Unquestionably, NAFTA has been a great benefit to the United States, Canada and Mexico. USA Today had this to say:
Despite workers' fears about job security, the case for free trade is, in fact, strong. Equally compelling is the case for strategies that address trade-related disruptions without hamstringing the nation's ability to compete in a globalized economy, says USA Today.
Among the tangible benefits of trade:
* Consumers pay less for an array of imports; where global competition is fierce -- such as the auto, computer and cell phone markets -- prices have fallen even as quality has increased.
* Historically, the creation of new jobs has outstripped trade-related job losses; in the past 20 years, the economy has added 36 million jobs -- a 35 percent increase -- in spite of an expansion of foreign trade.
* Expanded global commerce due to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and a new world trade agreement adopted in 1994 has created an average of $1,260 to $2,040 in additional income for each American, U.S. trade officials estimate.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-02-24-our-view_x.htm
Originally posted by shavixmirIs it right for that same impoverished, cheap labor to impoverish me?
It never fails to amuse that it's fine to send stuff over borders when it suits the rich by having it produced by cheap labour elsewhere, but you have to build fences to keep the impoverished cheap labour out.
It's sarcasm on a base level... And I love it!
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2718
Originally posted by ChessJesterOne very tangible benefit derived from NAFTA is that America is better off importing Mexican and Canadian oil and gas, rather than getting it from less secure sources farther from our borders.
NAFTA was only good for large corporate investors and stockholders. Thats the bottom line. It did nothing for trade, but everything for investment. It moved large manufacturing plants into mexico and further promoted rampant consumerism which caused a loss of jobs in the manufacturing sector and a dramatic increase in the gap between the rich and the poor.
Originally posted by shavixmirI do -- thugs and gang members don't work at legitimate economic activity. To them, holding a menial job isn't "keeping it real." Rather than begrudge someone for having to work a job you'd hold your nose to, you should try and reinforce their belief that getting a job, no matter how far down the economic ladder, is a stepping stone to a better job, and a better one still. Lastly, there is no retirement plan for thugs; there's only death and prison.
You see no correlation between having people work for slave wages, poverty and thuggish behaviour?
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterI don't know about increasing the purchasing power of the dollar, but you are certainly right that trade benefits consumers by reducing prices.
You're a Democrat/union dupe so obviously you're going to be in favor of protectionism. Yet, the fact remains, trade benefits consumers by bringing them cheaper goods and increasing the purchasing power of their dollar.
The problem for some people with more open trade policy is that they expect it to be a net benefit for everyone; and, that's really not the case, at least not in the short run. People who work in less efficient sectors will suffer unless they can quickly transition their human capital to another sector (unlikely for older workers). Overall however very few people are harmed relative to the those that gain.
Politically it's a difficult issue because people who are put out of jobs are a lot more visible than the change in prices. An emotional story about 30,000 workers laid off because their job is now being done by some one overseas gets the front page or the prime time slot (which isn't to say that these stories aren't important). But an article about the decline in the real price computer parts or on auto parts becoming cheaper doesn't get the same attention, especially since the final price is muddled by the accumulation of many other things some of which are not directly related to increased mobility in the labor market (e.g., rising oil prices). It just not a story that easy to tell to the average person.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungwait a second... the market's free, but if I don't follow it, I'm a criminal? Sounds more like this "free" market is dragging me along by the short hairs....
[b]...[text shortened]...
It is impossible to support an exponentially growing population who won't follow the free market and do what they need to do to be a useful member of the economy. ...[text shortened]...
to be perfectly clear, I don't support gang violence. I just saw an opening for an easy jab.
A completely free global market is certain to lead to widespread exploitation of workers. The money I save on athletic shoes and soft drinks is at the expense of working people in China and Columbia.
But global trade also has tremendous potential to make these people's lives better. Workers in developing countries Need to organize and governments Need to work towards developing trade policies that will eliminate inhumane labor practices. I guess step one would be refusing to trade with countries that don't allow their workers to organize.
Originally posted by bjohnson407NAFTA stands for north american free trade agreement.
A completely free global market is certain to lead to widespread exploitation of workers. The money I save on athletic shoes and soft drinks is at the expense of working people in China and Columbia.
But global trade also has tremendous potential to make these people's lives better. Workers in developing countries Need to organize and governments Need ...[text shortened]... step one would be refusing to trade with countries that don't allow their workers to organize.
It's between canada/us/mexico.
Sounds like you're talking about WTO stuff (world trade organization) or the old GATT (general agreement on trade and tariffs)
Originally posted by uzlessNo, he was completely clear when he said "Free Global Market."
NAFTA stands for north american free trade agreement.
It's between canada/us/mexico.
Sounds like you're talking about WTO stuff (world trade organization) or the old GATT (general agreement on trade and tariffs)
He wasn't talking about Nafta, he was talking about free global market.
Originally posted by uzlessYes, yes... My bad... I got carried away for a second...
NAFTA stands for north american free trade agreement.
It's between canada/us/mexico.
Sounds like you're talking about WTO stuff (world trade organization) or the old GATT (general agreement on trade and tariffs)
But I think that the same general principles apply to all "free" trade agreements. A trade agreement is bad if it gives a nation a way to skirt its own laws and exploit workers in another nation. As I understand it, Mexico has some very good labor laws, but they are poorly enforced. And NAFTA hasn't led to the stricter enforcement of those laws.
I know that this thread is about whether the agreement is good "for America." But I see labor standards in the US and in Mexico (and also globally) as importantly inter-related. Because of free trade, our labor standards have become a sort of burdon making us less competitive in the global (continental) market. I'm also surprised that the US' political debate over NAFTA doesn't include more human rights talk about labor standards in Mexico.
Maybe with the primary in Guam on Saturday we'll here more talk of globalization this week.
Originally posted by bjohnson407No, if you don't follow it you're poor, and probably arrogant and/or lazy as well. If you then turn to a life of crime to help your poverty you're a criminal. If you turn to demanding welfare and the like you're a drain on society but not a criminal.
wait a second... the market's free, but if I don't follow it, I'm a criminal? Sounds more like this "free" market is dragging me along by the short hairs....
to be perfectly clear, I don't support gang violence. I just saw an opening for an easy jab.
What do you think is the alternative to doing what people are willing to pay you for? If people aren't willing to pay you, do you think it's honorable to get their money out of them anyway?