Four Reasons To Support CAFTA

[ulysses]

from http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=131&subid=192&contentid=253383

First, the United States needs to open new markets and increase exports if we are ever to regain the economic growth levels of the 1990s. CAFTA is a small part of that process, which must ultimately include broader multinational agreements and vastly improved enforcement. But CAFTA could still make a serious and valuable contribution...

snip

Third, Democratic support for, or at least an open attitude towards, CAFTA can and should be used as leverage to make the agreement better. In what is likely to be a close vote in both Houses of Congress, Democrats could be in a position to demand better policies to "expand the winner's circle" at home, including broader eligibility for American workers for the Trade Adjustment Assistance program, which provides living assistance and retraining to workers displaced by trade. They could also pursue assurances that the Bush administration, cooperating with the International Labor Organization, will make serious efforts to enforce the agreement's workers' rights provisions, and to build capacity for labor and environmental regulation in Central America and the Dominican Republic. None of these improvements can be secured by categorical opposition to CAFTA...

Thoughts?

[Maple]

1. Agreed

When you see which way the parade is going, get out in front of it if you want any influence at all.

[ulysses]

7. but if the parade is headed toward a chasm,

and you have little to no chance of changing its direction whether you're the drum major or not, aren't you better off trying to stop it?

[Maple]

16. But the parade

is NOT headed there. Wishes aren't reality.

[ulysses]

20. isn't it?

What's been the result of NAFTA?

[Maple]

21. NAFTA

has kept all 3 countries going, through a rough period.

What you need to do now is extend it, instead of sticking with just 3 countries.

Global free trade is inevitable.

And grousing on here won't hold back the tide.

[ulysses]

26. global trade IS inevitable

but the end of worker and environmental protections only becomes inevitable if we allow it. NAFTA hasn't become better, and neither will CAFTA.

[Maple]

28. Protections were put in

NAFTA back in the 90s, by the 3 leaders who signed it.

Yours was Clinton

[ulysses]

34. they've been...how to say?...insufficient.

And yes, I know it was a Clinton effort. I'm not a great fan of the man.

[Maple]

36. Then do better next time

There will be a lot of local agreements before we finally get to a totally global one. Learn as you go.

[ulysses]

37. some are trying to.

Some aren't.

[Maple]

41. Well you aren't

if your 'solution' is stopping it all.

It isn't stopping, and certainly not for rhetoric

[ulysses]

46. that isn't my solution. too bad about your straw man.

We can do better. We have to do better.

[Maple]

48. So go try

the world is full of people trying to hold back the tide.

What's one more?

[ulysses]

51. a perfectly specious argument

that would sound familiar to legions of folks who *have*, in fact, changed things.

Thankfully, it's not just me. Not by a long shot.

[Maple]

56. Like I said, go protest all you want

It's had not the slightest impact, and never will.

But feel free to waste time.

It's why other nations are beating you.

[ulysses]

57. I'll do what I do, thanks.

It's why other nations are beating you.

At the race to the bottom?

[Maple]

61. China is booming

Are you?

So guess which one of you is on the way to the bottom?

[ulysses]

66. I dunno - ask the average Chinese.

I suspect he isn't "booming".

[Maple]

68. Average Chinese

is doing very well...thanks for being concerned.

You never were before when they were starving.

[ulysses]

69. nice smear.

You know that about me how?

[Maple]

73. Nothing to do with you

Sorry...did I mention the world doesn't revolve around you?

Well it doesn't...or America either.

So stop being personal. I'm not

[ulysses]

76. allow me to quote you:

Average Chinese is doing very well...thanks for being concerned.

You never were before when they were starving.

That's not about me how?

[stickdog]

82. So now you're the expert on China?

If only every country would be so compliantly totalitarian, we could really drive down labor costs!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

92. These days, there is no "average Chinese"

There are thousands, perhaps millions, of new millionaires, and skyscrapers and McDonald's are springing up everywhere, BUT there are also millions who are worse off than ever, because they've lost even the low level of social guarantees that the old system offered. They have no medical care, no access to education, and no pensions. They also have some of the worst pollution in the world.

[wuushew]

49. Why is it advantageous to make shit in China instead of the U.S.?

The only difference in costs are from the wage differences between poor and prosperous countries.

The nature of China does not make itself better for producing any given product. Such advantage of production arguments are best left to agricultural or qualitative products. Any given Indian is not more qualified to perform service than an American, but because there are so many them naturally the wage is driven down. There is no true altruism on the left. The working class of this country should prevail by sheer democratic numbers over the corrupt and propertied corporate class that runs Washington.

I wish no ill on the average Indian or Chinese but seeing as I am not a member of their political representation to make presumptuous decisions regarding them smacks of the same arrogance that our foreign policy does.

I want tight labor conditions because that is a proven method for forcing a more fair redistribution of wealth in a society. Other methods are taxation and labor unions. Absent the government taxing corporations and writing me a check how else am I going to realize the level of wealth I had previously? There is nothing inherent in capitalism and trade which leads to happy endings for everybody. Such systems are inherently unstable and seek equilibrium by the concentration of wealth by the rich. Is capitalism's primary goal the creation of jobs? I would say no.

Walmart is bleeding and destroying the very market that currently employs it, almost a reverse Henry Ford syndrome. The middle class is not a natural occurrence, it has blossomed as a result of economic and political developments from the 19th century to this day. The owners don't care because while they are alive huge fortunes stand to be made. Like the old saying goes we are all doomed in the long run right? The sheer greed and non-sustainability of our economic system sickens me.

What is left after the manufacturing base leaves? Not everyone is born with a predisposition to work in services. The best application of talent is in that of a diversified economy with a wide variety of occupational opportunities.

[Maple]

52. Hey, it's your system

Capitalism and comparitive advantage...maybe, just maybe, others can do it better than you.

You set the rules...enjoy.

[stickdog]

83. Sure, corporations can exploit "other" labor better than US labor.

That's what these agreements are all about. Right?

[stickdog]

81. War is inevitable. Does that mean we all need to get behind an invasion

of Iran?

These are little tiny poor countries. The only things they have to offer are cheap labor and some natural resources. The corporations that pay off our Congress want to exploit both without having to worry about popular opinion in these countries interfering with their business plans.

Or am I missing something about who's driving this bus to inevitability?

[eridani]

93. Kept average people in those countries going straight to hell

The sociopaths in all three countries that live behind the walls with the barbed wire and broken glass on the top are doing just fine.

[Radical Activist]

12. That's right

just shut up and do what you're told by the corporate bosses. The media all support CAFTA because its a good idea, not because their parent companies have a financial stake in the agreements. Yeah, sure.

[Maple]

17. Bitterness

doesn't change reality either.

[Radical Activist]

23. The inevitability argument

is a sign of weakness and shows an unhealthy level of submission to authority. In effect, you're saying the will of the people means nothing and we should let Bush and the corporate establishment decide our trade policy for us. I find that attitude disturbingly dis-empowering and conservative.

[Maple]

24. It's been going on for over 20 years

so we are long past the stage of 'inevitable'.

Find it anything you like, it's simple reality.

[redqueen]

25. Women have been subjugated for millennia...

should we all just lie back and enjoy it?

GMAB.

[Maple]

27. Rant and rail all you want

The fact is, the world is globalizing, has been doing so for over 20 years, and the fact you missed the boat is not my problem.

Reality isn't optional.

[Radical Activist]

31. This isn't about globalizing.

We can choose what kind of global economy we want, and CAFTA/NAFTA/WTO/FTAA is about creating a type world economy that helps the few at the expense of the many. That is not fate.

[Maple]

33. Yes, it is

and you aren't the only ones voting.

6 billion other people get a say in things this time.

Get used to it.

'America First' just isn't on any more.

[Radical Activist]

39. That's not an argument, that's just contradiction.

Really, you contradicted me but made no counter argument. Don't you have one? Then you change the subject. Your arguing tactics are a lot like a conservative talk radio host.

I really wish 6 billion other people had a say in this because many people in other countries oppose these trade agreements but their governments aren't listening to their voices anymore than George Bush does. These agreements aren't made by the people, they are made by corporate CEO's and billionaires who have politicians in their pockets.

There are ways to make a global economy the benefit most of the people instead of the NAFTA/CAFTA model that harms most of the people in all nations involved.

[Maple]

45. Sorry, I won't play this game

Globalization is a fact of life, and it's helping people everywhere on the planet.

They ARE having a say in it...that's why globalization is expanding daily.

You can sit around and grump all you want about corporations, but it won't change anything.

Corporations are only a tiny part of globalization, you are trying to convince yourself it's ALL of it. Sorry no.

The UN, Kyoto...everything global is a part of it.

[Radical Activist]

53. You're still avoiding discussing CAFTA.

Yes, globalization is bigger than CAFTA. You sound like those in the 19th century who argued that we have to accept slave labor and child labor because it was part of industrialization and progress. In reality, they didn't have to be part of the deal. Those problems existed as long as people accepted them as an inevitable part of progress. Yes, there is more than one way to globalize, so no CAFTA is not the only option. The UN and Kyoto are a far cry from CAFTA.

[Maple]

58. There's nothing TO discuss

CAFTA, or something just like it, is next...one day soon you'll be doing a cross-Atlantic deal with the EU.

All the deals are means to an end...world trade.

The WHOLE world.

Sorry. No red herrings thanks.

[Radical Activist]

62. We defeated the last agreement and we'll defeat this one too.

I'll take my trade and globalization without the lower wages and increased pollution, thank you.

[Maple]

67. LOL no you didn't

and you never will.

There is nothing so powerful as an idea whose time has come.

And this will happen, now, or in the near future, and you won't stop it.

[Radical Activist]

Yes, the Free Trade Area of the Americas was derailed

and it isn't coming back. That's why Bush is pushing CAFTA instead, and its headed for failure as well. Your fatalist attitude is stubbornly obnoxious and I can now tell it is without reason.

[Maple]

75. It's already back

and most of it's already in effect.

I'll bet you think a bunch of kids protesting and getting high stopped Vietnam too.

Kid's fantasies.

[Maple]

77. Hey guys, enjoy hippiedom

and isolationism, but the rest of us are busy globalizing.

Bye bye.

[ulysses]

78. ignorant comment.

.

[Radical Activist]

79. Pretty much everything he wrote was an ignorant comment.

We should accept because we have to and its going to happen no matter what, is not an argument.

[rockymountaindem]

87. Some (by no means all) Canadians (liberal and conservative)

get their jollies by bitching at the US all the time. I know because I go to school in Canada.

[stickdog]

84. So what stopped Vietnam, Maple? I mean, when it comes to ideas, you

just can't beat war when it comes to timeless perfection, now can you?

And since war is constant, inevitable and ubiquitous, it must follow that everybody's "voting" for it because of how much it "helps" them. Right?

[redqueen]

97. We're not arguing against globalization!

Is that really not clear to you?

We're against a frickin trade agreement... CAFTA. And NAFTA has shown us that the people AREN'T benefitting NEARLY as much as the apologists would like us to believe... you know who IS benefitting?

"The UN, Kyoto...everything global is a part of it."

Once again, we're discussing CAFTA... NOT the UN, NOT Kyoto... Ugh.

:eyes:

[ulysses]

40. since when?

6 billion other people get a say in things this time.

The inhabitants of the Mexican maquiladoras and the export zones in the Philippines had their say in all this? I doubt that.

[Radical Activist]

44. My point exactly.

This is rule by corporate executives, not the people.

[Maple]

50. Enough with the crying

over the 'poor oppressed masses' as well. Trade helps everyone.

Socialist rhetoric notwithstanding

[ulysses]

54. "Trade helps everyone."

Really? Sorry, I didn't mean to intrude on your delusion.

[Radical Activist]

60. corporate talking points notwithstanding,

there is more than one way to trade. As one Republican candidate said, "this isn't free trade, its stupid trade."
And reality doesn't support your statement. NAFTA has lowered the standard of living in both the US and Mexico. How does that help everyone? It certainly made a few people richer at the expense of the many, which is what it was designed to do.

[Maple]

64. The only thing you guys are concerned about

...all this weeping over 'oppressed masses' being so much asswipe....is your own jobs.

And somehow you think that attacking me, or protesting on DU or in the streets will change globalization, so you all get to continue to live comfy-like.

Whoops..your mistake.

[Radical Activist]

70. Not at all...

people in my field can't be outsourced. I'm concerned about the families who have to prostitute their children because their sweatshops don't pay them enough to support a family. When a mountain of garbage collapsed and killed hundreds of people living the garbage dump in the Philippines a few years ago it killed people who were working in factories for US companies. I don't believe for a minute those people are benefiting from this kind of trade.

[Maple]

74. Sure it is

It's your only concern.

And nobody buys the weeping over sweatshops.

It only bothers you guys when it affects your jobs.

[stickdog]

86. So your argument is that we should welcome global corpocracy

BECAUSE it threatens our jobs?

Just trying to make sure I've got this straight, Maple.

[stickdog]

85. Just like Bush's tax cuts help everyone, right?

Socialist rhetoric notwithstanding, of course.

[name not needed]

59. Bullshit.

That argument doesn't work when one sixth of the world's population lives in a country where protesting the government gets them run over by a tank.

[eridani]

94. 5.999 billion have jackshit to say about anything

The Masters of the Universe make all the decisions and cram them down our throats.

The Bolivians refuse to accept your "reality," so Americans surely can as well.

[redqueen]

96. Globalization doesn't have to be stacked in favor of the rich.

That's a fact.

You want to lay back and get screwed? Go ahead... but don't expect many on this board will support your 'lie back and enjoy it' approach.

Matter of fact... where would one find lots of support for this awful agreement?

Hmmmm.....

[Radical Activist]

29. Spoken like a true revolutionary.

I can only imagine how much better off the world would be if Martin Luther King, Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, George Washington, or John L Lewis had decided to accept the inevitability of the way things are because things had been going on that way for 20 years or more.

[Maple]

30. Kindly stick to the subject

and stop insisting everyone wait until some mythical revolution.

Globalization IS the revolution. You just haven't caught up yet.

[Radical Activist]

35. If oppressing the masses is your idea of a revolution

then yes, CAFTA is it. Oh yeah, the FTAA was derailed and isn't coming back anytime soon so that kind of blows a big whole in you bullshit argument doesn't it? We can choose our fate.

Don't tell me that lowering wages in all nations and destroying the global environment is the revolution. That's the most neo-con sounding argument I've seen on DU all day.

[Maple]

38. Oh enough of the 'oppressing the masses' crap

This isn't 1918 Russia. And you're not a Bolshevik, so stop pretending.

No you cannot 'choose your fate'...it isn't just you voting anymore.

The FTA was overtaken by NAFTA, and NAFTA will be overtaken by larger agreements.

And stop claiming anyone that disagrees with you is somehow 'neo-con' or don't you believe in free speech anymore?

[Radical Activist]

43. FTAA was proposed after NAFTA.

I guess you didn't read about the FTAA protests in the corporate media that tells you that NAFTA and the WTO are the only means to an inevitable process of globalization.

So far you haven't made a single argument for why CAFTA is a good thing except to say that we should accept it because we have to. Pretty lame.

[Maple]

47. The FTA was before NAFTA

if you mean something else,then say so

Lots of letters...be clear

[Radical Activist]

55. Free Trade Area of the Americas

Remember the big Miami protests? two A's.

[Maple]

71. Yup...happening thing

whether you like it or not.

You ain't the one in the driver's seat no more.

Funny feeling I betcha

[stickdog]

88. Right. We're not. Because corporate lobbyists are writing these

agreements and bullying and bribing corrupt government leaders in less powerful countries to sign them.

So, yes, we're eating a lot of shit. But I'm still not getting why we're supposed to like it.

[redqueen]

2. Nonsense.

If it were possible to make these agreements better we'd have seen some improvement in NAFTA. We haven't.

Sorry NDOL, I'm not that gullbile.

[ulysses]

4. thank you.

If it were possible to make these agreements better we'd have seen some improvement in NAFTA. We haven't.

BINGO.

:hi:

[redqueen]

6. .

:hi:

Hope you're having a nice summer!

[Radical Activist]

3. Oh yeah, the 90's were great

That's when all the good paying union jobs with benefits left the country and were replaced with wal-mart and mcdonalds jobs. That's just exactly what we need more of! Great! :eyes:

[PsN2Wind]

8. And who was right about NAFTA?

Why that crazy Ross Perot. But Clinton chose to sell the working people out.

[Radical Activist]

13. Perot, and all the crazy liberal Democrats

like Gephardt, Kucinich, and others. Thanks for nothing to the moderates like Clinton and Dean.

[PsN2Wind]

But Perot was the main one

out there warning about the "giant sucking sound". Well NAFTA passed, Clinton signed it and just like Perot said "it sucked".

[stickdog]

89. And now who is crazy for telling the truth? Why, the mean Dr. Dean!

The more things change ...

[MisterP]

5. the DLC's never looked out for us, or the PPI, or the Blue Dogs,

or the other PNAC tentacles.

[Radical Activist]

9. I've got four reasons right here...

1) You're a CEO who wants to move your factories to cheaper labor markets.

2) You hate it when people have good paying jobs and when developing nations improve their living conditions.

3) You need desperate employees who will work for minimum wage with no benefits at your fast food or mega-store chain.

4) Your factories produce too much pollution than laws in industrialized nations allow, so you want to pollute the environment of some poor nations instead.

This is what these trade agreements are designed to do. They won't get passed with labor and environmental amendments because that would defeat the purpose of having them at all.

[Kevin Spidel]

10. are you serious? DLC propoganda here?

1. trade deficit info for NAFTA - in 1994 it was total of $12.7 B deficit, 2004, it was $110.9 B deficit - so actually just $98.2 B difference (tho 94 was first year of NAFTA, so better comparison would have been 1993, which would have shown better than $100 B) - but quite close to 100, even with these numbers (100 rounded off to nearest 5B)

2. Living standards on Mexico: see chart below for wages. There is also poverty level data, but I would have to search for it, but it shows increase in poverty rate over NAFTA years.




Evolution of wages

Year
Minimum wage
IMSS reported wages
Wages in manufacturing

1994
100.0
100.0
100.0

1995
87.1
84.4
85.3

1996
80.5
75.2
76.9

1997
79.5
73.9
77.8

1998
79.9
75.2
80.0

1999
77.2
75.6
81.7

2000
77.6
79.2
87.0

2001
78.4
83.8
89.0

2002
77.5
83.7
89.5

Sources: Calculations made using data from Banco de Información Económica, INEGI and Secretaría del Trabajo y Previsión Social.


Reference: Carlos Salas, “Highlights of current labor market conditions in Mexico,” Global Policy Network Brief, April 30, 2003 at 9. (Available under “Country Reports” at www.gpn.org.)



3. Lost US jobs: See EPI report (http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/briefingpapers_bp147) that showed 880,000 lost jobs as of a year and a half ago.

[ulysses]

14. thanks for the stats

(I'm on your side on this, btw - just trying to get discussion started)

[redqueen]

22. Best post I've seen ALL DAY!

Thanks!

[Kevin Spidel]

32. Thank you! I am knee deep in the CAFTA Battle...

here is more stuff:

The Bush Administration is stepping up pressure to secure the votes it will need to pass the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA)—a proposed pact between the United States and five Central American countries (Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua and Costa Rica) plus the Dominican Republic. This is the most important battle over U.S. trade policy to be considered by Congress in more than 10 years. The Bush Administration signed CAFTA on May 28, 2004, and congressional approval is now the final hurdle before its passage into law. CAFTA is an attempt to expand the failed North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) model. NAFTA has been a disaster for small farmers and working people in Canada, the United States, and Mexico, with hundreds of thousands of jobs lost, family farms foreclosed, and public interest laws overturned or challenged in secret NAFTA courts. Despite this dismal record, the Bush administration is seeking to expand NAFTA to Central America and the rest of the Western Hemisphere. If CAFTA passes, we can expect more job loss, more destruction of rural communities, more threats to our environment, and more attacks by corporations on our democracy. CAFTA would further erode labor and environmental standards in Central America, cause massive dislocation of Central American farmers, prevent people with HIV/AIDS from getting access to life-saving medicines, lead to more privatization of essential services in Central America, and lead us further away from our path toward a just global economy. From the beginning of CAFTA negotiations, the Bush administration has been clear that completion of CAFTA is crucial to move the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) negotiations forward faster, by adding extra pressure to countries like Brazil, Venezuela and Argentina to either accede to U.S. demands, or be left out. FTAA would be NAFTA-on-steroids for the entire Western Hemisphere. We are in a very good position to defeat CAFTA, because there is bipartisan opposition to it. Currently the Bush administration is 30-40 House votes short of what they need to introduce the bill. They are also in trouble in the Senate. But we have to get undecided members of Congress to come out publicly against the deal. Please contact your Representative and Senators today and tell them to oppose CAFTA!

For more information and analysis, please see:
www.citizenstrade.org
www.stopcafta.org
www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/cafta.

[redqueen]

98. Thanks for the info...

:yourock:

:kick:

[G_j]

42. yep

reality check.... :think:

[nolabels]

65. Had to do double take on this whole thread

Thought I dropped into another reality for a minute :crazy:

Tell them Corporations to stick all them thoughts of new crop of protected markets up their freakin ASS


http://www.stopcafta.org/

[arcos]

11. "... make the agreement better"

If they want to make it better it should be renegotiated to make it better for BOTH US and Central American workers... approving CAFTA as it is now will only benefit big corporations (as usual).

Central American clothing factories now employ about half a million people, and often provide the first jobs for hundreds of thousands of young women moving out of impoverished villages. This source of employment has helped Central America make a crucial transition from the wars, armed insurgencies, and military repression that characterized the region in the 1980s.

:eyes: "Clothing factories"... sure, a few are honest companies but lots of them have VERY low labor standards and could be considered sweatshops.

[denverbill]

15. Definitely not.

NAFTA and WTO were Clinton biggest failures. Free trade seems like a good idea on the surface, but Ross Perot was dead-on correct about the 'giant sucking sound' being made when American jobs fled the US. First manufacturing, and now, with the advent of the internet, technology and white collar jobs are fleeing at an ever increasing rate.

The US economy was doing just fine prior to NAFTA, and frankly, it has fucking sucked since 2000, during which time NAFTA and WTO have been in place. If NAFTA and WTO were such great things the US economy should be booming. Instead, employment is dismal, the stock market has been stagnant for 5 years, and we have record budget and trade deficits.

Now, virtually the only people in America with safe jobs are business owners, plumbers, electricians, doctors, and lawyers. Every other job is threatened by outsourcing, H1B visas, and illegal immigration.

If the Democratic Party doesn't represent America's working class (blue and white collar alike) then which party IS going to represent them?

[ulysses]

18. so far we're largely agreed on this

(although I hear Nederland's footsteps somewhere in the background). What are we doing about it? Have we asked our congresscritters the question, if it could be made better later, why not make it better now?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

19. See, that's the plan

Encourage peasants to move off the land to work in the sweatshops, so they can live in a tin shack, drink out of and throw their sewage into the same river, and pay protection money to organized crime, and just to make sure they move off the land, flood their market with cheap, subsidized food from the U.S., so that the peasants can't compete and are forced out of farming, allowing agribusiness to take over to produce cash crops.

Those "free trade" agreements are all about making the rich richer, and the claim that they make poor people's lives better have no more validity than other right wing ideas.

One of these days, I plan to write a DU essay about all the ways that the right wing claims it's "helping" the poor.

First and foremost is that the multinationals are "helping" the poor nations by working their people 12 hours a day in unhealthy conditions for slave wages.

The corporate "free" trade apologists cleverly ignore the fact that every poor nation that has actually developed has doen so by investing in education and infrastructure and keeping tight control over foreign corporations so that profits are invested locally instead of being repatriated.

[Al-CIAda]

63. Confessions of an Econ. Hit Man: How the U.S. Uses Globalization -

Trading Freedom: the secret life of the FTAA
Video by indymedia ftaa video workgroup
Produced October 2002, 56 minutes

Offers an explanation of what the FTAA is, what it will mean, and how people across the Americas are resisting it.

DOWNLOAD 600MB
http://frazer.rice.edu/~tish/video.mov

====

Audio-

Democracy Now!
Tuesday, November 9th, 2004
Confessions of an Economic Hit Man: How the U.S. Uses Globalization to Cheat Poor Countries Out of Trillions
Listen to Segment || Download Show mp3      
Watch 128k stream       Watch 256k stream  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
We speak with John Perkins, a former respected member of the international banking community. In his book Confessions of an Economic Hit Man he describes how as a highly paid professional, he helped the U.S. cheat poor countries around the globe out of trillions of dollars by lending them more money than they could possibly repay and then take over their economies.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Perkins describes himself as a former economic hit man - a highly paid professional who cheated countries around the globe out of trillions of dollars.

20 years ago Perkins began writing a book with the working title, "Conscience of an Economic Hit Men."

Perkins writes, "The book was to be dedicated to the presidents of two countries, men who had been his clients whom I respected and thought of as kindred spirits - Jaime Roldós, president of Ecuador, and Omar Torrijos, president of Panama. Both had just died in fiery crashes. Their deaths were not accidental. They were assassinated because they opposed that fraternity of corporate, government, and banking heads whose goal is global empire. We Economic Hit Men failed to bring Roldós and Torrijos around, and the other type of hit men, the CIA-sanctioned jackals who were always right behind us, stepped in.

John Perkins goes on to write: "I was persuaded to stop writing that book. I started it four more times during the next twenty years. On each occasion, my decision to begin again was influenced by current world events: the U.S. invasion of Panama in 1980, the first Gulf War, Somalia, and the rise of Osama bin Laden. However, threats or bribes always convinced me to stop."


Excerpt:
AMY GOODMAN: John Perkins joins us now in our firehouse studio. Welcome to Democracy Now!

JOHN PERKINS: Thank you, Amy. It’s great to be here.

AMY GOODMAN: It’s good to have you with us. Okay, explain this term, “economic hit man,” e.h.m., as you call it.

JOHN PERKINS: Basically what we were trained to do and what our job is to do is to build up the American empire. To bring -- to create situations where as many resources as possible flow into this country, to our corporations, and our government, and in fact we’ve been very successful. We’ve built the largest empire in the history of the world. It's been done over the last 50 years since World War II with very little military might, actually. It's only in rare instances like Iraq where the military comes in as a last resort. This empire, unlike any other in the history of the world, has been built primarily through economic manipulation, through cheating, through fraud, through seducing people into our way of life, through the economic hit men. I was very much a part of that.

Con't-
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/09/1526251

====

Guest: John Perkins, author of "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man"
Fri., December 10, 2004
Deadline Live w/Jack Blood

mp3's-
pt1- Interview starts approx. half way through
http://mp3.rbnlive.com/Blood/0412/20041210_Fri_JackBlood1.mp3
pt2-CIA sequence of Empire (economics, assasinations, torture, vote rigging, etc.) Naming names...vote rigging!
http://mp3.rbnlive.com/Blood/0412/20041210_Fri_JackBlood2.mp3

Realplayer RAM-
http://mp3.rbnlive.com/Blood/0412/20041210_Fri_JackBlood.ram

======

[Deja Q]

72. Propaganda. It's like NAFTA and we saw how that didn't help TRADE levels.

TRADE, the problem repukie-dukies blasted Clinton for, but seemed to have STFU regarding *'s impotence regarding the exact same problem...

[stickdog]

80. Seven Reasons To Oppose CAFTA

1. CAFTA would force competition for the lowest wages and lowest production costs, which would drive wages down in the US and keep them down throughout Central America.

2. It would allow corporations to sue governments over any law that would protect national intrest by diminishing private profit, including laws that protect consumers, communities, labor, and the environment, because these would be barriers to economic benefits for Northern countries. This eliminates the democratic rights of people and communities to determine how their government regulates relations with corporations.

3. CAFTA would lead to further privatization of social services, decreasing public access to basic services and giving corporations more money and control.

4. Concentration of power in the hands of corporations with strong ties to right-wing governments would allow the conservative elite to maintain control over a country’s economy even when leftist alternatives are given governmental power by popular vote.

5. Under the guise of the war on terrorism, CAFTA allows right-wing governments and giant corporations to repress their opposition by labeling those who demand their human rights "terrorists" for threatening a company’s profit-making ability.

6. There is no guarantee that labor and environmental regulations be respected, despite side agreements.

7. CAFTA would diminish the power of Central American countries to regulate their own economies and protect their own citizens.

[kodi]

90. another boondoggle for banks and investors at the expense of US workers

as to "opening markets and increasing exports" what markets, what exports and what will be imported to the US and at what cost to the average working man and woman?

all this does is allow money to flow from the US to Central America in an attempt to prop up oligarchies. no serious person can believe and prove that CAFTA regulations as to tarrifs, inspections, environmental regulations and worker rights will be enforced in central america. central america is one big sweatshop.

the central american people won't gain much. the same folk who own everything down there will still own it, and this time with more capital investment(loans guarenteed no doubt by the US government).

thus americans are left with paying taxes to support bank loan guarentees that go to help central american companies to better compete with american businesses and put american workers out of work.

in many markets, the chinese have already bought industries that will allow them to ship first to central america then on to the US, thus avoiding tarriffs against chinese made goods.

we ought to string up some of these fast-talking, do-nothing trade negotiators and use them as pinatas.

support CAFTA? No fucking way, senor.

on edit: i posted before reading the posts of maple, "the mouth of tom freidman" come to enlighen us about our hypocrisies on being for americans while the rest of the world rots.

so be it. i am an american worker who depends on having a job here and i believe that if we are to keep any of our heritage, we had better start working towards a form of national socialism or the rest of the world will overwhelm us. and while i admit that american values are not superior to others, i sure as hell prefer to live here than anywhere else, and that means i have to have a job here.

i guess if that does not make me a marxist who thinks all the workers of the world are in the same position. so be it.

my first priority is to be able to have a decent job and support my family, only then am i willing to go out and work for economic justice elsewhere.

the aforementioned smartass sounds like a typical sophomore who just read an abrided edition of friendman's "the lexus and the olive branch"(?) while downing a bottle of cheap wine less than an hour ago.

[ulysses]

91. heh!

we ought to string up some of these fast-talking, do-nothing trade negotiators and use them as pinatas.

May I quote you? :D

[eridani]

95. Globalization according to Arundhati Roy

"The only thing worth globalizing is dissent."