The truth about trade OR how Kerry is just guilty for voting for NAFTA

[anti-NAFTA]

It's very simple actually: Kerry voted for NAFTA. Kerry voted to expand trade to the third world. Kerry is for free trade.

Now you can give me all your bullshit theory about comparative advantage. Hell all I've taken was AP Macroeconomics. But I am headed for this country's 5th best undergrad business school according to US NEWS, so I'm not that clueless. THE DEATH OF THE MANUFACTURING SECTOR BEGINS WITH CANADA AND ENDS WITH THE THIRD WORLD! That's right. Canada is guilty of product dumping on our markets. They are also guilty of working against currency appreciation of the Canadian dollar. So this outsourcing began when King George I signed Canada into a free trade agreement.

Clinton poured fuel on the fire by allowing Mexico to the deal. This allowed the failing manufacturers who were destroyed by Canadian competition) an outlet to compete at a better cost. Then came China, who practice artificial currency manipulation while Clinton and Bush just watch.

Well honestly folks; We're being f**ked from all sides. And there's not a DAMN thing Kerry will do about it.

What will he do? He says he will ease taxes on industries that keep jobs here. Now this is vague, and there's not even a plan for this. This is just rhetoric used for debates in front of union members. What Kerry WILL do is pass a new gas tax and put more environmental regulations on factories operating WITHING THE FREAKING UNITED STATES! This is insane. He is speaking about Benedict Arnold Corporations. What?! First of all, these corporations were forced into this Benedict Arnold position because of trade agreements that YOU signed Mr. Kerry! You are just as guilty as they are!

If Kerry is the nominee, I will vote for Dennis Kucinich as a write-in candidate and will protest the nomination. I will not vote for someone who says one thing in front of the right audience, then stabs that audience in the back when the big corporations give him money. The remaining four candidates other than Kerry all say they are anti-NAFTA. Any of them will be preferable to Kerry although Dean is/was a supporter of NAFTA.

If we want to take trade to the table, we need to have someone who will walk the walk, not spout rhetoric when it is convenient. I hope to G-d that someone calls Kerry on his NAFTA support during this Sunday's debate.

Oh, I almost forgot. Kerry has the audacity to accuse Dean of being a protectionist when Dean was a supporter of NAFTA himself. So if Dean is a 'protectionist', then what must Kerry be? Are you sure you want to find out?



I urge everyone to vote against the NAFTA-man Kerry in the primary.

Note: this is not flamebait. It's truth


For the Record:

Kerry';s record



Dean's trade policy is protectionist. (Sep 2003)
Fix NAFTA-canceling it would be disastrous. (Sep 2003)
Capitalism and democracy go hand in hand. (May 2003)
Voted YES on extending free trade to Andean nations. (May 2002)
Voted YES on granting normal trade relations status to Vietnam. (Oct 2001)
Voted YES on removing common goods from national security export rules. (Sep 2001)
Voted YES on permanent normal trade relations with China. (Sep 2000)
Voted YES on expanding trade to the third world. (May 2000)
Voted YES on renewing 'fast track' presidential trade authority. (Nov 1997)
Build a rule-based global trading system. (Aug 2000)

[displacedtexan]

1. Did you vote against NAFTA-man Clinton?

Look, I hated NAFTA, too; however, I'm not (and never have been) a single-issue voter.

Note: Can you take the Dean out of Dean-Witter for me?

[lcordero]

3. anti-NAFTA hates NAFTA because of three reasons

NAFTA is anti-worker, anti-environment, and corporatist.

NAFTA is not a single issue by itself.

[anti-NAFTA]

7. Thank you!

NAFTA is a way of objectively determining a candidate's dedication to economic progressivism.

[anti-NAFTA]

6. I wasn't of voting age

during Clinton's presidency, but I would not have voted for Clinton. I would have written-in Gephardt or Kucinich as a protest vote or voted for a leftist third party or stayed home.

NAFTA isn't a single-issue: It gauges a candidate's sincerity when he talks about the jobs that were lost.

What's witter? I'm not sure I'm going to stay a Dean supporter. As of this point on I'm anyDembutKerry as far as the primary is concerned.

[groovedaddy]

66. NAFTA / GATT-WTO and "single issues"

Free trade is a globalist term for stacking the deck in the favor of multi-national corporations. It is promoted by The Order, aka Skull and Bones. It is wrecking the industrial base of this country. If you want continuation of elite control of our society, vote for Kerry. If you want real reform, vote Kucinich.

[w4rma]

81. Gov. Howard Dean and Mr. Dean *Witter* aren't related.

Notice their last names are different. :freak:

Nope. Dean Witter was one guy; he founded his firm in 1924 with his brother Guy Witter.
http://www.fortune.com/fortune/articles/0,15114,517678,00.html
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1000775/posts

[corporatewhore]

2. As kucinich sez its Buy American or Bye Bye American

[lcordero]

4. AMEN...HALLELUJAH...SAY IT AGAIN BROTHER

:toast:

[Uzybone]

5. The only guy who can call Kerry on NAFTA

is Kucinich. I have no problems with that. I hope all single issue NAFTA voters vote for DK.

[anti-NAFTA]

8. I hope he does at the next debate.

Kerry is pretty much the most (he called Dean, a pro-NAFTA candidate to begin with, a protectionist) pro-NAFTA candidate left, and I'll have a smile on my face when Kucinich attacks him.

[corporatewhore]

11. that would be sweet

[DenverDem]

93. It's great how Kerryists reduce globalism to a single issue.

It may be a single issue to you, but it will dictate whether we can have a sustainable economy or a global economic meltdown of Biblical proportions. "Free" trade is how the elites steal from all the world's people and crush all forms of collectivist resistance to corporatist feudalism.

[anti-NAFTA]

9. kick eom

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

10. There's a lot that's upsde down about NAFTA..no arguing it

But I am amazed at liberals arguing against trade and wanting world peace in the same breath.

I went to the very first conference in Rio back in the early 90's. It was clear then that if the rest of the world developed at the rate that we did the planet could NOT sustain itself, but by the same token, NOT having trade with certain nations resulted in them living a lifetime of poverty.

Some of the fine print of NAFTA took Democrats by surprise and the best source for info on this are William Grieder's articles.

One other HUGE aspect of trade is that Republicans didn't want to pay UN dues during this time when we SHOULD have been working on labor rights in other countries and FORCING their hands in the matter.

FAIR TRADE is an issue. FAIR trade would help to right many of the world's ills.

The power multinational corporations have is a function of the fact that they CAN set up shop in another country to avoid US labor laws. The way to correct this is to help other countries fashion labor laws..NOT to get protectionist about trade.

To do otherwise is to pretend you deserve to live a cottled life and they don't.

Get out from behind your computers and TRAVEL to latin America..I have.

The solutions are NOT easy but protectionism is NOT one of them.

[anti-NAFTA]

13. Tariffs are the answer.

It's not only labor: It's the environment; it's dumping; even in countries with good standards of living the production cost is too low for fair competition.

"Some of the fine print of NAFTA took Democrats by surprise and the best source for info on this are William Grieder's articles."

I am not naif enough to believe that Clinton expanded NAFTA to Mexico because he wanted to help people. Sorry, "Democrats" were not "surprised;" those that voted for it had a bit of cash $$$ coming in from corporate lobbyists.

"Get out from behind your computers and TRAVEL to latin America..I have."

I travel to France all the time; it's my second home almost. I'm not an ignorant asshole. The EU's tariffs on virtually all sorts of products are higher than the US's on their products. That's not fair. As for Latin America: Do you really think that having corporations there paying off their leaders to keep standards low is going to help the people down there? Look at Venezuela: The more American corporate influence there is, the less democratic a country becomes.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

15. Tariffs on steel put a lot of Americans out of work

Companies that used steel that were NOT manufacturers (small businesses) suffered for it.

I am well aware of the bribery that went on in Nicaragua in the enterprise zones. Part of the problem is the manner in which NAFTA was written. The legaleze was amazing and confounding.

BTW..it isn't just American corporate interests, it is multi-nationals with more power than entire nations. Again the answers are NOT easy. Becoming PROTECTIONIST with trade is NOT an answer.

[Mattforclark]

17. Nah

"Tariffs are the answer. It's not only labor: It's the environment; it's dumping; even in countries with good standards of living the production cost is too low for fair competition."

The main problem with tariffs IMHO is that they #### the third world. That is not acceptable to me.



"The EU's tariffs on virtually all sorts of products are higher than the US's on their products. That's not fair."

AMEN! Death to CAP - AND - US farm subsidies.

"As for Latin America: Do you really think that having corporations there paying off their leaders to keep standards low is going to help the people down there?"

I would think that one solution to bribery would be to ruthlessly prosecute any corporations that have any presense in the US that engage in such activities.

"Look at Venezuela: The more American corporate influence there is, the less democratic a country becomes."

Causation has not been demonstrated, nor have I seen it demonstrated why such things are the necessary outcome of any sort of trade with Latin American countries.

[corporatewhore]

20. How about look at Bolivia

Bolivia's Poor Proclaim Abiding Distrust of Globalization By LARRY ROHTER

Published: October 17, 2003 (NY TIMES)

A PAZ, Bolivia, Oct. 15 — The many Indian protesters who choked the streets and highways of this Andean nation again on Thursday may be poor and speak broken or accented Spanish, but they have a powerful message.

It is this: no to the export of gas and other natural resources; no to free trade with the United States; no to globalization in any form other than solidarity among the downtrodden peoples of the developing world.

The force of that message may yet topple President Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada, who tried to quell the unrest by offering a package of concessions late Wednesday night that the protesters rejected.
Instead they vowed to continue with demonstrations meant to force his government to abandon a plan to export natural gas to the United States through a port in Chile. The protests have already left more than 80 people dead over the past month.
Sensing that public support for the president, weak to begin with, has all but vanished, opponents of the gas export plan have now moved to press their advantage.
"The blood that has been spilled is something sacred," Felipe Quispe, leader of the indigenous group that initiated the protests, said in response to Mr. Sánchez de Lozada's offer, made in a televised speech. "So we can't negotiate and we're not even going to talk."
a href=http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/17/international/americas/17GLOB.html?8br

[lcordero]

23. How about this one?

http://www.democracyctr.org/bechtel/

In February 2000, just months after it took over control of the water system of Bolivia’s third largest city, Cochabamba, a Bechtel Corporation subsidiary hit water users with enormous price increases. These increases forced some of the poorest families in South America to literally choose between food or water. A popular uprising against the company, repressed violently by government troops, left one 17 year old boy dead and more than a hundred people wounded. In April 2000 Bechtel was finally forced to leave. In November 2001 Bechtel decided to add to the suffering it had already caused by filing a legal demand for $25 million against the Bolivian people – compensation for its lost opportunity to make future profits.

The Democracy Center has played an important role in the water revolt and in the fight against Bechtel’s claim. The Center reported the story, directly from the scene, in a series of dispatches that received honors for the top story of 2000 from Project Censored. The Center was the first to expose that Bechtel was the real force behind the Bolivian water company. The Center has engaged both Bechtel and the World Bank directly on their actions and led the campaign to file an International Citizen’s Petition with the World Bank demanding that the Bechtel vs. Bolivia case be opened.

This section of our Web site includes all our writings on the water revolt, copies of important documents from The Democracy Center, Bechtel, the World Bank and others. We hope it is useful to everyone with an interest in this important and ongoing story of the abusive side of economic globalization.

[Mattforclark]

30. What does utility privatization have to do with free trade?

I agree that it is a terrible and very risky idea to privatize water. But what does that have to do with free trade?

[lcordero]

34. utility privatization is one of the stipulations in NAFTA and GATT

http://www.ibew1613.org/library/privatization.html

http://www.ibew728.org/_disc2002/0000003f.htm

[Mattforclark]

35. Thanks, didn't know that!

I know that there are problems with NAFTA and the GATT->WTO, and I am aware of the major problems caused by enforced structural adjustment, but I didn't know that before. That seems like a rather stupid provision.

Nevertheless, that is an argument against a provision that has little to do with free trade, not against free/fair trade.

[diamondsoul]

80. *blinking a few times*

Nope, I read it right.

The point is every last one of those farcical "Fair Trade" agreements is RIDDLED with provisons like that, and worse, they're written so they can't be amended!

I wish someone would explain why it's so difficult to grasp what Kucinich has been telling you- the WTO makes any amendment to NAFTA illegal, it CAN NOT BE FIXED as long as we are held to both agreements.

[anti-NAFTA]

83. It's disgusting and

just because Kerry has a (D) next to his name doesn't mean he's not a corporate whore when it comes to this issue.

[Mattforclark]

29. What's your point?

And what about this argues against free and fair trade?

[corporatewhore]

82. i was replying to your post in it you said

"Causation has not been demonstrated, nor have I seen it demonstrated why such things are the necessary outcome of any sort of trade with Latin American countries."
here is it plain in clear the effects of oppressive "free"trade

[corporatewhore]

16. kerry's record hasnt shown a big support for fair trade yes he did try to

get that ammendmant in for bushs fastrack to the FTAA but that didnt happen and he voted for it any way its a whole slew of things from allowing public muncipally owned services like water become privatised i think that fedex challenged the very existence of the canadian postal offices
I rember when a fruit of the loom plant went south of the border and how the community (rio grande valley) was devasistated and no one there ever lives a cottled life

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

19. Clinton asked for FASTRACK too

It would have been a bigger problem to explain why he would give it to a Democrat but not to Bush. Nobody was bitching when Clinton asked for it until late in the game.

I am sorry but I cannot accept your opinions in this matter since they are not only beyond biased, you operate under the pretense that John Kerry is the root of all evil and the cause of the common cold.

[anti-NAFTA]

22. There were plenty of people bitching

about Clinton's trade policy, such as Gephardt. I don't care if it's a Republican or a Democrat expanding trade because I will say the same thing. Don't accuse me of being someone with no principles.

John Kerry is representative of the ECONOMICALLY centrist wing of the Democratic Party as Clinton was. I want the party to stop whoring for Wall Street.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

26. My response wasn't to you and I accused nothing

except unreliable bias to the poster.

[corporatewhore]

32. you'd be biased too if you saw the effects ofa plant goin southoftheborder

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

36. I work in labor law. Try not to be so presumptuous.

[corporatewhore]

74. i did not know that

[Mattforclark]

12. Go Kerry

"It's very simple actually: Kerry voted for NAFTA. Kerry voted to expand trade to the third world. Kerry is for free trade."

Yay!

And not only that, but he is for fair trade!!!

[anti-NAFTA]

14. If your avatar is any indication

you're British. How about US matching tariffs with the EU without you guys threatening a trade war? That would be a start.

[Mattforclark]

18. I'm not really, but I think that's a great idea!

I am a dual national but have lived in the US for the vast majority of my life.

I entirely agree that the US should have the same tariffs as Europe. None.

[lcordero]

21. Some terminology has to be added in

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml%3Fi=20040202&s=faux

The word, "neoliberal", is used when refering towards policies and organizations like the WTO, IMF, GATT, CAFTA, NAFTA, FTAA and the like.
"Neoliberal" is a dirty word just like "Neoconservative".

[corporatewhore]

24. to add some more

"Neo-liberalism" is a set of economic policies that have become widespread during the last 25 years or so. Although the word is rarely heard in the United States, you can clearly see the effects of neo-liberalism here as the rich grow richer and the poor grow poorer.

"Liberalism" can refer to political, economic, or even religious ideas. In the U.S. political liberalism has been a strategy to prevent social conflict. It is presented to poor and working people as progressive compared to conservative or Rightwing. Economic liberalism is different. Conservative politicians who say they hate "liberals" -- meaning the political type -- have no real problem with economic liberalism, including neoliberalism.

"Neo" means we are talking about a new kind of liberalism. So what was the old kind? The liberal school of economics became famous in Europe when Adam Smith, an English economist, published a book in 1776 called THE WEALTH OF NATIONS. He and others advocated the abolition of government intervention in economic matters. No restrictions on manufacturing, no barriers to commerce, no tariffs, he said; free trade was the best way for a nation's economy to develop. Such ideas were "liberal" in the sense of no controls. This application of individualism encouraged "free" enterprise," "free" competition -- which came to mean, free for the capitalists to make huge profits as they wished.

[no name no slogan]

89. Another thing about Adam Smith

he also advocated AGAINST the concentration of power in large entities-- be they companies OR government.

Also rememeber, he wrote "The Wealth of Nations" in a PRE-CAPITALIST era, when corporations were formed for a specific reason and only lasted a specific length of time. For example, a corporation might be built to build a bridge over a river, and then disband when it's finished.

Smith never imagined we'd have huge corporations that would run the economy for their own benefit, or that could control the elected government.

I've got a copy of "The Wealth of Nations" on my bookshelf. ANYBODY who has any kind of interest in our economic and trade policies should read this book-- with a critical eye, of course.

[anti-NAFTA]

27. Speaking of neoliberals and neoconservatives.

One of my friends is a conservative who laments Bush's FTAA plan and pro-free trade policy. He says that the true right is against this garbage.

I think this illustrates a point: Both parties have sold out the American worker and the American manufacturing industry.

The question here is: Why are both parties pretty much united on this issue? The answer: Because Wall Street and the multinationals OWN America.

Vote Kucinich to take our party back.

[lcordero]

28. "Vote Kucinich to take our party back."

Damn str8!!!!

[camero]

25. I think we can do it without raising tariffs

We simply tax intra-industry trade. If an American company makes a product overseas and ships it back to the US market, that product should have at least an extra 10% tax added to it. This way we are taking punitive measures against the individual companies and not any one country. And we are negating the advantage of overseas labor costs.

If a company wants to expand overseas then that's fine but they should sell the product they make overseas there. If Toyota wants to put a plant here that's good too. But they should pay taxes here the same way an American Corp has to pay taxes here. Not Enron style taxes either but that's another thread.

Just my two cents.

[anti-NAFTA]

37. Nonsensical idea

Not all free-trade scum are US-owned corporations. Would a Chinese-owned corp. crushing American industry bother you? It would certainly bother me. You seem to be of the impression that only America is guilty.

Let me remind you, outsourcing is a result of the increased competition from other nations.

When corporations can't make money in America, they cut wages, or fire people, or "increase worker productivity", or SEND THEIR JOBS OVERSEAS! That is the result of free trade. The original problem was foreign competition which was UNFAIR.

the solution? Buy America or it's Bye Bye America! (US out of NAFTA NOW!)

[camero]

39. That was a nice post

I was telling a way to get around the agreement. The fact of the matter is that the US buys most of the world's products. No corp would be crazy enough to give up completely on the US market.

When you tax a product everyone knows you drive the price up, thus putting the American made product on a par with the product made overseas. Chinese corps have to go by our environmental, labor and tax laws.

Outsourcing is not a result of increased competition. It is the result of idiotic tax policy. You want to stop the practice? Tax it out of existance. A tax on Multi-Nationals would do more to bring jobs back than any other.

[anti-NAFTA]

41. Do you know what you are saying?

You are saying that the only factors that drive American industry OUT are American corps. operating overseas. You are ignoring the fact that those corporations could be ...Eritrean! and they'd still be crushing competition in America if they are practicing unfair trade practices.

[camero]

42. If they violate American Laws

We shut them down. It's about time we actually enforced our laws. Then we tax there products made in Eritrea that they sell here.

Yes, it is US corps that are the primary source of outsourcing.

[anti-NAFTA]

44. not the only source

regardless, American manufacturing cannot compete with foreign production REGARDLESS of whether it is AMERICAN FIRMS or FOREIGN FIRMS producing overseas.

That's why I would be labelled a "protectionist" by the mainstream "neoliberal" cult.

[camero]

46. The old terms don't apply anymore

You either operate globally or locally. Taxing Corps and not countries is what will ultimately stop the practice while betteriing conditions in the Third World. Or didn't that occur to you.

I against free trade too. But let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[anti-NAFTA]

49. This is like speaking to a wall!

there is more than just multinational power crushing the manufacturing sector. HOW MANY TIMES DO I NEED TO SAY THIS!?? An American factory can be put out of business due to a Canadian one, or a Chinese one, or a French one. And I am NOT speaking about multinationals here. It's more than just an issue of multinationals who are pissing on our manufacturing sector.

YEAH LET'S ALL SUPPORT KERRY NOW AND FIX ONE PART OF TRADE WHILE IGNORE THE OTHER!!!

Jesus. If you don't get it by now, you never will.

[camero]

51. If a foriegn country decides to operate here

It brings jobs here. Nobody cares whether they buy a Chevy or a Toyota. They only care where the plants are. Who said I support Kerry? He won't change the tax law for corps either.

Your ideas on tariffs and trade are a product of 19th century politics and it won't work anymore. It will only spawn more trade wars and global wars.

[anti-NAFTA]

54. Concerning trade wars, all I can say is

"bring em oan"

[camero]

57. WWII was fought over oil

Would you like to bring that on too?

[anti-NAFTA]

59. You're exaggerating.

America was doing fine until King George I and Clinton came along and sold this country.

edit: And we live in a different time anyway. America has the strongest military in the world and there are enough nuclear weapons out there to deter war.

[camero]

61. Do I?

It's a known fact that the US increased tariffs on Japanese exports prior to WWII. Oh so we just rely on military and nukes to keep us safe? That's quite arrogant.

Edit:http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/ites/0997/ijee/ejchron.htm

1938-1947
Britain and the United States levied controls against Mexico to settle the expropriation of the oil industry by Mexican President Lazaro Cardenas and against Japan (1940-41) to force its withdrawal from Southeast Asia. The embargo against Japan (effective October 1940) also included freezing assets (beginning July 1941).

[camero]

63. and another

http://www.fff.org/freedom/0297c.asp

American policy makers have become addicted to the opiate of economic sanctions as a way to punish other nations. We have increasingly resorted to this tool over the past several decades, far more than any other nation. Sanctions seem to make us feel better, while simultaneously blinding us to the harm they do both to ourselves and to others."


And they always lead to real wars.

[camero]

40. Two links that support this idea

http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/ftaa/883.html

Wasteful investment from intra industry trade and raw materials trade are crippling world economies in many ways. Batra claims together they represent 90 percent of global commerce, yet have no rational economic justification behind them. Since world trade has soared faster than economic activity, trade is a bigger polluter than industrialization-in spite of fuel efficiency. Trade in energy intensity industries reaches far above that of GNP of America and most nations, and continues to rise. Being green doesn't sell as pollution taxes on domestic trans nationals would further put them at a disadvantage in global markets and governments don't want to inhibit world trade, corporate profits and growth.

Migration of factories to mineral rich areas can trim international trade by as much as 25% without reducing global living standards. We can eliminate intra industry trade altogether without much effect on planetary production. Global trade can be cut by at least 75%with out much harm to overall output-benefiting the environment tremendously. Energy use would plummet, oil prices would tumble, oceans would be safer from oil and chemical spills, the atmosphere would be safer,"

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=1412

When an American-based corporation closes its American plant and hires Chinese to manufacture its products, those products, when they come into the United States, do not constitute trade in the old sense of that word. They are not Chinese products. They are American products that were simply manufactured overseas. And the purpose of today's so-called free trade is to make sure that these corporations don't have to pay tariffs on these foreign-made but American-owned goods.

Therefore, the old arguments about free trade versus protectionism no longer apply, though God knows ideologues never let the facts get in the way of their ideology. We are not, for the most part, trading American-made goods for foreign-owned goods. Many underdeveloped countries like China have few products to export — except cheap labor. Unless the present trend is reversed, America will continue to bleed manufacturing and high-tech jobs to cheap-labor countries. If you think America's corporate leaders today give a hoot or a damn about the American people or America, think again. Many of these corporations have even changed their names to disguise their American origins. Their loyalty is to the cash flow and their own shamefully high, undeserved cut of it.

This is a problem created by the federal government, which at first sacrificed American jobs as part of its Cold War strategy and is now in the tight grip of multinational corporations. It can only be solved by a political revolution — that is, by electing men and women who recognize that free trade and American jobs have become mutually exclusive. The only way to stop the export of American jobs is to tax the heck out of the practice. It's being done for economic reasons. Congress must apply an economic reason to stop it.

[anti-NAFTA]

43. Once again,

That is not the only problem with free trade. For example, there are VW plants operating in Mexico. There is the EU fucking the US over. The damage of free trade includes more than just the Benedict Arnold corporations.

[camero]

45. Then American Corps are in a bind.

Your ideas are outdated. The benedict Arnold Corps are what got us into this mess in the first place. Taxing them will get us out.

Edit: With a VW plant in Mexico. American Corps will have to lower prices to compete with that product. But if the American corp operated in Mexico and shipped that here that price would be higher. Thus forcing them to operate here in a sense.

[anti-NAFTA]

47. Taxing them will NOT get us out

because domestic manufacturers are up against more than just Benedict Arnolds.

[camero]

48. Tariffs won't. Taxes will.

Then you keep tariffs on raw materials but not products. You tax products.

[anti-NAFTA]

50. incorrect

taxing and tariffs will solve the problem. Taxing will ameliorate the problem, BUT will not elminate it.

This is getting redundant here.

[camero]

60. You're only cowtowing to the corps

Tariffs will only raise prices without solving the problem. American corps will still operate overseas. Because these things will come back with American names and not subject to tariff. The idea is to bring jobs back. Not more Corporate Welfare in the form of subsidies and tariffs.

[anti-NAFTA]

79. You just completely invalidated everything you'd said.

ANY and ALL products produced overseas are subject to the tariffs imposed on the country in which the products were produced!

[DU GrovelBot]

31. ## Support Democratic Underground! ##

RUN C:\GROVELBOT.EXE
 
This week is our first quarter 2004 fund drive.
Please take a moment to donate to DU. Thank you
for your support.
 
- An automated message from the DU GrovelBot

Click here to donate.

[LibInternationalist]

33. free trade is a good thing

protectionism hurts more people than it helps

[hedgetrimmer]

52. he who has the lowest wages gets the most jobs...i.e. nafta/wto

the price of a product remains the same regardless of the drop in wage cost, so the employees who've lost their jobs to another country now have to pay the same price for what they use to make at a higher wage.... there is only one who benefits, the corporations....

no one said protectionism... what is wanted is a good life for the people who live on this globe... as they say in IMF'ED Jamaica,"why do so many have to suffer for so few to be fat."

I implore you to look further into the story and less into the Sunday morning political mumbo jumbo... I was there, in Sunday morning mumbo-jumbo and thought I had a complete understanding of the way the world was... I had no idea as to what really was going on... I had the ideas I was supposed to have, not the ones that mattered to me... I had neat little oneliners, I was ignorant to the plight of humanity as I was making 13,000 a year, even ignorant to the plight of myself.... it improves the lives of everyone for everyone to have an improved life...

be the change you want to see in the world...

[genius]

38. Dean's pro-NAFTA. He said in one of the debates he would not

repeal NAFTA. THat puts him on a par with Kerry. If you don't want free trade, you better vote Kucinich or Edwards.

[hedgetrimmer]

53. Thats partly why Dean sucks...

[anti-NAFTA]

55. Yes, it is.

But imagine how much someone who calls Dean a protectionist sucks.

[idlisambar]

56. Dean changed

Dean has said that he changed his mind about NAFTA, he was a serious supporter before but after seeing the effects his position is that it needs to be rewritten with labor and environmental standards instead of being a bill of rights for multinationals.

I don't agree with Dean's solution here (complete withdrawal from neoliberal policies is the first step to any good plan as far as I am concerned) but at least he came around to recognizing the problem. Kerry doesn't even begin to get it, that's my biggest concern with him.

[anti-NAFTA]

58. Agreed.

Kerry's position is anathema to American workers and domestic industries that are trying to compete with the flood of imports.

[KaraokeKarlton]

71. Dean at least recognizes there are problems with NAFTA

and being that the man is truly a "task master", you can be sure that he would make every effort to address those problems and do everything in his power to make NAFTA about FAIR trade instead of Free trade for others at the expense of US workers. Kerry doesn't even seem willing to admit there's a problem, let alone do anything to fix it. Kucinich has his heart in the right place, but taking a radical stand against NAFTA is just about as harmful as Kerry burying his head in the sand on the issue. We need someone who can look at all the facts, find where the problems are, and address them. That's what Dean does best. His physicians training comes in so handy in politics. It's not about emotions, favors or ideology, it's about facts and fixes with Dean, and that's the kind of leadership that accomplishes things. As much as Kucinich wants to help workers, he wouldn't get very far because none of that stuff can be changed at will by the president. It has to be haggled over with a lot of people who just aren't going to agree with him. A more pragmatic approach, like Dean's is the only one that stands a chance of working. :shrug:

[idlisambar]

62. I agree and more

Often people trot out the the theory of comparative advantage to justify free trade as if corporate globalization had anything to do with free trade. The free trade that Ricardo talked about assumed immobile factors of production, but the central theme of corporate globalization is easy capital mobility across borders. The bottom line is that the behavior these trade agreements are designed to support have nothing to do with free trade and any theoretical argument for free trade is useless in support of these agreements.

That's not all though even if trade agreements were drawn up in such a way as to please Ricardo, the theory itself uses such a poor model of the world it would still be worthless. It assumes that the capital and labor involved can be seamlessly converted from one form to another, so if I have a shoe factory, but my government decides to lift the tariff on foreign shoes because another country has a comparative advantage, I am supposed to be able to sell off my shoe-making equipment and convert those assets directly to some other endeavor. The reality: my obsolete shoe-making equipment and my employees skills are now worthless, so we're up a creek -- big "free trade" losers. These "transition costs" are not accounted for in the theory, but in many (most) cases they may be the dominant costs involved.

[Darranar]

64. Kerry is my third choice despite NAFTA...

and my first "electable" one.

Neoliberal economic policies are disasterous, "free" trade included, and I disagree with Kerry strongly on this. But he is the one candidate who is liberal while also highly electable.

[idlisambar]

65. That's fine...

but on the issue of corporate governance/power and trade Kerry is the worst candidate remaining, period. Corporate globalization is not just another issue it is the central issue of our times, and Kerry doesn't get it.

[Darranar]

67. Nor do any other of the "electable" candidates...

no, it's not a coincidence.

[idlisambar]

70. Right...

According to the corporate media, if you are pro-"free trade" you are a principled and farsighted leader, and if you are anti-"free trade" you are peddling to the ignorant masses. :eyes:

[Darranar]

72. Unfortunately, that is true.

[gate of the sun]

68. Alot of people don't care Anti-Nafta

they refuse to look and understand what electing Kerry is going to mean to the American people and beyond. It's anyone but bush and that's all they care about....electability and to hell with the issue's

Nafta is a huge issue in my book along with the WTO, people need to educate themselves and quit putting their heads in the sand.....What are the American people supposed to do without jobs?

It's seems like it would be pretty clear cut that people would want to put an end to these agreements and yet the issue is lost in some murkey I don't know, didn't Clinton put it in place?....it must be OK then.....I don't know when people are going to wake up?

Kerry is not the man I want for President.

[Deathadder]

69. Yeah Nafta

http://www.theodore-roosevelt.com/trrotptr.html

[Armstead]

73. "Free trade" is a scam

It is merely a way to impose the corporate conservatiuve agenda on the entire world.

There is no easy answer to this. But the one-size-fits-all stance of the corporate "free trade" globaliers is not the answer.

Kucinich is right. We need to return to a system of bi-lateral trade agreements so that the circumstances between different countries can be handled based on reality.

[George_Bonanza]

75. Kerry on NAFTA

Review Existing Trade Agreements. John Kerry will also order an immediate 120 day review of all existing trade agreements to ensure that our trade partners are living up to their labor and environment obligations and that trade agreements are enforceable and are balanced for America’s workers. He will consider necessary steps if they are not. And John Kerry will not sign any new trade agreements until the review is complete and its recommendations put in place. He believes all new trade agreements must have strong labor and environmental standards.

Basically Dean's position. Only Kucinich supporters can impugn Kerry on this. For Dean supporters to do so... Better re-evaluate your candidate...

[anti-NAFTA]

78. That's too vague

it sounds like something to appease us.

Typical Kerryspeak.

[George_Bonanza]

84. And this is crystal clear?

But NAFTA is here to stay — our economies have become deeply integrated. So Governor Dean believes that we need to negotiate a “New Deal” with Mexico. For instance, to help generate increased economic growth in Mexico, the US and Canada could establish a large development fund to build needed infrastructure, fund education programs etc. In exchange, Mexico would agree on a set of enforceable labor rights and environmental standards. Once Governor Dean believes that we have a real plan in place that will generate Mexican economic growth, reaching an immigration accord that addresses legalization and the flow of future migrants will become much less problematic. If there are jobs and opportunities in Mexico, pressure to come to the US in search of work will diminish naturally. - DeanForAmerica.com

Impugn one, impugn them all, except for DK of course.

[anti-NAFTA]

85. If Kerry calls Dean a "protectionist" then

imagine how pro-free-trade would Kerry be. Remember the steel tariffs? I would bet that Kerry would have been adamantly opposed to those tariffs from day one. He is bought by multinationals just like the pukes!

I'm hoping Edwards or Kucinich knocks Kerry out of the race, but I'd take Dean over Kerry.

[idlisambar]

86. There is a bit of a difference

Dean's statement .. This is a real problem, and here is an overview of what I am going to do about it.

Kerry's statement .. I'll look into it.

Dean's statement doesn't inspire a lot of confidence in me, but Kerry seems to be on another planet.

[2004Donkeys]

76. Can someone explain to me ...

how a 10-year old treaty caused the Bush recession 8 years later, but the 8 years of prosperity under Clinton had nothing to do with NAFTA?

I support Kerry and Clinton on this.

[lcordero]

77. This would explain it a lot better

http://www.citizen.org/trade/nafta/

[Taeger]

94. Internet Bubble

We got extra investment from people who thought that the fundamental business paradigm would change. They thought that if they didn't get in on the ground floor of e-commerce, they would be locked out forever.

The economy benefitted from those loosened purse strings. Don't expect the fat cats to be so generous anymore. Investment is the pursuit of personal interests. It's not an effort to help the economy as a whole.

This was the reason for the great depression. The stock market had little or nothing to do with it. The fat cats gobbled up virtually all of the capital. Once they had it all, there was NO REASON to invest. What could be had once everyone is poor. Why invest.

They cinched up their purses. They lived lives of luxury and paid their servants crap. Why pay more, their were armies ready to serve. They owned all the means to production. They bankrupted all the farmers and ran them of their land. Briefly they had become lords of the land.

Thank god for Roosevelt ... BOTH of them.

Tax those rich fuckers till they blead. A 90% taxation rate isn't appropriate. But $20 million dollar earners should be paying about 65% in my book. No one can produce all that wealth on their own. If they have taken so much, it means that they have NOT shared the income with those who helped build it.

[Tinoire]

87. What a great thread. Thanks anti-NAFTA! Very informative

found it looking for another thread and was wowed.

Thanks

:kick:

[anti-NAFTA]

88. No problem.

It's good for voters to be informed of which candidates are all talk and which ones aren't on this issue.

I sympathize with your disgust over what oil companies have tried to do to Chavez.

[Tinoire]

90. Have you seen the film?

I think it should be required viewing for all Progressives. Help us understand what we're up against with the people who are pushing for this corporate globalization. It's all tied together... Oil, NAFTA, war, occupation.

You're an impressively bright young man. I wish you the best in your studies. Can I pry and ask which school?

[corporatewhore]

91. isnt it crazy that texas gop has a more progressive stance on trade

they want to get the fuck out of nafta/wto

[Tinoire]

92. They've directly suffered from the effects of the Maquiladoras- Say...

Say... what is Bush's lip service to NAFTA going to be? We know how he panders to the little man with platitudes. What will it be this time? We need a strong anti-NAFTA candidate if we want to win. That & single-payer health-care are true swing issues.