Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

CAFTA is the answer to China's growing power
The Seattle Times ^ | May 24, 2005 | Froma Harrop

Posted on 05/24/2005 7:08:18 AM PDT by 1rudeboy

It really matters where the jobs that Americans lose go. That's what CAFTA is about. It's not about destroying textile jobs in the Carolinas. They're history, anyway--if not this year, then in five years. CAFTA is about keeping work in our hemisphere that would otherwise go to China.

The Central American Free Trade Agreement would cut tariffs on commerce among the United States, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala. The Dominican Republic, which is in the Caribbean, also wants to join.

Though President Bush is battling hard for the accord, some observers declare it all but dead. The generally pro-trade New Democrat Coalition has just jumped ship. But new Democrats should think again and back CAFTA. So should old Democrats.

Organized labor doesn't want to hear this defeatist talk about managing losses. That's understandable. But while labor has been dealt a bad hand, it still must play the cards. That means choosing the least bad of bad options.

Some labor critics point to NAFTA as a reason to shoot down CAFTA. The 1993 North American Free Trade Agreement covered the United States, Canada and Mexico. Foes of these accords note, for example, that there were 127,000 textile and apparel jobs in South Carolina before NAFTA. Now there are 48,000.

The truth is, the United States was bleeding these kinds of factory jobs decades before NAFTA. And it's unclear how large a part NAFTA has played in the years since.

Many of these jobs were not sucked down to Mexico but over to China and other Asian countries. And of the lost jobs that can be traced to Mexico, how many would have simply gone to China instead, had it not been for NAFTA? Even Mexico has seen factories move to China.

Labor-intensive industries in America continue to fight a hopeless war against competitors paying pennies-an-hour wages. The futility of it all can be seen in the following numbers, provided by A.T. Kearney, a consulting firm:

It costs $135 to make 12 pairs of cotton trousers in the United States. It costs $57 to make the trousers in China and ship them here. It costs $69 to do so in other parts of the world.

In this business, the United States is clearly out of the running. But many low-wage countries are still contenders with China--especially if they can ship their products here tariff-free.

Americans would be better off if their imports came from Managua, rather than Guangdong. After all, our Latin neighbors are more likely to buy the things we have to sell. That's why farmers producing beef, pork and corn are all for these treaties. So are U.S. companies that make machinery, especially for construction.

Then there are foreign-policy considerations. CAFTA partners would include very poor countries with fragile democracies. More trade with the United States could stabilize them--and reduce the pressures on their people to come here illegally. And if the workers make more money, they'll be able to buy more American goods.

Some Democrats argue that these poor countries compete by exploiting their workers. Rep. Sander Levin, D-Mich., for example, opposes the accord because, he says, "the basic rights of working people in Central America are systematically repressed."

He has it backward. Economic desperation creates the conditions for oppression. Workers are strongest where jobs are plentiful. CAFTA could empower workers and lift them from grinding poverty.

Rather than protect jobs that will eventually leave America, labor and its Democratic allies should protect the people who lose them. Trade Adjustment Assistance is a federal program that offers financial help and training for Americans who lose jobs because of imports.

Democrats complain that the program is underfunded, and they are right. So why not make more money for Trade Adjustment Assistance a bargaining chip to win support for CAFTA?

There's no exit door out of this global economy. Parts of the American economy will do well in it; other parts will not. Free trade in the Americas is about joining with our neighbors in a common defense against China's growing power. Those are the true stakes, and fighting futile battles will only distract us from what matters.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: cafta; globalism; nwo; pellgrants; trade
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 421-438 next last
To: 1rudeboy

I'm surprised he can take the time off from his lawn mowing and hedge trimming to post here. Maybe he has a crew of illegals working for him.....


121 posted on 05/24/2005 11:35:01 AM PDT by Toddsterpatriot (If you agree with Karl Marx, the AFL-CIO and E.P.I. please stop calling yourself a conservative!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot

Maybe he has a federally-subsidized SBA loan?


122 posted on 05/24/2005 11:36:04 AM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

More like a federally-subsidized BS loan.


123 posted on 05/24/2005 11:42:08 AM PDT by Toddsterpatriot (If you agree with Karl Marx, the AFL-CIO and E.P.I. please stop calling yourself a conservative!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: investigateworld
As fat as we are, sugar should be kept high, either via tariffs or domestic subsidizing laws.

You do understand that your body doesn't know the difference between table sugar or any other carbohydrate. They all end up as glucose and can make you fat if you consume too much and don't exercise.

Are you saying we should tax all carbohydrates like bread, pasta, potatoes, cereal, rice, honey, etc. so people don't eat too much of them and become fat?

Nuts are loaded with both fat and starch. I'll bet you really want a big tax on peanuts so we stop all the deleterious effects consuming them can cause. Milk is also high in sugar. Should we tax it more to reduce consumption?

Just where does your "do gooding" end?

More proof that a small amount of knowledge in a particular area is very dangerous.

More government intervention being advocated by protectionists masquerading as conservatives.

124 posted on 05/24/2005 12:00:17 PM PDT by Mase
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Mase; investigateworld
More proof that a small amount of knowledge in a particular area is very dangerous.

Resulting in the notion that Google is a substitute for critical or serious thought. Is Karl Rove gay? Type in rove+gay. Voila! Proof!

125 posted on 05/24/2005 12:12:09 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer
No it doesn't. Those manufacturers would have never relocated in a third world country until the "trade barrier" caused by our food safety standards was lowered.

Still didn't read the articles I see. I suppose it really doesn't matter though. As long as they disagree with you they'll just be labeled as liars.

May I remind you that American children got hepatitis from Mexican strawberries and that American citizens died from ingesting Mexican green onions?

Yeah, no American ever died from food borne illness before Mexican produce was imported.

I suppose the ground beef that killed those kids at Jack in the Box years ago was also imported from Mexico? No, wait. It was domestic beef that was responsible for that. Imagine that.

You have made it abundantly clear that you will only believe what you want to believe, facts notwithstanding. Now I know why we get so precious few of them from you.

126 posted on 05/24/2005 12:14:01 PM PDT by Mase
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: Mase
Don't forget that, in most cases, it is impossible to determine where food gets contaminated. The Chi-Chi's green onions may have been contaminated at the farm, or during their preparation at the restaurant. In the Chi-Chi's case, I'm not sure if the if the source of the contamination was ever determined.
127 posted on 05/24/2005 12:17:50 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

The source was Mexico. The cause was use of sewage to irrigate row crops which is legal in Mexico.


128 posted on 05/24/2005 12:21:43 PM PDT by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Mase

If you read the NAFTA you will see that food safety standards are considered a "barrier to trade".


129 posted on 05/24/2005 12:23:09 PM PDT by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer

Oh, quit the BS.


130 posted on 05/24/2005 12:26:15 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer
The source was Mexico. The cause was use of sewage to irrigate row crops which is legal in Mexico.

Source? I am curious, really.

131 posted on 05/24/2005 12:26:56 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
Don't forget that, in most cases, it is impossible to determine where food gets contaminated.

Absolutely correct. Bottom line is, even with the dramatic increase in imported food, our food supply has never been safer.

I'm just waiting for someone to claim that it's the illegals in the restaurants who are responsible for such contaminations. It's got to be them, free trade, WalMart or Bush.

132 posted on 05/24/2005 12:28:16 PM PDT by Mase
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

Standards providing more protection to consumers or public health can be challenged as unfair barriers to trade before dispute resolution panels established by both NAFTA and the WTO.


133 posted on 05/24/2005 12:35:54 PM PDT by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer

Care to name one?


134 posted on 05/24/2005 12:40:20 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Nowhere Man

THANKS.

Prayer and walking as closely with God as we can manage are increasingly crucial, essential and life or death habits, issues in our era . . . imho.


135 posted on 05/24/2005 12:48:37 PM PDT by Quix (LOVE NEVER FAILS.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Mase
Don't forget that, in most cases, it is impossible to determine where food gets contaminated.

This is absolutely untrue. The minute the contamination was confirmed the FDA sent inspectors who followed the whole food chain back to Mexico.
136 posted on 05/24/2005 12:55:17 PM PDT by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: Mase

Raw sewage in Mexico was the cause. You are throwing out red herrings to protect the globalists.


137 posted on 05/24/2005 12:56:09 PM PDT by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer

Again, I'm simply interested if you are speculating, because my understanding is that the PA Dept. of Health and the FDA were unable to determine to source of the contamination. If you have the info., please provide it.


138 posted on 05/24/2005 12:57:44 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

Oh, no.

We're not seeing a lowered standard of living. We're just seeing record bankruptcies, a nonexistent savings rate, record time between jobs, and if the unemployment rate were really 5%, Bush would have been reelected in a landslide.


139 posted on 05/24/2005 12:59:03 PM PDT by Sam the Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Sam the Sham

Don't forget record household net worth.


140 posted on 05/24/2005 1:00:56 PM PDT by Toddsterpatriot (If you agree with Karl Marx, the AFL-CIO and E.P.I. please stop calling yourself a conservative!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 421-438 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson