The Forestry Forum

Expires 7-17-05

I voted yes only since there was no place to put "Yes but after"  If there were a "Yes but After", I would have voted yes but after signing one with New Zealand :) :)

In a word, He11 NO!  OK, that was two words, but who's counting?

Quote from: DanG on July 03, 2005, 11:44:04 PM
In a word, He11 NO!  OK, that was two words, but who's counting?

I agree DanG. It hasnt worked well for US/Canada in too many cases to mention.

Its fine having the USA signing all these open trade agreements with countries.

Problem is the USA doesnt keep up its end of the agreement.

Canada is a good example.  Even when the world trade courts enforce the agreement the Americans have signed the Americans still will not pay what is owed to the Canadians.

Look at the electric supply to the west coast from Canada.  The consumer pays but the utility companies have not paid in year owing the Canadians billions of $.  Wood supply and cattle have all been effected by this trade agreement.

If you dont pay your bills you get cut off.  What would happen if the Canadians pulled the plug on water and electric???

arthur

NO!!!!

No sense repeating what has already been well said.

Arthur, it looks like somebody took the "Free Trade" thing a bit too literally, eh? :D :D

If they ain't paying, they should cut them off.  Bet they'd trot out some cash most quick, then! :o :o

I could go on forever about these "free trade" agreements. Basically the Dang politicians are selling us out. I vote NO!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm still mad about NAFTA. (in case you were wondering) >:( >:(

I'd love to see the USA limit its' gross dollar value of trade exports equal to the same gross dollar value of imports.    Probably would wreak total havoc in the world economy, but at least we wouldn't be running the risk of being overrun by the Asian steamroller.  It would force millions of manufacturing jobs back to the States.

As for CAFTA - I'd only be a proponent of free trade agreements if some system of equalizing trade values were addressed first.  I don't like the idea, for example, of importing $20 billion of goods into the US while exporting only $200 million to the same country.   It should work both ways, too.

Here we go again !!! Open the flood gates for more cheap **** !!!!!!!  Bring on the Depression, remember history repeats its self......  The rich Minority will get real rich and then the whole thing will turn to crap.....

I say Keep Americans working and keep quality intact !!!  Bring back the American spirit... Personal worth brings a value and quality....  If we want to step back in time / Cheap labor free help sounds like the beaten man and awful close to slavery *( Child labor )* etc......

On a day like today the  4th of July we should look back at our fore fathers and Stand Strong, this is our country and we should stand together and  SAY NO !!!    We are the best Stand proud !! USA !!!!

Remember Ross Peroit and his famous quote about "the giant sucking sound." He was talking about NAFTA then but it has been heard even more from China most recently.  It's too bad that his VP couldnt stay awake or he might have been elected, although I don't think he really wanted the job, he just wanted to have his say.

I voted "NO WAY"

Nope, but probably for a different reason. These things are generally worse for the small countries than for the USA. Look at NAFTA - it sure helped Mexico didn't it? I have seen some very interesting studies and it seems to imply it was worse for Mexico than it was for the USA.

What happens is the very large companies want to open the markets in the smaller countries, some of these companies are bigger than the countries... Of course, it makes a lot of money for the stock holders, but that doesn't seem to trickle down to the workers. Often I think these agreements are nothing more than an excuse for carpetbagging.

The biggest challenge facing jobs in the USA over the next few years is outsourcing of high tech jobs - and CAFTA / NAFTA, etc. has nothing in it to address that. Not sure how you do, since there is nothing preventing a person in Costa Rica who makes a fraction of a person in the USA doing the work and sending it to a company in the USA.

CAFTA and NAFTA only deal with physical things that can be controlled at the ports - hard to do that with things downloaded off the web.

DanG said it about as good as it can be said here in a family fourm   NO!!!!!!
Dave

Absolutely not. DanG said it best.

It has to be NO ............    CAFIT is more like the truth ..Central American Fre e Import Treaty. 
We would benifit more from a free trade agreement with the Auzzies and NZ than the central american states.
Still ranting:
If companies want to move offshore and still sell products here they should abide by our OSHA , EPA ,and all the other alphabit beuracratic BS in the U.S.

What is interesting is that many of the people in Costa Rica don't want it because they are afraid of the loss jobs, etc. that will come because the USA is much stronger than Costa Rica.

There are small companies that will be totally wiped out here if CAFTA would go through.

Originally, CAFTA was for the purpose of creating a trading block to compete with the European Union (or so it was said) - however, since the European Union doesn't seem like it going to happen - what's the rush?

By the way, many of the environmental laws are stricter here - and the protection for the workers is much, much better than the USA. You haven't see red tape till you live in Latin America. Not only is there paper work, there in incompentency on top of it. If you don't have a sense of humor, you will go nuts at times.

On the positive side for CAFTA - if jobs flow overseas - perhaps it will slow down the flow of illegal immigrants. As you can see - the USA really isn't stopping the flow. If people can find good work at home, they don't want to move to another country. (Okay, there are exceptions, like me! ;) )

For all those who decry the loss of jobs to overseas cheap labor there is a simple solution.

Stop shopping at Wallyworld and other retailers selling foreign goods.  And don't gripe about the higher prices.  It is because we all want to buy things for the lowest possible price that jobs have been lost here.

Voted NO!  DanG said it best.

Inasmuch as our family's operations were substantially impacted back in the days of NAFTA and the Pacific Rim agreements (we lost about 50% of our income just after the signing), I've had some time to reflect on exactly what, and who, it was that caused us that wee bit of grief.  It sure wasn't that peasant who manufactured those "facsimiles" of our wares; rather, the people I hold most responsible for our lost markets are those good old American retailers who suddenly had a wholesale source for stuff they knew they could market but at 10% of the cost.  That little deal put loads of bucks in their pockets in one big hurry!

But isn't that the very spirit of western capitalism which is so often defended, not only within this group but also nationwide?  And, though we seem to be shifting our national focus more towards the global profitabilities of Pariah Capitalism (the creation and funding of the war machines/piracy), I've come to accept that these "Trade Acts" simply exploit the base resource necessary to conduct business--the labor force.  It's always about PROFIT.

Since history indicates that we've plundered or defiled most of the world's natural resources over these last few hundred years in search of the Holy $$, one of the last resources still available, dirt-cheap, is human labor.  Why else would any good capitalist waste his/her time exploiting any of the resources of any of these supposed "emerging" nations?

I don't know that a boycott of all "cheap/imported" goods would work since we've all been taught to "buy low, sell high" or to "stretch that family dollar."  Where I grew up (Flint, MI), it was almost a criminal act to operate ANY motor vehicle which was not 100% American-made.  The killings on Saginaw Street back in the '30s were still pretty fresh on the minds of the labor force back then. But that's all changed and even the UAW folks that way proudly drive their Toyotas and VWs to and from the workplace. 

Like tobacco, alcohol, or any of the  lesser drugs out there, not much money would be made on them if there wasn't a healthy demand.  And if it isn't CAFTA this time, it'll be some often "AFTA" soon enough, since there seems to be that endless demand for "stuff" within our culture, whereever made and/or however labeled.

After all, a simple survey of any one of our homes/businesses would indicate that we're all part of this particular expansion of the market, wouldn't it?  Pretty hard to shout it down when we're the ones consuming the goods/services.  We provide the machine the fuel ($$$$) it needs to go boldly forth. 

Gunny

well said.

I Australia we have had a huge increase in fuel the last six months with many emails and adverts about boycoting the two largest fuel suppliers.  between the two they are almost half the total supply.

the thought is that if you boycote them (consumer power) then they wont sell any produce and will be forced into selling the fuel at a lower price and all the others will follow.

problem with that is a lot of small family business who own franchises will be effected and possibly put out of business if this needed to go on and on.  If that happens then the only fuel stop for many miles (sometimes hundreds of miles) will most lokely close and not open again so we shoot ourselves in the foot.

Just shows that even with consumer power you can screw up.

However there is always a demand for high quality product even if its only in small quantities.

Same with FREE TRADE.  Free trade works if it is far and not governed by big profit companies.  Its a two way thing not a setup free trade here so we can exploit the labour force and when that labour force gets to greedy then we move our investment to thee next free trade area we have forced..

arthur

You guys have got it right, but haven't offered the solution.  We didn't get into this shape in a heartbeat, and it's gonna take a while to get out of it.  We won't ever get out of it if we don't start!  We can start by producing more, and by buying local goods when we can.  We must be willing to pay a bit more for a quality, locally produced item, but the worker needs to meet us in the middle.  Sure, the factory worker likes making $25 per hour for installing lug nuts, but when it comes down to it, he should be willing to do the same job for a bit less.  His kid doesn't HAVE to have a Playstation AND a Gameboy.  He could settle for one or the other.  He doesn't HAVE to have a new car or truck every couple of years.  He could do as I do and use one until it won't go any more.  He doesn't HAVE to have a 52" tv. He can make do with a 25" on rabbit ears, like I do.

This goes hand in hand with the "energy" thread on this same board.  If we are to survive as a society, we must reduce consumption!  This "service" economy we've been enjoying is coming to an end, because we are not producing.

How about breaking up the large companies ( monopolies ) !!  The goverment put the old girdle on Ma Bell when she got to big for her panty's.  Mabye Wally World, The Depot and others need to See Jenny Craig or Hit the Slim fast....  Give it back to the Mom and Pops and the familys...... We the small guys in the lumber arena our making an impact on the much needed quaility supply line that the big guys don't have... If this isn't true then theres alot of guys here that don't think much of what we do !!!  The little guy is still kick'n

I think part of what is really hurting the USA is cheap credit. When we first started business here, I couldn't believe that I couldn't just walk into a bank and borrow money. It is a real challenge to grow a business EXCEPT on cash.

The problem is that so many companies grow by borrowing - including the big guys. If it doesn't work out... well, too bad. The investors in the stock market got hosed during the collapse of the dot com market. Almost all of these companies were built on credit - when the crunch came, they just folded up.

The fundamentals of the stock market was totally out of whack.  In my opinion, it still is out of whack. If the P & E is 15 to 1 (for example, the stock valuation is 15 million but the earnings is 1 million) I don't know why in the world someone would by the stock, except hoping someone else will buy it for more after. It isn't like you would go and buy a company for that much unless you were sure they were on a gold mine.

To put it in perspective: If you made 50,000 USD in a year on your sawmill business and wanted to sell it. What would you think if someone offered you $750,000? I bet you would think you won the lottery and that the guy was the biggest fool you ever saw.

This is exactly what a lot of people are doing in the stock market - and they have no clue that eventually it has to drop and reflect actual values.  I often feel that the USA is on a joy ride this generation (I am starting to sound old) and always is thinking a bigger car, a bigger house, etc. is the American Dream. I fear it just might turn into the American Nightmare.

Disclaimer: I have no money in the stock market and I have no plans to do so either! This is part of how I ended up in a foreign country growing trees - I wanted what little I had out of the stock market.

Well said ! Sir
:DThe Sir part is out of respect " you said you sounded OLD !!

Thanks,

I wish I could say it was brilliant, but I think it is only common sense - which is getting pretty rare now a days. I remember during the dot com days people saying that the rules for the market had changed. How wrong they were.

And now we seem to be doing it again. I honestly find it hard to understand people sometimes.

Quote from: crtreedude on July 12, 2005, 06:48:58 AM
I think part of what is really hurting the USA is cheap credit.

Oh for cheap credit, because we have a farm our mortgage interest rate is 9.4% >:(

As long as our dollar stays where it is, this is a great place to invest.

Term deposit at the bank = 8.00%

As someone who works in the sugar industry in Bay City and directly affected I say no! 

I'm normally not for government interference in business but all of these trade agreements are one sided and it isn't even close to being a fair deal for any of the small industries of the USA.

At this point it even sounds as though its a poor deal for the corn growers of the midwest.  There will be millions of gallons of ethenanol imported which will in turn hurt owner/growers involved in trying to increase domestic production.

Pat

My congressman is one of the "key" votes to kill this thing. I've been on the phone with him for 2 hours over the last week and I think I may be getting through. It's hard though as he's banked by Fred Smith.

At best maybe I've got him talked into voting against this particular negotiation but in the long run, he'll eventually go for it.

Maybe we can stall it long enough to send some actual representation up there  :-\

Quote from: UrbanLogger on July 14, 2005, 04:33:47 PM

Maybe we can stall it long enough to send some actual representation up there  :-\

Now there's a novel idea - the house actually containing representatives  ::)

Term limits anyone?

I would like something more than term-limits, I would like the house of representatives to actually represent the people. Forget the lawyers and politicians - make it a draft just like jury duty.

Let's see a show of hands. How many people would be willing to give two years to work in the House for the pay these guys get and as a result have their retirement? Do you think we could get volunteers?

Surely the average Joe isn't going to do any worse. Keep the Senate as a check and balance (as it was intended) but make the House of Representitives something different than a junior version of the Senate.

Isn't it interesting that a selected jury can be considered good enough to sentence someone to death - but not good enough for the House....

I would be the first in line.  8)

And I might actually come back to the USA to "serve" in that capacity!

Back to this CAFTA debate. CR there is a good article in today's Wallstreet Journal written by MARY ANASTASIA O'GRADY, titled "Costa Rica's Tough Unions Make It a CAFTA  Holdout". I am curious about your take on the article if you get a chance to read it. Those of us on the outside, so to speak< don't know the truth of these things sometimes.

Costa Rica thinks that CAFTA will be good for the USA and NOT for Costa Rica. They don't want to approve it - and I doubt it will be, but I could be wrong.

Isn't it interesting though - people in Unions in the USA don't want CAFTA and people in the Unions in Costa Rica don't want CAFTA. One of them is wrong.

I think the Unions don't want any change to the status quo.

Yes, Costa Rica has very strong Unions - they shut down the country sometimes. It gets pretty interesting at times.

Okay - be ready for sarcastic comment. People in the USA being afraid of CAFTA is sort of like the Terminator being afraid of a fair fight with Pee Wee Herman. Don't you think that the economic powerhouse of the world has a touch of an advantage over little Latin American countries? Believe me the Latin American countries think so!  Anytime my Tico friends need a good laugh, I tell them the USA is afraid of them as a trading partner. Honest, they can't believe it!

The USA might get hurt in farmers who produce sugar (might, with fuel going up, probably not) but Costa Rica may lose all Hi-Tech businesses to the USA and their entire telecom industry.

just my dos colones

Hi Patty,

Just read the article - yes, it is true in my opinion. However Arias will almost certainly win the next election and he has the prestige to force this through. After all, he won the Nobel Peace Prize for his work in calming down Central America.

Costa Rica is between a rock and a hard place - slowly but surely they are being owned by the World Bank. The reason they are protecting the rainforest is that they don't really have a choice - it was imposed by the World Bank as a condition of loans. Also, they have two ex-presidents sitting in jail right now for corruption - again I suspect this was due to outside influence.

All very interesting stuff.

I don't think the fear that Americans harbor for trade agreements with other countries is so dependent on the other countries abusing us as it is that we abuse ourselves.   In most "equal trade", welfare or "aid" situations, I think that the overwhelming "need' for some Americans to prove their fairness leads to our stepping on our own toes.  There are just too many Americans who feel guilt over our having something that someone else doesn't  have that we "give away the farm".

That I would agree with for sure - often people feel they need to help people who don't need it. This is a bad thing. It makes dependents of those being helped just so people can feel "superior".

I think it is very important for the USA to realize that currently they are on top of the heap and the world is a very competitive place. Use agreements as a way of making the USA stronger, not weaker.

Is this fair to other countries? Well, I assume other countries are trying to do the same. If a country can't manage to compete, they should allow themselves to be absorbed by a better country. In my opinion, a lot of countries in Central America should have their governments replaced and perhaps just becomes states of the USA. 

Sure would make my taxes easier....  :D

Just ran across an interesting number, all the economies of the Central American countries involved in this deal sum up to  1/160 of the economy of the USA.

Awful lot of noise over nothing. It might help these countries, but it really means nothing to the USA. I suspect you have some very large companies lobbying for this.

I don't know if Venezuela is a part of CAFTA or not, but I thought it was important to US due to the oil resources. Setting up Central America the way it was done in NAFTA, i.e., Canada is not allowed to cut off oil and gas exports to the US.  ;D

-Doug

I think I heard where CAFTA was to open the way for SAFTA.  That would give a free trade zone for the Americas and would rival or surpass that of the EU.

CAFTA was approved by the Congress and Senate - it just waits signiture by President Bush. Of course the other countries will have to approve it too - and it will have a hard fight here.

However, the front runner for the 2006 election has the clout to get it to pass.

your right there fred. i read that CR will take their time before they sign it.  :)

yes, it is going to be interesting. If CR doesn't agree, then they lose competitive edge with their neighbors, if they do, they will lose jobs in some sectors - the Unions are threatening to shutdown the country if it even goes to the congress here.

Of course it really doesn't matter, the public workers here are not very good, we probably won't even notice they aren't working....  :D

The precedent has already been set.   If the public workers get too demanding just give the jobs to immigrants (you do have immigrants don't you, like Harold. ;D) or send the jobs to another country.  'Course shipping might get to be a problem. :D :D :D :D :D

I can see it now, Harold working in immigration....  :o

No.........      Not working in immigration, .........I mean picking the tomatoes. :D :D :D

Sugar cane and pineapples here.... That is what the immigrants do.

I'll bet Harold swings a mean mechete. :D

 ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)

   Rodney

We just wanted to know if you would notice....  ;D

Harold would modify his sawmill to cut the sugarcane for him....  :D

More CAFTA news from your reporter in the DEEP south.

GUATEMALA: Protests against CAFTA ---

>From the Green Left Weekly

On July 29, hundreds of people marched to the US embassy
to protest the neoliberal policies of President Oscar
Berger and the Central America Free Trade Agreement
(CAFTA), which was passed by US Congress in June.
Protesters called for higher wages, improvements to the
education system and a halt to rises in the cost of
living. A June poll by the Costa Rica State University
Mathematics School indicated that 69.6% of the
population sees CAFTA as more favourable to US interests
than Gutemalans'. Those polled identified poverty,
environmental damage and massive losses for farmers as
potential outcomes of the agreement.