Tough laws on illegal aliens seem to be working

Platapus · 08-03-08, 12:49 PM

Depends on how each side spun the propaganda.

Concerning NAFTA and other international trade agreements it is important to understand what the goal is.

1. A more favourable trade environment solely for the United States
2. A more equal trade environment for all the signatories.

It should be clear that the two are not even remotely the same.

The very concept of free trade means that some will win and some will lose. It is great when free trade operates in your favour. It sucks when it does not. But for every loser there is a winner or winners.

People need to understand that the United States won't always be the winner in such agreements.

So if the objective is that the environment should be favourable solely to the United States then the last thing we want is any type of free trade agreement. We want a restricted trade agreement with tariffs and other such controls.

Of course getting another country to sign such a one sided trade agreement these days might be a bit tough.

NAFTA was never intended to be solely good for the United States.

Just to give you an example of how public opinion can be illogical. Consider this

"Despite their support for NAFTA, the publics in Canada and Mexico have tended to see their own country as the loser in NAFTA, and to see the United States, their largest trading partner, as the winner, while the U.S. public has viewed Mexico as the winner and has been narrowly divided about whether the United States is a winner or loser in NAFTA."
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pi...nt=161&lb=brla

Canadian citizens think that Canada is losing and the US is winning in NAFTA
Mexican citizens think that Mexico is losing and the US is winning in NAFTA
American citizens think that the US is losing and that Mexico and Canada are winning in NAFTA.

An interesting state to be in. Logically I would imagine that all three cancel each other out and that all three countries are equally hurt and benefited from NAFTA.

Like in any capitalistic system. What is good for the consumers may often be bad for the producers. Our citizen consumers benefit from NAFTA while our citizen producers don't.

How important is this is dependent on whether you are a consumer or a producer.

If you are a consumer and you have strong feelings against free trade, then use your discretion incumbent as a consumer and only buy products made in the USA.

You will pay more and may not have the quality or the selection, but that is the risk you take if you are against free trade. In essence, vote for or against NAFTA with your wallet. If enough citizens do not support NAFTA through their buying habits then NAFTA will start to fail.

The power rests with the consumer. Don't blame the government if you are buying stuff made in Canada or Mexico just because it is cheaper.

08-03-08, 12:49 PM	#19
Platapus Fleet Admiral Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 19,379 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 0	Depends on how each side spun the propaganda. Concerning NAFTA and other international trade agreements it is important to understand what the goal is. 1. A more favourable trade environment solely for the United States 2. A more equal trade environment for all the signatories. It should be clear that the two are not even remotely the same. The very concept of free trade means that some will win and some will lose. It is great when free trade operates in your favour. It sucks when it does not. But for every loser there is a winner or winners. People need to understand that the United States won't always be the winner in such agreements. So if the objective is that the environment should be favourable solely to the United States then the last thing we want is any type of free trade agreement. We want a restricted trade agreement with tariffs and other such controls. Of course getting another country to sign such a one sided trade agreement these days might be a bit tough. NAFTA was never intended to be solely good for the United States. Just to give you an example of how public opinion can be illogical. Consider this "Despite their support for NAFTA, the publics in Canada and Mexico have tended to see their own country as the loser in NAFTA, and to see the United States, their largest trading partner, as the winner, while the U.S. public has viewed Mexico as the winner and has been narrowly divided about whether the United States is a winner or loser in NAFTA." http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pi...nt=161&lb=brla Canadian citizens think that Canada is losing and the US is winning in NAFTA Mexican citizens think that Mexico is losing and the US is winning in NAFTA American citizens think that the US is losing and that Mexico and Canada are winning in NAFTA. An interesting state to be in. Logically I would imagine that all three cancel each other out and that all three countries are equally hurt and benefited from NAFTA. Like in any capitalistic system. What is good for the consumers may often be bad for the producers. Our citizen consumers benefit from NAFTA while our citizen producers don't. How important is this is dependent on whether you are a consumer or a producer. If you are a consumer and you have strong feelings against free trade, then use your discretion incumbent as a consumer and only buy products made in the USA. You will pay more and may not have the quality or the selection, but that is the risk you take if you are against free trade. In essence, vote for or against NAFTA with your wallet. If enough citizens do not support NAFTA through their buying habits then NAFTA will start to fail. The power rests with the consumer. Don't blame the government if you are buying stuff made in Canada or Mexico just because it is cheaper. __________________ abusus non tollit usum - A right should NOT be withheld from people on the basis that some tend to abuse that right.