The Folly of a Free Trade Pact with Central America

AmericanEconomicAlert.org ^ | Wednesday, April 07, 2004 | Alan Tonelson

[janetgreen]

There are other choices and I ain't talkin Nader

I'm voting Constitution Party, and wish more people would.

[Havoc]

The political system is essentially failing us on both sides. And the other "party" choices aren't much better.

[janetgreen]

The political system is essentially failing us on both sides

Remember the "good ol' days" when we had a real choice? Those days seem to be gone.

[ninenot]

Thai hookers, French wine, gold, and Spanish olives.

[ninenot]

Well, in terms of ecomonic GROWTH, China comes to mind. Growth in excess of 12% last year, highly restrictive import policies...

[ninenot]

You got a stupid response to your even MORE stupid initial post.

The Mexicans got a number of jobs from US citizens--roughly, 300,000 of them.

Some of them remain in Mexico today.

Any OTHER stupid questions?

[ninenot]

The threat to America is uncontrolled illegal immigration and uncontrolled government spending, not free trade.

I see.

Well, in that case, all the problems go away if we outsource the Gummint and build a wall at the border, eh?

BTW, ALL treaties supercede the provisions of the Constitution. Thus, a treaty is enforceable at law in ALL States of the Union, regardless of contrary Constitutional provisions, should there be any.

THAT'S how FTAA affects the Constitution--it's like the Supremes--it over-rides it.

[Poohbah]

Well, in terms of ecomonic GROWTH, China comes to mind. Growth in excess of 12% last year, highly restrictive import policies...

And Arthur Andersen signed off on those figures, so they have to true, right?

[Poohbah]

Well, in terms of ecomonic GROWTH, China comes to mind. Growth in excess of 12% last year, highly restrictive import policies...

And Arthur Andersen signed off on those figures, so they have to true, right?

[TXBSAFH]

Yes you can. Just raise enough stink about it. And when necessary vote out the scounders that support free trade.

[TXBSAFH]

The Constitution party does have some strong points.

[French-American Republican]

All of this free trade is a surrender of US sovereignty. Article I Section 8 of the Constitution says that Congress has the power to regulate commerce. Congress cannot delegate this power to the Office of the Trade Representative, the WTO, or any other agency whether within or without this country.

I am shocked that there would be such support for what is euphemestically called free trade on a conservative forum. You cannot be against US membership in international organizations like the UN and support the WTO, the GATT, and things like that. That's a double standard.

[French-American Republican]

"Yes, Todd, they will buy something from America, eventually: T-bonds, as I posted above.
MAYBE they'll buy a tractor from Case, or a dozer from Cat.

There were plenty of chicken littles that were up in arms about having a free trade deal with a developing country (Mexico) in the NAFTA, and they have been proven wrong. They are still wrong.

As to you, former Italian dictator: prove it.

Tell the ex-employees of Evinrude/Milwaukee how Mexico had NOTHING to do with them being displaced.

Tell the ex-employees of AOSmith/Tower Automotive in Milwaukee that Mexico had NOTHING to do with their unemployment.

Tell them that. They will rub your thick skull into the Mexican dust surrounding the plants, in Mexico, where the jobs went.

But you don't have the balls to come up here and try, do you?"

That's a beautiful post, ninenot. Well said.

[TXBSAFH]

I will not vote for a policy that I whole heartedly believe is hurting the middle class and my family. I will do whatever I can to stop free trade and free traitors.

[French-American Republican]

I'm voting Republican, but there are plenty of non-kooks against free trade like the Constitution Party and Pat Buchanan. The Democrats and Republicans support free trade because they're dominated by elites. The Green Party has no credibility on the issue because it's thanks to the regulations Nader and other communists supported that free trade has taken such a huge toll.

[FITZ]

So, how about a little consistency? If it hurts the U.S., it must help Central America.

There are things that damage two countries --- once NAFTA was signed, hundreds of thousands of Americans lost their jobs --- many still are not working today and likely will never work again because replacement jobs never came. Millions of Mexicans lost their jobs and are now so desperate that a million move to the USA each year, hundreds willing to die to get here ---- post NAFTA of course. Immigration from Mexico before NAFTA was a trickle.

[Toddsterpatriot]

The banana republics can buy oil, French mushrooms, English cars, and Thai hookers with USDollars.

Thai hookers, French wine, gold, and Spanish olives.

So, we buy foreign goods and the sellers never buy American goods with their dollars. Sounds like we can print all the dollars (IOU's) we want and they'll never be redeemed.

And that's bad how?

[Toddsterpatriot]

My original question:

Can you name some of those countries doing better than the U.S.?

Well, in terms of ecomonic GROWTH, China comes to mind. Growth in excess of 12% last year, highly restrictive import policies...

Where did you get that 12% growth number? Hmmmm...from the Communist Chinese government? Yeah that's probably a trustworthy source. And my question was name countries doing better than the U.S. not countries growing faster than the U.S.

Now if China really did grow at 12% a year and the U.S. grew at 4.1% a year, how long would it take for their per capita GDP to match ours?