Or, the executives who run those companies could underpay their Mexican workers while keeping the prices of their products the same. They pocket the increased profits or pay them to the stockholders, most of whom are probably of above-average wealth, anyway. Meanwhile, Joe Middle-Class in the U.S. has lost his job to a Mexican who is only slightly better off than before, and who has neither laws enforced by an uncorruptible government nor the power of a union to protect him. How is this “better”, for anyone??
You’ve pointed out that’s it’s better for the stockholders, many of whom are probably middle class workers, one of which might be Joe Middle class himself. (I’m middle-class and I own stock in several companies). And, since that lousy factory job is gone, he dusts himself off and gets a better job. If he doesn’t, he probably wasn’t a very good worker anyway. Sounds like win-win situation to me.
And, BTW, unions are a bane, and I’d love for you to name a single “uncorruptible” government that now or has ever existed.
I swore I wouldn’t get involved…
The distinction made in the media, between trade and anti-trade is a false one. Both free trade and fair trade want rules based trade. The question is what rules. One could for example, ban/restrict the import of substances which are harmful to the populace.
Who decides which substances are harmful? It could be a closed meeting of trade lawyers, or it could be done in an open manner, including input from all interested parties. We could set environmental standards to those of the highest country, instead of the lowest. We could establish international labor regulations, rather than undercut national one. We could allow companies to sue if a national government tries to protect it’s citizens in a way that costs some company money. We could allow subsidies to local businesses or, if you so desire, to foreign businesses. who decides what are subsidies? What are the rules to be? You tell me.
Issues like this were at the heart of the Seattle WTO protests. It is not a debate between trade and not trading. It is about what the rules are for trade.
Oh bugger, I left out my link…
For a good rational critique of NAFTA after five years, read Global Trade Watch’s Nafta report.
That’s a good idea. I’m sure that it’s easy for someone who’s worked, even worked well, in a factory all his or her life to find a job in upper management. And I’m sure that someone who’s spent their life splitting their salary three ways between food, clothing and shelter owns a great deal of stock.
No uncorruptible government has ever existed, but a government of the people, by the people, and for the people (democracy) is certainly better than a government of the stockholders, by the stockholders, and for the stockholders (NAFTA).
Yup, still no discussion of matt’s Ethyl example and the concomitant loss of national sovereignty.
Hmm.
OK, a brief response - the Canadian government, in an exercise of its national sovereignity, freely chose to enter into NAFTA, fully aware that, in the process, it was binding itself to an enforceable contract between nations. Part of the contract was the decision to subordinate part of its national sovereignity to the rules of NAFTA.
Thus, contrary to matt’s claim, it isn’t anti-democratic - the democratically elected Canadian government chose to do this.
Sua
But where does it stop, Matt? Should that same job be protected if an domestic competitor set up a more efficient factory within the country and drove the factory out of business? Given that trade is a small percentage of most countries economy, this scenario is much more likely.
And, further, why does that worker’s “right” to his/her job trump the “right” of consumers to better and cheaper products? A factory worker benefits greatly if the car he/she must have to get to work is $1,000 cheaper because it was made in Mexico.
Sua
As a semi-hijack, Sua, I’ll mention that I’m currently reading Akhil Amar’s seminal book The Bill of Rights: Creation and Reconstruction, in which the Yale professor argues convincingly that one of the foremost function of the first (proposed) twelve amendments was to protect against a national legislature which didn’t accurately reflect either the will or the interests of the majority.
For what it’s worth.
Just because the “democratically-elected” government chose to do it, doesn’t make it democratic. The U.S. government does undemocratic things quite often, which is why we have the Supreme Court declare laws unconstitutuional every so often. I’m not sure about Canada or Mexico, but I think that if the U.S. government enters into any compact or treaty which involves giving up any measure of national sovergnity it should be unconstitutional. I’m not a constitutional scholar, but I think that any government that I helped to elect that gives away it’s power over me to some outside entity that I have no control over is NOT acting in my best interests.
This is, to my way of thinking, equivalent to saying since it is approved by a sovergin government, there must not be a loss of sovereignty. This is a reasonable argument in every debate excepta discussion of whether Canada (or any other nation) shouldbe in Nafta. A government can sign away it’s soverginty. It is a stupid move, but it can be done. The question therefore is, was NAFTA a stupid move?
On a less heady, more practical note, only one US senator has acknowledged he read the text of the Uruguay Round GATT agreement (the agreement establishing the WTO). Unfortunately, a friend of mine has borrowed the book in which this is discussed, so the details are not at my fingertips. (the book, by the way is The Case Against the Global Economy by Jerry Mander (ed.).) My point is that it is not as clear cut as it seems, in a pragmatic sense.
I should point out that some companies give stock to their employees as bonuses or incentives, which is what I was referring to.
I worked at TWA in NY in '92 before they moved corporate to St. Louis, MO. (They awarded all employees stock). They left me high and dry. Was it cheap labor? Consolidation of offices? It’s the same as if they had closed their doors - with one exception: I do own some TWA stock (not that it’s worth much) and the company still exists. Did I have a right to my job before they left? Could I have prevented them from moving because, even though it was in the company’s best interests, it wasn’t in mine?
Point is, relevant to the OP, nothing significant is different thanks to NAFTA, is it? Companies still move away (inter-U.S., or beyond borders), companies still go under, jobs do get lost that way. Are the anti-NAFTA folks upset because NAFTA provided a means for some companies to leave faster than the employees had planned on? There are no guarantees to work, are there? Montgomery Wards closed after 128 years in business. Thousands of jobs lost. It happens.
- How is this not relevant? matt(as Hamish) raised as criticism of NAFTA the Ethylcase, and used it to assert that NAFTA is anti-democratic. I responded that it was democratic. The appropriate response to any action by a democratically-elected government that is not approved by the voters is the same – throw the bastards out, and rescind the action. Canada has had elections since the enactment of NAFTA - thus the voters had the opportunity to repudiate NAFTA. They didn’t.
- How is a government signing away (part) of its sovereignity a stupid move? Governments do it all the time – they’re called treaties. America gave up its part of its sovereignity, to act as it chooses in its national defense, when it ratified the ABM, SALT, SALT II, and START treaties. Under the NATO pact, the U.S. is obliged to defend western Europe, whether it particularly wants to or not. NAFTA is the same - the U.S., Mexico, and Canada willingly gave up parts of their sovereignity because they all came to the conclusion that the benefits they would receive outweighed the losses.
Sua
On a less heady, more practical note, only one US senator has acknowledged he read the text of the Uruguay Round GATT agreement (the agreement establishing the WTO). Unfortunately, a friend of mine has borrowed the book in which this is discussed, so the details are not at my fingertips. (the book, by the way is The Case Against the Global Economy by Jerry Mander (ed.).) My point is that it is not as clear cut as it seems, in a pragmatic sense. **
[/QUOTE]
- How is this not relevant? matt(as Hamish) raised as criticism of NAFTA the Ethylcase, and used it to assert that NAFTA is anti-democratic. I responded that it was democratic. The appropriate response to any action by a democratically-elected government that is not approved by the voters is the same – throw the bastards out, and rescind the action. Canada has had elections since the enactment of NAFTA - thus the voters had the opportunity to repudiate NAFTA. They didn’t.
- How is a government signing away (part) of its sovereignity a stupid move? Governments do it all the time – they’re called treaties. America gave up its part of its sovereignity, to act as it chooses in its national defense, when it ratified the ABM, SALT, SALT II, and START treaties. Under the NATO pact, the U.S. is obliged to defend western Europe, whether it particularly wants to or not. NAFTA is the same - the U.S., Mexico, and Canada willingly gave up parts of their sovereignity because they all came to the conclusion that the benefits they would receive outweighed the losses.
I take it your point is that we can’t claim NAFTA is democratic, because the legislators didn’t know what they were voting for? Well, democracy is ugly. Probably half (or more) of the people vote for someone because he/she has a cute smile. Doesn’t make it less democratic.
Sua
When Jean Chrétien’s government was first elected, they pledged to get rid of NAFTA. They didn’t.
You cannot compare military treaties to trade agreements. They are not even remotely close to being the same thing. Military treaties are undertaken to prevent something from happening that may have never happened anyway, in this case, nuclear war. A military treaty rarely has any direct effect on the life or well-being of individual citizens, unless it is ending a conflict. Furthermore, a treaty almost never binds a government to immediate action. Sure, the U.S. has agreed to defend Europe, but only if it is attacked. Trade agreements, on the other hand, go into effect immediately, involve direct and specific action by the government, and can have calmitous effects on individual citizens.
Some people have mentioned that there is no “right” to a job. I have never personally claimed that there is such a right. One right I do claim though is the right to pursuit of happiness. (See the U.S. Declaration of Independence) How can I be happy when my job can be taken from me at any time through no fault of my own, with no hope of redress or compensation? (Wasn’t it working conditions that amounted to this that led to the formation of unions in the 1800’s in the first place?) And when chances to get another job that I have skills for (whatever those skills may be) are shrinking? I’m not making an argument for government protection of industry, I’m saying that the government should not be busily engaged in helping to make its constituents poorer.
I’m curious, matt. How did your government justify this? What was the public’s response? In the U.S. we’re pretty much out of luck-both major parties are getting their palms well-greased by the people who benefit from NAFTA. There isn’t even a pretense of opposition to it among people with real power.
I’m sorry, that part on the Canadian government was posted by matt_mcl
Sovereignty aside, for a moment, my point was and is that the argument you give is nonsensical. You say the agreement is democratic because it has passed a democratic body. We are, however, debating whether this passage was a wise move. The argument that Nafta passed, and is therefore democratic, and therefore a wise move, is not a sound one. Maybe I misuderstand.
Now on the arcane and obscure:
Sovereignty, in the classic international relations definition, can not be divide between two powers. Sovereignty is defined as the supreme authority. Either you are supreme (within certain bounds) or you are not
What I gather you are talking about is power, not sovereignty. A nation does give up power in a treaty (necessarily), but generally does not give up it’s sovereignty. So to ask if Nafta undercuts sovereignty is to ask whether it establishes a power that is greater than the nation itself.
Moving on the question of whether jobs are a right…
I’m no expert, but the international recognition of the right to work (not the Republican plan, but the real right) is well established.
Justify not getting rid of NAFTA? They didn’t. They just started acting like NAFTA was the best thing since sliced bread and hoped nobody would notice. Sadly, it worked.