My comments below, interspersed. Frank Gillard wrote, in part: > Travis Pahl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in > > >On 8/20/05, Lowell C. Savage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Does it always have to be an "all-or-nothing" deal? > >> > >> If it takes a 1000 page document to get freer trade than was had > before, > >> that would be a good thing. Of course one might wish for a one- > sentence > >> deal like "There shall be no import taxes on good from any party to > this > >> agreement nor shall any party to this agreement subsidize their goods > to the > >> detriment of other parties." Of course, then there's the question of > health > >> and safety regulations, import inspections, what constitutes an import > tax > >> and what constitutes a subsidy, and.... > > > >Those 'questions' are not really questions at all. People are fairly > >good at determining what is healthy and safe. Subsidies and import > >taxes are not to hard to define. These 'questions' are really just > >excuses by special interests to get things they want passed. > > > >From Article 3.12: > > "Each Central American Party and the Dominican Republic shall > recognize Bourbon Whiskey and Tennessee Whiskey, which is a straight > Bourbon Whiskey authorized to be produced only in the State of > Tennessee, as distinctive products of the United States. Accordingly, > those Parties shall not permit the sale of any product as Bourbon > Whiskey or Tennessee Whiskey, unless it has been manufactured in the > United States in accordance with the laws and regulations of the > United States governing the manufacture of Bourbon Whiskey and > Tennessee Whiskey."
Oh yeah. Another thing I hadn't thought of to put into such a treaty. Protection of trademarks and copyrights. You probably don't get to produce "Bourbon Whisky" or "Tennessee Whiskey" in California, either. No reason why someone from the Dominican Republic should be able to capitalize on the brand image that folks in Tennessee have built up. (Was there also something in there about Dominican cigars?) > >1000 page documents have never made us freer. > > > http://www.ustr.gov/Trade_Agreements/Bilateral/CAFTA/CAFTA- > DR_Final_Texts/Section_Index.html > > I have read a lot of the text of this treaty. Basically it's a WTO > treaty under GATT that eliminates tariffs and subsidies between member > nations. Good. > However, the bulk of the document (aside from reduction > schedules) consists of restrictions, exceptions and exclusions (as > well as a couple ex-post-facto laws requiring refunds on certain > textile trades dating from 2004). The sheer quantity of the new laws > will make it almost impossible for any business smaller than a large > corporation to fully comply with the treaty, and will deter and/or bar > most small businesses from international trade. Sounds like the usual such treaty. Probably some of the exceptions and exclusions have sunset clauses and some don't. Again, the usual. I suspect that most businesses will be able to either work their way through the few pages relevant to their business or hire the services of an attorney who makes this sort of thing their specialty. The volume isn't good. But that still doesn't tell me whether this has increased or decreased freedom. Since industries tend to become obsolete by new developments, I suspect that as time goes on, the importance of the exceptions and exclusions will fade as the remaining eliminations of tariffs ad subsidies for new industries become dominant. > Conversely, there are far fewer restrictions on international > investment, and the treaty even provides for investment protection by > the government. Good. In some ways this is the most important type of free trade. It creates jobs in other areas of the world and lifts people out of poverty more quickly and certainly than any "aid package" has ever done. > There are even -fewer- restrictions regarding services; in fact, it > goes so far as to -prevent- any such restrictions. No exceptions and exclusions? That's especially good for the US since "services" are the biggest (non-governmental) sector of our economy. > The section on Labor is even smaller; it only -suggests- that each > member country merely "strive" to meet only five poorly defined labor > standards (from Article 16.8): So. While the standard of living for some of these countries does not allow labor standards that we enjoy in the US, when their living standards rise, there are some goals that have been signed up to which will help raise labor standards. > "..... > (a) the right of association; > (b) the right to organize and bargain collectively; > (c) a prohibition on the use of any form of forced or compulsory > labor; > (d) a minimum age for the employment of children and the prohibition > and elimination of the worst forms of child labor; and > (e) acceptable conditions of work with respect to minimum wages, hours > of work, and occupational safety and health. > > For greater certainty, the setting of standards and levels in respect > of minimum wages by each Party shall not be subject to obligations > under this Chapter. Each Party's obligations under this Chapter > pertain to enforcing the level of the general minimum wage established > by that Party. > ....." See above. When a country has a per-capita GDP of less than $20/day ($6,300/year, see: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/dr.html and scroll down to "GDP - per capita:") hitting them with a minimum wage of $5.00/hr ($5.00/hr * 8 hr/day = $40/day) would immediately throw a majority of the labor force out of work. And with those people no longer able to purchase goods and services, a large portion of the remainder goes out of work, too. Of course, then there's the libertarian argument against minimum wages--why should the government interfere with contractual arrangements between consenting adults. > It should now be painfully obvious who will benefit and who will > suffer from CAFTA. It looks like a mixed bag to me--unless you think those labor standards are going to be enforced strictly rather than being "striven" for. I'm afraid you'll have to spell out who you think will benefit and suffer because it isn't obvious to me--never mind "painfully" so. Lowell C. Savage It's the freedom, stupid! Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly. _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
