CAFTA: Last Nail in the Coffin?

The American Conservative ^ | May 9, 2005 Issue | Patrick J. Buchanan

[Happy2BMe]

#54 - China has no fear of NAFTA when we're giving the farm away as it is anyway . .

=======================

"Surrendering to China seems to be the goal of this Administration."

[Mase]

Yes. Take a look at the numbers

The Dem's took a beating in 2004 and the only reason Kerry got close was because of Iraq. The anti-free trade message never got any traction and business leaders in Kerry's own party told him cut the BS with charging business leaders as being Benedict Arnold's.

[A. Pole]

The inflow of US capital associated with NAFTA would facilitate these small ag plots being combined into large, modern farming operations, which would enable Mexico to become more able to grow their own food.

Let me parse it. You say the Mexico will grow more own food? Are you saying that Mexican government is to set the state farms? But you said that there is the influx of US capital "combining" small farms into large?

Did you mean that US based or transnational agrobusiness is buying out/pricing out small Mexican farmers? Where these farmers will go? Is it good for Mexico (or US) when family farms are eradicated?

[A. Pole]

A hundred years ago 50% of the U.S. population made their living in farming. Now it's just 2%. Did all those farmers end up in the slums?

Not all, but many did for long time. Why?

[Mase]

Tell us all how 100s of thousands of pages of international law and a gang of international corporate appointed bureaucrats with dictatorial power to enforce those laws is going to give us "free trade".

Although thousands of pages of documents are not what Ricardo and Smith had in mind two hundred years ago, they were thinking in bushels of wheat and corn. How the world has developed since then is probably something they never envisioned.

Bottom line is that all those agreements eventually reduce government interference and reduce and/or eliminate tariffs. That's a good thing.

Just look at France if you want to see how a country that protects its inefficient industry prospers.

[neutrino]

The anti-free trade message never got any traction

That will change. I shall be quite happy when the free traitors get the reward they've earned.

[Mase]

Is it good for Mexico (or US) when family farms are eradicated?

Is it good for consumers when there is more food at lower prices? What about in developing third-world countries where so many don't have enough to eat?

You advocate state support for family farmers. What other segments of the economy should the state be protecting/supporting? There are lots of people, like Pat Buchanan, who can make good arguments for supporting just about every industry out there to help it remain competitive and keep people employed.

How do you manage your way down that slippery slope without eventually talking about centralized five year plans?

[A. Pole]

Is it good for consumers when there is more food at lower prices?

It depends what are the other costs of the cheaper food. It depends.

How do you manage your way down that slippery slope without eventually talking about centralized five year plans?

Life requires maintaining the proper balance. Did you ever ride a bicycle?

[Mase]

Not all, but many did for long time. Why?

So, are you saying we should have remained an agrarian society and protected those farmers jobs? Where would we be today had we done that?

With free trade there are winners and losers because of the unequal distribution of its benefits but, in the long run, the whole country is better off. Unskilled, low income workers are usually the hardest hit and governments cannot ignore the disruption and need to provide assistance to these people because they live in the short run.

I doubt the Mexican government is doing anything for their displaced people which is unfortunate but not surprising.

However, It seems misguided to me to avoid a policy that makes the whole nation richer because it makes some individuals poorer.

[A. Pole]

So, are you saying we should have remained an agrarian society and protected those farmers jobs? Where would we be today had we done that?

It is a false alternative. One can direct the economic changes to some extent and it is possible to preserve family farming to a significant degree. Huge agrobusiness is not the best model, for many reason (some of them being the lowering quality of food and damaging the environment). Also the industralisation can be conducted in many ways.

Preserving villages and small towns is also a matter of cultural survival.

With free trade there are winners and losers because of the unequal distribution of its benefits but, in the long run, the whole country is better off.

Really? In the long turn we all will be dead, and countries can die too! If the free market is so perfect, why do we have anti-trust laws? Isn't it because the free market will turn against free market if not restrained by the government regulations?

Why the freemarketeers call themselves conservatives if do not want to conserve anything?

[Mase]

It depends what are the other costs of the cheaper food. It depends.

You're finding gray area in one of the most basic human needs? It's better to have higher priced food and less of it for the entire population just to protect the jobs of a few?

Life requires maintaining the proper balance.

Which will only require increasing federal government powers by imposing just a few more tariffs and some additional innocuous regulation. That's no problem though, everyone knows that if you want the best possible product at the lowest possible price more government intervention is the best way to achieve it. Sure.

You are well on your way down that slope.

[William Terrell]

Suppose you and I are trapped on an island. Let's assume that two tasks are to be completed for our survival - fishing and building shelter. Let's also assume that you are better than I at both tasks e.g. it takes you 10 (20) hours to catch a fish dinner (build a thatched hut) whereas it takes me 15 (45) hours to complete both tasks.

Thanks for your explanation. This is my explanation.

The "island" would be Earth and all it's political systems because your analogy is describing world trade.

The people of the world live in their respective political systems, and they have to have things to live. Some systems provide more abundance to answer the needs than others.

The political systems reflect the people who live in them because those same people either create the system by commission, or allow the system to form by omission. Their aggregate mass is always greater than that of their leaders. If that aggregate mass can't cooperate enough to build a mutually enriching place to live, that's their problem, not any others who may be doing better.

We have brutal (hard and soft) regimes, which the people have allowed to rule them, taking much and returning little. A democratic republic, if it is to stay a free and sovereign system, cannot compete economically with a brutal regime.

If trade is globally designed, democratic republics, our (American) way of life incidentally, must turn into brutal regimes to provide for basic needs of their peoples.

Trade is naturally internal to a political system for the security and benefit the people of that system. It's proven so because internal trade is archetypical of all trade. If it is distorted to a global level where its basic maxims don't apply, there must be a global government to enforce any inequity.

If you were to provide each of your desert islanders with a commodity generator powered by how creatively their owners pounded sand, your analogy would have the proper form for analysis.

[A. Pole]

However, It seems misguided to me to avoid a policy that makes the whole nation richer because it makes some individuals poorer.

Even it were the case that "makes the whole nation richer because it makes some individuals poorer" still how do you measure "richer". For example is it better if the GDP capita is much higher at the expense of morality, religion, culture, local communities and plain happiness or freedom?

Are the riches the highest value? If not what values are higher? Can you list a few?

[A. Pole]

"It depends what are the other costs of the cheaper food. It depends."

You're finding gray area in one of the most basic human needs?

I am not talking about the choice between the cheaper food and starvation.

[Mulder]

I'm still waiting for the globalist fools to enact the FTWA (Free Trade Within America) agreement.

That trade deal would abolish all individual taxes in the United States.

Of course, that will never happen. It doesn't advance the goal of a New World Order like CAFTA does.

[hedgetrimmer]

However, It seems misguided to me to avoid a policy that makes the whole nation richer because it makes some individuals poorer.

It seems funny to you talk about a nation whose government was designed to protect individual rights,and try to twist the discussion into a discussion about enriching the collective. This is absolutely antithetical to the purposes of the United States Constitution.

It also proves the point that the free traders promote socialism, not individual rights and personal freedom. It follows that a free country whose system of government is predicated on the rights of the individual must not pursue "free trade" policies unless it is planning to do away with those rights and institute a type of collectivism . Their refrain--"we don't care what our plans do to individuals its for their own good that we put them out of business and give their means of production over to a third world collective where it can be done more cheaply."

[hedgetrimmer]

The result of the types of policies promoted by "free trade" is the destruction of a countries ability to feed its people. When the United States has no farming or agriculture left because "free trade" put all the farmers out of business is it possible this scenario will play out here?


Venezuela land reform gets going

The government says land reform should help Venezuela grow more of its own food.

"There's no food in this country," says Juan Pablo.

"The government is going to help us set up co-operatives, so we can work together to get agriculture going. Because that's what will give a future to our children."
says Maria Herrera.

The government insists it is impossible for Venezuela to grow enough food for the poor, as long as so much land is in the hands of so few.

[potlatch]

Bump!! [hi Happy!!]