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.
Reagan literally saved that American company from extinction and I'm glad he did.
The stupid thing is why anyone would consider withdrawing from an agreement that removes tariffs from our exports.
No it hasn't much at all...
the circumference at the equator is still 24902 miles...
And there are still only seven continents and four oceans...
They only SAY the world is getting smaller...
the FACTS say it has changed much at all!
So why is it necessary for CAFTA to enact thousands of pages of fine print to regulate what is supposed to be FREE trade???
You're the one who pointed out we could withdraw if need be, I was simply stating it would never happen once enacted despite the ABM Treaty. The reason for that is it's about money and corporations contribute lots of it to campaigns. I never underestimate their lobbying or influencing abilities to keep the laws they like going.
It's not thousands of pages, by the way. It's maybe 100. I've read it.
It will integrate countries into a permanent dialogue and financial transaction with the US that will have lasting benefits.
I'm sure you remember what happened in Nicaragua during about 25 years ago. We never want a repeat of that. At a time when Hugo Chavez is spreading his Castroism in our hemisphere, it is time to lock in some new buddies.
This is not even a hard question.
It's just a matter of time before they're taken off our money, they obviously have no place in our conscience. Maybe General Kofi Annan or Vincent Fox on our one dollar bill would be more to their liking.
The fact is that the agreement removes the tariffs they impose. If anyone here wants to argue that a 30% tariff on US automobiles is a good thing, have at it.
I wasn't the one to "bring in" the Founding Fathers, and I am aware of no rhetorical rule that prevents me from speaking to a subject introduced by my opponent. Sorry.
I remember when he did it.
It is true. There are tariffs and quotas.
What 80% of tariffs are you talking about?
Same here, and Japan behaved themselves after that.
Thesis: Protectionism does not save jobs.
1) People will be employed so long as there is capital available to profitably employ them. It therefore follows that sufficient employment will exist if sufficient capital exists.
2) Acquiring more capital per employee requires savings with which to acquire the capital in the first place (this process is called 'investment'). It therefore follows that anything which reduces savings->investment will reduce the amount of capital with which to profitably employ people.
So in conclusion:
1) More capital == more jobs (and therefore less capital == less jobs)
2) less savings and investment == less jobs
therefore:
1)+2) less savings and investment == less capital == less jobs.
It therefore follows from 1)+2) that anything that reduces savings/investment will reduce the amount of jobs.
And what's one good way to reduce savings? Tariffs, of course - tariffs push up input costs.
I thus conclude that tariffs are bad for job creation.
(anything that reduces savings/investment are bad for job creation, tariffs are just one aspect; capital gains taxes are an even better example).
And since 1994, how many American jobs have been lost and "outsourced" overseas?
NAFTA needs rescinded along with GATT, and every other trade agreement we have.
While we're at it, let's get out of the UN, WHO, WTO, the World Bank, and purge all members of the CFR and TLC from governmental positions. We need to get out of all this globalist nonsense, and like yesterday. before its too damn late.
Yeah, I'm a Bircher. Deal with it.
Oh, I've used insidious for a long time now, wise guy. Take your condescending attitude and do what Teresa Heinz-Kerry told that reporter to do.
That's my main disagreement with these Hemispheric deals, they are basically signing off on the idea that the third world countries within it can flood our markets and we'll do nothing but take it, even at the expense of our livelihoods and standard of living. I don't see that as Free Trade but corporate welfare for those who want higher profits.
US trade and development program.
San Bartolomé Silver Mine - USTDA is funding a $760,000 grant for a feasibility study conducted by the Coeur D'Alene Mines Corporation of Coeur D'Alene, Idaho, for the San Bartolomé silver mine project in Potosí, Bolivia.
Does this look like the government is subsidizing the Coeur D'Alene Mines Corporation to move some operations offshore? It sure looks like it to me. What do you call it when the government pays for feasibility studies to move a company offshore? Why doesn't the company pay for the study itself(it would if there was a free market). Why does the government pay for it(to control the free market and to use the subsequent transfer of wealth to the foreign country as political capital).
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1407671/posts?page=73#73
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.