Controversy rages over US policy concerning free trade and the agricultural markets. Now, I am certainly no expert; but it seems American politicians are once again suffering tunnel vision. “We should not let our fears hold us back from pursuing our hopes.” (JFK) Let me say right up front that the US government needs to go back to the drawing board when it comes to free trade agreements. Too many rules and regulations have interfered with the original intention turning it into an investment agreement instead. So, please read the rest of this posting with that in mind…
Yes, NAFTA has redistributed a resource; that is what it was intended to do. The age of the family farm is dying; is that because of NAFTA or evolution of culture? People complain that labor rights have suffered, that the unions are undermined; why should only US laborers be entitled to jobs? Because NAFTA is limited in scope, the final redistribution has not yet taken place. We lose jobs to Mexico; Mexico loses jobs to Central America, and so on. NAFTA has enabled consumers to purchase high quality fresh fruits and vegetables during the off seasons. The increase in imports was dictated by our increased appetite for fresh produce, not a by-product of NAFTA legislation but free market competition at work in the best American economic sense.
CAFTA, the Central American Free Trade Agreement simply expands opportunities previously limited to Canada, Mexico, and the US to six extremely small countries: El Salvador, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Honduras, Costa Rica, and the Dominican Republic. Their impact on our trade will be negligible, 0.5%. Our impact on their access to fresh produce may prove substantial.
The intention behind free trade is to enable people of all nations to: grow and trade whatever their climate can best accommodate, thus employing local citizens in worthwhile pursuits, and enabling its citizens to eat a healthy balanced diet. The vision behind free trade is that all world inhabitants are entitled to the same basic rights. How can we, as Americans, disagree with this ideology?
Yes this is a slow process, abundance will not happen over-night. We need to admit our mistakes, change our approach, and try again. That is called “learning”, something human beings are uniquely qualified to do. It is time for our politicians to embrace this vision–one so many use only as a platitude–and redesign trade agreements that fit the needs of all societies, not just rich Americans capable of high dollar investment.
Controversy rages over US policy concerning free trade and the agricultural markets. Now, I am certainly no expert; but it seems American politicians are once again suffering tunnel vision. “We should not let our fears hold us back from pursuing our hopes.” (JFK) Let me say right up front that the US government needs to go back to the drawing board when it comes to free trade agreements. Too many rules and regulations have interfered with the original intention turning it into an investment agreement instead. So, please read the rest of this posting with that in mind…
Yes, NAFTA has redistributed a resource; that is what it was intended to do. The age of the family farm is dying; is that because of NAFTA or evolution of culture? People complain that labor rights have suffered, that the unions are undermined; why should only US laborers be entitled to jobs? Because NAFTA is limited in scope, the final redistribution has not yet taken place. We lose jobs to Mexico; Mexico loses jobs to Central America, and so on. NAFTA has enabled consumers to purchase high quality fresh fruits and vegetables during the off seasons. The increase in imports was dictated by our increased appetite for fresh produce, not a by-product of NAFTA legislation but free market competition at work in the best American economic sense.
CAFTA, the Central American Free Trade Agreement simply expands opportunities previously limited to Canada, Mexico, and the US to six extremely small countries: El Salvador, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Honduras, Costa Rica, and the Dominican Republic. Their impact on our trade will be negligible, 0.5%. Our impact on their access to fresh produce may prove substantial.
The intention behind free trade is to enable people of all nations to: grow and trade whatever their climate can best accommodate, thus employing local citizens in worthwhile pursuits, and enabling its citizens to eat a healthy balanced diet. The vision behind free trade is that all world inhabitants are entitled to the same basic rights. How can we, as Americans, disagree with this ideology?
Yes this is a slow process, abundance will not happen over-night. We need to admit our mistakes, change our approach, and try again. That is called “learning”, something human beings are uniquely qualified to do. It is time for our politicians to embrace this vision–one so many use only as a platitude–and redesign trade agreements that fit the needs of all societies, not just rich Americans capable of high dollar investment.