Decade of NAFTA brings pains, gains

The Arizona Republic ^ | June 18, 2003 | Dawn Gilbertson and Jonathan J. Higuera

[hedgetrimmer]

"Even complete IDIOTS like socialists can understand what makes money."

That would be you.

In NAFTA and FTAA the socialists are not MAKING money, they are TAKING money from the American people as part of that global system for the redistribution of wealth created by the WTO.

Tell me, how is the creation of an army of "white helmets" by treaty "free trade? Since you are so knowledgeable about everything, with a terrific command of the language, why don't you explain to us all how this applies to "free trade"?. How is it that poverty reduction shows up in a trade agreement? Oh you can't because its clear what we are not "trading". There is no "trade" in poverty reduction.

You are selling your American heritage for pesos. What a shame.

[Bill Davis FR]

THE $400 TAX-CREDIT CHECK WILL GO OVERSEAS THUS INCREASING THE TRADE DEFICIT...

[Texaggie79]

look at the US trade deficit

Trade deficit is a political term. It has no importance to the state of our economy. Importing goods that cost less to buy than they do to make here is beneficial, no matter WHAT we export, if anything at all.

[Texaggie79]

NAFTA at 10: An Economic and Foreign Policy Success Read Up.

[hedgetrimmer]

Your document says NAFTA is about foreign policy more than economics. You are showing that there is no "free trade" agreement in NAFTA,it is all about the manipulation of the north American countries to fit a socialist goal. All your talk about free trade is a sham.

[Texaggie79]

How is it that poverty reduction shows up in a trade agreement?

Because it just so happens that free trade benefits EVERY @#$@ing ONE. Can I not be more clear?

Let me get REAL simplistic for your simplistic mind. Let's say, I own my own company(course, I do anyway). I work long hours and make decent money. However, I have to waste my time doing menial things that only cost me time. Such as washing my car, mowing my grass, cleaning my house, ect. If there is a homeless guy down the block who would do all these things for way less than it would cost me to call a professional company to come out, am I wrong to hire him? I should spend more of my own resources out of what? Patriotism? That's a load of BS. Patriotism has nothing to do with it. It's simple math. The less of my resources I spend on these things, the more I have free to spend elsewhere.

You people look at the economy way to narrowly. It ISN'T about how much is going in your pocket. It is about how we spend our limited resources (labor, natural resources, ect) that have alternative uses. By entering MORE labor into the economy, guess what? We have MORE resources. That means, MORE for everyone.

Your logic is nothing but faulty. The things we all enjoy in our high standard of living (cars, homes, computers, TV's, furniture, clothes, specialty foods, ect) are basically all from one big pool of our created resources. What you are saying is that, if we INCREASE the size of that pool with MORE cars, computers, TV's, ect, we will all have LESS. Sure, that makes sense.

[Texaggie79]

You are showing that there is no "free trade" agreement in NAFTA,it is all about the manipulation of the north American countries to fit a socialist goal.

LMAO!!! Can you see the source of that document, that you didn't even bother to read? LOL You are hopeless.

[Texaggie79]

Hedgetrimmer figured it out. You are a socialist in disguise!!! LOL

[meadsjn]

I am reminded of the move "Bridge over the River Kwai" where the colonel helped the Japanese build the bridge and then at the end, realized how mad was his perspective, and he then blew up the bridge. Our elected and appointed leaders in America are the Mad Colonel, but I think that they know full well what they are doing.

You chose a good story for an analogy, but you have forgotten the ending.

The British Colonel died trying to save the bridge when the Allies came to blow it up. He was so dedicated to his pet project that he forgot he was supposed to be on the side of the Allies.

It is the same with all the pet projects of globalism, NAFTA, GATT, China's MFN status, India's purchase of both parties in Congress, and on and on.

All these Free Traitors have forgotten they are Americans and are madly devoted to pushing their fantacies until the American economy is in ashes.

Importing goods that can be produced in America is only economically sensible if the retail price is significantly less than the domestically produced item. One half or one third of the previous price isn't enough to justify displace American workers. It would have to be less than ten cents on the dollar.

[hedgetrimmer]

"For the United States, NAFTA was more about foreign
policy than about the domestic economy."

This is a direct quote from the document YOU posted. It says, if I may translate for you, that NAFTA isn't really a "free trade" treaty, but a foreign policy document.

I have shown you excerpts from NAFTA and FTAA that clearly state policy and welfare goals, not TRADE goals. You think it is a free trade document because NAFTA has the words free trade in its name. If you bothered to read it further, you would see it is not a trade document by classic definition. I have shown you that it discusses "poverty reduction". This is a POLICY defined by the World Bank, not a term upon which trade is conducted. Or maybe "poverty reduction" is a new kind of trade barrier that the US must pay to reduce in order to be granted the privilege of trading with Mexico? When I last checked, poverty reduction was not a good. Maybe under the FTAA poverty reduction will become one. Then we can include it with the more tvs more computers and more everything else you like to talk about.

[Texaggie79]

When I last checked, poverty reduction was not a good (?).

Good thing? It's good for countries to stay impoverished and starving? While SENDING foreign aid to 3rd world countries is like feeding a man a fish, NAFTA is TEACHING that man to fish.

[hedgetrimmer]

Poverty reduction is not a trade good. It is not a tangible.

Poverty reduction DOES mean SENDING foreign aid or just plain money to the NAFTA signatories.
Poverty Net (world bank website)
Read about "donors", "sustainable development(socialism). "debt relief (grand theft of US taxpayers)"

[Texaggie79]

Poverty reduction is not a trade good.

On the contrary, poverty reduction is a RESULT of GOOD trade....

[Cacophonous]

Nice post and commentary. For a source to this document, I would look no further than Karl Marx.

[hedgetrimmer]

Its a hard thing to show people, that their own government is selling them out to a bankrupt ideology under the guise of "free trade". We do have to try very hard to educate people, in spite of the fact that most don't care to talk about anything which might require a little mental exercise on their part. If you bring up a conversation at a party, say, about Laci Peterson, you will get all kinds of closet detectives with their theories involved. BUT, if you say anything about any kind of global policy.... they roll their eyes and walk away because the next conversation group is covering "Survivor", and they'd rather be there.

[Cato]

I agree with hedgetrimmer and anyone reading my posts would have figured out I am not a socialist and anyone who reads you for any length of time has figured out you are what out of the blue you just accused me of.

Idiot,
CATO

[FITZ]

Not exactly ---teaching anyone to fish. You must have missed this part:

NAFTA didn't stem illegal immigration to the United States from Mexico; in fact, there's evidence it contributed to a surge in migration as millions of rural Mexican citizens, their crops virtually worthless, left their homeland in search of opportunity.

25 million Mexicans left utterly impoverished who have lost their farms and way of life, who must now come to the US to attempt to survive. We ---the taxpayers of the US ---now have the responsibility of providing for our permanently unemployed displaced NAFTA workers and all the millions of displaced NAFTA workers from Mexico. Can our economy really absorb millions of more low-skilled people?

[FITZ]

Mexico hasn't reduced it's poverty levels one iota and we're certainly gaining much poverty. Millions of farmers (not hundreds or thousands) in Mexico who were previously self-reliant are now utterly destitute. NAFTA displaced workers in the USA are suing the federal government for more welfare programs as they have been unable to learn English and cannot find any jobs. A permanent welfare class is all they will ever be.

[Texaggie79]

Actually, I was really addressing the CATO institute, seeing that that was my SOURCE. I just thought it would be funny to ping you, who bares the same name, but apparently (to my dismay) not the same beliefs. For some WEIRD reason, I recall you being quite the Libertarian. Sorry. Must have mistaken you for someone else.

[Texaggie79]

So, let's see.... They are desperate to get to the US, because their homeland is impoverished. How could we ever solve that? HMMMMMM GEE I wonder......