Should NAFTA be repealed?

[bluestateguy]

[Maple]

1. You can withdraw from it

you can't 'repeal' it. It involves more than just your country.

And if you keep withdrawing from signed deals and treaties, pretty soon no one is going to bother doing any business at all with you.

[bluestateguy]

2. OK but...

Do you really think NAFTA would survive without the US?

[MrPrax]

4. Yeah...

The FTA, NAFTA, CAFTA is the creation of the US and their friends and allies in the corporate sphere...

At that level of wealth...they don't use citizenship they don't give a damn about this country or that.

It's a class of people that wake up in New York and fall asleep in London.

Democracy is inefficient to the Greedy and since these WTO arrangements curiously provide little or nothing that a reasonable person can believe is accessiblity or accountability...it is surprising that even the right is buying into this crap.

I assume like many issues, nobody is in favour and that is why it travels below the radar on Big Media

[Maple]

5. LOL hell yes.

We've signed up with even more countries since then, and there is all of Europe and Asia you know.

6 billion people in the world...all eager to trade.

[w4rma]

8. You are saying that our nation's laws are weaker than the WTO

The WTO is run by the big corporations. Therefore, is our nation run by the big corporations? Is this corporatism? Is this Bush, Sr.'s "New World Order"?

[Maple]

10. The WTO

is run by 146 countries.

[w4rma]

12. That is inaccurate

The WTO has oversight over 146 countries is accurate.

[Maple]

14. That is exactly accurate I'm afraid

The 146 countries voluntarily form the WTO

It is not an autonomous body, it is a large committee.

[w4rma]

15. "voluntarily". So, you admit the U.S. can withdraw from the WTO. (n/t)

[Maple]

17. I have often said

the US can withdraw...it cannot repeal or cancel the WTO as it is only one country out of many.

You can withdraw from the UN...you cannot cancel it. Same thing.

[w4rma]

20. You're correct on "withdraw". I misread your earlier post. Yes.

And yes, you cannot cancel or repeal it for the other countries, but that's their buisness.

[Proletarian]

11. Why didn't countries

stop signing treaties and agreements with us after the whole Native American deal?

I don't agree with your argument, I think treaties and bills signed b/t anyone, anymore, matter very little.

[Maple]

16. What would that,

all those years ago, have to do with a trade deal today?

Would you refuse to trade with China because of the Boxer rebellion??

Treaties and bills are legal documents.

Tell your bank that your mortgage doesn't matter, and see what response you get.

[Proletarian]

21. That is different.

When you sign a deal with a bank, the playing field isn't level. The bank has the obvious advantage.

Countries have always broken deals with other countries (when the field is seemingly leveraged), thats the only point of contention I have with you.

I know that we can only withdraw, that is obvious, since it is between basically 3 nations (and Phillipines and...Argentina... I think those are the two we just extended it to), and alls we can do it withdraw. How well would it hold up for other countries in that case? Everything is relevant.

I support a gradual withdrawal.

edit: Oh yea, the relevance is that we can withdraw from anything, even international law (as shown), and other nations will still play ball with us. Not like I agree with it.

[Maple]

23. No it's not different

It's a legal document.

And when you sign it, you know what shape the playing field is in.

Yes...Hitler said the peace deal was just a piece of paper, and tore it up.

That's why countries ever since have been very reluctant to do such things.

Because after awhile...why should anybody bother signing anything with them?

You have also signed with Chile...and the other day even Singapore, altho that isn't NAFTA.

You have a free trade deal with other countries as well...Israel for example.

Bush has already withdrawn from several treaties...if a Democratic president carries on this idea....what's the point of signing anything with you? Peace deals, arms banning deals, trade deals.....

Would you want to be known as untrustworthy, or not people of your word? Why would you do this to yourselves?

It is not to your advantage to withdraw from NAFTA

It would put you into a massive Depression.

Millions of jobs depend on that deal, and trade with other countries.

[Proletarian]

24. Withdrawal

I addressed that already. It will not matter, we are the dominant power. Period. Countries will deal with us, because they have to.

I said 'gradual' as to equalize everything and not draw the US into a depression. Just because the foundation of American capital is being drawn into, or is currently dependant on, cheap-labor 3rd world countries, does not mean we cannot withdraw and change that horrible trend.

[Maple]

26. Actually you're very small

in comparison to the rest of the world.

There are 6 billion people out here you know.

You are only 300 million.

If you want to trade with the rest of the world, and yes, you need to....then you have to play nice in the sandbox.

[Proletarian]

27. In a world of Nation States...

We are not small at all... we are in fact very huge.

[Maple]

28. Well you have a huge case

of 'American disease'

An exaggerated sense of self-importance.

[Ediacara]

3. I want a third option

Do not withdraw but make some major changes.

[kodi]

6. NAFTA? within 24 months, the issue & threat is the China trade imbalance

and will result in shocks to the american economy that will dwarf any dislocation from NAFTA. already we have a $500Billion yearly trade deficit with China and it is expected to be much higher by the time more trade agreements and tariffs expire in 2005. then the avalanche starts.

NAFTA is a mild stomache ache, China trade is a massive heart attack.

and i am not hearing too much about that from the 9 candidates.

AT ALL

as to NAFTA, repeal it, and replace it with something better.

but one must ask that when something like a trade accord is repealed, what replaces it?

i ask all the candidates who wish to repeal it, tell us what they will replace it with.

once this discussion gets started, we on the left had better come up with the goods, meaning that we should be able to provide clear alternative to the current system of trade that benefits americans.

the assumption in trade is that each side gains greater than had no trade occured, so the debate will have to focus upon what are the benefits to be gained by each side and what each sides loses.

the ones who successfully have their assumptions become the architecture for the narrative of what is most important have won the day.

you do this two ways, a shit-load of money, or overwhelming facts.

which side are we on?

[Maple]

7. Yup

a million dollars of trade a minute every day with Canada alone.

Toss that and the job loss to the US would be massive.

[w4rma]

9. $500 billion dollars a year in resources are going to China from the U.S.

Who does that help? That's $500 billion dollars in American jobs.

[Maple]

13. How much is going from China

to the US?

It works both ways.

And right now, in it's early stages the US is willing to take a hit on it, because they want that market of 1.5 billion people open to them.

Germany just sold China a huge state-of-the-art railway.

[w4rma]

18. $500 billion is the *deficit*. That's $500B -> China from U.S. (n/t)

[Maple]

19. Please note

..."And right now, in it's early stages the US is willing to take a hit on it, because they want that market of 1.5 billion people open to them."

You can't just sell refrigerators to each other forever you know.

[w4rma]

22. We've been selling things to each other for over 200 years now

The WTO is only a little over a decade old.

[Maple]

25. Yes, hodge podge

here and there, but this is a new era of massive long-term trade in a far different world.

A few knick knacks are quite different than computer systems, state of the art railways, a billion fridges, or banking services.

And the WTO is the old GATT renamed. 'General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade'....because it's bigger and more far reaching now that so many countries are involved.

It is meant to provide a set of rules that everyone agrees with...so that punishing and damaging trade wars don't take place.

It's just that with so many countries, opinions, and quibbles...it takes awhile to get it all done.

[diamondsoul]

29. "It is meant to provide a set of rules that everyone agrees with..."

Except that "everyone" doesn't agree with the rules, so now what?

[punpirate]

30. I wouldn't vote on this one...

... in part because there's no category for modifying it. Trade agreements can do countries some good, if they're fair. However, there are parts of NAFTA that are clearly for the benefit of corporations, not people.

My huge, huge beef with NAFTA is its Chapter 11. That language, in effect, destroys the sovreignty of governments, and forces state and local governments, particularly, to make an unacceptable choice: defend their laws and pay a corporation sometimes huge amounts for lost profits, or avoid the costs and suffer unfair business practices or environmental damage.

But, truthfully, NAFTA has not been a boon to any of its member countries. It's greatly helped large corporations, however.

The situation is particularly bad in Mexico. The Economic Policy Institute has done a study called "NAFTA At Seven" which is a pretty good overview of the effects of NAFTA on all three countries. A couple of examples:

"Labor income in industries whose wage bargaining processes are under federal supervision (the so-called salarios contractuales or contractual wages) lost almost more than 21% of their purchasing power between 1993 (the year before NAFTA took effect) and 1999 (Table 2-6). Manufacturing wages also declined by almost 21% in this period, and the purchasing power of the minimum wage fell 17.9% through 1999. The decline in real wages since NAFTA took effect helps explain the decline in labor incomes (see Table 2-3)."

"The decline in real wages and the lack of access to stable, well-paid jobs are critical problems confronting Mexico's workforce. While NAFTA has benefited a few sectors of the economy, mostly maquiladora industries and the very wealthy, it has also increased inequality and reduced incomes and job quality for the vast majority of workers in Mexico. In many ways (such as the stagnation of the manufacturing share of employment), the entire process of development has been halted, and in some cases it even may have been reversed."

And, as it says elsewhere in the report, maquiladora industries don't extend the benefits of production into the community, because the ownership is foreign. Apart from wages and some need for local services, the money generated by maquiladora industries goes out of Mexico.

The EPI report is here, and worth reading:

http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/briefingpapers_nafta01_us

Cheers.

[LWolf]

31. Moving past the lengthy argument

that appears every single time this topic is posted, re: repeal vs withdraw....

How about we agree to understand that, from the U.S. point of view, for a US electon, that repeal = repeal our involvement, ie withdraw, and move on to the substance?

I support repealing our involvement with NAFTA