From: hooker@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu (Bob Hooker)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.war
Subject: Re: NAFTA (was Re: Bush's position on Bosnia)
Date: 14 Aug 92 17:53:27 GMT
Article-I.D.: ils.1992Aug14.175327.13149
Organization: ILS

In article <1992Aug13.214828.6067@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>,
golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
> 
> In article <1992Aug13.182903.27960@ils.nwu.edu> hooker@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu (Bob Hooker) writes:
> >In article <1992Aug12.234241.23559@oakhill.sps.mot.com>,
> >pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
> 
> >> NAFTA will be good for all parties concerned.
> >
> >Northern Telecom,  a Canadian comapny which has many factories in the
> >United States has closed several recently,  because they can now more
> >easily do business with the United States from Canada,  while paying
> >working less.  
> >
> 
> Northern Telecom actually has expanded much more in the US and abroad
> than in Canada since the FTA as it becomes one of Canada's few
> successful global high tech companies.  It's CEO is actually now
> an American who spends most of his time in Northern Telecoms'
> Washington, DC office (actually it might be No. Virginia).

Well,  All I have been able to read in Business Journals are stats that
talk about how great Northern Telecom is,  Bussiness Week basically bent
down and worshiped the CEO.

When I talk to people who have worked at plants in Northern Illinois I hear
a differnet story.  NT has closed a several plants that is bought in the
United States before FTA,  moving the production operations to Canada. 
Amoung workers the company has a reputation as a corporate pirot,  buying
up plants with no desire to keep them in operation.

These are the realities of Free Trade for "unskilled workers".


> 
> If you think you have it bad...do you know how many Canadians are
> in a similar boat because US companies because of the FTA rationalized
> taking their Canadian production back home...our unemployment rate
> is 11.5% in Canada...if we had a 7.5% unemployment rate up here,
> we'd be jumping for joy.  The US-Canada FTA caused much more 
> restructuring and dislocation in Canada than it did in the US.
> Nevertheless, it was necessary and I basically support the process.

My point was simple;  Free Trade will cause some people pain.  It may be
necessary, but it will still cause pain.  The discussion of free trade
should include an awareness of this pain.  Word like dislocation and
restructuring are a trjic kind of double speak,  they remove the speaker
from the lives of the people being effected in the negative.  

> 
> And furthermore, the US government basically executed a double-cross,
> when they were negotiating the FTA, they did not announce their
> intention for a future free trade agreement with Mexico, and their
> intention to hub-and-spoke trade in the Americas, and thus Americans
> were able to obtain concessions in the first FTA which they wouldn't
> have gotten if their true intentions were known, and more concessions
> in the second round from Canada, because Canada really could not allow
> a hemispheric hub-and-spoke managed trade agreement with the US at
> the hub.  As a result, in NAFTA, the US went after a lot of Canadian
> industries that were more successful because of the original FTA, and
> Canada had to accept greater American protectionism in certain
> sectors like textiles and clothing for example.         
>
How can an agreement which gives preference to one side be called free
trade?

 
> Nevertheless, barring something unforseen in the legal text, I basically
> supported the US-Canada FTA, and I will support NAFTA.     
> 
> Globalization is a reality...freer trade is basically a good thing...
> and thus I support NAFTA and GATT.

That is a more rational statement then just free trade is good for all
parties.  I'm glad to see that you are aware of negative effects that will
certainly happen.  Please remember in this discussion that the life long
dreams of human being may be shattered.  Economic policy effects real human
beings and not just numbers.  For example, if this had happened 8 years ago
I may not have been able to finish college.  

The reason that NAFTA may be a political disaster in the states is that
politicans have looked at the big picture through economic models and don't
see the real pain that this will cause workers who lose their jobs. 
Economists and Politicans have fairly secure futures and when they say that
a treaty will cause soem dislocation it rings hollow to people who might
not be able to keep their homes.

Bush has made zero effort to sell NAFTA to the American people,  next to
nobody understands what its benefits might be,  the US is facing a serious
period of restructuring which will in the short run hurt alot of people as
it makes other rich.  Personally I stand to gain alot from NAFTA and Free
Trade in general, being in a field where the US has a vast competetive
advantage.  But alot of people stand to lose, they don't understand why
they have to lose and they amay demand more trade restrictions in the
future.

Unless NAFTA supporters can get the vision and compassion to sell this to
the nation,  it might not even pass Congress this winter.