Free trade is not the best thing that's happened since sliced bread. Sorry to break it to you, but it is bad, bad, BAD for this nation's people.
Thanks to NAFTA, now the already rich coporations can take the jobs from the American citizens that need them and take them over to poor countries so that they can get away with paying 10 cents an hour to people that are actually willing to work for that much, without benefits, and with terrible living conditions for those that need to live in provided homes. And not only do they take jobs from the U.S., they don't have to pay tariffs to offset that pay, and the government doesn't see a dime of that money. Before the 20th century, our government made enough money from tariffs that they didn't really need to tax the citizens, but now, the taxes are getting heavier and heavier, and for people that either don't make that much or have multiple children to take care of, this is inevitable doom. This in turn causes more young men to join the army, simply for the benefits and pay offered. However, when you take all of the taxes and other such deductions into account, there still isn't a lot of money coming in, and now fathers, brothers, and sons are risking their lives because it's getting harder and harder to find good jobs. There are many other downsides of which to speak, but I will save them for later.

__________________
War is a racket, no more. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that the vast majority of the people don't know about, and that only a small inside group understands. A racket is designed to benefit the few at the expense of the many.

-Smedley Butler, who saved America from fascism in the 30's.

Free trade is a good thing. NAFTA is not free trade. NAFTA is also not terrorism, even if one takes all your negative comments as 100% true.

__________________
Today's forecast: Government corruption.

Tomorrow's forecast: 100% chance of more 'politics as usual'

Maybe it's finally time to vote Libertarian

NAFTA allows free trade to happen. And what exactly do you mean by "a good thing"? Why don't you try putting up evidence for an argument instead of silly, aimless words that have no backing power?

__________________
War is a racket, no more. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that the vast majority of the people don't know about, and that only a small inside group understands. A racket is designed to benefit the few at the expense of the many.

-Smedley Butler, who saved America from fascism in the 30's.

NAFTA allows trade to be more free than it was before NAFTA, but it does not truly allow free trade. A true free trade agreement would be a very short document. NAFTA was hundreds of pages IIRC.

Free trade tends to optimize the allocation of resources. Those who are willing to work hard will generally have their situations improve, and whose who aren't won't. Further, competition will tend to lower costs and induce more providers of whatever goods or services are most in demand.

There will certainly be 'victims' in this situation, such as some short-sighted, overpaid workers, but there will be more winners, such as those who take the 10-cent jobs becuase they're better than the available 5-cent jobs, such as the consumers who pay comparatively less for items produced by the 10-cent jobs, and for the investors in the companies that try to reduce unnecessary labor expense.

The negative tax implications you cite are simply a matter of poor policy and/or planning. The income tax should be replaced by taxes on imports, consumption, and/or borrowing. Or given that bureucratic inertia and other factors pretty much preclude such changes, one could increase tariffs and taxes on corporations and/or dividends.

For the same reason you eschew objective analysis in favor of oversimplifications, emotional appeals, and populist pandering.


I cannot completely lose here. Even if all your negatives and other emotional appeals were to bear out, NAFTA is still not terrorism.

__________________
Today's forecast: Government corruption.

Tomorrow's forecast: 100% chance of more 'politics as usual'

Maybe it's finally time to vote Libertarian

I agree with you on one thing: taxes on imports would be a great thing. However, I think that it would be better for America if we had jobs back here allowing our citizens to make at least our minimum wage, which, when last I checked, was over five dollars an hour, than having them overseas paying foreigners ten cents an hour. Of course, this is from a middle class perspective, so I actually have to worry about these jobs and where they are and how much they pay. If this "Free Trade" goes on, the middle class will be eliminated, and there will be two types of people: The 1-3% of the rich, who hold 90-99% of the wealth, and the 97-99% of the people, who make 1-10% of the nation's money, and whose husbands and brothers join the army and die in order to provide for their families, which is not a position that sounds particularly pleasing to me.

__________________
War is a racket, no more. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that the vast majority of the people don't know about, and that only a small inside group understands. A racket is designed to benefit the few at the expense of the many.

-Smedley Butler, who saved America from fascism in the 30's.

Wouldn't import taxation be a from of protectionism and by its very nature be the antithesis of free trade. Further a tax on borrowing is a tax on saving and that doesn’t make sense given the tendency for capital to positively affect productivity.

(shrugs) Makes sense to me. Maybe not to him, though.

__________________
War is a racket, no more. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that the vast majority of the people don't know about, and that only a small inside group understands. A racket is designed to benefit the few at the expense of the many.

-Smedley Butler, who saved America from fascism in the 30's.

I was thinking something along the lines of a broad-based 2% - a source of operating funds for government with an admitted hint of protectionism, rather than something like a (presumeably narrow, but perhaps not) 10% - a protectionist measure with an added bonus of government revenues. Thank you for pointing out the possible inconsistency tho. (And if you consider even 2% to be protectionist, please feel free to pursue the point, as I'm quite open to learning something and changing my position(s) if appropriate.)

As opposed to out current tax on saving, which it would replace?
Thank you again, tho, for the interesting viewpoint, which I hadn't considered before.

__________________
Today's forecast: Government corruption.

Tomorrow's forecast: 100% chance of more 'politics as usual'

Maybe it's finally time to vote Libertarian

It is hard to think of two countries in the world that have benefited more from 'free trade' than Germany and the USA.

This hardly even qualifies as a rant since there's not even an argument here beyond "NAFTA=evil".

Where are you getting these statistics? What nation do they represent?

__________________
"Our fears in Banquo
Stick deep; in his royalty of nature
Reigns that which would be fear'd: 'tis much he dares;
And, to that dauntless temper of his mind,
He hath a wisdom that doth guide his valour
To act in safety."

Macbeth 3:1

I'm assuming that you've served this country and what you've said here was common talk in the barracks and on deployment. You and the guys in your Platoon sat around cleaning weapons and complained about how you wouldn't be wearing the pickle suit if there were more decent job opportunities in the civilian sector.

Am I correct?

Because for you to make these statements based on assumptions or on an article you read in Time magazine would be about retarded.

Don't misunderstand me, I'm sure that something like 0.5% of enlistees do so because of the job opportunity the military offers, and those that do usually enlist in an MOS that keeps them about as far from the fighting as someone can be in a war zone (which still isn't 100% safe, but it's not like they're kicking doors either).

But your sweeping generalization is about as knuckle-headed as the rest of your rant.

__________________
...Old Europe, a once-dominant region now reduced to sucking at the geopolitical teat of America... they spent the better part of the last millennium conquering the world and taking the good stuff home with them... And what do they get for their troubles? Ungrateful colonies demanding their independence. And after you taught them how to play cricket!...

-Jon Stewart

That's quite an assumption. That an 18-year old with a gimme GED, no desire or ability to pursue higher education and facing the choices of stocking shelves at Wal-Mart, picking lettuce or the chock full of benefits and higher pay military as a career path might have the intellectual capability to recognize and discuss motivational differences between self-interest determination and societal manipulation was my first real laugh of the morning.

I don't really know what to think about NAFTA. Although I confess I fail to see how it does anything positive for United States citizens.

Your entire post here is dependent on the notion that "free" trade = "fair" trade...or even "improved" trade.

Sorry, but I happen to like that our nation can enjoy a decent way of life, I happen to not want laborers to make pennies on the hour with no benefits.
Across numerous manufacturing sectors - Americans lost 100,000's of well paid jobs with solid benefits.
You leave out a HUGE factor in who "wins" with NAFTA - who works the hardest is far out-weighed by who works the cheapest.