Can you guys fill me in on the pros and cons of NAFTA?

[RagingInMiami]

And how it affects Latin America.

[Flabbergasted]

1. That's a massive discussion

Basically it puts all the power of trade in the power of corporations and strips all workers or rights immediately and eventially.

Evo Morales's (recent elect of Argentina), because of the effects of impoverishing effect of free trade on the country first order of business was to repeal free trade laws in the country.

[RagingInMiami]

3. So how does it negatively affect South American workers, for example

I understand the corporations pay them slave wages, but what would the workers be doing if it weren't for the corporations?


BTW, it was Bolivia, not Argentina where Morales was elected.

[firefox]

7. It allows for the flow of capital to the low wage centers

When the Congress gave Bush Trade Authority, Hollings opposed the granting of such power to the executive branch. Ratifying treaties is mandated to Congress in the Constitution. He said the first order of business of Congress in 1789 was to adopt a seal and the second was to adopt tariffs.

But with the huge subsidies the government gives to farmers we have a tremendous advantage in food prices. For example we wiped out sugar production in Jamaica. And it really is central to all countries to minimize sending money out of the country over a basic thing that can provide employment to its own people.

But free trade is not free trade anyway. In Guatemala the pill companies said that when their patent ran out that to bring in generics they would have to retest completely doing th expensive double blind studies. So you have a substance that passed the pill companies boy's at the FDA and has up to 20 years of legitimate sales without being yanked, but then the generic people cannot sell the same chemical because of the free trade agreement.

Pill prices were a big deal in the Australian agreement. There the pill companies said that the lower prices the Australians had been paying was because they were not paying their fair share of research and asking the American people to carry the load.

It really needs a book that calls bullshit on Free Trade. Free Trade under US neo-liberalism is really a legal invasion into the sovereignty of the countries and it is designed to maximize profits for US corporations.

[RagingInMiami]

10. Thanks firefox

I knew the basics, but not the details. Economics is not my strong suit.

[firefox]

2. If Canada interferes with profits they must pay

If a law interferes with the profits of a US company, and the other way around, then the company can sue the Canadian government for lost profits. The Canadian government had paid about $10 billion over a year ago. UPS was suing for almost a billion in lost profits. In Canada there are so few people over a vast area that there is no competition to the postal service because it would be duplicating an expensive effort. I mention it because I hope somebody knows how how that was resolved.

In Canada it also set off a bunch of takeovers of Canadian companies by American companies, a number I recall of 10,000 companies, with the low interest rates of the Fed a key enabler of such purchases.

NAFTA is North American Free Trade Agreement and CAFTA is Central American Free Trade Agreement. These agreements are a way to get US laws adopted in sovereign countries on our terms. That is why Chavez laughs at the "Free Trade" agreement and why the USG wants his ass dead.

[RagingInMiami]

4. But isn't it illegal for us to buy meds from Canada?

Isn't the U.S. making laws to interfere with Canadian profits?

[Telly Savalas]

5. Actually most of the meds from Canada were from the U.S.

in the first place, so technically it's U.S. profits that are being undermined by reimportation.

[RagingInMiami]

6. But it also undermines the excessive profits they could be making

if we just bought the ones that stayed in the US

[Telly Savalas]

8. That's what I mean.

[firefox]

9. Exactly. Free trade is not free trade.

Medicine is a great area to study fascism. You can order shoes from any country in the world, but you cannot even buy pills made in the US that are sent to Canada. Of course it makes you wonder why prices in Canada are so much cheaper than here to start with, but basically we are just being gauged.

Sativex is a cannabis extract made in the UK. For three years the UK has beaten back what is a proper application in their country. Last year, Canada approved Sativex and of course it is as safe as it is for the hundreds of millions of recreation users. What is funny, is that now the drug importation laws in the UK, allow Sativex to be shipped to Canada where it can then be sent back to the UK.

The pill companies are as highly represented in trade agreements as they are in our government. The trade agreements are not for your or our benefit. They are for the benefit of what might be called the concentrations of wealth in the US, sometimes just called corporations.

[Solon]

11. Pros: Frees Capital, Cons: Frees Capital...

Alright, this is rather complicated, but, here goes. OK, right now we have a treaty that frees capital from what investors would view as profit restrictions. The problems come in when those restrictions are defined. Unlike most trade agreements, this one in particular, not only regulates what tariffs countries can put on goods, but also restricts their powers in regards to domestic laws. Probably the best example is Chapter 11 of NAFTA, the so called "Investor's Rights" clause. This is particularly insidious in that, let's say Mexico has a law saying you can't dump toxic sludge on top or near a reservoir, well, a foreign company can come in saying that their local plant had to clean up their mess, eating into their profits, in the billions of course(their estimate). They then turn around and sue Mexico for those lost profits and any fines they racked up, and also, even further, will then have means to circumvent the law(Real case BTW). This includes, not only environmental laws, but also labor laws, safety regulations, and, in somewhat rare cases, public utilities. So, we now have a situation where companies and their investors now have more power than the governments that are in charge of regulating them. I don't see how anyone could be in favor of that, outside of the investors of course.

Also, another thing, that I call a contradiction of sorts is this, why is capital freed whereas labor is not? If companies can cross borders with no restrictions, why can't their workers? I find this to be the most ironic of all things about so called "Free Trade".

[upi402]

12. like water, wages will find the lowest level

and our sovereign laws are nullified by a tri-national commission who judge our efforts to follow our own standards.

[yourout]

13. Clinton's biggest mistake.

And that includes Monica. NAFTA is one thing I will never forgive him for.
It opened the door for the loss of inumerable manufacturing jobs.

[upi402]

14. amen

Clinton was a great Republican!

[JohnyCanuck]

15. A Canadian point of view

Canadians have been duped! An article from the Canadian Action Part (CAP) www.canadianactionparty.ca (Mods I have copied more than the 4 paragraph limit, but the CAP web site asks that the article be distributed widely so I hardly imagine they would object).

FTA, NAFTA and The Birth of the 51st US State

Canadians have been duped!

We were led to believe that the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (FTA) and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) were "free trade" agreements. They were not! They were primarily investment agreements. The Americans wanted "free access" to our industries, and our resources including our oil and gas and, soon, our water. Of course, the FTA reduced tariffs over a period of ten years but this was happening anyway under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). In fact, we gave up more than we gained on tariff reductions. But that is nothing compared to what we lost on the investment front. The Americans wanted to buy us out for 65 cents on the dollar. And they are!!

The day the FTA was signed on October 3, 1987, U.S. trade representative Clayton Yeutter, let slip this observation. "We've signed a stunning new trade pact with Canada. The Canadians don't understand what they've signed. In twenty years, they will be sucked into the U.S. economy.

Yeutter was telling the truth! But our political leaders have never told us the truth. They still pretend that the two fatal agreements are about trade. They still won't admit that the two agreements are licences to buy Canada lock, stock and barrel.

When Ronald Reagan signed the Free Trade Agreement, he accomplished what American generals and American armies were unable to do in 1776 and again in 1812-14 - he conquered Canada. Unless we get out of NAFTA, occupation will become permanent and and annexation will become inevitable.

SNIP

The "National Treatment" Clause
Most Canadians, probably 98 percent, have never heard of the "national treatment" clause which is the one that guarantees our demise as a nation state. When the FTA was signed, "national treatment" was a relatively new concept in international law that gave American investors equal rights in Canada as Canadian citizens.

We consider this to be morally wrong in principle. Ask yourself, "What is the advantage of citizenship if non-citizens have equal rights?" In the real world it gives foreign investors, mainly American, the unrestricted right to invest in Canada: (a) without conditions and, (b) without limits. We have lost the right to say that only foreign investment that is beneficial to Canada is welcome. And we have lost the right to say that they can't buy more than 50 percent of our forest industries or 80 percent of oil and gas reserves - because the treaty says they can buy and own them all.

NAFTA - Worse than the FTA
NAFTA is worse than the FTA because Chapter 11, the disputes settlement clause, allows U.S. and Mexican investors the right to sue us if any of our governments, federal, provincial or municipal, passes or amends a law that affects their profits or future profits.

When Canada passed a law banning the importation into Canada and distribution within Canada of the manganese based gasoline additive, MMT, the Ethyl corporation sued us! After lawyers advised that we might lose the case, the government settled for C$20 million to cover legal costs. And worse, it agreed to repeal the law. As if that's not bad enough, two cabinet ministers had to read statements to the effect that MMT isn't harmful to the health or the environment - even though the latest scientific evidence suggests that MMT may indeed be harmful to health, especially of children.

What kind of a democracy do we have when a foreign corporation can tell the parliament of Canada what laws it can or cannot pass? This is little more than corporate blackmail. There are other suits pending. Sun Belt Water Corporation of California is suing us for US$1.5 to $10.5 billion because we won't let it sell our water for export. United Parcel Service is suing for C$230 million claiming that Canada Post has an unfair advantage with its Purolater courier service. And we taxpayers will have to pay if they win! At this rate, Chapter 11 could cost us more than many social services.


http://www.canadianactionparty.ca/temp/articles/51st_US_State.asp

And here's another one.

Abrogate NAFTA Now :U.S. Refuses NAFTA Order to Repay $5B to Canada re Softwood Duties

August 18, 2005

Connie Fogal, Leader of the Canadian Action Party/parti action Canadienne says, "If our government cannot steel their spines to abrogate NAFTA over this last big bit of U.S. bullying arising from the U.S. refusal to comply with the final NAFTA ruling to pay Canada back the $5B of illegally collected duties on softwood lumber, then our government leaders are worse than wimps. They are anti-Canadian."

Canadian Action Party Vice President and Candidate, Catherine Whelan Costen, declares the government of Canada has reached a turning point. She pointed out, "While newspapers report Canadian Premiers are outraged at the latest decision by Washington to ignore this final NAFTA ruling respecting $5 billion on Canadian softwood lumber exports to the U.S., there is much hand-wringing but too little action. It is time for the Government of Canada to admit to the

Canadian people the negative reality of the North American Free Trade Agreement, the proposed Central American Free Trade Agreement and the inability of the WTO to act on behalf of Canadians in these matters. Our representatives are pushing forward on deeper integration with the U.S., while history has shown us that these trade deals do not support Canadian industry or the people of this country."

The deals have been one sided from the outset and our politicians entered into the agreements without the consent of the Canadian people, leaving the people to bear the burden and cost of those decisions. Canadian Action Party Leader Connie Fogal states, “CAP has been calling for the Abrogation of NAFTA for years, as it clearly hasn’t worked for Canadians. The United States has played us for a sucker, and we have responded like a child. The BSE issue nearly crippled our farming industry, while softwood lumber has been vindicated in court on numerous occasions, only to be ignored by the United States. Pork, blueberries, and potatoes have all seen similar unfair treatment. The only product that flows without barriers is our energy, and even that Alberta sells for less royalties than Alaska! It is all good to see the Premiers united on something Canadian, but the reality is many of them have performed their own handstands to ingratiate themselves with the U.S. administration, while sacrificing Canada in the process. It is no wonder their negotiators on every matter expect us to fold in negotiations. Our leadership has demonstrated over and over they are pushovers"

http://www.canadianactionparty.ca/temp/articles/Abrogate_NAFTA.asp

[RagingInMiami]

16. Thanks JC

This is an issue I want to fully understand but it's hard when you live in the US and have to depend on the MSM.

[Elwood P Dowd]

17. Many of your questions have been answered, so I will

just rant a little about NAFTA.....

NAFTA, GATT, WTO, FTAA, GATS, CAFTA and all the other so called Free Trade agreements are really not free trade as defined by David Ricardo. The term Free Trade has been hijacked and applied to what I call "Free Money" agreements.

Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Bill Richardson, Robert Matsui, and other dems chose the money over Democratic principles and sold us down the river. I will never forgive them. They knew the damage this would create. They realized that it would push millions of Americans into unemployment and poverty. They lied to us, took the money, and helped push this republican crap down our throats.

I wonder if Clinton realizes how many union members lost their jobs and then deserted the party because of this? I know a couple. They were conservative on many issues, but stuck with dems because of their support of workers. No more - one is independent and one republican. They will never forget what Clinton and the dems did to them, and they will never again embrace the party because of it.