You forgot about increased hurricane activity. That last season was simply a crusher. Let's see, since NAFTA was passed:
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.
Think the OAS knows that's in there?
I suspect hedgie may be a teenager in mom's basement. Never tells us what he does for a living. Dropout maybe? Does part time yard work, just enough to satisfy the munchies? Could explain the paranoia and anger at authority.
Post it yourself. I mean, put down the bong and post it yourself. Please.
Sorry, my "linking finger" is sore, and it's about time you learned. Have you figured-out what your argument is yet, or are you going to wait?
He can't post it himself. That means he'd have to formulate a position, unless he truly expects that simply posting something in and of itself is a dispositive addition to whatever argument he's making (which changes as he goes along).
It looks like CAFTA is dead, even Congress isn't swallowing anymore the Free Traders' claims that prosperity for one and all will follow these scam treaties.
Intriguing possibility. It would certainly explain his distress at being passed-over for a Wal-Mart position in favor of all those displaced computer engineers.
I believe that you mean that the Democrats (and the protectionists here) are sceptical.
As opposed to the protectionists who predict the sky will fall each time a treaty is passed. 11 years after NAFTA and America is stronger and richer than ever. So sorry that makes you sad.
You mean Havoc got hedgie's promotion? Oh, wait, he wasn't a computer engineer, he worked on a help desk, IIRC. With his math degree. LOL!
We are so overwhelmingly the biggest beneficiary of this agreement that it's just asinine to oppose it.
Free-trade [NAFTA] talks with had amusing and sinister sides.
Well, asinine is the middle name of a lot of these protectionists. First name of some.
No actually several legislators from the GOP, whose districts have been hit hard by NAFTA have decided they've done enough waiting for all this prosperity that was supposed to come if only we gave the corporations more access to cheap slave labor.
How many times does this have to be discussed on these threads? Reagan was for Free Trade yes but only on the grounds it would be fair and beneficial to both sides. His slapping of tariffs on Japan was proof he would not have tolerated dumping of any sort.
Oh, now we're not globalists, we're continentalists?
We will continue to discuss this until you have it correct. Reagan bowed to Democrat protectionist sentiment in a Democrat-controlled Congress during the height of the Carter recession.
I have no idea what you mean. Someone was asked to define "globalist" on this thead, but never responded. I take "globalist" to mean "anyone I can't see in front of my face, from somewhere other than my backyard." It's got a better ring to it than "continentalist," though. Can you imagine driving a Lincoln Global?
You bet, I can't think of anything better than to see a huge loss of good paying manufacturing jobs replaced by those of low-paying service coupled with a massive increase in illegal immigration. I can still remember Phil Gramm telling us how NAFTA will keep the Mexicans home since they'll have jobs and won't need to come northward. Strange, haven't heard from him in a while.
Reagan didn't bow to anyone, he did what he thought was best for the country.
You forgot about increased hurricane activity. That last season was simply a crusher. Let's see, since NAFTA was passed:
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.