Skip to main content

Readers Comments on CAFTA

Aaron, a reader, posted some comments I found compelling. Like he said, unfortunately, legislations can be horribly long-winded and difficult to understand for someone without a legal background, as myself.

Are there any lawyers among my readers who would respond or comment on CAFTA and clarify?

See my comments on your earlier post. CAFTA is not so much about reducing tariffs as it is about corporate welfare. As a conservative, I assume you are against welfare.

If you are a free trader, then you really should be concerned with CAFTA, which has all sorts of protectionist provisions woven in. Further, as a Latino, you should be concerned about how NAFTA has inflicted severe hardships on Mexico, which has seen poverty rates grow from 43% just prior to NAFTA to 70% today. This in turn has led illegal immigration from Mexico to skyrocket since the enactment of NAFTA.

The impact on Central Americans will be even worse (unless, of course, you are a lucky member of the incestuous business elites which have always worked to maintain strict class barriers). Indigenous communities in Guatemala (which constitute nearly 60% of the population) are particularly vulnerable since they traditionally have relied on subsistence agriculture as a way of life. Over millennia, the Maya have carefully crafted strains of corn that prosper in steep rocky highland soils unsuitable for growing other crops. Subsidized US corn will decimate these communities (as it did in Mexico after NAFTA), leading to increased immigration to the US.

Do not take CAFTA on its face as a piece of free trade legislation, as it is being marketed. As you become more educated about the actual contents of these 2,200 pages of legalese codifying corporate protectionism, I think your conservative principles will lead you to rethink your position. (question: does it take 2,200 pages just to reduce tariffs?? - that in itself should at least give pause)


Popular posts from this blog

Communism: Good Money for the "El Viejo"

I guess Fidel Castro is doing ok. Forbes lists Castro as one of the richest in the world, right up there with the Queen of England. I bet he didn't like the attention. It was hard to figure it out, but it seems they managed to throw some numbers together.
In the past, we have relied on a percentage of Cuba's gross domestic product to estimate Fidel Castro's fortune. This year we have used more traditional valuation methods, comparing state-owned assets Castro is assumed to control with comparable publicly traded companies. A reasonable discount was then applied to compensate for the obvious disclosure issues.

Hispanic Trending: Leave your name at the border

Most people miss the fact that Hispanics do not consist of a single ethnic group. Besides that, the heritage that each one of the many nationalities represented in our immigrant population is diverse in itself. As I read Manuel Muñoz's post on his assimilation experience, I can tell you mine was nothing like his. But I can relate to this paragraph. My niece's name is Katie Belle (Sierra). It's intriguing to watch "American" names begin to dominate among my nieces and nephews and second cousins, as well as with the children of my hometown friends. I am not surprised to meet 5-year-old Brandon or Kaitlyn. Hardly anyone questions the incongruity of matching these names with last names like Trujillo or Zepeda. The English-only way of life partly explains the quiet erasure of cultural difference that assimilation has attempted to accomplish. A name like Kaitlyn Zepeda doesn't completely obscure her ethnicity, but the half-step of her nam…

RealClearPolitics: The Democrats Dither on Trade

The backtracking on free trade in South America has been among the frustrating news for me coming out of the beltway. Considering how the economic downturns in Latin America affect us through the increase in illegal immigration, I would think more Americans would be fighting for this one as loudly as they fought for the failed Immigration legislation. Democratic presidential candidates like to talk about "turning a page" in America's relations with the rest of the world. But what does that mean, in practical terms, on bread-and-butter issues such as trade? Are today's Democrats a party of open markets and economic development, or of market restrictions and job protection?The answer is that leading Democrats seem to want both -- they favor economic development overseas but not at the cost of U.S. jobs. That sounds like a coherent position until you begin to look carefully at the political choices in Latin America, a part of the world where …