Another NAFTA / WTO / free trade thread

[redqueen]

Yes, I do expect it to sink like a rock, just like the others, but what the hey?

NPR is doing a special report all week on NAFTA in observation of the 10 year anniversary. I'd like to know if anyone has listened to any of the dialogue featured there.

I'd also like to know your detailed views on why you either support or do not support these trade agreements.

Here are mine, just to get the ball rolling:

1. We were lied to about the effects of these agreements -- there are no new jobs to replace the 'old' ones, and the 'high tech' jobs which were supposed to replace the old ones are going as well.

2. Mexico saw a drop in average wages after NAFTA. Yes, it created some higher paying manufacturing jobs, but now that China is a trade partner (thanks WTO) all the jobs are rushing out from Mexico to China.

3. America has seen no benefit at all. You can say that cheaper goods are a benefit, but only if you can somehow believe that losing millions of jobs and depressing our economy as a result is a good bargain on balance. The only real benefit has been to corporations and their top executives.

4. These organizations (WTO and NAFTA) are staffed by unelected people who favor corporations and profit over people and sovereign governments. IMO the idea that we can somehow reform them is a pipe dream, because money is power -- so guess who gets to make the rules?

[ThirdWheelLegend]

1. NAFTA needs to be canceled

NAFTA does nothing to protect the worker, the enviroment or upgrade standards of living.

This is one of my more important issues this campaign. We can cancel NAFTA and rework FAIR trade agreements that protect worker's rights, that provide environmental protections and that bring the standard of living up for countries that companies choose to call home.

And if I recall correctly, is there not a section in NAFTA that allows corporations to SUE the US Government if they can prove that a US regulation may infringe on profit? This happened with a chain of funeral homes in the south. I cannot recall the details. Could someone provide links?..thanks

This all leads back to Dennis Kucinich, who who leads on yet another issue.

TWL

[redqueen]

3. You're thinking of Chapter 11

Bill Moyers did a great story on it.

http://www.citizen.org/publications/release.cfm?ID=7076



I'm guessing from the lack of responses that no one can really defend this outrage against workers.

*sigh*

[La_Serpiente]

2. This is what I think Fair Trade Should be

-Producers receive a fair price - a living wage.
-For commodities, farmers receive a stable, minimum price.
-Forced labor and exploitative child labor are not allowed
-Buyers and producers trade under direct long-term relationships
-Producers have access to financial and technical assistance
-Sustainable production techniques are encouraged
-Working conditions are healthy and safe
-Equal employment opportunities are provided for all
-All aspects of trade and production are open to public accountability

How could the system be changed? Well, Gephardt had the idea of putting forth an international minimum wage. I thought it was a wonderful idea. How should NAFTA be changed? I think we can work with the Mexican and Canadian governments to change them. The WTO is an even bigger problem and if they continue to whine, then pull out of that too.

Sorry, perhaps I should have clarified my last post on the other thread. I am not for free trade, but I think we can accomplish this in a way where we don't have to cancel NAFTA. We could also put a movement on the ground - refuse to buy the clothing from the sweatshop runners. Sean John chaned his tactics after he got busted by the two Central American women. I think we can bring their individual voices out into the public and give all those disenfranchised workers a better life.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

4. as a minimum first step we need to stop slavery

We need to refuse to trade with any country or any corporation that engages in or tacitly condones slavery, sweatshops, and human rights abuses - including the right to organize.

America fought a bloody Civil War because of organized slavery, and there will be a world-wide Civil War over slavery if superpowers like the United States continues to collaborate with slavers.

[redqueen]

5. I like the idea of Fair trade

But NAFTA won't do it.

Again I ask... why don't you believe it when Kucinich says that under the rules of the WTO, NAFTA can't be changed?

Gephardts good ideas are good, but if we can't make such changes due to these awful agreements, how is it workable?

Mexican and Canadian governments are nearly as beholden to corporations there as our government is to ours, so I don't think we can make much progress there, either. I would think that after a decade, that if improvements could be made, we would have made them. The lack of that kind of action speaks volumes, IMO.

I like the idea of buying responsibly made products as well, but I'm currently in a situation where I'm fairly forced to buy from Wal-Mart. I resist, but it's getting harder and harder every day. With the downward pressure on wages that is a direct effect of NAFTA and WTO policies, this problem will only get worse.

I don't see any other option BUT ending WTO GATT and NAFTA.

[La_Serpiente]

6. I just think it is worth the try

If we pull out of NAFTA, it will create shockwaves in the economic infrastructure. It is always worth the try.

[redqueen]

9. I would too, if I thought it were possible.

Again, Kucinich's assertion that you cannot change the terms of NAFTA under the rules of the WTO rings true to me.

We have not made any changes to it despite it's awful effects these last 10 years... why not?

Also I reject the 'shockwave' or 'depression' arguments. They both are based on the premise that we can't afford to observe workers' rights or any other fundamentally important issues (stronger environmental protections, decreased impact on family farmers here or in other countries, etc.)

We have to. And IMO we can, especially when you consider that top executives and CEO's are cashing in on our willingness to put our lives and planet on the chopping block for them to carve up and sell for a profit. Profits are up, the wealth gap continues to grow, yet we are told that if we try to go back to bilateral trade it will have disastrous effects?

Sorry... empirical evidence over the past 10 years shows me that free trade has benefitted large businesses greatly, but the people little to none. I don't see that returning to bilateral trade can do anything but help.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

14. I want to end NAFTA, WTO/GATT, FTAA, and the rest

I support Kucinich's policy of bilateral trade agreements 100%. Gephardt goes along to get along, that's why he's a frontrunner, but I'm not going to criticize him over trade policy. Gep is great, I'm glad he still mentions an International Minimum Wage!

[redqueen]

16. Gephardt does indeed hit the right notes on this issue!

He's nothing if not consistently for the worker, and for that I love the guy! He fought Clinton on this issue when fighting your own party wasn't cool... I admire that in my own party just as I admire conscientious Republicans who do it.

His ideas on workers' rights are top-notch... and I hope he keeps it for a long while. We need him!

[Maple]

7. What might be nice

is if any of you actually read the agreements in the first place.

NAFTA not only HAS labor and environmental agreements..it has nothing to do with the WTO.

NAFTA is a bilateral agreement..the WTO is worldwide.

Withdrawing from either would produce a massive American Depression.

Which could explain why some of your candidates aren't getting anywhere.

[redqueen]

8. Sorry

But I can't take you seriously when you just assert these things as if you've read the agreements (there are 16 sections in the WTO, you've read them all I take it?)

Yes, I know that WTO is worldwide and NAFTA, while not 'bilateral' as you state, is regional. Duh.

The point is, under the rules of the WTO, countries cannot independently just place extra rules in NAFTA. They have to be reached by consensus under NAFTA. Guess who controls NAFTA?

Withdrawing from these won't produce a depression. We're not saying to become isolationists. Just return to bilateral trade. Were we in a depression before NAFTA? No. Were we, in fact, better off? Yes.

Your tone is not helpful, either. Next time I suggest you come armed with facts, not just assertions.


Places to look for information, not just assertions:

http://www.citizen.org/trade/wto/articles.cfm?ID=10443

http://www.campaignforlaborrights.org/

http://www.citizen.org/trade/nafta/jobs/

Search around on any of these sites and get the full picture, of not only free trade's effects on jobs and workers' rights, but also the environment, agriculture, etc.

Critical thinking is good for you and the planet.

[redqueen]

10. Come on now...

SOMEone has to have a well-reasoned argument in favor of these agreements.

After all, it's why some candidates are doing so poorly, right?

So... where's the substance?

Where does a woman have to go to get a real debate around here? ;)

[Armstead]

12. THere are no well reasoned arguments for these agreements

The agreements are stupid and everyone was misled about them.

The results are becoming obvious today, as industry heasds out of the US like lemmings, thus hollowing out our economy.

Those "flaky" progressives were warning about this years ago, but the Clintonistas and the GOP assured us that everything would work out well.

They are working out well for the small tip of the investor class. For everyone else it is a formula for disaster.

Kucinish is absolutely correct. Gephardt is close. The rest of them pay lip service, but are in bed with the corporate conservatives on this issue. They are a day late and a dollar short.

[redqueen]

13. Thanks for contributing!

I gotta say I agree 100%... but I also have to keep trying to understand why people believe all the hype.

I keep thinking there's got to be something there to explain it besides hoopla and handwaving.

[JanMichael]

11. Billy Bragg played an anti-WTO song at the "Tell us the Truth" concert...

...in Tampa a couple of weeks ago.

====================================
"No Power Without Accountability"

I grew up in a company town
And I worked real hard ‘'til that company closed down
They gave my job to another man
On half my wages in some foreign land
And when I asked how could this be
Any good for our economy?
I was told nobody cares
So long as they make money when they sell their shares

Can you hear us? Are you listening?
No power without accountability!

I lost my job, my car and my house
When ten thousand miles away some guy clicked on a mouse
He didn’t know me, we never spoke,
He didn’t ask my opinion or canvass for my vote
I guess its true, nobody cares
'Til those petrol bombs come spinning through the air
Gotta find a way to hold them to account
Before they find a away to snuff our voices out

Can you hear us? Are you listening?
No power without accountability!

The ballot box is no guarantee that we achieve democracy
Our leaders claim their victory when only half the people have spoken
We have no job security in this global economy,
Our borders closed to refugees but our markets forced open

The World Bank says to Mexico,
We’ll cut you off if you don’t keep your taxes low
But they have no right to wield that sword
‘Cos they take their orders from the chairman of the board

IMF, WTO,
I hear these words just every place I go
Who are these people? Who elected them?
And how do I replace them with some of my friends?

Can you hear us? Are you listening?
No power without accountability!
================================

WORDS: Billy Bragg (2002) MUSIC: The Blokes (2002)

Billy: vocal, electric guitar,
Martyn: drums, quira, shakers, congas, backing vocal
Lu: tarbush, backing vocal
Ben: resozouki, harmonica
Mac: Hammond B3, piano
Simon: bass
Anthea Clarke: backing vocal

[redqueen]

15. That's wonderful!

Thanks for the info... I'll be sure to check it out, and pass it along! Gotta love enlightened artists!

:)

[Elwood P Dowd]

17. The hidden job losses of NAFTA and GATT

We have lost thousands of factories and millions of manufacturing jobs
since these two horrible agreements were passed in 93-94. What most don't know is the "hidden" job losses and "threats" of job losses.

There have been millions of spin-off and support jobs lost that are not even counted. A friend of mine worked in small community that lost a factory employing almost 500 workers. His company did work for the factory, and after NAFTA passed the factory moved to Mexico and his company shut down. Eventually, almost as many service, sales, and local government workers lost their jobs. It's a domino effect. The city and county now have less revenue and less workers. The state has less tax revenue and increased social costs.

Many companies that move to China are now moving their engineering and design with them. Huge retail chains like Wal Wart push suppliers to move there to cut costs. Companies in service and high tech see this
windfall of money, and they move over there.

Workers in the factories that remain here are now under pressure to work for lower wages and fewer benefits. It's happening all over the country. The workers are told to take the cuts or the company will move to Mexico or China.

I see the corporate controlled press and the republicans lying and spinning out their ass hoping to keep what's coming under wraps until after the 2004 elections. There is now way the economy can keep from chashing with so many industries moving, outsourcing, downsizing, merging, and cutting wages.

Bush and his corporate crooks are pushing for FTAA by 2005. This will make NAFTA look small in comparison. Look for several million more job losses if this makes it through Congress. I hate to think what this country will look like around 2008 if Bush gets reelected.

[Iverson]

18. one reason of many to oppose

These treaties are anti-democratic. In the case of a dispute between parties, the matter is resolved by a secret tribunal that is accountable to the people of no country. Further, a WTO ruling may trump the laws of a sovereign state. This is especially worrisome in the case of labor and environmental laws.

This brand of economic globalization allows weirdly exploitative maneuvers such as suing countries for the profits that you say you would have made if you had been allowed to run roughshod over them, but didn't. See Cochabamba, Bolivia. Note especially that we're not talking about actual losses, just assertions of would-be profits.

Plutocracy is not democracy. That's as much detail as I can offer off the top of my head in a couple of minutes, but isn't that enough?