ChainsandFreedom
Posts: 222
Joined: 6/20/2007
Status: offline
|
Damn...what an interesting topic, and I must admit its disappointing to see so few people responsible for all the posts.
I agree with you all that an international accord done under the public radar is probably being done for the wrong reasons, and we should be wary.
I also agree that bussiness's man in the oval office has never demonstraited he is capable of doing things in the interest of the American public.
But, frankly, you all seem like the same kind of xenophobic yokels who have made it so easy for corporate interests to take control of US policy in the first place.
Like I said, I'd be wary of any multi-country accord being done under the public radar like this, but it seems to me like your objections are made on false assumptions.
Firstly, everyone from the people who put beef and soy on your dinner-plate to the people responsible for the computer you access this thread with to the nurses caring for your elderly parents agree we need some sort of system in place to facilitate cross-border skilled labor. You can bitch all you want about taking american jobs, but the people driving the now waning american economy all agree that there wont BE an american economy very long unless we open up our borders to labor demands. It just so happens by coincidence that Bush, big bussiness's bitch, is in agreement with bussiness leaders (i.e. the people providing you with a paycheck and something to buy) that what would be best for the American economy would be to stop strangling our HR departments with red tape every time theres a skilled position that needs to be filled from the outside. A Tiwanese programmer or a Mexican farmer takes a job you arnt qualified for anyway, big deal-that just means his new employer will capitalize off of his productivity, expand, and then hire a bunch of americans to meet the needs of their partially immigrant-fueled sucess. Or we could just hire only americans and go through ever more layoffs because bussiness cant find the labor to start new ventures and make a profit.
A rumored Amero would be great, unless you make your profit in the money markets and your an already rich American. It would mean that profit generation couldn't be done purely through international speculation-making a profit would have to mean contributing to bussiness, not just shuffling peso's into dollars. It would mean private american traders wouldn't be able to undercut the mexican economy so they can afford a third yaught, and it would mean Mexico wouldn't bleed as much money on the open market and might actually be able to become an economically viable market for increased investment in a decade or two. Bussiness as a whole would be better off if individuals stopped speculating in forgien currency which only enriches themselves while sucking capital investment out of potential markets
You're concerned for American sovergnty. Your also concerned for open government and public-driven economic policy. Well guess what. You cant have both. The only reason america is so "sovergn" and self-destined, which is to say rich and powerful, in the first place is because we keep other countries on an uneven economic playing field. Ever since the triangle trade, Spanish-American War or the Yalta agreements, we've built the majority of our international wealth through ripping other countries off and prohibiting the late comers from playing by the same rules we do. If the SPP is done for greedy purposes but it also happens to enrich forigen markets, than at least we're finally making money through honest bussiness rather than imperialism.
Speaking of enriching forigen markets, the richer Canada and Mexico are, the richer America will be because we'll make more money by doing bussiness with rich countries than poor ones.
Weather you like playing nice with the nehbors or not, I dont know if you've noticed but its getting expensive to go to Europe on vacation these days. America became a super-power through globalized bussiness, and like it or not, we've got to see it through. We're facing more and more competition on the world stage because Asia and Europe opened their markets, while our own economies growth rates are shrinking and are increasingly dependant on tenuous bussiness trends like real-estate, off-shoring back to productivity, and oil that are anything but stable. Whether or not the SPP is the right way to adapt, its past time to do SOMETHING to get our policies and stategies up to date.
Like I said, its getting expensive to go to Europe these days, or so said last weeks headline in the NYT about the influence of the Euro. Maybe the EU isn't such a bad model to emulate. the Euro is extremly powerful as a currency and many nations are using it as the standard for trade now instead of the dollar. Somehow Germany and France are still economic powerhouses despite high health care and labor costs. A dozen or so post soviet wrecks are seeing unprecidented economic prosperity and growth at the same time.
And why would an international bloc lessen national identity or sovergnty like you guys are afraid of, anyway? You can buy a prostitute leagally in Amsterdam yet theres an anti-gay parliment platform in Poland. other than wealth and increased tourism, it doesnt seem to me like EU nations are any less individual and different than they ever were.
Yes I know this will probably be like NAFTA (american bussiness taking mexican farm land so mexicans have to immigrate here while setting up shop down south so americans loose jobs)-which is to say a completly irrational money making scheme for 'the man' which is to say selfish bad for bussiness investors.
Yes I know nothing done outside the loop of congress by the executive branch, especially THIS executive branch can be good.
But let me just say, as one of those poor stupid people who never heard of the initive before reading up on it through this thread, you've done a bad job of convincing me your against it for rational and informed reasons. Rember, the New Deal did great good even though it went against what the average american would have wanted. The 14th amendment could not have been ratified by all states unless the south was forced to ratify it through military might. The Leauge of Nations might have prevented ww2 if politics hadn't gotten in the way of expert policy makers doing their jobs. Uniformed Integralist's like you, afraid of change just for the sake of american pride who post plenty of links without discussing their implications and credibility, are the very reason big bussiness was so easily able to hijack what little democracy america had to begin with.
|
RE: The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North Am... - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread