McCain lashes Democrats for criticizing NAFTA

McCain lashes Democrats for criticizing NAFTA

news.yahoo.com

Republican presidential candidate John McCain criticized his Democratic rivals on Tuesday for pledging to renegotiate a hemispheric trade treaty that Democrats blame for U.S. manufacturing job losses.
At a town-hall meeting in St. Louis, the Arizona senator also called for the Democratic-controlled U.S. Congress to approve a free-trade treaty with Colombia that is being stymied on Capitol Hill.

"On trade, I'm a free trader," McCain told employees at Savvis Internet company, a session dominated by questions about the ailing U.S. economy.

(visit the link for the full news article)

"I do not believe in isolationism and protectionism," McCain said. "We've got to stop this protectionist NAFTA-bashing."

So I guess McXain likes the way Bush has ran the economy and NAFTA. And plans to be Decider II and keep going full steam ahead.

news.yahoo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 11-3-2008 by JBA2848]

Heh-I read that over on Reuters...Nothing McInsane does or says suprises me. He is the ultimate scum. Perhaps he should re-institute his "Improved healthcare for MEXICO" bill while shouting this tripe. Traitor.

[edit on 11-3-2008 by DimensionalDetective]

reply to post by DimensionalDetective


I don't think he has any idea about people or the economy. His wife probly does the check book at his house.

We need FAIR trade not FREE trade. This guys a BIG douche.

[SNIP]



[edit on 11/3/08 by masqua]

And to think that this moron is the only candidate that the Republicans have right now for president.

People take a good look at the man that is going to finish killing middle class America, doesn't McCain knows that NAFTA is toxic to the once mighty American middle class, while is very profitable for corporate America and the very wealthy.

What a joke.

Originally posted by oLDWoRLDDiSoRDeR
We need FAIR trade not FREE trade. This guys a BIG douche.

Can you please explain to me how NAFTA is unfair to America. Of the three members states, America by far sees the greatest advantages and improvements.

Thank god that Obama has admitted to the Canadian government that he was openly lying to his supporters about his stance on renegotiating NAFTA.

I am really beginning to get sick of the general anti free trade group around here that shows up to spout a few lines of rhetoric any time NAFTA is mentioned. It is fine to have a conscious informed stance on free trade, but I haven't seen one real reason presented why NAFTA is bad, besides "it hurts the middle class". WHY?

I am going to use one small example often discussed in economics. It is one (of many) reasons why free trade helps the middle class, even if it results in a wage decrease. If some guy is working in a factory making 50 000 (random #) a year. His job is outsourced to Mexico because liberalized trade has made it a more efficient decision for his employer. Well, now this guy has got to go and work at Starbucks, and now he is making only 45 000 a year. At first glance, he is getting screwed by free trade. However, at the same time, the cost of an average basket of consumer goods costs 50% (inflation adjusted) of what it cost 5 years ago, because all of these goods are being produced more efficiently.

So yeah, they guy might have 5000 less, but in terms of real wealth, he could afford a lot more than if he still had his factory job, and strong protectionist tariffs were still in place. With the percentage of wage (or debt) that American people put towards consumer goods, they are by and far the winners of this arrangement. So maybe instead of blaming your candidates for "hurting the middle class", you should blame the middle class for their insatiable thirst for goods.

This doesn't even factor in the many other benefits of free trade to the middle class and the consumer, such as how it drives workers in richer countries (like America) to more high tech jobs, or how it drives innovation throughout industry (I am not here to write an economics paper right now )

And if you think there has been a main candidate for the Presidency who was anti NAFTA, since it was created, good luck. I find it funny how everyone forgets that Bill Clinton got most of the union vote by promising to never sign NAFTA, and upon being elected, immediately signed NAFTA. Take that Unions!

[edit on 11-3-2008 by WuTang]

reply to post by WuTang


Agreed. And I will note that the Revolutionary War was largely started over our rejection of so-called "fair trade" AKA mercantilism.

reply to post by WuTang



Fair Trade means an equitable and fair partnership between marketers in North America and producer groups in Asia, Africa, Latin America and other parts of the world. Fair Traders agree to abide by the following criteria:
* Paying a fair wage in the local context;
* Offering employees opportunities for advancement;
* Providing equal employment opportunities for all people;
* Engaging in environmentally sustainable practices;
* Being open to public accountability;
* Building long-term trade relationships;
* Providing healthy and safe working conditions within the local context;
* Providing financial and technical assistance to producers whenever possible.
www.thirdworldtraveler.com...


Free trade:

Free trade is a market model in which trade in goods and services between or within countries flow unhindered by government-imposed restrictions. Restrictions to trade include taxes and other legislation, such as tariff and non-tariff trade barriers.

en.wikipedia.org...

Fair trade:

Fair trade is an organized social movement which promotes standards for international labor, environmentalism, and social policy in areas related to production of Fairtrade labeled and unlabeled goods. The movement focuses in particular on exports from developing countries to developed countries.

en.wikipedia.org...

[I hope you were not assuming i didn't know what i was talking about ... ]

[edit on 11-3-2008 by oLDWoRLDDiSoRDeR]

reply to post by oLDWoRLDDiSoRDeR


I see you can copy paste wikis about trade. I also see that you did not bother to actually say anything for yourself.

I hate to break it to you but the definition of free trade you put forth from WIKI is not in use in NAFTA, the EU, or any where else. (just the excerpt, I am NOT reading a wiki on free trade, 2 years of university economics would be much better I would think)

Furthermore, Fair Trade is a model program for certain goods, but in no way economic system. We can't negotiate a "Fair Trade Agreement" between the US Canada and Mexico. Fair in itself is subjective.

Fair trade programs are great. The provide people in impoverished nations the things you copy pasted. They also increase the cost of goods. You can not sit around and blame John McCain for the lack of fair trade goods. You have to look to the consumer, who has to want to spend more of his money for fair trade to exist. Furthermore, the countries who most need Fair trade programs are not a part of NAFTA. Mexico, questionably. Trying to insert Fair trade into this is trying to change the subject away from how "NAFTA is evil" , and towards how "free trade is evil".

Or maybe we should just ban non fair trade goods, and take away that less expensive coffee. I'm sure that would help the American middle class.



[edit on 11-3-2008 by WuTang]

reply to post by WuTang


Yeah and "fair trade" just drives up the prices and thereby kills demand. Which means more starving, out of work people in the third world.

I just had to throw this in here quick before I sign-off.

Anyone who still thinks there is any difference between a Republican and a Democrat, I hope you are reading this. The Dems championed NAFTA. Now they're pretending to be walking away from it, while making back alley deals and promises to keep the agenda going when they take office. Now McCain is openly backing NAFTA?

This is the same reason that neither party has been interested in securing our borders.

reply to post by chromatico


Yeah fair competition drives up prices . What logic leads you to believe that ?

Originally posted by jackinthebox
I just had to throw this in here quick before I sign-off.

Anyone who still thinks there is any difference between a Republican and a Democrat, I hope you are reading this. The Dems championed NAFTA. Now they're pretending to be walking away from it, while making back alley deals and promises to keep the agenda going when they take office. Now McCain is openly backing NAFTA?

This is the same reason that neither party has been interested in securing our borders.

I completely agree with what you said at the top. The bolded statement is just ridiculous. If anything, securing the borders would be benevolent to such a large trade agreement, as it would counter the flow of illegal and counterfeit goods that enter America untaxed from Mexico. Not to mention keep the cheap labour for good production in Mexico. Open economic borders does not equal open physical borders...

Originally posted by oLDWoRLDDiSoRDeR
reply to post by chromatico

 

Yeah fair competition drives up prices . What logic leads you to believe that ?

How about my grocery shelves? Where fair trade coffee costs 125% what non fair trade coffee costs. You know that list of nice things you do for third world farmers so they can live more sustainable lives? Well that money makes fair trade goods more expensive as compared to non fair trade goods. It is not like the non fair trade coffee companies are pocketing the difference; they are using it to provide their good at a lower cost. It doesn't drive up the price of all goods, it greats a niche in the grocery store for those with what used to be commonly referred to as white mans guilt can buy that guilt away with more expensive coffee.

reply to post by WuTang


Crappy(read #ty) you have such a narrow view on the world . As long as your coffee is cheap all is well .

We need to live as a species not as individual races or religions . But i supposer your right . As long as theres selfish people like you there will really never be equality for all . . .

Your not interested in a bigger picture tho are you ? Just what makes your life easier . Total shame so many people feel the same way as you .



[edit on 11-3-2008 by oLDWoRLDDiSoRDeR]

Originally posted by oLDWoRLDDiSoRDeR
reply to post by WuTang

 

#ty you have such a narrow view on the world . As long as your coffee is cheap all is well .

We need to live as a species not as individual races or religions . But i supposer your right . As long as theres selfish people like you there will really never be equality for all . . .

Your not interested in a bigger picture tho are you ? Just what makes your life easier . Total shame so many people feel the same way as you .

[edit on 11-3-2008 by oLDWoRLDDiSoRDeR]

Whoah guy. If you bothered to read my posts you would see I am in support of fair trade. It is a good program, and it does a lot for people in 3rd world countries. But it CANNOT BE UNIVERSALLY APPLIED TO ALL TRADE. I do buy fair trade coffee, if you really must know.

I am interested in the bigger picture, that of economics. You sir, are the one interested in the little picture, viewing it through your rosy colored glasses where the whole world should use "fair trade" for all of their goods.

Not everyone can afford fair trade goods. What a shame all those ignorant poor people don't eat one less meal a week to buy fair trade coffee. What selfish selfish people, feeding their children and struggling with their rent.

I do not think you have the necessary tools to grasp higher level economics (I often think I lack them as well ). I tried to discuss this with logic, and now that your logic has failed you, you are calling me names. So I am going to leave you with this. It is my personal holy grail of free market economics.

You said, we need to live as a species. Your right in that we need be grouped together, but not as species, as consumer. The only way things like this will ever change (fair trade popularity) is through demand - the consumer. You can blame me, John McCain, Bill Clinton, whoever. But it is not any of them or me deciding what the average person buys with their money.

If you are old enough to remember (or have the time to research) the dolphin-tuna issue of the early nineties, you will know what I mean. Of all the international laws, political pandering, industry meetings, the only thing that finally made all tuna dolphin free was the fact that consumers became educated, and stopped buying tuna without that dolphin free label.

Just because my viewpoint is different, by no means is it narrow. I think by espousing only one economic option (which isn't really an economic option for most goods), you Sir, are the one with a narrow view of the world.

EDIT: I will no longer be discussing fair trade. It has nothing to do with the OP and is only a distraction from the real topic at hand - John McCain, NAFTA, and his lashes at the democratic candidates false calls to renegotiate.

[edit on 11-3-2008 by WuTang]

reply to post by WuTang


Ok well im not saying fair trade is going to fix the free trade issue . Sorry if i got a little personal with you . I meant that if we would have went that way to begin with things would definitely be different .

Originally posted by WuTang
If some guy is working in a factory making 50 000 (random #) a year. His job is outsourced to Mexico because liberalized trade has made it a more efficient decision for his employer. Well, now this guy has got to go and work at Starbucks, and now he is making only 45 000 a year.

There is no way anyone is making that much working at Starbucks except as a manager, which I'm sure requires a college degree and several years of experience. The average pay for full-time employee is $35,000, and that's because Starbucks is on the top end of the service industry. That would not be the starting wage and would take a while to work your way up to.

money.cnn.com...

Even if you could find a job that paid that much, that is still a loss of 30% in pay and is not made up with lower priced goods when utilities and other cost of living continue to rise.

The deal with NAFTA is it has opened free trade with China and there is no way American workers can compete with that because we have a higher cost of living and the Chinese don't comply with the same environmental and safety standards. The outsourcing of jobs started before NAFTA, but NAFTA has accelerated it and it is too fast for the job market to make the transition from mfg to service. The average wage has been stagnant, but the cost of living keeps rising, partly due to NAFTA.

Originally posted by Hal9000

Originally posted by WuTang
If some guy is working in a factory making 50 000 (random #) a year. His job is outsourced to Mexico because liberalized trade has made it a more efficient decision for his employer. Well, now this guy has got to go and work at Starbucks, and now he is making only 45 000 a year.

There is no way anyone is making that much working at Starbucks except as a manager, which I'm sure requires a college degree and several years of experience. The average pay for full-time employee is $35,000, and that's because Starbucks is on the top end of the service industry. That would not be the starting wage and would take a while to work your way up to.

money.cnn.com...

Even if you could find a job that paid that much, that is still a loss of 30% in pay and is not made up with lower priced goods when utilities and other cost of living continue to rise.

The deal with NAFTA is it has opened free trade with China and there is no way American workers can compete with that because we have a higher cost of living and the Chinese don't comply with the same environmental and safety standards. The outsourcing of jobs started before NAFTA, but NAFTA has accelerated it and it is too fast for the job market to make the transition from mfg to service. The average wage has been stagnant, but the cost of living keeps rising, partly due to NAFTA.

1- NAFTA has nothing to do with liberalized trade with china. I agree with you though that outsourcing started long before.

2- As I stated in my example, it was MADE UP NUMBERS. In the many journal articles I read when I took a class specifically on the economics of globalization, this process was presented with real numbers. From 1992 to 2002 the decreases in the CGI more than offset losses in the manufacturing wages for the average worker. I will have to dig up some old debate readers and economics journals to provide the numbers.

3- I am not even factoring the other benefits seen in nations who outsource their manufacturing industries. It generally leads to higher levels of education, increased standards of living, and accelerated industrial innovation, to name a few.

4-COL is rising due to over inflation and two wars, not due to NAFTA (although this ca be argued into a thousand different conlcusions).

5- Could you point me to the study or article where you found that the service industry cannot offset the loss in MF jobs?