 Email |
 Print |
 Post Comment
|
Share |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
The Central American Free Trade Agreement will open markets between the U.S. and six countries: Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and the Dominican Republic. Does the pact’s merits outweigh its drawbacks? Take a side.
| Share | |
|
|
|
|
Follow Discussion
Recommend 
See More Comments-
Ben LaytonMay 25, 2005
It seems everytime our country enters into any kind of trade agreement with other countries we are the ones to lose out. it cost our country more than the return. We should do something that benefit our own citizens.
-
TRMay 25, 2005
The US Council of Catholic Bishops, The Catholic Campaign for Human Development and others realize that this ‘agreement’ would be detrimental to the other nations involved. The citizens, whom we view with “A preferential Love” would be put further down, and less able to live fully realized lives. Morals above economics.
-
Jerry HarrisonMay 25, 2005
I disagree with this and nafta. I have seen to many people loose their jobs ;because their jobs wwere closed down and went over seas.
Again not NO but HELL NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
billy hawkinsMay 25, 2005
no to CAFTA!!
the ink wasn’t dry on the signatures on the NAFTA agreement before the major auto makers were building plants in mexico. say bye bye to lots of jobs. NAFTA has, for the most part, been very one sided in favor of mostly mexico. the US is not playing on a level playing field.i fear that CAFTA will be more of the same.
-
Bill BrentMay 25, 2005
Just look at what Nafta and Gafta have done to the american workforce… Need I say more….
-
GAFMay 25, 2005
NAFTA wasn’t that good of a deal for the US. Look at the flood of timber and cattle that came to the US from Canada. We lost jobs and we got sanctions because mad cow. Personally, I think that before we enter into anouther agreement we should change ‘FREE’ trade to ‘Fair’ trade.
-
Garry EdsonMay 25, 2005
I once had a job where I could have a few nice things and even pay my bills. I worked for 30 years to better myself and have taken a back seat to the fat cats, CEO’s and political ????!!! holes, just to try and make ends meet now. NAFT and all of the good old boy’s bills made sure I will fall over dead working a job to live. So Yea! lets just put a gun to our heads and let congreess sign a another one.
-
RichardMay 25, 2005
No to CAFTA.
One of the problems created by these agreements no one ever talks about is the decimation of certain agriculture crops in the Latin American countries that accept these agreements.
There is no way that small or peasant size farms producing basic grain crops, especially corn, can compete with our agribusiness giants with whom they will have to compete under CAFTA.
This creates a whole new cycle of poor, unemployed, dispossessed families leaving their land and streaming to city slums looking for work. Many of them will end up in the illegal immigration stream to our country.
CAFTA will put downward pressure on wages and jobs in Mexico. I have already heard of maquiladora managers putting pressure on workers by telling them that they for the price of one of their salaries, they will be able to get four Nicaraguan’s.
The end result will be more unemployed Mexicans entering the illegal alien stream putting more pressure on the budgets of the states in our country wherever they end up.
-
Jim BrittainMay 25, 2005
No way, nafta and cafta benefit the big guys, we working guys need to be taken care of. Close down the border all together.
-
May 25, 2005
the only way that these trade agreements will work is if the WTO adopts a new Monetary policy similar to the post war era of the Bretton Woods System . Look it up . it would be best served with a rotational currency standard , backed by the precious metals markets , to allow a country to revale their currency while they import more than they export , as in the NAFTA rotaional agreement was under the Bush 1 agreement in 1991 . then a country would be able to have a chance to export for a time period to offset the time it would be importing more than it exports .
-
-
david howardMay 25, 2005
With this new Agreement. Does this mean that the border in Mexico will be even more crowded by those workers running away from all the jobs that the U.S. workers lost in the Nafta agreement? I just wonder who is really winning….
If anybody is? -
-
-
Don TaymanMay 25, 2005
Here we go again NAFTA should have showed that the cheap labor will do to the American worker. Absolutely Not!!
-
Michael CusickMay 25, 2005
NAFTA shot a hole in the bottom of our ecomonic bucket. All the industrial jobs started to stream out. If you’re an investor or in the medical or banking sector you will not feel the effects as quickly. These countries not only work just above slave labor but they also have no EPA regulations. This is a financial burden they do not have to deal with. Some cities south of our border are already chemical dumps. So shoot an other hole in the bucket. Not only will we loose more jobs we will have the expense of trying to clear up the airborne toxins that will be free trade over the border also!
-
Tim W.May 25, 2005
I’ve never heard so much whining and fear in my life. I whole heartedly support any measures that open up trade oportunities. In the long term, this will benefit all of us greatly. Nothing stays the same so adapt.
-
May 25, 2005
No to CAFTA!!!
The only ones that prosper from these agreements are the big manufacturers and agribusiness entities. The small farmers and manufacturers in these countries will lose out and our corporations will not give the US consumer a break in prices. Those working stiffs in the US will lose there job to the poor and displaced business owners of these countries. Our unemployed will increase and our shops will close. The world will be polluted with pesticides and manufacturing waste that is outlawed in the US but acceptable to use in these countries, we will receive this back in our food and in our air. The oceans will transfer it back in their tides and in the rain that will fall upon us. Further, the American consumer will receive no benefit from this whatsoever. -
SFMay 25, 2005
I don’t think a country’s economy success/failure can be attributed mainly on International Trade Agreements but also other micro/macro economic factors will affect it positively or negatively as well; that would need to be considered to give a more unbiased opinion… I don’t think Nafta has decresed the US or Canadian economy as a whole… for sure the manufacturing sector has suffered to a certain degree but also keep in mind countries in the Orient that are taking over the global manufacturing sector.
Also let’s take a look at the EU and how it has made its members stronger financially and culturally.
Instead of thinking in terms of Nafta or Cafta, why don’t we think of a AMERICA FREE TRADE AGREEMENT (AFTA) THAT WILL CONSOLIDATE OUR NATIONS FROM ALASKA TO LA PATAGONIA. -
May 25, 2005
No no no no no. A thousand times no.
The devil is in the details, buried in a mile of fine print. CAFTA, like NAFTA, subordinates’ government decisions to corporate interests.
NAFTA’s secret tribunals have already caused Canada to take off the warning label it put on cigarettes. It has prevented a Mexican town from requiring a cancer-producing dump to be cleaned up, and it has forced AMERICA to rescind laws protecting turtles and dolphins. (For details, see Bill Moyers’ PBS special on the subject.)
NAFTA, CAFTA and other “international trade agreements” are NOT written by our respective governments–they are written by the same corporations who brought you nicotine-enhanced cigarettes, fen-phen, and a host of other health-destroying drugs–corporations whose collective motto is “PROFITS before PEOPLE”.
Corporate activity is a powerful tool, like a chain saw. Used well, it can accomplish great things. But uncontrolled, it can devaste your environment and rip off your leg.
The *goal* is a good one. But CAFTA is not the way. The solution must be more like the European Union, in which the existing political systems do a better job of balancing corporate interests with those of the health and welfare of people and the planet.
-
May 25, 2005
Once again, NO. (Since this forum does not include contact information for the posters, I am including it here: http://www.citizensAdvisory.org.
-
Brian J. Tranter SrMay 25, 2005
No to CAFTA. Whenever government comes up with an idea that involves large ammounts of cash, the only ones to benefit are the big contributors who put them in office. During the 31 years I have been privileged to live in this country I cannot remember one major step taken by Washington that has benefitted the average working man, only the big boys. Everything from the Vietnam war to the current Iran debackle. I left Europe to get away from this type of problem & am now wondering if I improved my situation.
-
YBMay 25, 2005
I can’t believe all the people who support this stuff. The writing is on the wall. Open your eyes and see, NAFTA should never have happened. I agree.. close the borders… America always gives but never receives!
-
-
Bernard LegrandMay 25, 2005
It would not appear that in the mind of most people in the US, NAFTA is such a good deal after all. May be it is, may it is not, but what is certain is that it is not living up to the expectations, in the US, that our government representatives lead us to believe. A bad case of chicken coming home to roost ? Remember the “giant sucking sound ?” This did not do anything to restore credibility in our government; why would anyone believe that CAFTA might be better or even worth what it is being sold for ?
-
Nick SevastianMay 25, 2005
Remember the Romans?
More than 2000 years ago, Romans conquered most of Europe, North Africa and God knows what else. Compare that with our “free trade conquest” with China, NAFTA, CAFTA. What happened was that the Romans wanted the cake and eat it too. They got cheap grains, gold cattle, u name it. They were free spoils of war. We got cheap cars, TV’s, cell phones, computers and as a result we don’t do the things that made this country great here anymore we get them done overseas or at least over the border. They say “….do what the Romans do” well, I think that we might just do that and go to our own made in USA “Middle Ages”. Just give it another 20 years. -
Jim LaffertyMay 25, 2005
NAFTA has not helped America and CAFTA will only hurt us more.
We are giving our country away.
“US” Corporations think this is good for them but when all the American born workers are reduced to a 3rd world pay check who is going to buy their products -
Ernest H. ConyersMay 25, 2005
I say NO!!!!! to CAFTA. With NAFTA in place, several things have gone wrong. Don’t we ban certain pesticides and chemicals in the US but South America and Mexico use those same banned items? We buy the fruits and veggies from there and eat the very thing that we banned here in America. Someone correct me if I am wrong. We
have supported and sent money to other countries for their economy and people yet their economies remain the same or get worse. What’s wrong with this picture? We develope other countries’ infrastructure yet our own cities, school systems, neighborhoods etc. are crumbling. I say please stop the bleeding.
We vote the politicians in to solve problems not create them. They need to know WE say NO to this.
Other countries have created a vaccuum for the US and are draining us dry with no positive return for our efforts.
MIA had 2 meanings. I prefer (M)ade (I)n
(A)merica as opposed to Missing In Action.
nuff said. -
ABMay 25, 2005
In Mexico we are not happy seeing USA Co’s getting the best of our people at the Maquiladoras and getting only the best of our agricultural products to feed people in the USA, leaving only sweat, aches and a few hard earned dollars. I agree that the name should be changed to North American Fair Trade Agreement. And NO! you can keep your cow manure as it may be contaminated from your Mad Cows!
-
Howard MayberryMay 25, 2005
Whenever these “agreements” arise, proponents say they will not compromise our Constitution. After such entanglements are in effect these agreements suddenly achieve treaty status and the same people will say that we are compelled to conform our law to the treaty provisions; and seemingly always to our disadvantage. I’m sick of the slowly dissolving American Constitution and manufacturing base into the international soup. I’m sick of seeing “Made in anywhere but the USA.” NAFTA was a lie and a swindle and I see no reason to suspect CAFTA is anything other.
-
May 26, 2005
Absolutly not to Cafta. the only country benefiting from Nafta is Canada while this Country looses all round. Mexico benefits not from recieveing our goods which they can not afford anyway but from pushing there ellegal imorgrants upon this Country helping to drive the overall economy to there level. Cafta would only benefit Central America if this passes our produce growers while be driven out of buisness.
Our leaders in Washington aut to get there heads out of the sand. -
David SheerMay 26, 2005
NAFTA is very time consuming for Canada shipments. We spend unrewarded hours every day preparing Certificates of Origin and Canada Customs Invoices. This is not a good program. There is no such wasted time with Mexico so I would agree to CAFTRA if the paperwork can be reduced or, better yet, eliminated. The jobs are going elsewhere in manufacturing and it might be best for us if these positions stayed in our hemispehere.
-
EdMay 26, 2005
Get real people… the only reason you guys are loosing automotive jobs is because your three big automakers (GM, DC and Ford) are not selling enough cars to keep the US facilities open and running. And that is because YOU are the ones buying Japanese and Korena cars. And why would that be, if not the fact that americans finally realized foreign cars have a level of quality the domestics cars totally lack of
CAFTA will do NOTHING to the US economy, unless you people buy their stuff.
I would suggest you worry more about your productivity rates than loosing your blue collar jobs… -
Ray AucoinMay 26, 2005
The only trade agreement we really need is one that makes it as favorable for us to trade with another country as it is for that country to trade with us.
Why can’t we limit our imports from each country to what we export to them? This would eliminate the trade deficit and keep more jobs here.
Why are we so eager to import from any country that makes it difficult to for us to export to them?
-
K3May 26, 2005
CAFTA will be good for the USA in the long run. Any idiot who thinks NAFTA caused jobs to go south (of the border so to speak) understands nothing about economics – those jobs were headed out anyway. However, the devil is in the details. CAFTA should open up the economies of the countries in the agreement to investment and controlling ownership of local assets and companies (by US interests) so that we have the same standing as native-owned assets and companies, just like NAFTA was supposed to do. Democrats and conservative Republicans (an unlikely mix to say the least) are mostly responsible for the luddite-style opposition to these types of agreements.
We should have in mind to eventually turn the entire western hemisphere into a trading zone. With proper economic development jobs that are lost in the USA would stay in this hemisphere. A new-world economic bloc in this case would be hard to beat (especially for the Asians).
These kinds of agreements are a defense against investment and economic alliances between countries in South America (like Brazil) and non-new world interests (especially China). -
TravisMay 26, 2005
CAFTA would seem to be a better alternative than sending all our business to China. It’s provisions do seem to foster more utilization of our products as well. China also tilts the trade balance by pegging their currency to ours resulting in an automatic 24% – 27% subsidy for their manufacturing operations.
-
D CHIPMANMay 26, 2005
NO ON CAFTA. THIS IS NOT A REAL FREE TRADE FOR THE UDA OR ITS REAL WORKERS.
-
F. WatrousAugust 16, 2005
It is time for Americans to say NO to all this imported stuff. How many American jobs have to be lost before we get the idea that this is not a good thing to do.It might be good for the Big Man but it is killing the working man. Look before you shop if it is made out of the country don’t buy it. If all Americans do this it won’t be long before Big business will get the idea. Thanks Fred
-
JamesAugust 16, 2005
I think that our government is Hell bent on making sure we Americans become peasants working for scraps handed down by big greedy Company’s. How can we compete with third world pay scales? We can’t so when we are all out of job’s then we will have to work for wages compared to Mexico and other developing countries. I say Hell NO! To NAFTA and to Cafta. I work in the manufacturing industry. The Company I work for is in the process now of setting up a plant in Mexico. I lot of the parts machined here is going there now. I can only imagine whats going to happen after Cafta.
James
-
J. CowlesAugust 16, 2005
No to NAFTA and No to CAFTA!
Once again, great new opportunities for Corporate America Profits have been opened – but not for American Workers or Consumers. Does anyone really believe that the reduced labor costs will be reflected in reduced consumer prices?
I have been to Central America. I have seen (and smelled) what NAFTA and UPYOU have accomplished in these countries. I can see no reason to believe that CAFTA will be any different.
LOCATIONS – The typical plant, factory, etc. is located in a compound with several other manufacturing facilities and has to be fenced in (topped with razor wire), gated and patrolled by armed guards. There may be some exceptions, but they are few and far between. These are called “Free Trade Zones”. These are not just the facilities located out in the country, but also include the ones located in the center of major cities.
WORKERS – By and large, the workers are good, friendly and hard working people. They are willing to learn new skills and work hard for their wages.
WAGES – Just how much do these people get paid? The hourly amount really isn’t important, as it is set so that if you work today, you (and maybe your family) will eat tomorrow. If you do not work tomorrow, you and your family will not eat the next day. Great little system.
WORKING CONDITIONS – Usually the facility is reasonably new (block construction), but totally open to the outside (except in the office areas – don’t want to waste the cool air). Plant air conditioning is a rarity (unless you count some exhaust fans located in the top of the building). The last time I was in Central America, the temperature on the sewing floor was 110 degrees. Almost all material handling is done by hand
LIVING CONDITIONS – I can honestly say that the very worst area in the county I live in here in the US is far nicer than the best I saw in Central America.
I spent almost 3 years traveling to Central America setting up new manufacturing facilities for my ex-company. When the end came, I was no longer needed. To be fair, this was never any secret. All 2500 of us knew it! After all, to level the playing field and make things equal, it is much easier (and less costly) to lower the standard of living in the USA than to improve it in other countries.
-
Bill CollinsAugust 18, 2005
While I thoroughly disagree with cafta at every level, I would like to tackle the program from a cause and effect level. It is a controversial issue.
Firstly, we must remember that the countries with whom we are dealing are third world nations whose politicas are constantly in flux.
We must not be fooled by the facts that many of the industrial concerns in these countries are owned by foreign concers,
I spent two years as a resident in the city of San Jose, Costa Rica. One of my clients asked me to investigate the possibility of having his sound proofing equipment manufactured in Costa Rica. This was a few years ago. At that time he was paying his electronic people $10.00 an hour.
I met with the cities employment bureau officers. Basically the personell had take long padded tubes cover them with heavy fabric and apply a wood base
I spelled out to them the skills the workers would
require. He consulted a manual and told me the cost would be approximately $5.00 US. I asked if this was the hourly rate– “No” he replied, “That is per day.Levis produces Jeans in Costa. The girls who sew the Jeans together are paid 75 cents an hour. The pineapple fields are owned by Dole I think I paid about 15 cents for a pineapple. and as I recall it the Germans owned the Coffee Industry.
We musn’t kid ourselves, illegal aliens will flood the United States, and any children born by aliens whether legal or illegal while in the United States become American citizens and their relatives are accepted into the country legally.
This will be the backlash of this agreement.
A measure of this act can be judged by the price paid by importers for their fruit, and the price for which they sell it.
A pineapple produced in Costa Rica is sold by Dole to Publix who are asking over $5.00
I will eat my shirt is this act benefits anyone except the buyers who buy the product at a beer price and sell it a champagne price.
nnocentlA are contantly in flux countriesnationalities -
September 4, 2006
Wouldn’t it be great if someone could give you a “to do” list when you were ready to start your company that would guarantee your success? Even better, what about a “to don’t” list of things to avoid at all costs? Through experience, I’ve found there are no shortcuts to launching a business–you have to do your homework to understand your customers, competitors, market conditions and risks. But there are some principles I’ve found to be very effective for growing both my company and my clients’ businesses whether they are startups or Fortune 500 corporations, whether they sell consumer products, professional services or technology products.
See Less Comments| Recent Stories | Most Popular |
- Weekly Industry Crib Sheet: Manufacturing Gender Gap Widens in the U.S.
- Light Friday: Singing Astronaut Returns Home
- Manufacturing Leadership Summit: Innovate to Survive (and Thrive)
- Manufacturing Leadership Summit: Reimagining Industry's Role
- Expert’s Corner: How Manufacturers Are Harnessing Social Media
- Spread of 3-D Printing Raises Intellectual Property Questions
- Banks Used Small-Business Funds to Pay Off Bailouts
- Weekly Industry Crib Sheet: China Surpasses U.S. in Clean Energy Investment
- Expert’s Corner: National Export Initiative’s Michael Masserman on Boosting U.S. Small-Business Trade
- Expert’s Corner: How Manufacturers Are Harnessing Social Media
Browse IMT by Date
Browse IMT by Date
| Light Friday | Crib Sheet | Worth A Look |
- Weekly Industry Crib Sheet: Manufacturing Gender Gap Widens in the U.S.
- Weekly Industry Crib Sheet: Eurozone Recession Worse than Predicted
- Weekly Industry Crib Sheet: Smartphones Outsell Standard Phones for First Time
- Weekly Industry Crib Sheet: China Surpasses U.S. in Clean Energy Investment
- Weekly Industry Crib Sheet: U.S. Warns Japan, China about Currency Manipulation
| Also Featured in IMT |
| Expert’s Corner |
| Expert’s Corner: How Much Do Manufacturers Value State Competitiveness? |
 Do competitiveness rankings of states’ tax and spend policies influence manufacturers in determining where to locate or expand their operations? The answer is yes, writes GovPro.com’s Michael Keating. |
| Sites We Like |
| Harvard Business Review |
| IEEE Spectrum |
| Lifehacker |
| Popular Science |
| Shopfloor |
 |
Once having brought Mexico in via NAFTA, why exclude the relatively small countries of Central America? The make for good leverage to use with Mexico as they may have better locations than Mexico is willing to provide. They make a good buffer from Brasil which is trying to put together opposition to the US in South America.
Yea to CAFTA. NAFTA seemed to be OK. I worked with the inspection service in the eightys and went to Mexico to grade fruits and vegatables. It didn’t seem to do as much to shake our economy as people originally feared. It actually all worked pretty good, the trading goes both ways remember. We ship things to them we deem unusable and they grasp it with open arms over there. So let’s get ready to ship out all the cow manure, they love how well the plants and vegatbles grow in it. And we get rid of the stink. Everyone wins. BS.