Thread: Giant Sucking Sound Part 2: NAFTA Pacific Millions Jobs Gone

Originally Posted by BearFlagRepublic

Originally Posted by uniteasone

during last nights debates 09/12 there was just a smidgen mention of more free trade agreements to help get this country up and running again

Free trade has been a hallmark of the Republican Party for DECADES.

I think a number of you need to reconsider your loyalty to this party.

I still say we need to promote and vote third party,but many disagree with that

I thought there was a third party call Independent.Maybe im missing something.Thats why the Independent party was started.

Originally Posted by duckman

I thought there was a third party call Independent.Maybe im missing something.Thats why the Independent party was started.

No you are right but it seems as though it does not have much power as of yet (most still stay with the 2 party ideals) and maybe I am wrong with that assumption

Originally Posted by uniteasone

Originally Posted by duckman

I thought there was a third party call Independent.Maybe im missing something.Thats why the Independent party was started.

No you are right but it seems as though it does not have much power as of yet (most still stay with the 2 party ideals) and maybe I am wrong with that assumption

No your not wrong.I have voted Independent alot in state and federal elections.We need some good canidates to come out in Independent party and show a force.

The high price of ‘free’ trade

NAFTA’s failure has cost the United States jobs across the nation

by Robert E. Scott
many many links on this post

Since the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was signed in 1993, the rise in the U.S. trade deficit with Canada and Mexico through 2002 has caused the displacement of production that supported 879,280 U.S. jobs. Most of those lost jobs were high-wage positions in manufacturing industries. The loss of these jobs is just the most visible tip of NAFTA’s impact on the U.S. economy. In fact, NAFTA has also contributed to rising income inequality, suppressed real wages for production workers, weakened workers’ collective bargaining powers and ability to organize unions, and reduced fringe benefits.

NAFTA is a free trade and investment agreement that provided investors with a unique set of guarantees designed to stimulate foreign direct investment and the movement of factories within the hemisphere, especially from the United States to Canada and Mexico. Furthermore, no protections were contained in the core of the agreement to maintain labor or environmental standards. As a result, NAFTA tilted the economic playing field in favor of investors, and against workers and the environment, resulting in a hemispheric “race to the bottomâ€

What is Free Trade?

Free trade is a system in which goods, capital, and labor flow freely between nations, without barriers which could hinder the trade process. Many nations have free trade agreements, and several international organizations promote free trade between their members. There are a number of arguments both for and against this practice, from a range of economists, politicians, industries, and social scientists.

A number of barriers to trade are struck down in a free trade agreement. Taxes, tariffs, and import quotas are all eliminated, as are subsidies, tax breaks, and other forms of support to domestic producers. Restrictions on the flow of currency are also lifted, as are regulations which could be considered a barrier to free trade. Put simply, free trade enables foreign companies to trade just as efficiently, easily, and effectively as domestic producers.

The idea behind free trade is that it will lower prices for goods and services by promoting competition. Domestic producers will not longer be able to rely on government subsidies and other forms of assistance, including quotas which essentially force citizens to buy from domestic producers, while foreign companies can make inroads on new markets when barriers to trade are lifted. In addition to reducing prices, free trade is also supposed to encourage innovation, since competition between companies sparks a need to come up with innovative products and solutions to capture market share.

Opponents of free trade often argue that it hurts domestic producers by opening up competition to companies which operate in nations with less stringent labor laws. In the European Union, for example, there are specific rules about working hours, fair rates of pay, working conditions, and so forth, which drive up the cost of production for companies which operate in the European Union. By contrast, labor laws in many developing nations like Honduras are much more lax, allowing companies to produce products at low cost, because they have low overhead costs.

Free trade has also raised concerns about product safety among some consumer advocates. A series of scandals in the early 21st century involving tainted food products from China highlighted the issue of purchasing goods from countries with inefficient or incomplete regulatory systems.

Other people have suggested that free trade encourages companies to relocate, because when barriers to foreign trade are lifted, domestic companies have no reason not to move operations overseas to take advantage of cheaper labor, inexpensive supplies, and lax regulatory systems.

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-free-trade.htm

I've always thought it was good to know homebuilding skills. You can do it even if you don't have a decent paying job. Except these days it might be good to consider having a home in a country with a future! Actually, an awful lot of people in this world spend their retirement in a country with cheaper prices. The major downside is you could get a deadly disease you don't have immunity to. But the English middle classes have been deserting her for generations for cheaper life elsewhere.

That is where the news letter " International Living" got its start and its major offshoot website (which has been predicting all of this c---for at least the last ten years) The Daily Reckoning:
http://dailyreckoning.com/

However, if the stock market shows some sign of life for the next year and then the GOP gets elected we may have another boom----for awhile.

Originally Posted by duckman

Why do so many people say that Clinton started NAFTA? It was Bush ...
answers.yahoo.com › ... › Politics & Government › Politics - CachedSimilar
You +1'd this publicly. Undo
11 answers - Aug 7, 2007
Top answer: These Bush worshipers will shift the blame to anyone that is convenient. The elder Bush did sign in on NAFTA, and the younger bush signed in on CAFTA. Both of ...

Who started NAFTA, and what was its intention?‎ - 5 answers - Feb 3, 2009
Why/how OPEC & NAFTA started?-?‎ - 1 answer - Dec 8, 2008
Did the downfall of our economy start with NAFTA?‎ - 6 answers - Oct 5, 2007
Who started NAFTA....?‎ - 20 answers - May 14, 2007
When i hear or see that giant suckin sound it reminds me of ole ROSS this man was right i voted for him everytime and would again.Clinton got the rap on NAFTA started by the ELDER BUSH which was passed in lame duck session and Clinton had to sign into law when he got in.Just like noe Bushes doing the wrong crap and who comes in behind them gets the blame.NAFTA didnt cause jobs to go over seas it was just for the U.S.Canada,and Mexico.CAFTA BY BUSH W,is why your jobs are going over seas What is CAFTA?
www.caftaintelligencecenter.com/subpage ... _CAFTA.asp - CachedSimilar
You +1'd this publicly. Undo
What is CAFTA? An Overview The United States-Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) is the latest in a series of Free Trade ...
everybody gets confussed on this issue.Clinton got the blame and done nothing but sign a bill in which BUSH SR.got passed.BUSH W gets cafta and everybody blames Obama.When will the BUSHES get the blame the deserve.Just like BUSH W started the gun running but nobody is calling on law makers to brig him back to stand trial for it.I believe in justice and justice should be done but BY GOD GET THEM ALL NOT JUST ONE BECAUSE HES A DEMACRAT.

Actually, it goes farther back. REAGAN's lying ass granted the 1986 Amnesty which was the beginning of the global elitist schemes as well as the end of America's sovereignty.