Cafta - terrible idea

[homechicago]

why is it a good idea to make american farmer's products worth less in america? i'm not interested in cheaper farm goods from a foreign country where children and adults are used as cheap labor to undercut american farm goods which may result in losses of yet more american jobs.




The loss of jobs was of greatest concern to American voters. An
overwhelming 74% opposed CAFTA when asked if they would favor or oppose the
agreement if it reduced consumer prices but caused job losses. Of those who
directly opposed CAFTA, more than half cited the threat to the U.S. economy
and jobs as their primary concern (52%).
NAFTA destroyed an estimated 880,000 jobs, according to the Economic
Policy Institute. In a recent study, the United States International Trade
Commission found that the CAFTA will cause significant job losses across many
sectors in the U.S. if the agreement is implemented.

[Nimrod's Son]

NAFTA was terrible. I expect this to be as bad

[homechicago]

yeah. didn't perot describe nafta as "the giant sucking sound"?

[spa ced]

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son
NAFTA was terrible. I expect this to be as bad

Wow I completely expected you to say the exact opposite. Surprising.

I completely agree with you that NAFTA was terrible and CAFTA will be equally as terrible.

I strongly believe that Nafta played a key role in the loss of 800 jobs (my mothers and two aunts in.cluded) when Levis closed its last two plants here in San Antonio.
http://www.rednova.com/news/general/...sewing_plants/

I see a sad kind of irony in that my mother and aunts moved to the United States to find a job that paid good wages that would provide a better standard of living and more oppurtunities for their children and yet lost their jobs when the American company they worked for left the country to take advantage of the low wage labor in a foreign nation that allows them to compete globally.

[spa ced]

They're voting on it right now.
If CAFTA passes then watching C-Span recently will have caused two depressing nights for me. Last week I watched C-Span for hours as the HOR passed bills concerning the Patriot Act (some of them I actually was for) but was depressed when the final passage of the 14 of the 16 provisions of the Patriot Act were added permanently.

[Nimrod's Son]

Originally posted by homechicago
yeah. didn't perot describe nafta as "the giant sucking sound"?

A big part of why I voted for him and worked on his campaign

[Debaser]

jeez, just like with the prescription drug bill years ago....it looked like the bill was going to fail, so then the repub leaders stalled and held open the vote for an hour until they could twist some more arms to get it to pass at midnight...217-215...15 dems voted for it and 27 repubs voted against it...

[pastry sharp]

i don't see what all the hubbub is about. CAFTA is not ideal, but neither is the CBI, which currently lets 80 % of the regions exports enter the US duty free. CAFTA is not NAFTA. Having said that, in an ideal world the CBI and NAFTA would be repealed and CAFTA would not pass. More comprehensive and equitable legislation would be developed and passed in it's place. But alas, we do not live in an ideal world.

[jczeroman]

I have no idea what to think about this. Conservative groups that I usually agree with are supporting this. Then again, NAFTA is a total crapfest. About 99.9% of free-trade agreements these days are bullshit anyhow. I probably don't support it.

[homechicago]

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son
A big part of why I voted for him and worked on his campaign

that's cool.

he got pretty far for a third party. had he not quit and then rejoined the fight for the presidency (he did quit at one point, right?) i wonder if america would be in better economic shape.

i don't want to give up on voting, but it often seems as though the most corrupt people are in charge.

national polls (however random they may be) showed consistently that non-politician, non-lobbying americans were generally not in favor of cafta. if i believe this to be true, why do elected officials do their own thing? i wonder how many politicians ACTUALLY try to represent the people of their state instead of doing their own, politically immoral auctioning off of anything that will get them personal satisfaction, regardless of the effect on regular people? that was worded terribly. sorry.

[jczeroman]

Hmmm... after doing a little browsing I am still undecided. In principle, I support the ending of quoitas and tariffs between all countries the US deals with. This seems to do some of that, with the exceptions of sugar and apparel (which seems pretty stupid because that is what we really could save on from Central America). It's really striking me as the US tryin gto create a better export market, which sounds so typically keynesian/mixed-market that I can't see it being good overall.

As for the whole, "AMERICAN JOBS LOST BLAH BLAH BLAH" -- go to hell. There is no such thing as an "american job" (with the exception o fa public job) as jobs are created by private individuals to see their ends met. Americans dont have a right to jobs any more than mexicans, chinese, or europeans. If one group is willing to do it for cheaper, then they should be allowed. Why are Americans better than any other group that they somehow deserve jobs despite the fact that they will do them at a higher cost at worse production value than others? It's a terribly jingoistic attitude.

[Debaser]

Originally posted by jczeroman

As for the whole, "AMERICAN JOBS LOST BLAH BLAH BLAH" -- go to hell. There is no such thing as an "american job" (with the exception o fa public job) as jobs are created by private individuals to see their ends met. Americans dont have a right to jobs any more than mexicans, chinese, or europeans. If one group is willing to do it for cheaper, then they should be allowed.

It's not about American entitlement. It's about fairness - It's not an equal playing field.

Why pay an American a (relatively) high wage and spend money to ensure safe worplace standards, when you can go to a central american country and exploit their workers on the cheap? This deal actually encourages a race to the bottom. It's an incentive for big business to troll the third world for the most repressive regimes for workers. It's weird how you want to expand and protect more human values, rights & equal opportunity for corporations but not for individual people (Americans & Central Americans).

Anybody who thinks the U.S. will benefit now from exporting to Central America is high. Yeah right, those exploited central american workers making a $1 a day can really afford to buy a ton of our stuff. Please.

[homechicago]

Originally posted by Debaser


It's not about American entitlement. It's about fairness - It's not an equal playing field.

Why pay an American a (relatively) high wage and spend money to ensure safe worplace standards, when you can go to a central american country and exploit their workers on the cheap? This deal actually encourages a race to the bottom. It's an incentive for big business to troll the third world for the most repressive regimes for workers. It's weird how you want to expand and protect more human values, rights & equal opportunity for corporations but not for individual people (Americans & Central Americans).

Anybody who thinks the U.S. will benefit now from exporting to Central America is high. Yeah right, those exploited central american workers making a $1 a day can really afford to buy a ton of our stuff. Please.

i wonder if a point will be reached when all this amazingly cheap product will sit on shelves because there's no one with an income to buy anything? millionaires and billionaires only buy so much stuff at walmart, target, kmart.....

what WILL the walton kids do when the middle and lower class drop out of the consumer society? who will flick the off switch of the auto checkout machines when middle america drops into third world status (not tomorrow, but it could happen. there's no guarantee that things will always fix themselves)? i think about that often.

i'm reading OUTSOURCING AMERICA by Ron Hira. interesting and possibly scary.

[jczeroman]

Originally posted by Debaser


It's not about American entitlement. It's about fairness - It's not an equal playing field.

I don't think that complicated give and take relationships between powerful corporations and politicians are going to make things regular. Freedom is the best regulator -- not a forced regime of "equality" as determined by those who are going to benefit most from said regime.

Originally posted by Debaser
Why pay an American a (relatively) high wage and spend money to ensure safe worplace standards, when you can go to a central american country and exploit their workers on the cheap? This deal actually encourages a race to the bottom. It's an incentive for big business to troll the third world for the most repressive regimes for workers. It's weird how you want to expand and protect more human values, rights & equal opportunity for corporations but not for individual people (Americans & Central Americans).

Corporations are merely the property of individuals. They can do what they want as long as the respect the life, liberty and property of people. US companys should not be allowed to do business in the US if they violate people's basic rights. That aspect of US law needs to be enforced.

At the same time, I fail to see how offering people in these countries better condtions and pay than they have now is a bad thing. If they think that these jobs are crappy, then they wont take them. But they do, they full the damn factories and warehouses because it gives them more than what they could otherwise have. Labor standards are all negotiated by contract (or should be). People in the US and Europe have that kind of pull because of the skill that they have AND because of the freedom they have to contract under US and European law. Central Americans don't have the skills because they have a terrible education system and they don't have the freedoms because their governments are all shitty. What is going to give these people the pull they need is either US/European style laws or freedom to contract. Since the only way they';ll get our laws is if we start a war and take them over -- I think that is out. The only other practical way to see the global standard of living to rise then is to allow US companys to contract with these people. It will be fairly one-sided at first, with the people only slightly better off (but still better off). Eventually as the workforce gains more skills through the companies need for more efficient labor, then higher quality workers will be available for makers of higher quality products. They will still be cheaper than US labor of the same kind, but not by much (since our minimum wage laws prevent good low-skill workers from rising about bad low-skill workers -- they all make and inflated minum wage). Rinse and repeat.

Originally posted by Debaser
Anybody who thinks the U.S. will benefit now from exporting to Central America is high. Yeah right, those exploited central american workers making a $1 a day can really afford to buy a ton of our stuff. Please.

No one is forcing them to take these jobs. Why, then do they chose them? Because they are slightly better than what they can get otherwise. Well, what happens when another US company needs to make higher quality clothes? They need to pay slightly more to attract more qualified workers. It's not overnight, but such freedom will raise these people's standard of living far better than labor laws will.

It really doesn't matter if they buy our stuff or not with a slightly higher wage. But then again, because of America's protectionism our goods are so atificially high that central americans can't afford them. That's not a big deal (but still should be fixed), as they can still afford food. However, look to Africa which is so poor that they can't afford the inflated US, Asian and European prices on food and we see where this kind of protectionism takes us -- a lack of distribution of even the most basic goods.

[pastry sharp]

Originally posted by jczeroman
...

intellectually, i guess i can see what you are saying, sort of... i'm torn in two directions on this particular issue (more on that in a second), but anyway i slice it, i always come back to the fact that "better" is not always acceptable.

at any rate, the self preservationist in me says that there is little evidence to suggest that free trade will ever benifit the us in my lifetime - in fact, experience overwhelmingly says that i'm going to get hurt by it, over and over again. the flip side of that, is that from a humanitarian stand point, i think the world should be a level playing field. the problem, as i mentioned before, is that the CBI, NAFTA, and CAFTA don't level the playing field, they just create an opportunity for third world exploitation. it may, in a few limited cases, be better for the third world worker, but as i said, better in my opinion does not always mean acceptable.

[jczeroman]

Originally posted by pastry sharp
the problem, as i mentioned before, is that the CBI, NAFTA, and CAFTA don't level the playing field, they just create an opportunity for third world exploitation. it may, in a few limited cases, be better for the third world worker, but as i said, better in my opinion does not always mean acceptable.

Agreed. I am pretty skeptical too. The only way free trade wouldn't befit you or anyoen else in their lifetime is because you aren't in the direct path of it. Free-trade is about giving and taking. Two entities (people/business/corporations/etc) agree to a contract that benefits both (a person might get a job with benefits and a corporation gets a skilled worker that is going to make them profit). With freedom and laws that prevent one group from exploiting the other, a world full of these realtionships would bring prosperity all around (to those who are good at it, they will gain much more than others, but everyone will gain). The only people who wouldn't benefit (or would benefit much slower) are those who refuse to take action and move in their freedom -- those who sit by and wait for the benefits created by the two contracting groups to fall into their lap.

Peopel are all connected, that is the reality. The more connected people have become throughout history, the better things have gotten for all. We were tribal hunter/gatherers or poor farmers until people broke geographic barriers and combined the beast of each technique. We were all under monarchies until people broke political barriers and realized the power of republican government. We were all under injustice until people broke the barriers of tyranny and created principles of law. We all produced everything we needed ourselves until people crossed the mountains and traded with each other. Imagine what we could be if we broke the confines of national barriers, racial barriers or cultural barriers?

Free-trade is the best way I have seen thus far for people to experience freedom on a global level. The bname of free trade has also been abused to oppress the weak, no doubt. But real free-trade is "Free" -- that is both parties enter into contract because they recieve a benefit. As long as peopel are allowed to do what is most benefitial for them, without trampling basic rights, we will see the world improve.

[Debaser]

a few thoughts since i'm short of time:

- It's not fair to blame the workers for accepting these shitty jobs that exploit them. They don't have the same opportunities growing up that we're use to. For most, I suspect it's either work at the sweat factory or starve to death.

- Telling other countries to bring their treatment of workers up 21st century standards is not a bad thing.

- I think its immoral to standbye idle and wait for the natural course of "freedom" to enpower these people to find better jobs (and what if there are no other jobs) and in turn force companies to treat them better. Especially when we are the ones encouraging these companies to exploit them for our financial gain and also turning a blind eye if not also encouraging these countries to repress freedom, "trampling their basic rights". Within trade agreements we easily have the tools to force countries to modernize their treatment of workers. Why wait? What is there to gain by waiting except allow people to be exploited? Within the cafta agreement we actually have the opposite. Rules placed in there to ensure pharmaceutical companies keep a monopoly and high prices within central america.

[jczeroman]

Originally posted by Debaser
a few thoughts since i'm short of time:

- It's not fair to blame the workers for accepting these shitty jobs that exploit them. They don't have the same opportunities growing up that we're use to. For most, I suspect it's either work at the sweat factory or starve to death.

I don't feel guilty for my "opportunity." I and my forfathers earned it by creatign a market-based system that allowed for the quick, massive creation of vast ammounts of wealth. If these people wan't reform they must take in upon themselves to see it happen. It's not our job to imperialze our culture and values upon them.

Originally posted by Debaser
- Telling other countries to bring their treatment of workers up 21st century standards is not a bad thing.

Telling them isn't. Forcing them is. "Force" means "at gun point." I agree that US companies who abuse people should be help responsible. That needs to enforced. We have it in the constitution.

Originally posted by Debaser

- I think its immoral to standbye idle and wait for the natural course of "freedom" to enpower these people to find better jobs (and what if there are no other jobs) and in turn force companies to treat them better. Especially when we are the ones encouraging these companies to exploit them for our financial gain and also turning a blind eye if not also encouraging these countries to repress freedom, "trampling their basic rights".

There is a simple, consistent solution to this:

"We" need to stop supporting companies who we don't agree with morally. If you don't like the way NIKE does things overseas, for example, then don't buy their products. This is freedom in action. If NIKE goes beyond simply mistreatment and violates people rights to life, liberty and property -- they should be punished... severely. Peopel have the right to demand such no matter what country they are in.

However, jobs are not a basic right, let alone good ones. The reality of "a level playing field" is that people come into this world with a right only to themselves and what they, by themselves can produce. They don't have a right to another person's life, liberty or property. However, we all need each other if we're going to be anything more than that -- so we contract. If a worker in Guatemala can onl7 get $10 a day, then that is what they can get. People can voletarily help them, but we can't force corporations (or individuals) to give them that which they cannot earn simply because the corporation happens to be good at creating wealth. The reason why US jobs are so "good" is because our minimum wage and labor laws are in direct violation of employer's rights to life, liberty and property and freedom to contract. Since the system is already undermined in the favor of US workers (many of whome did not earn the standards of their current jobs) it is fitting to see them whining that it might be taken away. In a pure system of free-trade a man's job is what he earns by virtue of his skills, education, etc.. and therefore it cannot be taken away. He doesn't fear free-trade because he knows that it benefits people like him.

Originally posted by Debaser

Within trade agreements we easily have the tools to force countries to modernize their treatment of workers. Why wait? What is there to gain by waiting except allow people to be exploited? Within the cafta agreement we actually have the opposite. Rules placed in there to ensure pharmaceutical companies keep a monopoly and high prices within central america.

Force, force, force... would it have been alright to invade Iraq to force them to use bettor labor? You seem to be advocating imperialism, if not militarily, then by coersion. We have no right to force these coutries to do anything. We do have the right to not contract with them or not buy the products of companies and governments that contract with them.

[Debaser]

So to you it is about American entitlement then! You are entitled to your rights to a safe work environment or at least your vast opportunities because your forefathers "earned" it. Central Americans can fuck off. It's amazing how you still blame exploited workers for not being able to "earn" a decent wage. Do you also blame the abused child for being abused?

In fact I do avoid buying products from companies I feel have immoral practices. But for some strange reason, they aren't exactly feeling this severe punishment that you say it is.

When I say "force", I'm not using the libertarian defined "force *cough*withguns*cough*". The simple tool I was using was "hey, we won't eliminate tariffs on imports if you won't treat your workers humanely." But to you that somehow equates to invading iraq. uh what?

[pastry sharp]

i'm pretty impressed by anyone who is of a singular mind on this issue. a large part of me says, "central americans can fuck off" not because they are not worthy of the same basic opportunities that i am, but because i fear what the net result will not justify what i personally stand to lose. i work for a company based out of the netherlands. i started as a program coordinator and have since worked my way up the ladder. i have increased my salary by 15K in four years. i've done what my parents did; i gave up on my dream job in order to provide a better reality for my family. here's my dillema; as corporate stock has fallen, shareholders have decided to move to low cost labor solutions. in europe, that means french and british jobs go to poland. in asia that means that jobs are going to china. in north america, that means that jobs at our dallas, austin, portland, louisville, new castle, (etc) sites are going to mexico and beyond. i've purchased a decent home, two modestly equipped american cars, and have a wife and daughter (as well as one on the way). my wife works as hard as i do. we are your typical middle class family. i don't want to jepordize that.

[Debaser]

Originally posted by pastry sharp
i'm pretty impressed by anyone who is of a singular mind on this issue. a large part of me says, "central americans can fuck off" not because they are not worthy of the same basic opportunities that i am, but because i fear what the net result will not justify what i personally stand to lose. i work for a company based out of the netherlands. i started as a program coordinator and have since worked my way up the ladder. i have increased my salary by 15K in four years. i've done what my parents did; i gave up on my dream job in order to provide a better reality for my family. here's my dillema; as corporate stock has fallen, shareholders have decided to move to low cost labor solutions. in europe, that means french and british jobs go to poland. in asia that means that jobs are going to china. in north america, that means that jobs at our dallas, austin, portland, louisville, new castle, (etc) sites are going to mexico and beyond. i've purchased a decent home, two modestly equipped american cars, and have a wife and daughter (as well as one on the way). my wife works as hard as i do. we are your typical middle class family. i don't want to jepordize that.

The libertarian solution is that you better work harder then.

[pastry sharp]

Originally posted by Debaser


The libertarian solution is that you better work harder then.

maybe, but at the end of the day, i think that the liberal, conservative, centrist, and libertarians can all pretty much agree that free trade is where the world is headed - american working class stiff, be damned. as i've said, intellectually free trade, done the right way, is great. emotionally, i don't see it doing anything positive for me, in terms of career growth... who knows - if i ever get laid off and my home gets repo'd, perhaps i'll be able to buy it back when the bottom drops out of the housing market, with my new low wage job.

[jczeroman]

Originally posted by Debaser
So to you it is about American entitlement then! You are entitled to your rights to a safe work environment or at least your vast opportunities because your forefathers "earned" it. Central Americans can fuck off. It's amazing how you still blame exploited workers for not being able to "earn" a decent wage. Do you also blame the abused child for being abused?

en·ti·tle·ment Pronunciation (n-ttl-mnt)
n.
1. The act or process of entitling.
2. The state of being entitled.
3. A government program that guarantees and provides benefits to a particular group: "fights . . . to preserve victories won a generation ago, like the Medicaid entitlement for the poor" Jason DeParle.

An entitlement is somethign granted. I am talking about something earned. We have the vast wealth in America today, partly because of abuse and exploitation yes, but mostly because our system of government and capitalism allowed people to actually work to their capacity and create vast ammounts of wealth. I believe it is morally acceptable to help others who have not had the chance to enjoy such freedom but not by force. It must be led by those who have the desire to do so, not the means. Just because one has doesn't mean they are obligated to give. People that have been "expolited" in Central America and wherever should be helped, if they have truley been exploited:

Adj. 1. exploited
- developed or used to greatest advantage
2. ill-used, put-upon, victimised, victimized, used
misused - used incorrectly or carelessly or for an improper purpose

If were talking about the second one, then the government needs to act with force. If it's the second, that these peopel were simply used at their capacity for a wage worthy of their work in value to the company who was providing the opportunity to work, then they get what they deserve. No one "deserves" a good job -- would you argue that? Does someone have the right to come to me and say, "employ me for $35,000" and then back it up by power of the government force? Not Central Americans or Canadians, Europeans or USAmericans have such a right to demand this! They do have the right to seek their own hapiness and most definitely to seek justice against abuses.

Originally posted by Debaser
In fact I do avoid buying products from companies I feel have immoral practices. But for some strange reason, they aren't exactly feeling this severe punishment that you say it is.

Well then obviously a lot of people really don't care. Why should they be forced to submit to your morality? Even if you are right -- simply by virtue of you being correct, you are not authorized to conquer them with your ideology (be it correct) and trample their freewill. You can only do what is in your means to do, forcing others against their will is wrong (unless the violation is of basic rights).

Originally posted by Debaser
When I say "force", I'm not using the libertarian defined "force *cough*withguns*cough*". The simple tool I was using was "hey, we won't eliminate tariffs on imports if you won't treat your workers humanely." But to you that somehow equates to invading iraq. uh what?

No, but Iraq was invaded because of the morality of a small group called them to do it. Your morality is not universal, just like their wasn't, but you would use coercive force which is the same as violence, as coersion can only be backed up by eventual violence. When the US puts up tariffs they infringe upon the rights of companies to contract, whether they are good or not.

- Company A expolits their workers basic rights.
- Company B gives workers adiquate wages and conditions

When the US imposes a tariff of 10% Company A pays 10%; Company B pays 10%. This is harder on B, because their costs are already more in providing better conditions. A reaps more profit and B ultimately gets driven out. The Tariffs HURT THE GOOD COMPANY! In reality, Company A shouldn't be allowed to do business and Company B should have no tariff. That can't be enforced because if special cases were made, B could get away with a monopoly and would no longer have a reason to pay good wages and provide good conditions. So they must both be allowed to operate. If workers are then free to chose which company, they will chose B and it will attract better workers makign better, faster, cheaper products which make B more profit and ensure they succed until another company lures better workers away with even better pay and condidions.

[Debaser]

Originally posted by pastry sharp



maybe, but at the end of the day, i think that the liberal, conservative, centrist, and libertarians can all pretty much agree that free trade is where the world is headed - american working class stiff, be damned. as i've said, intellectually free trade, done the right way, is great. emotionally, i don't see it doing anything positive for me, in terms of career growth... who knows - if i ever get laid off and my home gets repo'd, perhaps i'll be able to buy it back when the bottom drops out of the housing market, with my new low wage job.

In a perfect world, free trade would make sense. But since its not a perfect world, right now I place priority on individual rights and equal opportunity over free trade and profit. Cafta is does the opposite. Libertarians would argue that free trade and profit encourages individual rights and equal opportunity, but I say history shows otherwise (and its not a perfect world yet).

[Debaser]

Originally posted by jczeroman

- Company A expolits their workers basic rights.
- Company B gives workers adiquate wages and conditions

When the US imposes a tariff of 10% Company A pays 10%; Company B pays 10%. This is harder on B, because their costs are already more in providing better conditions. A reaps more profit and B ultimately gets driven out. The Tariffs HURT THE GOOD COMPANY! In reality, Company A shouldn't be allowed to do business and Company B should have no tariff. That can't be enforced because if special cases were made, B could get away with a monopoly and would no longer have a reason to pay good wages and provide good conditions. So they must both be allowed to operate. If workers are then free to chose which company, they will chose B and it will attract better workers makign better, faster, cheaper products which make B more profit and ensure they succed until another company lures better workers away with even better pay and condidions.

Even if there were no tariffs, in this hypothetical, Company B will still be driven out of business. Why? Because Company B is in America and Company A is in Saipan. Company B will never lure any workers from Company A because these workers cannot afford to move across the world! With no tariffs, Company B will simply move to Saipan.

[jczeroman]

Originally posted by Debaser


Even if there were no tariffs, in this hypothetical, Company B will still be driven out of business. Why? Because Company B is in America and Company A is in Saipan. Company B will never lure any workers from Company A because these workers cannot afford to move across the world! With no tariffs, Company B will simply move to Saipan.

So then what needs to happen is Americas arificially inflated economy needs to return to its regular value so that our dollar, wages, government aren't inflated at teh expense of the rest of the world.

[pastry sharp]

Originally posted by Debaser


In a perfect world, free trade would make sense. But since its not a perfect world, right now I place priority on individual rights and equal opportunity over free trade and profit. Cafta is does the opposite. Libertarians would argue that free trade and profit encourages individual rights and equal opportunity, but I say history shows otherwise (and its not a perfect world yet).

i don't disagree with you. if i have not expressly written it, i believe there is a definate disconnect between the intellectual arguments of free trade as we know it, and the reality of the situation. i feel that way about quite a bit of the moral, ethical, and political questions that life poses for me. my feelings on this subject are simply an extention of that.

as i side note, not that i think you were implying it, but more or less for the record, i'm not a libertarian, at all.

[Debaser]

Originally posted by jczeroman


So then what needs to happen is Americas arificially inflated economy needs to return to its regular value so that our dollar, wages, government aren't inflated at teh expense of the rest of the world.

So you would rather have America lower its standards instead of helping everybody else we do business with to raise theirs?

[pastry sharp]

Originally posted by jczeroman


So then what needs to happen is Americas arificially inflated economy needs to return to its regular value so that our dollar, wages, government aren't inflated at teh expense of the rest of the world.

as i said, i agree with you to a point - and this is probably that point.

in the mean time, hard working people become unemployed, lose their homes, and watch their lives and their children's futures disappear... american workers are, to use a word that you seem to find a bit dirty, entitled to loyalty from the corporations that they help build. success doesn't happen in a vacuum. the future success of a corporation is directly proportionate to the hard work and dedication of that corporations work force. unfortunately, a corporations loyalty to it's workforce is not directly proportionate to the hard work and dedication of that work force. this is a major problem with free trade, and in my opinion, free trade should not expand until this problem is resolved.

but these are reservations about free trade in general. as i already said, there is already a fairly inequitable system of trade in place with central america under the CBI.

[homechicago]

Since the system is already undermined in the favor of US workers (many of whome did not earn the standards of their current jobs)

"The $21.38 million cash payout .....It's ironic that during her tenure, Fiorina didn't perform up to target. .....her target bonus was increased to 400 percent of salary from 300 percent in recognition of the heavy lifting she was doing with the Compaq merger. What a hoot. She never came close to earning the target bonus that she has now been paid 2.5 times over."

"DEARBORN, Mich. (Reuters) — Former Ford Motor CEO Jacques Nasser, ousted last October, received $17.8 million in compensation for 2001, a year the company reported a staggering $5.45 billion loss, the automaker said Tuesday."

"Payout Purcell may be due as much as $62.3 million for a "voluntary" termination, according to a Feb. 15 filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission."

yes, ceo workers are heavily favored. they cut american jobs, move ops to foreign country a b or c and rape/reap the benefits of unregulated labor. there is nothing fair or earned about fleecing the little guy, american or foreign.

i'm not for cafta because of the reality. lost american jobs, purposely garbage wages for the foreign worker, and all the profit sucked up by a few mainly greedy, powerful thieves. you can be a hard worker and get screwed in america. you can be rich daddy's dimwitted son and get piles of money thrown at you in america all while playing golf.

liberal, conservative, libertarian, vegetarian - these labels mean zero to me. literal fair trade, working for everyone, even the actual workers would mean a lot to me.