NAFTA has hurt living standards, think-tank says (Economic Policy Institute)

Reuters on Yahoo ^ | 9/27/06 | Reuters

[1rudeboy]

North American Free(r) Trade Agreement is really a distinction without a difference.

[patriot_wes]

"NAFTA has hurt living standards, think-tank says (Economic Policy Institute)"

You ain't seen nothin yet, wait till the CFR is finished erasing the borders.

[CWOJackson]

NAFTA improved my standard of living...but that's only because I invested heavily in aluminum foil futures.

[T'wit]

>> ...wages are beginning to stagnate and/or fall (this due to offshoring generally, not just nafta) then tax receipts would naturally do the same, thus cuts need to be made.

This scenario is exactly backwards from what the EPI argues. They say wages are falling -- which I don't believe, btw -- as a result of cuts in social spending. That makes no sense.

[Jaysun]

Trade decision should always be out of the hand of congress and given to unelected (whatever). The alternative is socialism or idiocy, as I like to call it.

[nitzy]

Not according to Jimmy Madison......

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; To borrow money on the credit of the United States; To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

[PhilipFreneau]

>>>The North American Free Trade Agreement has lowered the standard of living for workers in the United States, Mexico and Canada, according to a new report.<<<

Duh!

[PhilipFreneau]

>>>The North American Free Trade Agreement has lowered the standard of living for workers in the United States, Mexico and Canada, according to a new report.<<<

How does the Congress get-around the 2/3rd's super-majority requirement the Constitution specifies for a treaty? Simple. Call the treaty something else, say, an "Agreement". Works every time.

[Jaysun]

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; To borrow money on the credit of the United States; To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

Congress has lots of powers. Let them exercise them less or not at all, in some cases. I doubt that Jimmy Madison, or any other founder, was opposed to free trade. You suggested that private control is somehow inferior to government control. I think otherwise.

[zbigreddogz]

Paging Pat Buchannan...

[zbigreddogz]

Paging Pat Buchannan...

[zbigreddogz]

Paging Pat Buchannan...

[zbigreddogz]

Paging Pat Buchannan...

[CWOJackson]

I saw him at the bookstore hanging out at the $3 and under table signing his latest book. Anyone want their book signed...anyone?

[zbigreddogz]

I hear there are a bunch of Jews that want their books signed, but he won't sign them.

Something about them murdering helpeless Palestinians...

[CWOJackson]

Ouch!

[narses]

"...but much of it took place in very low-wage maquiladora industries."

Wow, how did they get all of them 'high wage earning Mexicans' to take those jobs?

+

If you want on (or off) this Catholic and Pro-Life ping list, let me know!

[1rudeboy]

Re-read comment #46 and get back to us. Explain how Congress' plenary power to "regulate commerce with foreign nations" is restricted by required 2/3 supermajority (the Treaty Clause).

[nitzy]

I am not opposed to free trade. I am suggesting that when the wealthy and powerful create the trade rules, they will not create a free market. Ask yourself - What are the advantages of a free market? Increased competition, a demand for increased productivity, a drive for technological investment, lower prices, thinner profit margins,......etc. Why in the world would a company that is already at the top of the food chain spend millions of dollars passing an agreement that would force it into that type of scenario? If I were them I would spend millions of dollars creating a market that was tilted in my favor. This would of course be anything but a "Free Market"

[Jaysun]

I am not opposed to free trade. I am suggesting that when the wealthy and powerful create the trade rules, they will not create a free market. Ask yourself - What are the advantages of a free market? Increased competition, a demand for increased productivity, a drive for technological investment, lower prices, thinner profit margins,......etc. Why in the world would a company that is already at the top of the food chain spend millions of dollars passing an agreement that would force it into that type of scenario? If I were them I would spend millions of dollars creating a market that was tilted in my favor. This would of course be anything but a "Free Market"

Very well. But this is the classic argument against Wal-Mart. IMHO monopolies aren't necessarily bad and seem inevitable in a free market system. But, we could always let the government come in and "save" us as they're wont to do (and so good at).