After losing 880,000 jobs to NAFTA, we're back for more

-Cp

Senior Member
Sep 23, 2004
2,911
362
48
Earth
Proponents of so-called "free" trade agreements like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which I opposed, have long promised endless riches for U.S. workers, farmers, businesses and economy. They've been wrong on all counts.

Failed U.S. trade policies have led to the export of millions of high-paying American jobs; decline in U.S. living standards; soaring trade deficits; and a significant erosion of U.S. sovereignty to international trade bureaucrats.

Despite this unbroken record of failure, the House is expected to vote before August on an agreement the Bush administration negotiated to expand NAFTA to Central America via the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). The Senate has already voted to approve the deal. I will vote no. Here's why CAFTA must be defeated.

CAFTA will increase the already record U.S. trade deficit. The U.S. trade deficit this year is running at an annual rate of approximately $700 billion, nearly $100 billion above the record deficit set last year. We must borrow nearly $2 billion every day from foreigners to finance this deficit. Prior to NAFTA, the U.S. had a trade surplus with Mexico. In the wake of NAFTA, the surplus turned to a deficit that has risen steadily. The U.S. already has a trade deficit with the Central American countries of $1.6 billion, which will only grow if CAFTA is enacted. Deficits are dangerous because they cost U.S. jobs and put our economic and national security in the hands of foreigners who finance them.

CAFTA will lead to the export of U.S. jobs. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce predicted NAFTA would create 170,000 jobs in the U.S. They were a little off. The actual result was a net loss of nearly 880,000 U.S. jobs, including more than 12,000 in Oregon. Looking at the numbers beyond NAFTA, Oregon has lost 40,000 jobs due to failed trade policies since 1994. CAFTA will be more of the same.

CAFTA is not about exporting U.S. goods to Central America. More than 40 percent of workers in Central America make less than $2 a day. The combined economic might of the five Central American countries is only $151 billion, about what the U.S. economy produces in five days. Even if every penny of these countries' economies was devoted to buying U.S. goods, which isn't going to happen, the impact would be insignificant in the $11 trillion U.S. economy. The bottom line is that CAFTA is not about creating U.S. jobs and exporting U.S. goods. It is about creating a favorable climate for multinational corporations to export U.S. jobs and use Central America to export goods back into the U.S.

CAFTA will erode U.S. sovereignty. CAFTA allows foreign corporations to sue our government for approving laws and regulations that may impede their ability to maximize profits. If the Oregon Legislature or the U.S. Congress approves laws to protect the public health, the environment, or consumer and worker safety that a foreign company doesn't like, they can sue to get the law overturned or to require taxpayers to pay large fines in return for keeping the law on the books. That is an unwarranted intrusion on the sovereignty of American citizens.

CAFTA will hurt Oregon farmers. Farmers have repeatedly been promised that if we only approve another free trade agreement, they'll get rich. Family farmers are still waiting. The U.S. trade surplus in agriculture peaked in 1996 at $27 billion. The USDA predicts this year that the surplus will be zero. In the wake of NAFTA, the U.S. agricultural trade deficit with Mexico and Canada tripled from $5.2 billion to $14.6 billion. Perhaps that's why the trade committee of the National Association of State Directors of Agriculture voted unanimously to oppose CAFTA. Due to increased sugar imports, CAFTA will be particularly damaging to Oregon's many sugar-beet growers.

CAFTA will restrict government procurement that benefits U.S. workers. CAFTA will prohibit governments from enacting procurement rules such as "Buy Oregon" or "Buy America" that prevent the export of jobs by giving preference to local contractors; promote the development of environmentally-friendly products or services; or provide preferences for small businesses, among other common procurement rules.

CAFTA is a model for an even larger expansion of NAFTA. Finally, CAFTA must be defeated because it is a model for an even larger expansion of NAFTA to the entire Western Hemisphere via the Free Trade Area of the Americas, which is currently being negotiated by the Bush administration.

Peter DeFazio, D-Springfield, is a member of the U.S. House of Representatives representing House District 5. He lives in the Thurston neighborhood of Springfield.

http://www.springfieldnews.com/articles/2005/07/22/opinion/opinion03.txt
 
I can't believe I actually agree with cp on something. :bow3:

I am not out to defeat NAFTA or CAFTA, though. My answer is to tax outsourced work that is sent back to the U.S. the same way we tax foreign goods, with extensive tariffs.
Any U.S. companies that has goods or products made or assembled outside this country should have to pay the tariffs normally assigned to their country of origin, in addition to a penalty. That is what Japan and China. It is why there are so few Western products in those countries. Too expensive.
I would also like to see stricter labeling on products. Only products that are produced entirely in this country should be labeled "American." Others should not be.
Too many companies are making huge profits because they can outsource their labor and bring the finished product back in the U.S. with no penalty or tariff assessed. American workers not only lose their jobs, but end up paying for the products they used to make.
 
Gabriella84 said:
I can't believe I actually agree with cp on something. :bow3:

I am not out to defeat NAFTA or CAFTA, though. My answer is to tax outsourced work that is sent back to the U.S. the same way we tax foreign goods, with extensive tariffs.
Any U.S. companies that has goods or products made or assembled outside this country should have to pay the tariffs normally assigned to their country of origin, in addition to a penalty. That is what Japan and China. It is why there are so few Western products in those countries. Too expensive.
I would also like to see stricter labeling on products. Only products that are produced entirely in this country should be labeled "American." Others should not be.
Too many companies are making huge profits because they can outsource their labor and bring the finished product back in the U.S. with no penalty or tariff assessed. American workers not only lose their jobs, but end up paying for the products they used to make.

Ya, but they get em SO much cheaper !! :smoke:
 
Gabriella84 said:
I can't believe I actually agree with cp on something. :bow3:

I am not out to defeat NAFTA or CAFTA, though. My answer is to tax outsourced work that is sent back to the U.S. the same way we tax foreign goods, with extensive tariffs.
Any U.S. companies that has goods or products made or assembled outside this country should have to pay the tariffs normally assigned to their country of origin, in addition to a penalty. That is what Japan and China. It is why there are so few Western products in those countries. Too expensive.
I would also like to see stricter labeling on products. Only products that are produced entirely in this country should be labeled "American." Others should not be.
Too many companies are making huge profits because they can outsource their labor and bring the finished product back in the U.S. with no penalty or tariff assessed. American workers not only lose their jobs, but end up paying for the products they used to make.

Stop gap measures. Face it. We must compete. to do otherwise is immoral and would be a case of using our current political/military power to form a racist hegemony.
 
rtwngAvngr said:
Stop gap measures. Face it. We must compete. to do otherwise is immoral and would be a case of using our current political/military power to form a racist hegemony.

Is this position naive? Should we just look after our own future and forget the world?

I don't know.

I think the existence of icbm's and nukes makes securing our own borders just the beginning of defense, if we would do it. Must we combat the ideologies of irrational hatred and fear? I think so.
 
Duane, I can't believe you're posting editorials written by Democrats. And I can't fathom why anyone - besides labor unions - would be against free trade agreements. They raise the standard of living in all nations involved - which is crucial in Central America. They mean cheaper goods for American consumers. And it means a more efficient economy.
 
gop_jeff said:
And I can't fathom why anyone - besides labor unions - would be against free trade agreements. They raise the standard of living in all nations involved - which is crucial in Central America. They mean cheaper goods for American consumers. And it means a more efficient economy.
gop_jeff, my opinion is 180 degrees from yours. It may raise the standard of living in some nations, but how on earth could it do anything for the US except drag it down? I don't think we should let ANYTHING from a foreign country into the USA. We need to produce and consume our own products, period. "They mean cheaper goods for American consumers." Yes, cheaper goods, but a lot more expensive in the long run. Things that should last for 5 years don't last for 5 days. As you may have gathered, I am a strict isolationist and believe 50 calibers should be set up every 50 feet on all our borders. I've been watching and fighting this battle for 7 decades now, and all I have seen is degradation of the USA because of foreign junk. Either bring it home and do it right, or keep it over there and sell it to the locals.
 
gop_jeff said:
Duane, I can't believe you're posting editorials written by Democrats. And I can't fathom why anyone - besides labor unions - would be against free trade agreements. They raise the standard of living in all nations involved - which is crucial in Central America. They mean cheaper goods for American consumers. And it means a more efficient economy.

Jeff, I agree with you. Too few Americans fail to understand that Central and South Americas are crucial to our own security. Teddy added the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine for security reasons.

If we don't pass CAFTA, we have given up our leverage with terror developing in our own back yard.
 
Kathianne said:
Jeff, I agree with you. Too few Americans fail to understand that Central and South Americas are crucial to our own security. Teddy added the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine for security reasons.

If we don't pass CAFTA, we have given up our leverage with terror developing in our own back yard.
You and I agree on one thing, that too few Americans fail to understand that Central and South America are crucial to our own security. (Me most of all) Would you please go into a little detail for us, because I see CAFTA as an open door invitation to "come as you are bring your bombs. We will turn our heads". A lot of us see the Monroe Doctrine as just more toilet paper. If someone can show me how CAFTA can help our security, I for one would be all for it.
 
Merlin said:
You and I agree on one thing, that too few Americans fail to understand that Central and South America are crucial to our own security. (Me most of all) Would you please go into a little detail for us, because I see CAFTA as an open door invitation to "come as you are bring your bombs. We will turn our heads". A lot of us see the Monroe Doctrine as just more toilet paper. If someone can show me how CAFTA can help our security, I for one would be all for it.

I'm not trying to duck this, but some of it is in reading economics, not fun at all. I get mine primarily through political/policy readings. Boiled down to my understanding would be that poverty rates in CA/SA are so high, especially with their far richer northern neighbor, that they are 'ripe' for terror recruitment. Same thing occured during WWII, look at the Nazis that were able to get over there.

To some degree it would just allow some of their people to become employed, more likely at the expense of Asia than the US. Those are the kinds of jobs we are talking about.

I've seen numbers thrown around, but basically the US could figure on increase of employment-but less than 1%, while CA would pick up in excess of 4%.
 
Merlin said:
gop_jeff, my opinion is 180 degrees from yours. It may raise the standard of living in some nations, but how on earth could it do anything for the US except drag it down? I don't think we should let ANYTHING from a foreign country into the USA. We need to produce and consume our own products, period. "They mean cheaper goods for American consumers." Yes, cheaper goods, but a lot more expensive in the long run. Things that should last for 5 years don't last for 5 days. As you may have gathered, I am a strict isolationist and believe 50 calibers should be set up every 50 feet on all our borders. I've been watching and fighting this battle for 7 decades now, and all I have seen is degradation of the USA because of foreign junk. Either bring it home and do it right, or keep it over there and sell it to the locals.

For America:
Free trade = cheaper goods = consumers able to purchase more/better goods = higher standard of living

For Central America:
Free trade = more markets for Central American goods = more capital = more jobs = less unrest = less terrorism, communism, etc. etc.

America gets cheaper goods and a higher standard of living, plus the knowledge that our neighbors are prospering alongside with us, meaning that they are much less likely to depend on drugs or terrorism as their means of national wealth. Everybody wins.

Now, as far as the border goes, we are in 100% argeement. :beer:
 
gop_jeff said:
For America:
Free trade = cheaper goods = consumers able to purchase more/better goods = higher standard of living

For Central America:
Free trade = more markets for Central American goods = more capital = more jobs = less unrest = less terrorism, communism, etc. etc.

America gets cheaper goods and a higher standard of living, plus the knowledge that our neighbors are prospering alongside with us, meaning that they are much less likely to depend on drugs or terrorism as their means of national wealth. Everybody wins.

Now, as far as the border goes, we are in 100% agreement. :beer:
In my humble opinion:
For America: Free trade = cheaper goods (not less expensive, just cheaper goods) = consumers able to purchase more/worse goods = lower standard of living.

For Central America:
Free trade = more markets for Central American goods = flooding our market with junk = more capital = more jobs = being able to afford terrorist tools and drugs to bring into the USA.

America gets cheaper goods and a lower standard of living, plus the knowledge that our neighbors are prospering alongside with us, meaning that they are much more likely to depend on drug running in the USA or terrorism as their means of national wealth. Everybody wins but the USA.
 
Not often I agree with WaPo editorial:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/25/AR2005072501352.html

The Stakes in CAFTA


Tuesday, July 26, 2005; Page A18

THE HOUSE is getting ready to vote on the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), a deal that would bind the five nations of Central America plus the Dominican Republic to the U.S. economy. From a commercial standpoint, it's curious that most Democrats in the House resist the agreement: 80 percent of Central American exports already enter the United States without tariffs, so the main effect of the deal will be to open the region to U.S. products. But the political argument for CAFTA is at least as compelling. While the United States has been focusing on terrorism, a new challenge has been brewing in its own hemisphere. House members should consider this challenge before voting to slam the door on Central America's pro-American leaders.

For much of the post-Cold War period, U.S. anxieties in Latin America seemed to be fading. The disintegration of the Soviet Union left Cuba's Fidel Castro without subsidies, undermining his power to buy influence in the region. The peace process in Central America succeeded, ending leftist insurgences in El Salvador and Guatemala and leading to elections in Nicaragua that removed its Marxist leadership. Democracy already had displaced often populist dictatorships across South America; in Mexico, a pro-American, pro-market presidential candidate succeeded against the long-ruling and traditionally leftist Institutional Revolutionary Party. The remaining U.S. problem in Latin America was the drug war. Although the cartels were rich and ruthless, they were not trying to rally Latin Americans behind an anti-Yanqui banner.


In the past few years, however, an attempt has been made to revive the political challenge once represented by Mr. Castro. It centers on Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, who combines Castroite rhetoric with the financial clout of Venezuelan oil. Mr. Chavez has spread his money around the region, sponsoring anti-American and anti-democratic movements and promoting alternatives to U.S. initiatives. To counter the U.S. trade agenda, for example, he has put forward a "Bolivarian Alternative." This has given critics of the United States something to advocate. El Nuevo Diario, a Nicaraguan newspaper that is critical of CAFTA, praised the Bolivarian Alternative recently, asserting that "America is for the Americans, not for the North Americans." In Costa Rica, critics of CAFTA who draw inspiration from Mr. Chavez have made no secret of the fact that they oppose the deal because they oppose the United States.

Most House Democrats don't want to hear this; they claim that CAFTA is opposed by "pro-poor" groups in the region. But this claim is troubling on two levels. First, CAFTA would actually help the poor: It would create 300,000 new jobs in shoes, textiles and apparel; it would create a new mechanism for enforcing labor rights; and a World Bank study has found that the vast majority of poor families in the region would gain from the deal. But second, the defeat of CAFTA would help not anti-poverty movements but anti-American demagogues, starting with Mr. Chavez. For them, the retreat of the United States from partnership with Central America would be a major victory.
 
-Cp said:
Proponents of so-called "free" trade agreements like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which I opposed, have long promised endless riches for U.S. workers, farmers, businesses and economy. They've been wrong on all counts.
Failed U.S. trade policies have led to the export of millions of high-paying American jobs; decline in U.S. living standards; soaring trade deficits; and a significant erosion of U.S. sovereignty to international trade bureaucrats. ]
Not wrong on all accounts. Many very wealthy people got wealthier.

-Cp said:
Despite this unbroken record of failure, the House is expected to vote before August on an agreement the Bush administration negotiated to expand NAFTA to Central America via the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). The Senate has already voted to approve the deal. I will vote no. Here's why CAFTA must be defeated. ]
The people voting are probably amongst the group of people who benefited from NAFTA, so they might vote for CAFTA.


-Cp said:
CAFTA will increase the already record U.S. trade deficit. The U.S. trade deficit this year is running at an annual rate of approximately $700 billion, nearly $100 billion above the record deficit set last year. We must borrow nearly $2 billion every day from foreigners to finance this deficit. Prior to NAFTA, the U.S. had a trade surplus with Mexico. In the wake of NAFTA, the surplus turned to a deficit that has risen steadily. The U.S. already has a trade deficit with the Central American countries of $1.6 billion, which will only grow if CAFTA is enacted. Deficits are dangerous because they cost U.S. jobs and put our economic and national security in the hands of foreigners who finance them. ]
The amount of the trade deficit is also the amount foreign capital investment. This is why the US has a giant economy and the greatest capital infrastructure on earth.

-Cp said:
CAFTA will lead to the export of U.S. jobs. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce predicted NAFTA would create 170,000 jobs in the U.S. They were a little off. The actual result was a net loss of nearly 880,000 U.S. jobs, including more than 12,000 in Oregon. Looking at the numbers beyond NAFTA, Oregon has lost 40,000 jobs due to failed trade policies since 1994. CAFTA will be more of the same. ]
Senators jobs will not be exported. Also, capitalists’ (those who actually own capital) jobs will not be exported. They will just move some capital or invest in some new capital and look for cheap labor and land.


-Cp said:
CAFTA is not about exporting U.S. goods to Central America. More than 40 percent of workers in Central America make less than $2 a day. The combined economic might of the five Central American countries is only $151 billion, about what the U.S. economy produces in five days. Even if every penny of these countries' economies was devoted to buying U.S. goods, which isn't going to happen, the impact would be insignificant in the $11 trillion U.S. economy. The bottom line is that CAFTA is not about creating U.S. jobs and exporting U.S. goods. It is about creating a favorable climate for multinational corporations to export U.S. jobs and use Central America to export goods back into the U.S. ]
On any given Saturday, I like to buy inexpensive items from Wal-Mart, then drive to the mall and buy more stuff and then drive around some more and eat a bunch of fast food. Sounds like CAFTA will make it cheaper for me to enjoy my weekend.


-Cp said:
CAFTA will erode U.S. sovereignty. CAFTA allows foreign corporations to sue our government for approving laws and regulations that may impede their ability to maximize profits. If the Oregon Legislature or the U.S. Congress approves laws to protect the public health, the environment, or consumer and worker safety that a foreign company doesn't like, they can sue to get the law overturned or to require taxpayers to pay large fines in return for keeping the law on the books. That is an unwarranted intrusion on the sovereignty of American citizens. ]
Who are you to tell me what to do with my capital? If preserving 'U.S. sovereignty' means someone else tells me what to do with my money then I am against it. Why should I not maximise profits? To give you a handout? Forget it.


-Cp said:
CAFTA will hurt Oregon farmers. Farmers have repeatedly been promised that if we only approve another free trade agreement, they'll get rich. Family farmers are still waiting. The U.S. trade surplus in agriculture peaked in 1996 at $27 billion. The USDA predicts this year that the surplus will be zero. In the wake of NAFTA, the U.S. agricultural trade deficit with Mexico and Canada tripled from $5.2 billion to $14.6 billion. Perhaps that's why the trade committee of the National Association of State Directors of Agriculture voted unanimously to oppose CAFTA. Due to increased sugar imports, CAFTA will be particularly damaging to Oregon's many sugar-beet growers. ]
Farming? They oppose it because they cannot compete with foreign farmers. They should sell their land and get a job at Wal-Mart. If they do not want to work at Wal-Mart they can move to Central America and work in factory. Or they become farmers in Mexico or Canada, since we import so much food from them.


-Cp said:
CAFTA will restrict government procurement that benefits U.S. workers. CAFTA will prohibit governments from enacting procurement rules such as "Buy Oregon" or "Buy America" that prevent the export of jobs by giving preference to local contractors; promote the development of environmentally-friendly products or services; or provide preferences for small businesses, among other common procurement rules. ]
Preference should be given to the most efficient producer. What is wrong with that? If you want to help the environment then only buy environmentally friendly products and teach others to do the same. Ride the bus. Or you could move to a commune in some third world country.


-Cp said:
CAFTA is a model for an even larger expansion of NAFTA. Finally, CAFTA must be defeated because it is a model for an even larger expansion of NAFTA to the entire Western Hemisphere via the Free Trade Area of the Americas, which is currently being negotiated by the Bush administration.

Peter DeFazio, D-Springfield, is a member of the U.S. House of Representatives representing House District 5. He lives in the Thurston neighborhood of Springfield.

http://www.springfieldnews.com/articles/2005/07/22/opinion/opinion03.txt
And someday all countries will be able to trade freely. And all capital will be used most efficiently. Go FREE TRADE!
 
I would believe that free trade is a good thing if there weren't other more distressing parts of these agreements. NAFTA has put the US courts below an outside system and for the first time there is another legal controlling authority over business in the US, CAFTA would continue this trend and get us one more step closer to the World Government that I wish to personally avoid.

Creating another even larger bureaucracy over the one we already have cannot be a money-saving or time-saving device and anybody at all will have difficulty proving that personal freedoms would be observed under such a system.
 
Merlin said:
gop_jeff, my opinion is 180 degrees from yours. It may raise the standard of living in some nations, but how on earth could it do anything for the US except drag it down? I don't think we should let ANYTHING from a foreign country into the USA. We need to produce and consume our own products, period. "They mean cheaper goods for American consumers." Yes, cheaper goods, but a lot more expensive in the long run. Things that should last for 5 years don't last for 5 days. As you may have gathered, I am a strict isolationist and believe 50 calibers should be set up every 50 feet on all our borders. I've been watching and fighting this battle for 7 decades now, and all I have seen is degradation of the USA because of foreign junk. Either bring it home and do it right, or keep it over there and sell it to the locals.

The American economy has changed drastically in the last two decades. We have gone from a mainly manufacturing industrial composition, to almost completely information/service based. What many Americans don't realize is that the vast majority of our manufacturing jobs have ALREADY been outsourced. It is far too expensive for us to pay American workers to do something that Vietnamese workers can do, for cents on the dollar.

Also, the quality of a good is largely dependent on the quality control factors that the producing company implements, not where the good is produced. If you pay $60 for a TV, don't expect it to last as long as a $300 TV. I find it ironic for you to state that all American goods would be far superior to foreign goods. Have you not noticed the trend in automobiles lately? American cars are crap compared to the Japanese automobiles. Toyota is routinely one of the best manufacturer of cars, in terms of customer service, and manufacturing standards.

If we don't open free trade routes with our neighbors, we open our back door to the threat of terrorism, communism and other evils.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top