Full Version: 13 years of NAFTA - Goodluck
What does globalization mean to the citizens of the USA?
Price
According to the U.S. Government’s CPI for urban consumer costs continues to escalate.
I can't post the chart but you can retrieve the details yourself from the following web site: http://www.bls.gov/cpi/. You'll see an increase of nearly 200 point in the CPI over the past 13 years.
U.S. Department of Labor
Bureau of Labor Statistics
February 25, 2006
The latest “beneficial” act to pass congress is The Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). I’m certain SAFTA will soon follow.
Job market
Skilled labor
“Under NAFTA, the Big Three automakers expect to ship
60,000 cars to Mexico in the first year alone, and that is one reason
why one of the automakers recently announced moving 1,000 jobs from
Mexico back to Michigan.”
President William J. Clinton
September 14, 1993
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) – “Ford motor company plans to cut 30 thousand jobs over the next six years. That's about 21 percent of its workforce.”
By Gerri Willis, CNN/Money contributing columnist
January 26, 2006: 10:52 AM EST
“I believe that NAFTA will create a million jobs in the first five years of its impact. And I believe that that is many more jobs than will be lost…”
President William J. Clinton
September 14, 1993
Three previous presidents and the current president extolled the benefits of NAFTA, a move toward globalization. These elected officials are throwing dice over your livelihood and your family’s security. The same rhetoric was espoused by each, as they spoke in turn. The primary theme was jobs would increase.
Professional positions
They don’t mention professional positions and I for one believe that exclusion is intentional. The “that that,” above is not an error. Sometimes we repeat a word at a critical part of our argument when we knowingly make a false statement.
Opinion
Globalization is a bi-partisan effort. This effort has support from two branches of our government, The Presidency and Congress. The effort spans many decades and many political party changes. The US citizen’s security and well being doesn’t have the attention of our elected officials. I believe our government is the best government business can buy. I believe business will buy a global market for their benefit at the expense of your tax dollars and even worse, the blood from sacrifice of our sons and daughters.
Questions:
1. Has the effort toward globalization (Nafta, etc.) benefited the US citizen?
2. Do you believe the US Government should increase focus on domestic concerns?
Price
According to the U.S. Government’s CPI for urban consumer costs continues to escalate.
I can't post the chart but you can retrieve the details yourself from the following web site: http://www.bls.gov/cpi/. You'll see an increase of nearly 200 point in the CPI over the past 13 years.
U.S. Department of Labor
Bureau of Labor Statistics
February 25, 2006
The latest “beneficial” act to pass congress is The Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). I’m certain SAFTA will soon follow.
Job market
Skilled labor
“Under NAFTA, the Big Three automakers expect to ship
60,000 cars to Mexico in the first year alone, and that is one reason
why one of the automakers recently announced moving 1,000 jobs from
Mexico back to Michigan.”
President William J. Clinton
September 14, 1993
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) – “Ford motor company plans to cut 30 thousand jobs over the next six years. That's about 21 percent of its workforce.”
By Gerri Willis, CNN/Money contributing columnist
January 26, 2006: 10:52 AM EST
“I believe that NAFTA will create a million jobs in the first five years of its impact. And I believe that that is many more jobs than will be lost…”
President William J. Clinton
September 14, 1993
Three previous presidents and the current president extolled the benefits of NAFTA, a move toward globalization. These elected officials are throwing dice over your livelihood and your family’s security. The same rhetoric was espoused by each, as they spoke in turn. The primary theme was jobs would increase.
Professional positions
They don’t mention professional positions and I for one believe that exclusion is intentional. The “that that,” above is not an error. Sometimes we repeat a word at a critical part of our argument when we knowingly make a false statement.
Opinion
Globalization is a bi-partisan effort. This effort has support from two branches of our government, The Presidency and Congress. The effort spans many decades and many political party changes. The US citizen’s security and well being doesn’t have the attention of our elected officials. I believe our government is the best government business can buy. I believe business will buy a global market for their benefit at the expense of your tax dollars and even worse, the blood from sacrifice of our sons and daughters.
Questions:
1. Has the effort toward globalization (Nafta, etc.) benefited the US citizen?
2. Do you believe the US Government should increase focus on domestic concerns?
1. Has the effort toward globalization (Nafta, etc.) benefited the US citizen?
2. Do you believe the US Government should increase focus on domestic concerns?
Globalization/free trade helps everyone. It has proven time and again to benefit all nations involved with employment, lower prices for products, more products available on an open market, and competition which drives innovation and better quality goods.
Free trade can break political and cultural barriers and create better relations between states. It also pulls developing nations out from the ground and puts them at the forefront of global markets. When you ask questions like #2 about focusing on domestic concerns...that's what globalization does. There are negative short term affects such as an American car company laying off thousands of workers, but that is only a short term effect. In the long term, it greatly benefits the US's overall economy because the jobs transfer from markets that we aren't competitive to markets we are. It also leads to lower prices and various other benefits.
I am perplexed by this statement. Business will buy a global market for their benefit at the expense of our tax dollars? That hardly makes any sense because markets are supposed to be free of government interference. Thinking the government should play a bigger role in the economy is a recipe for disaster as has been shown time and again. Globalization benefits everyone and the more markets that are created, the more growth and prosperity that each nation will have.
2. Do you believe the US Government should increase focus on domestic concerns?
Globalization/free trade helps everyone. It has proven time and again to benefit all nations involved with employment, lower prices for products, more products available on an open market, and competition which drives innovation and better quality goods.
Free trade can break political and cultural barriers and create better relations between states. It also pulls developing nations out from the ground and puts them at the forefront of global markets. When you ask questions like #2 about focusing on domestic concerns...that's what globalization does. There are negative short term affects such as an American car company laying off thousands of workers, but that is only a short term effect. In the long term, it greatly benefits the US's overall economy because the jobs transfer from markets that we aren't competitive to markets we are. It also leads to lower prices and various other benefits.
QUOTE(skepticasm)
Globalization is a bi-partisan effort. This effort has support from two branches of our government, The Presidency and Congress. The effort spans many decades and many political party changes. The US citizen’s security and well being doesn’t have the attention of our elected officials. I believe our government is the best government business can buy. I believe business will buy a global market for their benefit at the expense of your tax dollars and even worse, the blood from sacrifice of our sons and daughters.
I am perplexed by this statement. Business will buy a global market for their benefit at the expense of our tax dollars? That hardly makes any sense because markets are supposed to be free of government interference. Thinking the government should play a bigger role in the economy is a recipe for disaster as has been shown time and again. Globalization benefits everyone and the more markets that are created, the more growth and prosperity that each nation will have.
1. Has the effort toward globalization (Nafta, etc.) benefited the US citizen?
Absolutely, in fact most of the world has benefited from globalization. I encourage anyone who is interested in this topic to read this report.
Economic Freedom of the World
and this one
Cutting barriers to competition, investment and trade in US and EU would boost GDP - OECD study
and maybe even this one too
Freer Trade?
2. Do you believe the US Government should increase focus on domestic concerns?
I am not really sure how trade is not a domestic issue or concern.
I follow this topic a lot and really feel that our trade is not free enough.
Absolutely, in fact most of the world has benefited from globalization. I encourage anyone who is interested in this topic to read this report.
Economic Freedom of the World
and this one
Cutting barriers to competition, investment and trade in US and EU would boost GDP - OECD study
and maybe even this one too
Freer Trade?
2. Do you believe the US Government should increase focus on domestic concerns?
I am not really sure how trade is not a domestic issue or concern.
I follow this topic a lot and really feel that our trade is not free enough.
QUOTE(skepticasm @ Mar 2 2006, 11:00 PM)
“I believe that NAFTA will create a million jobs in the first five years of its impact. And I believe that that is many more jobs than will be lost…”
President William J. Clinton
September 14, 1993
They don’t mention professional positions and I for one believe that exclusion is intentional. The “that that,” above is not an error. Sometimes we repeat a word at a critical part of our argument when we knowingly make a false statement.
President William J. Clinton
September 14, 1993
They don’t mention professional positions and I for one believe that exclusion is intentional. The “that that,” above is not an error. Sometimes we repeat a word at a critical part of our argument when we knowingly make a false statement.
Just an FYI, "that" can be used in many parts of speech. In Clinton's statement he is using "that" as a conjunction and a pronoun. He wasn't repeating the word in error. The 2nd that is referring to the event of creating jobs, i.e. Clinton believes that "creating jobs 5 million" is more than will be lost.
I believe that that is what he meant.
QUOTE(lederuvdapac)
Globalization/free trade helps everyone. It has proven time and again to benefit all nations involved with employment, lower prices for products, more products available on an open market, and competition which drives innovation and better quality goods.
Free trade can break political and cultural barriers and create better relations between states. It also pulls developing nations out from the ground and puts them at the forefront of global markets. When you ask questions like #2 about focusing on domestic concerns...that's what globalization does. There are negative short term affects such as an American car company laying off thousands of workers, but that is only a short term effect. In the long term, it greatly benefits the US's overall economy because the jobs transfer from markets that we aren't competitive to markets we are. It also leads to lower prices and various other benefits
Free trade can break political and cultural barriers and create better relations between states. It also pulls developing nations out from the ground and puts them at the forefront of global markets. When you ask questions like #2 about focusing on domestic concerns...that's what globalization does. There are negative short term affects such as an American car company laying off thousands of workers, but that is only a short term effect. In the long term, it greatly benefits the US's overall economy because the jobs transfer from markets that we aren't competitive to markets we are. It also leads to lower prices and various other benefits
And you have proof of this and not just a standard line from the conservative play book, gobalization/free trade good, protectionism bad, me mongo, me believe everything is black/white.
In fact, not only are US workers suffering while inflation looks to be INCREASING while wages stagnate or are decreasing, but so are Mexican workers. So right there if you consider NAFTA as globalization and free trade, you've been proven WRONG. There's a reason Mexicans are coming here illegally en masse, NAFTA sucks.
You can also look to India and all of their turmoil. Globalization isn't necessarily helping them either.
The only one that's benefitting from "FREE TRADE" are the people like WalMart execs who can afford to get crap in CHina or Mexico for next to nothing then turn around and sell it for a giant margin in the US, when they pay their workers nothing.
Globalization is a race to the bottom. Without sharing global labor laws and enivronmental laws, countries will dook it out for the cheapest labor costs. You see that already where India and China court western companies for work by claiming to have the cheapest workers.
This is good?
Who wins in this scenario? The people making profits while shedding costs.
No globalization does NOT help everyone.
QUOTE(RedCedar)
In fact, not only are US workers suffering while inflation looks to be INCREASING while wages stagnate or are decreasing, but so are Mexican workers. So right there if you consider NAFTA as globalization and free trade, you've been proven WRONG. There's a reason Mexicans are coming here illegally en masse, NAFTA sucks.
How did you prove anyone wrong? I am really confused by your comments as it seems you lack a tremendous amount of understanding of what motivates, encourages and inspires free trade advocates.
A rise inflation is not a bad thing and it is impossible to experience a loss of wealth when more wealth is gained. Income gains is but one measurement. You seem to wish to present the idea we are experiencing hyperinflation, which would be a steep rise in cost with a loss in wealth, or a great imbalance but we aren't.
Do you believe deflation would be better? Or stagnation? Both would in fact really suck for all the millions of baby boomers we have approaching their time to "cash in" all their investments...why would you wish such a terrible fate on our parents?
Also free trade advocates, often, but not all, recognize labor or people as much of a value of trade as we do "stuff" So to a free trade advocate seeing more people coming in to America to work or trade their skills and labor is not indicative of failure but success.
QUOTE(RedCedar @ Mar 3 2006, 01:06 AM)
And you have proof of this and not just a standard line from the conservative play book, gobalization/free trade good, protectionism bad, me mongo, me believe everything is black/white.
In fact, not only are US workers suffering while inflation looks to be INCREASING while wages stagnate or are decreasing, but so are Mexican workers. So right there if you consider NAFTA as globalization and free trade, you've been proven WRONG. There's a reason Mexicans are coming here illegally en masse, NAFTA sucks.
You can also look to India and all of their turmoil. Globalization isn't necessarily helping them either.
The only one that's benefitting from "FREE TRADE" are the people like WalMart execs who can afford to get crap in CHina or Mexico for next to nothing then turn around and sell it for a giant margin in the US, when they pay their workers nothing.
Globalization is a race to the bottom. Without sharing global labor laws and enivronmental laws, countries will dook it out for the cheapest labor costs. You see that already where India and China court western companies for work by claiming to have the cheapest workers.
This is good?
Who wins in this scenario? The people making profits while shedding costs.
No globalization does NOT help everyone.
In fact, not only are US workers suffering while inflation looks to be INCREASING while wages stagnate or are decreasing, but so are Mexican workers. So right there if you consider NAFTA as globalization and free trade, you've been proven WRONG. There's a reason Mexicans are coming here illegally en masse, NAFTA sucks.
You can also look to India and all of their turmoil. Globalization isn't necessarily helping them either.
The only one that's benefitting from "FREE TRADE" are the people like WalMart execs who can afford to get crap in CHina or Mexico for next to nothing then turn around and sell it for a giant margin in the US, when they pay their workers nothing.
Globalization is a race to the bottom. Without sharing global labor laws and enivronmental laws, countries will dook it out for the cheapest labor costs. You see that already where India and China court western companies for work by claiming to have the cheapest workers.
This is good?
Who wins in this scenario? The people making profits while shedding costs.
No globalization does NOT help everyone.
Well if you want to establish a link between trade and growth:
Sachs and Warner Study
QUOTE
The most influential paper in recent years was
written by Jeffrey Sachs and Andrew Warner of
Harvard University. The IMF, the World Bank,
the OECD and other institutions often cite it in
support of their advice to developing countries to
liberalise their economies. The study found that
developing countries with open economies grew
by 4.5% a year in the 1970s and 1980s, but
those with closed economies grew by only 0.7%
a year. Rich open economies grew by 2.3% a
year, closed ones by 0.7%.
written by Jeffrey Sachs and Andrew Warner of
Harvard University. The IMF, the World Bank,
the OECD and other institutions often cite it in
support of their advice to developing countries to
liberalise their economies. The study found that
developing countries with open economies grew
by 4.5% a year in the 1970s and 1980s, but
those with closed economies grew by only 0.7%
a year. Rich open economies grew by 2.3% a
year, closed ones by 0.7%.
The paper goes on to say that a Dani Rodrick and Fransisco Rodrigues of Harvard and Maryland University respectively have claimed to find flaws in the study but:
QUOTE
Yet free-traders need not worry too much. For
one thing, Mr Rodrik has not challenged the core
of the pro-free-trade evidence. Export growth
and overall GDP growth in developing countries
are still strikingly correlated. As Mr Sachs points
out, the first almost certainly causes the second.
Developing countries need to export so as to get
their hands on foreign currency. That enables
them to import technology and capital goods that
are only produced abroad. So growth is likely to
be impeded by any measure that in effect taxes
exporters, particularly tariffs or quotas on
imported capital goods, or a non-convertible
currency.
There are answers to Mr Rodriks specific
charges too. Even if he is right that the
state-monopoly indicator is flawed, it is not
crucial to the argument, since most of the African
economies would be classified as closed for
other reasons. As for the black-market
currency-gap, he is wrong to say that it reflects
macroeconomic problems rather than
protectionism. When a country has a flexible
exchange rate, macroeconomic chaos does not
drive a wedge between official and black-market
exchange rates. That happens only when foreign
exchange is rationed. Moreover, there are many
countries (India, for example) that formally ration
foreign exchange but do not suffer
macroeconomic instability.
one thing, Mr Rodrik has not challenged the core
of the pro-free-trade evidence. Export growth
and overall GDP growth in developing countries
are still strikingly correlated. As Mr Sachs points
out, the first almost certainly causes the second.
Developing countries need to export so as to get
their hands on foreign currency. That enables
them to import technology and capital goods that
are only produced abroad. So growth is likely to
be impeded by any measure that in effect taxes
exporters, particularly tariffs or quotas on
imported capital goods, or a non-convertible
currency.
There are answers to Mr Rodriks specific
charges too. Even if he is right that the
state-monopoly indicator is flawed, it is not
crucial to the argument, since most of the African
economies would be classified as closed for
other reasons. As for the black-market
currency-gap, he is wrong to say that it reflects
macroeconomic problems rather than
protectionism. When a country has a flexible
exchange rate, macroeconomic chaos does not
drive a wedge between official and black-market
exchange rates. That happens only when foreign
exchange is rationed. Moreover, there are many
countries (India, for example) that formally ration
foreign exchange but do not suffer
macroeconomic instability.
Does More International Trade Openness Increase World Poverty?
QUOTE
A study by Frankel and Romer (1999) estimates that increasing the ratio of trade to GDP by one percentage point raises per-capita income by between one-half and two percent. Numbers of other studies reach similar conclusions, though the estimated size and statistical significance of the effects vary.
This is significant data that points to a strong correlation (of course correlation does not mean causality) between more trade and more growth. When there is openness and growth in a nation's economy, than the consumers benefit from lower prices and more goods.
If anyone wants to know the true benefit of free trade over protectionism...look to history and the true period of globalization before World War I. What were the world's top three economies? (Good trivia question) 1. UK 2. USA 3. Argentina. But what happened? Argentina adopted protectionist policies and now its economy i believe doesnt even rank in top 20 economies whereas the UK and US are among the largest. Another historical example would be to compare the nations of Ghana and South Korea. They may seem like odd nations to compare, but if you go back 50 years, both nations had a similar GDP. South Korea went the route of free trade while Ghana went with protectionist policies. 50 years later, the GDP of South Korea greatly overshadows that of Ghana.
Your complaints about free trade are baseless. The only alternative to having markets determine our economy is having our government run it. Are you willing to give the government so much power?
QUOTE
1. Has the effort toward globalization (Nafta, etc.) benefited the US citizen?
The only benefit which was to have occurred toward globalization was the effort to get cheap labor by corporations.
http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/briefingpapers_nafta01_us
The US has suffered real job loss since 1994 and spiked to higher job losses since 2001. This Free Trade has given American corporations a shot at investing in foreign countries for lower wages and no pollution controls and dropped the investment in the US. The American workers' wages have stagnated or declined under the threat of job loss. This phenomenon has occurred despite the rise in cost of living.
The trade deficit for the US continues to rise and this demonstrates the little value NAFTA has on our nations.
The lack of environmental standards has polluted waters and allowed unaccpetable storage facilities to blanket Mexico.
http://www.usmcoc.org/n10.html
This has been a major problem with Mexico, which finds itself now having to clean-up what American corporations have created. Meanwhile, American corporations have moved on to other countries as this President, give a free hand in negotiations, adds more and more nations to his list of "Free Trade" for corporations.
2. Do you believe the US Government should increase focus on domestic concerns?
The only benefit which was to have occurred toward globalization was the effort to get cheap labor by corporations.
http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/briefingpapers_nafta01_us
The US has suffered real job loss since 1994 and spiked to higher job losses since 2001. This Free Trade has given American corporations a shot at investing in foreign countries for lower wages and no pollution controls and dropped the investment in the US. The American workers' wages have stagnated or declined under the threat of job loss. This phenomenon has occurred despite the rise in cost of living.
The trade deficit for the US continues to rise and this demonstrates the little value NAFTA has on our nations.
The lack of environmental standards has polluted waters and allowed unaccpetable storage facilities to blanket Mexico.
http://www.usmcoc.org/n10.html
This has been a major problem with Mexico, which finds itself now having to clean-up what American corporations have created. Meanwhile, American corporations have moved on to other countries as this President, give a free hand in negotiations, adds more and more nations to his list of "Free Trade" for corporations.
2. Do you believe the US Government should increase focus on domestic concerns?
I believe it is too late for any American to think we could go back to a national economy. I do feel, however, there needs to be greater effort to unionize the worlds' workers and to demand environmental controls worldwide on corporations. This leveling of the playing field for jobs and this requirement of responsiblity in corporations is the only way workers will not be shackled to poverty.
In the US, I think we need to return to anti trust laws within our nation and open our economy to a free competition status. Corporate welfare should cease and desist immediately, as this has not proven to provide jobs but simply raise the deficit.
1. Has the effort toward globalization (Nafta, etc.) benefited the US citizen?
Despite escalating energy prices, the inflation rate in the U.S. and Canada remains low, an ongoing trend since the establishment of NAFTA and the Uruguay rounds. Despite the erosion of the manufacturing base, new labour markets are emerging in the growing knowledge-based economy, and labour shortages in both countries exist in certain fields that have been scantly promoted to citizens. Therefore, globalization has benefited the U.S. citizen, despite the full benefits not yet being fully reached.
2. Do you believe the US Government should increase focus on domestic concerns?
The U.S. already focuses considerably on domestic concerns, therefore the need to increase it is simply not there.
Despite escalating energy prices, the inflation rate in the U.S. and Canada remains low, an ongoing trend since the establishment of NAFTA and the Uruguay rounds. Despite the erosion of the manufacturing base, new labour markets are emerging in the growing knowledge-based economy, and labour shortages in both countries exist in certain fields that have been scantly promoted to citizens. Therefore, globalization has benefited the U.S. citizen, despite the full benefits not yet being fully reached.
2. Do you believe the US Government should increase focus on domestic concerns?
The U.S. already focuses considerably on domestic concerns, therefore the need to increase it is simply not there.
"The US has suffered real job loss since 1994 and spiked to higher job losses since 2001."
How would you explain the current unemployment rate of 4.7%? (Soon to be revised downward, by the way.)
According to the Dept of Labor, the only time in the last 20 years net jobs declined were in 1990-1991 (118.7 million jobs to 117.7 million) and 2000- 2001 (136.9 million jobs to 136.4 million) there are no other declines in jobs while NAFTA is in force. ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/lf/aat1.txt
Jobs are "lost" every day. But new jobs are created even faster.
Cheers!
How would you explain the current unemployment rate of 4.7%? (Soon to be revised downward, by the way.)
According to the Dept of Labor, the only time in the last 20 years net jobs declined were in 1990-1991 (118.7 million jobs to 117.7 million) and 2000- 2001 (136.9 million jobs to 136.4 million) there are no other declines in jobs while NAFTA is in force. ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/lf/aat1.txt
Jobs are "lost" every day. But new jobs are created even faster.
Cheers!
Nobody familiar with the evidence would suggest that globalization in general and Free Trade in specific hasn't led to economic growth. Where there is criticism and room for interrogation is in how much we can attribute to it, and statements like:
The gap between the rich and poor has grown exponentially during the period starting in the late 1970's when the Liberal International Economic Order slowly started to be disassembled. At the same time, the connection between economic growth and improving prosperity is tenuous in developing countries.
It is useless to suggest that we simply close our borders and "fix our own problems," as fringe anti-globalization activists sometimes seem to suggest. What is prudent is an examination of how globalization is changing the international economy (if at all), and how we can go about directing the process to achieve the greatest possible benefit. It is pretty clear that the goal tireless economic expansion is not a "rising tide that lifts all ships," despite what some have suggested.
* Whoops, forgot to include a link to that citation. Here.
QUOTE
Globalization/free trade helps everyone.
The gap between the rich and poor has grown exponentially during the period starting in the late 1970's when the Liberal International Economic Order slowly started to be disassembled. At the same time, the connection between economic growth and improving prosperity is tenuous in developing countries.
QUOTE
• between 1990 and 2001, for every $100 worth of growth in the world's income per person, just $0.60 found its target and contributed to reducing poverty for those living on less than a dollar a day - 73 per cent less than in the 1980's - the so called lost decade for development - when $2.20 in every $100 worth of growth contributed to reducing poverty for those living on less than a dollar a day;
It is useless to suggest that we simply close our borders and "fix our own problems," as fringe anti-globalization activists sometimes seem to suggest. What is prudent is an examination of how globalization is changing the international economy (if at all), and how we can go about directing the process to achieve the greatest possible benefit. It is pretty clear that the goal tireless economic expansion is not a "rising tide that lifts all ships," despite what some have suggested.
* Whoops, forgot to include a link to that citation. Here.
QUOTE(bucket @ Mar 3 2006, 01:46 PM)
A rise inflation is not a bad thing
You lack a tremendous amount of understanding of how our fed works and our money policy. QUOTE(bucket @ Mar 3 2006, 01:46 PM)
and it is impossible to experience a loss of wealth when more wealth is gained. Income gains is but one measurement.
When you say wealth, do you mean the high cost of housing that makes everyone more "wealthy" by owning a home? Smoke and mirrors....people still own the same home, and would still have to pay more to move.
QUOTE(lederuvdapac @ Mar 3 2006, 01:46 PM)
Well if you want to establish a link between trade and growth:
Sachs and Warner Study
Sachs and Warner Study
I don't really need a link to show such a connection. My question is "is absolute free trade always a good thing? And to whom? And more importantly, is NAFTA the same trade Warner and Sachs are talking about? And is "trade" the same thing as "free trade"?? And do we really have free trade or are these so called "free trade" agreements just corporate sponsored attempts to access cheap labor.
Look at South Korea/Japan and their tariffs for US cars. If you believe in absolute free trade, then this would supposedly be a bad thing for them....but look who's hurting? The US.
"Trade" is good, no doubt. NAFTA on the other hand seems to be a loser for the US and Mexico.
QUOTE
50 years later, the GDP of South Korea greatly overshadows that of Ghana.
You're not serious? That's like saying Israel went the way of open markets while Egypt didn't, see the difference!! There's a slight difference, one country has US bases and is close ally to the largest economy in the world, the other is run by thugs and has starving people. Open trade has little to do with each country's demise/success, IMHO.
I have not had time to complete a rebuttal to some of those who would ignore the hard data I placed in the first post. Here are a few thoughts and the direction I'm headed with it.
I for one am not interested in our government working for the good of other nations or peoples. Our people, U.S. citizens, and private corporations can work for the good of other nations. Our government is required by law to work for us. By law, they don’t tell us what will be done with the lives of our children or our taxes we tell them.
To attempt to set up a peaceful environment for business expansion beyond our borders is not the job of the US government. To protect our national interests abroad is their job. Ensuring raw materials for continued growth of indigenous businesses is our government’s responsibility. Terrorism gave our government an excuse to accelerate global security for industry to migrate toward lower wage employees.
I heard the President on television, speaking in India; say US Citizens should consider India for future employment. Presidents like to use the term Americans when they talk about globalization efforts. I like to narrow the focus to US Citizens because we’re paying the cost, Canada and the other Americas are not. We pay it in lives first and dollars second. Why does government spend lives and dollars in Afghanistan, Iraq, etc? Are they making those countries safer for my mother, my son, your uncle, your grandmother? NO, it’s for the corporation’s benefit. How many of you don’t like the United States and want to leave?
Bush went on to say if we're to compete in the global work force then we should educate ourselves for that competition. Our government doles out more foreign aid than anyone else. 2001 - 2004, the most recent figures I could find, you/I provided $19,705,000,000.00 in official development assistance. It’s a shame I have to use dollars to wake people up when the real denominator is our people. http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/D...ChartsandGraphs President Bush is requesting a cut in the budget for U.S. education. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004May26.html “”
By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, May 27, 2004; Page A01
I’m not impressed Harvard or Yale graduates telling me how important my taxes fund a globalization where cold hard facts show a growing loss. When I say investment I mean our people not dollars. Let the corporations fund their own security in foreign lands if they want to do business there. I doubt the lower wage work force takes on the same luster when their investors must relinquish returns for security forces.
I was born in The United States, as were my parents, my grandparents, and there grandparents. I’m biased in favor of the USA and make no excuse for it.
P.S. I voted for GWB to have him appoint Supreme Court justices.
I for one am not interested in our government working for the good of other nations or peoples. Our people, U.S. citizens, and private corporations can work for the good of other nations. Our government is required by law to work for us. By law, they don’t tell us what will be done with the lives of our children or our taxes we tell them.
To attempt to set up a peaceful environment for business expansion beyond our borders is not the job of the US government. To protect our national interests abroad is their job. Ensuring raw materials for continued growth of indigenous businesses is our government’s responsibility. Terrorism gave our government an excuse to accelerate global security for industry to migrate toward lower wage employees.
I heard the President on television, speaking in India; say US Citizens should consider India for future employment. Presidents like to use the term Americans when they talk about globalization efforts. I like to narrow the focus to US Citizens because we’re paying the cost, Canada and the other Americas are not. We pay it in lives first and dollars second. Why does government spend lives and dollars in Afghanistan, Iraq, etc? Are they making those countries safer for my mother, my son, your uncle, your grandmother? NO, it’s for the corporation’s benefit. How many of you don’t like the United States and want to leave?
Bush went on to say if we're to compete in the global work force then we should educate ourselves for that competition. Our government doles out more foreign aid than anyone else. 2001 - 2004, the most recent figures I could find, you/I provided $19,705,000,000.00 in official development assistance. It’s a shame I have to use dollars to wake people up when the real denominator is our people. http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/D...ChartsandGraphs President Bush is requesting a cut in the budget for U.S. education. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004May26.html “”
By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, May 27, 2004; Page A01
I’m not impressed Harvard or Yale graduates telling me how important my taxes fund a globalization where cold hard facts show a growing loss. When I say investment I mean our people not dollars. Let the corporations fund their own security in foreign lands if they want to do business there. I doubt the lower wage work force takes on the same luster when their investors must relinquish returns for security forces.
I was born in The United States, as were my parents, my grandparents, and there grandparents. I’m biased in favor of the USA and make no excuse for it.
P.S. I voted for GWB to have him appoint Supreme Court justices.
QUOTE(RedCedar)
You lack a tremendous amount of understanding of how our fed works and our money policy.
Oh please then explain it to me. Is it the fed's job to keep inflation at 0%? If so they are complete failures. And why would we ever desire them to succeed?
I am not really entirely sure what it is you think inflation represents, I would have imagined you understood it's relationship with growth and wealth as you threw around the idea of the fed's involvement.
When people protest free trade and globalization, I never hear this complaint: "My consumer electronics are too cheap! My car is too cheap! My clothes are way too cheap!" And yet a good deal of those items are created overseas, by that "evil" cheap labor that we want to keep the US away from. Everyone wants the benefits of free trade, but none of the costs. Why isn't anyone clamoring for tariffs on iPod components so that US manufacturers can compete better? Aren't anti-globalists willing to pay an extra $300 so that the labor stays right here at home?
Why are GM and Ford getting their collective posteriors handed to them in the auto markets? Is it because of evil corporate manipulation? No, it's because Toyota builds better cars, and everyone knows that. Americans build lower-quality cars with inflated-cost labor. Detroit simply cannot afford to pay the non-competitively higher wages of American car makers and keep the same level of quality that Toyota and Nissan and Honda provide. Is the solution to impose stiff tariffs on those brands? If so, there's a lot of angry Toyota and Honda owners out there that will call for your lynching.
Anti-globalists are implicitly admitting one thing: American labor is not competitive and desperately needs protection. What is that saying? It's saying that Americans are weak. That we just aren't cut out to compete in a global marketplace. Why is that? Perhaps it's because we feel we have an American right to own a 2000+ sq. ft. home, drive two cars 30 miles to work and have enough money left over to by a pool for the back yard, a big screen t.v. and send our kids to the schools of their choice. But last time I checked, the Constitution doesn't guarantee us any such rights, and it's just American greed that infers them. It's American greed and selfishness that says: "Where I was born gives me the right to own more than my Indian counterpart who performs the same labor." And that's modern "liberalism" for you!
How is it that liberals are so concerned about social welfare, but only of Americans? I thought it was the red states that were infected with "patriotism" and nationalism. The simple fact is that jobs going to developing countries help those countries. And countries with something to lose are a heck of a lot safer neighbors than countries that have nothing to lose. Why do you think Somalia was so dangerous for us? Few other nations would dare to do what the Somalians did in Mogadishu, for fear of the reprisals that would be sure to follow. But what did Somalia have to lose? Absolutely nothing.
Hmm...why would corporations move on to other countries? Perhaps because Mexico is actually more affluent than those other nations? Perhaps because free trade lifted it to the point where it was no longer as competitive as the alternatives? The irony is that free trade automatically helps the person at the bottom. Isn't that what liberalism is all about? Standing up for the weakest and most oppressed? Liberals should be embracing free trade because of its natural proclivity to give money to the poorest first. Free markets are the great equalizer. The Invisible Hand is color blind and flag blind, and that's a good thing for Human Beings, isn't it?
Yes, some people do lose to globalization. But nobody loses in absolute terms. Jobs are always available in the US economy. It's just that some people will have to take other, possibly lower paying jobs, better reflecting the market value of their skills in a broader market. Is that "unfair"? From the perspective of the losers, certainly.
But take steel, for instance. The American steel industry failed to modernize when it had the chance, instead preferring to pocket the profits. The Japanese and others bit the bullet and modernized their steel industries decades ago. When it finally became obvious that the US steel industry could not compete with outsiders, what happened? Bush tried to protect it with illegal tariffs. Now, who opposed those tariffs? Just the Japanese? Of course not. Numerous steel consumers in the US, including all of Detroit were among those wanting to buy cheap foreign steel, so they could compete with foreign automakers. Weak US steel efficiency hurt Detroit, and all the jobs that it supports. That's why protectionism is a failed proposition. You rob Peter to pay Paul, and Peter and Paul are both inside your borders.
I think the main problem is that globalization appears to be incompassionate, which it really is. We need to have compassion on those that lose their jobs to oversees competition, but more importantly, we need to help enable those people to acquire skills so that they can better compete. That is what is best for the long-term health of ours and any other economy.
Granted, free trade will not guarantee that those at the very bottom are lifted out of poverty. Unfortunately, the jobs imported by free trade are most likely to help the most skilled in the receiving nation first. But the increased earning power of those who get the jobs create more opportunities for those without. So the knock-on effect of monetary influx ultimately helps the developing nation, even if it doesn't help every single individual in that nation. Ultimately, the distribution of wealth is probably affected by gov't policy more than anything else. That is not the responsibility of the jobs exporters. Each developing nation has the obligation to do the right thing for its most vulnerable citizens. We can try to put economic pressure on those gov'ts, and perhaps we should. But demonizing free trade because the poorest of the poor are still poor is definitely not the solution, as you are throwing out the baby of the potentially beneficiary working class out with the bathwater.
Why are GM and Ford getting their collective posteriors handed to them in the auto markets? Is it because of evil corporate manipulation? No, it's because Toyota builds better cars, and everyone knows that. Americans build lower-quality cars with inflated-cost labor. Detroit simply cannot afford to pay the non-competitively higher wages of American car makers and keep the same level of quality that Toyota and Nissan and Honda provide. Is the solution to impose stiff tariffs on those brands? If so, there's a lot of angry Toyota and Honda owners out there that will call for your lynching.
Anti-globalists are implicitly admitting one thing: American labor is not competitive and desperately needs protection. What is that saying? It's saying that Americans are weak. That we just aren't cut out to compete in a global marketplace. Why is that? Perhaps it's because we feel we have an American right to own a 2000+ sq. ft. home, drive two cars 30 miles to work and have enough money left over to by a pool for the back yard, a big screen t.v. and send our kids to the schools of their choice. But last time I checked, the Constitution doesn't guarantee us any such rights, and it's just American greed that infers them. It's American greed and selfishness that says: "Where I was born gives me the right to own more than my Indian counterpart who performs the same labor." And that's modern "liberalism" for you!
How is it that liberals are so concerned about social welfare, but only of Americans? I thought it was the red states that were infected with "patriotism" and nationalism. The simple fact is that jobs going to developing countries help those countries. And countries with something to lose are a heck of a lot safer neighbors than countries that have nothing to lose. Why do you think Somalia was so dangerous for us? Few other nations would dare to do what the Somalians did in Mogadishu, for fear of the reprisals that would be sure to follow. But what did Somalia have to lose? Absolutely nothing.
QUOTE(Cookie Parker)
This has been a major problem with Mexico, which finds itself now having to clean-up what American corporations have created. Meanwhile, American corporations have moved on to other countries as this President, give a free hand in negotiations, adds more and more nations to his list of "Free Trade" for corporations.
Hmm...why would corporations move on to other countries? Perhaps because Mexico is actually more affluent than those other nations? Perhaps because free trade lifted it to the point where it was no longer as competitive as the alternatives? The irony is that free trade automatically helps the person at the bottom. Isn't that what liberalism is all about? Standing up for the weakest and most oppressed? Liberals should be embracing free trade because of its natural proclivity to give money to the poorest first. Free markets are the great equalizer. The Invisible Hand is color blind and flag blind, and that's a good thing for Human Beings, isn't it?
Yes, some people do lose to globalization. But nobody loses in absolute terms. Jobs are always available in the US economy. It's just that some people will have to take other, possibly lower paying jobs, better reflecting the market value of their skills in a broader market. Is that "unfair"? From the perspective of the losers, certainly.
But take steel, for instance. The American steel industry failed to modernize when it had the chance, instead preferring to pocket the profits. The Japanese and others bit the bullet and modernized their steel industries decades ago. When it finally became obvious that the US steel industry could not compete with outsiders, what happened? Bush tried to protect it with illegal tariffs. Now, who opposed those tariffs? Just the Japanese? Of course not. Numerous steel consumers in the US, including all of Detroit were among those wanting to buy cheap foreign steel, so they could compete with foreign automakers. Weak US steel efficiency hurt Detroit, and all the jobs that it supports. That's why protectionism is a failed proposition. You rob Peter to pay Paul, and Peter and Paul are both inside your borders.
I think the main problem is that globalization appears to be incompassionate, which it really is. We need to have compassion on those that lose their jobs to oversees competition, but more importantly, we need to help enable those people to acquire skills so that they can better compete. That is what is best for the long-term health of ours and any other economy.
Granted, free trade will not guarantee that those at the very bottom are lifted out of poverty. Unfortunately, the jobs imported by free trade are most likely to help the most skilled in the receiving nation first. But the increased earning power of those who get the jobs create more opportunities for those without. So the knock-on effect of monetary influx ultimately helps the developing nation, even if it doesn't help every single individual in that nation. Ultimately, the distribution of wealth is probably affected by gov't policy more than anything else. That is not the responsibility of the jobs exporters. Each developing nation has the obligation to do the right thing for its most vulnerable citizens. We can try to put economic pressure on those gov'ts, and perhaps we should. But demonizing free trade because the poorest of the poor are still poor is definitely not the solution, as you are throwing out the baby of the potentially beneficiary working class out with the bathwater.
QUOTE
1. Has the effort toward globalization (Nafta, etc.) benefited the US citizen?
2. Do you believe the US Government should increase focus on domestic concerns?
2. Do you believe the US Government should increase focus on domestic concerns?
1. Yes it has. But I would like to note that it depends on which sector we are talking about. This can be a very lengthy and detailed discussion and realistically we must address all the sectors and then take a mean average to get an overall picture of healthiness in the economy.
2. Yes I do believe domestic concerns should be addressed, as well as the subsidy issues.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.