Propaganda terms like ‘Free trade’, bringing ‘democracy’ to Iraq, ‘Pax Americana’ are all of the same ilk. They mean exactly the opposite of what they seem to mean.
The so-called Free Trade Agreements, such as NAFTA (North America), CAFTA, (Central America), and FTAA (the Americas, specifically South America) have very little to do with free trade. An ‘agreement to eliminate or reduce trade barriers’ may sound like a positive thing. But positive to whom? Who benefits? And are trade barriers actually reduced? What the WTO is doing in reality is raising customs duties on products from third world nations at the same time as they are hugely subsidizing their own industrial agricultural products in order to be able to ‘dump’ these products on the third world countries whom they have deprived of the capacity of feeding themselves. They achieve this by forcing new laws to be applied in those countries, laws that grant new rights to transnational companies at the expense of traditional farming. Privatization of services and national resources, most importantly water (Water Privatization: The World Bank's Latest Market Fantasy, By Maude Barlow and Tony Clarke), deprives numerous third world countries of their self-sufficiency and causes malnutrition and absurdly high death rates, particularly among infants, deaths that could have been largely avoided, had it not been for the obscene greed of the multinational corporations.
Continued at:
http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_20566.shtml
Note: http://www.axisoflogic....
‘Free Trade’ Agreements - Hypocrisy And Illusion
Posted on Saturday, January 07 at 11:12 by SpankyContributed By
Topic
Article Rating
(0 votes)
Options
Stumble It!Comments
view comments in forum
Page 1 2
<br />
Oh, horseshit.<br />
<br />
The population explosion in third world countries is why these people are starving.<br />
<br />
This is because the numbers of people in an area exceed the available resources and the capacity of the environment to sustain human activities; that is, to the area's carrying capacity. <br />
<br />
When is an area overpopulated? When its population can't be maintained without rapidly depleting nonrenewable resources (or converting renewable resources into nonrenewable ones) and without degrading the capacity of the environment to support the population. In short, if the long-term carrying capacity of an area is clearly being degraded by its current human occupants, that area is overpopulated<br />
<br />
They quite literally cannot feed themselves. The fact that their governments are at least as corrupt as Canada's doesn't help anything, either.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.overpopulation.com">http://www.overpopulation.com</a><br />
<a href="http://dieoff.org/">http://dieoff.org/</a><br />
<br />
<br />
By Bob Chapman
When Presidents Bush and Fox and Martin had their secret meeting in Crawford, TX in March 2005 in secret, they laid out the amalgamation of Canada, US and Mexico that will be followed by the absorption of the CAFTA countries forming a single state of North America. The agreement was signed without the consent of the government and the peoples of these three countries. In fact, 99% of them do not know such a secret agreement exists.
Among elitists these regulations, not exposed to Congress or the people, are called a tri-national merger or NAFTA Plus or the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America. Your national media did not tell you about this did they? Congresses are not rubber stamping global, expansionist goals so the illuminists are using regulations and executive decrees and orders to circumvent elected representatives and the people. The legwork is being done by NGOs (non-Governmental Organizations) via funding from foundations and think tanks controlled and used as conduits for elitists goals.
In the process the US will be the big winner with cheap labor, control of commodities and monopolies. We can promise you the expansion of globalization has nothing to do with security. The US is not only after Canada's oil, gas and minerals, but also its water. The transnational corporations existing in Canada and Mexico would have unrestricted access to the US market. The big winners are international conglomerates and a government bent on destroying our sovereignty and safety. In the final analysis the joining will not be equal.
Needless to say our media tells us nothing negative about NAFTA. We only hear the positive propaganda. The US was inundated by illegal aliens and our balance of trade deficit with Mexico and Canada has skyrocketed. The biggest losers are the Mexicans, particularly the poor, uneducated and farmers. They face greater unemployment and poverty and inequality. The rich in Mexico got richer. Few jobs in 11 years have been created in Mexico. You either become an illegal alien, join the black economy or become a criminal. It is amazing how little crime there is in Mexico considering the circumstances. In four years Vincente Fox has not created one new job. He has been a spectacular loser for the people and that is why socialist Mr. Lopez Obrador, former Mayor of Mexico City, will be the next president. That is if US elitists do not assassinate him like they did Donaldo.
The biggest goal of NAFTA Plus is not only regional government and eventually world government, but also to take America down to the level of a second world nation. Through amalgamation and a standard of living 50% or more less, Americans will accept anything.
9/11 and the security measures put in place, which included trade, took on crisis proportions especially with Canada and that is when one of the neocon think tanks came up with the idea of taking steps to erase the border by harmonizing its policies, laws, norms, etc. and most important intelligence and security measures to American standards. Canada had to show it was secure to eliminate the border. The deal was that with open borders the US would have unrestricted access to Canada's natural resources. This plan is now well advanced. Underway already are harmonization of military and homeland security and global security. Effectively that makes Canada's enforcement subservient to US elitist interests.
In the case of Mexico, Fox proposed letting as many Mexicans as possible into the US so they can stay there and work and sent $16.8 billion annually home to Mexico. Part of the deal was for Mexico to militarize its southern border to keep out illegal aliens, most of who were on their way to the US. We are told part of the deal was to privatize Pemex, the country's nationalized oil company and the CFE, the Federal Electricity Commission.
Canada for years has allowed the US immigration to operate directly on its territory to check passengers headed into the US. Now agents will gain jurisdiction and authority to operate within Mexico. Such a program has begun from Cancun and Mexico City to the US. If an undesirable is spotted they are not allowed to enter the US. Mexican lawyers call this a legal non-competence of US agents that violates Mexican jurisdiction and sovereignty. It constitutes a crime subject to penal action under Mexican law. Obviously that does not bother Mr. Fox and PAN.
US elitists have every intention of sucking Mexico?s oil reserves dry in 12 years. They want to access the abundant natural gas and silver and also a vast fresh water reserve in the State of Chiapas.
CAFTA and NAFTA Plus are additional ways of moving toward FTAA - Free Trade Area of the Americas. Looting of Canada and Mexico is very important to US elitists; because they say otherwise the US cannot survive. This will be accomplished with massive cash payoffs to Mexico and Canada, which the Fed will print up on demand. Previously, enormous amounts of cash were sent to Ireland, Portugal, Spain and Greece, when they joined the EU. The same will happen in Mexico.
FTAA and the creation of one region in the Americas is being ramroded by the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, the Mexican Council of International Affairs and the Council on Foreign Relations in the US. Their plan is to immediately create a unified North American Border Action Plan. Create institutions necessary to sustain a North American Community. Adopt a "Common" external tariff. Stimulate growth in Mexico. Develop a North American energy and natural resource security strategy and finally deepen educational ties.
This past June the three nationals signed 300 regulations that contain the standardization of policies for monitoring travelers and goods moving from third countries, including systems for visa clearance, categorization of high-risk travelers and trustworthy travelers, and the future implementation of a smart card for those wanting to transit swiftly through common borders of the region.
The citizens of all three countries are being sold down the river. The US and Mexico already have been injured so that elitist interest could get ever richer. Listen to this. Only 10% of the Mexican populace has benefited from NAFTA. The 10% makes over $1,000 a month. That indicates the real winners are from within the top 2% of the population. That is two million people out of 102 million were able to profit in a big way from NAFTA.
Citizens of all three countries are being deceived. What is next is a customs union and labor that can travel from one country to another. Next is the new single currency for the Americas, the "AMERO" This will destroy the sovereignty of all three countries. It effectively will give the elitist bankers at the Federal Reserve control over all the wealth of the Americas.
In a way the present, so called free trade treaties, with power concentrated in a few hands, are very close to the communist ideal of forced collectivization.
It is remarkable, that while people in communist countries are forced to live under a single Party rule, there's also very little difference between the policies of the ruling parties in capitalist countries and in some, like in the USA, it could easily be called single party rule, as there's virtually no difference between the Republican and Democrat policies.
Of course the ruling class on boths sides is held up by incessant propaganda.
In communist countries the controlled media praise the single party system, claiming, it frees people from
having to make choices, the ultimate degree of their so called democracy, while in capitalist countries the controlled media immediately calls any deviation from the accepted doctrine "liberal" and "socialist". Horrors !!!!!
In short, thinking is not encouraged on either side. It makes little difference to the slaves whether the chains around their necks are rusty, or gilded. Chains are chains and collectivization is collectivization, regardless what it is called by PR hacks.
As a dedicated private enterpriser I've been fighting against these phoney free trade treaties for 20 years, with a proven paper trail, and will continue fighting to the very end, either of the treaties, or me.
Ed Deak, Big Lake, BC.
<br />
The idea of "free trade" as it was sold to the North American workers was that North American manufacturers would benefit and new jobs would be created as the North American manufacturers would have increased opportunities to sell into markets with large populations which have not traditionally had access to consumer goods, like China for example. Conversely, the Chinese would benefit as well as their standard of living would go up as Chinese products gained access to the North American (i.e. mainly US) market. So it was portrayed as a win-win situation situation for everyone (although it was admitted that there would have to be some job losses and adjustment by North American workers). In the end it was supposed to work out so everyone would be better off. <br />
<br />
In the PBS documentary Bill Clinton makes a little speech just prior to signing another trade agreement with China. He makes the point that this deal will be benefical for US manufacturers and farmers as they will now have access to the growing Chinese market. However, during the course of the program they interviewed a manager at one of the major US ports where ships from China were off loaded and asked her what products were coming in from China. She listed off a bunch of manufactured products like electronics, toys, machinery, plastic products etc.. They then asked her what products were being loaded onto the ships to be sent back to China from the US. The only things she could list were bulk raw materials to be manufactured into products in China. Zip in the way of manufactured products, putting the lie to Bill Clinton's statement that US manufacturing was going to benefit by being able to sell into the Chinese market..<br />
<br />
As the home appliance and other manufacturing operations close down in the US the equipment is frequently bought up at bargain basement prices and shipped off to China where the people will work for 50 cents per hour. Meanwhile 50 year old Joe Sixpack looses his $17/hr job (along with his family's medical insurance and drug plan) assembling washing machines at the local plant where he has been working since he got out of high school and is simply told, tough titty for you Joe Sixpack. Your job went to China, so you'll just have to suck it up and find work elsewhere. Often the only thing available is stocking shelves in the new Wal-Mart for $6.50 an hour.<br />
<br />
You can view the PBS program "Is Wal-Mart Good For America?" on line with either Windows Media Player or Real Player. It runs 60 minutes and has links for varying connection bandwiths. Here's the link:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/walmart/view/">http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/walmart/view/</a> <br />
<br />
New Job Opportunities<br />
In America<br />
<br />
By Judith Moriarty<br />
<br />
Once upon a time: people shopped on downtown city streets, frequented local diners, and had a choice of jobs to choose from. Towns employed parents in auto plants, machine shops, textile mills, ship building, farming, fishing, and every imaginable manufacturing job. A man working in a steel mill or auto plant; could encourage his son/daughter, to go to college, and attain a profession that he had only dreamed of. If not college, a trade, that saw one with a livable wage, was readily available. This country had marvelous craftsmen, machinists, designers of great buildings, bridges, and damns. Now we can't build a simple levee to protect a population.<br />
<br />
SNIP<br />
<br />
Charles Seltz remembers when Rochester, NY, was a bustling manufacturing town. Now, all the 58 year old unemployed engineer sees ( just like our town in NH) is a landscape of empty buildings. "There's nothing made here anymore", the former Eastman Kodak employee says, his eyes welling with tears as he talks about his struggle to find a new job. ."Wealth is really created by making things. I still adhere to that." Of course Charles is right, what's created by a prison, a casino, a garbage dump, an incinerator, or a service sector job? Nothing is produced except a person eking out a living; hardly able to afford the gas to travel to work, let alone that college education for his child. Forget a home, a decent vehicle, or ever taking a vacation. All one has to do is look around and note that it is almost an impossibility to buy a product made in America it's all junk that breaks within a month's time. I'd rather never shop then subject myself to a concrete bunker experience of aisles and aisles of slave labor camp trinkets!<br />
<br />
Fifty years ago, a third of U.S. employees worked in factories, making everything from clothing to lipstick to cars. Today, a little more than one tenth of the nation's 131 million workers are employed by manufacturing firms. Four fifths are in services! Since the beginning of 2000 (when GWB Cheney came into office), more than 1.9 million, factory jobs have been cut. Many of the factory jobs are being cut as companies respond to a sharp rise in global competition and trade deals of, for, and by multi nationals! Jobs are being moved abroad as companies take advantage of slave labor. In 2002, film giant Eastman Kodak the largest employer in Rochester and the mainstay of that community, shut down its plant that employed 500 employees, who made throw away cameras. The work will now be done in China. Engineer Seitz, was laid off in '98, after 26 years at Kodak. It was right before Christmas, and he was TWO months away from being eligible for full retirement benefits (USATODAY Barbara Hagenbaugh). Politicians in Foggy Bottom, D.C. can't relate to this, as they've set themselves up (at our expense), with obscene pension packages, with yearly cost of living increases, and full medical/prescription coverage. When they cast a vote, rest assured, it's not for their own well being.<br />
<br />
SNIP<br />
<br />
With third world countries now manufacturing goods for the world ( vastly inferior); fishing, farming, steel producing, textiles, machine shop, and auto making down the tubes; I think we can all take a lesson from the President, who held several job positions ( sort of). He ran for Congress and lost, invested in a Hollywood movie (The Hitcher), bought an oil company in Texas, but couldn't find any oil; the company went bankrupt, bought the Texas Rangers baseball team in a sweetheart deal that took land using tax payer money. With his father's help and name he was elected Governor of Texas, set the record for the most executions of any Governor in American history, then went on to become President of the United States ! Sure he came, by luck of the draw, from a family of privilege, which afforded him degrees ( no student loans ) from the most prestigious of schools, which only means that the 'common man' is going to have to invest a lot more sweat equity, in realizing the American dream, or find themselves a sugar daddy, who will finance their endeavors.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://rense.com/general69/newjob.htm">http://rense.com/general69/newjob.htm</a><br />
<br />
GREED<br />
<br />
by Julian Edney (1)<br />
<br />
An essay concerning the origins, nature, extent and morality of this destructive force in free market economies. Definitions. Paradoxes and omissions in Adam Smith's original theory permit - encourage - greed without restraint so that in a very large society over two centuries it has become an undemocratic force creating precipitous inequalities; divisions in this society now approach a kind of wealth apartheid, and our values are quite unlike Smith's: this is an immensely wealthy society but it is not a humane society. Wealth and poverty are connected, in fact recent sociological theory shows our institutions routinely design inequality in, but this connection is largely avoided in texts and in the media, as is the notion that greed is a moral wrong. Problems created by greed cannot be solved by technology. We are also distracted by already-outdated environmental rhetoric, arguments that scarcities and human suffering follow from abuse of our ecology. Rather, these scarcities are the result of what people do to people. This focus opens practical solutions.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.g-r-e-e-d.com/GREED.htm">http://www.g-r-e-e-d.com/GREED.htm</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
If our resources were managed with the the intent to do what would be the best thing for the Canadian citizens we wouldn't have to pay taxes nor worry about our public health care system being in a shambles; our education system would be free, our farms would be organic and healthy, our environment sustainable and clean. When we do not make fun, happiness, and ease a priority in our lives I think we've missed the reason for living and just focus on the dying.
Thanks for spending so much of your life trying to keep the wool out of our eyes Ed. You certainly have made a difference.
---
"And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music." Friedrich Nietzsche
In other words, I bet you'd like every industry to work the way that TV and radio do with the CRTC and its subsidy-fed supplicants. But I on the other hand see that feudal mess that is the broadcasting industry as a prime example of how *not* to run an industry.
At the end of the day...what they want is for a thing to be worth more than someone is willing to pay for it. Call it communism, call it socialism, call it fair trade, call it central planning, it's all about income redistribution which leads to one desolate place (see Soviet Union).
There's no "free enterprise" any more than there is "free trade". These are all word gimmicks to mislead people and empower elite ruling classes, regardless whether they call themselves capitalists, communists, or the followers of screwball religions, ready to sacrifice the lives of their followers for "freedom".
If we'd go back to the days of real "free enterprise", the families of the miners who were killed last week, would be charged for the rescue efforts, just as the families of industrial victims used to be charged 100 plus years ago for the cleaning up of the blood and production losses. Read the story of the American lawyer Clarance Darrow and some of the cases he had to fight in those days of glorious "free enterprise" .
How would either of you like to drive a car on a road system without strict laws and regulations, enforced by an independent police and court system ? Something, like in the movie "The Road Warrior", where big and armored trucks and vehicles are not only permitted, but encouraged to push anybody off the road, regardless of consequences?
The purpose of road and economic systems should be to ensure the safety of life and property for all.
Canada was doing very well under tariffs, as have all other countries, with hundreds of industries blooming and paying good wages. I have been in business in the '50s to the '90s and even today, and have seen the natural evolution of a potentially healthy and productive economy, now all gone down the drain with this fraudulent free trade.
It is ironic that while the biggest winner under the NAFTA, at least according to economists, has been Mexico, up to 70% of Mexicans are now living below poverty levels. The middleclass has been wiped out, millions of farmers tossed off the land and into city slums. Which can easily become the fate of Canada and the USA, where 5.5 million, well paying, industrial jobs have been lost in the first 4 years of the Bush regime.
I always find it ironic, when the defenders of crazy and criminal theories have to jump into extremes to make their poorly defined points.
A healthy economy must include public and private sectors, as well as large and small industries. It should be the job of the democratically elected government to ensure that everybody is taken care of, the resource base is divided for the best and most efficient use, and lives and properties are safeguarded from accidents and crime. In other words, no sector should be given open expropriation rights for any reason.
This means that "property rights" must also include the rights of peoples to own their businesses and homes, earn decent incomes, and that fraudulent "property rigths" are not misused for criminal purposes, as they are now under alleged "competition" by "business friendly" governments and phoney "free trade" promoters. This can only be achieved under a regulated and protected system, without any superlegal rights for any sector.
In short, this is called "democracy", a concept our economists and politicians have long forgotten and trampled into the mud.
Ed Deak, Big Lake, BC.
---
"A Liberal is someone who refuses to take his own side in a fight".
-Robert Frost
Of course, religions also do pay a major role. When there was a UN conference on the birth rate in Cairo quite a few years ago, the only opponents of birth control were the Catholic and Muslim Churches and the neoclassical economist community, represented by Julian Simon from the USA, who said "Well, humanity has always solved its problems and will solve this one!"
Also, to the best of my recollection, recent US administrations denied aid to countries practicing birth control and abortions on demand. The present one is dead against it for religious reasons. I accept correction if I'm wrong on this one, going by memory.
Ed Deak.
I knew the damn yanks would come up eventually - and in a wrong assumption.
But this doesn't excuse the actions of politicians and multinational corporations, regardless of national origins.
When we oppose the actions and plans of some of our politicians, like Harper, we're not "anti Canadian".
Now the question is, was I right on the government witholding aid to countries, because of birth control and abortion programs? To the best of my recollection, this is true.
Ed Deak.