NAFTA, CAFTA, FTAA and Free Trade

[redqueen]

http://www.witnessforpeace.org/midatlantic/Articles/Biddle-CAFTA.html

You don’t have to be a hard-core opponent of corporate globalization to understand the huge threat that free trade holds.

NAFTA, the free trade agreement among Mexico, the US, and Canada is nine and a half years old. CAFTA (the Central America Free Trade Agreement) is basically a proposed expansion of NAFTA to Central America; FTAA (the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas), if it comes into existence, will further extend free trade to cover the entire Western Hemisphere, except Cuba. CAFTA is expected to be signed by 2004, and the FTAA by 2005.

To predict the effects of these two future agreements, experts look at what NAFTA has done. Members of the “elite” and corporations have greatly benefited, while poor and working people have been harmed.

The US promised that NAFTA would bring economic development and prosperity to Mexico and its NAFTA trading partners. It did bring foreign investment to Mexico - mostly by US firms relocating production to maquillas. Firms were lured by low wages, poor and/or unenforced labor laws, difficulty for workers to organize unions, and incentives offered by the Mexican government which include almost total exemption from taxes.
--------

[redqueen]

1. Kick

"Write to your Senators, make it easier for them to make up their minds about these treaties. Tell them that poverty in Mexico is higher than before NAFTA, that those of the US workers who lost jobs in production and have been able to find new jobs, are in lower-paying and generally dead-end ones. Higher GDPs do not necessarily reflect better lives for the majority of people actually producing the goods which the GDP counts. Your voice may be the only one your Senators hear besides those of members of the Administration and corporate lobbyists."

[jhfenton]

2. "NAFTA, CAFTA, FTAA and Free Trade"

I supported NAFTA, and I support all of the proposed trade agreements at least in principle. On balance, NAFTA has been a strong positive force for the U.S. economy.

So, no, I don't "understand the huge threat that free trade holds." Please educate me. Perhaps you'll teach me something that my economics professors at Harvard forgot to mention.

[redqueen]

3. Delighted to have the opportunity!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=736506#740290

Scroll down to my post on this thread. Read the links. :)

[jhfenton]

16. Interesting, but no sale.

I am diehard advocate of free trade. On balance, the NAFTA has been a great success. Have there been winners and losers? Sure, there are there winners and losers in every competition. But on balance there are more winners because of NAFTA, and there will be more winners because of the CAFTA and the FTAA.

[redqueen]

19. Who, on balance...

benefits?

Who suffers?

Is it equitable?

How is it better than bilateral trade agreements?

[buddhamama]

41. glad you feel that way,

and i hope you continue to feel that way when a corporation decides that it can pollute your neighborhood, take your land- whatever, and you'll pick up the tab right, when they demand compensation?

[Say_What]

44. See the movie "Plan Colombia" and tell us what a free trade

diehard you are...

http://www.plancolombia.org/

[durutti]

4. What Positive Force?

NAFTA has only been a positive force for the wealthy. Partly because of "free trade" (really a misnomer), living standards in America have been on the decline over the last 30 years. This decline has been even more dramatic in the Third World.

I support free trade. I don't support NAFTA, FTAA, etc. There's a big difference between getting rid of tariffs and removing labor laws, environmental protections, etc. as "trade barriers".

Furthermore, I don't support free trade thinking that it will create the best possible economic situation for most people. It won't. In fact, it will relegate many, many be to abject misery. But free trade is nonetheless progressive, because it causes people to see themselves less in terms of nation and more in terms of class.

And what your Harvard professors told you is irrelevent. Many American economists are right-wing. They subscribe to a positivist view of the economy and society that literally denies that anything bad can come from doing what most benefits the rich. In this respect, American economists generally serve a function similar to that of priests in ancient times, whose sole function was to justify the status quo.

[Deja Q]

17. WELL SAID!!!!!!

I was going to ask that myself...

[MadHound]

5. How very capitalist of you

If you support NAFTA, CAFTA, FTAA and the rest of the alphabet soup of free trade agreements, then you must just be thrilled with the following:

1. Well paying manufacturing jobs fleeing the US only to be replaced(if they are replaced) by low paying, non union McJobs

2. Giving away US sovereignty to a mysterious, closed door, nonrepresentational World Trade Court. See Chapter 11 of NAFTA, its an eye opener.

3. Well paying white collar and high tech jobs either fleeing overseas(mostly India) or having said workers replaced by H-1B visa workers over here, who work for muuuuch less. What a great way to deflate the hi tech bubble eh?

4. Rampant, unchecked enviromental damage done my US companies who have moved overseas to countries that have little or no enviromental laws. What a dodge.

5. Record high unemployment in Mexico. Due to the US agrarian behemoth's ability to undercut traditional Mexican agriculture, millions of Mexican farm workers are being abruptly thrown out of work. This prompts two mass migrations, the first is to the Mexican urban areas, where this mass of humanity is overwhelming the urban infrastructure and people are living in squalor and disease. The second mass movement is towards the US where these people become illegal alien, holding a tenous position on the bottom of our social ladder, working for pennies in the hope to get ahead.

6. Asian sweatshops. Due to the lack of labor laws abroad, those fine new Nikes you're wearing are drenched in the blood of sweatshop workers.

Since the US is the largest consumer nation of the face of the planet. With clout like that we can force the rest of the world to bring their wages and working conditions up to our standards. But instead, with agreements like NAFTA, we turn a blind eye to these abuses in the blind pursuit of wealth for the few. The only people that our "free trade" agreements benefit are the wealthy few, at the expense of the rest of us and our planet.

Perhaps you should do some more research before you continue to follow the siren song of "free trade".

[G_j]

7. the free part..

the 'elite' feel 'free' to search the globe for situations where workers rights and enivironmental protections are non-existant, otherwise referred to as a race to the bottom.

[jhfenton]

18. Thank you.

I am indeed a capitalist.

"Perhaps you should do some more research before you continue to follow the siren song of 'free trade.'"

I have conducted extensive research. I have read NAFTA in its entirety more than once. I have looked at the issues in college, in law school, and in the real world.

And I'm not wearing Nikes. I'm wearing Hi-Tec Altitude Boots, Made in China.

[MadHound]

40. So thus I must conclude that you are indeed in favor of

Massive job loss, rampant enviromental damage, loss of US sovereignty, famine, squalor, disease, and child sweatshop labor. Gee, you sound like a real fun guy, NOT. What are you getting out of the deal? You said you were in law school, let me guess, corporate law:eyes:

[Ignoramus]

49. short and pointy

I'm trying to stop being so negative all the time, but sheesh, this just irritates me.

I don't think that asserting something is a valid argument. For example, if I say we must fight the FTAA, it is not a valid argument to reply: I support the FTAA. If you add exclamation marks, it doesn't become any more valid, for example these are both equally valid arguments:

I supported NAFTA
I supported NAFTA!

Also this is not a valid argument:

I studied it extensively and I'm really smart and I support free trade.

I'm used to this when talking to people around where I live who are generally either republicans or mentally impaired, it's hard to tell which is which...

For example I had this conversation, which is not quite the same as the replies I'm talking about but similar in that it's a non-argument.

Him: Are you opposed to the war?
Me: Yes
Him: Then, hey, how come they bombed the apartment that Saddam was in?
Me: ... I don't know what you are saying?
Him: If you think the war is so wrong, then how come we bombed the apartment that Saddam was in the other day?
Me: (mind reeling)... Umm. Are you saying that the war was right because Saddam was supposedly in an apartment?
Him: Yeah, Fuck you man. Bomb them all that's what I say.

I wonder if everyone is just getting less intricate in their thinking these days.

[bigrootcanal]

29. Do you really oppose capitalism in America?

Good luck because you are outnumbered by about 99%.

[MadHound]

31. No, I don't oppose capitalism

It is probably the most effecient and prosperous economic system that the human race has invented to date. However it also carries the greatest inherent dangers. Ask any economist, from Adam Smith to Thomas Friedman and they will tell you that capitalistism is run off of one overarching principle, GREED. Yep, one of those seven deadly sins that we have been constantly warned about. And contrary to the neo cons and monied elite, greed is not good. Rampant greed can rip apart a society in a heartbeat. Greed, and capitalism both need to regulated to control this destructive force. Unfortunately in the past twenty five years these restrictions and regulations have been either loosened or eliminated entirely, and greed is starting to rear it's ugly head. We already have the greatest disparity between the rich, elite few and the rest of us, not just currently in the world, but historically. We see how greed is robbing our country of well paying jobs, how it is shrinking the middle class, how it is starting to turn all of us into the working poor, how it is destroying the planet and our enviroment.

We desperately need to remuzzle this beast Greed, and soon. If we don't our nation and society will be shredded. No, I don't oppose well regulated capitalism. Unfortunately what we see in our society today is capitalism unbound, and it will destroy all of us.

[Ignoramus]

6. I'll take a stab at it

I think noone actually wants free trade right? Everyone wants to place conditions on trade, unless it is trade between parties who have essentially identical environmental and economic conditions. So, opponents make the point of saying that they want fair trade, not free trade.

I've read a small number of articles for and against free-trade. From what I've read, the people who say they want free trade only talk about the benefits to consumers and corporations. They'll add a short assertion to the effect of "oh, and environmental and labor concerns will be addressed". In the articles I read, there was no elaboration beyond that short aside. However, the effects I read about elsewhere, are horrible for the people in the third-world.

While the people for "free trade" say how great it is because TVs are cheaper or because the economy improves in the US, people in third-world countrys die so you can have your cheap TVs.

The people in favor of "free trade" seem to talk about the world as a resource to be exploited, where people are commodities. Opponents view the world as a place where we live, not as a combination labor camp, tourist resort and shopping mall.

The talks are closed to the people for whom it is not an issue of profit, but an issue of life and death. It is at least worth being suspicious of anything being planned by major corporate players, since (as anyone who has worked should know) corporations place profit above all else. If they do not, their stockholders will flee.

I don't hear any voices against trade. The main point I hear raised is that trade policies should be made by those who's lives are effect, they should not be decided in closed talks by people who's purpose for existing is to convert the planet into profit.

And then, here's my standard bit: see the left-wing and the right-wing are both the enemy, etc. etc..

[redqueen]

8. Great responses on here!

Just wanted to add a little more...

http://www.pcusa.org/trade/ftaa.htm
What is the FTAA?

The Free Trade Area of the Americas -- trade rules which would cover all of the Americas except Cuba -- has been greeted by vigorous opposition from activists in all of the potentially affected countries. They are concerned with the FTAA’s:

- Expansion of corporate rights (giving corporations the right to sue governments directly)
- Increased power to overturn national, state, and local laws (any law seen as a “barrier to trade” would be a potential target)
- Privatization of essential services (public services such as water, health care and education are seen as huge potential “markets” for corporations)
- Irreversibility (the FTAA could potentially lock all 34 countries into a corporate dominated legal system that would make its provisions very difficult, if not impossible, to reverse).

The official FTAA site describes it differently


http://www.pcusa.org/trade/nafta.htm
What is NAFTA?

NAFTA is a treaty agreed to by the governments of the United States, Canada and Mexico in 1993. Its purpose was to bring down barriers to trade and investment between the member nations and thus ensure the prosperity of all citizens of those nations. In fact, most indicators show that NAFTA has had the opposite effect--that it has been disastrous for the workers of these three countries. The new treaty, called the Free Trade Area of the Americas, which would extend the provisions of NAFTA to all thirty-four countries of Latin America (except for Cuba), contains many of the most destructive rules contained in NAFTA.

In May 2003, the PC(USA) passed on overture on trade agreements and asks Presbyterians to educate themselves on NAFTA, FTAA and other agreements. Please read the General Assembly Overture and Rationale Go...

January 1, 2003 was the ninth anniversary of the implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement: NAFTA now has an extensive real life record. NAFTA's proponents promised the pact would create new benefits and gains in each of these areas. The promised benefits ­ of 200,000 new U.S. jobs from NAFTA per year, higher wages in Mexico and a growing U.S. trade surplus with Mexico, environmental clean-up and improved health along the border ­have failed to materialize. However, after eight years, NAFTA fails to pass the most conservative test of all: a simple do-no-harm test. Under NAFTA, conditions not only have not improved, they have deteriorated in many areas.
Learn more about NAFTA from Public Citizens' Global Trade Watch.

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) includes an array of new corporate investment rights and protections that are unprecedented in scope and power. NAFTA allows corporations to sue the national government of a NAFTA country in secret arbitration tribunals if they feel that a regulation or government decision affects their investment in conflict with these new NAFTA rights. If a corporation wins, the taxpayers of the "losing" NAFTA nation must foot the bill. This extraordinary attack on governments' ability to regulate in the public interest is a key element of the proposed NAFTA expansion, called the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA).



Chapter 11

NAFTA's investment chapter (Chapter 11) contains a variety of new rights and protections for investors and investments in NAFTA countries. If a company believes that a NAFTA government has violated these new investor rights and protections, it can initiate a binding dispute resolution process for monetary damages before a trade tribunal, offering none of the basic due process or openness guarantees afforded in national courts. These so-called "investor-to-state" cases are litigated in the special international arbitration bodies of the World Bank and the United Nations, which are closed to public participation, observation and input. To learn more about Chapter 11 click here

[redqueen]

9. Kick

:kick:

[durutti]

10. Globalization is a Myth

I think so, anyway. Globalization doesn't qualitatively differ from imperialism.

[redqueen]

11. Wow

That's an excellent observation. Globalization = imperialism by corporate interests.

Thanks!
:D

[camero]

22. A return to serfdom

Merely feudalism with a catchy name.

[Zynx]

12. I don't support rabidly protectionist policies.

I, in general, support the idea of removing tariffs, but only if labor and environmental standards are enforced in developing countries. Free trade, with these protections, is good for the developing world. Without the protections, the cheap labor in the third world is exploited and we lose our jobs making it good for no one.

[durutti]

14. Agreed

That's exactly the way I feel.

[Purrfessor]

13. You forgot SHAFTA...

Screwed Hardworking Americans Free Trade Agreement

[RichardRay]

15. Protectionism = Imperialism

I think it's interesting that those who are adamantly opposed to free trade are opposed for the exact same reasons that other people support it.

Current implementations of 'free-trade' agreements leave a lot to be desired. Whether important issues can be addressed within the boundaries of the structure available remains to be seen. Certainly the outcome in Cancun doesn't make it look easy. If today's alphabet soup can't succeed then some other structure will have to be developed. Failing to do so continues to concentrate wealth and power in the developed countries and prevent workers in the less developed countries from gaining full participation in the world economy.

Making rules that support today's structure of elite economies and barring the rest of the world from participation is imperialism. Do any of you who so ardently oppose free trade have any idea on how to get from where we are to a situation where wealth is more equitably distributed? I don't mean a theory on how wealth should be distributed in some ideal end state, I mean a plan for getting from here to there that will work in the world. While I agree that efforts to implement free trade have been clumsy and subject to abuse, they are efforts that can lead to improvement. I don't see that in the vitupertive rhetoric opposing it.


To the previous poster who railed against economists as 'priests in ancient times, whose sole function was to justify the status quo': I recommend to you my economics teacher, W. Ed Whitelaw, a talented economist, a fine mentor and a delightful person. You can judge for yourself by visiting the web site for his consulting firm at

http://www.econw.com

[Ignoramus]

20. How so?

I don't get your points. People that are for free trade say it's needed because it will keep destitute farmers from being undersold by imports? How is protectionism imperialism?

Before massive trade, people were self-sufficient, I gather this is true because people exist. Because of trade you have a situation like Nicaragua where coffee growers supposedly are starving because they are undersold by coffee growers in Vietnam. People work not for a wage but for food. Little girls prostitute themselves for food.

I read a thing from the CATO institute describing this situation and saying that this is an example of the market telling them they need to sell a different product. How repulsive can these pigs be? No, a starving farmer is not likely to take a gamble at growing a different crop or... learning to do data entry or whatever, when the stakes are not how much profit you'll make, but whether or not you and your family will starve!

People should be protected from such situations. Trade is good when it is fair and stable. I haven't read anyone saying they actually want free trade. The fact that people are calling it free trade is a bad sign though, because it seems to mean that they want corporate free reign.

The trade policies should not be decided by people who are devoted to converting the world into profit and shit.

[redqueen]

21. Well put.

These trade policies are closed to people, only open to corporations.

These agreements put corporations above governments!

[RichardRay]

30. Are you dictating to the Vietnamese farmer that he can't sell his coffee?

If so, then that's an exercise in US hegemony and it constitutes imperialism in my mind. Who are you to tell a farmer that he must maintain a subsistence existence while you live in what he would see as unimaginable luxury. I don't care if you're right down at rock bottom for a US based worker, you're a damn site better off than a guy with a 40 year life expectancy who will die blind.

If you want to help somebody help the Nicaraguan farmer find a way to grow coffee better or peel off a bit of your first world wealth to support him while he's getting ready for another way to support his/her family. We in this country are incredibly wealthy, but that doesn't give us the right to tell other people to stay in the mud because their getting themselves out of it offends our sensibilities.

For people who apparently think of themselves on the political left you strike me as pretty darn willing to tell other folks how to run their lives and their economies.

[redqueen]

33. You raise a good point, but lose me...

We're not 'dictating' anything. NAFTA has ruined many Mexico's farmers, who are now flocking to the cities to get jobs that aren't there, so they're coming here in greater and greater numbers.

You're right. First world countries SHOULD invest in other economies, but doing all of this to profit only the corporate interests is where the system fails.

If the agreements were equitable, there would be no problem. They're not, so there is.

I'm shocked so many people on this site fail to see how advocating against 'free' trade is not 'left'. :shrug:

[Ignoramus]

46. No, I'm not

Hmm. editing to remove quotes from subject. Why does the subject have quotes in one view and not the other?

Somehow, the Nicaraguans became dependent upon trade with other countries (probably the Vietnamese too). How did this situation come about? I can only speculate because I don't know the history, but since it's so general I suspect I'm close: Nicaraguan farmers probably did not grow a bunch of coffee and then think "where can we sell our coffee?". They probably didn't go around the world trying to find people to buy their coffee. Instead some people who wanted coffee got the Nicaraguans to grow coffee so they could have it (in exchange for a pay off). Essentially, they convinced them to act the part of a resource to be exploited and now they are stuck.

I don't know enough to say what part trade restrictions play in the conflict between Vietnamese and Nicaraguan coffee farmers. But, I suspect that the situation with Nicaragua at least, is the result of rich and powerful people carving up the world for their own use and viewing Nicaragua and Vietnam as coffee resources, not as sovereign people who we trade with.

If a country did protect itself from this type of problem, the farmers would have someone to sell to and not be stranded when buyers from other countries are no longer buying. One form this protection can take is that countries can create a disinsentive for people to import products that could instead by bought inside the country.

So, now let me shift to another country as an example. Let's say that El Salvador has bean farmers and that the government promotes the importing of beans thus undercutting it's own farmers (I've heard this but haven't read it...). Whether or not this is the case, it is a model of a trade problem.

I'm not saying we should dictate whether or not El Salvador can sell it's beans. I'm saying that transnationals should not be able to dictate that they must accept trade, i.e. they should not be forced to drop barriers to imports that would undersell their own products.

I think you make a reference to fair trade, and I agree with that. Big coffee and companies in general should be encouraged to buy responsibly not just go for the cheapest product. Let's:

1. Not dictate that other countries must drop barriers to trade
2. Regulate who our own companies can trade with

[redqueen]

23. What's wrong with a return to bilateral trade? n/t

[Ficus]

24. What worries me

is the gradual shift that our country seems to be making.

What I see happening is good paying manufacturing jobs moving across our borders. While our good paying jobs seems to be disappearing, the service industry picks up the slack. You can find a job many places right now, but that job is making considerably less than you once did and will not provide health care, a full 40 hrs. per week, or in most cases, the right to organize (at least where I live.) So gradually the business class is shifting jobs from one type of living wage job to another low paying type.

Just because in someone studied free trade at some fancy pants east coast school and "in theory" a rising tide lifts all boats and so on, I see what a crock this is every day.

I work for a food bank, and it's not welfare mothers and people who fit the stereotypical mold who need our help right now. It's people who've worked their asses off their whole lives. All of the links or college professors I've ever had couldn't ever convince me that NAFTA and other free trade policies are anything but a bottom line oriented policy, not a people oriented policy.

And it's not supposed to be. BUT -

Free trade is a policy that creates bigger ineaqualities than we've ever had before. The trick for people on the left is to find a way to deal with it. I'm not so sure what the answer is.

:dem: :dem:

[redqueen]

25. You've just described the race to the bottom.

The ability of corporations to exploit such low wages, facilitated by a lack of workers' rights in those countries which can provide such a workforce, puts downward pressure on wages ACROSS THE GLOBE.

We're WAL-MART-IZING the WORLD.

The answer is to return to bi-lateral trade, and use our CONSIDERABLE clout as the world's LARGEST consumer (they want us to BUY, so they'll deal), to help lift the rest of the country out of the 18th century labor standards which make such low wages possible.

And by the way, have you considered voting for Kucinich? :)

[Ficus]

26. Why YES redqueen

I will caucus for the guy for sure (live in Iowa) and support him all I can. I have done some volunteering as well for him as well. and I just changed my quote to a DK quote while I was changing my avatar.

He is one of the only candidates to really tackle this issue head on.

:dem: :dem:

[redqueen]

27. hehe... God bless ya

Was being a bit facetious... but thanks for the info.

Glad you'll be caucusing for him there! :D

[bigrootcanal]

28. Sorry Red

Most mainstream Democrats support capitalism and that is not going to change soon. I suggest a different approach to overthrow the boss.

[buddhamama]

32. is that the best answer you could come up with

like that one hasn't been tossed around here about a million times.

it's trade not capitalism we're talking about.

why don't you school us with your knowledge on the intricacies of Trade Deals.

[ulysses]

34. opposition to "free" trade != opposition to capitalism n/t

[buddhamama]

36. you obviously haven't been paying attention

(i've been trying like heck to leak the memo to you)

personally, i think the poster was trying to get a dig in. notice the subtle "mainstream"?

[ulysses]

38. oh, of course.

I keep forgetting that I'm supposed to fit the "hippie freak" stereotype. Damn me. ;-)

[redqueen]

35. As buddhamama informed you,

this is not about our economic system. It's about trade policies.

The agreements in place now are so bankrupt of any merit it's laughable. I'm consistently shocked to see Democrats support them at all. I can only chalk it up to the wonderful job that the 'establishment' (mass media, institutions of higher learning, etc.) have done in instilling a mindset that reinforces the status quo.

However, if you'd rather discuss the merits of capitalism unfettered by regulation, you could always start a new thread.

[Ficus]

37. Can't speak for her

but I don't see anything "un-capitalistic" in there. She said nothing about public ownership of private property. I don't tend to think that protecting of good paying jobs is at odds with capitalism.

It's why I support tax cuts for the middle class and not the top. In short, more money being earned by us little guys, and we'll spend it and make our own demand, and more jobs from that spending. Perhaps it's a simplistic view, but it makes a whole lot more sense than expecting the top to create a demand by giving them gobs of money and hoping we'll buy up their supply.

:dem: :dem:

[redqueen]

39. Brava!

You just described 'bubble up' economics (as opposed to 'trickle down').

Whatever my problems with Clinton (and there were more than a few), he got THIS much right!

:D

[Ficus]

43. what your saying is:

+

=
:party:
:toast:

[RichardRay]

42. Redqueen - A light just came on for me....

Does it help if I explicitly agree that NAFTA, the WTO, etc. are seriously flawed as they now stand? There are serious questions about who's in control of what and how power can be distributed. The current framework may be salvageable, or it may not. If it's not then some other framework will have to be developed. What I want is for that framework to support workers in all parts of the world to have unfettered access to markets in all parts of the world. I can't see how it increases equity to prevent a farmer in Africa from having the opportunity to sell his crops in the United States simply because he/she can do so more cheaply than a US agribusiness wants to. Or to prevent a worker in the US from buying coffee at the best price he can get, whether it's from Vietnam or from Nicarauga.

I see optimized free trade as empowerment, you see it as oppression.

Is that an accurate assesment?

[redqueen]

45. Pretty much, yes!

However, the very idea that there be 'unfettered access' is flawed. This is impossible, if sovereign nations are to remain stable.

That's why such wide-ranging trade agreements are not only flawed, in my opinion, but impossible. Once the interests of hugely powerful corprations come into the picture (as they inevitably will), the entire system is fecked.

What has to happen is nations have to partner up and work together, bilaterally. You could even have different sectors partner up and appoint heads of the industry to meet annually to discuss ways to improve the situation.

What we absolutely can't tolerate (and by 'we' I mean no one on earth, not just Americans) is the status quo -- governments which heretofore have worked on the side of the citizens of said government are now forced or coerced into doing the bidding of huge multinationals for profits -- instead of the bidding of said citizens, for the common good.

[RichardRay]

47. OK, headed off to the left here....

What's so groovy about 'sovereign nations'? Ours, theirs, anybody's? Nationalism is one of the red herrings used to divide those who have the same interests. I feel much more kinship for people like myself who happen to be French, Thai or Eskimo than I do for a lot of the people around me who happen to be citizens of the United States.

Governments of sovereign nations are not our friends, they're just our governments. I get to choose my friends with far more accuracy and effectiveness than I get to choose my government.

Corporate power has flourished without its natural balance, the power of labor. When membership in internationalist unions begins to grow (again, as it once did) then there will be an effective counter balance and we can have multilateral trade agreements that work. Until then, unilateral, bilateral, multilateral, whatever, we're just shouting in the streets.

[Darranar]

48. Free Trade is great...

corporate imperialism is not.

Often, multinational corporations can hijack the economies of foreign nations. They do this by giving what appears to be high wages to destroy competitors, then manage to raise prices because those competitors have been eliminated. Does it matter if one gets $50 instead of $5 if a bread loaf that once costed $5 now costs $60?

All "free trade" in its current form manages to do is hurt labor all over the world by subjecting workers in many countries to horrible conditions for poor wages while at the same time causing job loss in the US.

Once a corporation is established, it can easily gain enough political clout to gain political immunity in such countries, especially if it is backed by the US. This prevents the peoples' voices from ever being heard.

Free trade with high labor and environmental regulation is fine with me.