Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE NAFTA Thread (merged)

A forum for discussion of regional topics including oil depletion but also government, society, and the future.

Re: Canada-EU trade proposal rivals scope of NAFTA

Unread postby Nickel » Wed 24 Sep 2008, 19:58:27

gampy wrote:Many European service industries (financial, software, etc.) would like a piece of Canada's government contracts. Apparently, the provinces are not too keen on this. For good reason. All that Canadian taxpayer money going to the pockets of Euro companies.


Well, if they're doing it for less, then our own companies can either compete or lose the business. I would imagine they'd rather compete, which means more tax money left over for other uses than feathering someone's nest.

Keep in mind that it also means that 33 million Canadians can bid on the government contracts of a half a billion people as well.


gampy wrote:Plus we can't call cheddar cheese Cheddar anymore, it seems.


Nah, somebody checked that already. The British don't have any such action pending in Brussels. But even if they did, forgive me if I'd rather not lose $40 billion of potential business every year just so I don't have to suffer the indignity of seeing "English style cheese" instead of "cheddar" on the packages of Kraft single slices.


gampy wrote:But overall, I would like to see more harmonization and co-operation with the EU, than the US. Their environmental, and labour standards are better, and their societies are a little more akin to Canada's. A better mix of capitalism, and socialism.
A healthier mix, imho.


I wholeheartedly agree.
User avatar
Nickel
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1927
Joined: Tue 26 Jun 2007, 03:00:00
Location: The Canada of America

Majority Oppose Chapter 11 of NAFTA

Unread postby mintdollar » Sat 14 Feb 2009, 07:32:15

A recent binational poll commissioned by the Council of Canadians, found that the majority of Americans and Canadians oppose provisions found in Chapter 11 of NAFTA. The poll found that 70% believe that energy corporations should not be allowed to sue governments for changes to policy that protect the environment and promote the public interest. Over half of the complaints filed under Chapter 11 of the agreement, have challenged environmental policies. Past polls have indicated that the majority also reject the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) and deeper integration into a North American Union. Continental integration is being achieved on many different levels and this includes through environmental commitments.

Chapter 11 of NAFTA grants foreign investors the right to sue member nations, if they feel that their profits have been restricted. Corporations have used this new power to challenge and even overturn labour, health and environmental laws. This new poll demonstrates that there is a desire for significant changes to be made to NAFTA. President Barack Obama has promised to renegotiate labour and environmental provisions under the agreement. Chapter 11 severely undermines our sovereignty. In many cases it is not being used to defend trade, but rather to challenge and override domestic laws.
http://waronyou.com/topics/majority-opp ... -of-nafta/
Last edited by Ferretlover on Fri 20 Feb 2009, 11:22:37, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Merged with THE NAFTA Thread.
User avatar
mintdollar
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue 23 Dec 2008, 04:00:00

NAFTA: Chapter 11

Unread postby bratticus » Sat 14 Feb 2009, 21:43:58

I'm still trying to piece this story together.

Did NAFTA file for Chapter 11 / are their plans for a Chapter 11 bankruptcy and if so how?

Isn't NAFTA a treaty? How does a treaty go bankrupt?

Newfoundland has history of playing tough
By Peter Hadekel
Canwest News Service
December 18, 2008

... skip ...

AbitibiBowater, although headquartered in Montreal, is incorporated in the U. S. and could take full advantage of NAFTA's Chapter 11 to sue Canada.

... snip ...


Obama Reaffirms Promise to Renegotiate NAFTA

By Laura Carlsen
La Prensa San Diego
January 16, 2009

... skip ...

Canadians have built a strong grassroots movement to protect natural resources from predatory NAFTA clauses. Broad-based citizen groups like the Council of Canadians oppose NAFTA because of the energy proportionality clause that requires Canada to export oil to the United States even in times of scarcity, the investor-state clauses that give investors the right to sue governments contained in Chapter 11, and the clause that permits bulk-water exports. Polls in the general population show that 61% favor renegotiation.

... snip ...


Yes, we can renegotiate NAFTA

RICK ARNOLD/ ROSENEATH
canoe.ca
January 23, 2009

... skip ...

The Dow claim is one in a long string of disputes (more than 50) to arise under Chapter 11 of NAFTA--a legal back channel that permits foreign investors to detour around local courts and sue the federal government before an international tribunal. Chapter 11 effectively puts foreign corporations on a par with government, thus undercutting a nation's sovereignty.

... snip ...


Paper Mill Seizure Boosts Populist Premier

by Chris Arsenault
The Dominion
February 11, 2009

... skip ...

Abitibi plans to sue the federal government under NAFTA, Chapter 11, a controversial clause designed to mediate disputes between states and investors. Critics allege that corporations use Chapter 11 to target legislation that favours human health, workers' rights and the environment over private profit.

... snip ...



Majority Oppose Chapter 11 of NAFTA

by Dana Gabriel Page 1 of 1 page(s)
http://www.opednews.com
February 13, 2009

A recent binational poll commissioned by the Council of Canadians, found that the majority of Americans and Canadians oppose provisions found in Chapter 11 of NAFTA. The poll found that 70% believe that energy corporations should not be allowed to sue governments for changes to policy that protect the environment and promote the public interest. Over half of the complaints filed under Chapter 11 of the agreement, have challenged environmental policies. Past polls have indicated that the majority also reject the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) and deeper integration into a North American Union. Continental integration is being achieved on many different levels and this includes through environmental commitments.

... snip ...
User avatar
bratticus
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 2368
Joined: Thu 12 Jun 2008, 03:00:00
Location: Bratislava

Re: NAFTA: Chapter 11

Unread postby Daniel_Plainview » Sat 14 Feb 2009, 22:06:03

I'm still trying to piece this story together. Did NAFTA file for Chapter 11 / are their plans for a Chapter 11 bankruptcy and if so how?

NAFTA is divided into chapters. Ch. 11 deals with suits and mediation.
Last edited by Ferretlover on Sun 22 Feb 2009, 13:23:30, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Merged with THE NAFTA Thread.
User avatar
Daniel_Plainview
Prognosticator
Prognosticator
 
Posts: 4220
Joined: Tue 06 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: 7035 Hollis ... Near the Observatory ... Just down the way, tucked back in the small woods

Re: NAFTA: Chapter 11

Unread postby outcast » Sun 15 Feb 2009, 11:06:18

'm still trying to piece this story together.

Did NAFTA file for Chapter 11 / are their plans for a Chapter 11 bankruptcy and if so how?

Isn't NAFTA a treaty? How does a treaty go bankrupt?



You're getting your laws and treaties mixed up. Chapter 11 in one law (or treaty in this case) does not have the same meaning as Chapter 11 in another.
Y2K is real. Y2K is going to rock our world.
-Kunstler

Don't respond, I'll just ignore it.
-MonteQuest
User avatar
outcast
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 885
Joined: Mon 21 Apr 2008, 03:00:00

Re: NAFTA: Chapter 11

Unread postby Snowrunner » Sun 15 Feb 2009, 17:16:42

What happened is that Abiti Bowater decided to close down the mill(s) they had left in the Province but wanted to retain the power generation and a few other "perks" the predecessor had gotten.

The "problem" is that the original contract stipulated that only as long as Abiti's predecessor (and all the legal entities that followed) operated a mill in the Province where they entitlted to the other perks (e.g. power generation).

Abiti's point is / was that the mill doesn't create any profit for them so they want to close it, while at the same time they want to sell the power generation and other "assetts" they have in the Province.

The Province now says that Abiti does not own these other "perks" and as they plan on no longer operating the mill they lose all the other things as well. Abiti of course sees it differently and now wants to use Section 11 under NAFTA to sue the Province for these other assetts.

I seriously start to think that Canada should either leave NAFTA (it can be done on a six months notice) or seriously renegotiate the thing ASAP.
User avatar
Snowrunner
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 795
Joined: Wed 24 Aug 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Screwed

Re: NAFTA: Chapter 11

Unread postby bratticus » Sun 15 Feb 2009, 20:39:44

outcast wrote:You're getting your laws and treaties mixed up. Chapter 11 in one law (or treaty in this case) does not have the same meaning as Chapter 11 in another.

Thanks!
User avatar
bratticus
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 2368
Joined: Thu 12 Jun 2008, 03:00:00
Location: Bratislava

Re: NAFTA: Chapter 11

Unread postby Dreamtwister » Mon 16 Feb 2009, 11:08:54

Snowrunner wrote:I seriously start to think that Canada should either leave NAFTA (it can be done on a six months notice) or seriously renegotiate the thing ASAP.


Never happen. If we tried to do that, we would find ourselves "liberated" in short order.
The whole of human history is a refutation by experiment of the concept of "moral world order". - Friedrich Nietzsche
User avatar
Dreamtwister
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2529
Joined: Mon 06 Feb 2006, 04:00:00

Re: THE NAFTA Thread (merged)

Unread postby Ferretlover » Wed 11 Mar 2009, 09:14:33

Bill would end cross-border trucking program
Wide access to U.S. roads granted to Mexican trucks in NAFTA would be terminated. Critics cite safety concerns, but a spokesman for the Mexican Embassy calls it 'protectionism, plain and simple.' By Richard Simon 11 Mar 2009:
Reporting from Washington -- Congress has hit the brakes on a Bush administration program to give Mexican trucks wider access to U.S. roads, putting President Obama in the middle of a politically sensitive trade dispute.

A $410-billion spending bill that passed the Senate on a voice vote Tuesday would end funding for the cross-border trucking program, one of the most contentious issues to arise out of the 1993 North American Free Trade Agreement. …

LA Times
"Open the gates of hell!" ~Morgan Freeman's character in the movie, Olympus Has Fallen.
Ferretlover
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 5852
Joined: Wed 13 Jun 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Hundreds of miles further inland

Canada says US bank regs violate NAFTA

Unread postby Sixstrings » Thu 14 May 2015, 21:00:53

Canada Just Threw A Grenade Into Elizabeth Warren's Trade Fight With Obama

Canadian Finance Minister Joe Oliver gave a speech in New York arguing that the Volcker Rule -- a key tenet of the 2010 banking law -- violates the North American Free Trade Agreement. The move underscores Warren's warning that such deals, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership that Obama is currently negotiating, jeopardize financial reform.

The Volcker Rule bars banks operating in the U.S. from speculating in securities markets for their own profit -- a risky activity that can put taxpayers on the hook for big bailouts if the bank bets turn sour. But there are exceptions to the rule. For instance, banks are allowed to hold U.S. government debt in their own accounts.

But those same banks aren't allowed to trade in Canadian government debt. Oliver thinks that's a NAFTA violation. Although he didn't lay out his argument in detail on Wednesday, NAFTA, like the TPP, generally bans countries from discriminating against each other's financial services. NAFTA prohibits policies that limit cross-border trade in financial services and requires the U.S. to treat Canadian companies the same way that it treats U.S. companies.

The U.S. Treasury Department vociferously rejected Oliver's claim in a statement provided to HuffPost.

"The Volcker Rule is clearly not a violation of NAFTA or any other trade agreement, all of which explicitly safeguard the ability of the United States to protect the integrity and stability of our financial system," a Treasury spokesperson said. "The Volcker Rule is a key prudential financial regulation that prohibits risky proprietary trading while protecting taxpayers and the depth, liquidity, and stability of U.S. capital markets. NAFTA does not weaken our ability to implement Wall Street Reform now or in the future, and neither would any trade agreement we're negotiating."

It's true that NAFTA contains an exemption for "prudential" regulation, and financial reform watchdogs strongly agree with the Treasury Department's interpretation. But it's not an airtight case.

Sorting out whether the Volcker Rule qualifies for that exemption is the sort of thing that a court would traditionally determine under U.S. law, and U.S. courts typically give significant deference to the views of the executive branch. U.S. courts, however, don't have jurisdiction over NAFTA or any other free trade pact. International tribunals do.

"The administration can say whatever it wants about its interpretation of these trade agreements," said Marcus Stanley, policy director at Americans for Financial Reform, a Wall Street watchdog group. "The problem is, under the terms of these agreements, they are not going to be interpreting them. Private tribunals of trade lawyers are going to be interpreting them
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/14/canada-volcker-rule_n_7285098.html
User avatar
Sixstrings
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 15160
Joined: Tue 08 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: Canada says US bank regs violate NAFTA

Unread postby SILENTTODD » Fri 15 May 2015, 04:44:26

Sixstrings wrote:
Canada Just Threw A Grenade Into Elizabeth Warren's Trade Fight With Obama

Canadian Finance Minister Joe Oliver gave a speech in New York arguing that the Volcker Rule -- a key tenet of the 2010 banking law -- violates the North American Free Trade Agreement. The move underscores Warren's warning that such deals, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership that Obama is currently negotiating, jeopardize financial reform.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/14/canada-volcker-rule_n_7285098.html


Didn't throw a grenade, just proved what she was saying! Too bad so many Americans continue to vote for SOB's who sell them out!
Skeptical scrutiny in both Science and Religion is the means by which deep thoughts are winnowed from deep nonsense-Carl Sagan
User avatar
SILENTTODD
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 928
Joined: Sat 06 May 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Corona, CA

Free Trade, NAFTA, etc.

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Sun 20 Mar 2016, 15:51:29

Not sure yet if I agree, but it's interesting:

http://spectator.org/articles/65797/three-cheers-free-trade

THREE CHEERS FOR FREE TRADE
it’s enough to take the word of an eminent Nobel laureate.

By Ross Kaminsky – 3.16.16

Donald Trump and his fellow liberals Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are lambasting free trade as the scourge of the American working man. How odd it is that an economic activity so beneficial to almost every American, indeed to the vast majority of the human race, suffers such attacks with only half-hearted defenses raised by politicians who should know better and economists who do know better.

I stipulate: in trade, as in any economic endeavor, there are losers in the short run. Capitalism is, after all, fundamentally a system of creative destruction. But if there is any area of agreement among economists of all political stripes — a group among whom finding agreement is exceptionally difficult given their unique decision-making anatomy — it is that free trade provides large net benefits to the societies that engage in it, even if other nations do not lower trade barriers to the same degree.

Furthermore, the benefits of trade accrue in large measure to the lower economic echelons of society in an extension of Schumpeter’s profound observation that “the capitalist achievement does not typically consist in providing more silk stockings for queens but in bringing them within the reach of factory girls in return for steadily decreasing amounts of effort.”

Allow me to offer a few quotes (emphasis added) from one prominent economist, at the time a professor at an elite university, who was lamenting the poor understanding of international trade in the United States:

“Most of what a student is likely to hear or read about international economics is nonsense.”
“International trade is not about competition, it is about mutually beneficial exchange.”
“Imports, not exports, are the purpose of trade. That is, what a country gains from trade is the ability to import things it wants. Exports are not an objective in and of themselves: the need to export is a burden that a country must bear because its import suppliers are crass enough to demand payment.”
“The level of employment is a macroeconomic issue, depending in the short run on aggregate demand and depending in the long run on the natural rate of unemployment, with microeconomic policies like tariffs having little net effect.”
“Trade should be debated in terms of its impact on efficiency, not in terms of phony numbers about jobs created or lost.”
So who is this paragon of capitalist dogma, this right-wing hater of the Rust Belt, this heartless fiend in the pocket of the Koch Brothers? Is it Steve Moore? Larry Kudlow? Ben Stein? Is it a deep-thinking conservative from the American Enterprise Institute or a Cato Institute libertarian?

No, these words are from a 1993 paper published by one Paul Krugman (H/T Don Boudreaux), at the time a professor in the economics department at MIT, who later won the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel (the official name of the world’s most famous non-athletic prize) for innovative explanations of free trade including that similar countries may trade with each other, including importing and exporting similar products, to satisfy consumer demand for a wider variety of products.

Again, although there is debate at the margins, the very large net benefit of free trade to a nation that engages in it is largely uncontroversial among economists, at least among honest ones — a group that sadly no longer includes Dr. Krugman. This includes the fact that free trade benefits the importing country even if the exporting country does not equally reciprocate with reduced tariffs. As the aforementioned Don Boudreaux puts it, just because the other guys are filling their ports with boulders doesn’t mean we should.

Yet here come Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton (not as committed an anti-trade radical but being pulled that way by Senator Sanders), and the faux conservative front-runner for the Republican nomination, Donald Trump.

Over the years, these and other spewers of economic nonsense have penetrated the collective American mind, leading to results in a recent survey — to be sure a survey with an obvious anti-trade bias but nevertheless showing dramatic trends — that demonstrate a growing support for protectionism. (I do wonder who has purchased the soul and editorial direction over the formerly rational Americans for Limited Government, which has recently become a shill for some unnamed anti-trade radical.)

Paul Krugman won’t stand up for the truth and even so-called supporters of free trade in the current political field, such as Ted Cruz, offer only half-hearted defenses of this beneficial activity. (I do credit Senator Cruz for correctly noting during a recent debate that Donald Trump’s proposed tariffs on imported goods will be paid for by American consumers, not foreign companies or governments, thus particularly harming the poor.)

Prominent voices in American politics and thought-leadership must take a stand and point out that not only are economic isolationists wrong in theory, they are also proven wrong by easily available data — making it all the more surprising that others are not taking up this important myth-busting on a daily basis.

Donald Trump has repeatedly called NAFTA, a free-trade treaty between Canada, Mexico, and the United States signed into law by President Clinton in 1993 and taking effect on January 1, 1994, a “disaster.” Bernie Sanders has used the same word. Hillary Clinton’s record on NAFTA is mixed, with her mostly mild criticism due partly to not wanting to oppose her husband and partly to trying to stay in the good graces of corporate donors such as Donald Trump — who takes advantage of NAFTA to sell us his Mexico-made clothing line.

Each of them describes NAFTA as having destroyed manufacturing jobs in the United States. Yet it took me less than ten minutes to assemble the data to debunk this ridiculous claim.

I’ll begin with a few questions:

Since 1990, in what year did Michigan — the poster child for states being depopulated due to declines in manufacturing jobs — have its largest gain (both in absolute and percentage terms) in the number of people employed in manufacturing in the state?
Since 1990, in what year did Ohio — another Rust Belt representative and a prominent part of the current political debate due to the presidential candidacy of Governor John Kasich — have its largest gain (both in absolute and percentage terms) in the number of people employed in manufacturing in the state?
Since 1990, in what year did the United States of America have its largest gain (both in absolute and percentage terms) in the number of people employed in manufacturing nationwide?
Drum roll please…

The answer to all three questions is 1994, the first year of full implementation of NAFTA. In fact, during the last 25 years:

1994-1995 were the only two years of over 3 percent annual manufacturing employment gains in Michigan.
1994 was the only year of over 4 percent manufacturing employment gain in Ohio.
1994 was the only year of over 2 percent manufacturing employment gain nationwide.
Indeed, manufacturing employment did not drop below December 1993 levels in Ohio or nationwide until the recession of 2001, which saw GDP growth drop to 1 percent. Michigan was even more resilient: manufacturing employment there did not drop below pre-NAFTA levels until the worldwide economic meltdown of 2009, a year that saw GDP decline by nearly 3 percent.

So much for NAFTA the Destroyer.

Trade is complex and like all complex things politicians will dumb it down in a way that benefits them, generally by lying to the public and creating a frothy anger against those “damn furiners” instead of pointing fingers at the true culprits: unions, regulators, and politicians of all stripes whose spinelessness is surpassed only by their willingness to destroy competition and consumer choice in order to curry favor with deep-pocketed firms and your friendly neighborhood lobbyists (who used to sit next to them in Congress).

It is one thing to argue, since it is often true, that a specific company (or an American division of a company) or a certain set of workers is temporarily harmed by the effects of free trade. It’s another thing entirely — and a very harmful thing at that — to argue that one of the most positive economic activities that humans are capable of engaging in, voluntary exchange, must be choked off and demonized.

That it works as a political strategy says a lot, and none of it good, about the political knowledge of the American public. That it is used as a political strategy says a lot, and none of it good, about the willingness of our current crop of presidential candidates to sacrifice the economic well-being of 300 million Americans, most particularly the poor, in order to scare a few more votes their way.

Even Paul Krugman knows I’m right.


Some commentary on the above. Free Trade was indeed the savior of the consumer when I studied undergraduate economics in the 1970s. Paul Krugman - in spite of his Nobel Prize in Economics, earned as an economic advisor to Clinton the First, is today contradicting his published works with his entirely self-serving sucking up to both Bernie and HRC. My guess, is he is wanting a "real job" - a government position that will make him a wealthy man on the taxpayer's dime. Clinton the Second will indeed give him one - and also fire him for non-performance, she is not her husband. Krugman got about a decade of speaking fees by criticizing GWB between Clinton I and (maybe) Clinton II.

Kaminsky's commentary about three Liberals running for POTUS is right on the money. Donald Trump is only a Conservative in his own mind, and his perceptions are the distorted ones of a NYC resident. By the standards of the rest of the country, he is left of center, just not as far left as HRC or Bernie.

I'm OK with that - I think the most important thing is to shake up the Establishment. The Donald or Bernie will do that, but HRC is mainstream Establishment, all the way.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6094
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 17:16:32
Location: Wisconsin's Dreamland

Re: Free Trade, NAFTA, etc.

Unread postby onlooker » Sun 20 Mar 2016, 16:41:52

The author of this article is patently wrong on much of this. First, we do not have a level playing field in which to practice trade. What we have is rich countries exploiting poor ones and the leaders and elites of poor countries exploiting their own people. What we have also is international institutions that are gaming the international commerce and trade system by putting onerous demands on countries in return for loans in order to engage in economic activity including trade. What we also have is a international trade system that has now been distorted to solely favor corporations and profit over any and all other considerations. This system loosely and generically called Globalization. Globalization allowing for the free unencumbered movement of capital, goods and services etc. This system enforced by an international organization that is un-elected and thus unaccountable to anyone namely the WTO (World Trade Organization). Now yes some benefits have been derived by this system especially in regards to essentials like food but all in all this system favors the wealthy corporations and to some degree the wealth countries at the expense of everything and everyone else.
"We are mortal beings doomed to die
User avatar
onlooker
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 10957
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 13:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: Free Trade, NAFTA, etc.

Unread postby americandream » Sun 20 Mar 2016, 16:58:43

Agree KJ. First priority is the sorting out of the Washington lobby (all feudal input must be eliminated) (NY and London are the 2 crucial nodes in capital and non capitalist regressive forces must adapt to its objective contours rather than impose their subjective notions or be minimised in influence), then we proceed on to let capitalism fly untrammelled.
americandream
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 8650
Joined: Mon 18 Oct 2004, 03:00:00

Re: Free Trade, NAFTA, etc.

Unread postby Kylon » Sun 20 Mar 2016, 22:07:52

There is no arguement that Free Trade increases wealth overall. The problem is that it takes wealth away from workers/middle class, while enriching financiers and industrialist.

It allows the corporations and the political and economic elite to have a weapon which they can threaten the American worker.

That's why it's hated.

It allows a big corporation to say to American workers "Either you reduce the wages you demand, or we will ship all your jobs overseas". Thus American workers hate it. They see no benefit from it whatsoever, and rightfully so. What good is increased wealth in the system, if you don't get any of it?

Furthermore, the greater the wealth inequality the less relative political power the American worker has. Thus it's not just a matter of survival in the economic sense, in the long run, globalization gives corporations the power to completely undermine democracy.

So the American worker is rational in his hatred of free trade, it is in no way beneficial to him. It benefits the rich and hurts the poor.
User avatar
Kylon
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 836
Joined: Fri 12 Aug 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Free Trade, NAFTA, etc.

Unread postby americandream » Sun 20 Mar 2016, 22:32:13

Kylon wrote:There is no arguement that Free Trade increases wealth overall. The problem is that it takes wealth away from workers/middle class, while enriching financiers and industrialist.

It allows the corporations and the political and economic elite to have a weapon which they can threaten the American worker.

That's why it's hated.

It allows a big corporation to say to American workers "Either you reduce the wages you demand, or we will ship all your jobs overseas". Thus American workers hate it. They see no benefit from it whatsoever, and rightfully so. What good is increased wealth in the system, if you don't get any of it?

Furthermore, the greater the wealth inequality the less relative political power the American worker has. Thus it's not just a matter of survival in the economic sense, in the long run, globalization gives corporations the power to completely undermine democracy.

So the American worker is rational in his hatred of free trade, it is in no way beneficial to him. It benefits the rich and hurts the poor.


But he votes for more of it...he has no real option. This ride goes one way.
americandream
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 8650
Joined: Mon 18 Oct 2004, 03:00:00

Re: Free Trade, NAFTA, etc.

Unread postby Simon_R » Tue 22 Mar 2016, 09:15:01

It benefits the rich and hurts the poor


It Benefits the Rich, and hurts the first world Poor.

I work with a large number of third world people who would be in poverty if not for globalization.
Simon_R
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 234
Joined: Thu 16 May 2013, 09:28:06

Re: Free Trade, NAFTA, etc.

Unread postby SteveO » Tue 22 Mar 2016, 10:37:27

Here is the bio of Mr Kaminsky taken from the link KaiserJeep posted:

After years as a self-employed trader and investor, Ross is now the host of “The Ross Kaminsky Show” on Denver's TalkRadio 630 KHOW, weekday mornings from 6 AM to 10 AM. He's a senior fellow of the Heartland Institute and an Objectivist/libertarian so you can't offend him by saying he's not sufficiently conservative.

The man is just another shill for the purveyors of neo-liberal economics.

Edit: Here is a link to the think tank where he's a senior fellow: https://www.heartland.org/ . They have some interesting publications like "Why Scientists Disagree about Global Warming".

They describe themselves as:

"The Heartland Institute is a 32-year-old national nonprofit organization devoted to discovering, developing, and promoting free-market solutions to social and economic problems."

Basically, the man's paycheck depends on his promoting "free trade".
SteveO
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Fri 30 Aug 2013, 09:34:52

Re: Free Trade, NAFTA, etc.

Unread postby Timo » Tue 22 Mar 2016, 11:57:54

Global free trade works beautifully when all nations exist in an economically homogeneous and bountiful environment.

Does that describe the world we live in today?
Timo
 

Re: Free Trade, NAFTA, etc.

Unread postby Plantagenet » Tue 22 Mar 2016, 12:04:39

The premise of the article under discussion is flawed. He says that "liberals" are lambasting free trade. But it is liberal Ds who are largely responsible for free trade.

The NAFTA accord was negotiated and ratified and signed into law during the liberal D Clinton Presidency.

And now the TPP accord has been 100% negotiated during the Liberal D Obama Presidency, specifically by the liberal D Clinton State Department. It most likely will be signed into law after the November elections by liberal D Obama, or perhaps by liberal D Clinton after she takes office in January 2017.

The Free Trade issue does't neatly break down along liberal vs. conservative or R vs. D lines. Its more like globalists vs. pro-Americans, and the dividing lines cross party lines.

Cheers!
Never underestimate the ability of Joe Biden to f#@% things up---Barack Obama
-----------------------------------------------------------
Keep running between the raindrops.
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26616
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

PreviousNext

Return to North America Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests