krs
|
posted on April 21, 2001 11:02:29 AM new
Outside the fortress, demonstrators are expected to turn Quebec City into Canada's Seattle
while protests are planned in hundreds of cities across the hemisphere. Mr. Bush will ignore
the noise at his own peril.
In this fight, the protesters benefit from an arsenal of evidence accumulated under the North
American Free Trade Agreement, the model for the proposed hemispheric pact. When
NAFTA went into effect in 1994, promoters promised a huge U.S. trade surplus with Canada
and Mexico, more good jobs in all three countries and a cleaner environment.
Today, however, skyrocketing trade deficits with Canada and Mexico have turned jobs
predictions on their head.
There is also strong evidence that NAFTA contributed to the negligible growth in U.S. wages
during the last half of the 1990s, despite record low unemployment and high corporate profits.
But, according to Dubya ....."We already know from the North American Free Trade Agreement that free trade
works," Mr. Bush insisted just before leaving the White House this morning,
invoking the trade accord negotiated by his father and supported by President Bill
Clinton that would form the model for a broader accord. "It has created good jobs
for our workers. Now is the time to extend these benefits of free trade throughout
the entire hemisphere."
ttp://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/21/world/21PREX.html
http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0420-01.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0420-01.htm
|
kraftdinner
|
posted on April 21, 2001 11:26:51 AM new
Bush is such a kook. Free Trade is NOT working for Mexico. IMO, Mexico is being used for its cheap labour so the US and Canada can benifit.
How much is a pesco worth compared to the early 90's??
It's all political hogwash that only sounds good in theory. The rich will get richer and the poor will become poorer.
|
krs
|
posted on April 21, 2001 11:53:07 AM new
"How much is a pesco worth compared to the early 90's??"
About the same as now. Pescos are very stable.
|
kraftdinner
|
posted on April 21, 2001 12:00:26 PM new
Shouldn't the Mexican economy have grown over the past 10 years KRS? With a growing economy, you attract investors, which should strengthen your dollar. Because the only companies that are investing in Mexico are mainly from the US, for their cheap labour, how can Mexico's economy be improved?
|
HJW
|
posted on April 21, 2001 12:45:10 PM new
Right!
American labor and environmental standards will be violated with free trade
outside the US. Of course, the Republican party is in favor of that! Workers will
be paid less leading to more profit. Why
else would the US be interested in free
trade.
Nobody cares about Mexico.
Helen
|
jlpiece
|
posted on April 21, 2001 12:45:20 PM new
It's just too bad that everybody sees the damage that NAFTA has done now that Bush supports it, but a couple of months ago (and for a few years now) Clinton has fully supported NAFTA. Where were the questions then. The same people that called me isolationist last year or the year before for being anti-NAFTA, are now against it as well, but not because it's NAFTA as NAFTA has always been, but because now it's Mr. Bush behind it. How hypocritical.
|
HJW
|
posted on April 21, 2001 12:49:58 PM new
That's because Clinton was seeking sanctions
that would prevent this kind of labor and
environmental abuse. Bush, of course doesn't
care.
Helen
|
krs
|
posted on April 21, 2001 12:57:22 PM new
jlpiece,
Not really. NAFTA failed with the Peso emergency in 1996. Once the peso devalued, the agreement lost advantage gradually. So by the time you had began, by your statement, to voice concerns over it the administration recognized it as limited by the currency rates in the involved countries.
But to now have a president who seems or pretends to be ignorant of the scope of problems which have come to light over the last years is appalling. The only reason that he would support it's continuance is an interest in preserving the goldmine of now very cheap labor for american industry. [i]"It has created good jobs for our workers"[/b]. Really dumbya, what workers are those? Your immigrant ranch hands? The hordes of illegal workers in Texas oil fields?
add address
[ edited by krs on Apr 21, 2001 01:01 PM ]
|
kraftdinner
|
posted on April 21, 2001 01:05:33 PM new
jlp - it's not that people see Bush as being a free trade supporter, it's just that people are becoming more aware, as time goes by, of what NAFTA really stands for. The Canadian dollar and the Mexican pesco have not improved since the agreement, so who is really benefiting?
The deal for Mexico sounds as good as the deal for China ie: sweatshops.
|
jlpiece
|
posted on April 21, 2001 01:21:03 PM new
NAFTA never seemed like a good idea to me. Sure, businesses can produce goods cheaper due to penny wages, but when Americans lose jobs, who's left to pay for those cheaper goods? That's not a new idea, and Clinton fully understood that. You can't believe that NAFTA has evolved that much in 3 months do you?
|
kraftdinner
|
posted on April 21, 2001 01:29:31 PM new
jlp - maybe it's because you understood the full impact of the agreement long before anyone else did. To me, it sounded like a great idea, but I was totally ignorant of what it entailed. With certain restrictions on labour laws, it seemed like it would benefit all 3 countries, but it hasn't worked out that way.
Now, it's up to Bush to either shut his eyes or do something right about the issue.
I'm not against Bush jlp, I just don't see that he's done anything right yet, and with that track record, I'm just not sure how he will conduct himself regarding this.
|
mark090
|
posted on April 21, 2001 01:59:15 PM new
Just like that Advertisement developed by OUR government for American business....
Where can I find labor for .25 an hour and no labor unions? YES, YOU CAN! YOUCATAN!]
That was an actual ad...paid for with your tax money during the Bush Sr. Administration.
|
gravid
|
posted on April 21, 2001 02:12:07 PM new
We are starting to find out that sending the work to be done somewhere else on the planet where they can pollute to do it makes about as much sense as a little 8 table hole in the wall restaurant being 25% non-smoking. It does not work. Witness the pollution in the western US right now from China that came all the way across the Pacific. It is one planet one atmosphere with nowhere to hide anymore.
|
jlpiece
|
posted on April 21, 2001 02:18:42 PM new
All of this is true, but Clinton reigned during its first 6 years, and did nothing. I'm not a big bush fan, but he does have to deal with what he inherited from Clinton.
|
kraftdinner
|
posted on April 21, 2001 04:11:44 PM new
But Clinton enforced labour and environmental restrictions as Helen said earlier, jlp.
mark090 - doing it behind closed doors is one thing, but to advertise something like that is a disgrace.
|
KatyD
|
posted on April 21, 2001 04:12:09 PM new
As much as I hate to agree with jlpiece on anything, I do agree here. NAFTA was wholeheartedly supported and promoted by Clinton. What was he thinking? It was the one major beef I had with Clinton trade policy, although a close second was according China status as a favored trade nation. NAFTA benefits third world countries who can't hope to even approach equal trade volume with the US and US big business, which is able to circumvent labor and environmental laws while fattening the bottom line. NAFTA really drove home to me how diminished our Labor Unions' power and influence has become with relation to our domestic trade and labor policies. It always seemed to me that Clinton was talking out of both sides of his mouth when promoting NAFTA and at the same time portraying himself as pro Union. Other than that, he was pretty much a good guy.
KatyD
|
HJW
|
posted on April 21, 2001 04:46:48 PM new
KatyD,
Although Bush senior drafted the first NAFTA agreement, I don't
understand Clinton's position on this either.
The link below is a speech that he gave to a union group, explaining
his reasons for supporting NAFTA.
.... passage of NAFTA would increase U.S. exports to a Mexican market with which the United States is enjoying a $5.8 billion annual trade surplus. More American jobs would result from the increased business, Clinton said.
http://www-tech.mit.edu/V113/N47/nafta.47w.html
ed to corrrect sp.
[ edited by HJW on Apr 21, 2001 04:55 PM ]
|
jlpiece
|
posted on April 21, 2001 05:57:55 PM new
Clintons position on NAFTA was simple:
Big business was greasing his palms just like they greased the Bush's.
It's not that surprising is it?
|
HJW
|
posted on April 21, 2001 06:26:16 PM new
But, jlpiece,
Labor and environmental abuse were not considered issues for Clinton because he rejected the argument that American companies would relocate to Mexico because of lower worker wages and less costly environmental laws there.
Are you telling me that you don't believe that? 
Helen
|
jlpiece
|
posted on April 21, 2001 06:58:19 PM new
No I don't believe Clinton was naive enough to believe that.
|
HJW
|
posted on April 21, 2001 07:10:40 PM new
But I love him anyway!
Helen
|
jlpiece
|
posted on April 21, 2001 08:45:07 PM new
I'm beginning to like you HJW! Now that's a scary thought.
|
krs
|
posted on April 21, 2001 09:10:50 PM new
A budding romance. A match made in heaven.
|
HJW
|
posted on April 21, 2001 09:19:22 PM new
You guys are all mixed up.
I'm in love with Clinton!
|
bobbi355
|
posted on April 21, 2001 09:42:24 PM new
I think maybe that was just an oversight on your part, krs
|
