VeggieBoards

VeggieBoards (https://www.veggieboards.com/forum/)
-   The Compost Heap (https://www.veggieboards.com/forum/17-compost-heap/)
-   -   28 Days till FTAA gets put in place. (https://www.veggieboards.com/forum/17-compost-heap/25301-28-days-till-ftaa-gets-put-place.html)

GhostUser 12-03-2004 08:52 PM

I'm scared, very scared.



Why did this get approved anyway?!



I am counting down the days on my calender.



I'm so....dissapointed.

Life2k 12-04-2004 08:09 AM

Okay, act like I have been asleep for the last year and tell me all about it.

ebola 12-04-2004 12:09 PM

>>Why did this get approved anyway?!>>



On a macro-level, because capital must expand to survive.

Democracy is established only when convenient to the ruling elite.



ebola (1-liner king)

GhostUser 12-04-2004 02:25 PM

What's the FTAA? The F**k The Animals Amendment?







The Rev

GhostUser 12-04-2004 03:09 PM

FTAA= Free Trade Area of the Americas.



The worst thing for human rights, ever. You guys remeber NAFTA? North American Free Trade Agreement? It's just that, but bigger to include south america, mexico, and every other latin country except cuba.



Quote:
the FTAA is yet another example of the kind of free-market fundamentalism that has created a global race to the bottom that erodes environmental protection, workers' livelihoods, and human rights. If you think NAFTA has been a disaster for working families and the environment in the US, Canada, and Mexico, this will be far worse.

The FTAA gets rid of taxes and tarrifs placed on products, so that is is cheaper for Americans to buy things. It will also create I think, the biggest corporate war, ever.



Quote:
The FTAA will contain a series of commitments to "liberalize" services, which is much like the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) within the WTO. "Services" is a broad category that includes education, health care, environmental services, energy and water utilities, postal services and anything else that you can't drop on your foot. Things in danger include:


[*]Removal of national licensing standards for medical, legal and other key professionals, allowing doctors licensed in one country to practice in any country, even if their level of training or technological sophistication is different.


[*] Privatization of public schools and prisons in the US, opening the door to greater corporate control, corruption and the temptation to cut critical corners (such as medical care for inmates or upkeep of safe school facilities) in the interests of improving profit margins.


[*]Privatization of postal services.



FTAA will also spread alot of things we dont want. I.E. GMO foods.

Quote:
The US is trying to use the FTAA as a way to force all countries in the hemisphere to accept biotechnology and genetically modified (GM) foods in which unregulated US corporations have taken a lead. Yet food security organizations all over the world agree that these technologies will increase hunger in poor nations.



But someone does benefit.

Quote:
Not everyone loses in "free trade" agreements. Corporations and wealthy business owners from all participating countrieswho are helping to write the rules of these agreementsstand to gain financially from a system that puts their interests above all others. Politicians often own or have large sums of money invested in corporations and therefore have personal interests at stake.



http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/ftaa/faq.html



and here is the official FTAA website. http://www.ftaa-alca.org/alca_e.asp

Daral 12-04-2004 03:28 PM

Theoretically removing tariffs and so forth will prove beneficial to everyone involved. On the other hand, it sounds like they put some dubious other proposals in there too (privatize schools???).

ebola 12-04-2004 04:21 PM

>>Theoretically removing tariffs and so forth will prove beneficial to everyone involved.>>



This is true within a limited context, namely that an inherently exploitive economic system continues to exist...I think that for any solid benefit to be realized by "the masses", such free trade agreements must also be coupled with international labor standards (even though these measures too leave the larger system intact.) There are peripheral issues that are rather frightening...namely that this agreement can be used by multinational corps wishing to produce abroad to overturn local environmental regulations, etc., because they obstruct "free trade". How "free" is that?



ebola

GhostUser 12-05-2004 12:05 AM

there is a similar system in Europe, I believe. But theirs works because they aren't trading with 3rd world countries.



FTAA is so horrible. Anything that "hinders free trade" can be altered to fit the corporations needs. Things that hinder free trade? Enviormental Laws, Worker Protection Rights, Human Rights, etc etc.



It's a good Idea, but not like this.

Walter 12-05-2004 12:34 AM

It's all rather upsetting. To me It just seems like a hasty bit of ill-planned unfair laws sped through to help the rich get richer, and the poor, poorer.

GhostUser 12-05-2004 12:50 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikie View Post

It's all rather upsetting. To me It just seems like a hasty bit of ill-planned unfair laws sped through to help the rich get richer, and the poor, poorer.





when you boil it all down, thats what it is.

ebola 12-05-2004 01:32 AM

>>when you boil it all down, thats what it is.>>



well, it hardly gives pretense to being anything else.

eh...this thread needs a good dose o' righties.



ebola

Red 12-05-2004 02:02 AM

Why? To point out that maybe the environmental, human rights and worker protections found in the U.S. ain't so bad in comparison?

ebola 12-05-2004 01:22 PM

>>Why? To point out that maybe the environmental, human rights and worker protections found in the U.S. ain't so bad in comparison?>>



er...but these could, at least theoretically, be struck down the the FTAA as well. It is far less likely, however, because the labor in the US is very expensive in comparison to so-called developing countries, so there is not the same rush for multinationals to set up production centers here.



ebola

Daral 12-05-2004 03:17 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by ebola View Post

This is true within a limited context, namely that an inherently exploitive economic system continues to exist...I think that for any solid benefit to be realized by "the masses", such free trade agreements must also be coupled with international labor standards (even though these measures too leave the larger system intact.) There are peripheral issues that are rather frightening...namely that this agreement can be used by multinational corps wishing to produce abroad to overturn local environmental regulations, etc., because they obstruct "free trade". How "free" is that?



ebola



Yeah, I'm only speaking in macro terms. If you want to start talking about distribution of wealth, then yes we would need to implement more labor standards and so forth.

Red 12-05-2004 03:20 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by ebola View Post


er...but these could, at least theoretically, be struck down the the FTAA as well.

My point. Something along the lines of not missing your water 'til the well runs dry.

kpickell 12-05-2004 03:24 PM

Free trade is a good thing. It allows companies to move to poor countries and ship their products back to rich countries, thus providing more jobs to the people in poor countries. I don't know why anyone would be opposed to that. Yes, rich countries will lose some jobs, but ultimately it benefits the people who need the most help. The CEOs of these companies are going to be insanely rich regardless of what country they hire people from, so I say they should hire people from poor countries. The more jobs available to them, the better--and that's the bottom line.

ebola 12-05-2004 09:05 PM

>>Yeah, I'm only speaking in macro terms. If you want to start talking about distribution of wealth, then yes we would need to implement more labor standards and so forth.>>



er...aren't environmental issues very often macro-level issues? And how useful is it to abstract-out the distribution of wealth.



>>I don't know why anyone would be opposed to that. Yes, rich countries will lose some jobs, but ultimately it benefits the people who need the most help.>>



Because, in the third-world, the creation of these jobs commonly involves seized land and ****-wages. I care far less about lost jobs in the first world.



ebola


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:53 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.