The Auto Industry...

[Dr. Shane]

Again, the trade deficit is caused mostly by oil. If Americans would drive smaller cars and use more mass transportation that would go a long way to reducing our trade deficit.

NAFTA was signed into law by President Bill Clinton, not "W".

Who defines "overworked and underpaid"? If we speak to the Mexicans working at the American factories they will not claim to be overworked and underpaid. People like Ralph Nader are the ones that make those kind of accusations. Spreading the wealth means less for America and more for developing countries - at least in the short term. Over the long term the "pie" can grow so that everyone gets more. Americans do not have some divine inheritance that gives them the right to all of the world's wealth. I am not looking at this from a Republican perspective. I am looking at it from a Mexican worker's perspective.

[Kountzer]

Again, the trade deficit is caused mostly by oil. If Americans would drive smaller cars and use more mass transportation that would go a long way to reducing our trade deficit.

A few years ago I heard a lot of people is various parts of communities I frequent say that W was in Iraq just to steal their oil. These very same people were driving big gas guzzling SUVs. If you mentioned something to them about mass transportation, or catching the bus, they looked down their noses and laughed at you.

DB

[Dr. Shane]

While my statement there is true, it is not applicable to China. I do not completely agree with our China trade policy although it is a touchy issue that is not black and white. If we cut off trade with them that would have major consequences which may include armed conflict between China and its neighbors.

[Robert]

Again, the trade deficit is caused mostly by oil. If Americans would drive smaller cars and use more mass transportation that would go a long way to reducing our trade deficit.

[Robert]

I do not completely agree with our China trade policy although it is a touchy issue that is not black and white.

My major problem is with China. As to the Mexicans, well, it's more about illegal immigration. The reason our leaders don't clamp down on it is again due to exploitation. Surely you won't tell me the illegals aren't being exploited in the US?

Rob

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

In 1993 and it went into law in 1994. The Clintons have both said that in retrospect it was a bad idea. It was mostly pushed by the Republicans.

Clinton was elected in 1992 and took office in January of 1993. Al Gore Jr. went on Larry King Live and debated H. Ross Perot over NAFTA. NAFTA was bipartisan because both parties knew it was good for America.

The Clintons have made comments saying that some of the details of NAFTA need to be reworked. However they made those comments when speaking to union members and later made contradicting comments to Mexican and Canadian officials.

Quote:

The rich aren't doing it to "spread the wealth". Their doing it do get wealthier through exploitation.

Free trade isn't an idea of "the rich". In fact, many rich business owners hate it because it causes competition. Free trade is a political idea. The rich business leaders in the country would like to see government shut down free trade so that no foreign steel, foreign autos, foreign motorcycles or any of a number of other things couldn't come in a compete with American-made products. However protective tariffs mean Americans pay more money for inferior products. Free trade means that American companies have to produce better products at a better price than foreign competitors. The American consumer wins.

[Joe_in_RP]

Quote:

We are slowly headed towards being a third world country.

Slowly?

[Sulla]

I would be more interested in talking to Robert about these things if he really laid out his polices. I would be its something based the socialist polices in europe with some heavy greene influence mixed it. But thats just a guese. If you would like to enlighten us Robert with details about your view on how things should be run I would like to hear it.

[Dr. Shane]

I think the ideas being floated about are those from Ralph Nader. Basically it is the belief that corporate America is a bad thing and does more harm to society than it does good.

[Sulla]

OK so lets say Robert agrees with Ralph Nader on all the issues. Now we have something solid to work with.

First here is my source for his views. http://www.votenader.org/issues/

(taken from his site)

So guese I was right. Like the normal left he wants EU socialism. A system that is doomed to failure because of its declining birth rate and growing entitlements bill.

-Developing international security forces.

-Unrealistic Greenpeace energy ideas. Wind and solar will not be able to replace oil, coal, and atomic power. But that is the position on nadar site and his greenpeace link.

-Redistribution of wealth with even more taxes on companies and the wealthy.

-Gut the military by huge spending cuts.

-Impeach (probably charge now) Bush with-

Criminal use of force against Iraq.

Condoned and approved systemic torture.

Arresting Americans without charges.

Signing more than 1000 signing statements.

Systematic spying on Americans without judicial approval.

-The Nader Campaign supports reforming the "(in)justice" system.

-Moratorium on the Death Penalty

-Rapid withdrawal of troops from Iraq. A target of withdrawing troops in six months will be set.

-Universal health care.

-Expanded entitlement programs.

[Robert]

Originally Posted By: Robert

The rich aren't doing it to "spread the wealth". Their doing it do get wealthier through exploitation.

The rich business leaders in the country would like to see government shut down free trade....

[Joe_in_RP]

I have come to the conclusion a while a go that all forms of human government are doomed to failure. Each one is corrupted by selfishness and greed. We can argue about what can be done but in he end selfishness and greed will win. Humans can never govern themselves as long as the the evil ones are allowed to influence us.

[Dr. Shane]

Corporations don't have any agenda not to pay people good wages. Quite to the contrary. Good corporations understand that good wages will attract the best workers and keep them from quitting. The problem happens when firms can no longer pay top wage and be competitive. They are forced to either shut down operations completely or move their operation to another geographical area where wages are less and they can be competitive.

As I have pointed out already, American corporations pay quite well at their Mexican factories. They want to pay well because that allows them to attract the best workers. The best workers also allow them to produce the best product.

Free trade allows for 1) less expensive products, and 2) better quality products. The consumer wins.

So how can American factories compete? The answer is technology. America factories use technology to outproduce our foreign competitors. While the technology is available in the developing world, labor is so cheap it is cost-prohibitive for their factories to invest in our technology. The reason labor unions in these developing countries are against free trade is because they know that American factories can utilize modern technology to produce low cost products.

[Robert]

American corporations pay quite well at their Mexican factories.

Why not stay in the US?

[Dr. Shane]

If they are going to survive they have to get their labor costs under control. Some industries can do that by increasing their use of technology and eliminating numerous positions. So one worker with modern technology can do the work that four or five workers had done before OR that four or five workers do in developing countries. When technology cannot replace manpower, the company has to either close its doors and go out of business or move their factory to a location where labor costs are low enough that they can compete.

[Robert]

If they are going to survive they have to get their labor costs under control.

But this "survival" thingy wouldn't be an issue if not for these lame trade agreements. They are the cause....See?

[fccool]

NAFTA is all about the rich, and here's why. NAFTA encourages business consolidation. It is against small business owners who can't compete with the corporate framework. It's like a Starbucks model... oversaturate the market by drowning the competition, even if it means needless expanding. That's why the corporate America today is over-extended and stretched to the limit. They became too greedy with expansions thinking that demand for those 50k SUVs will always be there because the loans will keep on flowing. Now that the loans are cut and people have to buy from savings we are back to reality.

But, instead of letting the small businesses back in the government chooses to subsidize the big guys because they are "too big to fail". If they are too big to fail... they are too big to run.

At least Calvin and Hobbs get it.

[Robert]

NAFTA is all about the rich

Thank you! Someone doesn't have rose colored glasses on!

[Dr. Shane]

But this "survival" thingy wouldn't be an issue if not for these lame trade agreements. They are the cause....See?

We live in a global economy. Nations have traded with each other for centuries. Even the Aztecs traded with the Mayans and South American natives.

Now let's take a look at the auto industry. General Motors, Ford and Chrysler compete not only for American consumers but for consumers all over the world. If the US passed tariffs (import taxes) to protect our auto industry against foreign makes that will shut us out of their markets. So we can forget about selling our cars in Japan and much of Europe.

As a result of these protective tariffs:

1. American auto makers will have less domestic competition and thus manufacturer cars of less quality.

2. Foreign competitors will gain a substantial advantage in foreign markets and virtually shut American manufactures out of those markets.

So basically the American consumer (poor, rich or middle class) will pay more money for an inferior product. But... they will feel good about giving a fellow American a job.

Moreover... free trade agreements can hardly be blamed for the problems the Big 3 are experiencing. Many of the foreign auto makers that are beating the Big 3 are doing it with autos manufactured here in the US. The foreign auto makers have found their advantage by building their manufacturing plants far away from Detroit in the right-to-work states of the South.

[Robert]

Originally Posted By: Robert

But this "survival" thingy wouldn't be an issue if not for these lame trade agreements. They are the cause....See?

We live in a global economy. Nations have traded with each other for centuries.

[Dr. Shane]

Originally Posted By: fccool

NAFTA is all about the rich

Thank you! Someone doesn't have rose colored glasses on!

There certainly is an element of truth to that.

Mexican workers in American factories in Mexico do work in clean, air-conditioned conditions with modern restrooms and cafeterias. Their wages are set by the government which are slightly more than minimum wage - which many Mexican employers do not pay nor do they have clean work environments or modern facilities for workers. Thus the American employers in Mexico, contrast to their Mexican counterparts, are much better to work for. And the factories do offer advancement to technical and managerial positions which pay more. American factories also offer steady work whereas much work in Mexico tends to be seasonal.

Most American factories are built in northern border towns. Many Mexicans have migrated to these towns for the opportunity to find work at these factories. While those working in these factories are not enjoying a lifestyle even close to that of the typical American, most are able to build a masonry home, eat meat daily and drive a used car. That is a lot more than many of their fellow countrymen. Without these factories many more Mexicans would live in tar-paper shacks and go hungry.

If we want to label the American consumer as the "rich" then I must agree that the rich are getting the better end of the deal. While the people on both sides of the border are winning because of NAFTA, weighing everything in the balance I would have to say the rich Americans are getting the better side of the deal.

[fccool]

In the ideal world the "free trade" is a great thing. But you have to ask yourself a question when confronted with these agreements "Cui Bono"? Is it the local small businesses, is it the workers of the country, or is it the multinational corporations that do the most of the imports/exports.

The basics of business rules in this world is that people with the most money make the rules. Let's remember for a second who pushed NAFTA into being... it was multinational corporations who did not like the idea of paying import taxes and Mexican labor restrictions.

If you really want to say that the agreement was great for both US and Mexico... just look and the results and see who benefited. Was it Mexican people? Sure, there might have been a couple of percs, like cheaper food, but if people don't have jobs to buy that food... what good is it? It's like having a cheaper gas in a middle of a recession while claiming that recession benefits everyone because of it.

NAFTA agreement displaced an enormous amount of of Mexican farmers from their generational family businesses. In us the agriculture is heavily subsidized by means of direct money supplement and tax breaks for farmers. These subsidies give US farmers comparative advantage, it has little to do with technology. If not for these subsidies, many farmers would not afford technology in US. And this is just one aspect of NAFTA.

There are plenty of corporate employee abuse that not is not reported because the supervising and investigating body is NAFTA ruled, which consists of the same corporations that these employees are complaining about. The fox guarding the hen?

[Robert]

Let's remember for a second who pushed NAFTA into being... it was multinational corporations who did not like the idea of paying import taxes and Mexican labor restrictions.

And they did this by sending their lobbyist to Washington. Shane, doesn't see the "sin" in this. This is why Republicans are out of business. Bush is leaving with a 27% approval rating and that speaks volumes. This man has done more damage to American workers than are enemies could ever have dreamed of.

Yes, Clinton started it, but again I'll give him a break because on paper it looked good. Bush, on the other hand, sees that it doesn't help America. In fact two of my friends at work stated that they saw Bush in an interview and that he stated that the global economy was bad for America. Too bad he didn't realized this while he was opening up trade with 3rd world countries.

If you want to have fair trade you must have basic, labor laws. Break those laws and we don't trade with you any longer until the correction is made. What's so terrible about that idea? Answer: It limits Corporations ability to exploit! So they go to Washington with their bags of money to bribe our leaders. It works.

Rob

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

it was multinational corporations who did not like the idea of paying import taxes and Mexican labor restrictions.

Corporations don't pay taxes. The consumer does. The corporations just collect the taxes from the consumer. The consumer is the one that did not like the idea of paying import taxes.

Quote:

NAFTA agreement displaced an enormous amount of of Mexican farmers from their generational family businesses.

Let's give the full picture here. Mexican "farms" are owned by wealthy property owners. These folks live a lifestyle above that of the average American. They are rich even by American standards. These are the same guys paying laborers less than the Mexican minimum wage and getting away with it because of the corruption in Mexico. They continue to prosper under NAFTA. Anyone eating at McDonald's or Burger King has probably eaten their tomatoes and lettuce.

The Mexican "farmers" that have been displaced are not what most Americans would consider farmers. They were more like gardeners. They "farmed" small plots of land with donkeys and mules. They planted their crops by hand. NAFTA only sped up the inevitable. Even with protective tariffs in place these "farmers" would have eventually been undercut by the wealthy property owners in Mexico using modern agriculture techniques and equipment.

Who benefits from these poor, helpless, Mexican farmers being displaced? MEXICANS!!! As the price of crops goes down the poor Mexicans can afford to eat better. In fact, as trade has increased between the US and Mexican the percentage of the Mexican diet that is meat has increased. That simply shows the Mexican can afford to eat better as meat is an expensive food compared to others like beans, rice and corn.

[fccool]

When it comes to the immediate cash flow operations... corporations suffer from tariffs. Tariffs are taxes, corporations will pay taxes and try to avoid the costs if they want to be competitive. Otherwise, who would by their products if these are more expensive than domestic brands of comparative quality?

Again, claiming cheaper food for benefit is like saying that the depression is good for US because certain products dropped in price? I suspect that you would not. But that's the stats that politicians use to show the NAFTA progress. The food prices are cheaper. There's more to prosperity than food prices. You need to consider the overall effects, both short term and long term. I'm not for protectionism myself... I say open all borders and get rid of any travel restrictions. BUT, in this case the agreement is not per se for "free trade" and open borders. Otherwise, the US wages would half if that was the case... It's more about creating export environments that would benefit the corporate interests, and not necessarily the people of that country.

If you even consider that 30% of all Mexican labor force is due to maquiladora program for US and by US... I would not call this beneficial for either countries. The Mexico is not dependent on foreign country to provide employment, and US workers can't compete and loose jobs.

Overall, the agreement done more to destabilize both of the economies and negatives outweigh the positives in the longer run... especially considering that US hardly has any manufacturing base and is in debt to its eyeballs.