so, what is the rationale for still supporting NAFTA?

I mean, the left worked against it in the 90s, and it *still* seems to have been an abysmal failure. Why still support it?

But with Mexico, most of the wealth created didn't get to the working poor in Mexico. Only the upper crust saw real gains.

of Mexican Immigration? Doesn't NAFTA encourage immigration?

in Mexico while reducing our standard of living.

The only thing NAFTA did was make it easier for corporations to exploit their workers and the countries they inhabit.

While there has been some media coverage of NAFTA's ruinous impact on US industrial communities, there has been even less media attention paid to its catastrophic effects in Mexico:

* NAFTA, by permitting heavily-subsidized US corn and other agri-business products to compete with small Mexican farmers, has driven the Mexican farmer off the land due to low-priced imports of US corn and other agricultural products. Some 2 million Mexicans have been forced out of agriculture, and many of those that remain are living in desperate poverty. These people are among those that cross the border to feed their families. (Meanwhile, corn-based tortilla prices climbed by 50%. No wonder many so Mexican peasants have called NAFTA their 'death warrant.'

* NAFTA's service-sector rules allowed big firms like Wal-Mart to enter the Mexican market and, selling low-priced goods made by ultra-cheap labor in China, to displace locally-based shoe, toy, and candy firms. An estimated 28,000 small and medium-sized Mexican businesses have been eliminated.

* Wages along the Mexican border have actually been driven down by about 25% since NAFTA, reported a Carnegie Endowment study. An over-supply of workers, combined with the crushing of union organizing drives as government policy, has resulted in sweatshop pay running sweatshops along the border where wages typically run 60 cents to $1 an hour.

So rather than improving living standards, Mexican wages have actually fallen since NAFTA. The initial growth in the number of jobs has leveled off, with China's even more repressive labor system luring US firms to locate there instead.

But Mexicans must still contend with the results of the American-owned 'maquiladora' sweatshops: subsistence-level wages, pollution, congestion, horrible living conditions (cardboard shacks and open sewers), and a lack of resources (for streetlights and police) to deal with a wave of violence against vulnerable young women working in the factories. The survival (or less) level wages coupled with harsh working conditions have not been the great answer to Mexican poverty, while they have temporarily been the answer to Corporate America's demand for low wages.

More: http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0425-30.htm

Which included corruption at the top. :wow:

Of course, and correct me if I'm wrong as I tuned out before the 2nd half of that very special episode, but didn't Fox not say to O'Reilly what he had to Larry King (or so I'd read) about the unified currency (North American Union)? If so, why hide that topic from Bill? (Because Bill is so hyper anti-illegal-immigrant that to hear how the borders would be opened up for good would make his head go :nuke: ? )

As farmers were wiped out by NAFTA they flooded the boarder factory towns and further supressed the already depressed working class wages

So it was good for rich corporations on both sides of the boarder but very very bad for ALL WORKERS IN NORTH AMERICA

.... most of the "gains" from "free trade" with other countries accrue to the rich in America.

"Free trade" as we now practice it is great for big companies. For rank and file Americans, its just a way to equalize our standard of living with China and the third world.

America with economic development through NAFTA, their people would stop coming here illegally to find work...there would be work in their own countries where they would prefer to stay if there were jobs.

robbed the US of it's strength of independence, and hurt the workers here and well as those we trade with.

If we cannot independently produce the hardware that supports are defense and must contract it out, we must rely and trust that the self interest of the manufacturer will put our interests first. It is wishful thinking at best to think that other nations would do their best job for their enemy if relations become strained. IMO it is a foolish way to run our national defense.

If our labor force becomes to specialized and the things we produce become unwanted because of expense than we will lose their immediate availability and again must rely on foreign manufacturers to supply them at their discretion and eventually their asking price.

Even if it were to cost more for some things to be manufactured in the US, the price of retaining our independence would be worth the sustenance of our national security.


So. I think it should be modified to not include free trade on some things. I guess that would scrap the whole idea but I see it's effect as unhealthy to our continued solvency as an independent nation.

... think free trade between other countries is good in the absence of some kind of quid pro quo.

... no we don't not the way the US has gone about it. And BTW, little piddly rules here and there won't fix it. There should be specific requirements in terms of HOW MUCH OTHER COUNTRIES BUY FROM US.

that it would be best to scrap the whole thing.

"I guess that would scrap the whole idea.(but)should probably be because, I see it's effect as unhealthy to our continued solvency as an independent nation."

I did not say we all agree FREE trade is good! I said trade is good.

sendero, put your glasses on.
:shrug:

"Free Trade" is some type of Panacea for World Peace and expansion of Democracy. And they think those on the left are nuts, we don't hold a candle to their delusions.

is about all it did

support and grow the principles of destruction by NAFTA. ONE would be out of their GD mind to support NAFTA and its' destruction of the US.

why the HELL does everybody worship at the Alter of Al like they do? Can memories be that short?

the supply of cheap labor expands enormously, and the gap between the haves and the have-nots widens to a canyon so grand we can't see the other side.

Any policy that encourages American companies to move jobs out of the country and depresses wages in the US is a betrayal of American workers. The ruling class has sold the rest of us out.

Growth of economies, reduce unemployment and sustain peace among trading nations.

Maybe I'm missing something, but either you believe that trade can be good (in which case you should want to *change* the terms of trade to ensure that it is, in fact, good) or you believe that trade is bad, in which case you would not support NAFTA in any way, shape, or form.

IMO, trade is a good thing. If there's something wrong a particular trade treaty, then the treaty should be modified, not eliminated.

good or bad, black or white, all or nothing. There's a reason why the candidate that supports ending NAFTA rather than fixing it is doing so poorly in the polls.

they notice the d by their names, but not the list of corporate contributors.