"Big Ears"

[agman]

[
OK,ILL take your word for it ,you just stated nafta created 21 million jobs,how many would have been created without nafta 41 million? If IM understanding you right you are saying 14500 cattle men are wrong and you and the cafta advocates are right,now all you have to do is convince congress.............good luck

Again you miss the point. Without NAFTA we may have only created 15.0 million jobs. Please try to think beyond point A.

 

[don]

ooooooldtimer: Should we be the welfare agency of the world?

so paying sweatshop wages to make nike shoes is what you call being the welfare agency of the world? ot wake up and read the paper; american corporations invest offshore to make money. they don't go there to make a donation. sounds like you want to be a welfare recipient by holding american consumers hostage to your product.

 

[agman]

The free trade deals sound bad but human nature is to be GREEDY these 3rd world countries arent going to remain that way.They will want Big profits as all of us.

You are absolutely right Denny. By raising their standard of living we also raise ours. I know of no case history to suggest otherwise. However, history is replete with failed attempts at protectionism. Protectionism is for the demagogues, such as R-Calf and some politicians, free trade is for progress and prosperity. Who is willing to bet against centuries of emperical evidence in support of free trade? Only a real fool would encourage or advocate protectionism.

 

[HAY MAKER]

The free trade deals sound bad but human nature is to be GREEDY these 3rd world countries arent going to remain that way.They will want Big profits as all of us.

You are absolutely right Denny. By raising their standard of living we also raise ours. I know of no case history to suggest otherwise. However, history is replete with failed attempts at protectionism. Protectionism is for the demagogues, such as R-Calf and some politicians, free trade is for progress and prosperity. Who is willing to bet against centuries of emperical evidence in support of free trade? Only a real fool would encourage or advocate protectionism.

IS CAFTA GOOD FOR THE NORTH AMERICA CATTLE MAN ?
YES
42% [ 11 ]
NO
57% [ 15 ]

Total Votes : 26


Author Message
HAY MAKER
Member



Joined: 13 Feb 2005
Posts: 553
Location: TEXAS HILL COUNTRY
Posted: Sun Apr 24, 2005 10:05 pm Post subject: CAFTA?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How many of you cattle men and women AMERICAN & CANADIAN,believe that CAFTA is a good deal for us?..............good luck



_________________
CATTLE BOUGHT RIGHT ARE HALF SOLD

See agman close .......BUT NO CIGAR.............good luck ps I suspect congress to vote along these same lines.

 

[agman]

NAFTA 10 Years After

By John Marsh

Jan 1, 2004 12:00 PM
Nearly 10 years have passed since the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was passed in 1994. Considerable debate has ensued concerning NAFTA's impacts on U.S. beef producers in terms of cattle prices received, fair trade practices, and animal health risks.


Respnse....This is an excellent piece of work and is consistent with superb work completed previoulsy by DR Peel at Oklahoma State. However, both analyzes are over looking two very critical aspect in examining the fairness of trade? Can you tell me what it they are? This is especially true of our trade with Canada.

 

[HAY MAKER]

The free trade deals sound bad but human nature is to be GREEDY these 3rd world countries arent going to remain that way.They will want Big profits as all of us.

You are absolutely right Denny. By raising their standard of living we also raise ours. I know of no case history to suggest otherwise. However, history is replete with failed attempts at protectionism. Protectionism is for the demagogues, such as R-Calf and some politicians, free trade is for progress and prosperity. Who is willing to bet against centuries of emperical evidence in support of free trade? Only a real fool would encourage or advocate protectionism.

IS CAFTA GOOD FOR THE NORTH AMERICA CATTLE MAN ?
YES
42% [ 11 ]
NO
57% [ 15 ]

Total Votes : 26


Author Message
HAY MAKER
Member



Joined: 13 Feb 2005
Posts: 553
Location: TEXAS HILL COUNTRY
Posted: Sun Apr 24, 2005 10:05 pm Post subject: CAFTA?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How many of you cattle men and women AMERICAN & CANADIAN,believe that CAFTA is a good deal for us?..............good luck



_________________
CATTLE BOUGHT RIGHT ARE HALF SOLD

See agman close .......BUT NO CIGAR.............good luck ps I suspect congress to vote along these same lines.

*

 

[Anonymous]

agman: "However, both analyzes are over looking two very critical aspect in examining the fairness of trade? Can you tell me what it they are? This is especially true of our trade with Canada."

Adding value to Canadian beef by the U.S. shipping it to Japan?


~SH~

 

[Anonymous]

ooooooldtimer: Should we be the welfare agency of the world?

so paying sweatshop wages to make nike shoes is what you call being the welfare agency of the world? ot wake up and read the paper; american corporations invest offshore to make money. they don't go there to make a donation. sounds like you want to be a welfare recipient by holding american consumers hostage to your product.

doooooooonnnnnnnnnie- We are told by our politicians that these free trade agreements are so we can raise the standards of these countries- which will allow them to buy more....So we go into their countries and industrialize them to produce a cheap product that at the same time takes away US jobs, business's and income ......

Kind of reminds me of the Canadian cattle industry that rides on the back of the US cattle and beef industry and could not sell their product unless it was USA processed and passed off as a US product-- the same Canadian industry that welcomed the US bucks to build their packing industry but then discriminated against American ranchers that wanted to sell cattle in Canada and later investors that bought cattle on speculation---all a one way street----Canadian Welfare....

When the CAFTA's, AFTA'S and FTOA's come to be- I'll sell out for big bucks to the big money hunting interests for a mill $ or two-- but what will the Canadians do to compete with the $2 labor and all the bucks the multinationals are putting into South America? Especially since no one will know if its Canadian beef, South American or contraband like what Tam raises, since Canada is afraid to label its beef... Oh I forgot- the packers will take care of you (like they have for the last two years) :wink: - Bend over and smile :lol:

 

[don]

ot: passed off as a US product

it ain't passed off as a us product. the stamp says it's usda inspected. canadian producers would gladly have it id'd as a canadian product if you r-calfers could ever get mcool instituted. how's it coming? how's your battle with the big packers? doesn't seem like your esteemed leaders are making big headway. can't you get cebull to do something about those two issues?

 

[Anonymous]

ot: passed off as a US product

it ain't passed off as a us product. the stamp says it's usda inspected. canadian producers would gladly have it id'd as a canadian product if you r-calfers could ever get mcool instituted. how's it coming? how's your battle with the big packers? doesn't seem like your esteemed leaders are making big headway. can't you get cebull to do something about those two issues?

Kind of tough to fight the big packers alone when the Canadians are on their knees kissing their rears all the time--Take any price they give them and thank them at the same time- so they can send it south and cut the prices paid to the US cattleman...Back when the hearings and testimony was being given about M-COOL- I don't remember one Canadian that supported it-- None were proud enough of their product to have it labeled-all were scared to stand on their own two feet.....Even ol Two country Tam has screamed about it being a WTO violation (another run behind the skirts of the One World Order group)....Another US Welfare State.......

 

[mrj]

The free trade deals sound bad but And this joke that NCBA and the packers push about all this high quality beef going to meet the tourist demand--what a JOKE-- How many people do you know that vacation in Honduras or Guatemala? :???:

OT, considering all the people in the USA, what percentage of that number do you know?

Just because you do not know anyone who vacations in Honduras or Guatamala does not mean that no one from the USA vacations in those countries or in El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua or the Dominican Republic. I think maybe I do know someone who has been to Costa Rica lately, but will verify before I say it really loudly! My son-in-law is going to Honduras this summer with a large group from a Lutheran church. So it obviously is not terribly rare if I know of a several people traveling there. I'm no world traveler who knows tons of people who do lots of offshore traveling, by any means.

Answer this, please. Is it better or worse for US cattle producers to have those countries who pay no tariff on beef they ship to the USA while we have to pay high tariffs to ship our beef to them agree to eliminate the tariffs we pay them?

BTW, the USA currently exports about $2.6million worth of beef to Costa Rica, the wealthiest of those CAFTA nations, and it appears that will increase as well as having the tariffs reduced to nothing over the next ten years, with a potential for much more growth in that market as tourism rises.

Dominican Republic is the second wealthiest of the CAFTA nations, and they do not export beef, and has potential as a market for our beef.

Next is El Salvador. There is a significant Salvadoran population in the USA which funnels their US earned dollars back into El Salvador, which may well be a key to driving increased beef consumption in that nation. They have exported very little to no beef in recent years. The US currently exports about a quarter million dollars worth of beef annually to El Salvador and dropping the 30% tariff will most likely add to that amount.

Guatemala is working to grow their tourist industry and that will be a growing market for our higher quality beef. They import a significan t amount of beef variety meats from the USA. Naturally, dropping the tariffs will probably increase the amount.

The people of Honduras are already bigger beef eaters than people in Guatemala or El Salvador, and their domestic beef production has declined in recent years. Honduras already is a good customer for US variety meats, and increased population projections and cutting tariffs make that an opportunity for a growth market for US beef.

Nicaragua is limited by its poor economy, but the amount of variety meats they import form the US is on the rise, as is their population growth. There is tremendous potential for growth if they can get their economics in order.

Oldtimer, it must be frustrating for you that facts don't support the points you want to make re. CAFTA.

MRJ

 

[Anonymous]

MRJ- We could probably quadruple the amount of beef shipped to central America and it would be less than what we sell in NYC-- but what CAFTA does do is open up all of South America to ship beef and grain products to North America-- and that is what will come back to haunt us.....

NAFTA badly hurt or killed many Montana industries- lumber, oil, mining, cattle-- now with the currently worded CAFTA we will lose one of the largest Yellowstone Valley industries we have left- sugar beets....

And I'm sorry MRJ- I haven't seen Central America much advertised as a holiday spot-- only ones I knew going there were a couple of retired military guys looking for an affordable place to retire on their pensions where the women and whiskey were both cheap.........

 

[Silver]

ot: passed off as a US product

it ain't passed off as a us product. the stamp says it's usda inspected. canadian producers would gladly have it id'd as a canadian product if you r-calfers could ever get mcool instituted. how's it coming? how's your battle with the big packers? doesn't seem like your esteemed leaders are making big headway. can't you get cebull to do something about those two issues?

Kind of tough to fight the big packers alone when the Canadians are on their knees kissing their rears all the time--Take any price they give them and thank them at the same time- so they can send it south and cut the prices paid to the US cattleman...Back when the hearings and testimony was being given about M-COOL- I don't remember one Canadian that supported it-- None were proud enough of their product to have it labeled-all were scared to stand on their own two feet.....Even ol Two country Tam has screamed about it being a WTO violation (another run behind the skirts of the One World Order group)....Another US Welfare State.......

Yup OT... You better bomb us. I can't believe you feel so threatened by Canada. You know you have a ok little country down there, why don't you try to make it better by doing something positive, for yourself, rather than whimpering non stop about how evil Canadians are out to get you. Your one track pathetic ramblings show a level of ignorance exceeded only by your lack of insight into basic economics and politics.
If you don't like how your country is being manhandled by Canada, run for office and do something about it. Just try to remember that the US never signed an agreement with Canada that they didn't feel would be of a direct benefit to themselves, and therefore translate into votes.
Why is it every time any issue comes up you feel the only suitable solution lies in bashing Canada? You make me ill, Sport.

 

[Tom S]

Wednesday, May 11 2005
On CAFTA and Free Trade Idolatry
Darrell Dow @ 3:41 pm
Real wages are falling at their fastest rate in 14 years. What do the free traders say? The evangelists of open markets, barking like Pentecostals with hands raised, shout "Pass CAFTA."

Now I see that the Bushies have enlisted Condi "Mushroom Cloud" Rice and Donald "I didn't do it, no one saw me do it, you can't prove anything" Rumsfeld into the fray to make sure wavering members of Congress know that a vote against CAFTA is a vote for Bin Laden. John Murphy, mouthpiece for Latin American interests at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said, "If Congress defeats CAFTA that will be seen as a kick in the teeth to Latin America. And that will harm not just trade but anti-terrorist and anti-narcotic efforts."

Coupled with that sound strategic argument, Senator John "Dr. Strangelove" McCain mused that CAFTA was an important part of a long-term strategy to invigorate the economies of Latin America. "CAFTA is vital to the Central American economy, which is in trouble,'' said the senator and presidential wannabe. During the time McCain uttered this quotation, 9 illegal aliens entered his home state. However, the gentleman from the great state of Arizona appears more interested in denouncing the Minutemen and playing to Eastern Liberals than protecting the sovereignty of the nation from marauding invaders.

Unfortunately, free-trade myopia isn't merely a Republican affliction. Former Clinton NSC flunky Robert Feinburg, former Secretary of State Warren Christopher, Bubba's boyhood chum Thomas McLarty, and President Jimmy Carter's trade representative Robert Strauss also sent a letter to Congress on April 20 urging passage of CAFTA.

Attempting to make the case that CAFTA is actually good for the U.S., an idea that doesn't even strike Senator McCain or Clintonian diplomats, the Chamber of Commerce went to bat for CAFTA predicting that American sales to the region could expand by more than $3 billion in the first year once CAFTA tariff limits take effect, and the American Farm Bureau estimates agriculture exports growing $1.5 billion a year.

Haven't we heard this before?

Prior the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Americans were assured that our trade deficits with Mexico would vanish, living conditions would improve south of the border, and that as a result, the mass influx of poor Mexicans into American cities would cease.

How are we doing so far? Pat Buchanan assesses the damage:

In 1993, the NAFTA debate gripped the country. Clinton had the backing of the political establishment, the Heritage Foundation, AEI, Brookings, National Review, New Republic, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Chamber of Commerce, Business Roundtable. Perot, Buchanan, Nader, and the AFL-CIO were opposed, as were the people. But that did not matter. Before the vote, the bazaar opened, and Congressmen began selling votes to Clinton for whatever they could get. NAFTA won.

Ten years later, returns are in. We were told our trade surplus with Mexico would grow, that NAFTA would create jobs here, that the rising wages in Mexico would end the invasion of illegal aliens.

But, the year after NAFTA passed, Mexico devalued the peso, and the United States began to run a string of trade deficits that has reached $40 billion a year. Drug cartels in South America shifted operations to Mexico. U.S. exports to Mexico are up, but it is not finished goods we send south but parts to be assembled—and factories and jobs as owners shutter plants north of the Rio Grande in search of wages that are 10 to 20 percent of what they have to pay in the United States.

By 2000, a million Mexicans were working in maquiladora plants south of the border at jobs once held by Americans. But now, the creative destruction of globalization has come to Mexico. Factories there are being shut down and moved to America's new enterprise zone, China.

And the Mexican people? Half of the 100 million are still mired in poverty. Tens of millions are unemployed or underemployed. Real wages are below what they were in 1993. And the migration north continues as 1.5 million are caught each year breaking into the United States. Of those who make it, one-third head for California where their claims on welfare, Medicaid, schools, and prisons have tipped the state toward bankruptcy as the taxpayers have begun a great exodus to Nevada, Idaho, and Colorado.

NAFTA has helped to convert California into Mexifornia and the Golden State into a Third-World country. Ten years after its passage, Mexico's leading export continues to be Mexicans.

So the results are in. Since NAFTA was signed, exports have increased a little while manufacturing jobs have disappeared to the tune of nearly 3 million jobs and the trade deficit has multiplied by a factor of 10. Meanwhile, both legal and illegal immigration have skyrocketed.

In a previous lifetime, I hoped to become an economist, and was particularly influenced by the Misesian wing of the Austrian School. Consequently, there was a time when I was an ideological free trader.

At the end of the day, however, I concluded that the radical individualism at the heart of classical liberalism and contemporary libertarianism was incompatible with Christianity. I am neither a methodological individualist nor a Randian subjectivist, but a Christian covenentalist. Ultimately, free trade is the economic component of the liberal ideology. At the heart of free-trade doctrine is the notion that all things work together for the good of those who eliminate tariffs. Seriously, the apoplexy with which libertarians greeted Pat Buchanan's call for relatively minor tariffs should is reason to question their rationality.

During the debate over NAFTA, Jack Kemp debated Buchanan on the merits of the pending trade deal. At one point, Kemp asked Buchanan whether he would be willing to reciprocate if the Japanese offered to drop all existing tariffs. Buchanan said, quite logically, that one would have to consider all the ramifications to vital American industries before taking such a dramatic step. Kemp was outraged. Apparently, Jack doesn't believe prudence is a conservative virtue.

I would also say that in terms of tax policy, tariffs (taxes on the consumption of foreign goods) are infinitely preferable to taxes on income, property, or inheritance. If I'm a businessman, why should I pony up taxes to pay for roads to transport my goods, a legal system to enforce my contracts, etc., when a foreign firm can import goods to compete against me and be freed from similar costs? In effect, such policies discriminate against domestic producers.

 

[don]

doesn't matter whether you sign or don't sign free trade deals; if you remain high cost producers you'll lose your market because either someone else will produce it or people will change their consumption habits. quit blaming everybody else, the problem's largely right at home. for ot to blame canadian producers for all the problems with concentration of ownership in the american slaughter industry is a joke. we had to quit whining and find marketing alternatives. can't the mighty american free traders and marketing geniuses do it for themselves?

 

[agman]

ooooooldtimer: Should we be the welfare agency of the world?

so paying sweatshop wages to make nike shoes is what you call being the welfare agency of the world? ot wake up and read the paper; american corporations invest offshore to make money. they don't go there to make a donation. sounds like you want to be a welfare recipient by holding american consumers hostage to your product.

doooooooonnnnnnnnnie- We are told by our politicians that these free trade agreements are so we can raise the standards of these countries- which will allow them to buy more....So we go into their countries and industrialize them to produce a cheap product that at the same time takes away US jobs, business's and income ......


Response...OT you could not be more wrong. Show me one shred of empirical evidence to support your warped claims regarding trade. It would be nice to see you wake up to the facts someday instead of this outdated phony rhetoric you spew regarding trade. You are simply dead wrong and fail to even understand the issue. You just fail to see anything beyond the trucks you claim to count. Your total lack of understanding of the broader issues and benefits of international trade is truly astonishing.

 

[Sandhusker]

Thanks for the article, Tom S.

 

[agman]

Wednesday, May 11 2005
On CAFTA and Free Trade Idolatry
Darrell Dow @ 3:41 pm
Real wages are falling at their fastest rate in 14 years. What do the free traders say? The evangelists of open markets, barking like Pentecostals with hands raised, shout "Pass CAFTA."

REspone...Explain what real wages are and what that has to do with CAFTA which is not even implemented yet. What other factors might influence real wages outside the trade arena? Might those other factors be much more relevant to real wage growth than trade agreements? Give it a shot.

As far a Pat Buchanan, he is so far to the right he is much more dangerous than any liberal. I would not put much stock into any of his opinions and/or conclusions.