| RotoGuru Politics Forum View the Forum Registry XML Get RSS Feed for this thread | Self-edit this thread |
|
| 0 |
Subject: Should NAFTA and GAT be revoked Posted by: Dave K - [462472019] Sun, May 11, 2003, 23:04 Both Mexico's and Canada's government(not the people)have a dislike for the U.S.and I am not talking about the war.Would it be benefiting to America to reward our friendly allies with free trade,and discourage unjustifled anti-American sentimen?. | |||||||
| 1 | Perm Dude Leader ID: 34071820 Sun, May 11, 2003, 23:05 |
Short answer to the question: No. It's not about "rewarding" or "punishing" our political allies or enemies-of-the-week. In fact, that's the whole point of the Uraguay Round agreements. pd | ||||||
| 2 | Baldwin ID: 4261155 Sun, May 11, 2003, 23:10 | Include the related question, 'Could NAFTA and GAT be revoked?' Yes I know we built escape clauses in but once you start that train rolling how to you jump off that train without being run over by it? | ||||||
| 3 | Perm Dude Leader ID: 34071820 Sun, May 11, 2003, 23:19 |
Exactly. In the long term, free trade between nations is probably the most important as any political interaction between them. pd | ||||||
| 4 | Dave K ID: 462472019 Sun, May 11, 2003, 23:27 | Then how would you address governments feeding anti-Americanism for political gain? | ||||||
| 5 | Perm Dude Leader ID: 2345588 Mon, May 12, 2003, 00:35 |
Through non-shorted sighted means. There are plenty of ways to deal with countries who are a threat (and for soverign nations, believe it or not, anti-Americanism is not a violation of international law). pd | ||||||
| 6 | Dave K ID: 462472019 Mon, May 12, 2003, 00:38 | You skirted that issue with the skill of a politician.What non-short sighted mean? | ||||||
| 7 | Dave K ID: 462472019 Mon, May 12, 2003, 00:43 | I never said anti-Americanism was against the law.I posed the question would it benefit us to give more assistance to our allies and deter those governments anti-Americanism. | ||||||
| 8 | Baldwin ID: 4261155 Mon, May 12, 2003, 00:46 | How much money do we give Egypt? Giving money doesn't make them love us. It might even increase the inferiority complex behind so much of the hate. | ||||||
| 9 | Dave K ID: 462472019 Mon, May 12, 2003, 00:49 | I wouldn't give Egypt shi ite' | ||||||
| 10 | Perm Dude Leader ID: 2345588 Mon, May 12, 2003, 00:49 |
Trade retaliation (tarrifs, country-specific restrictions, and other actions based upon political reasons only) are short-sighted reasons. We don't like the French now, so we'll scrap 12 years of free trade negotiation in order to spite them, in other words. There are plenty of sticks (and carrots) in our bag to deal with countries with which we disagree. For example, there are literally hundreds of international organizations which the US belongs to, including the UN, NATO, and so on. There are retaliatory means at our disposal in each of these organizations we might engage, if we wanted to do so. Also, there is some trade which is not covered by GATT or NAFTA which would not endanger overall free trade agreements (or make the US liable for automatic penalties): certainly technology sales, or energy sales, for instance. All this depends, of course, upon a reasonable excuse for any retaliatory action. Its not enough, IMO, to cause any retaliation simply because another country is "anti-American" (whatever that means). pd | ||||||
| 11 | Dave K ID: 462472019 Mon, May 12, 2003, 00:56 | Give Spain,England,Bulgaria,Qatar,Kuwait,Poland and Australia a carrot,tell Chirac,Chretien,Russia and Turkey where to stick it. | ||||||
| 12 | Dave K ID: 462472019 Mon, May 12, 2003, 01:04 | Maybe it just me ,but when a government openly has anti-American sentiments,I openly have resentment towards that government.And I damn sure don't want them to benfit in anyway from America. | ||||||
| 13 | Seattle Zen Donor ID: 55343019 Mon, May 12, 2003, 01:05 |
I agree, let's get rid of the GATT and NAFTA. While we are at it, let's dismantle the World Bank, the IMF, and the WTO. Jail time for Haliburton, Enron, Texas Energy conglomerate execs. Yes, acting like a tyrant drunk on power sure can be fun. | ||||||
| 14 | Perm Dude Leader ID: 2345588 Mon, May 12, 2003, 01:07 |
I'm sure you do. So do I. NAFTA and GATT were done to ensure that long-term sucess of free trade is not subject to the short-term passions of politics. In ten years, can you be certain that any of those countries will not be our allies? Free trade will ensure that if we aren't, we will have years of trade with which to base a working relationship. Revoking GATT in order to "get back" at these countries only undermines whatever trust we will need to work with them later. pd | ||||||
| 15 | Dave K ID: 462472019 Mon, May 12, 2003, 01:14 | I posed the revoking of NAFTA and GATT as a question.What I would like to see is not quite as demonstrative,the boycott of France's airshow is a good start. | ||||||
| 16 | Baldwin ID: 4261155 Mon, May 12, 2003, 01:16 |
Yes, acting like a tyrant drunk on power sure can be fun. - SZ Pretty well describes the World Bank and the IMF. | ||||||
| 17 | Dave K ID: 462472019 Mon, May 12, 2003, 01:21 | Zen,you are a typical leftist in style of Tom Dascle able to just run down all the president's and other ideas without a coherent thought of your own on how to improve the economy,foriegn affairs or the rebuilding of Iraq. | ||||||
| 18 | Seattle Zen Donor ID: 55343019 Mon, May 12, 2003, 01:23 |
Boycotting an airshow? That has to be one of the stupidest ideas I've heard. What does it accomplish other than giving the rest of the world even more reason to mock our childishness. The appeal of this boycott idea had to come from someone who honestly views the Shrub as a man of character. This country has a serious schism and I have less and less patience for the loudmouths on the other side. | ||||||
| 19 | Dave K ID: 462472019 Mon, May 12, 2003, 01:29 | France makes millions off large sales from their airshow.Yet,again an attack without a substantial thought of your own. | ||||||
| 20 | Seattle Zen Donor ID: 55343019 Mon, May 12, 2003, 01:33 |
Tom Daschle!! Dem are fighten words! Don't ever mention that wimp's name! I have great ideas for improving the economy and they include increasing taxes. What we need are some public projects like public transportation and some new, high tech roads in urban areas. I believe in respecting foreign sovernity and international agreements that serve people, not corporations. The most important thing the world faces is hunger and disease, not responding to the acts of 19 dead men. You want to know how I would rebuild Iraq? It would look a lot like how we rebuilt Japan, we build factories in Iraq that create the goods and services that we tactically "removed" via Cruise missles. These companies then are owned by the Iraqi employees who work there. We DON'T give US companies like Bechtell nearly a billion dollars so they can clean up like the world most expensive janitorial service and then leave an Iraq with new bridges and no jobs. But why share these ideas when you are too busy trying to think of ways to slight Canada and France? | ||||||
| 21 | Baldwin ID: 4261155 Mon, May 12, 2003, 01:38 |
Zen has it completely escaped your notice that France is doing everything it can think of to hobble the USA? The Paris Air Show does tend to lend some cachet to France as some kind of power broker. [go to France, come home more powerful] Is it completely beyond you to consider it might be in the USA's best interest not to help France out in this? Now admittedly you have to ask whether we'd be cutting off our nose to spite our face as our military sales would be impacted but it's not beyond the pale to at least ask the question if going there is really in our best interest. I guess if you already agree with Madonna wrt France then reasoning along these lines must make your brain hurt. | ||||||
| 22 | Seattle Zen Donor ID: 55343019 Mon, May 12, 2003, 01:41 |
Dave K You have no idea about international protocol at all. Boycotting an airshow is simply a stunt and a bad one at that. What it says to the rest of the world is that any country that does not walk in complete lockstep with the US will be economically punished. Why not just propose steep tariffs on French goods? Other countries can play the spite game, too, Dave. It was ill conceived tariffs that started the Great Depression afterall. We have since sworn off such stupidity. Whatever loss of sales the French would suffer by a boycott would hardly be worth the ill will created amongst EVER country on the planet towards us, a well deserved ill will at that. | ||||||
| 23 | Baldwin ID: 4261155 Mon, May 12, 2003, 01:41 |
SZ Side point...I read somewhere that a mere 13 billion per year would completely end starvation in the world. Since you brought the subject up... Eating, there is a basic human right you would think the world could get behind. | ||||||
| 24 | Seattle Zen Donor ID: 55343019 Mon, May 12, 2003, 01:45 | I have to think that just the logistics of creating a food delivery system to feed the world would take at least $20 billion dollars a year in brainpower. Whatever the costs, it should be undertaken. | ||||||
| 25 | Baldwin ID: 4261155 Mon, May 12, 2003, 01:52 | I can't remember where I read that yesterday. There is so much corruption that would get in the way tho. I am not sure that was a practical number but if it were that is shockingly low. Every thirdworld bureaucrat would think he needed a payoff before the food took another step. *sigh* | ||||||
| 26 | Dave K ID: 462472019 Mon, May 12, 2003, 02:03 |
Well this is the first time I had anything to respond to other than your Bush Sux reiterations.While I can't see how public transportation or new roads will help the economy,I am all for high tech roads. The only reason I am glad they brought in Bechtel and Hallburton without bids is time.There is very few companies to take on such a large project and time is of the utmost importance to repair bridges,rebuild schools and hospitals and restore oil pumping.If you can name 2 better companies I would like to hear them. I have always believed we should do more for world hunger.Instead of subsidizing farmers not to grow,buy the extra grain and ship it out to help the needy.However you do realize the corrupt governments and warlords will try to hijack the food and keep it for themselves and they being a sovereign nation,all we can do is sit back and watch the children starve. Like the president,who was accused of not being able to deal with terrorism and Iraq at same time,I too can ponder more than one thought at a time. | ||||||
| 27 | Perm Dude Leader ID: 2345588 Mon, May 12, 2003, 02:06 | re #25: Unlike oil delivery, for instance... | ||||||
| 28 | Myboyjack Leader ID: 108231015 Mon, May 12, 2003, 09:11 |
The best way to feed the third world, smoothe ruffled feathers in Europe, and dowse enmity toward America, and create wealth throughout the world is through real free trade. NAFTA and GATT are good starts but too often, mainly due to internal political considerations, we take one step forward and two steps back. (See Bush's ridiculous steel tariff's last year) Two things we should do, but I'm not holding my breath: 1. We shuoldn't be scared to take unilateral actions on free trade agreements and policies toward third world and other countries instead of waiting around to see if Europe and others are going to play fair too. We're big enough to take a few economic lumps to effect a greater free trade policy; 2. We should stop using our trade and economic policies as an political weapon toward third world and developing countries. Our policy should be that we unilaterally stand for free trade for any country that will reciprocate. In the long run, a few bumps along the way notwithstanding, the wealth created in currently impoverished countries would improve our own economy, decrease our trade deficit, and have the residual effect of improving and fostering good will in a lot of places which currenly seeth with anti-Americanism. Madman, feel free to tell me where I'm wrong. Zen, explain to me why the anti-globalists, who would be tickled with any form of world-wide socialism are so against absolute free trade, which, it seems to me, even they would have to admit would create and redistribute wealth in the Third World in a superior way than in the current situation and would serve to break down national boundaries. I understand the "we hate big Corps" mantra, as far as it goes; but don't they think these things through? | ||||||
| 29 | Toral Sustainer ID: 2111201313 Mon, May 12, 2003, 14:47 |
There are soooooo many problems with your idea, Dave K. 1. Free Trade is not a benefit extended aristocratically by the U.S. to other nations, in return for which they should tip their cap deferentially. It is of mutual benefit. 2. It is a vast exagerration to call Canada's government "anti-American" or to say it has a dislike for the U.S. 3. Most telingly (to me) -- the "anti-American" elements in Canada do not want free trade, were against it, and are still against it. (Chretien was against NATFA, BTW). By withdrawing from free trade agreements you are rewarding, not punishing, anti-American types, as well as confirming all their wild prognostications about how entering into NAFTA would somehow threaten Canada's political independence. Toral | ||||||
| 30 | Dave K ID: 462472019 Mon, May 12, 2003, 16:42 |
I wouldn't seriously want us to repeal NAFTA,I don't even think it can be legally done,but I would like to hurt Chretien politically.He may or may not be anti-American,but he is definitely anti-Bush.A top aide of Chretien called Bush a moron,Chretien himself called Bush's trade policies "stupid",while many on this forum do the the same they are not heads of states.His Defense Minister criticized the fact we ask that NATO nations increase defense spending,when Canada spends the least of any NATO nation except Iceland and they don't even have an army.Even Alliance Party parliament member Jason Kenney said the "moron" comment was symptomatic of "a consistent pattern of knee-jerk anti-Americanism coming from the government from comparing the American policy on Iraq to Pearl Harbor to blaming the victims of 9/11." I don't like Chretien and if we can stick it to him in anyway without hurting the Canadian people I am all for it.Bring back Joe Clark! | ||||||
| 31 | yankeeh8tr Donor ID: 103282915 Mon, May 12, 2003, 17:01 |
Post 30 pretty much sums up for me why I'm frustrated with the board now. Dave, your "if you don't like Bush, you must be punished" attitude blinkers you to the bigger picture and prevents any meaningful discourse. Maybe you're brighter and more well informed than your posts to this point would lead us to believe, but absent any evidence that you are, I'll continue to read your posts for their entertainment value only. | ||||||
| 32 | Seattle Zen Donor ID: 55343019 Mon, May 12, 2003, 18:01 |
MBJ - Why are progressives against "absolute free trade"? even they would have to admit would create and redistribute wealth in the Third World in a superior way than in the current situation and would serve to break down national boundaries. This is not true. The IMF and World Bank have done more to DESTROY Third World nation's economies in the name of open boarders and free trade. Many, many nations in Africa and Asia have seen their annual GNP increase drop from 20% to single digits or even decrease. There are a lot of great books coming out recently exposing how the World Bank and IMF forced privatization schemes have robbed countries of their control of production all in the name of "free markets". This is a topic that I want to learn more about. As for breaking down national boundaries, I believe in free travel and a far more equitable emigration policy in this world, but I also believe in national sovernity and WTO and other multinational boards consistently overrule laws passed by people protecting them from foreign companies. If Unilever, Union Carbine, etc... want to build a plant that pollutes a poor country, screw the local authority, they will get it built. Multinational companies are undemocratic, do not answer to the people and by nature are required to generate as much profit as the market allows, regardless of the human costs. I don't want to cede anymore power to them and actually want some serious reigning in. | ||||||
| 33 | T ID: 269383120 Mon, May 12, 2003, 18:35 |
SZ If Unilever, Union Carbine, etc... want to build a plant that pollutes a poor country, screw the local authority, they will get it built. In addition to polluting the poor country it also hurts US 'blue collar workers' as they lose jobs for cheaper labor forces in the poorer countries. Businesses would much rather pay 60 cents an hour as opposed to 8 dollars in an hour to US workers. This is another problem that has come about due to free trade pacts like NAFTA. | ||||||
| 34 | sarge33rd ID: 324532412 Mon, May 12, 2003, 18:39 | T, thats a problem which has been around far longer than NAFTA. Back in the 60's Zenith moved a manufacturing facility out of Sioux City, IA and into Mexico. Some 100+ union jobs went...*poof* and were no more. | ||||||
| 35 | T ID: 269383120 Mon, May 12, 2003, 19:31 | This is true sarge. But with multinational corporations being encouraged to move into cheaper confines job losses have increased since the inception of NAFTA. | ||||||
| 36 | sarge33rd ID: 324532412 Mon, May 12, 2003, 19:39 | agreed T that NAFTA hasnt helped any in that regard, but I think corporate America would still have made the moves with or w/o NAFTA in place. Just look at how many corporate structures relocate within the US, when some other locale whores itself out with tax abatements. Problem with that whole process, is that once that abtement is over, corporate America goes 'shopping' for the next piece of gravy w/o regard to the people whose lives were spent building that companies products. And in the meantime, since that entity is paying no taxes, local property taxes have a tendency to climb so as to offset the lost revenue. In other words, the employees and their families/friends end up subsidizing the very company they go to work for, only to see the jobs leave when the subsidy expires. This is in my mind, a glaring example of corporate irresponsibility. | ||||||
| 37 | Perm Dude Leader ID: 93502917 Mon, May 12, 2003, 20:00 |
Very true sarge. Large companies will often hold local governments hostage, looking for sweetheart deals. Happens very often in the NYC area, where it's a yearly event when large companies whose leases are ending threaten to move across the Hudson into NJ unless they get a laundry list of tax abatements and the like. We see it with sports team all the time as well. The fact is, without NAFTA or other international accords, countries are not accountable in any way when companies go shopping in this way. Under NAFTA and GATT, there are a series of protocols which set out minimum standards of behavior. While we can hope that all other GATT signatories have the same level of worker safety, wages, food safety, and so on as the US, the truth is that there isn't really a lot of agreement within the various US states on many of these things. With GATT and NAFTA, there are certain minimum standards in a wide range of areas which are intended to keep free trade flowing, which itself is intended as a starting point toward economic self-security by workers and countries. We need a basis toward moving forward, so that market forces can begin to work on bettering peoples lives. GATT and NAFTA are good starting points on those issues. pd | ||||||
| 38 | Mattinglyinthehall Leader ID: 01629107 Mon, Jun 19, 2006, 15:42 |
Bush Administration Quietly Plans NAFTA Super Highway Quietly but systematically, the Bush Administration is advancing the plan to build a huge NAFTA Super Highway, four football-fields-wide, through the heart of the U.S. along Interstate 35, from the Mexican border at Laredo, Tex., to the Canadian border north of Duluth, Minn. 
| ||||||
| 39 | Perm Dude ID: 56519198 Mon, Jun 19, 2006, 15:55 |
I heard this was being kicked around. Truth is, the Teamsters didn't want any "Mexican trucks" in the US, and wanted to have all cargo transferred to union trucks at the border. It is obviously in the best interests of the Teamsters to hold to a union-only rule on trucks (though, oddly, they rejected a plan to unionize the Mexican truck drivers at one time). But there is a very real cost involved. However, given gas prices, I am surprised that this plan is still going ahead. I had thought the Administration was strongly considering using new train railways instead, and just transferring the Mexican trailers to flatbed train cars. | ||||||
| 40 | Mattinglyinthehall Leader ID: 01629107 Mon, Jun 19, 2006, 15:59 | I like the url that the conservative Human Events Online went with for this story. | ||||||
| 41 | Perm Dude ID: 56519198 Mon, Jun 19, 2006, 16:02 | Yeah, some conservatives find their "free market" philosophy interfers with their own racial biases when it come to Mexico and Mexican products. | ||||||
| 42 | Mattinglyinthehall ID: 454491514 Fri, Nov 30, 2007, 18:14 |
Pat Robertson and Midwestern Evangelicals: The Nafta Superhighway is 'The Way of Holiness'. | ||||||
| 43 | Doug ID: 559171521 Fri, Nov 30, 2007, 23:17 |
During post-debate coverage of the latest Republican CNN/YouTube debate, I recall some pundits mocking Ron Paul for this "imaginary highway" that he had made reference to. Part of Ron Paul's quote was: They're planning on millions of acres taken by eminent domain for an international highway from Mexico to Canada. I forget the exact wording the pundits used, but I believe they made a comparison to Kucinich's UFO sighting in terms of "out there-ness". I wonder if they're ignorant/misinformed, or if they're just saying what sounds good, makes for good theater, and disparages a candidate that they don't particularly care for. OK OK... so I don't really wonder... | ||||||
| If you believe a recent post violates the policy on Civility and Respect, you may report the abuse via email to moderators@rotoguru1.com | ||||||||
| ||||||||
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?) | ||||||||