Is it time to pull the plug on NAFTA?

This question from a Canadian fed-up with the constant push to make Canada even more States-like in its outlook and behaviour (or at least the outlook and behaviour of those calling the shots). We now have a right-wing suck-up as Prime Minister of a minority government who (while ducking the press left, right and centre) apes GW by strutting around Afghanistan on a secret flight for a photo-op with the Canadian Armed Forces.

Don't get me wrong; I like Americans by and large (at least the ones who're aware of a world that exists beyond your borders). But NAFTA has been something of a bust up here for most of us too and I gotta wonder what those of you south of the border think.

Fitz

It only benefits the multinationals and the corrupt politicians they're paying off.
It would be great to see it, and other so-called "free trade" agreements go.

I want Canada to be Canada. The US to be the US. Each country to be sovereign. Then, when it works out to the interest of both, free trade that's fair to both.

That was a bumper sticker I saw a while back. When Perot ran some years ago he predicted there would be a giant sucking sound out of the country in the way of jobs.

That stuck with me for a long time and I have never forgotten it.

I'm sure glad to be wrong

I remember what Ross Perot said about it and haven't forgotten. I do think the guy was onto something about NAFTA.

what would happen under NAFTA. One of the claims was that NAFTA would make things better for the Mexicans and it would solve the illegal immigration problem. They both said it would make the problem worse for them and the US and they were dead on. I don't remember what God was telling Pat Robertson at that time. We had a Local Steelworkers Union endorse Pat Buchanan back in 2000, at that time they had about 5000 members now after NAFTA there are about 800 left and the company is still making cuts. Another by-product of NAFTA was Clinton a Democrat pushed it through and to this day I still believe that is what pushed WV (a reliable Democratic state) over to the dark side for ever and it definitely lost Ohio in 2000. Either state would have given Gore the win.

I've already missed Pat Buchanan's prophecy come to pass? I only took a little nap on the couch.

NAFTA didn't set up a governing body, like the EU did. So it's just a bullshit free-for-all "treaty" wherein global corporations can screw the workers in not one, not two, but THREE countries.

makes workers and corporations more productive. There is a lesson in that.

What is killing local industry isn't US competition but trade with China. Same as everywhere else.

The hope the third wayers see is that when oil hits $200 a barrel - then Canadians or Americans at least will not have jobs that will be cut - because they will be not producing civil goods (textiles to recover your couch, clothes, nick-nacks) but will be in either local industries that cannot be replaced or in high-tech and research and nano-technology. So it will reduce the shock. When the world goes dark - your children will not be in fields that will go dark and loose their jobs overnight. In a sense.. you are doing it now so that the USA or Canada has the advantage in these industries that will make profits around the world and lead to job growth. Why wait until the end to shift gears? Why not do it way out in front?

(I include health care and industry in Canada because it does make for great careers for people - but it doesn't have to be private to do so).

That being said.. Canada and Mexico are oil producers. And because they have lots of oil (especially Canada) the dollar will rise and rise and rise and that will kill productivity. All other home grown industries will be hurt. Unless we do something to stop the dollar from rising like going into debt (perhaps massive science program in schools could be what the debt is spent on) or maybe the currency will become one with the USA.

Whatever the case - Canada and Mexico have vastly different needs than the USA. So I'm a little worried that the language in the published papers is so euphemistic. What we see in the "talks" on NAFTA these days.. is an attempt by the Bush admin to reduce regulations to fit their desires. And that doesn't make sense because health care in Canada is simply much better and more productive for workers and less costly and more equal.

So too - security seems so tied to immigration. Or the Bush WH ideas on immigration. I cannot imagine that Canada,who needs to get 25% more people in the country in the next ten years... to make a go of being a nation instead of strung out along the border with huge oil costs in between cities, will go the guest worker way. That is simply not in our best interest. And it sucks eggs. The guest workers seem to be a way to fight wage increases when 2014 hits and boomers retire and it turns into an employees market. If guest workers are about the USA .. and sent home every three years.. they will not have the power of unions or the like. And rich people are afraid of inflation that might be caused by a number of things (oil, wage increases as the boomers retire and fewer young people take their places). I would imagine that recruiting for the U.S. army would be negatively affected if wages in the USA were to rise too fast and furious. And that is I think why the link immigration/security we see today. So nobody wants a dirty bomb. And everyone wants reasonable security measures in place.

In 2014 it is in the cards that all of a sudden unemployment will go down and it will be a huge shift. Workers wages will rise. But by how much? And that is only 8 years away. Why is the GOP taking such a big chance of hurting people with their "guest worker" plans? Is it really because they are afraid of the dynamics of Red States changing? Is it because they think they could dangle citizenship to guest workers who "volunteer" for the army (like if they qualify as certain classes or needed workers today)? I don't know.

For sure too much inflation will tank the economy and who would want to go back to 1979. Those were harsh years for young people looking for work. But I ask again.. if workers are doing their part in pre-paring for peak oil by not sending their kids into traditional heavy industry and retraining themselves.. what exactly are the elites going to do for them in return? I think the USA will have to adopt some form of universal health care. Cause the costs are too high at present.

Just guessing...

With U.S. credit card debt about to reach $2.4 Trillion

Home mortgage debt at $8.8 Trillion

And my guess,
a $10 Trillion dollar U.S. Federal Debt by the end
of corporate front man George W. Bush's second term.

When the Communist Chinese finally become tired of the
U.S. empire and its narcissistic people,
they will simply strangle the american fascists by
pulling back their financing of the U.S. federal government.

Poof...! goes u.s. corporate free trade.

I believe,
Canada is very attractive for business
because it has an educated work force.
Take for example, the Province of Ontario,
the High School drop out rate is below 20%.
(A percentage rate far below the u.s. drop out rate.)
(The South Eastern portion of the u.s. has a
60+% high school drop out rate.)

Plus, Canadians are far healthier than their
Mexican and U.S. counterparts
since all Canadian citizens
receive health care from a system that is not
dependant on corporate participation.
(Canada is ranked by the World Health Organization,
20th in the world for health care service.)

I won't bother mentioning the W.H.O. health ranking
for the current Petro-Imperial U.S. Empire.

Be careful Canadians,
of any concentration of U.S. Imperial Oil-protection military forces
on the U.S./Canadian border.
The value given to human life may become nil,
with over a Trillion barrels of proven
oil reserves lying on the surface of Alberta.

:yoiks:

Free trade is always a winner for an economy. That's true for NAFTA, not only for Mexico, Canada and the U.S. It's also true for the rest of countries in the hemisphere, many of whom recognize that the low tariffs that Canadian and Mexican goods have to sell to the largest economy in the world have to be matched.

It's a classic win/win.

vis a vis the wealthy in the States maintaining the whip hand?

What jobs has NAFTA created in the US?

When you factor in spin-off jobs, the total is in the 2 million range.

With every single promise made for NAFTA, the exact opposite has happened. You are totally wrong!

Who worked for the same company for over 30 years. Her father worked for that company from 1940 until his death in 1972. This company employed over 600 people in a town with a population of around 1500. Thanks to NAFTA, the plant and its jobs went to Mexico in 1998. Mom was given a very small severance package and now works in a hotel restaurant. She's 65. She was a purchasing agent who was responsible for millions of dollars every day. Now she's a hostess on her feet every Friday and Saturday night.

NAFTA worked out real well for her.

I swear I haven't seen this much stupidity since, oh hell, I can't think of a time.

were lots of proftis because North America didn't have to compete with Europe (who were recovering from or building up to or fight war). North America didn't have to compete with the Soviet block (1/3 of the world). They didn't have to compete with less developed nations (they just bulldosed in when they could, or dealt through rulers). Now they have to compete with all. All roads led to the USA.

Fact is that the traditional ways of making money are not going to be as profitable. And if you only needed a market of 400 million to do great and hire lots of workers.. now you need to be selling to the whole world.

Thank God for NAFTA, it creates even more cheap products for Wal-Mart to manufacture, which provides fantastic job opportunities! :sarcasm:

:rofl:




*insert the candidate you supported in 2004

.....as soon as possible.

I have no problem with free trade between other developed countries.

It needs to also allow other countries to question other member countries labor policies too, not just "free trade" policies, and not just be a "back door" for companies to enforce their will on other sovereign nations through bribery, etc. of the private confines of the WTO decision makers.

If someone like Feingold becomes president in 2008, we should pull out of the WTO, and look to have it's charter REWRITTEN to do these sort of things, or leave it permanently off the table for us.

Good for corporate whores though.

that NAFTA will be realized as the huge disaster it is and we can go back to the sanity of intelligently regulated, fair trade. Everyone I know feels the same but then we are all liberals. My mother has been ranting about how horrible NAFTA is since it began. She voted for Ross Perot because he warned us about the "big sucking sound" (of our jobs heading to Mexico. Funny, it was true for awhile, then the Corporatists decided Mexico wasn't even cheap enough for them and they ran off in search of more desperate people to oppress.)

Not sure what the loonies on the right are thinking. They seem to be happy enough being able to buy their WalMart garbage for cheap. But then again, lately some of the conservatives I know are getting a little fed up with the results of all the "GLOBALoney."

Those $1.00 an hour wages are just too much for the poor CEOs. Vietnam and China are much more reasonable at 15 cents an hour.

We look to you guys as our refuge of sanity among the insanity of the Bush Administration.

Here is a good article by Paul Krugman on the benefits of NAFTA.

It's really unfortunate to see liberals turning into protectionists. There is nothing liberal or progressive about protecting inefficient industries from foreign competition. While it's true that Republicans have been awful about trade adjustment and free trade really ought to be paired with universal health care, we shouldn't lose sight of the the fact that trade liberalization is good economics and good foreign policy.

one thing that has made Mexico and Canada unique, passports weren't needed to visit those countries. And citizens from those countries didn't need passports to come here!

This all changes in just two years. To me free trade isn't just the corporate privilege of selling products with no tariffs, it is an agreement between two or more nations to allow citizens to travel freely within those countries. Once passports and visas are required just for travel within Mexico, Canada, and the U.S...trade will be as free as gas is now cheap.

This "God bless America, and NO one else" idea has reared it's head all through American history.

I don't really give a flying fuck if GM or Ford can't compete with Toyota or Suzuki because of their own stupid assed decisions on many things. That I don't really care about, what I do care about is the fact that Ford will outsource a factory to Mexico, destroy a local economy there, then move the factory to China, and then the Mexicans, having no other place to go for jobs, come here, even though we suffer the same prospects as them. Soon enough there are probably going to be a flood of Americans and Mexicans rushing to the Canadian border looking for jobs, then we would really be up shit's creek. Then, probably a decade later, no one except the top 1% on this freakin continent will have any money worth keeping, and they will be in their gated communities with armed guards to keep the rest of us out and chain us to desks working for 16 hours a day. That is what we are fighting, I don't give a shit about AMERICAN jobs, I give a shit about the POOR, in all 3 nations, who are being screwed, both left and right, by the fucking rich in all 3 fucking countries.

David Ricardo is rolling over in his grave every time NAFTA is called a free trade agreement.

pay for health insurance for it's workers and all our trading partners have government paid insurance. The American steelworker for instance can out produce any worker in the world when we have modern equipment. Just exactly how is it fair we have to compete with slave labor in China and other countries. I've talked to people that built steel mills in China, they have no safety standards, they have no environmental laws, the people work for about 50 cents an hour and they actually live inside the mill with their children playing on ground covered with several inches of iron dust. If you work and your job was outsourced to some third world shit hole maybe you wouldn't feel that way. I find people that have that opinion are on a job that is safe from outsourceing.

We have given over 80% of our so called "free trade" partners 15-20 years to lower their tariffs, while we lower our almost immediately. The WTO has ruled we have to change our anti-dumping laws. Our foreign "free trade" friends do not.

The game is rigged for multi-national corporations and against the workers. We're in a race to the bottom, and I simply cannot understand why anyone on this board would expose their ignorance by supporting this insanity.

The steel industry, where I work, has been under assault from so called free trade for years. Time and time again the ITC has ruled in our favor when we file anti-dumping charges, then the WTO which is made up of the people that are dumping on us will over rule their decision. After the tariffs were put on the foreign countries that were guilty of dumping steel here, the WTO which are one of the same ruled against the Byrd amendment that returned these fines to the companies harmed by the dumping. While all of these WTO countries have government owned or heavily subsidized steel mills.

how few know what the fuck is going on when it comes to the term "free trade" and how it has been hijacked by these crooks.

Good luck in the steel business. You're gonna' need it.

There is nothing liberal or progressive about protecting inefficient industries from foreign competition.

That "ineffieciency" you are talking about are Labor laws, Enviromental laws, etc. etc. that foriegn competition do not have to FOLLOW. So we have two choices, one is to accept 1 dollar an hour wages, or less, depending on the nation and industry we are competing in, and also roll back ALL labor and other protections of the past century as well. Or, we could, you know, maybe encourage LOCAL economies instead, just an idea.

employees in 1970, by 1980 about 13000, by 1990 about 6000 and today 3000. In addition to losing all those jobs we went through 2 bankruptcies. I have given up well over $100,000 in wage concessions over those years and have lost 3 pensions. In the 70's we got a government loan to build a rail mill and, guess what, a project comes up to build the Washington DC subway system, who gets the contract F--ing France a with a government subsidized steel industry. We build a new state of the art electric arc steel furnace and ,guess what, the world bank loans the Chinese money to build one to compete with us.

That is a clear either-or fallacy.

Those who oppose free trade are not arguing for protectionism or isolationism. We arguing that we should do business with countries with similar environmental laws, labor laws, and so froth. That's what a truly free market is, a market where all competitiors are on an equal playing field.

When Mexico or China or Guatemala can pay slave wages and don't have to worry about environmental compliance, their cost of doing business dramatically decreases - the free market no longer exists.

that the President can cancel NAFTA. All he has to do is send written notification to Mexico and Canada that we are withdrawing from the agreement 6 months from the date of the of their receipt of the notification. You think anyone currently in the White House would do that? I don't think so.