Thinking through Franco-American Competition

[Whitehall]

Here\'s an informative post giving the strategic reasons why Chirac has made a huge mistake for France.


http://www.techcentralstation.com/1051/defensewrapper.jsp?PID=1051-350&CID=1051-040203C (\"http://www.techcentralstation.com/1051/defensewrapper.jsp?PID=1051-350&CID=1051-040203C\")


A trade war between the US and France would be a replay of the Franco-Prussian War of 1871, i.e. France loses big time.

[franki]

\"If America wanted to weaken the E.U. we could do no better than offer these new European nations a free trade agreement conditional on their not entering the E.U. \"

These new European nations are getting billions of Euro\'s from us when they join the EU. /ubbthreads/images/icons/frown.gif The same with Turkey. While Eastern Europe and Turkey cannot afford to stay out of the EU, we (the old Europe) have to pay the bill. /ubbthreads/images/icons/frown.gif The USA gets stable and prosperous eastern european countries to trade with, without having to pay much for it....

As the article says free trade is the best for everyone. A trade war doesn\'t help anyone. I hope some a**h*les in Paris and Washington who like to start one get ignored.

Franki /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif

[MadDoctor]

Oh well, the EU will benefit from the boycott of American goods that seems to be spreading through the Islamic world:
http://www.arabnews.com/Article.asp?ID=24611 (\"http://www.arabnews.com/Article.asp?ID=24611\")

[druid]

the only people who benefit from these free trade aggrements are
1)Executives of multi-nationals corpations
2)politicans -- they get paid off by the executives
3)the working populations and governments of thrid world countrys. well at least until their standard of living goes up and they try to charge the corpations for higher wages. then the corpations pack up and go to another thrid world country.

The people who get A_S FCKED W/O LUBE by these trade aggrements
!)The middle class workers of the US (and the other develope countries of the world)
2)the people and governments of these 3rd world countries after the corpations pack up because there is cheaper labor in another developing country.

[franki]

No, that is a popular misunderstanding. In the end everyone benefits from free trade, as it makes the economy grow much faster.

The people in poor countries would rather have companies that pay them low wages, than no wage at all.

The people in developed countries have more products to choose from for a lower price with more competition when there are free markets. (better allocation of goods) This means they can buy more for their money.

This whole globilisation debate is very strange to me, it seems the leftists don\'t know where to demonstrate against, so they pick this issue ..

Franki /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif

[Watcher]

Henceforth the USA sets up free trade deals with australia out here (highly developed industrial capacity and good access to resources) getting in before china gets access to our resource exports.
Free trade deals with south american countries and greater exports to china so you now have a USA/Asian trade block and a Europe/Middle East/africa trade block with South america and near asia to trade with each other.
Although in the end the multi-national corparations benefit.

[MadDoctor]

While free trade may or may not be good for everyone, I think that there are problems in the way the agreements almost always seem to work. Treaties like NAFTA and CAFTA (currently being hammered out between the US and Central American countries) do things like superceding national labor laws and insisting on privatization of stuff like water and healthcare, viewing governmental control/subsidization of these things to be an unfair form of competition. Somehow this never applies to things like US agricultural products, which are heavily subsidized and must have all tarriffs removed from them. Environmental laws are superceded as well. When the Mexican government balked at having a toxic waste dump put in by a US company, the Mexican government was sued, resulting in the dump being put in by court order, and the government having to pay $16M for slowing down the process. The same thing would happen if they didn\'t privatize public services, or tried to enforce their national labor laws.

This is why there has been quite a lot of protest over CAFTA in Central America. They don\'t want to lose public health care, their rights as workers, etc.

Whatever one thinks of free trade, these treaties obviously leave some things to be desired.

[franki]

Overall, the NAFTA is a success, I would think, just as the free trade in the EU is a success. Isn\'t it true that Mexico has the biggest advantages from the NAFTA-agreement?

Franki /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif

[MadDoctor]

Guess it depends on who you ask.

The Mexicans seem to not be wild about NAFTA.
http://www.globalexchange.org/ftaa/20021203_457.html (\"http://www.globalexchange.org/ftaa/20021203_457.html\")
http://www.apparelandfootwear.org/data/naftawwcenterpoll021208.pdf (\"http://www.apparelandfootwear.org/data/naftawwcenterpoll021208.pdf\")
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/printerfriend.asp?PID=64 (\"http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/printerfriend.asp?PID=64\")

Surveys in the US, Canada and Mexico show that everyone thinks that someone\'s making money off of NAFTA, but they\'re also pretty sure it isn\'t them. The Canadians and Mexicans think the US is getting the best of the deal, people in the US think Mexico is, etc. But in none of those countries is NAFTA very popular.

[franki]

\"But in none of those countries is NAFTA very popular. \"

Actually that is a good sign. It shows that some unpopular measures have been taken in the short run, for the benefit of the long-term goals.

Franki /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif

[MadDoctor]

Let\'s hope that\'s what it is...

After more than 10 years of NAFTA, my personal suspicion is that the EU did a way better job of dealing with the issue than we North Americans have.