Today in....

Mutiny! he cried

-1993 centrist president Bill Clinton signed NAFTA

Commy

think its time for separation of corporation and State.

fuck

free trade sucks?

jeffbr

_outlaw wrote:

free trade sucks?

Free trade sucks for overpaid union workers trying to protect their jobs, and free trade sucks for consumers who enjoy paying higher prices.

catefrances

there is no such thing as free trade. what we need is FAIR trade.

fuck

catefrances wrote:

there is no such thing as free trade. what we need is FAIR trade.

fair trade simply won't happen. for the most part, though, I'd say the 'unfair' argument is a small issue.

and of course there is such thing as free trade. if you want to make the argument that "nothing is free since they all have opportunity costs", then go ahead, but the idea is that we're following the basic rule of no tariffs or import quotas when we speak of "free trade."

so, anyone wanna tell me what the problem is with free trade? It actually has a lot more positive effects than it does negative.

DriftingByTheStorm

_outlaw wrote:

so, anyone wanna tell me what the problem is with free trade? It actually has a lot more positive effects than it does negative.

Tariffs and import duties are economic artifices that provide insulation to small local and regional economies.

They become particularly important in mediating interactions between highily competitive 1st world corporations and backwater 3rd world economies, especially if there is a wide disparity between local and US currencies.

More over, in developing countries "free trade" is often put on a nation as part of a "development" loan package. These agreements subject unable and largley uneducated nations to unmanageable debts, resource "management" agreements, and economic policy provisions which completely strip the country of any protections against predatory external competitors.

That is one of the problems with "free" trade.

Commy

jeffbr wrote:

Free trade sucks for overpaid union workers trying to protect their jobs, and free trade sucks for consumers who enjoy paying higher prices.

"NAFTA has contributed to rising income inequality, suppressed real wages for production workers, weakened workers' collective bargaining powers and ability to organize unions, and reduced fringe benefits.

NAFTA is a free trade and investment agreement that provided investors with a unique set of guarantees designed to stimulate foreign direct investment and the movement of factories within the hemisphere, especially from the United States to Canada and Mexico. Furthermore, no protections were contained in the core of the agreement to maintain labor or environmental standards. As a result, NAFTA tilted the economic playing field in favor of investors, and against workers and the environment, resulting in a hemispheric "race to the bottom" in wages and environmental quality."


basically the policies in NAFTA reward those companies who ship their factories to where labor is cheapest and most plentiful-usually away from the US and into Mexico. This eliminates high paying jobs in the US, I think its at almost 1 million since they signed NAFTA-which would have a significant impact on wealth distribution in the US-company owners and CEO's saw an increase in salaries, workers a stagnation in wages.

NAFTA also rewards companies who ship their factories to where environmental standards are the lowest.

A combination of low environmental standards and plentiful cheap labor is ideal for companies...basically NAFTA is encouraging companies to degrade the environment and eliminate workers rights.

Mutiny! he cried

Commy wrote:

"NAFTA has contributed to rising income inequality, suppressed real wages for production workers, weakened workers' collective bargaining powers and ability to organize unions, and reduced fringe benefits.

NAFTA is a free trade and investment agreement that provided investors with a unique set of guarantees designed to stimulate foreign direct investment and the movement of factories within the hemisphere, especially from the United States to Canada and Mexico. Furthermore, no protections were contained in the core of the agreement to maintain labor or environmental standards. As a result, NAFTA tilted the economic playing field in favor of investors, and against workers and the environment, resulting in a hemispheric "race to the bottom" in wages and environmental quality."


basically the policies in NAFTA reward those companies who ship their factories to where labor is cheapest and most plentiful-usually away from the US and into Mexico. This eliminates high paying jobs in the US, I think its at almost 1 million since they signed NAFTA-which would have a significant impact on wealth distribution in the US-company owners and CEO's saw an increase in salaries, workers a stagnation in wages.

NAFTA also rewards companies who ship their factories to where environmental standards are the lowest.

A combination of low environmental standards and plentiful cheap labor is ideal for companies...basically NAFTA is encouraging companies to degrade the environment and eliminate workers rights.

in addition to this and what Drifting said if one of the other 3 countries has a law....say Canada has a law saying something is too polluting or to making it is too harmful....but in Mexico they don't have that law under NAFTA that is unfair and the countries laws can be circumvented.


'the case against free trade' is a really good book on the problems w/ it

Kann

jeffbr wrote:

Free trade sucks for overpaid union workers trying to protect their jobs, and free trade sucks for consumers who enjoy paying higher prices.

It depends, if you mean free trade inside a delimited geographical area (say, the US for instance), I understand your point (but disagree with it).
If you're talking about a globalized free trade, I'd say free trade also sucks for anyone willing to enjoy a little sovereignty.

OutOfBreath

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Tariffs and import duties are economic artifices that provide insulation to small local and regional economies.

They become particularly important in mediating interactions between highily competitive 1st world corporations and backwater 3rd world economies, especially if there is a wide disparity between local and US currencies.

More over, in developing countries "free trade" is often put on a nation as part of a "development" loan package. These agreements subject unable and largley uneducated nations to unmanageable debts, resource "management" agreements, and economic policy provisions which completely strip the country of any protections against predatory external competitors.

That is one of the problems with "free" trade.

Well, I'll be damned...
I agree with everything you just said!
I'll go faint in the corner for a moment to reset my world view.

I might add that it's no coincidence that the biggest and most powerful state at any given time is always the most ardent "free trade" supporter. Used to be England in the 1800s and early 1900s, since at least WW2, the US. Notice however how quickly they ditch free trade when it doesn't benefit them as much anymore. As long as it means funnelling resources into the biggest "developed" nations from the "undeveloped", "free trade" will be all they talk about.

Peace
Dan