• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

OCM-On CAFTA-DR

Help Support Ranchers.net:

A

Anonymous

Guest
Today 7/27/2005 4:33:00 PM


OCM: CAFTA-DR Harms Farmers and Ranchers in Countries Rich and Poor



Proponents of CAFTA-DR (Central American Free Trade Agreement-Dominican Republic) claim farmers and ranchers in the United States and the CAFTA countries will benefit. (The other CAFTA countries are Honduras, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala, Costa Rica, and the Dominican Republic). They assert, unconvincingly, the agricultural sector will somehow benefit as a whole. We must promote democracy and economic opportunity in the CAFTA countries, they say. But CAFTA supporters ignore the agreement’s affect on independent producers, the entrepreneurial backbone of agriculture in all the countries. U.S. producers do not want it. Other CAFTA country producers do not want it.



I am an independent cattle producer in Washington state. I invest my money, undertake risk, and work hard to be the Rational Economic Man the economists say I should be. I am not ignorant. Past experience shows these trade agreement promises are empty.



I heard the same rhetoric when the NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) agreement was debated over 10 years ago. NAFTA passed. We all see the outcome first hand. There was no correlation between promises and fulfillment. Lessons have apparently not been learned.



Mexican citizens were promised increased living standards, more employment. Mexican farmers were promised higher incomes. Mexican agriculture shifted drastically from independent entrepreneurs to corporate controlled agriculture. The number of total farmers fell drastically, giving way to a higher unemployment rate and a lowered standard of living. About 1.4 million Mexican producers have lost their jobs since the signing of NAFTA.



Increased democracy and economic opportunity has not resulted. The rural Mexican poverty level increase has been staggering. The situation has truly become one in which the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Cargill has certainly benefited. The large multi-national corporations have taken over and left the Mexican farmer to starve.



A recent analysis found this:

“Since 2002, Mexican farmers have been clear about the situation and have insisted that they ‘cannot take anymore.’ There was a protest march involving more than 100,000 people on January 21, 2003 that culminated at Mexico City’s central plaza.1”



Mexican farmers have not been alone in these NAFTA hardships. More than 200,000 United States production agriculture jobs have also been lost. American producers have seen import levels rise while competition and price for domestic products plummeted. CAFTA facilitates Tyson and Cargill efforts to procure “Anywhere Pork,” “Anywhere Beef,” “Anywhere Vegetables” while USDA and Congress deny our producers and consumers COOL (Country of Origin Labeling). We are prohibited from differentiating our product with our high regulatory and quality standards. Consumer knowledge as to where their food comes from is prevented.



Some United States producers believed the NAFTA promises, despite the lack of data. Now CAFTA is at our doorstep and we have experienced the effects of a poorly written Free Trade Agreement – NAFTA – which has outsourced our sovereignty, outsourced our agriculture, and outsourced our manufacturing.



Now is the time to decide whether we would like to continue down this road of trade liberalization, a higher trade deficit, lower prices for agricultural products, and a continued loss of sovereignty and independent production, or call our representatives and get CAFTA-DR voted down. Central American farmers do not want the agreement because they have seen what it has done to Mexico.



Call your Representative today, because they will probably vote tonight. Tell them you oppose CAFTA and ask these three questions.

Name a domestic production industry that has benefited from free trade.



Is there any historical evidence that this will bolster the economy or democracy of any country involved?



What is your plan when we have outsourced American agriculture?



Our Founding Fathers and soldiers fought for our democracy and our liberty. Our duty is to exercise the rights they died for. Call your Congressman today.



1 Schwentesius Rinderman, “NAFTA’s Impact on Mexican Agriculture” (June 2003).
 

Murgen

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
2,108
Reaction score
0
Location
Ontario
Yada yada yada, free trade bad, lost opportunities and restricted trade good!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mexican citizens were promised increased living standards, more employment. Mexican farmers were promised higher incomes. Mexican agriculture shifted drastically from independent entrepreneurs to corporate controlled agriculture. The number of total farmers fell drastically, giving way to a higher unemployment rate and a lowered standard of living. About 1.4 million Mexican producers have lost their jobs since the signing of NAFTA.



Increased democracy and economic opportunity has not resulted. The rural Mexican poverty level increase has been staggering. The situation has truly become one in which the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Cargill has certainly benefited. The large multi-national corporations have taken over and left the Mexican farmer to starve.


Just listen to these damn hypocrites.

You know the import blamers are grasping for straws against free trade agreements when they have to quote NAFTA's negative impact on Mexican producers.

WORSE THAN THAT, WHERE THE HELL WAS THE CONCERN FOR THE WELFARE OF CANADIAN PRODUCERS WHEN YOU SLAMMED THEIR DOOR SHUT?????

I have never seen such blatant hypocrisy!

Reading crap like this just makes me want to puke.

The saddest part is that Leo, Bullard, Callicrate, and the rest of the blamers can recite this hypocrisy with a straight face.

It's almost hard for me to believe but I have heard it and seen it so many times.



~SH~
 

pointrider

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 20, 2005
Messages
218
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
One theme that I read about quite often when reading about trade agreements and free trade is the elimination of agricultural subsidies. I know that a lot of people are putting pressure on our own government to end the subsidies in addition to the trade agreement folks.

Maybe what "W" has needed is a good "politically correct excuse" to end subsidies which, in their opinion, might help to balance the budget or at least reduce the deficit. And maybe, just maybe, a free trade agreement with its requirements would provide that excuse. What do you think? A lot of things are done for reasons that may not be too obvious in addition to the ones that are.

I believe that agricultural subsidies are going to go away, and producers (and countries) are going to have to compete on a more level playing field. Are you ready if that happens? How would you compete if there were absolutely no subsidies today (such as corn - which would probably increase the cost of feeding cattle)? Broilers et al would also be affected in this country, but what about the countries that don't have so many subsidies now?

The U.S. is still a great country. I believe we can compete. Like Winston Churchill said re WWII, "We must fight, we must endure and we must win. Otherwise, there is no survival."
 

Latest posts

Top