications like The Nation is precisely drawn from its fealty to the truth. Corporate shills and republican party functionaries comprise the spin-sters universe. John Nichols and The Nation can safely ignore the likes of CM Bennet. I surely will.
Posted by ALEC 07/19/2005 @ 3:36pm
There have been numerous, numerous alternative visions of global trade produced. The official press considers a debate focused on environmental and worker protections entirely forbidden. There are certainly going to be numerous reasons for this, but one big reason will be the manner in which the entirety of the national Democratic party leadership is completely on-board with the "free" trade group.
So let's be clear: if someone is not aware of the specific policy proposals and the enormously sophisticated and detailed critique of "free" trade and these odious trade pacts, this has to do with a) the person in question not looking very hard, b) the person in question probably not wanting to see what he claims does not exist in the first place, and c) the fact that the official press and mass media have largely censored and marginalized the critique and opposition to "free" trade for various reasons of conflict-of-interest, etc.
Posted by ZERO 07/19/2005 @ 3:46pm
sorry, i couldnt help myself, krugman has been driving me up the wall the past few years with his partisan rants. I respect much of his early work on trade thoery and think he has a good chance to win the noble prize for that work, but his disdain for the bush administration, i believe, has obscured his objectivity and the quality of his work. Plus between keynesians and monetarists i tend to default to the monetarists.
Rob- free trade in fact does benefit the whole and not only the rich. In fact one of the most important aspects of free trade is the benefits it provides to consumers through lower costs and diverse choice. also our openess to free trade has created far more jobs than it has lost. I think your contention has more to do with immigration than free trade. our manufacuring base, where most of the job losses have occurred is because of the changing nature of our economy. As an economy advances it tends to go a away from low-skilled manufacturing and towards high-skilled services, which would happen wether we had NAFTA or not. Technology has also played a big role, reducing the need for workers.
tom- As a moderate republican who was born, raised and educated in the heart of modern american liberalism (sf bay area)and have heard every argument against free trade, i agree that it is a shame that often the debate is shrouded in misconceptions and that we are seeing more protectionism in congress then we have in a long time. the problem is that congressional democrats are opposing CAFTA almost entirely because of hatred of Bush (it really bothers me when they hide behind labor or environment standards also). And to make matters even worse we have sugar republicans who have combined with fringe protectionist republicans to try and derail this agreement.
Posted by CMBENNETT23 07/19/2005 @ 3:46pm
"more protectionism in Congress?!"
for christ's sake, all there has been is the beginning of a debate about the consequences of CAFTA on the American worker in the Senate.
you consider any sort of delay or resistance to a trade pact simply being passed to be "protectionism"?!
Hello?! Hello?! The US job market over the past 5 years has not produced any middle class prosperity jobs! Manufacturing ... in decline! High-tech ... in decline! The jobs are leaving America! American wages are stagnant even as productivity continues to grow and grow!
And it is still constitutes "protectionism" in your mind to simply debate the impact on American workers of a major trade pact, PRIOR to passing it, in such an economic context?!
Wake up!
Posted by ZERO 07/19/2005 @ 3:52pm
Jobs Outsourcing is Not "Free" Trade
CMbennet: you wrote:
"... free trade in fact does benefit the whole and not only the rich. In fact one of the most important aspects of free trade is the benefits it provides to consumers through lower costs and diverse choice ..."
Labor arbitrage is slowly sapping the American consumer market, which is currently floating on a sea of consumer debt. Job outsourcing to foreign nations is not free trade and, by hurting the incomes and well-being of American workers, only threatens to shrink and undermine the consumer market that made America strong. The law of comparitive advantage does not apply to job outsourcing. The law of comparitive advantage requires that capital itself in the form of investment in labor force be isolated in the country of origin. What we are seeing in job outsourcing is the law of absolute advantage that is unrestrained capital flow to ever-lower paying workes. This is a race to the bottom.
Posted by ZERO 07/19/2005 @ 3:59pm
Mr. Nichols:
Your article was very enlightening, and I found myself agreeing with what you had to say about CAFTA. Additionally, your explanation of the CAFTA arguments served as a catalyst for giving thought to what I call the conundrum of free/international trade.
Free trade agreements seem to be a conundrum for the United States in that international trade seems to be in conflict with the notion of a higher standard of living. This seems to be especially true when trade is between countries with well-developed economies, like the U.S., and countries that have underdeveloped economies, similar to the nations of Central America.
In the case of CAFTA and part of the conundrum that I see, we trade high paying jobs (our high living standard) in the U.S. for cheap products that are manufactured in countries of low-wage earners (their low living standard). All this trade mainly benefits a few, large corporations and their shareholders/political supporters of the developed country and the ruling class of the developing nations.
The other part of the conundrum appears to be that neither the well-developed or less-developed countries, as parties to the trade agreement, can satisfy their economic imperatives of having to manage excess goods, demand for products, and general economic welfare without trade.
So, what are nations to do when trade between them is based on such an unequal playing field?
How do we manage international trade so that the standard of living for the developing nation can be raised without lowering that of the developed nation?
Maybe some very smart people can provide answers to these questions.
John Scott Cave Creek, Arizona
Posted by ORAIBI1952 07/19/2005 @ 4:04pm
Zero & Bennett: thanks for the lively debate. I am an uninformed person on this issue, and you guys are doing a great job elucidating the costs/benefits of CAFTA.
Posted by NATTIEBUMPO 07/19/2005 @ 4:06pm
I have a question for a more knowledgeable poster: If the price of goods in America goes down because lower paid laborers outside the country perform the manual labor, the overall purchasing power of the American worker goes up, right? So we end up losing jobs but decreasing prices of goods.
This does hurt job prospects at home, but on the other hand those American companies which manufacture goods would be at a competetive disadvantage to Chinese companies if American companies cannot hire cheap laborers, right?
But on the other hand, where will the replacement jobs come from? Americans can serve other Americans in many respects more cheaply than any other people (except immigrants) right? But Americans cannot serve non-Americans more cheaply than most other countries, right? So we become a service economy, but we only serve America. How do we generate the money required to keep this service economy afloat?
So we get cheaper goods but become increasingly replaceable as employees, right?
Posted by NATTIEBUMPO 07/19/2005 @ 4:19pm
Alec- the nation is by all means far left. I love how all on the right lie and of course no one on the left would. Come on, u cant really believe that. The bottom line is that with policy choices there are trade offs and any one that is extremely left or extremely right just doesnt get that. Go ahead and ignore me, then you never have to confront the lack of quality in your arguments. Maybe it would be better if you crawled out of your hole (like i already did i guess) and actually look at the empirical evidence on free trade. it overwhelmingly supports the idea that free trade when combined with other economic reforms is beneficial. Even krugman and every other left leaning economist will concede that. it may not be as beneficial as some claim, but there are 200 years of academic work supporting the idea that free trade and economic liberalization are positive steps (ie smith, ricardo, stolpher -samuelson, krugman, friedman, all major international policy organizations,and many more)
zero:
1)NAFTA is very different from CAFTA. It is way more of a one-way agreement in terms of market access. They already have way more access than we do. It is both counter-intutitve and nieve, no matter how much you hate free trade, to suppose that all trade agreements will increase the trade deficit. And no it is not like having debt. The average credit card debt has nothing to do with the trade deficit. By calling it debt, you are misunderstanding the very nature of a trade deficit. Plus if you are so worried about the debt then you you should support CAFTA. Our exports will increase far more than central america's, becasue there are few barriers thiers. Try looking into the Carribean Basin Initiative. And please, repeating the "corporate" conspiracy mantra is something that highschoolers do, before they actually have to wrestle with the facts.
2)if cafta doesnt pass then, China will be the main beneficiary as they will destory the Central American textile industry. closing ourselves off to central american would be the worst thing to do.
3)no one is arguing that the trade deficit is not somethng to worry about, but the question is how much? and more importantly whether you like it or not, a large part of it has to do with the strength of our economy. there is just no getting around that. Another thing we have heard all the same worries abot the trade deficit before and none of them panned out. The reason is the fear, while real, is if other nations suddenly pull their money out of the US. IF they do that however, they will actually be underminding their own investments, not to mention that the US is still the best investment in the world. As the world continues to globalize, the trade deficit takes on a new meaning that economics is still trying to cope with. As far as economists go, the vast majority support free trade, admit the deficit is in large part because of the strength of our ecoonomy and the relative weakness of other economies (who have closed off their econommies and engaged in discredited socail welfare policies, that havent even increased their welfare i might add. All you have to do is look at history to see what closing off your economy to foreign competitio does. North korea,east germany,north vietnam, and so many other examples.
4) i got an idea, lets do as you suggest and require all countries that export us to have the same labor standards. I will give them zero's contact info, when hundreds of thousands of workers who at least had a job knock on your door because they are pissed that now they have no job and instead of a little money they have none. In fact one thing you fail to realize is that becasue many latin american nations have failed to open up their economies, they have allowed the wealth to be held up in small groups of elite domestic producers that are shielded from any form of competition at the expense of the poor and working classes.
Posted by CMBENNETT23 07/19/2005 @ 4:34pm
Nattie: some good comments and observations about how economics really operates. 50 years ago, eonomists and historians were writting about the decline of the British Empire in part because of their transition from a manufacturing driven economy to a service driven economy. The obituaries were as we now see quite overstated.
The US is going through the same transition with this one caveat. No one knows what changes technology will produce in the next 10-50 years. Therefore as someone who spent 20 years plus in the mfg. sector (and had to make career changes also), I look forward with anticipation to what the next generation technology will generate in jobs formation with hope not despair.. In the meantime, I suggest that people in the mfg sector learn to do something new. I took lowk wage positions out of necessity to make the transition and others can do so also...that is life.
Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 07/19/2005 @ 4:36pm
Free trade has always been the civilizing force in the world and will continue to be the primary method of allaying difficulties between peoples. Corporate imperialistic trade, however, is not a free trade; the NAFTA and CAFTA agreements are sponsored by big business for big business.
Lest we forget, the Chinese power is not trade or money or any of the sophist measurements of elitism. In China power comes out the barrel of a gun; it has since Mao and will until China quits governing with Communism. And they have nukes in some guns.
Posted by 10000THINGS 07/19/2005 @ 4:43pm
I cannot respond further until later tonight, I am time impacted, I wanted to take a single post's worth of space and apologize to CMBennet for "apologist for corporate exploitation". There are number of self-proclaimed "conservatives" here who are simply here to disrupt communication and start fights. You and I haven't interacted before, and that was my first assumption. My bad there. I'll try to get back to you later today. Thanks for the time spent in response.
You and I clearly will factually agree oh little, however, your communication didn't warrant the attack.
Looking forward to the battle to come,
Posted by ZERO 07/19/2005 @ 4:51pm
Nattiebumpo: Job growth over the past 5 years has taken place almost exclusively in non-tradeable domestic services. This means that the labor arbitrage that US corporations are engaged in is not producing any trade-competive jobs.
This is important because you argue that, if US corporations cannot hire ever-cheaper labor, they cannot compete with Chinese equivalents. You then say that this impacts US competitiveness overall in terms of trade and trade deficit presumably. The trouble is, the economy, under corporate government, is shedding middle class prosperity jobs and is steadily losing ground on trade deficit, anyway.
So US competitiveness in trade has not been enhanced by the labor arbitrage. The deficit keeps going up.
Posted by ZERO 07/19/2005 @ 4:56pm
zero-i dont know where you get your facts. I never have been against debate, but debate should be about the facts, not about what you want the facts to be. Free trade has provided far more jobs than it has lost. period. CAll the Bureau of Labor statistics if you dont believe me. In fact, foreign companies insourcing into the US(becasue of free trade) employ millions of people, far more than events opponents claim were lost to outsourcing.
"Labor arbitrage is slowly sapping the American consumer market, which is currently floating on a sea of consumer debt. Job outsourcing to foreign nations is not free trade and, by hurting the incomes and well-being of American workers, only threatens to shrink and undermine the consumer market that made America strong. The law of comparitive advantage does not apply to job outsourcing. The law of comparitive advantage requires that capital itself in the form of investment in labor force be isolated in the country of origin. What we are seeing in job outsourcing is the law of absolute advantage that is unrestrained capital flow to ever-lower paying workes. This is a race to the bottom."
-come on, you sound like your reading the talking points memo from the Nader campaign. First of all the dim picture you paint is hardly accurate. The manufacturing sector has been in decline for 50 years and for those 50 years we have heard the same misguided arguments. In fact i can probably find that same argument about Japan and the trade deficit in the 80"s. what happened? well the japanese economy hit a standstill in 92(fittingly because of the stagnation that accompanies closing off domestic markets to competition) You expect the US to continue producing t-shirts at 10 times what another country can just to protect our manufacturing base that has been in decline because of the changing nature of our economy? What is needed and what is currently going on is retraining of workers who rely on low skilled manufacturing jobs. What made and still makes the american economy strong is its flexibility and productivity, which then led to a strong consumer base. The ability to establish new industries and be flexible when domestic industries are being outcompeted. Incomes have been rising by the way and inflation has been modest. you are getting side tracked with issues that have more to them then just free trade. in fact you position cotradicts itself. if US incomes are decreasing, then that would mean we would buy less and thereore import less and the trade deficit would be reduce. In less of course you imply that we are just racking up credit card debt, in which case look at the 1980's were the same thing occurred and hardly the grim picture you paint ever took place. In fact this highlights the obscure nature of the trade deficit. Some components (like foreign controlled debt) are bad signs, while other component are good signs.
Posted by CMBENNETT23 07/19/2005 @ 4:57pm
Question for CMBENNET23. You said "Our exports will increase far more than central america's, becasue there are few barriers thiers. Try looking into the Carribean Basin Initiative". How can our exports increase if about 40% of the workers earn less in a day (about $2 a day) than the American minimum wage for 1 hour? How can they afford these goods & how can we export them without lowering the American standard of living? I can't make sense out of it. Please enlighten me.
Posted by THEJMAN 07/19/2005 @ 5:00pm
zero- it has been a pleasure and i look forward to more discussions. I agree that insults get in the way and apologize for any i may have made.
we will continue this later
Posted by CMBENNETT23 07/19/2005 @ 5:03pm
thejman: we export over $17 billion annually to the DR-CAFTA region and this has been steaily growing. While there are some very poor in those countries, they have slowly been declining. For one thing US companies are able to break up domestic producers who keep prices high. Competition makes sure that the price of goods slowly decreases thereby making them affordable to more and more people.
Also a lot of what we export is used for businesses in these countries or for public works and governemnt projects.
I think the 40% is a little high, that sounds more like the numbers for Africa, but you may be right. Another interesting point is that those industries that are involved in exporting to the US or other countries pay wages that are a lot higher than the national average, which is another way that being open to free trade can benefit a country.Also remember that the price level is way lower in those countries, so $2 a day buys a lot more (especially food, basic services and housing) than it would in the US.
Ultimately, free trade helps to break up these income discrepancies. I would caution however, that countries in Central America, have a large sometimes huge extralegal economy that does not show up on the official data and often times data is obscured to make a siuation look worse (or better)than it actually is. Peruvian economist hernando de soto touches on a few of these issues in The Mystery of Capital. Although i hate to mention NAFTA and CAFTA becasue people automatically assume it is the same thing, after NAFTA was implemented, exports to NAFTA increased by billions, even though the average mexican lives on a salary that is in a way different universe than the typical americans (though it was higher than central americas)
Posted by CMBENNETT23 07/19/2005 @ 5:26pm
I have other reasons for thinking CAFTA is bad news - it's a threat to our sovereignty and to States' rights.
NAFTA has provisions that allow a company to sue to block a law in a partner's country if it thinks that law is anti-competative. California passed a law banning a pollutant in gas - MTBE - which is produced from corn. Well, CA is now being sued by a Canadian firm that claims the law hurts its business. Similarly, the Canadian postal service is being sued by UPS, which claims that the CPS has no right to deliver small packages because it's unfair competition. Unbelievable!
CAFTA has the same odious provisions, but it's worse - it allows the subsidiary of an American company to sue to block an American state or federal law. NAFTA doesn't allow this - only clearly foreign companies can make these kinds of suits. Imagine - if Walmart thinks the federal overtime rules are 'anti-competative', they'll have a Costa Rican subsidiary sue to overturn them in the U. S. Think what this could do to our environmental and labor laws (what the Bushies haven't managed to gut that is).
Furthermore, while NAFTA has provisions to protect companies from economic damage inflicted by signatory nations (an American firm can sue in Mexico to stop some land use regulation that would cost it money), CAFTA is worse: it has a provision to protect "the *expectation* of profit" - it's almost as if the signatory countries have to *guarantee* that foreign businesses do well in the their country. This will be ruinous for the signatory nations.
No doubt, this 'treaty', which goes well beyond a trade treaty, is made for and by corporate interests.
Somebody posted saying "why don't you lefties ever have any suggestions". Well, here are a few:
- Trade agreements should be negotiated with protecting workers as a primary goal, for examples: * controlling the pace of change * ensuring that displaced workers have support to a viable new way to make a living * witholding the benefits of the agreement from firms that don't follow decent labor practices
As it is, workers aren't even considered, except as a resource to be more efficiently exploited.
Trade agreements should contain strong and strongly enforced environmental standards. Imagine if CAFTA had environment standards and enforcement mechanisms at all, never mind comparing with the strength and vigor of wealth-protection rules and mechanisms.
Let's face it, NAFTA and CAFTA pay lip service to labor and the environment, but they don't do a damned thing about it, and in fact they're designed to let companies get out of any responsiblity for those impacts!
Call your congressman/woman - stop CAFTA!
Posted by ATMUR01 07/19/2005 @ 5:51pm
Bennet: You said you position cotradicts itself. if US incomes are decreasing, then that would mean we would buy less and thereore import less and the trade deficit would be reduce. In less of course you imply that we are just racking up credit card debt, in which case look at the 1980's were the same thing occurred and hardly the grim picture you paint ever took place. In fact this highlights the obscure nature of the trade deficit. Some components (like foreign controlled debt) are bad signs, while other component are good signs.
But isn't what Zero is implying exactly what has been happening? Aren't Americans racking up more credit debt to buy expensive commodities? Haven't real wages stagnated in comparison to the costs of those commodities? Isn't the average American making smaller investments than in recent memory and mortgaging more of the increased equity value of their homes?
This is a little off topic, but I want to point out that if America is to remain flexible and open to new technologies, it needs to make much more substantial investment in stem cell technology. We are falling behind in a race to establish what may be a central new frontier in the changing global economy. The demand for proposed products of stem cell research could be overwhelming, so this is a race we can't afford to lose!
Posted by NATTIEBUMPO 07/19/2005 @ 5:52pm
Recommended reading for those of you new to economics: "Basic Economics" by Thomas Sowell. It will provide a few good bricks for some of you to start a foundation for discussion on topics like CAFTA. Or, you could read anything recent by Krugman and have a few bricks to blindly throw. ;-)
Posted by FREIHEIT 07/19/2005 @ 6:40pm
Very very briefly: the anti-democratic aspects of NAFTA, most notoriously the NAFTA Chapter 11 secret tribunals, have a notorious history of nefarious deeds. ATMUR01 brought this up and I neglected to include it in my eralier posts. This aspect of the trade pacts cannot be overlooked in the debate on their character.
I have to run off immediately again.
Posted by ZERO 07/19/2005 @ 6:57pm
I can't stand wishy-washy Democrats who want to support CAFTA.
Every day, our party continues to vote against the interests of organized labor and working families. Stop lifting barriers to trade when most of these countries lack a minimum wage, environmental protections, worker's rights, etc. How are we suppose to compete with imports when the workers in these countries could make goods at a much lower cost? American workers come first.
When unions start pulling their support from the Dems (like they did a few days ago in the NYC mayoral race) don't cry when you can't finance and run campaigns.
My parents came to this country in the 70's and they've been working in textiles ever since. Both of them lose their jobs multiple times every year because all of our local manufacturing plants are being taken over seas.
Free trade isn't an issue with independents. Stop making it sound like the average voter cares about trade. Most of them are free trade ayway. Lou Dobbs has a huge following with this topic.
Posted by FRANK_07 07/19/2005 @ 8:22pm
I meant that most of them are fair traders -- not free traders.
Posted by FRANK_07 07/19/2005 @ 8:23pm
How come Conservatives can't make a point without throwing in a few ad hominums like "whining" and "concepts nationa readers cannot understand"? Instead of coming across as intelligent and well thought out, it comes out as slightly mentally unbalanced.
Posted by 1HOWARDT 07/19/2005 @ 8:44pm
Fair point, 1Howardt, despite the fact my search didn't find the word "whining", nor "concepts Nation readers cannot understand" anywhere on this Webpage outside of your post.
Now, curious, will you feel the same way regarding ad hominum as the Democrats grill John G. Roberts. Or will that be slightly mentally imbalanced too? Be honest, because I suspect we will see little of specifics regarding Roberts, and a lot of words like "ideological extremism" and "many disturbing dissents" from Schumer et.al, without intelligent or well thought out definition.
Posted by FREIHEIT 07/19/2005 @ 9:53pm
Okay, forum gone to crap, "conservatives" have successfully disrupted any serious communication.
Posted by ZERO 07/20/2005 @ 01:10am
Meant that for a different board, sorry, where people referring to themselves as "conservatives" put idiotic and antagonistic crap, hundreds of posts of it, with no purpose other than venting their spleen and ruining the boards.
Posted by ZERO 07/20/2005 @ 01:11am
Fortunately the board discussion on the nutcase nomination for the SCOTUS seems to have absorbed the true cranks. Let it; the choice of a loony right candidate was inevitable as is the upcoming Democratic Party capitulation in the Senate. Let's talk about issues that aren't a foregone conclusion and draw less hysterical commentary.
Posted by ZERO 07/20/2005 @ 01:17am
|
|
|
