Trade Agreement. It was a successor agreement to the FTA that the US and
Canada signed about 5 years before NAFTA. What was negotiated was more to
Canada's benefit than to the US's. For instance, on the interstates look at
how many Canadian trucking firms are on US roads - far more than what would
be normally expected. That's an effect of NAFTA.
larry
At 12:37 PM 1/8/2004, you wrote:
>Yuo're speaking from what pespective here, Larry? I'm speaking as a
>person who lives down here in the US South where manufacturing jobs are
>disappearing at an astonishing rate. Just yesterday there was a another
>notice of a plant closing. We've had about 5 democratic presidental
>candidates visit Georgetown, SC, a small city just to the south of Myrtle
>Beach that lost its 40 year old Steel Mill last month. Plants all over NC
>and SC are gone.
>
>While I don't think that manufacturing jobs are the key to a propersous
>future for the US, these are jobs that lower-educated American citizens
>need to stay afloat. I don't believe that everyone is capable of becoming
>educated enough to survive in an information society.
>
>- Matt Small
>
>----- Original Message -----
> From: Larry C. Lyons
> To: CF-Community
> Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 12:16 PM
> Subject: Re: US Deficit a threat to the world economy IMF
>
>
> At 11:28 AM 1/8/2004, you wrote:
> >I will also say that I think that NAFTA (A Clinton and Republican joint
> >effort) is a miserable failure for those people on the low end of the
> >financial spectrum. Ross Perot got it right when he said: "That loud
> >whooshing noise is coming from Mexico sucking up all of our manufacturing
> >jobs."
>
> \NAFTA did show some benefits. look at the employment and economic growth
> figures of Canada. Originally critics accused the current Canadian
> government who signed the agreement with caving into US demands. It would
> appear that the Canadians managed to outfox both Mexico and the US.
>
> larry
>
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
