"News that's not known, or not known enough."
Helen & Harry Highwater's cranky weblog of news and opinion.
|
"News that's not known, or not known enough." Helen & Harry Highwater's cranky weblog of news and opinion. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
A "threat" to pull out of NAFTA?
For those of you who don't know what NAFTA is about, it is essentially the most grossly unfair and blatantly abusive trade agreement ever worked out between underhanded politicians. Benedict Arnold, whom Americans consider history's biggest traitor, ain't got squat on Brian Mulroney or Carlos Salinas de Gortari. NAFTA places the very lifeblood of Canada's and Mexico's economies square in the hands of Corporate America, granting ethically challenged and largely unregulated industries unprecedented power to dictate price and control foreign exports. There have even been one-sided amendments forcing reimbursement to American businesses that run into expenses or lose profits. If you believe that bullshit about NAFTA being a mutually beneficial trilateral agreement to lower tariffs and facilitate fair competition with equal terms to all three countries, then you're sorely mistaken. Because of NAFTA provisions, which the US appears to be able to change at will and without the consultation of its partner countries, Canada has been forced to pay a 27% duty on its softwood lumber to American buyers, based on bogus claims of subsidy and blatantly illegal accounting practices that were exposed (but not punished) in WTO investigations. There were even some particularly insane claims that Canadians were selling the wood at prices below the cost of production, even though the price was and still is essentially dictated by the US market. I'm still trying to wrap my head around that one. Canadians were accused of selling at a loss and then made to pay money for it? Mills were closing down because money was being lost on these 'sales' after the duty kept rising, but under NAFTA Canada could not refuse to sell. To summarize, Americans companies were buying Canadian wood for a price they named, used illegal 'zeroing' methods to have their expenses reimbursed, and had a rapidly increasing duty paid to them to buy our friggin wood. It tallied up to billions of dollars and was never paid back. And yet grievances were launched and purchasing was halted because there were complaints that the market was flooded by Canadian lumber due to its low cost (not to mention the lovely forced refunds) and that we were somehow profiting more from this arrangement than our American counterparts. This was actually such a situation where America was in violation of NAFTA, a nigh impossible feat, but none in the lumber industry were held legally accountable. Apart from softwood, the Canadian government has even been forced to shell out money to American businesses because their operations would be illegal here. If an American business is hampered by Canadian laws we have to shell out what they project their earnings would have been. Some nutjob from California wanted to bottle and sell water from Lake Ontario but couldn't do so because it's a natural resource protected by our laws, public property, and decidedly not for sale. He filed suit under NAFTA and received an obscene amount of money based on his unrealistic projected earnings. (Who in their right mind would buy untreated water from a heavily polluted lake?) Hell, even American laws don't seem to mean much with that particular provision. The gasoline additive MMT was outlawed in the States before Canada also decided to ban it, but that didn't save us from having to shell out the cash to it's manufacturer. If some asshole tried to start a slavery ring up here we'd probably have to pay up. I'm frankly quite shocked the illegal arms and drug trades don't get wise to the scam. And Mexico... Poor, poor, now even poorer Mexico. The value of their agricultural exports has hit rock bottom. A pipeline pumping cheap goods and illegal labour into America has formed and is not accountable to the corporations that maintain this practice. Yes, industry has seen a massive spike due to the jobs funneled into Mexico, but there hasn't been any real rise in the standards of living for the Mexicans employed. Under NAFTA certain Mexican products receive much less scrutiny when being shipped into the United States. By 'certain' products I mean those produced by the Mexican branches of American corporations. Cheap labor, cheap shipping, no quality control agencies breathing down their necks, only a cursory inspection in customs, and a free scapegoat. The perfect arrangement, as long as you're not on the Mexican side of the border. While Canada and Mexico consider NAFTA a legal and binding treaty, it is classified as a congressional-executive agreement in the United States. What it basically means is that NAFTA can be altered by majority vote in Congress or on the sole whim of the President of the United States of America. Neither Canada or Mexico have that power. Our hands are tied. We can't kill NAFTA. All this sounds like a real sweetheart deal if you happen to be in bed with big business. As politicians, both Clinton and Obama signed their souls away in the prenuptials with Corporate America. With that in mind it strikes me as remarkably stupid that they would ever consider dissolving it, especially when threatening to do so in an attempt to leverage even more economic concessions. I'm serious. They're demanding we bend over and take it even harder than we already do or else they will dissolve their grossly one-sided legally binding arrangement thus preventing themselves from making such demands ever again. Either they're both dumber than a sack of clay hammers or they're hoping to high heaven that everyone else in the world is. So really, is that a threat? Yeah? Well, I dare you Obama! I double dare you, Clinton! I triple-dog-dare you! I defy you to nix NAFTA! And when you do, Canadians and Mexicans will gather together and party so hard it will make Mardi Gras look like a church social!
Because we respect peoples' privacy, we do not keep records of friends' and contributors' contact information. This means we can't forward private communications between readers and writers, but we always welcome dialogue for publication. When we publish incoming emails, we usually edit out the sender's last name, email address, or anything else that would tend to uniquely identify the author (if we slip up, please let us know). But if your email is unambiguously intended only to annoy, insult, or threaten us, we'll publish all the details, and leave it on-line forever. We're especially interested in hearing and considering different perspectives. All we ask is that you conduct yourself sanely and civilly. For the most productive dialogue, it helps if you'll cite a specific article or concept we've gotten wrong. You can contact Helen & Harry at <newsuneed at yahoo.com>. If that address ever fails, our back-up email address is <unknownnews at inbox.com>. But please, don't email us unless you're really and truly, honestly, actually trying to send the publishers of News a communication you're not sending to anyone or everyone else. Please don't send attachments or other cr*p we don't want. If you're trying to reach us but getting no reply, it's probably because you've sent us cr*p we don't want, so we're filtering your emails into the trash, unopened and unread. If you'd like to have your email address unblocked, simply send a sincere apology (from an un-blocked email address).
|
|
