Yes, because third world countries can dump child and dollar-per-day labor produced products on our markets. This allows American business to abandon hard earned labor laws by merely crossing the border into Latin America.
More variety and lower prices for consumers is bad because....?
I didn't say it was bad. I said that abandoning all control of the industry at our border is bad. I said that the trade-off of the massive disruption in industry, our middle class, and the destabilization of Mexican labor was not worth the lower prices the consumers gained. I said that the middle class would pay dearly for those lower prices.
I'll make it easy for you "Between 1994 and 2005, global U.S. agricultural exports have increased from $46.2 billion to a projected $60.5 billion."
And I will make it clearer for you. Between 1996 and 2003 our agricultural imports increased from 33 billion to 46 billion. And- you can be sure that our agri imports exceed that projected 60.5 billion.
will CAFTA increase exports of American agricultural products or not?
I believe that CAFTA will increase some exports and allow much more imports- not to mention disrupt those countries economies just like Mexico's.
Finally, why is running a trade deficit bad?
A trade deficit in itself is not a bad thing. Inducing a trade deficit and disrupting our country in the manner that GATT, NAFTA, and the WTO have done has hurt many unnecessarily.
Trade tarriffs are not the devil. We have used them for a variety of reasons since Thomas Jefferson. Germany and Japan's economies were completely destroyed after WWII. We have had a "slight" advantage of winning the war and an intact manufacturing base to build our wealth on. It is apples and oranges to compare us and them. Somehow we had tariffs on their products in the 20th century and our economy was just fine.
More nonsense. Do you know anything about productivity and how it impacts output, pricing, profits and wages? Using your logic we shouldn't have any jobs left here at all - since other countries can do things so much cheaper than we can. Yet, our employment continues to grow (141.6 million now) along with wages.
Food imports were up 15% in 2004 vs. 2003. The major reason is a demand by consumers for more exotic foods and for fresh fruit and produce year round. We are also consuming more imported beer and wine. Add to this the ongoing beef dispute with japan which stopped $1.7 billion of American beef exports, a poultry dispute with Russia, three hurricanes in Florida that decimated the tomato and citrus business and you have many of the reasons why this has happened. Despite all of this there was a zero trade surplus/deficit for Ag products in 2004.
For 2005, the Department of Agriculture is projecting just a 6% increase in Ag imports. We may or may not become a net importer of food, beer and wine. Over the long term though, Ag exports will continue to grow and American agribusiness will remain healthy.
And I will make it clearer for you. Between 1996 and 2003 our agricultural imports increased from 33 billion to 46 billion.
And, during that same time, exports of American Ag products also increased. There are no losers here. Trade is increasing for everyone. Why do you see this as a win-lose situation? There doesn't have to be a loser when all parties benefit.
A trade deficit in itself is not a bad thing. Inducing a trade deficit and disrupting our country in the manner
Huh? A trade deficit is not bad yet it disrupts our country? How does increasing exports of American products and services disrupt our country?
Somehow we had tariffs on their products in the 20th century and our economy was just fine
Tariffs are nothing more than taxes. Are you for higher taxes or lower taxes? Does removing barriers to trade increase trade or not? Is there a correlation between economic freedom and per-capita GDP? How do you think Thomas Jefferson would feel about his republic now when the government takes more than half of a citizen's income in taxes? You're the one mixing apples with oranges.