Are there any economic beneffits from global corporations ?

[CultureCitizen]

In the short run ,Mexicans will flood the country to cover the cheap posts, and many Americans will suffer because the lack low paying jobs which require no education ( probably not even speaking english).

yes Americans will suffer when billions from anywhere in the world come here with varying educations and bid down wages against American workers, and, American culture would disappear too.

Only a liberal would be 100% dumb enough to wish this fate on America.

Actually Baiamonte , NAFTA was signed by George ( Dad ) Bush ... not a liberal last time I checked.

 

[kaz]

In the short run ,Mexicans will flood the country to cover the cheap posts, and many Americans will suffer because the lack low paying jobs which require no education ( probably not even speaking english).

yes Americans will suffer when billions from anywhere in the world come here with varying educations and bid down wages against American workers, and, American culture would disappear too.

Only a liberal would be 100% dumb enough to wish this fate on America.

Actually Baiamonte , NAFTA was signed by George ( Dad ) Bush ... not a liberal last time I checked.

Actually, apparently you didn't check. Bush's signature just sent it to the Senate for ratification. It was ratified by the Senate and then signed into law by Clinton. One of the few good things Clinton did

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

In the short run ,Mexicans will flood the country to cover the cheap posts, and many Americans will suffer because the lack low paying jobs which require no education ( probably not even speaking english).

yes Americans will suffer when billions from anywhere in the world come here with varying educations and bid down wages against American workers, and, American culture would disappear too.

Only a liberal would be 100% dumb enough to wish this fate on America.

Actually Baiamonte , NAFTA was signed by George ( Dad ) Bush ... not a liberal last time I checked.

Ummm....Clinton signed it.
Perot debated Al Gore beforehand.
It was in all the papers.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

In the short run ,Mexicans will flood the country to cover the cheap posts, and many Americans will suffer because the lack low paying jobs which require no education ( probably not even speaking english).

yes Americans will suffer when billions from anywhere in the world come here with varying educations and bid down wages against American workers, and, American culture would disappear too.

Only a liberal would be 100% dumb enough to wish this fate on America.

Actually Baiamonte , NAFTA was signed by George ( Dad ) Bush ... not a liberal last time I checked.

another nice try to change subject when liberal has lost debate!!
1) free trade is great so we don't die in poverty trying to make everything ourselves
2) free trade does not mean open borders to ISIS, Mexicans, or convicted death row murderers

 

[georgephillip]

another nice try to change subject when liberal has lost debate!!
1) free trade is great so we don't die in poverty trying to make everything ourselves
2) free trade does not mean open borders to ISIS, Mexicans, or convicted death row murderers

"WHAT IS A SWEATSHOP?

"There are several different ways to define a sweatshop.

"According to the US Department of Labor, a sweatshop is any factory that violates more than one of the fundamental US labor laws, which include paying a minimum wage and keeping a time card, paying overtime, and paying on time.

"The Union of Needletrades Industrial and Textile Employees (UNITE), the US garment workers union, says any factory that does not respect workers’ right to organize an independent union is a sweatshop.

"Global Exchange and other corporate accountability groups in the anti-sweatshop movement would add to this definition any factory that does not pay its workers a living wage—that is, a wage that can support the basic needs of a small family."

Sweatfree FAQs Global Exchange

Why do capitalists rely on sweatshops to build vast, private fortunes which are then used to undermine representative democracy?

 

[georgephillip]

Actually, apparently you didn't check. Bush's signature just sent it to the Senate for ratification. It was ratified by the Senate and then signed into law by Clinton. One of the few good things Clinton did

Why was NAFTA a good thing for the majority of US workers?

 

[kaz]

Actually, apparently you didn't check. Bush's signature just sent it to the Senate for ratification. It was ratified by the Senate and then signed into law by Clinton. One of the few good things Clinton did

Why was NAFTA a good thing for the majority of US workers?

Depends if you ask an economist or a lawyer

Economist) Because it reduces prices for consumers so they get more for less money and the wealth created stimulates the overall economy. It also helps American companies compete better against foreign products which protects jobs.

Lawyers) Don't give a shit whether it's true or not, they just tell you what you want to hear and people on welfare vote for Democrats even when the Democrat put them there

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

In the short run ,Mexicans will flood the country to cover the cheap posts, and many Americans will suffer because the lack low paying jobs which require no education ( probably not even speaking english).

yes Americans will suffer when billions from anywhere in the world come here with varying educations and bid down wages against American workers, and, American culture would disappear too.

Only a liberal would be 100% dumb enough to wish this fate on America.

Actually Baiamonte , NAFTA was signed by George ( Dad ) Bush ... not a liberal last time I checked.

On December 8, 1993, President Bill Clinton signed the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which eliminated nearly every trade barrier between the United States, Canada, and Mexico, creating the world's largest free trade zone. The House of Representatives approved NAFTA on November 17, 1993, by a vote of 234 to 200. Remarkably the agreement's supporters included 132 Republicans and only 102 Democrats. That unusual combination reflected the challenges President Clinton faced in convincing Congress that the controversial piece of legislation would truly benefit all Americans.
President George H.W. Bush was NAFTA's original sponsor, signing the deal on December 17, 1992. The trade agreement ended tariffs between Mexico, America, and the United States, and set a 15-year timetable for the elimination of most other impediments to international investment and commerce between the three nations. Like many Republicans, President Bush believed that open economic borders between nations would benefit all concerned. Ideally, as production rose to meet the new demand for American exports, jobs, wages, and the economy as a whole would improve. However, securing Congressional approval fell to the newly elected President Bill Clinton. It was not an easy task.

American President American President

The deal Bush signed wasn't a legal trade agreement, because it hadn't been approved by Congress.
The agreement Clinton signed had been approved by Congress.
And Bush was kinda liberal.

 

[danielpalos]

Actually, apparently you didn't check. Bush's signature just sent it to the Senate for ratification. It was ratified by the Senate and then signed into law by Clinton. One of the few good things Clinton did

Why was NAFTA a good thing for the majority of US workers?

eventually; raising the price of labor over there and enabling their citizenry to become couch potatoes over there instead of feeling any need to come over here and impugn our first world "work ethic" with their third world work ethic from the Iron Age.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Actually, apparently you didn't check. Bush's signature just sent it to the Senate for ratification. It was ratified by the Senate and then signed into law by Clinton. One of the few good things Clinton did

Why was NAFTA a good thing for the majority of US workers?

eventually; raising the price of labor over there and enabling their citizenry to become couch potatoes over there instead of feeling any need to come over here and impugn our first world "work ethic" with their third world work ethic from the Iron Age.

Daniel ,
To my knowledge Nafta didn't rise the price of labour in Mexico. Rather it left several small companies out of business. This included a lot of small farmers.

Trade agreements should be signed between two nations with similar levels of economic development... or else face the consequences.

 

[danielpalos]

Actually, apparently you didn't check. Bush's signature just sent it to the Senate for ratification. It was ratified by the Senate and then signed into law by Clinton. One of the few good things Clinton did

Why was NAFTA a good thing for the majority of US workers?

eventually; raising the price of labor over there and enabling their citizenry to become couch potatoes over there instead of feeling any need to come over here and impugn our first world "work ethic" with their third world work ethic from the Iron Age.

Daniel ,
To my knowledge Nafta didn't rise the price of labour in Mexico. Rather it left several small companies out of business. This included a lot of small farmers.

Trade agreements should be signed between two nations with similar levels of economic development... or else face the consequences.

are you claiming there are no Home Depots in Mexico?

 

[CultureCitizen]

Actually, apparently you didn't check. Bush's signature just sent it to the Senate for ratification. It was ratified by the Senate and then signed into law by Clinton. One of the few good things Clinton did

Why was NAFTA a good thing for the majority of US workers?

eventually; raising the price of labor over there and enabling their citizenry to become couch potatoes over there instead of feeling any need to come over here and impugn our first world "work ethic" with their third world work ethic from the Iron Age.

Daniel ,
To my knowledge Nafta didn't rise the price of labour in Mexico. Rather it left several small companies out of business. This included a lot of small farmers.

Trade agreements should be signed between two nations with similar levels of economic development... or else face the consequences.

are you claiming there are no Home Depots in Mexico?

There are indeed , as wallmart and other companies that existed pre-nafta. But the minimum wage acording to google is 70 pesos per day or US $5 ==> 150 per month!
Wages are very far from the minim wage in the US. So no , no rise in the price of labour in Mexico.

 

[georgephillip]

Economist) Because it reduces prices for consumers so they get more for less money and the wealth created stimulates the overall economy. It also helps American companies compete better against foreign products which protects jobs

How many US jobs did NAFTA "protect?"
NAFTA's opponents attribute much of the displacement caused in the US labor market to the United States' growing trade deficits with Mexico and Canada. According to the Economic Policy Institute, rise in the trade deficit with Mexico alone since NAFTA was enacted led to the net displacement of 682,900 U.S. jobs by 2010.[2]

"Critics see the argument of the proponents of NAFTA as being one-sided because they only take into consideration export-oriented job impact instead of looking at the trade balance, also known as net exports.

"They argue that increases in imports ultimately displaced the production of goods that would have been made domestically by workers within the United States.[3]"
NAFTA s effect on United States employment - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[danielpalos]

Actually, apparently you didn't check. Bush's signature just sent it to the Senate for ratification. It was ratified by the Senate and then signed into law by Clinton. One of the few good things Clinton did

Why was NAFTA a good thing for the majority of US workers?

eventually; raising the price of labor over there and enabling their citizenry to become couch potatoes over there instead of feeling any need to come over here and impugn our first world "work ethic" with their third world work ethic from the Iron Age.

Daniel ,
To my knowledge Nafta didn't rise the price of labour in Mexico. Rather it left several small companies out of business. This included a lot of small farmers.

Trade agreements should be signed between two nations with similar levels of economic development... or else face the consequences.

are you claiming there are no Home Depots in Mexico?

There are indeed , as wallmart and other companies that existed pre-nafta. But the minimum wage acording to google is 70 pesos per day or US $5 ==> 150 per month!
Wages are very far from the minim wage in the US. So no , no rise in the price of labour in Mexico.

I agree to disagree; there must be some local and even temporary price inflation where federal highway works may be in progress.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Trade agreements should be signed between two nations with similar levels of economic development... or else face the consequences.

so no more bananas and coffee from SA. They can starve and we'll grow our own!!

See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance?

 

[CultureCitizen]

I agree to disagree; there must be some local and even temporary price inflation where federal highway works may be in progress.

Daniel, yes, there is a slight "inflationary" effect in some zones. For a time I worked for a factory in 'Ciudad Juarez' , factories have slightly higher wages : 300 to 450 USD per month, the same happens with some factories with a modicum level of technology in the rest of the country.
Yet, the overal effect in the Mexican economy is negligible ( Juarez which is the city with most American factories has less than 3 million people, compare that to Mexico city's whooping 21 million).
By what I've heard few people there think NAFTA had a positive effect ( how else to explain the massive exodus of Mexicans into the US after NAFTA came into effect).

 

[CultureCitizen]

so no more bananas and coffee from SA. They can starve and we'll grow our own!!

See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance?

The policies depend on the level of industrialization and in the product offering.
But the basic idea is to protect infant/key industry, that's what the US did during the XIX century.

Right now the policy should be not to tax raw materials ( coffee bananas included) and increased taxation in manufactured products ( sory if Ipads/cars/computers have a slight increase their price).

 

[georgephillip]

y what I've heard few people there think NAFTA had a positive effect ( how else to explain the massive exodus of Mexicans into the US after NAFTA came into effect)

Small family farms in Mexico have nearly become extinct since NAFTA opened Mexico to US corporate farming products.

"WHEN NAFTA WAS PASSED TWO DECADES AGO, ITS BOOSTERS PROMISED IT WOULD BRING 'FIRST WORLD' STATUS FOR THE MEXICAN PEOPLE. INSTEAD, IT PROMPTED A GREAT MIGRATION NORTH.
**This article appears in PRA’s Fall, 2014 issue of The Public Eye magazine, a special edition on neoliberalism and the Right*"

- See more at: Globalization and NAFTA Caused Migration from Mexico Political Research Associates

 

[Londoner]

Yes, of course.

This economist won the Nobel Prize in economics for his theory of when economic transactions should occur within a corporation and when they should occur without.

Oliver E. Williamson - Facts

In his theory, decisions should be made within the corporation when it is more efficient to do so.

And that includes multinational corporations.

As for the OP, almost all of the largest 1000 corporations in the world are multinational corporations. It's pretty hard to argue with a straight face that they are all trending towards monopoly. They are large because they offer products people want or need and are efficient at providing them, thus offering a tremendous boon to humanity.

Do you think there are instances where industry consolidation and vertical integration suppress competition and thereby innovation?

On another note. I live in place where there is one high speed internet provider. They are a terrible company who needs to be disciplined by competition, otherwise they will continue to lack the incentive to fix their fledgeling infrastructure. . . and they will continue to lack the incentive to innovate. . . and they will continue to lack the incentive to offer competitive pricing.

My sister and parents, who live in the U.K., have much faster up-&-downloading rates, and they pay far less than I (partly because existing companies have to lease their networks to competitors at cost, which allows other players to enter). Contrary to what we hear in the USA, these kinds of iron fisted regulations (which serve to lower entrance barriers and bring fresh blood into industries dominated by crusty monopolies) haven't destroyed competition or innovation, they've increased these things tenfold.

When an industry - like U.S. cable/internet or health care - devolves into state protected monopolies who operate in fixed no-compete zones, than we no longer have a free market; rather, we have the fruits of lobbying.

But my larger point is this. I wouldn't call my patronage of every large corporation a free choice that benefits my life. I would call it paying rent in an anti-competitive nightmare.

 

[danielpalos]

I agree to disagree; there must be some local and even temporary price inflation where federal highway works may be in progress.

Daniel, yes, there is a slight "inflationary" effect in some zones. For a time I worked for a factory in 'Ciudad Juarez' , factories have slightly higher wages : 300 to 450 USD per month, the same happens with some factories with a modicum level of technology in the rest of the country.
Yet, the overal effect in the Mexican economy is negligible ( Juarez which is the city with most American factories has less than 3 million people, compare that to Mexico city's whooping 21 million).
By what I've heard few people there think NAFTA had a positive effect ( how else to explain the massive exodus of Mexicans into the US after NAFTA came into effect).

The point is that more social benefits result in better Standards of living.

In spite of the Mexican economy's unprecedented macroeconomic stability, which has reduced inflation and interest rates to record lows and has increased per capita income, enormous gaps remain between the urban and the rural population, the northern and southern states, and the rich and the poor. Source: Economy of Mexico - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia