Frank Gilliland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in part: >>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?)
>That might be a valid argument if not for general provisions already >protecting trademarks, copyrights and intellectual property. But trademark protections don't extend to generic products that are, nevertheless, distinctive, albeit shared by a number of separate business entities. Apparently the Champagne region lost control of the term "champagne". >The CAFTA treaty may be intended to lift economic restrictions but is >full of legal restrictions. And it's my personal opinion that freedom >is inhibited by legal restrictions. I guess it all depends on how you >define 'freedom'. The important thing to realize is the RELATIVITY of freedom -- that there's more free & less free. Even if you have restrictions on increases in freedom, they're still increases in freedom. They're not restrictions on the status quo, which would be reductions in freedom. For example, suppose you were in a jurisdiction tht prohibited possession of dogs. But then the jurisdiction enacted a new law saying you can keep a dog, provided it complies with some long technical description. That's an advance in freedom, because at least SOME dogs will be legal to keep, where NONE >>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. > > >The economic welfare of third-world countries is not the >responsibility of the United States -- it is the responsibility of >their own respective governments. I don't deny that we have a vested >interest in many of these countries, but we have plenty of economic >woes on the home front to take care of before we start exporting more >jobs. > > >>> 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. > > >Actually, our primary industry is agriculture. Second on the list >-used- to be manufacturing, but most of that economy has been >exported. So will much of the service industry under CAFTA. > > >>> 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. > > >That's only an assumption. The facts are that most of these countries >have few laws regulating child labor, workplace conditions and minimum >wages, they are poorly enforced, and there is no incentive in the >treaty to impose our standards on any violators. > > >>> "..... >>> (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. > > >Is that a question or a statement? > > >>> It should now be painfully obvious who will benefit and who will >>> suffer from CAFTA. >> >>It looks like a mixed bag to me-- > > >That's kinda what I meant. > > >>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. > > >It should help the US agriculture industry, but in the long-term you >might start thinking "outsourcing". > > > > > > > > >----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- >http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups >----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- >_______________________________________________ >Libnw mailing list >Libnw@immosys.com >List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw >Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw > _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list Libnw@immosys.com List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
