Opinion of NAFTA(1-10 scale)

[Zynx]

Poll question: Opinion of NAFTA(1-10 scale)

I notice there is pretty uniform opinion against NAFTA on DU. I am curious about the intensity of this opposition. Is it in favor of total abolition of NAFTA or merely reform? Are there those out there who support NAFTA? Let's see.

[orleans]

1. depends on how quickly we can get those serious reforms. n/t

[Zynx]

2. Let's say one legislative cycle(2 years)

[orleans]

3. lets say half the cycle and i'll go with #5 (otherwise, i say get rid of it

from what i understand--it pretty much sucks.)

on second thought--maybe we SHOULD just get rid of it altogether.

[Hippo_Tron]

4. Open trade with Mexico is a good thing I believe...

Their fate is largely tied with our fate, as we have seen with the immigration issue, and it is in our best interest to trade with them.

The problem is that their government is notoriously corrupt and has done almost nothing to raise the standard of living for the people in our country. The cheap labor conservatives that run our country's government don't really have a desire to see this change either.

Let me put it another way... NAFTA is used by the ruling powers in both Mexico and the United States as a means to provide more cheap labor. If the governments in both of those countries were not controlled by cheap labor interests, this would not be the case.

I'm not a protectionist and fear of US industries having to compete with imports isn't a good enough reason to convince me we shouldn't trade. However I also don't subscribe to the belief that trade agreements should be written just to maximize corporate profits. That's the kind of free market fundamentalism that will come back to bite us in the ass sooner or later.

[ThomWV]

5. Just because we fucked up free trade 10,000 ways doesn't mean free trade is bad.

[ulysses]

6. 1.

Free trade is fine. NAFTA isn't. It has its supporters here, though.

[robcon]

7. Free trade is the best hope for economic growth and peace.

NAFTA should be expanded: eliminate the 'sweet' deal the U.S. has on sugar, and expand the number of countries involved.

10

[Deja Q]

14. As much as I want to be cynical,

how about some depth to your conversation - what can be done to prevent Americans from losing out on what the rest of the world is gaining?

[Zynx]

17. If not for labor and environmental abuses other countries engage in we need not

lose out to anybody. Free trade between countries with similar standards is always beneficial.

[ThomWV]

25. I'd be willing to join the argument

The question is how strict is your argument? I might say that absolute free trade between all groups is the best economic system. You might say that experience has shown us that is not true. Now we have something to talk about.

I reject your argument because I believe you are willing to call things free trade that I do not. I do not consider it free trade if one of the partys has forced labor. I do not consider it free trade one of the partys steals the resources from which the traded thing originates.

And so I would say that the free trade that you argue against is not free trade at all but if trade were free as my eyes see it then no system could be better.

See the problem? It always boils down to what I just said. The two sides are never talking about the same thing. If the conditions of trade were truly free then we need only go back to Adam Smith and let the 'guiding hand' and 'comparative advantage' rule the day - we'd all be better off for it. Unfortunately this is the real world and strong men will take advantage of the weak - and that is the bais, the original sin if you will, of all unfree trade.

[Selatius]

8. I favor fair trade. Either reform NAFTA or abolish it entirely and start with something new.

There is nothing wrong with profit-seeking per se in terms of going overseas to find new markets, but there is something wrong when it is done at the expense of humanity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_trade#Key_fair_trade_principles

[ulysses]

9. right.

I think the disconnect for some is in the assumption that The Market will somehow provide for the common good, through consumer pressures, if only we'd let it. But even if The Market gave two shits about humanity - and it demonstrably doesn't - NAFTA doesn't represent a truly "free" market. It's a rigged game.

[B Calm]

10. We need to get rid of this republican introduced program and move on.

Everything the republicans have done over the past century, has been done with one goal. Bringing down labor costs in the United States.

[robcon]

11. Republican-introduced? NAFTA was a triumph of the Clinton Administration

NAFTA would have fallen on its face in Congress if Al Gore and Bill Clinton hadn't put a "full court press" on the legislators to vote for the treaty in 1993.

NAFTA is the most pro-jobs, pro-peace treaty ever.

http://www.multied.com/Documents/Clinton/SigningNaFTA.html

[B Calm]

12. How many fucking times do I have to see that right wing talking point

on DU? NAFTA was introduced by REPUBLICANS! Passed into law by the vast majority of REPUBLICANS in congress, and signed by a democratic president! IT WAS AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN A REPUBLICAN IDEA!

[ulysses]

20. "the vast majority of REPUBLICANS in congress"

We still held the Congress in 1993.

[B Calm]

21. Do you comprehend what you read before replying?

Lets say 100% of the republicans in congress vote for NAFTA and they get approx 20% of the democrats to go along with their NAFTA plan. The vast majority of republicans voted for it and only a small majority of democrats went along with it! Quit using republican talking points!

[Selatius]

22. The Dems held the majority in both houses of Congress when it passed.

If the Dems were serious about protecting workers' rights, they could've simply not let anybody vote on the bill and let it die in committee. The advantage of being in the majority party is that you get to select which bills can and can't be put on the floor for debate, that you can control the legislative agenda.

[B Calm]

32. When will you admit it was a republican idea and the vast majority

of republicans voted for it? You are partly right that the dem leadership allowed it to a floor vote, but not for the vast majority of republicans voting for THEIR NAFTA, it would have never passed.

[Selatius]

34. It was a corporate idea, and corporate lobbyists don't care if there is a D or an R behind your name

That is a fact. Anybody who sells out is a friend to Wall Street regardless of party affiliation, but I also know that the more liberal wing of the Dems voted against that, but that didn't stop Clinton and the DLC from getting on board the free trade bandwagon. I'm not blaming the liberal wing of the Dems for failing to stop the corporatists. I'm not going to say it was solely a Republican plan because that would be saying the Republicans call the shots, not Wall Street, and I happen to think Wall Street is the one calling the shots, and the Repubs just follow as well as some number of pro-corporate Dems.

[robcon]

26. How many times do you have to be reminded the Clinton was the hero for NAFTA.

If he and Gore had not horse-traded to get every Democratic vote possible - NAFTA would never have happened...

Democratic Senators voted 28-26 against it, and it would have been overwhelmingly defeated without the Clinton administration full-court press.

NAFTA was a triumph of the Clinton administration.

http://www.citizen.org/print_article.cfm?ID=15960

edit: link

[B Calm]

33. Clinton was the hero for the REPUBLICAN introduced NAFTA plan.

I can agree to that. It's you that won't admit that it was republicans that thought up the idea of NAFTA and voted almost 100% in favor to pass it.

[Deja Q]

15. Well, it's no longer the 1990s. Times have changed. How do you adapt?

[B Calm]

16. Invade Mexico and make it another state!

just kidding...

[Romulox]

24. One the key reasons Al Gore lost in 2000 was his support for "free trade" and globalism

He has never even attempted to reconcile his alleged environmentalism with his support for "free trade" with countries which do not honor any environmental treaty, such as China.

[robcon]

27. Bullshit. There was no difference between Bush and Gore on NAFTA.

No votes were lost or gained because of NAFTA. Your post is a pathetic attempt at trying to find some difference on NAFTA affecting the 2000 results.

[Romulox]

31. First of all, China is not a party to NAFTA; Second, you don't refute my argument

by pointing out how little difference there was between Al Gore and George Bush's economic policies inasmuch as they impact the environment; George Bush doesn't claim to be an environmentalist. :think:

Third, it is an absolute honor that this board's resident neo-liberal disagrees with me. Quite frankly, I'd be quite upset if you agreed with me on any economic issue, as you've demonstrated time and again that you stand with corporations instead of people. :hi:

[Uncle Joe]

35. NAFTA was not among the major issues in 2000.

NAFTA was passed during the Clinton Administration's first term and Clinton/Gore were reelected for a second term.

The Clinton/Lewinsky Scandal along with the corporate media's growing resentment of Al Gore for championing opening up the Internet for the people, thereby threatening their monopoly on information which led to making the race close enough for the neocons to steal. In some areas of the country gun rights made a difference but even that issue is related to the corporate media's non-stop assault by slander and libel against Al Gore's credibility. With the NRA getting a pre-Alzheimer's ridden Charlton Heston to proclaim that Al Gore would have to his musket from his cold dead hand.

I believe Al Gore won every state or virtually every state against Bill Bradley during the primaries. He also beat Bush by at least half a million counted votes not to mention the tens of thousands of disenfranchised voters.

NAFTA primarily took off as an issue after Cheney/Bush's incompetent rule allowed the economy to tank, the illegal immigration population to explode due to indifference and as a growing Latino population became an easy scapegoat for the same corporate media powers that be, that enabled Bush to the White House in the very beginning.

I believe Al Gore would've made any necessary adjustments as President to NAFTA because he has always looked at the big picture. I also believe Al Gore would've addressed the China issue as well regarding global warming climate change when he became President, but from a historical standpoint, the United States was responsible for the vast majority of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and we needed to get our house in order first before having the moral high ground to influence others such as China to follow suit.

True globalization and environmentalism go in hand in hand, you can't one with out the other, air and water know no boundaries. Just because Al Gore happened to agree with Bush on a particular issue such as NAFTA doesn't make them the same anymore than two people being able to start a car reflects their driving ability.

[Romulox]

37. Your memory is selective. NAFTA, MFN for China, and WTO were key issues in the Nader campaign

And as you might remember, many still blame Nader for Gore's 2000 loss. It is logical to infer that Nader "peeled away" many potential Democratic voters with these issues.

"True globalization and environmentalism go in hand in hand"

I've rarely heard anything farther from the truth. If you raise environmental standards in the US, whilst simultaneously pushing for "free trade" with countries like China (which does not honor US environmental regulations,) then the net result is that China has an economic advantage over US companies, and therefore jobs will invariably lost in the US and move to China. This results in a net negative impact on the environment.

[Uncle Joe]

38. I've never blamed Nader for the coup of 2000, that

was primarily the corporate media's doing with many assists from the disenfranchisement of legal voters in Florida, and the Supreme Court's determination that counting the votes didn't matter.

Even with Nader in the race, Al Gore would've won by a landslide too large for the neocons to steal, had the corporate media not continuously slandered and libeled Al Gore, "Al Gore claimed to have invented the Internet was just one of many", for the better part of two years prior the selection of 2000. They particularly picked up their efforts whenever Al Gore's momentum started to pull him away from Bush. They openly jeered Al Gore during one of the debates.

Regarding true globalization and environmentalism, they go hand in hand, it's a carrot and stick approach. We couldn't possibly demand for China to improve their environmental standards, while we're the worst culprits on the planet. If we had improved our standards and China still refused, we would then have the moral high ground to encourage them to or our companies would not be allowed to export jobs there, I would call that the carrot and stick approach. On the other hand, if we don't improve our own standards, how can we possibly ask them to? If they saw us as doing both caring about the environment and their development, we would be far stronger for it around the world and viewed as true leaders, not the pariah, we've become since the coup of 2000.

[Romulox]

39. China's CO2 emissions are set to overtake the US'; the Clinton/Gore "third way" is a failure. nt

[Uncle Joe]

40. I agree with you in part, but it wasn't in 2000 and of all the greenhouse gases up there today

we're still responsible for the vast majority of it.

Also I don't really view it as the Gore way, because he never had the opportunity as President to act on the changing world. Everything that's taken place, loss of jobs, degradation of environment took place after he was out of power. I really have no idea how he would've reacted as a President but knowing his history and capabilities I have high confidence, we and the world would be in far better shape today if Al Gore had been President.

[Uncle Joe]

41. One other point, if you ever watch "An Inconvenient Truth' you will see

that Al Gore has given speeches in China regarding global warming and the need to straighten up their environment.

[Deja Q]

13. 5

I like seeing the standard of living raised for people in other countries.

Unfortunately, Americans have been hurting due to lack of incentives, lack of reasonable protections (e.g. tac incentives to keep jobs here instead of tax incentives to shove jobs offshore), and initiative -- if we are moving jobs offshore to people building a life for providing poor services and products, some of which being toxic or deadly, it's a slap in the face for us who took the time to learn and practice those trades. Don't blame me; far more people complain about the quality than they do praise it. And that's not a good sign for ANY economy, but then we're not even remotely "globalized" despite what those who use the G-word claim it to be.

I think there can be a middle ground.

[Zynx]

18. When ever I see 80% with such a black and white view of a complicated issue

I am concerned greatly.

[ulysses]

19. trade is a complex issue.

NAFTA, in my view, is not.

[Uncle Joe]

23. It's easy to demonize a simple word or concept when there is great fear in the nation

due to social or economic upheaval. I believe that leads many a baby to get thrown out with the bath water.

[Political Heretic]

29. You're confusing where the complexity is.

Trade is the complex issue.

Being very versed on the complexities of NAFTA does not rule out concluding that the best option is its elimination and replacement.

NAFTA itself is simply a bad deal.

Now building a just and beneficial trade policy - that's complex.

[Zynx]

36. The problem with scrapping rather than reform is that if you scrap it, it may be difficult

to get any trade deal through the current Congress. Reforms can be accomplished without scrapping it.

[Political Heretic]

42. It's difficult to reform when the base of the agreement is flawed.

Any reforms that would go far enough would be equivalent to scraping it.

[HughBeaumont]

28. People need to read "The Bad Samaritans" by Ha-Joon Chang.

http://www.amazon.com/Bad-Samaritans-Secret-History-Capitalism/dp/1596913991/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1203425798&sr=8-1

Especially Chapter 3 - "My Six Year Old Should Get a Job".

Here is an excerpt from AlterNet on the author's concepts.

http://www.alternet.org/story/75645?page=entire

Pretty much blows the lid off of the idea that unbridled corporatism being "the only alternative" and the most effective way to lift all boats is a bunch of BUNK.

[OhioChick]

30. Scrap it.

Let's not forget CAFTA.