CAFTA = SLAVERY

[unlawflcombatnt]

INTRODUCTION

CAFTA has again come to the forefront in Congress. Unlike before, some Democratic legislators are supporting CAFTA. At least one of my own U.S. Senators, Dianne Fienstein, is supporting this slave-labor promoting bill. She joins Senator Wyden of Oregon as one the latest turncoats now working against the American worker.

There are NO international labor standards included in the bill. CAFTA rules simply require that the involved countries abide by their own labor laws. Again, this will force American workers to become "wage slaves." Many CAFTA slaves are paid $2/day. In order for American workers to compete with these wage slaves, they'll have to work for the same wages.


THE CAFTA TREACHERY

CAFTA is the latest anti-worker, pro-slavery, "free" trade bill being considered in Congress.This is another bill designed exclusively to facilitate outsourcing of American jobs. The bill is much worse than any of the previous "free" trade bills. The flaws are even more obvious. It is a dishonest attempt by the Bush administration to portray an outsourcing bill as an attempt at "opening up markets." Central American workers are so poor they will NEVER create a market for American goods. Impoverished Central American workers, however, will provide an excellent source of cheap semi-slave labor. This new source of slave-labor will be in direct competition with American labor. The only way American workers will be able to compete is to accept the same slave-labor conditions as their Central American counterparts.

CAFTA is nothing but an extension of the disastrous NAFTA scam. American workers will lose jobs, wages will decline, and 0 new jobs will be created. CAFTA's advocates are 100% aware of this. They are simply lying when they talk about "opening up markets to American goods." In reality, what they really want is to "open up" the American labor market to competition with foreign slave-labor. Don't let Benedict Arnold corporations extend their economic treason any further. Americans must continue to stress Economic Patriotism, and oppose this new outsourcing extension.

George Bush, and his fellow "economic terrorists," continue to espouse outsourcing as being "good for America." It is not. And they know it. It helps a selected few at the expense of the many. This bill is a typical product of today's inhuman corporate greed, and its influence on the legislative process. And outsourcing is the epitome of this corporate greed.

Again, outsourcing is done exclusively so American corporations can use cheap foreign labor. The underlying motivation behind ALL free trade agreements is to enable American corporations to use the unskilled, impoverished, semi-slave labor of other countries. There has never been any real concern about "opening up markets." That is more than just a mistaken concept. It is an outright lie from Bush and the economists that espouse "opening up markets." The minuscule income of these 3rd world countries makes it impossible for them to buy American products. Bush knows this. Mankiw knows this. Snow knows this. The man on the moon knows this. Markets are created by aggregate consumer income, not people. Countries with little aggregate consumer income have minuscule-sized markets. Exporting countries that pay their 11-year old slave laborers $2/day will never, ever buy US products. Those wages don't provide enough consumer income to do so.

Chinese and Indian industries would collapse if they had to depend on their own populations to purchase the bulk of goods and services they produce. Wages and consumer income are too low for them to survive on domestic sales. They depend on the American consumer market, which is created by American wages (and borrowing).

When American industry outsources jobs, it outsources consumer income as well. This is the same income that purchases their products. Loss of jobs also places downward pressure on employed workers' wages. If labor demand decreases, so do wages. If this trend continues, America will be unable to purchase 80% of its own goods, as it currently does. Demand for goods, and the labor to produce them, will decrease further. This will further reduce consumer income and buying power. This is a self-perpetuating cycle, which will result in a continued decrease in DEMAND for American production.

The price reduction on foreign-produced goods does not make up for the income lost. It is simply illogical to think so. If it did compensate, there would be no benefit to outsourcing. Wal-Mart statistics, provided by Wal-Mart, provide some insight. A Wal-Mart spokesperson recently stated that consumers save $600/year purchasing goods from Wal-Mart. He also admitted, however, that Wal-Mart wages were $2/hour lower than those of the average retail sales worker. Here's the math: $2/hr x 40hr/week x 52weeks = $4160 per year less income for a Wal-Mart employee. However, the $4160 is only a small part of the labor income actually lost, because it is confined to retail sales employees only. Nearly 100% of the labor income from production workers is lost, since Wal-Mart buys most of its products from production facilities ouside the U.S. The loss of income by American production workers is even greater. Does $600/year in consumer savings make up for income lost by retail employees and production workers? Of course not. Aggregate consumer income decreases FAR more than prices decrease. The price savings are MUCH less than the amount of labor income lost. The only income increase is in CEO salaries and corporate profits. And that increase is entirely at the expense of the American worker. Increased corporate profits are EXCLUSIVELY from reduction in labor costs. In other words, this profit comes directly out of the pockets of American workers.

American workers are the most highly educated, highly skilled, productive workers on the planet. They produce more goods per hour than any of the workers they are losing their jobs to. But they are not as productive measured in goods per dollar. American workers lack the "skills" to survive on $2/day. We need to begin retraining them to acquire this skill. Our educational system has completely failed us here. And the ability to survive on $2/day is THE most essential job skill in today's market. We definiely need to increase federal funding to teach this "skill."

In reality, the "re-training" mantra is just a cop-out. The solution to outsourcing is not increased worker training. Nor is it increased funding to job-displacement programs. It is not extension of unemployment benefits. The solution to the outsourcing problem is to stop outsourcing. Period. Repeal ALL "free" trade agreements. We have absolutely no need for any "free" trade agreements. We already had free trade before any of these agreements were ever created. NAFTA, FTAA, CAFTA and the others have only one real goal -- to reduce the labor costs by using the slave labor of impoverished countries. This makes American workers compete with the exploited labor of poor countries. American workers then become no more than slaves themselves. Is this the job retraining Bush has in mind?


Economists speak of "comparative advantage" with outsourcing. This outdated concept is nothing but economic fantasy. It's what Right-Wing, "alternate reality" economists hide behind when defending outsourcing. They should lose their economic degrees for even mentioning this in public. It's a long, twisted, completely non-applicable concoction, which is designed to disguise the real reasons for outsourcing. Mankiw and Snow know better than to hide behind the "comparative advantage" fairy tale. Bush may be too stupid to be held completely accountable for his policies. But Mankiw and Snow are nothing but taxpayer-paid liars. The Bush/Mankiw/Snow/Greenspan "economic axis-of-evil" may destroy our economy.

I urge everyone to write to your Senators and Congressional representatives to oppose this sellout to U.S. multinationals. CAFTA will does not "raise all boats." It sinks them. It will reduce American jobs, and reduce American wages.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

http://www.unlawflcombatnt.blogspot.com/

_____________________________
Investment does NOT create jobs. It only "allows" for their creation. Increased Demand for goods creates jobs, because it necessitates hiring of workers to produce more goods. Investment "permits" job growth. Demand necessitates it.

Building a factory does NOT create jobs. Demand for production DOES create jobs. Goods are not produced if there is no demand for them. Without demand for goods, there is no demand for workers to produce them. Without demand, no amount of investment creates jobs.

[unlawflcombatnt]

1. Outsourcing Reduces Global Wages

OUTSOURCING REDUCES GLOBAL WAGES

Those who advocate pro-free trade often justify their position by stating a desire to uplift the poor in foreign countries. Not only do I oppose that position on nationalistic grounds, I question the benefits to 3rd world countries. Lack of benefit to 3rd-world countries is a point I'd like to make mainly with "liberals."

Outsourcing does NOT raise aggregate global wages. In fact, outsourcing labor costs to a low-wage country REDUCES global labor wages and income. If a $90/day American laborer is substituted for by $2/day foreign laborer, it reduces aggregate global labor income. Global labor income is what buys production and creates demand. Outsourcing reduces aggregate global labor income, thus reducing total consumer spending world wide. American workers lose income and buying power with outsourcing. That loss is NOT made up for by increase in foreign wages. This is just plain common sense. It's impossible for cost reductions to make up for wage losses.

If American workers can't buy America's production, then foreign workers need to pick up the slack. Does anyone really think that's possible? Can $2/day foreign workers make up for the buying power lost by $90/day American workers? That's $88/day/worker in lost labor income per worker. It would take the labor income of 45 $2/day workers to make up that labor income loss. Does anyone really think that'll happen? Of course not. The only benefit to anyone is the short-term cost reduction to American outsourcers, and a slight price decrease for American consumers. The numbers just don't add up. Global labor competition causes aggregate global labor income to drop. It increases the labor supply available to American corporations, and decreases worker bargaining power. This is simple supply and demand. If the supply of labor increases 100-fold, it will drive the "price" of labor down. Labor "price" reduction means labor wage reduction. Thus, the end result will be a dramatic reduction in American labor income, as well as a lesser reduction in global wages.

Outsourcing and globalization don't "raise" anybody up. They drag all workers down. Jobs will go to the most impoverished workers, and employers won't pay them a penny more than they have to. We cannot enforce minimum wage laws, or other worker protections in foreign countries. Even more important, however, is that Corporate America doesn't want to. Why would they? It would increase the price of their exploited foreign labor. The poorer the worker, the more willingly they accept poverty-level wages. Their impoverishment is Corporate America's gain.

Let's not forget that someone needs to buy the goods produced. Who will buy them if American wages drop to the level of their enslaved foreign counterparts? People can't purchase goods without income. And very low income means very few goods purchased. Demand cannnot be created out of thin air. Consumers must have sufficient income to create that demand. Without demand, there is no need for production, and no need to hire workers.

The entire world economy would collapse without the Demand created by American consumers. That demand is created by American income and borrowing. We're almost maxed out on borrowing at present. In addition, inflation-adjusted American wages are declining. They've declined 1% over the last year, and 0.5% over the last 3 months. The last thing the US and the world need is a further decline in American wages. American wage decline hurts the US, as well as the major exporting countries. If aggregate American labor & consumer income declines, so does our ability to buy foreign imports. Increasing American labor competition with enslaved foreign workers is worsening this wage decline. It's not only in our best interests to keep jobs in the US, it's to the advantage of all countries that export to us. We need income to buy their goods.

"Opening up markets" sounds like a good idea. But it's a smokescreen. It's not the real motivation behind "free" trade agreements. The real motivation is "opening up" the American labor market to competion with slave-labor. Bush and his neocon supporters know this. They hope we won't see it. Many of us do, however. Hopefully we can make others see this as well.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary
http://www.unlawflcombatnt.blogspot.com

__________________________
Investment does NOT create jobs. It only "allows" for their creation. Increased Demand for goods creates jobs, because it necessitates hiring of workers to produce more goods. Investment "permits" job growth. Demand necessitates it.

Building a factory does NOT create jobs. Demand for production DOES create jobs. Goods are not produced if there is no demand for them. Without demand for goods, there is no demand for workers to produce them. Without demand, no amount of investment creates jobs.

[Independent_Liberal]

2. CAFTA is slavery!

No doubt about it.

[unlawflcombatnt]

3. Absolutely

CAFTA is nothing but an attempt to open up the Central American slave labor market to exploitation by Corporate America. Their GDP is so small that the argument about "opening up their markets to American goods" is simply insane. How are they going to buy American goods if their daily wages are $2/day? What could they possibly buy from us? Nothing. But they can provide a lot of cheap slave labor. And that's all that's behind this bill. Corporate America is just shopping globally for the cheapest labor. There is NO other motivation. The rest is just a smokescreen to cover up the real motivation.

[area51]

132. It's all about the slave labor.

unlawflcombatnt said:

"How are they going to buy American goods if their daily wages are $2/day?"

Exactly. Even a child can see the illogic of "free" trade; it's truly insane.

[unlawflcombatnt]

4. CAFTA passes Senate, 54-45

With the assistance of at least 4 Democrats: Nelson, Lincoln, Feinstein, and Wyden, CAFTA passed the Senate. At least 6 Republicans voted against it, which would have defeated it had not 4 Democrats voted in favor.

I urge everyone to write your House Representative, since it apparently has not passed in the House of Representatives yet.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

http://www.unlawflcombatnt.blogspot.com/

______________________
Capitalism cannot function without consumer income. The benefits of capital investment are limited by consumers' ability to buy the products of capital investment.

There must be balance between the "means of consumption" and the "means of production."

[Rainscents]

5. We all need to write letters to all Dem's voted for this shit!

[unlawflcombatnt]

9. Write Congress

I've already written a letter to Barbara Boxer tonight. I had written one a month ago as well. Now is the time to start writing to members of the House of Representatives. I have a link that I think will work for that. I recommend that those that write choose the option to make their letter "public."

The link is http://www3.capwiz.com/y/dbq/officials/

If anyone has a better link please share it.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

http://www.unlawflcombatnt.blogspot.com/

______________________
Capitalism cannot function without consumer income. The benefits of capital investment are limited by consumers' ability to buy the products of capital investment.

There must be balance between the "means of consumption" and the "means of production."

[Elwood P Dowd]

6. The CAFTA market is less than that of New Haven, CT.

They won't buy anything from us. In fact, almost all of the exports going down there will be u-turn products - parts for assembly into finished goods exported back to the USA.

[unlawflcombatnt]

7. CAFTA countries GDP = $84 Billion

According to the Economic Policy Institute, total CAFTA country GDP is $84 Billion, or $0.084 Trillion. In contrast, the US's GDP is around $11 Trillion. This comes out to 0.76% of that of the U.S. How much difference will it make to open up the markets to a group of countries that have less than 1 percent of our GDP? How much could this possibly contribute to our total exports? Almost none. But they have a population of over 40 million. That's a lot of potential slave labor Corporate America could tap in to.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

http://www.unlawflcombatnt.blogspot.com/

______________________
Capitalism cannot function without consumer income. The benefits of capital investment are limited by consumers' ability to buy the products of capital investment.

There must be balance between the "means of consumption" and the "means of production."

[PsycheCC]

8. Great Post!

As always, I appreciate your ability to see the big picture; yet you support your opinion with many pertinent details. Thanks for the great post! :applause:

[Karenina]

11. Kick!

:kick:

[Peter Frank]

10. CAFTA IS INSANE!!!

While Bush denegrates the UN for potentially usurping our sovereignty -- he's willing to relegate our sacred history of freedom to the whims of mindless & borderless regional economics?!

He's riding the short yellow bus (not even driving).

BTW -- I'm not a Democrat.

[PsycheCC]

18. Corporate Profits UP, Labor Income DOWN

It's all about slave labor. The more American workers have to compete with low wage workers in other countries, the less income we will have here. It's not about opening a tiny market, it's about access to all those laborers.

BTW--I used to be a republican, but Bush opened my eyes, and I hate the view!

[ProudDad]

64. Welcome back

from the dark side...

I love ex-republicans... :-)

[PsycheCC]

66. Thanks for the Welcome back

I've always liked Democrats better, but I favor smaller government, in theory at least. With the Bush Spending Parade, the Republicans have clearly lost their claim to smaller government, which was about all they had going for them.

The more I study the economy though, the less I think the size of government matters. I know the polarization of wealth matters a lot more. Anyway, thanks to you and Unlawful, I'm getting a few things straight. :hi:

[unlawflcombatnt]

26. CAFTA and non-Democrats

A lot of Republicans are opposing CAFTA as well. At least 6 Republican Senators that I'm aware of voted against it. Even more will oppose it in Congress. A lot of Republicans in Congress are up for re-election in 2006. You can bet a lot of them are going to vote against CAFTA. It benefits very few Americans, and hurts many. Even many Republicans are seeing that.

[PsycheCC]

114. REMEMBER CAFTA VOTES IN 2006 ELECTIONS

CAFTA is a deal breaker for me. I won't vote for ANYONE who voted for it.

[sadiesworld]

12. Thanks for another must read post!

I'll kick this puppy (ouch) all day.

[unlawflcombatnt]

25. Thanks for the support

Today I was victimized by outsourcing from the consumer's end. I spent 3 hours today on the phone with a representative of Hewlett-Packard trying to fix my Chinese-made printer. The representative I talked to was in India. When all was said and done, I had to go buy and return one printer, and then buy a 2nd printer before I found one that worked. All 3 printers were made in China. I couldn't find any that weren't. I lost 6-7 hours of time today due to American products that were poorly made in China. American labor lost the income from having those printers made in China. Corporate America raked in huge profits of the labor savings, and I lost 6-7 hours due to poor workmanship. Outsourcing certainly is good for us, isn't it.

So now we've outsourced the production of computers and accessories to China, and support services to India. Most of our clothes are made in Mexico, China, Indonesia, or Malaysia. Some are even made in Central America. If CAFTA passes, we'll see what new production we can outsource there.

One of the few things we haven't been able to outsource is construction. And this has been declining. Today's news reported the 3rd straight month that construction spending has declined. This is the 1st time since since mid-2002 that construction spending has declined 3 months in a row.

The Index of Supply side Managers index had declined for 11 straight months until this month, where it increased slightly. In July of 2004, the index was at 62. The current reading is 53.8. This indicates a steady decline in manufacturing growth. CAFTA will drop it even more.

I urge everyone again to write to your Congressional representative and urge them to vote against CAFTA.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

http://www.unlawflcombatnt.blogspot.com/

______________________
Capitalism cannot function without consumer income. The benefits of capital investment are limited by consumers' ability to buy the products of capital investment.

There must be balance between the "means of consumption" and the "means of production."

[TheFarseer]

70. They don't need to outsource construction

illegals come to them for that. I'm totally against outsourcing and illegal immigration. I guess that makes me a flaming communist to want Americans to have jobs :eyes:

[PsycheCC]

73. Around here we would call you an Economic Patriot!

:patriot: :applause:

[unlawflcombatnt]

76. Economic Patriot

I'm with you regarding outsourcing and illegal immigration. Anytime you're against something that doesn't feed the greed of Corporate America, they call you a Communist or a Marxist. I guess if you advocate what's best for America, you must be a Communist. Those right-wingers are good at calling names, and bad at managing the economy. They're also bad at giving logical explanations for their destructive policies. If you challenge them, you must be at minimum an "extreme left-winger," or possibly just a flat out Communist.

I view it this way. When they start calling you names, they've run out of arguments. You've beat them. Now they have to resort to personal attacks, since they have nothing else left.
Just listen to Sean Hannity or Larry "I-lost-my-straightjacket" Kudlow. Everyone who doesn't agree with them is "extreme-left," a "socialist," or a flat out Communist.

Advocating what's best for 98% of Americans doesn't make you a Socialist, Communist, or Marxist. It makes you an Economic Patriot.
:patriot:

[1932]

13. Three things I believe about free trade:

1) You can't have free capital without free labor. You can't allow capital to freely cross borders unless you allow labor to freely cross borders. Otherwise capital will go to the country with the cheapeast labor and the labor will be captive -- labor should be allowed to cross borders to find the highest paying jobs so that labor rates are determined by a competitive labor market. I'm not someone who says that Philippinos must hate working for 1 dollar a day in a factory rather than for 10 cents a day on a farm, but I do believe that Phillipinos should be allowed to move to Portland to see if they can make $40 a day cleaning Phil Knight's bathrooms if they want to, and if that means Phil needs to pay $20 a day back in Manilla in order to keep people from moving, then I think that's right.

2) We can't sign trade agreements with countries with countries that don't protect labor and the environment. It's outrageous that Ameircans would be forced to compete with people who set such a low bar.

3) What's good for the goose should be good for the gander -- so that the American consumer benefits from trade agreements and not just CEOs. America needs to lower its own trade barriers if it's going to force foreing labor and consumer marketplaces to open. We need to open our markets to cheap imports, and if we're not willing to do that then we should allow foreign countries to protect their own marketplaces).

[B0S0X87]

20. Your first point is very interesting

I've always been pro-immigration, but I never thought of it that way.

As for CAFTA, I'm usually a supporter of trade agreements, but this one looks more like a bunch of corporate giveaways than actual trade. Matt Yglesias wrote a great criticism of the treaty and the ridiculous protection Bush and Co. are giving the sugar industry.

Senator Obama also wrote a good op/ed explaining why he voted against CAFTA. A lot of DUers will decry his reasoning as "just another globalist, capitalist neoliberal," but I thought he made sense.

http://obama.senate.gov/news/050630-why_i_oppose_cafta/index.html

[unlawflcombatnt]

33. Open Our Markets to Cheap Foreign Imports?

Are you serious.? Our markets ARE open to cheap foreign imports. Very, VERY open. That's one reason we're losing so many jobs.

You can't find a computer in a store that's not made in China. Nor can you find a non-Chinese printer or fax machine. Most office equipment is made in China, Mexico, or Central America. Most clothes we buy are produced in foreign countries. Baseballs are made in Haiti and China. Half the cars in this country are foreign. How have we not "opened up our markets to cheap foreign goods"? That's practically ALL we see in many areas of consumer goods. How can we afford to give away what little American production we have remaining?

When we open our markets to cheap foreign goods, like we already have, our workers have to compete with cheap foreign labor on the basis of wages. An American worker making $100/day could be 40 times as "productive" as a $2/day foreign worker AND STILL NOT BE COMPETITIVE. Wage competition is the ONLY competition American workers are losing. Should we be teaching our workers to survive on $2/day? That's the only "skill" we're lacking.

[1932]

36. It's agricultural products we close our markets to.

And we subsidize our own agricultural products which ends up destroying the one industry many developing nations have, both coming and going (by not letting them sell here, and by undercutting them in their own markets).

Our markets are open to cheap manufactured goods because American companies make so much money off those products (and they're often made in duty/tax-free "free trade zones" which no farm would fit into). Furthermore, many farms in developing countries aren't owned by American multinationals, so we don't let them make money that way.

If we didn't foreclose developing nations from those markets, you'd see a great deal of wealth build up in developing countries and you'd see their labor markets become a little more competitive.

Stiglitz writes about this in Globalization and its Discontents, which I thought you said you read.

[PsycheCC]

37. But What About American Farmers?

You say we close our markets to agricultural products and "we subsidize our own agricultural products which ends up destroying the one industry many developing nations have, both coming and going (by not letting them sell here, and by undercutting them in their own markets)."

If I understand you correctly, won't that be the end of our already subsidized American farmers? Frankly, I'm not as interested in foreign farmers as in our own. I think our "free-trade" agreements just end up giving other countries advantages over us. I'm not sure that in today's world we can afford to keeping doing that.

[idlisambar]

38. a note

the thing to understand is that while there are still some traditional small farmers in the US, large industrial farms have taken over the industry. The chief beneficiaries of US farm subsidies are not mom and pop, but large corporations. By contrast central american agriculture is still run in small farms, and so a lot more livelihoods are at stake.

[PsycheCC]

49. worth remembering, but sad

My Uncle was a farmer (mostly dairy, but some crops too) in North Dakota. I have wonderful memories of visiting him. I guess that's how I picture farming even today.

[1932]

39. I think I said above that I'm fine with the idea that if we protect our

own farmers so long as we respect developing countries' wishes to protect their own ag markets.

So, we shouldn't insist on dumping powder milk on Jamaica if we're not going to open the US to their ag industry.

And if you think free trade is benefitting foreign countries, you need to read Globalization and its Discontents. Free trade is beneifitting multinational corporations which benefit from cheap labor, and it's destroying the value of labor in the US and abroad. The only people gettting rich are super large corps. Consumers in the west aren't getting rich and workers everywhere are definitely not getting rich.

[unlawflcombatnt]

40. Protecting Our Markets

1932,

I agree with you here. We should protect our own farmers. In addition, there is no reason to expect other countries not to do the same. CAFTA support seems to center around certain limited American farming interests being able to sell their items to CAFTA countries without the current tariffs that are in place. In exchange for this, American farmers shouldn't expect protectionist tariffs against imported foreign agricultural products.

That seems fair to me, however, this is one of many reasons I think CAFTA is bad. It's a classic example of a bill designed to benefit the limited interests of a small minority, while hurting the interests of the overwhelming majority of Americans.

We shouldn't under ANY circumstances remove protections for our own industries. We have a lot more to lose than the foreign countries we have such treaties with. Does anyone think that opening up the Central American market to U.S. goods is an even trade for opening up the U.S. to Central American goods? Is opening up an $0.084 trillion market a fair exchange for opening up a $12 trillion market? Does this look like it's going to help the U.S.? Our gain is minuscule compared to the potential loss. Every CAFTA supporter knows this. "Opening up markets" is just a smokescreen to cover the real motivation behind CAFTA. The real motivation is to allow Corporate America to tap into the cheap LABOR markets of the CAFTA countries.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

http://www.unlawflcombatnt.blogspot.com /

______________________
Capitalism cannot function without consumer income. The benefits of capital investment are limited by consumers' ability to buy the products of capital investment.

There must be balance between the "means of consumption" and the "means of production."

[rman]

60. All the *FTA's center around US/western economic interests,

at the expense the rest of the world.

In fact all of corporate globalization, privitization and deregulation does.

Of course they can't just say that, so they are being deceptive about it.
You will however find it in policy papers now available under the Freedom Of Information Act - but those are very hard to get to even for scolars ("One can learn a lot from the historic record, and one can learn a lot from the fact that certain people don't want you to look at it" - Noam Chomsky, debating Richard Perle). Chomsky makes a clear distinction between "official policy" and "widely proclaimed policy".

Though sometimes something of it shimmers through, as in this statement by Tenet regarding Venezuela: "I think i can say (pauses and looks over shoulder)... i think the state department can say that Venezuela does not have the interests of the United States at heart".


(Sorry for preaching to the choir, just pointing out that this is much broader and much older then CAFTA and NAFTA.)

[unlawflcombatnt]

61. You're absolute right

rman,

You're absolutely right. I would amend what you stated about US interests. I would change it to US corporate interests. Neither NAFTA, CAFTA, or the FTA are in the best interests of most Americans. In reality, they are not even in the long-term best interests of Corporate America. The long term effect of these treaties is to lower American labor income and aggregate global labor income. Reduction in American and global wages will reduce consumer spending and demand for production. It will reduce the size of the very market Corporate America sells its goods to. It may increase short-term profits to cut labor costs, but in the end it reduces American and global consumer buying power. That ultimately shrinks profits and reduces economic growth.

Corporate America still refuses to acknowledge the fact that profits are made by SALE of goods, not production. Decreased sales ultimately decreases profits. Corporate America is simply killing the goose that laid the golden egg. That "goose" is the American consumer.

[rman]

69. More accurate still:

Global corporate interests, which coincides with the interests of elites everywhere. The US may be the main front for those elites, but the elites are in fact global, as large corporations are "transnational", meaning they don't care about and are mostly unhindered by national, financial and cultural borders.

Just look at the power of the institutions they have created: WTO, IMF, World Bank can create these FTA's which often have more power then national governments. Case in point:

NAFTA's chapter 11

"...gives corporations rights to sue governments in special tribunals, for unlimited compensation for profits lost due to normal governments activities."

"...there have been cases, like "Metalclad".
An American company called "Metalclad" went down to Mexico to build a toxic waste dump on an aquafer; the local supply of water. The government said "no, this goes against our environmental laws".
The people are getting poisoned from the water - what corporation has a right to poison our water? The government passed a law that said "no, you can't operate this thing".
They said "that's to bad, we have rights as a corporation that outweigh your human rights". They sued them for 17.5 million dollars saying it was a barrier to fee trade.
This US corporation takes the Mexican government to a NAFTA court, sues under this chapter eleven, and the ruling is - the Mexican government has to pay millions of dollars in "penalties", for "lost profits" of this corporation."

from the documentary "Trading Freedom" (Indymedia)
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/01/284511.html

also documented at

Berkeley University
http://are.berkeley.edu/courses/EEP131/classpresentations/Metalclad.pdf (PDF)
(turns out the amount in penalties to be payed by the Mexican government was reduced, but "...the judge agreed with the NAFTA panel on the merits that the actions of the Governor constituted expropriation".

New York Law Journal
http://www.clm.com/pubs/pub-990359_1.html

Stop FTAA
http://www.stopftaa.org/article.php?id=37

"NAFTA Chapter 11 Investor-to-State Cases: Bankrupting Democracy"
http://are.berkeley.edu/courses/EEP131/Nafta_Chapter11.pdf (PDF)

[unlawflcombatnt]

72. That's Incredible

That's an incredible story. Now I fully understand why environmentalists are also up in arms over CAFTA. It seems like every group, outside of Corporate America and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, is against this bill. I'm willing to bet a majority of rank-and-file Republicans are against it. It's really got so much public opposition that it shouldn't even be getting discussed in Congress. It should just be thrown in the trash can.

[PsycheCC]

42. Excellent Points All Around 1932

I had read that you said we shouldn't expect to protect our own markets if we don't want other countries to protect theirs. My bad.

And of course I do understand that corporations use trade agreements to decrease their labor costs and increase their profits. This outsourcing of American jobs also results in greater competition for the remaining jobs in this country, placing downward pressure on wages.

[realFedUp]

14. Passed in the Senate, contact your Congress people now.

[sadiesworld]

15. .

[sadiesworld]

16. kick

[PsycheCC]

17. Sadie's right! Another Must Read!

:bounce:

[Disturbed]

19. Central America is still fertile ground for..

Multi-Corps for cheap labor and mfg. re-location. All of these trade agreements benefit Multi-Corp Capitalists and screw over Amerikan workers. Most Dems are selling out the Amerikan workers and have been doing so for many years.

[PsycheCC]

28. Neither Party Cares About Workers / Great Hitler Pic!

Standing just below that cross, he reminds me of another leader who thinks he's a god...

[unlawflcombatnt]

34. The Picture

PsycheCC,

Amen.

[Been Fishing]

21. Voted for the Greatest!

Feinstein must retire or be replaced. She doesn't represent California voters any longer.

[unlawflcombatnt]

41. Replace Feinstein

Thanks for voting for my post. I completely agree that we need to replace Feinstein. She has sold out the American worker.

[PsycheCC]

45. Agreed: Feinstein must go.

I usually have appreciated her measured, moderated approach to issues, but to see her support CAFTA on the senate floor and then go on a few minutes later to oppose development of a bunker buster bomb really made me question her priorities. I'm not in favor of bombs, but I'm REALLY not in favor of CAFTA. She seems to have lost sight of the needs of workers.

[unlawflcombatnt]

51. CAFTA yes, Bunker-Busters No?

PsycheCC,

I completely agree with you regarding Feinstein's priorities. As a Californian, she just lost my vote.

I don't know how I feel about the "bunker-buster" bombs. I think a good argument could be made that these are weapons specifically designed to take out the nuclear weapons of our enemies. (Like maybe those of North Korea.) Whether this is an effective use of money, or a complete give-away to the defense industry, is another question. At least I can see some potential benefit. At minimum, it should increase American jobs. (Unless we outsource the production to the CAFTA countries.)

But there is NO question about CAFTA. Its sole mission is to tap into the 40-80 million slave-labor supply of the CAFTA countries. Any representative or legislator that honestly thinks that opening up a market that is 1/200th the size of the U.S. market is suffering from dementia and should immediately resign due to their mental incapacity. But I doubt that's the case with any of them. Those in favor have simply been bought out by Corporate America and by rich Republican campaign donors.

NAFTA was a complete disaster. Everyone knows it. And CAFTA will be even worse. Everyone needs to write, fax, call, or Email their Congressional representative. It's not too late. The passage of CAFTA may well be the blow that throws us into a frank depression. Let's not let it happen.

unlawflcombatnt
EconomicPopulistCommentary
___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

[ProudDad]

65. She's always been a

republican light...even when she was on the S.F. Board of Sups.

I'm certain her voting pattern is mostly with the repukes. Her hubby's a real estate developer and "money manager". She'll make plenty of money from this.

[PsycheCC]

100. Feinstein sold out!

"Her hubby's a real estate developer and "money manager". She'll make plenty of money from this." That explains a few things.

[unlawflcombatnt]

101. Feinstein

PsycheCC,

Thanks for pointing that out about Feinstein. I had heard something like that before, but now you've verified it.

[PsycheCC]

103. Thanks, but I was just quoting Proud Dad.

I should have made that clear! :)

[bvar22]

22. Fair Trade...NOT Free Trade!!!

Withdraw from NAFTA.



"FREE TRADE" has become a holy mantra used to END any discussion. I believe that this is a cleverly crafted "meme" that has been successfully marketed by the Corporatists using our CorpoMedia propaganda network. Even John Kerry used it to end a discussion in the Primary Debates when asked about outsourcing.

Many proponents argue that FREE TRADE is INEVITABLE. You can't stop Free Trade! Globalization and the InterNet cannot be stopped!"
This is completely BOGUS BULLSHIT!!!.
Globalization is NOT some NEW THING that is a product of the InterNet. Globalization started when the first primitive man/woman gathered up the stone tools he/she had crafted, journeyed to the next cave, and traded them for some food. Globalization has been happening for thousands of Years and has NOTHING to do with the InterNet. The InterNet makes it possible to access information; it does NOT make it any easier or inevitable to trade goods and services. It does not even make it easier to transfer capital. Wire Transfers have been around for longer than 1/2 century.


The stated GOAL of the FREE TRADERS is to "Remove the Barriers to Trade!" What they fail to mention is that those "Barriers to Trade" were in EVERY case put there for a reason, and that reason is ALWAYS to protect something worthwhile. What the FREE TRADERS really want to do is remove ANY obstacle limiting the ability of their Corporation to increase PROFITS for the owners by any means possible.

The FREE TRADERS are always quick to brand someone a "PROTECTIONIST" if they dare to question the sacred IDOL of Free Trade. Some things are WORTH protecting. PROTECTIONISM is NOT necessarily a bad thing especially when protecting one's family, protecting the ability to earn a decent living for LARGE segments of a nations Workers, protecting the Environment, protecting the cultural assets of a civilization, or protecting a nations natural resources from predatory Corporations!!!

In those respects, I AM A PROUD PROTECTIONIST, and it is time to debunk the myths, broken promises, and outright LIES being marketed by the "FREE TRADE for EVERYONE" salesmen!




For healthy Corporations to exist within our communities, they NEED regulation and public accountability. Since corporations are paper creations that have no soul, they must be forced to do certain things.

*Corporations must be forced to be environmentally responsible.

*Corporations must be forced to pay fair, living wages.

*Corporations must be forced to provide Health and Retirement benefits to their workers and the families of their workers.

*Corporations must be forced to allow LABOR collectives.

*Corporations must be forced to provide a Safe and Healthy Working Environment.

*Corporations must be forced to pay fair compensation to those it harms.

*Corporations must be forced to observe fair hiring and labor practices.

*Corporations (especially those that use the natural resources of a nation) must be forced to dedicate a percentage of their profits to Humanitarian and Community benefits (Healthcare, Education, and infrastructure).

*Corporations must be forced to observe FAIR TRADE and PRICING practices.


The reason that Corporations must be forced to do the above things is that NO Corporation will do them on their own. And that is OK and as it should be AS LONG AS there is an effective regulating agency that ensures FAIR competition and a LEVEL playing field. Without that regulation, it is a race to the bottom. The most cold-blooded sociopath WINS. There is plenty of evidence available about the effects of unrestrained Corporatism:

US History 1870-1929 (Some regulation was applied by T Roosevelt in the early 1900s)

The deregulated Savings and Loan Market of the 1980’s

The deregulated Energy Market in the Western US in 2001

The Mexican NAFTA disaster
http://www.aflcio.org/issuespolitics/globaleconomy/ns04...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/05/04/28_...

http://bernie.house.gov/documents/opeds/20040127181128....

http://www.heureka.clara.net/gaia/nafta.htm

I AM A PROUD PROTECTIONIST, and it is time to debunk the myths, broken promises, and outright LIES being marketed by the "FREE TRADE for EVERYONE" salesmen!




List of Democratic (?) Senators who SOLD OUT THE AMERICAN WORKER:

The "3rd Way Democrats"akaDLC, aka "New Democrats", aka Progressive Policy Institute HAVE found another way to get RICH...by selling out the Working Class of America. They will laugh about it over steak dinners at the RICH WHITE COUNTRY CLUBS with their Republican friends and owners.!!!

Dianne Feinstein, U.S. Senator, CA proud member DLC

Ben Nelson, Democratic? Senator, NE proud member DLC

Bill Nelson, Democratic? Senator, FL proud member DLC

Maria Cantwell, Democratic? Senator, WA proud member DLC

Blanche Lincoln, Democratic? Senator, AR proud member DLC

Mark Pryor, Democratic? Senator, AR proud member DLC



DID NOT VOTE:
Joe Lieberman, Democratic? Senator, Israel proud member DLC



Two Democratic Senators who are not official members of DLC, but sold their vote anyway:

Ron Wyden, Democratic? Senator OR

Patty Murray, Democratic? Senator WA

[Elwood P Dowd]

23. Great Post!!

NAFTA has actually cost us more than a million jobs. We have no way of knowing how many spin-off jobs were lost when the factories moved to Mexico. There is also the hundreds of billions of dollars spent on social services for those who lost their jobs. Then you have the billions in lost tax revenues from the local, state, and federal governments because of all the lost factories and lost jobs. Finally, how many thousands (or millions) of Americans saw their wages stagnant or reduced because of a company's threat of moving to Mexico?

It's all a big domino effect. Close a factory with 500 employees in Smalltown, USA. Suddenly the town has fewer retail sales, less tax revenue, more service companies out of business, and other problems. Local businesses fire workers. The city fires workers. Homes and rental properties become less valuable. Families move to other towns and cities looking for work. The county and state governments also lose revenue along with paying out extra benefits for unemployed workers. The federal government is spending more on food stamps, job training, medicaid, and other services. And on and on it goes.

[Raksha]

29. That makes two of us!

Re >>I AM A PROUD PROTECTIONIST, and it is time to debunk the myths, broken promises, and outright LIES being marketed by the "FREE TRADE for EVERYONE" salesmen!<<

I have NEVER understood what is supposed to be so terrible about "protectionism." You are so right that there are some things that absolutely SHOULD be protected, above all the American standard of living, and there is *NO* reason we need to be apologetic about protecting them! It's a matter of basic self-preservation, after all.

I agree with you about the need for regulation also. Like free trade, "deregulation" is another of those neocon idols that is antithetical to the public interest. I don't think anyone needs to look far for examples.

Great rant, as is the OP. It's wonderful that there are at least a few voices of economic sanity around.

[sadiesworld]

24. A last kick for the day!

G'night.

[bvar22]

27. Another kick for Late Nighters.

This ONE ISSUE (Free Trade) will DETERMINE the Quality of Life for EVERY American who Works for a Living for the next 50 years.


I can't believe most people here don't care.

List of Democratic (?) Senators who SOLD OUT THE AMERICAN WORKER:

The "3rd Way Democrats"aka DLC, aka "New Democrats", aka Progressive Policy Institute HAVE found another way to get RICH...by selling out the Working Class of America. They will laugh about it over steak dinners at the RICH WHITE COUNTRY CLUBS with their Republican friends and owners.!!!

Dianne Feinstein, U.S. Senator, CA proud member DLC

Ben Nelson, Democratic? Senator, NE proud member DLC

Bill Nelson, Democratic? Senator, FL proud member DLC

Maria Cantwell, Democratic? Senator, WA proud member DLC

Blanche Lincoln, Democratic? Senator, AR proud member DLC

Mark Pryor, Democratic? Senator, AR proud member DLC



DID NOT VOTE:
Joe Lieberman, Democratic? Senator, CT proud member DLC



Two Democratic Senators who are not "official" members of DLC, but sold their vote anyway:

Ron Wyden, Democratic? Senator OR

Patty Murray, Democratic? Senator WA

[unlawflcombatnt]

30. 8 Democratic Senators voted FOR CAFTA

Bvar22,

Thanks for the vote update. I had gotten my information off of CSPAN immediately after the vote and missed some of the names.

I had actually faxed the letter I used to start this thread to Senator Wyden about 2 weeks ago. Apparently it didn't do any good. If CAFTA passes the House, we need to try something one of the local California radio stations did. We need to have a "political" human sacrifice. During the 2004 elections, KFI AM 640 ran a "political" human sacrifice against Republican Congressman David Dreier. Dreier still won, but Democrat Cynthia Matthews gave him a very good fight. She lost by less than 10%. This was an amazingly close race, considering David Dreier was considered a shoe in, and received over 1000 times the campaign financing that Matthews did. It was one of the very few closs California Congressional races, and Matthews did it with almost NO finacial backing.

Though Dreier won, the closeness of the race has affected him. It's made him at least pretend to address the issue of illegal immigration. He is also pro-CAFTA. This may make him even more vulnerable in 2006. I'd like to see his next Democratic opponent attack his CAFTA position, as well as his pro-illegal immigration stances. I think Dreier should be chairman of the Congressional "Cheap Labor Caucus."

Maybe we can all put our collective heads together and determine which Republicans are vulnerable, and target those districts.

My own Congressman is Republican Ed Royce. I suspect he is less powerful than Dreier, and may be easier to take down.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

http://www.unlawflcombatnt.blogspot.com/

______________________
Capitalism cannot function without consumer income. The benefits of capital investment are limited by consumers' ability to buy the products of capital investment.

There must be balance between the "means of consumption" and the "means of production."

[bvar22]

43. Nice Blog.

Well done.
Bookmarked it and will be visiting for a deeper look.
Liked what I saw so far.

Bob
St Paul

[unlawflcombatnt]

44. Thanks

Bob,

Thanks for your compliment. :) I'll be posting more at my blogsite. I still have several hundred letters that I have not posted yet. And I'll be writing new ones as well.

Mike(unlawflcombatnt)

[GreenPartyVoter]

31. I can't get my freeper BIL to understand why this is so wrong

[unlawflcombatnt]

32. CAFTA SLAVES = AMERICAN SLAVES

I understand your problem. I'm going to post as many letters here as I can. Use any or all of them to back your position. There is very little legitimate justification for CAFTA.

The Central American markets we could potentially open have a GDP of less than 1% of that of the US. We can't sell goods to people who don't have enough money to buy them. However, "opening markets" is just a smokescreen anyway. This is not the real reason for CAFTA. It's just the lame excuse given. The real reason is to make use of the slave labor in CAFTA countries.

Worker protections (and wages) in CAFTA countries will be less than they are now. Currently the International Labor Organization labor protections apply. Under CAFTA, those countries will NOT have to abide by ILO regulations, only the countries own labor laws. And those laws can be changed at will.

The argument that it will stimulate economic development by creating new jobs in those countries is half of the story. The US will LOSE the very jobs those countries gain. The difference is, a $100/day American worker will be replaced by a $2/day Central American worker. American outsourcers will be able to reduce their labor costs up to 98% in this scenario. Meanwhile, the CAFTA made products will sell for 50% of the equivalent American product. Where does the rest of the money go? To the greedy Benedict Arnold multinationals that will be exploiting CAFTA workers.

Don't let them get away with the "competitiveness" argument either. The only competition American workers are up against is wage competition. Can American workers compete with CAFTA slaves making $2/day? If American workers were 10 times as productive as CAFTA slaves making $2/day, their jobs would still go to the slaves. It would still not be cost effective to make the goods in the U.S., even if American workers were 10 times as productive. A CAFTA worker making $2/day could be 1/10 as productive as an American worker, and still would be a better "deal" for Corporate America. The only way American workers can compete with slaves is to become slaves themselves.

In effect, American labor income will be transfered in to the pockets of American multinationals. It's essentially a tranfer of wealth from American workers to Corporate America. That's the underlying motivation of CAFTA -- how the rich can get even richer.

The free-traders espouse all of the "new" jobs CAFTA will create here. That's complete nonsense. If those lost jobs had remained here, they would have created FAR MORE new jobs in this country. It's idiotic to suggest that creating jobs in Central America creates more U.S. jobs than would have been created by same number of jobs in the U.S.

Reducing American labor income does not create jobs. It destroys them. Consumer spending and demand are what creates jobs. New jobs are created when there is increased consumer demand for the products of labor. Loss of American labor income REDUCES American jobs and labor income. It reduces the money available to buy American products. It reduces the consumer spending necessary to create demand for production. Decreased demand for production reduces the demand for workers to create that production.

The history of NAFTA should be thrown in the face of the free-traders. Depending on the source, NAFTA has cost the U.S. between 700,000 and 1 million jobs. Average Mexican wages have decreased. The U.S. trade deficits with Mexico and Canada have exploded since passage of NAFTA. There are NO statistics supporting any American benefits from NAFTA. And CAFTA is much worse.

Don't let your free-trade friends use the "comparative advantage" argument. Comparative Advantage's originator, David Ricardo, clearly stated that international mobility of capital invalidates the doctrine. In other words, "comparative advantage" cannot be used to justify outsourcing. Again, it was clearly excluded from David Ricardo's initial doctrine.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

http://www.unlawflcombatnt.blogspot.com/

______________________
Capitalism cannot function without consumer income. The benefits of capital investment are limited by consumers' ability to buy the products of capital investment.

There must be balance between the "means of consumption" and the "means of production."

[unlawflcombatnt]

35. CAFTA Link

The following is a link to the Economic Policy Institute's latest assessment of CAFTA:

http://www.epinet.org/issuebriefs/210/ib210.pdf

[unlawflcombatnt]

46. CAFTA can be blocked

It's not too late to sway our local representatives. Again, I urge everyone to write your Congressional representative. You can use any or all of the letters I have written to send. I'll re-post other letters here regarding outsourcing and free trade. This is an issue we can win. Many Republicans are also against it.

Some historically conservative groups, such as the John Birch Society, are adamantly opposed to it. Most Hipanic groups are also against it. There is a lot of anti-CAFTA sentiment in this country. That sentiment represents the overwhelming majority of the electorate. We need to LOUDLY convey that sentiment to our representatives.

It will be much harder to get out of "SHAFTA" once we are in it, than it will be to prevent its initial passage.

Write to your local congressional representative, regardless of their party affiliation. Let them know that an anti-American worker vote will be remembered in 2006, when they are up for re-election.

Here's a link that usually works for me:http://www3.capwiz.com/y/dbq/officials/

Let's all put on our economic patriot hats. :patriot:

unlawflcombatnt
EconomicPopulistCommentary

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

[PsycheCC]

47. Another Link to write the House of Reps.

http://www.house.gov/

Sometimes the capwiz site results in notes to write back to their official web sites found at house.gov.

Keep those cards and letters going!!!

[unlawflcombatnt]

52. Thanks for sharing that link

PscheCC,

Thanks for sharing that link. If anyone has more, please post them. Also, if anyone knows how to get a letter published in a newspaper, please share that information as well.

unlawlfcombatnt

[unlawflcombatnt]

48. CAFTA link

Here's a link for another organization opposing CAFTA. It's called Americans for fair trade.

http://www.americansforfairtrade.org/

unlawflcombatnt
EconomicPopulistCommentary

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

[unlawflcombatnt]

50. CAFTA on CNN

Tonight's CNN showed a brief discussion on CAFTA, featuring opposing views between a Democratic Congressman from Ohio and a Republican Congressman from Texas. Kitty Pilgrim was hosting.

Several points are worth mentioning here. Kitty Pilgrim stated that GDP of the combined CAFTA countries was $62 billion. (This is even lower than I initially stated.) The entire CAFTA GDP is the equivalent of Columbus, Ohio. This is 0.5%, or 1/200th the size of the U.S. economy. Clearly "opening up their markets to American goods" isn't going to make any real difference in our exports.

Democratic Congressman Brown made several more points. The average annual wage in Nicaragua is $2,300/year. Honduran and Guatemalan wages average $3,000/year. How are they going to purchase American goods with those wages?

Again, how can "markets opening" do anything positive for the U.S? It takes income to purchase our goods. Can they really purchase much with those wages?

unlawflcombatnt
EconomicPopulistCommentary

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

[unlawflcombatnt]

53. Another Letter to use for CAFTA

The real goal of CAFTA is to facilitate outsourcing. Outsourcing is done exclusively so American corporations can use cheap foreign labor. The underlying motivation behind ALL free trade agreements is to enable American corporations to use the unskilled, impoverished, semi-slave labor of other countries. There has never been any real concern about "opening up markets." That is more than just a mistaken concept. It is an outright lie from Bush and the economists that espouse "opening up markets." The minuscule income of these 3rd world countries makes it impossible for them to buy American products. Bush knows this. Mankiw knows this. Snow knows this. The man on the moon knows this. Markets are created by aggregate consumer income, not people. Countries with little aggregate consumer income have minuscule-sized markets. Exporting countries that pay their 11-year old slave laborers $2/day will never, ever buy US products. Those wages don't provide enough consumer income to do so.

Chinese and Indian industries would collapse if they had to depend on their own populations to purchase the bulk of goods and services they produce. Wages and consumer income are too low for them to survive on domestic sales. They depend on the American consumer market, which is created by American wages (and borrowing).

When American industry outsources jobs, it outsources consumer income as well. This is the same income that purchases their products. Loss of jobs also places downward pressure on employed workers' wages. If labor demand decreases, so do wages. If this trend continues, Americans will be unable to purchase 80% of its own goods, as it currently does. Demand for goods, and the labor to produce them, will decrease further. This will further reduce consumer income and buying power. This is a self-perpetuating cycle, which will result in a continued decrease in DEMAND for American production.

The price reduction on foreign-produced goods does not make up for the income lost. It is simply illogical to think so. If it did compensate, there would be no benefit to outsourcing. Wal-Mart statistics, provided by Wal-Mart, provide some insight. A Wal-Mart spokesperson recently stated that consumers save $600/year purchasing goods from Wal-Mart. He also admitted, however, that Wal-Mart wages were $2/hour lower than those of the average retail sales worker. Here's the math: $2/hr x 40hr/week x 52weeks = $4160 per year less income for a Wal-Mart employee. However, the $4160 is only a small part of the labor income actually lost, because it is confined to retail sales employees only. Nearly 100% of the labor income from production workers is lost, since Wal-Mart buys most of its products from production facilities ouside the U.S. The loss of income by American production workers is even greater. Does $600/year in consumer savings make up for income lost by retail employees and production workers? Of course not. Aggregate consumer income decreases FAR more than prices decrease. The price savings are MUCH less than the amount of labor income lost. The only income increase is in CEO salaries and corporate profits. And that increase is entirely at the expense of the American worker. Increased corporate profits are EXCLUSIVELY from reduction in labor costs. In other words, this profit comes directly out of the pockets of American workers.

American workers are the most highly educated, highly skilled, productive workers on the planet. They produce more goods per hour than any of the workers they are losing their jobs to. But they are not as productive measured in goods per dollar. American workers lack the "skills" to survive on $2/day. We need to begin retraining them to acquire this skill. Our educational system has completely failed us here. And the ability to survive on $2/day is THE most essential job skill in today's market. We definiely need to increase federal funding to teach this "skill."

In reality, the "re-training" mantra is just a copout. The solution to outsourcing is not increased worker training. Nor is it increased funding to job-displacement programs. It is not extension of unemployment benefits. The solution to the outsourcing problem is to stop outsourcing. Period. Repeal ALL "free" trade agreements. We have absolutely no need for any "free" trade agreements. We already had free trade before any of these agreements were ever created. NAFTA, FTAA, CAFTA and the others have only one real goal -- to reduce the labor costs by using the slave labor of impoverished countries. This makes American workers compete with the exploited labor of poor countries. American workers then become no more than slaves themselves. Is this the job retraining Bush has in mind?


Economists speak of "comparative advantage" with outsourcing. This outdated concept is nothing but economic fantasy. It's what Right-Wing, "alternate reality" economists hide behind when defending outsourcing. They should lose their economic degrees for even mentioning this in public. It's a long, twisted, completely non-applicable concoction, which is designed to disguise the real reasons for outsourcing. Mankiw and Snow know better than to hide behind the "comparative advantage" fairy tale. Bush may be too stupid to be held completely accountable for his policies. But Mankiw and Snow are nothing but taxpayer-paid liars. The Bush/Mankiw/Snow/Greenspan "economic axis-of-evil" may destroy our economy.


unlawflcombatnt
EconomicPopulistCommentary
___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

[Bravo411]

54. Excelent post

I'll have to go check out your blog now.

[unlawflcombatnt]

57. Thanks

I visited your blog as well. Keep me posted about how the asbestos case in Montana turns out. My father died from an asbestos-related lung cancer. So I'm certainly interested in that.

[Eloriel]

55. I tried to Nominate this -- but I got an error message --

You can only nominate threads started in the last 24 hours.

:grr:

What a crock. And what a shame those who came before me who KICKED this couldn't nominate it. Damn.

[unlawflcombatnt]

56. Thanks anyway

Thanks for trying. It's the thought that counts.

[PsycheCC]

58. You're right Eloriel

We should have nominated this one. I think I'm getting spoiled by all these understandable posts on the economy. Sorry Unlawful! Next time... :yourock:

[unlawflcombatnt]

59. Your support is appreciated

PsycheCC,

Thanks anyway. At least you're helping bring my CAFTA post to the forefront. I really hope people don't forget that this issue is being discussed and debated right now in the House of Representatives. Today's terrorist attack in London is tragic. But I hope it doesn't allow the Bush corporatocracy to distract us from its own economic terrorism.

CAFTA will be a serious blow to American workers. We can't lose sight of this, despite today's tragedy.

[shockra]

62. I got this e-mail the other day from In Defense of Animals.

"Free Trade" Agreement Threatens Animals and Habitats

The Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement (DR-CAFTA) passed the U.S. Senate last Thursday after intense lobbying by the meat industry, and now moves to the U.S. House of Representatives for a vote. If approved by the House, DR-CAFTA will have serious consequences for wildlife, farmed animals and marine creatures. The new regulations will enable U.S. meat producers to expand markets into Central America, open previously protected waters to commercial fisheries, and endanger critical wildlife habitats throughout the region.

DR-CAFTA also empowers corporations at the expense of the host country's social and political autonomy. Like many other "free trade" agreements, it is custom-made by and for the benefit of corporate interests, and allows companies to sue countries that interfere with their ability to make a profit. This can mean that the host country's own laws no longer apply, often forcing them into violating their established environmental standards under the threat of multi-billion dollar lawsuits. If passed by Congress, DR-CAFTA could also set a precedent for similar trade agreements in other parts of the developing world, making it imperative that we stop it NOW while we still have the chance.

1. Click http://ga0.org/campaign/DRCAFTA to urge your Congressperson to vote against DR-CAFTA. You can partially edit and personalize this form email, but handwritten letters, faxes and phone calls are even more persuasive, so please also contact your Congressperson directly. You can get contact information for your elected officials by clicking http://ga0.org/indefenseofanimals/home.html and entering your zip code.

2. Visit http://stopcafta.org/groups.php to get involved with local groups that are fighting against DR-CAFTA. You can also join the animal rights working group on DR-CAFTA by emailing Adam Weissman at [e-mail] or calling [phone].

[unlawflcombatnt]

68. Thanks for posting

Shockra,

Thanks for posting your letter and the links. I wasn't aware of some of the negatives you mentioned, and there were already enough to make CAFTA-DR a very bad bill.

Maybe readers can use part, or all of your letter when they write Congress.

[ProudDad]

63. Here's what I wrote that traitor of a senator I'm stuck with

to Feinstein:

---------------------------------------------------

Your vote for CAFTA has left me nearly speechless.

I hope you are proud of selling out the American worker again. I know your investments will do well but we working people in all of the signatory countries are going to get screwed.

Way to go!!!!


---------------------------------------------------

:nuke:

[unlawflcombatnt]

67. Excellent Letter to Feinstein

ProudDad,

Excellent letter to Feinstein. She's also my Senator as well. And she lost my vote with her CAFTA support. The Democratic turncoats in the Senate are what got this free-slave bill passed. I still can't believe so many Democrats voted for it. Even though Feinstein is actually my Senator, I faxed an anti-CAFTA letter to Oregon Senator Wyden. The letter I faxed is essentially the letter that started this thread. I really thought he'd vote against it. I was wrong. He still voted for the bill. He doesn't represent his constituents, only his corporate campaign donors

We've lost the battle against CAFTA in the Senate. Now we need to turn our attention toward our Congressional representatives. Mine is Republican Ed Royce. But I'm going to fax, write and Email all of those close by, including Linda Sanchez.

We can still win this. Many Congressional Republicans oppose CAFTA as well. At least some previously pro-Free Trade Democrats, such as Elen (Elaine?) Tauscher are against CAFTA. (We definitely need to write to her to make sure she doesn't sell out.)

All Congressional reps are up for re-election in 2006. We need to "hold their feet to the fire" on this one. We need to make a lot of noise. Again, readers can use any or all of my letters if they want to contact Congress. I have still more that I can post here.

We really need to win this one. Let's keep fighting.

[freeEarthLove]

71. cafta will kill us

my job will be destroyed

[PsycheCC]

74. Sorry to hear this freeEarthLove

I'm interested if you want to share more about this.:-(

[unlawflcombatnt]

75. Job Destruction

We're hoping that doesn't happen. We need to keep pressure on our Congressional representatives to vote against this. It is simply a corporate giveaway. Every day I hear how another group is against CAFTA. Many of them have legitimate concerns that I hadn't even considered. Though my own biggest issue is loss of American jobs, other issues arise as well. Animal rights activists oppose it. Environmental groups oppose it. Groups concerned with national sovereignty issues oppose it, especially American groups.

This bill is simply another attempt by Corporate America to enslave American workers, as well as the rest of the world's workers. It's bad for all of the workers in the countries involved, including ours. American workers will have to compete with exploited CAFTA country workers who will have even less labor rights protection than they do right now. That's one of the reasons Corporate America is so much in favor of it. They'll be able to drop current International Labor Organization standards if CAFTA passes. They'll be able to increase exploitation of CAFTA workers to even greater levels. And American workers will have to compete with them for jobs.

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[unlawflcombatnt]

78. Slavery

damnthetorpedoes,

I'm defintely trying to make the connection that working conditions in CAFTA countries are close to slave-like conditions. Since child labor laws are not enforced, parents can actually force their children to work. That sounds very close to slavery to me.

Though I'm still not sure what your political position is, it sounds like you lean towards Marxism. Don't you think Marx would agree that working conditions in CAFTA countries are at least close to slave-like. Wouldn't he have opposed it?

You're correct in assuming that I am trying to alarm people and arouse some passion. I don't think temperate statements and assessments are going to cause the public outcry necessary to block CAFTA. I don't think calm, polite dissent is going to help here. I want outrage and I want to stir up anger in the electorate. I'm hoping that this anger will be conveyed to our elected representatives. Hopefully such anger conveyance will change some Congressional votes.

With passage of CAFTA, American workers will be forced to compete with these severely exploited workers. The only way Americans can compete is to allow themselves to sink to that level of exploitation. Would you not at least partially agree with that.

Labor standards will be less than they curently are at present. They're already atrocious. They'll be worse afterwards.

I think blocking CAFTA's passage is a winnable battle. Again, I assume you are driving on the "left" side of the road, from your previous statements. If so, I'd like to enlist your help here as well. I think any socialist, Marxist, populist, or progerssive would oppose this bill. Even a lot of historically right-leaning groups, such as the John Birch Society, oppose CAFTA.

Maybe you could provide some different and additional commentary to help this cause as well. What do you say? How about some help here?

[Zhade]

79. Ain't that the truth!

Kick!

[unlawflcombatnt]

80. Thanks for the Kick

Zhade,

I also tried to save the DLC thread, but had some problems with that.

I'm not a big fan of the so-called "centrist" DLC myself. It sounds like they are very pro-free trade, something I am adamantly against. They seem to be in bed with Corporate America. It almost seems like they are wolves in sheeps' clothes. Thanks again for posting those links. Some of them should definitely re-register as Republicans.

Also, the red lettering doesn't copy when I use the "printer-friendly" format. I had to cut and paste to copy. If you could change the red to black, it might help a lot of readers who want to copy down your letter.

I'll have to get back to you on the archived post about the DLC. It looks pretty interesting.

[PsycheCC]

81. A Reminder: NOT TOO LATE TO STOP CAFTA. Please write

your congressional representatives, regardless of their party or stated position on this. Congressman Jared Brown from Ohio was on the House floor TODAY saying that they still don't have the votes to pass it, or they would have scheduled the vote by now.

It has already passed in the Senate. The House is our only hope. Please, make your voice heard. Here's the link in case you don't have it.

http://www.house.gov /

Also, each representative has people who tally your opinion if you prefer to call them. Their numbers are also listed at the above site.

Go get 'em, Economic Patriots! :patriot: :woohoo: :applause: :yourock:

[PsycheCC]

82. edit

Oops! :eyes: That should have been Congressman Sherrod Brown from Ohio.

[unlawflcombatnt]

83. Americans Overwhelmingly Oppose CAFTA

I initially wrote this response to a message that has apparently been deleted. I'll simply post it here at the end.


Americans from many diverse groups oppose CAFTA. Most of the population in CAFTA countries also oppose the bill. Many reasons are given. Not the least of which is that 40% of CAFTA workers make less than $2/day. This situation will only worsen with CAFTA.




From question #9 of a recent poll: "Would you favor or oppose CAFTA if it reduces prices you pay as a consumer but eliminates jobs for U.S. workers?" --- 74% of all respondents were against CAFTA. 67% of Hispanics were also against CAFTA. This poll can be found in the following reference.

http://www.americansforfairtrade.org/media/poll_results.pdf

If Congress is truly representing the PEOPLE of this country, as opposed to Corporate America, they will vote against this 21st century slavery bill.

Let's make sure Congress is aware of who they represent, and how we "the people" feel about CAFTA.


:patriot:

[unlawflcombatnt]

84. Latino Groups Oppose CAFTA

Most Latino groups also oppose CAFTA. Hector Flores, National President, League of United Latin American Citizens, has voiced his group's opposition as well. Here's the link to that article:
http://www.americansforfairtrade.org/media/latino.pdf

[unlawflcombatnt]

85. CAFTA Overrides US and State Soveregnty

States rights and American laws can be overriden by regional coalitions created by CAFTA. Citizens of an American state may be subject to the legal decisions of a non-American CAFTA-created governing body. Here is the link:

http://www.americansforfairtrade.org/media/sov.pdf

[PsycheCC]

86. Chilling article, especially regarding losing control of our public

health decisions. It reminds me of the Canadian company that sued California for requiring MTBE-free gas. Trading away our sovereignty, what's next?

[rman]

90. reminds me of...

(sorry for the repeat, but it's one of the most astonishing examples yet)

NAFTA's chapter 11

"...gives corporations rights to sue governments in special tribunals, for unlimited compensation for profits lost due to normal governments activities."

"...there have been cases, like "Metalclad".
An American company called "Metalclad" went down to Mexico to build a toxic waste dump on an aquafer; the local supply of water. The government said "no, this goes against our environmental laws".
The people are getting poisoned from the water - what corporation has a right to poison our water? The government passed a law that said "no, you can't operate this thing".
They said "that's to bad, we have rights as a corporation that outweigh your human rights". They sued them for 17.5 million dollars saying it was a barrier to fee trade.
This US corporation takes the Mexican government to a NAFTA court, sues under this chapter eleven, and the ruling is - the Mexican government has to pay millions of dollars in "penalties", for "lost profits" of this corporation."

from the documentary "Trading Freedom" (Indymedia)
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/01/284511.html

also documented at

Berkeley University
http://are.berkeley.edu/courses/EEP131/classpresentatio... (PDF)
(turns out the amount in penalties to be payed by the Mexican government was reduced, but "...the judge agreed with the NAFTA panel on the merits that the actions of the Governor constituted expropriation".

New York Law Journal
http://www.clm.com/pubs/pub-990359_1.html

Stop FTAA
http://www.stopftaa.org/article.php?id=37

"NAFTA Chapter 11 Investor-to-State Cases: Bankrupting Democracy"
http://are.berkeley.edu/courses/EEP131/Nafta_Chapter11.... (PDF)

[unlawflcombatnt]

87. CAFTA Labor Conditions Report Suppressed

The Labor Department has worked for more than a year to suppress a report on the working conditions in Central America.

A contractor hired by the Dept of Labor in 2002 to study Central American working conditions has since become a major opponent of CAFTA. The studies involved showed CAFTA countries have extremely bad working conditions, and that CAFTA would fail to improve them.

Beginning in the spring of 2004, the U.S. Dept. of Labor began trying to block the release of a country-by-country assessment of labor conditions.

This AP story can be found at:
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/050629/free_trade_studies.html?.v=1

[PsycheCC]

88. This article proves what we already knew. CAFTA is not about

opening a very small market. It's about access to cheap labor achieved under deplorable working conditions.

I think while some people feel sorry for the workers exploited in these countries with which we have "free-trade" agreements, they still fail to see how much these agreements hurt American workers. If a company can outsource a significant number of jobs into these "slave-labor" markets, then American workers end up having to settle for lower wages as they compete for the fewer jobs remaining in the US.

I believe it was Senator Boxer who said the other day that representatives for labor interests in Central America have come to the Washington imploring us NOT TO SIGN CAFTA, as it will likely worsen their already poor working conditions.

So, this is a no-win for labor all around. We know that, but the suppression of this report shows that CAFTA backers know it too. When did the US become a state sponsor of sweat shops?

[unlawflcombatnt]

89. CAFTA Opposition

CAFTA is opposed by an overwhelming majority of labor groups, human rights groups, religious groups, Hispanic groups, and environmental groups. It is also opposed by groups concerned about national sovereignty issues. Many of those normally in favor of free trade agreements oppose CAFTA.

We should all write to Congress as much as possible. There still aren't enough votes in the House of Representatives to pass CAFTA. Let's make sure it stays that way.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

91. I frequently challenge "free" trade advocates to:

1) Read Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, which is in bookstores NOW

2) Read (if they can find it) Jonathan Kwitny's Endless Enemies (from the 1980s, possibly out of print but good for telling you how we got to where we are)

3) See the film Life and Debt, a documentary about the effects of "free" trade on Jamaica

and then come back and tell me how corporate-dominated "free" trade will bring peace and prosperity to the whole world.

None of them have taken me up on it, or if they have, they're too ashamed to respond.

[unlawflcombatnt]

93. Free Trad

I'll have to buy the book you've suggested. But I think I can logically discredit most free trade arguments anyway.

Sending American jobs to other countries reduces labor wages which are the bulk of consumer income. Reducing consumer income reduces the aggregate dollar-value of goods Americans can buy. Thus, this reduces the dollar-value of the American consumer market, and the aggregate dollar value of all American goods produced. Since 75-80% of our production is purchased by Americans, this is a far more important market than all of the combined foreign markets. Sacrificing the buying power of Americans in order to increase the buying power of foreign workers makes no sense. (Through all of this, American consumer buying power has been maintained by increased levels of debt-financed spending. Corporate America has gleefully pocketed the profits from this debt-financed spending, while cutting American jobs & wages to further increase their profits.)


Substituting a foreign worker who makes $2/day, for an American worker who makes $100/day, reduces global labor income by $98/day. Assuming workers work 260 days/year, that's $25,500 in lost global consumer income per year. If 3 million American jobs are lost to foreign labor, that's $76 billion in lost global consumer income per year.

But free traders will claim those jobs in foreign countries lead to creation of other jobs in the surrounding areas and supporting industries, causing a much greater increase in that country's labor income.

The obvious response to that statement is: doesn't the loss of the American jobs lead to a much greater DECREASE in other jobs in the surrounding areas and supporting industries, causing a much greater DECREASE in this country's labor income? Of course the answer is YES.

In terms of absolute dollar amounts, sending jobs to foreign countries hurts the U.S. more than it helps foreign countries. Furthermore, it leads to a reduction in aggregate global wages, shrinking the dollar value of the global consumer market.

These are just a few of the many arguments against CAFTA, and other "free-trade" agreements.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

94. You're obviously up to speed, but

someone whose major source of information on int'l relations is The Economist or The Wall Street Journal might have drunk the "free" trade Kool-Aid, since both publications seem to think that "free" trade is the cure for whatever ails a country.

The WSJ today (7/15--I happened to pick it up in a coffee shop) has a commentary in which they claim that Costa Rica will be "crippled" by its rejection of CAFTA and that its unions are preventing ratification because they want to "hang onto their power." :puke: It praises Nicaragua, Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador for signing on right away.

If one didn't know anything about Central America except what is in the article, one could be forgiven for thinking that Costa Rica is some depressing Third World backwater while the other countries are prospering. In fact, the opposite is true.

[unlawflcombatnt]

99. Costa Rica and Unions

Lydia,

Thanks for the post. I'll have to try to get hold of yesterday's Wall Street Journal.

Those obstinate unions. They're always working against progress, aren't they. Unions just don't understand why a worsening of their working conditions and an increase in their exploitation isn't for their own good. Maybe the "enlightened" writers of the Wall Street Journal can help explain it to them. Maybe they can explain why exclusion from international labor organization laws really is good for workers. Then they can explain it to me as well.

[raccoon]

92. Great post! you oughta write a book

“When American industry outsources jobs, it outsources consumer income as well. This is the same income that purchases their products.”

This paragraph kicks butt!

Not only will American consumers purchase fewer products, but because the majority of them who find work will earn much less than they made in their old jobs, they will be paying less taxes. Which means state and local governments (and federal government, for that matter) take in less revenues. Which means they’ll have to cut services and/or raise revenues some other way--new taxes, increased tax rates, etc. They may have to lay off workers. These laid-off workers will purchase fewer products and services. Which means businesses may have to lay off, and the governments take in less revenue….etc.
It’s a downward spiral. Where does it end?

“In reality, the "re-training" mantra is just a cop-out.”

It certainly is, and what are American workers supposed to retrain for anyway? Most of the jobs they can retrain for aren’t high-paying jobs.

“Corporate America is simply killing the goose that laid the golden egg. That "goose" is the American consumer.”

Abso-friggin-lutely.

[unlawflcombatnt]

96. We Completely Agree

Thank you for your comments. We completely agree. You made a good additional point about taxes. Lower wages mean lower tax revenues. Lower wages are also decreasing input into the Social Security trust fund.

[gulfcoastliberal]

95. "Free Trade" = Commoditization of wages, a race to the bottom

I wish Perot won now. We're well on our way to eliminating the middle class and becoming a 3rd world state: you either live in a shanty or a well guarded mansion.

[unlawflcombatnt]

97. Our Current State of Affairs

I didn't vote for Perot, but I wish I had. He was right on target about what was going to happen with NAFTA

[unlawflcombatnt]

98. I wanted to vote for him, but it seemed a wasted vote. With neither

of the two main parties taking care of the middle class, it would be nice to have a third option that didn't just seem like throwing away your vote.

He sure was right about that "great sucking sound" of jobs going to Mexico.

[bloom]

102. Excellent post

I've been surprised I haven't seen more about this around here. I may have just been missing it.

FSTV and LINK have informative shows on this fairly often.

From what I've gathered - huge factory farms and such have been putting small business owners out of business in South and Central America as well as around here.

It seems like the whole world's economy is so screwed up with people from various places who can't make a go of it because of trade regulations or subsidies or something or other.

It seems to me that it makes sense that some kind of globalization will take place. But it seems crazy that people in the US or Europe would be able to compete with these 20 cent an hour wages when houses average $200,000+ depending on where you live.

It does seem like some kind of slavery. I've noticed in the states - places who want to hire service people having to provide cheap housing for people - because otherwise they wouldn't be able to get anyone to work - the people wouldn't be able to afford to live near the job based on the wages paid.

Just like the China exposé that showed the Chinese factory workers - they lived at the factories.

It's very depressing to me.

Do some people think the US will just be some kind of managerial/something workforce and direct the labor and production of everyone else? With our own service workers who live on site?

I don't like the thought of it.

And the whole lack of environmental accountability sucks as well.

[unlawflcombatnt]

106. Thanks for your post

Thanks for your compliments and your comments about the huge factory farms in Central America. I had not heard much about this. From this it sounds as if it will be possible for American multinationals to go in and buy up farmland, and pay slave-labor wages to the workers on the farms. And then those cheap Central American farm products will drive American farmers out of business. Sounds like a lose-lose situation to me.

[bloom]

107. One show

described a factory farm where there were armed guards keeping the workers in.

This came up with a quick google:

Slavery Today


excerpt from Joshua and the Promised Land
by Roy H. May, Jr.

Regardless of how we should best understand these references to slavery and forced labor, they remind us that both continue to be widely practiced. Brazil gives us an example. Deep in the inaccessible recesses of the Brazilian Amazon, forced labor -- "the functional equivalent to slavery," according to Human Rights Watch/Americas -- is exploited to cut and bum the rain forest for pastures on large, sometimes unmapped, ranches. Poor unemployed people, mostly men, are recruited by labor contractors in cities and towns. Then they are transported to the wilderness ranches. Contracts are verbal and their terms seldom explained. The workers are promised high wages. They are not told that all living expenses, including transportation and housing, will be charged against their earnings at rates set by the ranch manager. Living conditions in the labor camps are deplorable with plastic sheeting for tents and no sanitary nor medical facilities. Once on the job, workers are forced to work at gunpoint. They are controlled by armed guards and are not free to leave. When their "contracts" finally end, the workers are sent on their way -- but seldom are they paid. (15) Their "debts" more than match their wages!

But, Brazil is hardly the only place where formed labor is a reality. It is worldwide. Anti-Slavery International, a British human rights group, claims that 100 million people are enslaved the world -over. (16) Children often are the victims. In Pakistan, between eleven and twelve million children ages four to fourteen labor under various forms of involuntary servitude. Extremely poor parents sell their children to workshop and factory owners for needed cash. The children's work conditions are hazardous and unsanitary, and their remuneration, if any, is meager. Children comprise 90 percent of the workforce for Pakistan's carpet industry. They also labor by the thousands as farm workers. These are not the children of landowners who are sharing family chores. Rather, they are the children of landless peasants. They are unfree laborers who do the ploughing, seeding, and harvesting. According to one landowner, "Children are cheaper to run than tractors and smarter than oxen." He says seven to ten year olds are especially good workers. (17)

Forced labor is practiced in the United States. In 1994, both CNN and ABC News reported on migrant farm workers being held against their will by peach, vegetable, and tobacco growers in the South. The workers are recruited by labor contractors from homeless shelters and soup kitchens. On the farm, they are confined to labor camps patrolled by dogs and armed guards. They buy their food and other necessities from the grower's store. When their "contracts" end, they are paid little or nothing because of their "debts." (18) In California and other states, illegal immigrants are sometimes formed against their will to work in clandestine sweatshops. Their passports -- if they have them -- are confiscated, armed guards keep the immigrants out of sight, and managers constantly threaten to turn them over to immigration authorities. Such intimidation is equivalent to slavery. Involuntary servitude is an important source of labor the world over.

http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/joshua/may5354.stm

also see:

http://hrw.org/doc/?t=americas_pub&c=brazil

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/Mapuche-People-Chile1oct04.htm

[unlawflcombatnt]

108. Slavery

Thanks for the very interesting and article. I've mentioned child labor previously in this thread, but I never had any specific references until now. I was able to find direct links to anti-slavery.org through the links you provided.

http://www.antislavery.org/index.htm

http://www.antislavery.org/homepage/campaign/whatwebuy.htm

[ElsewheresDaughter]

104. NAFTA + CAFTA = SHAFTA

[gulfcoastliberal]

105. Well, it seems the DLC is salivating over this deal...

Just go to their NDOL website and enter CAFTA in the search box. They actually have a screed called "the progressive case for CAFTA". Who do they think they are fooling?!

[Algorem]

109. "GOP works late to keep you in the dark"

http://www.cleveland.com/search/index.ssf?/base/opinion/1121592910184550.xml?ocoth&coll=2&thispage=1

Monday, July 18, 2005
Sherrod Brown

One thing you can count on in Congress these days. They al ways save the good stuff for the middle of the night.

Almost every piece of controversial legislation that has passed Congress since Texas Republican Tom DeLay consolidated power has been voted on in the middle of the night.

It started a couple of years ago.

At 2:54 a.m. on Friday, March 21, 2003, the House cut veterans benefits by three votes...

[unlawflcombatnt]

110. Republican Late-Night Antics

Algorem,

You're certainly right about that. They certainly pulled this shenanigan when they got the Prescription Drug Bill passed.

Last night on CNN one of their reporters said they are still 2 dozen votes short of that necessary for CAFTA's passage.

It's interesting you posted an article by Sherrod Brown. He appears to be the leader in the fight against CAFTA. I plan on posting some links to Sherrod Brown's site later today.

[PsycheCC]

111. Anticipating a late night CAFTA vote? Do they really think we

won't notice that they pass these horrible bills just because they do it in the dead of night? Somehow seems appropriately symbolic though. Night=evil=darkness=unenlightened endeavors...

I hope they don't manage to turn those 24 votes in the dark...:evilfrown:

[unlawflcombatnt]

112. "Darkness" & the Bushites

24 votes are quite a few to turn in the dark, though no amount of dishonest chicanery is beneath the Bushites. Bush's henchman are actively trying to bribe Congressional representatives with pork barrel give-aways and non-specific promises to take action against China's trade policies. Apparently they have won over at least 1 Republican Congressman from Pennsylvania with these underhanded tactics.

Fortunately, Congressman Jerrod Brown has taken a fairly activist role in defeating CAFTA. We should all try to write him and express our support and appreciation for his efforts. He has some excellent, very detailed information on CAFTA at his website.

http://www.house.gov/sherrodbrown/cafta.htm

[unlawflcombatnt]

115. Sherrod Brown, not Jerrod Brown

I need to correct the name of the Congressman I have been referring to. It is Sherrod Brown, not Jerrod Brown.

[Algorem]

117. Plain Dealer letterto editor good-

Congressman Brown has CAFTA pegged

Wednesday, July 20, 2005

Thanks for publishing Rep. Sherrod Brown's July 18 Forum article, "GOP works late to keep you in the dark."

I also oppose CAFTA. I will only support fair trade that gives the workers in foreign countries a living wage and helps protect the workers in our country. When Congressman Brown is next up for re-election, I certainly will cast my vote for him.

Harold M. Barton

http://www.cleveland.com/letters/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/opinion/11218522057151.xml&coll=2

[unlawflcombatnt]

120. Thanks

Thanks for posting the link to that letter. We need more Sherrod Browns in Congress, and less Dianne Feinsteins in the Senate.

[unlawflcombatnt]

113. California State Laws Challenged

A Canadian mining company has sued California in international court for enforcing its own state laws. If the company wins, it will be another example of how U.S. and state laws can be trumped by international trade laws. The link to the LA Times story is:
http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/cafta/3330.html

[sadiesworld]

116. kick

:kick:

[Robert Oak]

118. kick thx unlawflcombatnt n/t

[unlawflcombatnt]

119. Thanks for the "Kicks"

Sadie & Robert,

Thanks for the kicks. I don't want to see this issue get lost in the shuffle. THIS IS A BATTLE WE CAN WIN. There is much bipartisan opposition to CAFTA. It has practically no popular support, outside of the huge multinationals and a few limited special interests. Hopefully the interests of the voters will win out over that of Corporate America.

I think the stakes involved here are tremendous. Passage will immediately force America's 140,000,000+ work force to compete with another 20-40 million Central American workers, many of whom are making less than $2/day. In effect, it will increase our workforce size by 20-40 million, without increasing the number of jobs any. Increased supply of labor always reduces wages. In this case it will be much worse, because of the starvation-level wages of these new slave-laborers.

[kerrygoddess]

121. CAFTA Would Cost Taxpayers

CAFTA Would Cost Taxpayers
July 21st, 2005

The Congressional Budget Office is reporting that CAFTA would “cost taxpayers $50 million a year in loan forfeitures by sugar farmers.”

An administration official said Thursday that the analysis was unrealistic and that there would be virtually no cost under sugar provisions in the deal.

The CBO released its estimate as House leaders planned for a vote next week on the Central American Free Trade Agreement.

Overall, CAFTA would cost the U.S. about $4.4 billion over the next 10 years, primarily in lost tariffs, the CBO said.

Under CAFTA, those countries could ship more sugar to the United States. The CBO said the influx would push prices down and force farmers to forfeit government loans on their crops, costing taxpayers on average about $50 million annually through 2015.

CAFTA is a raw deal for America and Central America. For more information about CAFTA or to contact your Representatives to ask them to oppose CAFTA, visit AmericansForFairTrade.org.

MORE & Links - http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=29

[unlawflcombatnt]

122. CAFTA

Kerrygoddess,

Thanks for the letter and the links. CAFTA is going to cost us a lot more in lost taxes as American workers lose jobs to CAFTA slave-laborers. Again, CAFTA will add 20-40 million workers to the labor pool that Corporate America has to choose from. And many of those workers will work for less than $2/day. I wonder which workers Corporate America will choose --
$100/day American workers, or $2/day CAFTA workers?

[PsycheCC]

123. Great Link! Thanks

[unlawflcombatnt]

124. CAFTA support from the Right

Many traditionally conservative and right-wing organizations also oppose CAFTA. Some of these arguments are based on national sovereignty issues. Here is a link to letter an anti-CAFTA letter posted on "Eagele Forum":

http://www.eagleforum.org/psr/2005/june05/psrjune05.html

[Algorem]

125. CAFTA subject on NPR call-in show tomorrow morning

http://wamu.org/programs/dr/

10:00 Central American Free Trade Agreement
Guest host: Andrea Seabrook of NPR

The Central American Free Trade Agreement is sparking another round in the debate over the best route to economic globalization. Guest host Andrea Seabrook and her guests talk about CAFTA's terms and how the agreement would affect workers, the environment, and economies here and in Central America.

Guests
John Murphy, vice president for Western Hemisphere affairs at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce

Robert Scott, international economist and director of international programs at the Economic Policy Institute

Call-in Line:
1-800-433-8850

or email [e-mail].

[PsycheCC]

126. So that's tomorrow, Monday?, at 10 AM? Thanks for the tip.

I'll check it out.

[unlawflcombatnt]

127. Thanks for the link and the information

Algorem,

Thanks for posting the link and the information. I would not have heard about this otherwise.

The Economic Policy Institute is the best organization around for assessment of our economy. I greatly respect their views and I recommend that everyone bookmark their site. It is:
http://www.epinet.org/

[PsycheCC]

128. Dang, I missed it! Did you hear it? I think the House is getting ready

to vote on it. That must mean they think they have enough votes to pass it. How depressing!

[unlawflcombatnt]

129. CSPAN CAFTA Coverage

Today CSPAN showed an outdoor presentation by Congressional representatives who opposed CAFTA. I didn't see all of it. But it was uplifting to hear at least 2 Republicans who are actually campaigning against its passage. The Republicans speaking were Virgil Goode from Virginia and Representative C.L. Otter of Idaho. Multiple Democrats also spoke. It looks like it's going to be a close call when it comes up for a vote. We all need to keep writing, emailing, faxing, and calling our representatives.

[sweetheart]

130. KAFKA'esque

nominated.

on edit, i guess not nominated as i'm too late.. but at least kicked.

:-) God bless.


CAFTA
KAFTA
KAFKA

[unlawflcombatnt]

134. Thanks

Sweetheart,

Thanks for the vote. It's the thought that counts. And I appreciate the kick.

unlawflcombatnt

[PsycheCC]

131. HOUSE VOTES this WEEK. CALL or Email!!!

http://www.house.gov/

[FourStarDemocrat]

133. kick!