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.
And what has kept them from getting their ownership society? I'll clue you...it is not the U.S. trade policies. And those same factors which are the real fault won't be going away.
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.
???? What the heck are you talking about with those insanely liberal talking points? Homicide bombers? That is an Islamo-Nazi problem pure and simple. And, if you didn't know, it turns out that virtually all of the "bombers" are middle-class or above.... Mohammed Atta, et. al. GWB is just pandering to liberals when he is talking like this. Didn't you get the Memo? And as for us having to be taxed for the betterment of these countries... NO SALE. We're not buying what your selling.
Stay Out of My Wallet, Thieving Redistributionists!
Any rate you continue to blow off the issue that in fact, the misery in the Latin Americas is not due to lack of trade by America. But the corrupt kleptocracy regimes already in place...which will only be strengthened. And in exchange, America's Constitution, what is left of it, is shredded still further, its currency is debauched and our society loses its middle class. Wow. What a deal.
"Win-Win" If you are a Communist or an importing CEO.