Skip to main content

View Diary: DLC makes comeback (280 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Do not agree, read NAFTA itself (none)
    a contract is a contract, an policy is a policy and the analysis (there are many before NAFTA was signed) that showed it would be disasterous for the American worker as well as the Mexican worker has been bore out in empircal evidence.  Part of the current illegal immigration problem can be attributed to the growing poverty in Mexico that started as a result of this trade agreement.

    NAFTA is much more than elimination of tariffs between Mexico, CAN and US.

    Here are some elements in this trade agreement:

    1.  Multinational corporations are protected from any government policy per nation-state that might interfere with "profits".
    2.  Gives multinational corporations the right to force privatization of public services.
    3.  Supercedes national law by demanding legal disputes are settled through a "secret" tribunal...which is made up of representatives of multinational corporations (not elected or appointed judges of the nation-state).
    4.  Excludes any worker protections, worker rights, right to unionize.
    5.  Zero environmental standards.

    Whether a "Democrat" or a Republican is in the administration, this agreement screws workers on both sides of the border.

    Ross Perot tried to warn people and Clinton lied during the campaign and said he would not support NAFTA and turned around and supported it late in the campaign.

    Clinton claimed he wanted side agreements for labor and the environment.  Behind the scenes negotiations were done to not enforce those side agreements. They became token symbols of broken promises, they were put in and at the same time a deal was struck to never enforce them.  100M dollars was spent in lobbying for NAFTA by multinational corporate interests.

    •  case in point (none)
      Excludes any worker protections, worker rights, right to unionize.

      like i just said.  maybe it should include those things.

      but it doesn't prohibit a nation, or an administration from providing these things either.

      •  lock, stock, fixed system (none)
        by pulling administration to special interests from the nation-state makes it more difficult to actually enforce anything that is not approved by multinational corporate interests.

        This is the criticism of the WTO, the WTO is run/controlled/administrated by a secret select group, meetings are closed, there is no control or responsibility to the nation-states or the people.

        These organizations are superceding nation-state authority.  

        But, that said, this is what Kerry was talking about was attempting to modify existing trade agreements, to add these provisions and get them enforced.  They were working on it.  He also promised if it didn't work to consider "scaping" them and renegotiating.  So he was promising if he could not get around the multinational corporate power, he would take action.

        Unfortunately this topic is not covered by corporate media and few probably even knew what he was talking about.

        I thought Kerry was doing good strategy...although it wasn't enough for many because workers had previously been given the shaft, hype and false promises so some want to see truly dramatic action.  Dramatic action (withdrawal from the WTO,
        cancel NAFTA absolute, go to bi-lateral trade agreements) is something I suspect would "jerk" the economy to potentially a deep recession...
        and I have not seen an analysis economically on what the consequences would be by any economist...
        that's my guess.

        Bernie Sanders proposed this action periodically and he maybe correct.  I think I'll email him and ask if he has a study on the economic effects.

      •  sophistry: (none)
        "a deliberately invalid argument displaying ingenuity in reasoning in the hope of deceiving someone"

        To carry your argument to an extreme that shows how invalid it is:  "Slavery didn't prohibit anyone from freeing their slaves and providing them with an honest wage."

        Of course, maybe your argument isn't sophistry at all, but rather poor reasoning.  I'll watch and see how determined you are to cling to it.

        The chips are down. Find your outrage.

        by sj on Fri Jul 22, 2005 at 02:09:24 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  nope (none)
          you figured it out and see right through it.  my argument doesn't work in the extreme.   and the law of conservation of matter seems to break down in a quantum singularity, too.

          i guess that means rhe law of conservation of matter is invalid too.

          hint:  you're an idiot.

          (second hint:  i can be condescending too.)

          •  I see (none)
            You're determined to cling to it.  Just so I know.  

            Hint:  the "you're an idiot" statement says more about your reasoning than mine.  And I was already well aware of your ability to be condescending.  Thank you, however, for informing all other readers.

            The chips are down. Find your outrage.

            by sj on Fri Jul 22, 2005 at 02:51:24 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  clinging to the truth (none)
              is indeed one of my many weaknesses.

              but i guess it's better than clinging to falsehood.

              calling you an idiot says nothing about my reasoning.

              you being an idiot requires no logic to grasp, ... asking how or why you're an idiot would detract too much from it's majesty.  it's just there.

            •  here i'll try a different approach (none)
              what?  i'm supposed to stop clinging to my opinion and change my opinion on something just cause you say i won't change my opinion?

              right.  

              and just so you know.

              you're not really an idiot.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site