so, was NAFTA good or bad?

[UpsideDownFlag]

i ask this with (ashamedly) not much knowledge on the subject. I know that people blame it for the exportation of jobs, but i also know that it was created (or at least signed) by Clinton, and the economy was roaring under his assumedly nafta-influenced administration. so...what's the deal

[UpsideDownFlag]

1. seriously, explain. why it is bad or good in your eyes.

lol

[Warpy]

15. It allows corporations to fire US workers and ship the factories

to Mexico and Canada. It allows corporations to import goods that are more cheaply produced in Mexico and other South American countries than they are in the US. It does NOT allow human beings to shop in other countries for third world goods at third world prices, unless those people travel to those locations to buy those things. Even then, they'll have to declare them at the border and pay duties on many of them. It especially doesn't allow human beings to purchase their medications from other countries to avoid the price gouging in the US, although a lot of us do so in defiance of stupid laws.

The problem was first that it was written by and for corporations and against human beings; second, it allows corporations to challenge and overthrow many of the environmental and labor laws they find inconvenient (see: Chapter 11).

This country is at a crossroads. Either we'll continue to progress towards fascism and then feudalism, or we'll grab our country back. Renegotiating NAFTA may be the first step in the latter process.

[ulysses]

2. bad

An international economy is inevitable, but the situation created under NAFTA ensures a race to the bottom in terms of worker protections and wages and environmental protections. And yes, it was a central issue for Clinton's first term.

[UpsideDownFlag]

4. so it lowered working conditions?

and employee benefits and the like?

[ulysses]

9. did I say that?

Don't be simple. NAFTA moved jobs to where the workers have fewer, if any, protections, from places where they have more of the same.

[UpsideDownFlag]

11. that's what i meant.

it took jobs and placed them where the working conditions weren't as good. i shoulda been more specific.

[ulysses]

20. fair enough. n/t

[charlyvi]

3. Okay, In my eyes....

It's bad because it has led to so much outsourcing. The jobs created in their place have been lower paying. Bad because the labor used for the outsourced jobs enjoys no workplace safety regs, minimum wage guarantees, job security, etc. It's a no go for both sides, just the employers gain.

[Catt03]

5. I think it was good.

Why not modify trade agreements with Mexico and Canada? Mexico needed the income and Canada was always welcome as a participant.

I know that jobs may have gone to Mexico but I think it helped US agriculture. I don't think the problem is with the countries that are members of these trade agreements; it is with the greed of corporations and our governments reluctance to make the agreements fair for people.

[charlyvi]

8. Bingo.

But until the worker is employed fairly and treated fairly, NAFTA is bad!.

[papau]

12. Mexico was going down and Nafta saved it without the US sending massive

direct aid.

However, NAFTA is "bad" until workers right, safety, environment, and wages are put into the agreement by amendment.

[lanparty]

27. So was SLAVERY good ...

Lord knows the South would never had been able to process all that cotton without slave labor. So what if brown people were treated like chattle. So what if free white men's wages were disrupted by the practice!!!!

What is important is that the plantation of wealthy aristocrats didn't go into bankruptcy. If they did, there would have been a firesale by which poor white people could have bought land and farmed it DIRECTLY instead of paying half their incomes to be sharecroppers. Oh, that would have been a disaster!!!!! Than those people would have had real the economic power to affect their destinies away from the stranglehold of an aristocratic upper class.

If NAFTA is good, than slavery is good. They only real difference is they've gone with the "serf" model instead of the "bondaged labor" model. Once again, it's the free workers who support the whole system that get the shaft. The aristocrats are the only ones who benefit.

[papau]

37. If not stopped by a change to the WTO rules, "free trade" will indeed

lead to a race to the bottom.

[Fovea]

6. NAFTA put America in the pole postion

in the race to the bottom.

[Roark]

7. Bad in a really bad way

I lost two jobs directly to NAFTA, outsourcing and cheap foreign labor. We have to get rid of NAFTA and keep American jobs in America, no matter the cost.

[Hippo_Tron]

10. Here's my view on the whole situation

I don't have a problem with American companies outsourcing jobs to other countries that they can't really find people in America to do. I do have a problem with having people working in sweatshops. Corporations could still profit tremendously by outsourcing these jobs but at least creating decent working conditions. I think that provisions for working conditions should be enforced. I also think that tax laws should be changed to encourage companies to only outsource when there is a shortage of American labor available. I think that there is tremendous opportunity in having a global economy, but that opportunity should benefit the people and not just the corporations.

[Warpy]

21. I do have a problem with outsourcing

that sends jobs to the third world and expects the US to be the primary (sometimes the only) market for all the goods and services. That is what is killing us. The US worker can't possibly compete with a worker in the third world who is being paid in third world currency. The solution to this is confiscatory tariffs on companies that are offshoring everything in sight in order to make the bottom line look better, and to hell with this country.

Offshoring factories that produce goods and services by and for the third world is a great idea. Developing markets that way is a wonderful idea. However, beggaring the population in the US just so some CEO can look good and get a bigger bonus is beyond evil; it's treason, weakening this country to a dangerous level.

Consider what the US is going to be in the next big world war. Much of the electronics in every weapon and delivery system the military uses is produced overseas, and quite a bit of it in Moslem countries like Indonesia. This country will be screwed in the next war. We'll end up throwing rocks with so little heavy domestic industry left.

Be careful what you approve of when it comes to "free" trade and corporate outsourcing. Really think this one through, and consider whether you're ready to be paid the same 30 cents an hour that the person in Bangalore will be paid to do your job.

[Hippo_Tron]

23. To be fair, 30 cents goes a lot farther in Bangalore than it does here

But I do think that the playing field should me much more even and I don't believe in exploting workers in the third world. As far as defense industries go, I do share your concerns and think that maybe the Pentagon should take this under serious consideration (err that is, the Pentagon under the control of John Kerry's new secretary of defense since there's not a chance this administration will do that).

[morgan2]

13. terrible

it was designed to benefit business only. It has only benefitted the pockets of the rich. Having labor markets compete against each other is only benefitial to the economy as a whole in highly skilled labor. In low skilled jobs, where everyone can basically do just as well as someone else, it simply creates a situation where the only ones with jobs are those willing to accept a lower wages and/or less safety regulations. Great for business, bad for labor..

[telamachus]

14. NAFTA and FTAA etc...

are great ideas but they are in need of more input from civil society. Like politics it is often the case that trade agreements favor corporate ideologies. Opening free trade is the first step in fair trade. Without the doors being opened many markets remain closed.

It is time for Americans to wake up to the fact that a policy of ignoring globalization will only lead to corporations have all the say. These trade issues are complex but each of us should take the time to understand the issues from ALL angles before making conclusions about them.

Without input from ALL of the stakeholders there WILL be injustice. Speak up now or the fight for (economic) justice will be much more difficult in the future.

This is an evolutionary force that will not disappear if you rant and rave against it Economic globalization may be the most important issue that shape the future of the world.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

16. it was NOT "created by Clinton" it was authored by Bush 41 and passed by

Congress before Clinton ever took office....and was waiting on his desk to be signed on President Clinton's inauguration day.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104566.html

North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)

In three separate ceremonies in the three capitals on Dec. 17, 1992, President Bush, Mexican President Salinas, and Canadian Prime Minister Mulroney signed the historic North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The framework agreement proposed to eliminate restrictions on the flow of goods, services, and investment in North America. The House of Representatives approved NAFTA, by a vote of 234 to 200 on November 17, 1993, and the Senate voted 60 to 38 for approval on November 20. It was signed into law by President Clinton on December 8, 1993, and took effect on January 1, 1994.

more....

[UpsideDownFlag]

17. oh, ok.

i misunderstood.

[ulysses]

19. Clinton signed it, did he not? n/t

[lanparty]

28. Did Clinton not sign it?????

As I recall, the democrats controlled both houses of Congress when Clinton took office. They could have let NAFTA sit and rot if they liked.

In my opinion, the Democrats got suckered by all that "helping 3rd world poor" bullshit. They weren't helped. All NAFTA did was shift a tenuous balance between peasants and aristocrats in the aristocrats favor.

Who really gave a shit if the aristocratic establishment of Mexico went bankrupt. The aristocrats, thats who along with their big corporate allies.

[Deja Q]

30. Clinton signed it. That counts for something too. Sorry.

Along with numerous other things, Clinton in some ways was a repuke enabler. Welfare 'reform', telecom act, DMCA, DOMA, the firing of Jocelyn Elders for trying to take a stand on a health issue that the religious nuts weren't keen on (sigh)...

[smirkymonkey]

34. What would the consequences have been if Clinton

hadn't signed it? (Not trying to start a flame war, genuinely curious, as I know very little about this topic.)

Had he refused, what would have been the fallout? (good info to have on hand for future arguments w/ freepers, as they blame EVERTHING on Clinton.)

[proud patriot]

18. I'm for fair trade not free trade

Chapter 7 of NAFTA is enough to make it bad but
I have further problems with it , Concering implementing
incentives for environmental and human rights obligations.
I also think the U.S. worker is being short changed in the
deal .

[KT2000]

22. The US has everything to lose

jobs, safe working conditions, environmental/public health requirements
We are weak to corporate power and allow NAFTA to weaken our standards

it has created greater dependence on other countries as more of our goods are manufactured overseas

[Bushknew]

24. Under Chapter 13 of NAFTA

It allows a business to sue the country for millions of dollars if they canÕt run
Their business exactly how they want it.

ThatÕs bad

[lanparty]

29. Talk about tort reform ...

Personal injury lawyers aren't SHIT compared to that. How come we don't here about corporations performing THEIR form of "love" on THEIR patients ;-)

[lanparty]

25. Pink slips for Americans, indentureship for developing countries ...

... and above all that is a usurping of authority from our state and federal government. Do we have elected officials the adjudicate on that authority. NOPE!!!!! Corporations run NAFTA FOR corporations.

[Elwood P Dowd]

26. NAFTA is not a free trade agreement

It is an investment scheme for big bankers and big business.

Look at the dramatic increase in compensation for CEOs who moved factories to Mexico. Look at the massive amounts of money made by investors to NAFTA related industries. The working classes of both countries suffered thanks to NAFTA, but the investor class made a fortune. We were screwed again.

Go to Public Citizen's trade section http://www.citizen.org or try
http:///www.tradealert.us/

If you like over a million lost jobs, then you will like NAFTA.

If you enjoy eating fruits and veggies imported from Mexico that are irrigated with sewage water and coated with DDT, then you will like NAFTA.

If you enjoy watching the Mexicans suffer from a massive increase in polluted air and water from American owned factories, you will like NAFTA.

If you think it's okay for the US Govt to give taxpayer money to help US firms relocate to Mexico, you will like NAFTA.

If think hundreds of billions of dollars in increased taxpayer expenses to cover the social costs created by NAFTA (unemployment insurance, food stamps, retraining, etc), then you will like NAFTA.

If you like the idea of meeting 60,000 pound Mexican trucks with bad breaks and poorly trained drivers behind the wheel, have at it.

If you like the fact that so many trucks are pouring across our border that we can only inspect about 2% of them, then you will like NAFTA.

And folks, this is just a short list. I didn't even touch Chapter 11.

[wyldwolf]

31. like communism - NAFTA is good in theory but bad in application

[Cogito ergo doleo]

32. Race to the bottom: Not a good idea n/t

[Lydia Leftcoast]

33. Unlike the EU, it's a "free trade" agreement among unequal partners

who are not required to follow the same rules.

It's an open invitation for corporations to outsource their jobs but unlike the European Union, it doesn't allow free movement of citizens across borders.

As I understand the EU, a citizen of any EU country automatically has the right to work and live in any other EU country. NAFTA does not allow Americans, Canadians, and Mexicans to move freely among one another's countries.

This keeps Mexicans working for low wages in their own country or illegally in the U.S. for low wages but doesn't allow Americans to move freely into Canada to take advantage of their health care and other benefits. Nor does it allow Americans to move to Mexico freely to take advantage of the lower cost of living unless they're retired.

I'm all for free trade among relatively equal partners. The EU is fine, and a free-trade pact among Mexico and the Central American countries would be fine too. So would a U.S.-Canada free trade pact with free movement across borders. But adding Mexico to the mix (and the even worse idea of adding Central America, which IS on the table) is nothing but a present to the greediest sort of corporate types.

[porphyrian]

35. Yes. - n/t

[nancyharris]

36. Kerry voted for NAFTA

Edwards campaigned against it but was approved by the Senate before Edwards was elected.

[HughBeaumont]

38. NAFTA should be ousted until they get it right

Offshoring of jobs is the chief reason I hate it. Granted, there are some jobs that American people won't do because they offer no upward mobility. But now all the stepping-stone corporate jobs are going to third-world nations as well. It's more or less a go-ahead for corporations to run rampant and unaccounted for even more so than they do already. Just look at the pollution levels for the nations involved, especially Mexico's.

[rman]

39. bad:

As with most trade agreements these days, it's good for business - "good for the economy" as the saying goes, but bad for a majority of the people. US drugs sold in Canada for a lower price then in the US, Canadian weed farmers alowed to sell the produce at dump prices on the US market. What's the point of that? The point is a few people are making huge profits.