ConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (10 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 1101 times:
Our state is one bound to be hit the hardest by CAFTA: New Orleans is very pro-CAFTA, whereas the rest of the state (particularly the rural areas) is extremely against it. Only problem for them-- NOLA is half the state's revenue base.
I'm seriously on the fence...
on one hand, I want to see NOLA (co-gateway to LatinAmerica, alongside Miami's aerial services) internationalize further and benefit.
On the other hand, tons upon tons of cheaper foreign sugar could potentially cause thousands of job losses elsewhere in this state.
NKP S2 From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 1714 posts, RR: 5
Reply 4, posted (10 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 1068 times:
Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 2):
I've never met a subsidy, trade protection, or tariff I liked,
Lord knows at a sagacious 22 ( ? ) you've doubtless seen it all...
CAFTA: Another specious pollyanna trojan horse.
Ahem..rant mode on: It's not about "expanding markets/exports...." blah blah blah. It's about securing a bonanza of cheap labor to provide a windfall to mostly US-based companies as they sell the product in established US markets. As to the whole "it all evens out as the 3rd world becomes more prosperous as to provide burgeoning markets for our products" argument: Nice cover. They only have to fool enough people enough of the time to advance their agenda...Then, the they'll smugly say ( in so many words ) "so what" as this is exposed. Enough of theory; let's decide on measured history/reality ( rant mode off )
Beware of anyone who says "so what" to what they previously downplayed ( or denied )
Juanr From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (10 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 1064 times:
USA is not only disscussing CAFTA but also the free trade agreements with the Andean Nations (Colombia, Peru and Ecuador), negotiations were supposed to be over by January 2005, however three more rounds of talks had to be scheduled because countries have not agreed in critical subjects.
It is funny to see how the USA forced us into a negotiation that we didn't want and now the greatest enemies of the treaty is in the USA. Here in Colombia the trend is to accept that having a treaty is better than having nothing, but the conditions that the US wants to have in the treaty simply will not get accepted by our Congress and our Constitutional Court because the US want all the privileges for their nationals and all restrictions for ours.
If I was a negotiator of my country I would establish as a condition to talk that the US withdraw the visa restrictions for Colombian Nationals, of course that will never going to happen.
Arrow From Canada, joined Jun 2002, 2676 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (10 years 1 month 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 1014 times:
Americans don't need to worry about CAFTA. It will do nothing to stop protectionist senators and congressmen from enacting whatever legislation they need to protect their bloated home-based industries from any foreign competition. It will all be done under the guise of "fair" trade, or as a result of accusations of export subsidies in the foreign country being targetted. Sugar is probably the biggest and most flagrant example of this -- it has been protected in the US for decades from foreign competition through a combination of tariffs and quotas
If you want a clear example of how seriously the US treats its trade agreements, examine the last five years of NAFTA, where the US has simply ignored any dispute settlement ruling it lost, breaking its own laws in the process. Or take a look at Viet Nam, which just signed a so-called free-trade deal with the US only to have the Commerce Department invent an anti-dumping case against the country's biggest export, shrimp, almost destroying the entire Vietnamese industry.
If I were one of the countries negotiating with the US on CAFTA, I wouldn't surrender anything on the hope that it would get me access to the US market. That access (i.e. sugar) will be quickly removed by senators and congressmen responding to very powerful lobbies for whatever home-grown commodity seeks to stifle foreign competition. There are a million ways these politicians can use and abuse US trade law, and they'll try every one of 'em.
There was a time when the US was the world's biggest, and best, advocate for free trade. Those days are long gone. The US now has in place levels of agricultural subsidies as high as Europe -- I never thought I'd see the day.
Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
MaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 18396 posts, RR: 46
Reply 10, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 992 times:
"Americans don't need to worry about CAFTA. It will do nothing to stop protectionist senators and congressmen from enacting whatever legislation they need to protect their bloated home-based industries from any foreign competition."
This is what annoys me most. I know we'll get rid of agricultural subsidies right around the same time the EU does which is sometime after the year 200never, but the farming industry, especially the sugar industry have to be some of the more offensive setups we have going.
JUANR From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 982 times:
Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 10): This is what annoys me most. I know we'll get rid of agricultural subsidies right around the same time the EU does which is sometime after the year 200never, but the farming industry, especially the sugar industry have to be some of the more offensive setups we have going.
The truth is that the US farmers do not need no worry; The US proposal on corn imposes to Colombia the obligation to import from the USA a quantity of corn that is 3 times Colombian consumption. And that is just corn.
About farming, Colombia sent a proposal to the US that has not yet been replied and that's why Colombian Government announced today that this topic will not be discussed in the Guayaquil round scheduled for early June.
In fact, most of the sector groups (unions) that would be affected by the Free Trade Agreement has announced that will not support the current government if the free trade agreement is adopted under the current conditions. Let's not forget that the Agreement has to pass through Congress and Constitutional Court before being approved and that there is a huge movement towards establishing a referendum so the people will be the one deciding on the agreement.
Dark days ahead for a negotiation in which every day there are less people interested in.
MKEdude From South Korea, joined May 2005, 1012 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 973 times:
CAFTA will work out horribly for everyone involved, except corporate execs and stockholders. Americans will lose even more of the dwindling number of manufacturing jobs that are left, and more Central Americans will learn the joy of making designer clothing for $1 a day.
Thirty years ago in this country the largest employer was GM, and even the lowest-level peon could buy a house, raise a family, see a doctor occasionally, and take aforementioned family someplace during the summer. Today the largest employer is Wal Mart, and by far the vast majority of employees are making less than $10 an hour with no benefits whatever. This is not progress.
As scary as it is to admit, Ross Perot was right when he talked about the "giant sucking sound" of jobs heading away from American shores. Somehow everybody (including myself) believed that free trade would boost the economy. Instead what we got was a booming stock market that hid the ever widening gap between rich and poor in this country. In the 90's a few people got rich, and most everybody else got screwed. Yet this administration continues to pursue agreements like CAFTA because they are bankrolled by those few who stand to benefit. As for the rest of us we are persuaded to vote against our economic interests by scare tactics on "values" issues. Pay no attention while your job moves off to Bangelore without you, but watch out for the gay bogeyman who wants to kidnap your children. The truly scary part is that a majority of voters bought this crap, while the Democratic "party" stood by and watched.
All of this is academic because CAFTA and any other trade agreement that comes up will become law because the corporate interests have spent enough money making sure they have enough politicians in their pocket. In the meantime this administration tries to distract us, recently by trying to reclassify fast food jobs as manufacturing jobs, hoping that they can hide the losses. Free trade is not fair trade. Americans pay with their jobs, and developing countries pay with low-wage, sweatshop conditions, and enviormental degradation.
"You can't be a real country unless you have a beer and an airline." Frank Zappa
Mia From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 888 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 958 times:
CAFTA, like all free trade agreements that place unequal competitors against each other, is a bad idea. CAFTA, NAFTA, FTAA are all schemes designed to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. I cannot stress enough how much I am against this and almost all free trade agreements that are spawned by the US government.
"Like all great travelers, I have seen more than I remember, and remember more than I have seen."