View Poll Results: Do you think USA was better off Pre-NAFTA?

Voters
25. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    15 60.00%
  • No

    10 40.00%
Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 62

Thread: Trans-Pacific Partnership - the Expanded NAFTA

  1. #1
    User
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    17

    Trans-Pacific Partnership - the Expanded NAFTA

    For those of us old enough to remember, The North America Free Trade Agreement came into force on January 1, 1994. January 1, 2014 represents the 20th anniversary of NAFTA.

    We also might remember some of the promises that were made in support of NAFTA when the Clinton Administration was pushing for its passage in 1993:

    • NAFTA promised 170,000 jobs created per year, yet by 2004 increased trade deficits had equated to a net loss of 1 million jobs.

    • Pre-NAFTA trade surplus of $2.5 billion with Mexico and deficit with Canada of $29.1 billion has morphed into a combined deficit of $181 billion. This represents an inflation-adjusted increase of 580%.

    • Real wages in Mexico have fallen dramatically. A minimum wage earner in Mexico today can buy 38% fewer consumer goods than pre-NAFTA. This has contributed to a doubling of Mexican immigration to the U.S. since NAFTA's implementation.

    • U.S. manufacturing workers displaced by NAFTA see a 20% drop in earnings when re-employed. The shift in employment to low-paying service jobs has contributed to wage stagnation.

    More statistics on trade deficit analyses, off-shoring of jobs, "Buy America" provisions, and prevailing wages are available from this new report by Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch entitled "NAFTA at 20". http://www.citizen.org/documents/NAFTA-at-20.pdf

    Of most significance in all this, is that the Obama Administration is currently pressing for an expansive new trade pact with 11 countries that will dwarf NAFTA in scope.The countries involved in the talks include Australia, Brunei, Chile, Canada, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam.

    The emerging pact, the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), will apply to 40 percent of the world economy. The Obama administration has been leading negotiations on this international trade accord since 2010 but appears to have almost no international support for its controversial new trade standards.

    On November 13, 2013, a complete draft of the treaty's Intellectual Property Rights chapter was published by WikiLeaks. This and other leaks have drawn criticism and protest in large part due to the secrecy of the negotiations, the expansive scope of the agreement, and controversial clauses in the drafts leaked to the public.

    One of the most controversial provisions in the talks includes language which would allow foreign companies to challenge laws or regulations in a privately run international court. Under World Trade Organization treaties, this political power to contest government law is reserved for sovereign nations.

    Other provisions include further job-offshoring incentives, requirements to import food that doesn’t meet U.S. safety standards and rights for firms to get taxpayer compensation before foreign tribunals.

    Previously leaked TPP documents have sparked alarm among global health experts, Internet freedom activists, environmentalists and organized labor. The Obama administration has deemed negotiations to be classified information -- banning members of Congress from discussing the American negotiating position with the press or the public. Congressional staffers have been restricted from viewing the documents; the extreme secrecy surrounding the process of the current negotiations surely should raise a red flag of caution.

    The U.S. is also facing major resistance on bank regulation standards. The Obama administration is seeking to curtail the use of "capital controls" by foreign governments. These can include an extremely broad variety of financial tools, from restricting lending in overheated markets to denying mass international outflows of currency during a financial panic. Loss of these tools would contribute to a forfeiture of governmental sovereignty and would dramatically limit the ability of governments to prevent and stem banking crises.

    We may all wonder why with the dismal track record that NAFTA has produced thus far, why our government is so gung ho to expand upon such a similar structure.

    The answer lies in globalization. All of our recent administrations both democratic and republican and the bankers that control them have been promoting - subversively, a one world government. We have been slowly making inroads to this process for decades and now with the passing of TPP we can anticipate seeing even more convergences in our near future. The European Union, NAFTA, Africa, the Asia Pacific; you may expect to see them all further amalgamate under the guises of “free trade” agreements. This is just the tip of the iceberg.

  2. #2
    Sage
    WCH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    The Lone Star State.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:42 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    22,193

    Re: Trans-Pacific Partnership - the Expanded NAFTA

    Sorry I should have voted YES. Obviously we're not better off and the NWO has taken control.

    Guess who gets screwed in a 1 world government?

  3. #3
    Iconoclast
    DaveFagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    wny
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:04 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,302

    Re: Trans-Pacific Partnership - the Expanded NAFTA

    Quote Originally Posted by cheybarnes View Post
    For those of us old enough to remember, The North America Free Trade Agreement came into force on January 1, 1994. January 1, 2014 represents the 20th anniversary of NAFTA.

    We also might remember some of the promises that were made in support of NAFTA when the Clinton Administration was pushing for its passage in 1993:

    • NAFTA promised 170,000 jobs created per year, yet by 2004 increased trade deficits had equated to a net loss of 1 million jobs.

    • Pre-NAFTA trade surplus of $2.5 billion with Mexico and deficit with Canada of $29.1 billion has morphed into a combined deficit of $181 billion. This represents an inflation-adjusted increase of 580%.

    • Real wages in Mexico have fallen dramatically. A minimum wage earner in Mexico today can buy 38% fewer consumer goods than pre-NAFTA. This has contributed to a doubling of Mexican immigration to the U.S. since NAFTA's implementation.

    • U.S. manufacturing workers displaced by NAFTA see a 20% drop in earnings when re-employed. The shift in employment to low-paying service jobs has contributed to wage stagnation.

    More statistics on trade deficit analyses, off-shoring of jobs, "Buy America" provisions, and prevailing wages are available from this new report by Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch entitled "NAFTA at 20". http://www.citizen.org/documents/NAFTA-at-20.pdf

    Of most significance in all this, is that the Obama Administration is currently pressing for an expansive new trade pact with 11 countries that will dwarf NAFTA in scope.The countries involved in the talks include Australia, Brunei, Chile, Canada, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam.

    The emerging pact, the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), will apply to 40 percent of the world economy. The Obama administration has been leading negotiations on this international trade accord since 2010 but appears to have almost no international support for its controversial new trade standards.

    On November 13, 2013, a complete draft of the treaty's Intellectual Property Rights chapter was published by WikiLeaks. This and other leaks have drawn criticism and protest in large part due to the secrecy of the negotiations, the expansive scope of the agreement, and controversial clauses in the drafts leaked to the public.

    One of the most controversial provisions in the talks includes language which would allow foreign companies to challenge laws or regulations in a privately run international court. Under World Trade Organization treaties, this political power to contest government law is reserved for sovereign nations.

    Other provisions include further job-offshoring incentives, requirements to import food that doesn’t meet U.S. safety standards and rights for firms to get taxpayer compensation before foreign tribunals.

    Previously leaked TPP documents have sparked alarm among global health experts, Internet freedom activists, environmentalists and organized labor. The Obama administration has deemed negotiations to be classified information -- banning members of Congress from discussing the American negotiating position with the press or the public. Congressional staffers have been restricted from viewing the documents; the extreme secrecy surrounding the process of the current negotiations surely should raise a red flag of caution.

    The U.S. is also facing major resistance on bank regulation standards. The Obama administration is seeking to curtail the use of "capital controls" by foreign governments. These can include an extremely broad variety of financial tools, from restricting lending in overheated markets to denying mass international outflows of currency during a financial panic. Loss of these tools would contribute to a forfeiture of governmental sovereignty and would dramatically limit the ability of governments to prevent and stem banking crises.

    We may all wonder why with the dismal track record that NAFTA has produced thus far, why our government is so gung ho to expand upon such a similar structure.

    The answer lies in globalization. All of our recent administrations both democratic and republican and the bankers that control them have been promoting - subversively, a one world government. We have been slowly making inroads to this process for decades and now with the passing of TPP we can anticipate seeing even more convergences in our near future. The European Union, NAFTA, Africa, the Asia Pacific; you may expect to see them all further amalgamate under the guises of “free trade” agreements. This is just the tip of the iceberg.
    I see the New World Order to be a CORPORATE World Order and that is closer to fascism. I do not approve. Let the system crash and we'll all be in the same boat and our struggles will be for our families and what we believe in and screw the NWO.

  4. #4
    Sage
    Montecresto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    03-13-16 @ 11:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,561

    Re: Trans-Pacific Partnership - the Expanded NAFTA

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveFagan View Post
    I see the New World Order to be a CORPORATE World Order and that is closer to fascism. I do not approve. Let the system crash and we'll all be in the same boat and our struggles will be for our families and what we believe in and screw the NWO.
    Great! Funny too! Too bad Ross Perot was little and talked funny, or, perhaps I should say, too bad voters are shallow.

  5. #5
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    Helix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:51 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    37,105

    Re: Trans-Pacific Partnership - the Expanded NAFTA

    the average worker was better off. however, if it hadn't been NAFTA, it would have been China. next, it will be sweatshops somewhere else once Chinese workers decide they are tired of being treated like slaves.

    and after that? tech will make everything.

    there's no going back. doesn't have to be a bad thing, but if we want to keep the job : money : access to resources model, we're going to have to get creative. and by creative, i mean that the market alone isn't going to fill the gap.

  6. #6
    Iconoclast
    DaveFagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    wny
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:04 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,302

    Re: Trans-Pacific Partnership - the Expanded NAFTA

    Quote Originally Posted by Helix View Post
    the average worker was better off. however, if it hadn't been NAFTA, it would have been China. next, it will be sweatshops somewhere else once Chinese workers decide they are tired of being treated like slaves.

    and after that? tech will make everything.

    there's no going back. doesn't have to be a bad thing, but if we want to keep the job : money : access to resources model, we're going to have to get creative. and by creative, i mean that the market alone isn't going to fill the gap.
    I will counter your very rational analysis with my pet peeve. If you want to create both money and jobs, the same answer has been presented since the 1970s. Convert to a 100% renewable energy economy. Creates new local jobs wherever implemented. Cuts the outflow of local cash to monopolistic energy distributors. New jobs spend new money growing local economies. New Renewable Energy facilities require local maintenance creating more local jobs and again more local spending. Simultaneously, could any of this address Global Warming and relegate Corporate mitigation policies to the scrap heap, and freeing up those same, probably gov't subsidized dollars, for local investment. Short and sweet. Too good to be true? It hurts Big Corporate Energy and if they can get profitable wars started, do you think they would have any problem preventing this scenario. They are preventing it. You get one vote, but Big Energy buys your Congressman's vote.

  7. #7
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    Helix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:51 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    37,105

    Re: Trans-Pacific Partnership - the Expanded NAFTA

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveFagan View Post
    I will counter your very rational analysis with my pet peeve. If you want to create both money and jobs, the same answer has been presented since the 1970s. Convert to a 100% renewable energy economy. Creates new local jobs wherever implemented. Cuts the outflow of local cash to monopolistic energy distributors. New jobs spend new money growing local economies. New Renewable Energy facilities require local maintenance creating more local jobs and again more local spending. Simultaneously, could any of this address Global Warming and relegate Corporate mitigation policies to the scrap heap, and freeing up those same, probably gov't subsidized dollars, for local investment. Short and sweet. Too good to be true? It hurts Big Corporate Energy and if they can get profitable wars started, do you think they would have any problem preventing this scenario. They are preventing it. You get one vote, but Big Energy buys your Congressman's vote.
    i'm for replacing our entire energy model via public / private partnerships. i agree that this is important, and i would support a NASA-style moonshot to achieve it.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Behind the Orange Curtain
    Last Seen
    01-30-15 @ 01:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    15,633

    Re: Trans-Pacific Partnership - the Expanded NAFTA

    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    Great! Funny too! Too bad Ross Perot was little and talked funny, or, perhaps I should say, too bad voters are shallow.
    To many stupid voters thought that the "sucking sound" Ross Perot was referring to had something to do with free blowjobs.

  9. #9
    Sage
    Montecresto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    03-13-16 @ 11:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,561

    Re: Trans-Pacific Partnership - the Expanded NAFTA

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveFagan View Post
    I will counter your very rational analysis with my pet peeve. If you want to create both money and jobs, the same answer has been presented since the 1970s. Convert to a 100% renewable energy economy. Creates new local jobs wherever implemented. Cuts the outflow of local cash to monopolistic energy distributors. New jobs spend new money growing local economies. New Renewable Energy facilities require local maintenance creating more local jobs and again more local spending. Simultaneously, could any of this address Global Warming and relegate Corporate mitigation policies to the scrap heap, and freeing up those same, probably gov't subsidized dollars, for local investment. Short and sweet. Too good to be true? It hurts Big Corporate Energy and if they can get profitable wars started, do you think they would have any problem preventing this scenario. They are preventing it. You get one vote, but Big Energy buys your Congressman's vote.
    Monopolistic energy distributors won't go for that, just sayin. But, what good ideas.

  10. #10
    Sage
    Montecresto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    03-13-16 @ 11:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,561

    Re: Trans-Pacific Partnership - the Expanded NAFTA

    Quote Originally Posted by APACHERAT View Post
    To many stupid voters thought that the "sucking sound" Ross Perot was referring to had something to do with free blowjobs.
    Wait a minute, he would have been president then!

Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •