nafta?

i'm writing a paper on US involvement in central america. arguing for and against it. however, i'm having a hard time seeing much benefit in US involvement. this seems to be the same basic principle as nafta, so i was hoping that someone could give me some suggestions as to the arguments supporting it?

The North American Free Trade Agreement? What about it?

I'm sure there are quite a few books and scholarly articles about this..

yes, there are, but that's not really the type of information that i'm looking for. i could read hundreds of books arguing why it's good and/or why it's bad, but i'm looking for honest opinions from the general population, not what some scholar who has devoted his whole life to the subject thinks.

There aren't a lot of parallels between NAFTA and US involvement in central America.

But it really depends on what type of "involvement" you're talking about. Trade? Occupation? Inspiring revolts? IMF, World Bank involvement?

i would have to say that there are an incredible number of parallels between us involvement in central america and nafta. central america tried to develop a system of free trade, but it made the region even more reliant on the united states. which is essentially what is happening with nafta. the poverty stricken regions are reliant on the consumers of the goods that they produce, but all of the profits that they receive from their goods are invested right back into the industry, instead of being invested into the communities and developing/strengthening the nations to make them more self-sustaining. so while the free trade is sort of beneficial, in a round about way, because it adds money into the economy, the large majority of the population never sees the money. wages never increase. the cost of living continues to increase. poverty never goes down. and poverty is probably the main impetus behind political unrest, especially in regards to revolt. but then what happens when there is too much political unrest? other nations have to step in and provide assistance. namely the united states. do you see where i'm going with this?

 

i know i've got a strong opinion on this. but that's the thing - i'm really interested in hearing OTHER peoples opinions on the whole mess. i don't want to seem inflammatory, i'm actually very curious.

Original Post by yourfavoriteblonde:

central america tried to develop a system of free trade, but it made the region even more reliant on the united states.

which is essentially what is happening with nafta. the poverty stricken regions are reliant on the consumers of the goods that they produce, but all of the profits that they receive from their goods are invested right back into the industry, instead of being invested into the communities and developing/strengthening the nations to make them more self-sustaining.

so while the free trade is sort of beneficial, in a round about way, because it adds money into the economy, the large majority of the population never sees the money.

wages never increase. the cost of living continues to increase. poverty never goes down. and poverty is probably the main impetus behind political unrest, especially in regards to revolt. but then what happens when there is too much political unrest?

other nations have to step in and provide assistance. namely the united states. do you see where i'm going with this?

 

You're a little confused about the difference between the "US" and international organizations. I don't mean to be condescending, many people don't know.

NAFTA is a voluntary agreement between Canada, Mexico and the US, signed by the US directly. Essentially it allows greater movement of goods and services through the three countries.

A lot of the programs that promote 'free trade' in other central American countries are NOT directly instituted by the US. Usually the World Bank or the IMF or "Bretton Woods" associations.  (essentially, they are run by big business leaders with.... no allegiance to a home country. They're about money. I think there's something like 185 countries) will go into developing countries and offer things like structural adjustment plans.

SAPS are designed to "stimulate growth" in countries by giving loans with a number of requirements attached to them. Most times, the requirements force countries into accepting more foreign investors, and reducing government spending on social assistance. In most countries, this means that the poor stays the same and the rich get richer.

no, I do understand those concepts. my point is that so far all of those plans have been less than effective. and our involvement (as well as anyone elses, but my focus is on ours) may seem beneficial in the short term, but over the long term it is not doing any real good. 

 

also keep in mind that i'm not just looking at current involvement, i'm also interested in historical involvement. 

Wish I could give you a reason to support NAFTA, but I do not believe it is to our (USA) benefit.  Good luck. 

U.S. Government involvement:
1954 coup in Guatemala
1961 Bay of Pigs attempted coup in Cuba
1973 coup in Chile
1985-1987 support of guerrilla insurgents against the government of Nicaragua

United Fruit Company involvement:
most of central and a fair portion of south america - to include propping up violent dictators; extreme maltreatment of workers, etc.

Am I in favor of these actions? No.

Fear of communism, protecting companies' property and assets in a foreign nation, and sheer rapacious greed are the cause of most interventions.  I'm not in favor of any of these things.

I'd definitely agree with you on the long term/short term comment. SAPs are not beneficial in the long term; in fact they've been accused of perpetuating poverty and debt in developing countries.

On a historical note, the US involvment in the Panama Canal is always an interesting topic to read about.

I still don't agree about the similarities between NAFTA and other involvement. The main difference is in the consent and the negotiation aspects. NAFTA was negotiated by all the countries; while you can argue that the US could probably bully the discussion, the other countries had say and involvement in the agreement. SAPs are a take-it-or-leave-it situation. Either the developing country changes the way the IMF/WB wants or they don't the money.

Another difference is that NAFTA deals solely with trade. SAPS and other programs also dictate what type of government developing countries should have, what type of programs that government should and WILL develop and so on.

And I have to say... while NAFTA may have its bad aspects, it hasn't been all bad effects. In fact, the three countries involved have seen nothing but growth since they've been instituted. Some of the economic issues faced by the US, Canada and Mexico have absolutely nothing to do with NAFTA, but it frequently gets the blame.

 Just a little stat:

 

●      &n bsp; All member economies have grown significantly from 1993-2003:

·      & nbsp;  United States:  38% economic growth

·      & nbsp;  Canada:         &nb sp;  30.9% growth

·      & nbsp;  Mexico:         &nb sp;   30% growth

Annnnddddddd I just devoted my whole lunch to this. lol

I don't want to seem like some sort of die-hard right now. I'm really interested in this subject. I'm a Politics major, but my focus is on local and municipal governments. I read international relations stuff as a hobby, kind of.

Sorry -- didn't address nafta in discussing U.S. involvement in central/south america

I have to say that I strongly disagree with the stats provided in #10 above, but since I don't have my information sources here right now, I will come back tomorrow with accurate stats about the effects of NAFTA.

The WTO and many "free trade" agreements have the purpose of making companies sovereign and not subject to any laws that might detrimentally affect their profits (like environmental protections, worker protections, safety precautions, etc).  Business interests had to promote them as being good for workers or they never would have passed.  Nice job of hoodwinking, I would say.

The WTO, the IMF and the World Bank have the purpose of complete liberalization of all trade -- meaning that in their perfect world, governments won't interfere in the market in any way.  As if the market were magically, completely and perfectly self-regulating.  You might make that case if it didn't bother you for millions of people to lose their homes, starve or otherwise suffer at the hands of 'free trade'.

Many of the assumptions made by neo-liberal free traders in justifying their theories are just wrong - not supported by historical evidence.  Others of their assumptions are flat out dishonest.

 

 

nomoreexcuses- Sorry -- didn't address nafta in discussing U.S. involvement in central/south america

I have to say that I strongly disagree with the stats provided in #10 above, but since I don't have my information sources here right now, I will come back tomorrow with accurate stats about the effects of NAFTA.

You do realize that the NAFTA  only involves Canada, USA and Mexico. And you can 'disagree' with the numbers all you like but it doesn't change them. I'm not saying that the growth is solely based on NAFTA- of course not- that doesn't mean that its not a factor in growth. And economic growth has nothing to do with standard of living etc.

And... I'll just ignore your obviously inflammatory and ignorant remark about "neo-liberal free traders"

You might want to read around a little before labeling any comment made by nomo as 'inflammatory and ignorant', there jammin.

Having been at this site all of 14 days, you obviously have no clue as to the calibre of the intellect of the user to which you refer.

Original Post by kathygator:

You might want to read around a little before labeling any comment made by nomo as 'inflammatory and ignorant', there jammin.

Having been at this site all of 14 days, you obviously have no clue as to the calibre of the intellect of the user to which you refer.

Well, maybe I was a little quick to comment. If she is referring to "Classic liberalism", typically associated with libertarian beliefs then yes, the label "liberal" works.

I'm just tired of every slightly political argument ending in some form of "Yeah, well, you're a liberal and obviously know nothing" or "you're a stupid conservative". I'm probably expecting too much for teh internets.

And if you read closely, for the most part, I agree with what she is saying about the Bretton WOods association

neo = new
liberal = free, free from constraints

neoliberalism is generally accepted to refer to those who advocate "free trade" - the reason it's 'new' is because they use the period of liberalized trade of the 1870s to the 1890s (by Britain) as evidence of the worthiness of their position

It's not derogatory - do you think it is something negative?

And yes, I only mentioned the WTO and the IMF because they had been mentioned earlier in the thread.  I am well aware of exactly what NAFTA is and what it has done since I have many relatives and friends who lost their jobs because of it.

Like I said, I'll come back tomorrow with accurate, relevant and contextual stats about NAFTA.

That was really funny about growth rate and standard of living not having anything to do with each other. Good one!

Edit to add: Issues relating to trade have become a lot more involved than blaming anything on any one U.S. political party.  Regarding trade and military involvement, the republicans are now the "liberals" and the Democrats are the "conservatives".  Regarding social issues, Republicans are more conservative (or reactionary) and Democrats are more liberal (or radicals).  But you can find people at every possible variation on the social and financial/military political spectrum.

Not really.....

First we exported the manufacturing jobs because we were all told that we'd have cushy new jobs in our "service" economy.  Now the service jobs are being exported.  WTF????  How are people supposed to make a living when neither goods nor services are here....  And "goods and services" = economy.....

I believe that the good ole USA is in a pickle. We want cheap products quickly and in high quantities, but we complain about the way we get them. If you want _____ ( insert whatever), but fairly and justly, then be prepared for shortages and very high prices. Is anyone willing to do that? Is anyone willing to do without your cup of coffee, or a pair of jeans, or designer shoes, cars, fruit and vegatables? Before we start pointing the fingers at those who set up the agreements and trade organizations, we have to look at ourselves and what society demands. If there is no market for a particular product, then nobody is going to want to create a trade deal for it because they can't make money on it.

I belive in fair trade, but it has to be just that. FAIR TRADE! If I pay $15.00 for a pound of coffee beans, then the profit to the grower should be higher than $0.10 ! Where is the other $14.90?! 

 

"Fair trade" is kind of a joke anyway, when you consider the travesty that is the US Farm Bill.  There is nothing "fair" about enormous subsidies and tariffs to keep american agriculture competitive.

I don't think there are good statistics on the effects of free trade because I think we have yet to see what truly free trade actually looks like.

All i know is Ross Perot tried to warn us about NAFTA and we didn't listen to him, now my husband's job is going to Mexico now and he is jobless.  This is what i think about NAFTA  (screw nafta)!!!!



Clarice