Free Trade for dummies

[reverend_kyle]

I'm sick of all the debates about religion and drugs... it seems that these plus hasty generalization arguments cover all the debate it seems we never get into economic issues... so heres my thing.. free trade for or against I'm against it, but instead of writing because i'm too tired for that i'm going to post this article by ryan harvey.


What is Free Trade?

The idea of free trade is like this: When countries trade with each other, they pay something called a "tariff", which is a tax on imported products. Tariffs are set to a price that ensures that the imported goods are more expensive than goods produced locally in that country, thus allowing the host country to protect its production ability. So, if you were buying corn from Mexico (before free trade), it would be more expensive than corn grown in Ohio, because the tariff would protect the local market. This is done so that one country does not control another country's market and economy. So with tariffs, Mexico can keep their corn production at a steady pace and not be threatened by foreign corn production, which in turn helps stabilize their economy and make life easier for Mexican residents.

Free trade means to destroy these tariffs and open the markets of a country up to "free", or untaxed, trade. Free trade allows corporations to lower their prices to drive out competitors by providing a cheaper product. When product prices are lowered, smaller businesses, with smaller budgets, cannot afford to compete and ultimately collapse or sell themselves to larger companies. This process, called "undercutting", allows corporations and big business to drive out local businesses and profit from the labor that is left over. Many sweatshops emerge in poor countries after this process, which leaves people so desperate for jobs that they deal with the hardships of near-slave labor. So under free trade, corporations have the ability to drive out small businesses and seize their labor, which they often do.

Free trade also usually creates "export-economies", where a country is used simply as a production plant for a certain product or series of products. The term "banana republic" refers to this process, which turns a country from a self-sustainable system to a production system for a certain interest. Coffee, bananas, and cotton are some of the products that the "export-economy" often produces.

What is NAFTA?

NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, is a treaty that put Mexico, Canada, and the United States into a "free trade zone". A free trade zone simply means that these countries no longer use tariffs when trading with each other, which has allowed large corporations to undercut jobs in Mexico and leave a large number of people jobless. This, in turn, has caused many large businesses to move factories from the US to Mexico to take advantage of cheap labor and lower environmental regulations. Maquiladoras, or sweatshops, have grown immensely along the north border of Mexico since NAFTA was put into effect in 1994, which has caused many to flee over the border to find quality jobs in the US. Since 1994, and the start of NAFTA, 1 million American jobs have disappeared, 8 million more Mexicans families are living below the poverty line, and wages in the Mexican manufacturing sector have fallen 9.5%.

NAFTA also allows corporations to sue governments for violating their "rights to free trade" under a provision called "Chapter 11". Through Chapter 11, if a company decides that a local law in Mexico is violating NAFTA, they can sue the Mexican government through a special NAFTA court. These negotiations, held in secret, usually side with the corporation and allow them to continue their business as usual. This process has allowed large companies to override domestic environmental and labor laws, with the result of more pollution, union-busting, sweatshop conditions, and poverty. For example, in 1996, an American waste-disposal company called Metalclad sued the Mexican government in a NAFTA Chapter 11 court for denying them the right to reopen a toxic waste dump that the state of San Luis Potos discovered would contaminate a local water supply. Metalclad won the case, which resulted in the Mexican government being forced to pay 16.7 million dollars in "lost revenue" to Metalclad.

What is the FTAA?

The FTAA, or Free Trade Area of the Americas, is an expansion of NAFTA to all of Central and South America, excluding Cuba. The FTAA, if passed, will create the largest "free trade zone" in the world. The people who are pushing the FTAA (big business, rich politicians, and members of the upper class in both the north and south, among others) wish to put it into effect by 2005, but that date is being moved to 2007 in face of growing opposition to the treaty. New leaders emerging in Latin America are coming out against the FTAA, as it will bring hardships to the poor and working sectors of these countries and create a climate of poverty and corporate rule that many do not want to see.

FTAA, like NAFTA, will carry a Chapter 11-styled provision. As we have seen with NAFTA, this will allow corporations to pollute more, exploit workers more easily, and dominate whole sectors of a country's economy without worry of retribution. Unlike NAFTA, the FTAA will allow both governments and corporations to sue a host country for violation of a free trade zone.

Due to the fear that FTAA will not pass as opposition grows, the free trade pushers are creating new agreements that they are trying pass in secret. CAFTA, or the Central American Free Trade Agreement, is an expansion of NAFTA for Central America, carrying most of the same rules and regulations as NAFTA.

What can we do?

Take action! People all over the world are waking up to the realities of the free trade myth and uncovering the truth about "corporate globalization", or corporate expansion and market domination. Setup a demonstration, spread the word, build a movement against free trade, change your lifestyle, talk talk talk and organize!

[what,me worry?]

my eyes are bleeding...............

P.S. hey Rev. your first avatar was better. Might suggest you poll everyone to prove my point?

[qeee1]

I agree.

Free trade=teh lamezors.

Benefits are outweighed by drawbacks. Of course the drawbacks only affect the smaller and poorer, so mostly it goes unnoticed.

[reverend_kyle]

I agree.

Free trade=teh lamezors.

Benefits are outweighed by drawbacks. Of course the drawbacks only affect the smaller and poorer, so mostly it goes unnoticed.

exactly,and the worse part is everytime people do something about it.. the government uses tear gas rubber bullets or whatever other shit they can get their hands on to stop it, or manages to hide it like that big fucking seattle protest or that other protest in miami.

[Backglass]

Honestly I have no firm opinion, but in the interest of debate I found this on freetrade.org:

The historical record is very clear that free trade bestows many benefits to the average person. Those countries that lower trade barriers and open their markets enjoy higher economic standards of living. Consumers have access to a wider range of higher quality products at prices lower than they would otherwise pay. The average person also benefits in terms of wages and job opportunities. When labor and capital flow freely to the most productive areas of the economy, workers are employed in better, higher quality jobs with higher wages. While there are inevitable short-term transition costs in some sectors of the economy, the long-term benefits of free trade for all far outweigh such costs..

Agriculture makes up only about 10 percent of world merchandise trade. However, agricultural markets are by far the most distorted, with high tariffs (some in excess of 1000 percent) and large subsidies given to farmers, especially in developed countries. Because agriculture was brought into negotiations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (or GATT, the predecessor to the WTO) only in the Uruguay Round (1986-1994), liberalization efforts in agriculture are far behind those in manufactured goods. Thus, much work remains to be done. Agriculture is also a highly politicized issue: many agricultural subsidies in developed countries encourage overproduction and thus depress world prices for certain commodities, causing damage to the exporting interests of other agricultural producers abroad. For the most part, developing countries have a comparative advantage in agricultural goods, so trade barriers prevent them from being able to access markets for their goods. This puts them at odds with powerful agricultural lobbies in some developed countries, who jealously guard the special attention their industry receives and make reform politically difficult.

the government uses tear gas rubber bullets or whatever other shit they can get their hands on to stop it, or manages to hide it like that big fucking seattle protest or that other protest in miami.

Hang on rev...we fired on peaceful protesters? Or the ones smashing store windows and causing dangerous riots.

[reverend_kyle]

Honestly I have no firm opinion, but in the interest of debate I found this on freetrade.org:

The historical record is very clear that free trade bestows many benefits to the average person. Those countries that lower trade barriers and open their markets enjoy higher economic standards of living. Consumers have access to a wider range of higher quality products at prices lower than they would otherwise pay. The average person also benefits in terms of wages and job opportunities. When labor and capital flow freely to the most productive areas of the economy, workers are employed in better, higher quality jobs with higher wages. While there are inevitable short-term transition costs in some sectors of the economy, the long-term benefits of free trade for all far outweigh such costs..

Agriculture makes up only about 10 percent of world merchandise trade. However, agricultural markets are by far the most distorted, with high tariffs (some in excess of 1000 percent) and large subsidies given to farmers, especially in developed countries. Because agriculture was brought into negotiations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (or GATT, the predecessor to the WTO) only in the Uruguay Round (1986-1994), liberalization efforts in agriculture are far behind those in manufactured goods. Thus, much work remains to be done. Agriculture is also a highly politicized issue: many agricultural subsidies in developed countries encourage overproduction and thus depress world prices for certain commodities, causing damage to the exporting interests of other agricultural producers abroad. For the most part, developing countries have a comparative advantage in agricultural goods, so trade barriers prevent them from being able to access markets for their goods. This puts them at odds with powerful agricultural lobbies in some developed countries, who jealously guard the special attention their industry receives and make reform politically difficult.

the government uses tear gas rubber bullets or whatever other shit they can get their hands on to stop it, or manages to hide it like that big fucking seattle protest or that other protest in miami.

Hang on rev...we fired on peaceful protesters? Or the ones smashing store windows and causing dangerous riots.

They fired on peaceful protesters, as with any protest SOME may get out of line but that doesn't mean firing on everyone in attempts of dispersing the whole crowd.

[reverend_kyle]

Oh, and as for the big article you posted, I'm going to blanket that, and protect from other arguments by another Ryan Harvey writing because I'm lazy.



Recognizing free trade as sham on all sides is very important. Most of the problems that we see are global problems and connect to each other very easily. If we fight against a local injustice without seeing the bigger picture, it's easy for the politicians to save face and make small changes.

Pro-free trade politicians try to use the myth that things like NAFTA, while sometimes being bad for Mexican workers, are actually good for U.S. workers. We hear this a lot from politicians who claim to represent American workers while simultaneously supporting free trade agreements. We see free trade as an attack on all people, here and there. There is no "preferred people" in the eyes of the corporations.

Business is based on competition, which means everyone is at risk when anyone is at risk. As sweatshops flourish in low-wage countries, U.S. wages slowly decline as well. If workers in Mexico start chopping trees down at twice the rate they did before, you'll see loggers in the Pacific Northwest being worked overtime as well. Or, you'll see a bunch of smaller logging companies close down while the largest mutli-nationals sweep up the leftovers. Capitalsim is cannibalism, in other words, company's thrive by eliminating each other. The biggest, richest, or best-connected giants survive, while the fledlings die. On the ground-level, each worker is pinned against each other for the lowest wages, the longest hours, and the worst benefits.

Some myths about free trade that we often here from U.S. politicians:

U.S. workers are gaining jobs

What is really happening is that all the good union jobs with high wages that U.S. workers fought for over 150 years to secure are being shipped off to low-wage countries. To replace these, low-paying and non-union service and manufacturing jobs have popped up, which gives the appearance of "more jobs". What you see now is more jobs but more poverty. More jobs but more homelessness. People who used to work making quality clothing may find themselves flipping burgers at a local chain. Workers who used to assemble refrigerators may find themselves cleaning rooms at a motel for minimum wage. The factory-movers are strategic in their actions, ensuring hue profits for themselves and minimum wages for the people who work for them.

Mexican workers are gaining jobs

Mexican workers are gaining jobs in the sense that they most likely had their land, livelihood, and culture ripped away from them by developers, cheap imports, or huge corporate-farms in the last few decades. Through NAFTA, cheap subsidized corn from U.S. corporations flooded the Mexican farm-market and millions of small farmers could not compete and lost their land. With no other options, many of these farmers crowded the cities and moved north seeking jobs. Maquiladoras (read "sweatshops") have opened all over the U.S. border and feed on the poverty of the farmers. These facilities have far lower wages and safety standards than those in the U.S.

The trick is this: These are not new jobs, they are jobs that moved to Mexico from the United States. Workers in Ciuadad Jaurez may produce the same pair of jeans once produced in El Paso. Same jobs, different standards. The towns these workers live in are shanty towns and are often littered with chemicals from the nearby Maquilas. The companies who dump these chemicals don't have to clean them up by law, so the burden lies with the workers again. Workers who attempt to organize in these sweatshops are often fired and blacklisted from finding employment anywhere along the border, and are sometimes killed or imprisoned under false charges. Due to chemical pollution in the drinking water and streams nearby, the caner-rate in these border towns is far higher than the national average. So yeah, Mexican are gaining jobs because the early days of free trade took the good jobs away; the same thing that happened in the U.S.

U.S. jobs are less dangerous now.

That's because the dangerous jobs went to Mexico or China where safety restrictions are more slack and companies can worry less about lawsuits and rising insurance costs! You will often see things such as chemical plants being moved to Mexico because the company can dump poison without legal risks and pay less-per worker for chemical protection and safety equipment. Many Maquila workers live colonias, where public drinking water is highly exposed to carcinogens and toxic chemicals. The company's so notorious for polluting the rivers of the U.S. have moved on to pollute the rivers of Mexico. Steel jobs in the U.S. have also vanished, along with other skilled-industrial jobs. Workers in low-wage countries now perform the same tasks with little-to-no safety gear and suffer high cancer-rates, life-threatening work environments, and poor healthcare and facilities.

Mexican workers are making a good living though they're poor.

The conditions in and outside the Maquiladoras are terrible. Workers perform tasks such as welding without protective masks, leather gloves, or goggles (in many instances) and industrial accidents and toxic exposures are common. This, along with malnutrition caused by low salaries, produce skin illnesses, cancer, irregularities in menstruation, abortions, tumors, intoxication and birth of undernourished or disabled babies.

Of the employees, many are young girls and women ranging from the ages of 14 to 20. They work 6 days a week in 10-hour shifts. The average weekly salary for a Maquiladora worker is US$35 - $45 even though the average monthly rent for a house with public services such as running water and electricity is around $200 a month.

Free Trade is economic "back door" imperialism. Workers never benefit from the long-term decisions of corporations, that's just not the point. Corporations are nothing but profit-machines, they don't care about what they produce and they don't care about the people they employ, ripoff, or plow over in their path. They just make money, gain power, and compete.

[Stopper]

I don't have a problem with the principle of free trade - it's just that neither the Americans nor the Europeans really want it. I'll believe they do when they cut off their subsidies to their farmers. Maybe then the economies in Africa will start to grow properly.

[mandalorian2298]

I think it is a decision that should be left to individual countries. More social ones will say no (and start pilling up deficit if they aren't Scandinavian ), while more Darwinian ones will say yes (and end up with the democratic right to choose their president between two guys from the same, elite collage fraternity ).
As for the "man on the street", I think one should think less about the rules and more about winning the game (exepting, off-course multies and secret-allies . THOSE are the important rules.).

[edmundomcpot]

when i think of free trade ive always thought that it would allow smaller economies to grow.. because they can sell their produce in other countries without having to pay for it

[reverend_kyle]

when i think of free trade ive always thought that it would allow smaller economies to grow.. because they can sell their produce in other countries without having to pay for it

The problem is the corporations that take advantage of these are big american owned corporations who just like the cheap labor.. not the locally owned ones.


Its like the death tax.

[Evil Semp]

So Rev have you taken any action to back up your views of these large companies?Or are you like my step father who is Pro Union with his views but still shops at Wal-Mart?

[Skittlesandmnms]

even though both those articles are quite informative, they are really biased... we need someone who cares enough about the subject to write an article, but it can't be biased at all... shit...

[Ectomancer]

Maybe you recognize a portion of this agreement. It provided for free trade.


U.S. Constitution: Article I section 9

No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear or pay Duties in another.


The same difficulties faced the participants in this free trade agreement. They had areas that depended soley upon agriculture and those that depended upon industry. In point of fact, there is no point of contention that was mentioned in the article that did not exist (aside from the label of corporation) when this free trade agreement was written. To the contrary, in the quoted article the workers are in "near-slave labor". This free trade agreement had the issue of actual slavery to deal with.
The struggles were hard to make this work, bloody to be blunt, in more ways than one.
We know, despite the odds and the difficulties that they prevailed and created the largest economy in the world, with a standard of living so superior to that of the rest of the world that millions flock to it, risking life and limb (and often losing it) just to be a part of it.

Free Trade works and benefits its citizens.

It does not however work untended. Oversight of the unscrupulous is paramount, and we've seen those laws enacted. In fact the US has some of the most restrictive laws governing business in the "First World" countries. Even when something like Enron happens, we learn the lessons and react accordingly.

Ryan Harvey comes off to me as someone who chose a position, then cherry picked the facts to support it. Me, I have the United States economy of free trade as a real world example that it works.

Now, for Mr. Harvey, I'll continue the discussion, because no matter how I protest that it is the exact same concept, he would state that the US is a country and somehow doesnt relate apples to oranges.

Ok, fine. Let me start by saying that I was incorrect when I said that the U.S was the worlds largest economy. What? Some of you may be surprised. Currently, the EU (European Union) is the worlds largest economy. What's that? Let me look at that again. The largest economy in the world was created by a free trade agreement between, not states in the same country, but by different countries.

The EU is still very young, but thus far looks to be on track to be a successful Free Trade market.
Now why should the US care?
Because the EU isnt the only trade union on the market. The South Asian Free Trade area will boast almost 5 times the population of the US, not just 150% like the EU. This union will also not include China, the world fastest growing economy with over 4 times the population of the US.

A company that does not react to market changes will die a slow death or be consumed by more competitive companies. A country will fare no better if it doesnt react to changes in the world market.

My point being, we must form Free Trade agreements with partners in order to stay competitive. It is imperative to retain our position as the world's economic leader.

Now, why must we ally with these economically poor countries? Why all this focus on the western hemisphere? Quite frankly, because when you talk about a nations wealth, you are talking about their resources. Humans arrived and began to exploit the Western Hemisphere last and so here we have more to tap.
China, as many people as they have, are sitting on top of a piece of ground that has been exploited for thousands of years.
We are not. If you were to ask me, I would tell you that our most important Free Trade agreement needs to be made with Brazil. While we fret over our nations dependence on foreign oil, Brazil is nearing the ability to use only ethenol, produced in Brazil. I dont think I need to mention the countries vast natural resources.

So anyhow, someone mentioned an opposition to Free Trade. I personally would mention an opposition to cutting and pasting an article to illustrate an opinion on a topic. It smacks of sheepism you know?

A final breakdown:
Examples of no free trade? Soviet Union (deceased), North Korea (eating their own feces), Cuba (people prefer being eaten by sharks than living there)
Free Trade? U.S., EU, South Korea, Japan

Yeah....

[areon]

So are you denying that free trades favor corporate growth? Because that was the main point in his article. Since corporations are competetive and may increase in value doesn't mean that the average person will benefit. And they put that in the Constitution because of the failure of the Articles of Confederation that allowed states to undermine federal authority. It was more a balance of states rights than an economic policy. Saying our country is so well off just from lots of resources and free trade oversimplifies our history. You're cutting out the part where our ally Britain controlled the seas and had capital to invest in the US. And China has one of the largest stockpiles of coal in the world, new resources get tapped into over time so the "old world" areas aren't barren.

Ryan Harvey comes off to me as someone who chose a position, then cherry picked the facts to support it. Me, I have the United States economy of free trade as a real world example that it works.

And how did you act differently? Did you go through every single fact of the US history to make sure your argument was sound? We do the best we can to not overgeneralize, gloss over, or distort information. You would have a hard time proving all of our success came from free trade solely.

[Ectomancer]

Aeron, do try and do more than skim, I stated that Free Trade requires controls to be successful. Also, your interpretation of the article varies from mine. I did not take "uncontrolled corporate growth" to be the main focus of the article, but rather the merits of a free trade system, thus the title of the topic "Free Trade for Dummies" (not my title). We cannot even begin a discussion if we are not on the same topic.
As I stated, I do more than give random bits of data (which is what I gathered from the original article) I have firm examples of the success of free trade. I also gave more examples than just the US.

And how did you act differently? Did you go through every single fact of the US history to make sure your argument was sound? We do the best we can to not overgeneralize, gloss over, or distort information. You would have a hard time proving all of our success came from free trade solely.

Ahh but I didnt put forth the original hypothesis, therefore I dont need to prove my point, but to disprove the point of the author. I stated several instances of free trade working in the real world, therefor it is up to him (and you since you took his side) to disprove the examples I've laid out. You certainly (or Rev did) used a copy and paste article to overgeneralize, gloss over, and distort information about free trade with absolutely zero factual backing. Also, I'm sorry, but from your liberal use of "We", I'm assuming you helped Kyle copy and paste said article? Because otherwise, I have no idea where you got the "we" part of your opinion. Mine sir, is firmly and unequivocally my own.
Perhaps you have legitimate facts to support your opposition to Free Trade. If they are other than "copy and paste" or perhaps examples where Free Trade failed, I would be happy to discuss them.
Thus far, every area that has implemented free trade has seen their population benefit. Every area that has not has seen their population suffer relative to the rest of the world.
I give you one challenge areon, just one. Give me the one shining example of citizens that are not part of a free trade society that has a better average standard of living than any free trade nation.

You know what is odd? I get the strangest feeling that you are telling me that the best grass in the world is purple, when all around me I see only green grass, the rest is brown.

[reverend_kyle]

Picture of a maquiladora, made by Nike in Mexico exploiting free trade.





Picture of poor little child working in a maquiladora..



The worst part is that it is like the Gilded Age in the United States, but mexico and all other countries in the Americas are going through it as a part of the FTAA and NAFTA. Can they do anything to stop it? No, they cant for the simple reason of provision 11 forbids it. For the love of god if the mexican government does anything that can interfere with these MOSTLY american countries ways to make 75% profit on an item. Free trade is basically americans raping lesser developed nations.. that is why most maquiladoras are in the northern mexican border. Close to america so they dont have to pay to get it there.

[reverend_kyle]

Do you have a 12-13 year old kid? Lets send them to go work in that shack for 15 hour work days making shit for low wages..

[areon]

Merits of free trade? Maybe if you only read the introduction. And I don't know Kyle, the "we" was about any discussion and not knowing everything. I can't give you an example if the western world follows free trade and that's all I'm familiar with. Why is there so much brown if free trade improves everyone?

And I don't believe you can have corporate growth without finding the words graft, pork, and lobby. Police state comes to mind but not as often.

[Ectomancer]

No Kyle, let's see you invite that girl in the picture into your home. How about you provide for her welfare. Send me the picture when you do.
Of course, good luck finding her. You know where she is? Not working anymore. Her factory was shut down. The work she did is now being done in China. Yes, this is a fact. Over 20% of those workshops have closed to overseas competition. Sadly she died. She was killed in Juarez. Her murder is still unsolved.
Get used to real life facts. There will always be someone with power taking advantage of those without. Maybe if you dont believe me we could sing Kumbaya while reading a copy of the Communist Manifesto.
What the US is offering these countries is a part of a larger economic union that will benefit all involved over time. Do you really think that Mississippi or Lousiana has been a really great place to be born in the last century regardless of your skin color? They are still the poorest in the union, but are sure as hell a lot better off than other countries.
What would happen if Mexico were not part of a NAFTA agreement in 20 years? How would they compete against the EU, SA trade agreement, China, and other trade organizations? You think poor Rosita would even have a job? No, you would prefer she starve with dignity.
Hey, I would say that maybe she was working at the Delphi center in Juarez, but China has her job now. No, Im serious, China does, look it up.

Anyhow, post all the sad pictures you want, I can counter-post from other countries that are far worse. You still have not proven that trade restrictions are better for citizens than free trade, and I HAVE shown that free trade DOES benefit the majority of citizens. At least I have shown them to be the wealthiest citizens in the entire world.

[reverend_kyle]

No Kyle, let's see you invite that girl in the picture into your home. How about you provide for her welfare. Send me the picture when you do.
Of course, good luck finding her. You know where she is? Not working anymore. Her factory was shut down. The work she did is now being done in China. Yes, this is a fact. Over 20% of those workshops have closed to overseas competition. Sadly she died. She was killed in Juarez. Her murder is still unsolved.
Get used to real life facts. There will always be someone with power taking advantage of those without. Maybe if you dont believe me we could sing Kumbaya while reading a copy of the Communist Manifesto.
What the US is offering these countries is a part of a larger economic union that will benefit all involved over time. Do you really think that Mississippi or Lousiana has been a really great place to be born in the last century regardless of your skin color? They are still the poorest in the union, but are sure as hell a lot better off than other countries.
What would happen if Mexico were not part of a NAFTA agreement in 20 years? How would they compete against the EU, SA trade agreement, China, and other trade organizations? You think poor Rosita would even have a job? No, you would prefer she starve with dignity.
Hey, I would say that maybe she was working at the Delphi center in Juarez, but China has her job now. No, Im serious, China does, look it up.

Anyhow, post all the sad pictures you want, I can counter-post from other countries that are far worse. You still have not proven that trade restrictions are better for citizens than free trade, and I HAVE shown that free trade DOES benefit the majority of citizens. At least I have shown them to be the wealthiest citizens in the entire world.

Mexican workers are gaining jobs

Mexican workers are gaining jobs in the sense that they most likely had their land, livelihood, and culture ripped away from them by developers, cheap imports, or huge corporate-farms in the last few decades. Through NAFTA, cheap subsidized corn from U.S. corporations flooded the Mexican farm-market and millions of small farmers could not compete and lost their land. With no other options, many of these farmers crowded the cities and moved north seeking jobs. Maquiladoras (read "sweatshops") have opened all over the U.S. border and feed on the poverty of the farmers. These facilities have far lower wages and safety standards than those in the U.S.

The trick is this: These are not new jobs, they are jobs that moved to Mexico from the United States. Workers in Ciuadad Jaurez may produce the same pair of jeans once produced in El Paso. Same jobs, different standards. The towns these workers live in are shanty towns and are often littered with chemicals from the nearby Maquilas. The companies who dump these chemicals don't have to clean them up by law, so the burden lies with the workers again. Workers who attempt to organize in these sweatshops are often fired and blacklisted from finding employment anywhere along the border, and are sometimes killed or imprisoned under false charges. Due to chemical pollution in the drinking water and streams nearby, the caner-rate in these border towns is far higher than the national average. So yeah, Mexican are gaining jobs because the early days of free trade took the good jobs away; the same thing that happened in the U.S.

[Ectomancer]

Take your nose out of the micro and look at the macro. Im not saying that there is no room for improvement, in fact I said that regulations are a necessary part of successful free trade. You are ignoring the world status in trade, though I brought it into the conversation early. Can you address the global situation or not? Has your author not written an article on it that you could paste perhaps?
Forgive me, I antagonize, but I will not erase.

The world changes Kyle, we must adapt. But I tell you now, regardless of how it turns out, there will always be those with power, and those exploited. Our job is to keep both numbers to a minimum. Communism failed. You need another plan. Right now Free Trade is the best we have.

[reverend_kyle]

Take your nose out of the micro and look at the macro. Im not saying that there is no room for improvement, in fact I said that regulations are a necessary part of successful free trade. You are ignoring the world status in trade, though I brought it into the conversation early. Can you address the global situation or not? Has your author not written an article on it that you could paste perhaps?
Forgive me, I antagonize, but I will not erase.

The world changes Kyle, we must adapt. But I tell you now, regardless of how it turns out, there will always be those with power, and those exploited. Our job is to keep both numbers to a minimum. Communism failed. You need another plan. Right now Free Trade is the best we have.

What you are doing is polarising the arguement to communism or free trade.... While I agree that TRADE can be a good thing FREE trade isnt.



You said Free Trade needs regulation.. the problem is is that contradicts what free trade is.... Wikipedia nailed it on the head and before you go on about how wikipedia isnt accurate it is and these are generally accepted guidelines for what free trade is

Free trade is a concept in economics and government, encompassing:

* International trade of goods without tariffs (taxes on imports) or other trade barriers (e.g., quotas on imports)
* International trade in services without tariffs or other trade barriers
* The free movement of labour between countries
* The free movement of capital between countries
* The absence of trade-distorting policies (such as taxes, subsidies, regulations or laws) that give domestic firms, households or factors of production an advantage over foreign ones
* Trade-distorting policies to enforce property rights so as to ensure the above condition

[gavin_sidhu]

Havent read a post in here cos theyre so bloodly long, so this may have already been said:

Freetrade is good, and because half the world is not only not embracing it, but making use of countries which do have freetrade policies (there exports face little tax but the countries imports gets taxed a f*ck load). Ive written 3 assignments on it, the EU and USA r screwing up free trade.

[Stopper]

Havent read a post in here cos theyre so bloodly long, so this may have already been said:

Freetrade is good, and because half the world is not only not embracing it, but making use of countries which do have freetrade policies (there exports face little tax but the countries imports gets taxed a f*ck load). Ive written 3 assignments on it, the EU and USA r screwing up free trade.

Hear, hear. Said something like that earlier, but not so detailed.