Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Should Nafta Be Repealed Or Renegotiated?  
User currently offlineStasisLAX From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 3280 posts, RR: 6
Posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 4724 times:

In the fifteen years since the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was established, the flow of goods across borders has sharply increased and the profits of multinational corporations have added to investor's wallets . However, the social and economic costs to many Americans have been considerable. The levels of economic inequality has skyrocketed in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. NAFTA's side agreements that were put into effect in order to protect labor and environmental standards have been proved to be very weak and largely unenforceable.

NAFTA's provisions for protecting the rights of foreign investors, on the other hand, have been successfully used in all three countries to challenge local and state regulations protecting public health and the environment.

The United States has lost millions of industrial jobs that paid decent wages and benefits, and corporations have used the threat of exporting jobs to reduce wages and benefits even for the unionized factories that remain in the USA and Canada. The negative impacts of NAFTA in states such as Michigan, Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania have been profound.

The industrial jobs created in Mexico were primarily poorly paid and insecure; some of these jobs were also been relocated to China. In fact, small subsistence farmers in Mexico lost their ability to earn a living, forcing many of them to cross the border into the U.S. in a desperate search for work, only making the illegal immigration situation worse.

At the beginning of 2008, the provisions of NAFTA required that the few remaining protections for basic foodstuffs had to be dismantled in Mexico, and hundreds of thousands of poor Mexicans took to the streets demanding that NAFTA be heavily renegotiated or outright repealed. A strong citizens' movement in Canada (especially those Canadians involved in the farming/agriculture business) is also demanding that NAFTA be renegotiated.

"Free trade" agreements like NAFTA are increasingly unpopular with many working Americans, particularly union members and families. The issue played a pivotal role in electing several proponents of "fair trade" in both the 2006 and 2008 congressional elections.

In the key states of Ohio and Texas, fair trade advocates secured written statements by President-Elect Obama that, if elected, he would renegotiate NAFTA. Obama promised to include enforceable labor and environmental standards, and to reexamine clauses that excessively favored investor interests.

None the less, the 2008 general election campaign has featured an ongoing debate on "free" trade versus "fair" trade, particularly in those states that have suffered most trade-related job losses. Senator McCain wholeheartedly supported NAFTA and other "free trade" agreements that primarily benefit the multinational corporations and economic elites. President-Elect Obama has advocated substantial reforms in U.S. trade policies.

However, the Obama campaigns was financially supported by business interests that favor "free trade," and both candidates are advised by economic policy analysts who are "free traders"-raising a substantial question about the willingness and ability of the President-Elect to fulfill his promise to renegotiate NAFTA.

Was Ross Perot correct when he warned all of us back in 1992 that the "giant sucking sound" we'd all hear would be the sound of American manufacturing jobs leaving the United States? Should NAFTA be repealed or simply renegotiated in your opinion?

[Edited 2008-11-08 21:17:19]


"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety!" B.Franklin
59 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8104 posts, RR: 26
Reply 1, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 4711 times:



Quoting StasisLAX (Thread starter):
Obama promised to include enforceable labor and environmental standards, and to reexamine clauses that excessively favored investor interests.

It's difficult to respond to the entirety of your post given the complexity of the issue but I'd like to point out this one salient point since it relates to our President-Elect: Of all his pledges, this will be among the most difficult to deliver on.

Enforceable environmental standards are a pipe dream in the trade world. Rightly or wrongly, most G8 countries consider our decision on Kyoto to have been completely self-motivated and without merit. The cries of hypocrisy would be deafening were Obama to actually push on that issue, especially when he will be unable to get very far with further cost burden on environmental standards in the energy and automotive industries at this point in time.

Determination of 'excessive favoritism of investor interests' is another noble idea that is inherently unrealistic. How does one begin to define such a thing?? Do we use different standards for publicly and privately held companies? Do we use different standards depending on proportion of overall revenues from exports? Do we use different standards depending on the number of workers outsourced overseas in a given industry? You can't reexamine clauses that merely appear to be excessive - to really do what he says he wants to do, would require reexamining all of them. And nobody, especially an incoming President, wants to do that. This will be a great couple of years for billing hours at lobbying firms...



If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlineArrow From Canada, joined Jun 2002, 2676 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 4677 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 1):
It's difficult to respond to the entirety of your post given the complexity of the issue but I'd like to point out this one salient point since it relates to our President-Elect: Of all his pledges, this will be among the most difficult to deliver on.

I think he will approach this with extreme caution. The political rhetoric demanding renegotiation, as it emanates from all three countries, is based on a one-sided view of what a renegotiation will bring. Each thinks its time to "fix" those provisions they think puts them at a disadvantage, and none recognize that in order to gain some thing in one area, you might have to sacrifice something in another. That's how the deal was negotiated in the first place, and that's how it will be renegotiated (if it happens at all).

Examples:

U.S wants to standardize labour and environmental standards. Is the US prepared to raise its standards to match Canada's, or does Canada need to lower its standards to match the US.

Canada wants to re-negotiate the dispute settlement provisions because the US consistently ignored the existing tribunals when they lost cases -- e.g. softwood lumber. Is the US prepared to honour dispute settlement rulings it loses in exchange for Canada's acquiescence on labour/environment standards?

Canada is unhappy with the supply guarantees on energy exports to the US -- oil, gas and electricity -- because it prevents Canada from curtailing exports without imposing similar curtailments on its own citizens. Would the US sacrifice that to get something in return?

The people who clamour for renegotiation of NAFTA have absolutely no idea what the pros of the existing deal are, they focus only on the cons. I don't think Obama is stupid enough to open this can of worms without some back channel discussions with both Canada and Mexico long before any formal move is made. All three countries have far too much to lose by messing this up.



Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
User currently offlineBlackbird From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 4670 times:

I think NAFTA should be repealed...

Blackbird


User currently offlineJCS17 From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 8065 posts, RR: 39
Reply 4, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 4670 times:

Yes and no.

The problem is with our neighbor to the south who can never get their head out of their ass (the ass is paying the head under the table). The Mexican government doesn't seem to realize that their labor migrating to the United States is absolutely killing them. Mexico has such a competitive advantage over the United States and Canada in terms of cost of labor, it is unbelievable. However, the problem is that to get anything done in terms of setting up any kind of labor in Mexico, you've got to bribe anyone and everyone to conduct business. It's reminiscent of the Mafia in New York in the early 20th century, except on a national scale. Very few American or Canadian companies really want to take that risk especially with the crackdowns on illegal/international labor.

I have no problem with Mexico being part of NAFTA if their companies financial dealings were actually subject to the kind of scrutiny that takes place north of Juarez. However, the way things are now, Mexico could rival Nigeria in terms of gross misconduct by government officials and the drug gangs.



America's chickens are coming home to rooooost!
User currently offlinePyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 3977 posts, RR: 28
Reply 5, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 4645 times:

Quoting StasisLAX (Thread starter):
strong citizens' movement in Canada (especially those Canadians involved in the farming/agriculture business)

A.k.a. "subsidy whores".

Quoting Arrow (Reply 2):

Very good post. It really highlights all the issues. Basically, who would the U.S. government screw to protect union jobs? Consumers? Other sectors of the economy?

[Edited 2008-11-09 00:44:17]


Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
User currently offlineArrow From Canada, joined Jun 2002, 2676 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 4584 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

If you want a thorough understanding of what is involved in a trade negotiation, I recommend "Decision at Midnight" by Michael Hart.

This book documents the often frenetic back-and-forth that went on when the original Canada-US free trade agreement was negotiated. That was the precursor to NAFTA (All NAFTA did was bring Mexico into the fold, little else changed).

More importantly, it shows what each side put into the agreement, and what each side sacrificed to get a deal. That's the most important aspect, because after the fact, when people on both sides started attacking "Provision A" or "Provision B" they did so with absolutely no appreciation for the give and take that went into the deal.

It is a NEGOTIATION. Too many people think a re-negotiation will be a unilateral attempt by one side to get everything it wants without giving up anything in return. There is not a hope in hell that would happen.

Quoting Blackbird (Reply 3):
I think NAFTA should be repealed...

None of the three countries is that stupid. Obama is a smart man, so is Harper, so is Calderon. No one is going to walk away from NAFTA, despite all the bombastic rhetoric you hear.

Here's a little factoid: Canada is the number one customer for exports from 38 of the 48 continental states. Why in heaven's name do you want to mess with that?

Quoting StasisLAX (Thread starter):
The United States has lost millions of industrial jobs that paid decent wages and benefits, and corporations have used the threat of exporting jobs to reduce wages and benefits even for the unionized factories that remain in the USA and Canada. The negative impacts of NAFTA in states such as Michigan, Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania have been profound.

Very little of that can be traced to NAFTA, most of it is Asia. As far as those four states you mentioned? Read above.



Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
User currently offlineSeb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11571 posts, RR: 15
Reply 7, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 4574 times:

So, what about renegotiating NAFTA and at the same time renegotiating trade with Asian countries especially China? The way I look at it, most of the United State's trading issues stem more from Asia than Mexico and Canada.


Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8463 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 4552 times:



Quoting StasisLAX (Thread starter):
The United States has lost millions of industrial jobs that paid decent wages and benefits, and corporations have used the threat of exporting jobs to reduce wages and benefits even for the unionized factories that remain in the USA and Canada. The negative impacts of NAFTA in states such as Michigan, Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania have been profound.

The United States until this year was providing jobs for nearly every American who wanted a job. Put simply, unemployment numbers were extremely low in the USA until the last couple of months. So what you say is not supported by the "big picture," only the "small picture." Did it occur to you that NAFTA helped our country become more vibrant, and added millions of jobs? I guess not. What about the fact that American job creation was excellent during all those years. Do only factory workers matter, or can we say that other people matter too?

Quoting StasisLAX (Thread starter):
Was Ross Perot correct when he warned all of us back in 1992 that the "giant sucking sound" we'd all hear would be the sound of American manufacturing jobs leaving the United States?

No because he, like you, did not account for the vast benefits of trade with foreign countries. If they make stuff cheaper than we are willing to make it, that speaks of a consensual, beneficial trade agreement. Both parties benefit, this is basic economic science (this is as rock solid as the law of gravity or the theory of relativity).

Quoting Arrow (Reply 6):
Very little of that can be traced to NAFTA, most of it is Asia.

Exactly. Do you guys really want to work in a shoe factory? More to the point, do you wish Nikes cost $275 because American labor is making them? Then we would have black market shoe dealers where you can buy excellent Vietnam made shoes for $100. Do we want a black market economy? Outlawing trade is ridiculous. Tariffs and export subsidies are also, generally, ridiculous and harmful.

America could definitely survive without world trade. But life would be very harsh. We would be living like people in the 1920s. Without imported goods, everything would be expensive. Materially, poverty in America would increase. Televisions would be too expensive and many people would not afford them. But hey, we would have a television factory in America. Duh. That is not the way the world works anymore. Globalization has been a smashing success. Those who denigrate America's economic strength, are simply ignorant of basic facts. Trade has only strengthened America. The problems we do have are mostly political, not economic.

Maybe the middle class in the USA is getting shafted. If you want some of that wealth, vote for universal health care. Vote for free university education for all Americans. Vote for a strong social security system. Tax the people who are getting rich from trade. I would rather live in a rich country than a poor country. Without trade, we are a poor country.


User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 4545 times:

...only if politicians are first polled to make sure they know 1) WTF it is, and 2) who all is involved.

Sadly, I wish I was kidding-- but after revelations from this recent election: giving elected officials' specific knowledge the benefit of the doubt, is apparently a luxury that we can no longer afford.  Sad


User currently offlineFlexo From St. Helena, joined Mar 2007, 406 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 4540 times:



Quoting Flighty (Reply 8):

Couldn't have said it any better. Free trade is extremely beneficial for everyone, not only the rich!


User currently offlineLowrider From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 3220 posts, RR: 10
Reply 11, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 4525 times:



Quoting Arrow (Reply 2):
The political rhetoric demanding renegotiation, as it emanates from all three countries, is based on a one-sided view of what a renegotiation will bring.

I think this is key. Everything costs something. What are American prepared to give up? Probably very little. I think any attempt at renegotiation would become a political tar baby. I don't think repealing it is an option either, because the North American economies are too intertwined. It would be like trying to seperate siamese triplets. I think the only meaningful change would be to expand it and invite other countries, such as Guatemala, and Belize, to participate.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 8):
Maybe the middle class in the USA is getting shafted. If you want some of that wealth, vote for universal health care. Vote for free university education for all Americans. Vote for a strong social security system. Tax the people who are getting rich from trade.

Or you could do something really radical and go try to create and earn some of it yourself.



Proud OOTSK member
User currently offlinePhotopilot From Canada, joined Jul 2002, 2729 posts, RR: 18
Reply 12, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 4511 times:

Let's see..... Canada supplies about 25% of the United States energy needs through NAFTA. Would you really like to see those provisions of the NAFTA agreement suspended? Be carefull what you wish or ask for.... you just might get it.

If that happens, you'll need to do more than drill, drill, drill.  Big grin

[Edited 2008-11-09 11:51:22]

User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8463 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 4476 times:



Quoting Photopilot (Reply 12):
If that happens, you'll need to do more than drill, drill, drill.

Right, hahaha, we should never import things, unless it's delicious ENERGY, yum delicious. But importing other things is evil  Wow!

i think Canada and Mexico both contribute a lot to the USA and vice versa. I think immigration is a huge problem but NAFTA was necessary and a huge benefit to all. Face it, our economy from 1994-2008 was pretty dang good. We are having a problem today but NAFTA is not the reason.


User currently offlineLowrider From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 3220 posts, RR: 10
Reply 14, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 4474 times:



Quoting Photopilot (Reply 12):
If that happens, you'll need to do more than drill, drill, drill.

Drill sideways (northward)



Proud OOTSK member
User currently offlineYWG From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 1146 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 4441 times:



Quoting Blackbird (Reply 3):
I think NAFTA should be repealed...

Blackbird


Chapter 11 of NAFTA is downright retarded.



Contact Winnipeg center now on 134.4, good day.
User currently offlineArrow From Canada, joined Jun 2002, 2676 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 4441 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Lowrider (Reply 14):
Drill sideways (northward)

Indeed, they know how to do that and have been doing it for 20 years now. I think they can run those horizontal wells for about a kilometer -- maybe more. But what can run north can also run south. Big grin



Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
User currently offlineLowrider From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 3220 posts, RR: 10
Reply 17, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 4431 times:



Quoting Arrow (Reply 16):
they know how to do that

It will take more than a KM, but I am aiming under the nearest Timmy's

Quoting Arrow (Reply 16):
But what can run north can also run south.

Careful, if your aim is a little off, you may not like what you find on the other end.



Proud OOTSK member
User currently offlineFruteBrute From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 4431 times:

NAFTA should be left alone.

People always get up in arms over trade acting like their nation is being shafted somehow.

Read the book Hot Flat And Crowded or The World Is Flat, both by Thomas Friedman. The world no longer is like it was 50 years ago. Here in the US you need to get more education, and always be increasing your skills. It's a competitive world. This entitlement thinking by some is appalling. Just because your father or your grandfather did a particular task/job, doesn't mean you should be entitled to do the same job and then also expect to be paid a wage that you can raise a family on. America has always been good at implementing new ideas and technology. People won't pay that kind of money these days for low tech goods. You can't expect to work in a textile mill these days and make a living wage.

Back in the 1960s being a grocery cashier or a phone operator paid a living wage. You couldn't afford to talk to someone long distance back then either without spending a fortune. So what's better, having unlimited phone calling from a landline all over North America for $35, or having a couple hundred thousand phone operators that make a good living?

Life moves on. Adapt or die.


User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8463 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 4384 times:



Quoting FruteBrute (Reply 18):
Back in the 1960s being a grocery cashier or a phone operator paid a living wage.

Yes. Also consider that back then, a "living wage" did not need to pay for all the fancy goods and services we have today. People want to live like the millionaire celebrities they see on TV. When people can't afford all that stuff, they start complaining like something is wrong. This is what I don't get about people. Complaining about the American way of life is just crazy IMO. We have it very good. But a cashier can't be a millionaire.


User currently offlineCharles79 From Puerto Rico, joined Mar 2007, 1331 posts, RR: 6
Reply 20, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 4364 times:



Quoting ConcordeBoy (Reply 9):
...only if politicians are first polled to make sure they know 1) WTF it is, and 2) who all is involved.

True. First show that you understand basic trade concepts, then you can try and do something about it.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 13):
Face it, our economy from 1994-2008 was pretty dang good. We are having a problem today but NAFTA is not the reason.

Greed and spending beyond our means got us into the current situation; NAFTA is just a fancy scapegoat.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 19):
Also consider that back then, a "living wage" did not need to pay for all the fancy goods and services we have today. People want to live like the millionaire celebrities they see on TV. When people can't afford all that stuff, they start complaining like something is wrong. This is what I don't get about people. Complaining about the American way of life is just crazy IMO. We have it very good.

True. Our way of life could be greatly improved if people would spend more time with their families, went out for walks and exercise more often, and decided to shorten their commute by living closer to work when feasible. Unfortunately, most folks feel that what defines quality of life is having gadgets, a new car, a new coat, a new Flat TV, etc.

We have many challenges in our country but keeping a bit of perspective also helps.


User currently offlinePacificjourney From New Zealand, joined Jul 2001, 2732 posts, RR: 8
Reply 21, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 4351 times:

Seems like no one is happy with NAFTA - Mexico, Canada and the US all think they're being shafted.

Conventional wisdom suggests therefore that this agreement must be about right.

If it ain't broke, don't fuck with it !



" Help, help ... I'm being oppressed ... "
User currently offlineArrow From Canada, joined Jun 2002, 2676 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 4330 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Pacificjourney (Reply 21):
Conventional wisdom suggests therefore that this agreement must be about right.

If it ain't broke, don't fuck with it !

That about sums it up. But it could be tweaked to the benefit of all three countries. That will require give and take. But frankly, I don't like the odds of success for any president who has to take a renegotiated NAFTA back to Congress for approval. The first thing they'll want to do is remove all the stuff that the other two countries got from the negotiation, and add a few items to the list of goodies the US wants. The other two countries will of course tell them to stick that where the sun doesn't shine. End of negotiations; status quo remains.



Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
User currently offlineArrow From Canada, joined Jun 2002, 2676 posts, RR: 2
Reply 23, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 4212 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

More arguments that pragmatism will govern the new president's approach to trade, at least when it comes to NAFTA:


Obama not likely to renegotiate NAFTA, ex-diplomat says

Peter O'Neil, Europe Correspondent, Canwest News Service
Published: Thursday, November 13, 2008

PARIS - President-elect Barack Obama will likely find a way to back off his election campaign promise to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement, a former Canadian ambassador to both the U.S. and France said here Thursday.

Both Chretien and Fredrick Erixon, director of the European Centre for International Political Economy, said opening up NAFTA will be seen as too risky in Washington because of fears the U.S. could lose its access to Canadian energy guaranteed under the continental accord.

"I think that when apprised of their dependency on Canada's imports, not only of oil but of gas, any president would think twice about reopening NAFTA," said Chretien, who starting serving as Canadian ambassador to Washington when the trade deal took effect in 1994.
He noted that Bill Clinton opposed North American free trade before his election in 1992.


http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/n...15ed12-326f-4187-8cd1-85ceef892b9a



Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8463 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 4202 times:

Quoting Charles79 (Reply 20):
We have many challenges in our country but keeping a bit of perspective also helps.

Yeah.... my foreigner friends keep me sane sometimes. One guy from Ethiopia asks me who buys $25,000 boats to go fishing. I had to explain that in this country, regular people can do that. Not just king and warlords but regular people. Just to go fishing. For food? No! Just for fun. He was like, "that is very wasteful." But our thinking is different. We have warlike machines to go through the forest... not to engage in civil war... but to hunt turkeys for amusement. In Ethiopia they must be more interested in the basics!


The problem is, human beings are usually never satisfied. If the median wage were $90,000 instead of $40,000 people would still complain they were short of funds. And we would still have a banking crisis exactly like we have now.

[Edited 2008-11-13 10:26:14]

25 AirframeAS : Its outdated. I think it needs to be re-written to todays standards in order to keep everyone's economies afloat. Everybody needs all the help they ca
26 MD-90 : How about a genuine free trade agreement that the US, Canada, and Mexico agree to that simply states that no tariffs or taxes will be excised on trade
27 Arrow : It's pretty close. The vast majority of products crossing US/Canada do so tariff-free. But each country has its little pet sectors that it refuses to
28 Charles79 : You know, I remember when the Enron scandal broke out I wondered when do you realize that you have enough money. I mean, we had folks with banks acco
29 Victrola : Always remember its the squeaky wheel that gets the grease. The only people who bring up NAFTA are the special interest groups who have lost out due
30 Post contains links Arrow : Another NAFTA shot across the bows: Energy sales likely hot-button issue if NAFTA reopened: Cannon Mike Blanchfield, Canwest News Service Published: F
31 Flighty : That's the reality. The trade volume of NAFTA, while large for the USA, is (ten times larger?) for Canadians relative to their economy. It is a bigge
32 L-188 : God that is so true....problem is that there is no tax money in free trade. I don't think so. But it is funny, I went to a bunch of gun stores yester
33 Dougloid : You're in alaska, right? Nobody there voted for Obama anyway. But you know what? It doesn't matter. Nobody in North Dakota did either.
34 Arrow : You're right -- Canada sends more than 80% of its exports south. But a huge proportion of that 80% is energy -- oil, natural gas and electricity. Whe
35 Post contains links Slider : NAFTA has done nothing but export American jobs outside of the USA. Our trade deficit in North America and the world continues to climb. http://www.hu
36 Arrow : This kind of simplistic approach to the world (and I read the Buchanan piece) is what will lead you down the path to oblivion. Fortunately your leade
37 Dougloid : I'm not entirely sure that nafta did that but what it did was remove the barriers that had existed previously, and American capitalists gleefully sen
38 Victrola : More kneejerk nonsense. Ignorance of economics is probably the most dangerous thing we are facing in this country today. Stop listening to ignorant f
39 Slider : Guess what: we’re already on the fast track to oblivion! So you are defeating your own argument. Ah yes, the ad hominem attack of being an isolatio
40 Victrola : Your ignorance of economics is only rivaled by your lack of ability to make a coherent arguement.
41 Dougloid : With all due respect, stick it where the sun don't shine. I don't pay any attention to Buchanan or Dobbs for the most part, but to characterize them
42 Slider : Actually, there are plenty of them, including noted think tanks, among them the Cato Institute, Heritage Foundation, Club for Growth, and others. The
43 Arrow : They cross the border in all directions. Cars manufactured in the US come here, as do cars manufactured in Japan and Korea and a few other countries.
44 Victrola : Your response is a pathetic. You should consider sticking it where the sun doesn't shine yourself. I seriously doubt any of them could take me in a a
45 Victrola : The Cato Instutie and Heritage Foundation are some of the leading proponents of free trade. As far as NAFTA is concerned, it is easy to choose certai
46 Victrola : Surprisingly I agree 100% with your comment. However I got the impression from your other posts that you were anti free trade. If it were up to me NA
47 Dougloid : I think you should muse on the absurdity of what you've just advocated. All politics are local. Politicians run the government. Politicians represent
48 WarRI1 : Sure there are, but not exactly living wage jobs. The average wage has not moved upwards for eight years. In fact according to the link in The Free C
49 Dougloid : The best college class I ever took-and I took plenty of them, mind you-was comparative ideologies with Prof. Edwards at Cal State Long Beach. What yo
50 Slider : Not at all—I have no idea why you would think that. My position of FAIR trade as opposed to the bastardized slanted so-called “free” trade sham
51 Victrola : What do you consider "our behalf"? The average politician will fight to obtain and retain special favors for his district even if they are detrimenta
52 Arrow : OK -- I shouldn't make assumptions on your positions. Apologies. But that term "fair" trade is usually code for "stop the other guy from selling in m
53 Slider : Well, I appreciate your olive branch, certainly. It is tough sometimes to have these kind of discussions because they don’t lend themselves to brev
54 Victrola : Trade surpluses and deficits don't have that much to do with protectionism. I used to work in customs brokerage and I can tell you that before NAFTA
55 Post contains links Victrola : Here is an informative look at the question of free trade by a respected economist with the Cato Institute. http://www.freetrade.org/pubs/briefs/tbp-0
56 Flighty : Regarding "oblivion," I never realized the definition of "oblivion" is so flexible. We are still the richest nation on the earth. Let's say my name is
57 WarRI1 : Maybe, I worded that poorly, I meant Chinese ships in LA, not people. Well, unfortunately, NAFTA led to China, North Viet Nam and all those places.NA
58 WarRI1 : I will second that.
59 WarRI1 : I do not care about other people and the way they live, if we continue on this road to ruin, we will be living like those people you are discussing.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Major Dilemma: Should It Be Catsup Or Ketchup? posted Thu Nov 22 2001 04:45:33 by Lax
Dem Or Rep, We Should Still Be Scared. posted Wed Nov 8 2006 01:12:32 by 767Lover
Should There Be A Dress Code For Voters? posted Sat Oct 4 2008 19:01:43 by ADXMatt
Car Alarms...should They Be Banned? posted Wed Aug 6 2008 12:31:18 by DocLightning
Should Congress Be Recalled Into Session posted Wed Aug 6 2008 06:47:53 by RJdxer
Should Cyclists Be Forced To Use Bike Paths? posted Sat Aug 2 2008 06:07:58 by Allrite
Should Germany Be A Presidial Republic? posted Thu Mar 6 2008 09:31:33 by LHStarAlliance
Office Tips We Should All Be Given When We Start posted Fri Oct 19 2007 06:14:38 by Nighthawk
Should Israel Be Where It Is? posted Sun Sep 16 2007 22:26:02 by LHStarAlliance
Basic Finance: Should It Be Taught In Schools? posted Wed Apr 18 2007 15:17:42 by Cba