And how is this a vital national U.S. interest? Not!
I would prefer that US-made goods be in their markets available for purchase.
China is not a member of NAFTA or CAFTA or the prospective FTAA...yet you can bet that those "recipients" of our money are buying Chinese goods over ours in at least as big a ratio (5-to-1) as our trade balance is with China. In other words, China is sopping up a great deal more U.S. dollars than our direct trade would reveal. And they aren't buying our goods 1-to-1. They are buying up our assets, securities, corporate, governmental and industrial.
Chalk up a win-win for both the US and the other economy.
Wrong. Wrong assumptions. Wrong Conclusion. Your reasoning is in fact based on a nonsequitur fallacy. The Mexicans and Canadians don't have to buy our goods. Why would they? We don't. I.e., it is not a "win" for the U.S.
So, I am sorry to say, you guys have failed to repeal David Ricardo's Iron Law of Wages.
And how is this a vital national U.S. interest? Not!
Would we prefer to have more poor people in our neighboring countries, or more prosperous ones? Are they more likely to buy our goods and services with more money or with less? Of course it is in our national interests to have more prosperous economies in our hemisphere, and we should be as responsible for it as possible. That is what President Bush's "ownership society" is all about in our own country. People who have a stake in an increasing standard of living are not nearly as likely to buy into the "homicide bomber" argument.
I would prefer that US-made goods be in their markets available for purchase.
China is not a member of NAFTA or CAFTA or the prospective FTAA...yet you can bet that those "recipients" of our money are buying Chinese goods over ours in at least as big a ratio (5-to-1) as our trade balance is with China. In other words, China is sopping up a great deal more U.S. dollars than our direct trade would reveal. And they aren't buying our goods 1-to-1. They are buying up our assets, securities, corporate, governmental and industrial.
The buying in Central America will be done by individual citizens and businesses making their own decisions about what is in their best interests. If we want to serve their interests, we have to compete. If they buy into our products, services or assets, they share more common interests with us, and they pay good money for what they get.
Chalk up a win-win for both the US and the other economy.
Wrong. Wrong assumptions. Wrong Conclusion. Your reasoning is in fact based on a nonsequitur fallacy. The Mexicans and Canadians don't have to buy our goods. Why would they? We don't. I.e., it is not a "win" for the U.S.
Neither we nor the Central Americans will get guaranteed sales from CAFTA. We and they will have to compete for customers. I'm sure our government would not have negotiated the agreement if they did not have good reason to expect increased sales by US firms. Do you really think we would negotiate such a deal that would simply bear out the fears you express? I don't think so.
So, I am sorry to say, you guys have failed to repeal David Ricardo's Iron Law of Wages.
The principles of economics treat everyone dispassionately, without regard to borders or politics. Our responsibility is to learn them and apply them in our own conduct and in public policy so that we advance rather than lapsing into regression.