100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
| Topic: N.A.F.T.A. | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Should the United States renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement with Canada and Mexico?
Yes or No? Discuss! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
does it make gas prices go down?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Uh-oh. You may have started something. Bye!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<--------- Backing out of room..... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It would probably work a whole lot better if the US lived up to its part of the bargain...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
MirrorMirror
on
Tue 03/11/08 07:39 PM
|
 I'm just looking for an intimate encounter. I dont know nuthin bout this $h!t
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Should the United States renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement with Canada and Mexico? Yes or No? Discuss! Do you think it is working fine now? Do you think it needs a total overhaul? Do you think we just need to change some things i.e. (Labor & Enviroment)? Or...Should the U.S. just pull out? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
While I'm not a supporter of John McCain, I think he has a point when he says we need to be really careful before we get serious about renogiating a major trade treaty like this. If we say we're opting out of NAFTA if Canada and Mexico won't agree to new terms, what is to prevent all of the other countries that we have trade agreements with from doing the same thing to us?
I don't know what they were thinking when we signed up for NAFTA. Canada and Mexico have less money and lower costs than we do and it was clear from the beginning once we got rid of tariffs to protect US businesses that there were going to be a lot of job losses that wouldn't be replaced from NAFTA. There was far more in it for Canada and Mexico than there was for the US. Whatever we lost to them we clearly weren't going to make up in other areas of business. If we were going to be in this agreement we clearly needed to do a better job for the people losing their jobs directly from NAFTA, but what about all the people who lost their jobs indirectly because of NAFTA? Once factories closed, it closed lots of other businesses. The interesting thing is that none of these other busineses and their employees qualify for trade assistance. Did you ever think about that? Some of the ideas for helping people just won't work. How do you tell a 55 year old man who lost his job to go back to community college? There has to be something better. We can try to modify the agreement, but if we do, we need to be really careful about how we do it before we open Pandoras box. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
renegotiation of NAFTA is something which is likely to produce a tremendous amount of useless political wrangling whose benefit is unlikely to be able to be accurately projected or even measured after the fact.
what is certain to occur however is a tremendous expenditure of time and money for the purpose of all parties US, Mexico, and Canada to try to shave a minor concession here - or a slight advantage there - for specific special interests. it is a tar baby waiting to suck out a gargantuanally large amount of worker-hours, legal fees, and administrative expenses in exchange for variations in perceived pecking order by concerned interests. my recommendation is just forgo repeating this wasteful and futile exercise and just deposit the funds set aside for the negotiators, lawyers and politicians into my private offshore numbered bank account. i promise the money will be put to better use!!  
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Fanta46
on
Tue 03/11/08 09:16 PM
|
|
While I'm not a supporter of John McCain, I think he has a point when he says we need to be really careful before we get serious about renogiating a major trade treaty like this. If we say we're opting out of NAFTA if Canada and Mexico won't agree to new terms, what is to prevent all of the other countries that we have trade agreements with from doing the same thing to us? I don't know what they were thinking when we signed up for NAFTA. Canada and Mexico have less money and lower costs than we do and it was clear from the beginning once we got rid of tariffs to protect US businesses that there were going to be a lot of job losses that wouldn't be replaced from NAFTA. There was far more in it for Canada and Mexico than there was for the US. Whatever we lost to them we clearly weren't going to make up in other areas of business. If we were going to be in this agreement we clearly needed to do a better job for the people losing their jobs directly from NAFTA, but what about all the people who lost their jobs indirectly because of NAFTA? Once factories closed, it closed lots of other businesses. The interesting thing is that none of these other busineses and their employees qualify for trade assistance. Did you ever think about that? Some of the ideas for helping people just won't work. How do you tell a 55 year old man who lost his job to go back to community college? There has to be something better. We can try to modify the agreement, but if we do, we need to be really careful about how we do it before we open Pandoras box.
|
|
|
|
|
