a ugandan farmer's view of globalisation

[gooddoctor]

the big issue is a street magazine which reports on issues that affect ordinary people all over the world, from poverty, to the enviroment, to drugs, to multicuturalism, to charity, to fair trade, to globalisation and our governments. it is non-aligned in principle, but all publications focusing on issues rather than events tend to be anti-capitalist naturally. you can buy it in most western countries from licenced vendors out on the street and i'd seriously recommend it. it's not just charity, it's a valuable source of information for all activists.
this particular article is about a ugandan farmer who is currently touring scotland to promote fair trade and raise awareness about the destructive nature of today's globalisation. he will also be lobbying at the wto trade round in qatar this month.
it's important to note that, like most anti-capitalist protesters, he's not opposed to an international economy on fair terms. but, we are united in our belief that globalisation, the economic arm of the western corporate elite must not be allowed to continue in its present form.
i'm going to transcribe it verbatim and it may take a while but just bear with me (especially you agusto, reagan et al or i'll never speak to you again) because it's really enlightening and a good read. it only takes five minutes! we will need to arm ourselves with facts like this in the ongoing war of information. well, here goes nothing...

SURVIVING THE GLOBAL FREE FOR ALL

A VISITING UGANDAN CO-OPERATIVE MANAGER TELLS OF THE PLIGHT OF FARMERS CAUGHT IN A "FREE TRADE" SYSTEM STACKED AGAINST THEM

by sam bartlett

if ever a name struck loathing into the hearts of most scots, margaret thatcher would be high on the list. so it's no wonder the government, trying to sell the "benefits" of globalisation, has shied away from too much public discussion of what grass roots campaigners have dubbed "global thatcherism".

in genoa in july, g8 leaders stated they wanted "an ambitious new round of global trade negotiations...to develop global growth and poverty reduction".

this month, a ugandan co-operative manager's thousand mile tour of scotland has shown many scots the real effects of "free trade" across the world.

but yorokuamu abainenemar's engaging smile also radiates the positives he believes are possible - as long as consumers here can link the pound in their pockets to the progress rather than the poverty of producers.

a graduate in marketing and export management from birmingham university, yorokuamu spent four years with a multinational tobacco company. "working for a multinational showed me what power they have," he says. "and how ruthless they can be - influencing governments and calling whole nations their "territories"".

"they can make sure things go their way through chairmen with contacts in the centre of power, yet much power remains within the corporations.

"moving money around the world is a lot easier now, so many profitable multinationals don't pay the taxes you would expect," he adds. some people call this "creative accounting". others see it as rich companies bleeding money from poor economies.

yorokuamu has spent ten years working with the ugandan co-operative alliance, helping small producers market their coffee, cotton, tea and tobacco.

however, fair trade and globalisation are uneasy bed fellows. for example, fair trade company cafedirect pays producers 187 per cent of the world market price for arabica coffee beans. for robusta beans, it pays 511 per cent.

"i work with small farming co-operatives to help trade their produce fairly," says yorokuamu, "so people at the bottom can have a meaningful and dignified life.

"agriculture is a way of life that impacts on about 90 per cent of the population. as a poor country we depend on small-scale agriculture and fear we will almost disappear under globalisastion and the world bank's structural readjustment programmes.

"scotland is one of the globalising countries - a big proportion of its gdp is in import-export, but scottish agricultural products have not been "liberalised", so who is making the rules and in whose interest?" he asks.

sub-saharan africa has lost an estimated $569 million a year since the uruguay round, the last time global trade rules were agreed. but even with certain levels of industrial protectionism, some scottish communities have shared the experience of the downside of global "free trade".

just talk to workers sacked by motorola, or viasystems in the borders, or textile workers whose jobs have been given to cheaper labour abroad.

many asian and latin american countries claim their policies promoting development are being undermined by wto rules.

this, argues yorokuamu, shows that engaging with the decision makers over trade rules is in everyone's interests (except perhaps the multinational companies and the politicians whose election campaigns they bankroll), not just small producers in the developing world.

"the world bank and international monetary fund, along with other agencies, want to determine the direction we take," he says.

"africa is looked on as a source of cheap labour and cheap raw materials. smaller producers are used because they are cheap. trade, in most cases, is not fair. there is much corruption in trade.

"many problems may be different but the basic problem is the same whether you are a scottish or an african farmer. for example, there are four companies which control the vast amount of coffee trading across the world. three massive corporations control the majority of the world's grain trade."

another example of the policies and power of the developed world having a negative effect upon africa and other poorer countries is in the area of aids drugs.

for an aids sufferer in uganda, the cost of treatment is between 800,000 and one million schillings per month. the average income is 850,000 schillings a month leaving thousands of people suffering from aids/hiv effectively destitute or without the medical treatment they need.

the last twenty years have seen average incomes declining as a result of falling prices paid to small ugandan producers. economic control is increasingly transfered to foreign institutions and corporations.

poor countries have lost $9.6 million every day because of unequal effects of trade rules. that is some fourteen times the amount they receive in aid.

but in meetings with msps [members of the scottish parliament - gooddoctor] and community groups, yorokuamu has highlighted what people here can do to make a difference. "buying fairly-traded products is a useful way to help eradicate poverty by contributing to higher incomes for trading and co-operatives," he explains.

"it is a significant means of increasing incomes for small farmers. premium prices can also be used to fund improvements in the social infrastructure, like safer water, basic healthcare centres, immunisation programmes or education. all of which will benefit the wider community.

"consumers should find out where products come from. people are poor because trade has been unfair to them and they cannot afford to educate their children or repair their houses.

"if globalisation continues as it is, i fear things will only get worse. but trade can offer a solution, rather than adding to the underlying factors that cause poverty."

on october 4, the scottish executive's enterprise minister, wendy alexander, announced the rebranding of its inward investment quango. "the connection between all the world's economies has been thrown even more sharply into focus by events in the us," she said. "but even before this, the rapid pace of globalisation and new challenges facing scotland led us to review our international operations."

in other words, the lessons of international companies coming along, taking advantage of economic sweeteners to build facilities and then clearing off to even cheaper countries has caused policy makers to stop and think.

the question is whether, when the minister says "review", does she mean "backtrack"?

the scotsman newspaper [a fascist rag - gooddoctor] seems to agree: "this month saw the scottish executive launch its revamped inward investment wing, global connections," it said on october 8. this plan turns its back on the policy of inward investment which turned scotland into a low-cost, branch-plant economy highly vunerable to global economic flu."

but will this lead policy makers to redouble their "globalisation good!" mantra, or to step back and re-evaluate in terms of creating a more sustainable and less exploitative policy?

"the way globalisation is sold to the public," says john watson of the world development movement (wdm), "is to stop people asking what it means. they say it will relieve everybody's problems and benefit all. the biggest fear for me is that poor countries will never be in charge of their own destinies with big countries and companies driving policy.

"liberalisation and world trade are all connected and america and the eu are taking the same line. when a rich country or company invests in a poor country they always keep control of the capital, so we end up with sweat shop factories.

"fair trade and unfair trade are the focus for us at the wto ministerial meeting scheduled between november 9 and 13. for example, the previous agreement on clothing and textiles claimed it would eliminate all trade barriers on textile products by the end of 2005.

"it should have greatly benefitted poor countries exporting textiles and clothing, but by the end of 1999, the us had removed only 13 out of 750 quota restrictions on developing country's products, and the eu only 14 out of 219.

"there's an image around that protesters don't present alternatives," continues watson, "but we do. awareness multiplies, and things can be done differently. we are here to remind people it's important to talk about how we can change things.

"we are caught up in it but it doesn't give us equal opportunities, though we are trying to be positive and renegotiate agenda areas before it's too late.

"a lot of people are losing out from it. people in scotland are losing out. it has been like thatcherism on a global scale."

phewf!.. what do you think?


(Edited by gooddoctor at 9:28 pm on Nov. 5, 2001)

[gooddoctor]

well, good luck to yorokuamu and the wdm next week i say. the world needs more people like them. but, as socialists we have to ask ourselves if it's enough. will the mncs and power politicians turn around in qatar and say "oh, alright! it's a fair cop, we'll be responsible citizens from now on"? or, will they simply perform their eternal function under rationalist economics and try to assume a greater market share than ever before? because that's what it essentially boils down to.
no, i for one will not stand by and watch my world get fucked over by these greedy bastards. the battle lines have been drawn by the mncs and i will do everything in my power to stop them before it's too late by protesting on the streets, writing letters to anyone i can think of, telling my friends and family, boycotting shit like nestle, macdonalds and nike and all that bollocks, working with my student societies, voting for my socialist party and doing work for them whenever i can. get active and make a difference before there's no world left to defend!
don't forget that the article says nothing of the enviromental impact of liberal trade rules, but from speaking to enviromentalists i can assure you that the danger is even more acute than the economic issues. why do you think bush rejected kyoto? in the interests of the american people? how gullible does he think we are? they're treating us like fools who can't make up our own minds. the bastards're going to kill us all within a few years if something isn't done. these mncs rape our world and expect to be thanked for it. they are lying to us, it must be stopped. in the end of the day people power will win out, i have felt it at protests, it's irrepressable and euphoric, but we have to act now and show people that they have the power - people power rules!

(Edited by gooddoctor at 9:34 pm on Nov. 5, 2001)

[Markxs]

good post goodoctor its really sad to see bush and his shit be the mind of every european and american guy or woman

[AgustoSandino]

Hey gooddoctor, didn't you bring up the african farmer in another thread, and I summarily dissmissed your claim with an argument about the LACK of globalization in Africa. I find it disingenuous of you to bring him up now on another thread. But I suppose I must continue to dispel your myths.
Reading the post I find that it is rampant with information to support my claim: That, despite your myth about globalization hurting the third world, there is no proof that it does anything but help it. First and foremost because globalization hasn't even reached the majority of the third world, and where it has gone, it has raised standards of living.
Let us again define globalization in accordance to what we see proposed in Free Trade Agreements:
1)freedom of movement for Labor
2)freedom of movement for capital
3)freedom of movement for technology
4)freedom of movement for goods
5)freedom of movement for information
http://www.nafta-sec-alena.org/english/nafta/toc.htm

Now can we say that any nation in africa, except Botswana which does very well, has at least two of these five freedoms?

No there arent.

1)there is very little native capital in africa, and there is almost no foreign investment, How can Multi-Nationals be exploiting the african worker if they have no presence in africa.

2)Labor African labor is stagnant, they can't move around the continent and they can't leave the continent easily

3)Africa lacks many technologies that are common place in the west

4)goods there are little exports to africa, and there are little imports from africa. Furthermore what there is, is greatly restricted by tariffs and quotas

5)information, there are very few outlets of information in africa, and in most nations information is controlled by the government

Now, if its the case that THERE IS NO GLOBALIZATION IN THE THIRD WORLD, how can multinationals and globalization be harming the thirdworld. On the otherhand it is the LACK OF GLOBALIZATION THAT HARMS THE THIRD WORLD.

In nations where globalization has begun to spread you see magnificent rises in standard of living. Ah, you say child sweat shop labor isn't magnificent, well it is if you compare it to child prostitution.

http://makethemaccountable.com/topic_FreeTrade.htm

I don't want kids working in factories anymore than you do, but I rather have them there than pimping themselves out on the streets.

Moreover, look at countries like argentina, chile, Brazil and Mexico. Since they begun liberalizing their economies their PER CAPITA GDP growth has gone up.

Don't believe me that globalization is good, ask Yorokuamu Abainenemar.

"scotland is one of the globalising countries - a big proportion of its gdp is in import-export, but scottish agricultural products have not been "liberalised", so who is making the rules and in whose interest?" he asks. - Yorokuama Abeinenemar, qtd in Gooddoctor

Well, its not the MNC's and the WTO and World Bank, they are against subsidies in all sectors including the agricultural. The people who support subsidies are people like JOSE BOVE, who 'strikes against globalization' and the misery it causes in the third world by asking the french governnment for subsidies that hurt third worlders.

"it should have greatly benefitted poor countries exporting textiles and clothing, but by the end of 1999, the us had removed only 13 out of 750 quota restrictions on developing country's products, and the eu only 14 out of 219." -Yorokuama Abeinenemar, qtd in Gooddoctor

So rather than protest globalization you should allow ministers of the WTO and World Bank to meet and hamper out free trade agreements, that would force nations, particularly rich nations to bring down trade barriers like quotas. This is, after all, what Yorokuama wants.

So again by fighting globalization you are either one, very foolish, because you are being used by people like Jose Bove who protest globalization for its own means. Or you two, very foolish and malicious, because you don't want to help poor people.

[vox]

Agusto is, once again, shameless in his lies.

To say that one is foolish not to support the globalization of capitalist relations of production is, of course, a lie of such gargantuan proportions I'm surprised that this board can support its weight!

Agusto's whole premise is faulty. He posits, like the capitalists at whose feet he worships, that labor and capital are equally free to move, but that, of course, is not the case. He states, "African labor is stagnant, they can't move around the continent and they can't leave the continent easily." He would like people to believe that it labor, moving from continent to continent, could somehow be better off than it is now, but that's clearly not the case. Indeed, it belies his unspoken, but implicit, belief that human relations, things like family and community, are nothing at all but hinderances to labor chasing after the very liquid and easily moved capital.

To suggest that labor can be as easily transported as capital is foolish from any practical stance. To suggest that it should be is anti-human.

Too, the idea that breaking down all barriers to trade would benefit people living under a capitalist system is, of course, wrong. Rather, it forces all workers into a race to the bottom, where the cheapest and most obedient will be rewarded with the least amount of money that will keep them alive. Fear will be the controlling factor in a worker's life, this is the true terrorism of capitalist society.

Of course, Marx supported free trade. He, being a philosopher, took the long view. He recognized that unobstructed capital flow would be devastating to the worker and cause much misery in the short run, but believed it would quicked the revolution.

Agusto now presents these principles and says that workers will benefit, but, of course, workers do not benefit. GDP may indeed grow, but what good is that when you can't buy bread for your family?

Nowhere does Agusto ever talk about the distribution of wealth. The GDP can grow sky high and the worker can still barely hang on.

Agusto doesn't talk about the social relations of capitalism because his Ivory Tower theories disolve into fairy dust when confronted with reality.

Agusto has talked about NAFTA a few times. Let's look at this wonderful thing, huh?

"During the 1993 debate over the fate of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Florida farmers and ranchers as well as farm communities across the U.S. were promised that NAFTA would provide access to new export markets and thus would finally bring a lasting solution to farmers off-and-on struggles for economic success.

"Now, seven years later, the evidence shows the income of independent Florida farmers has declined, consumer prices have risen while some giant agribusinesses have reaped huge profits. Florida has lost 1,000 small and medium sized farms since NAFTA went into effect. Total net income for "farm operations" in Florida increased between 1993 and 1999 but all of the income gain was in corporate farms. When corporate income increases are eliminated farm income drops steeply in Florida. During the seven years of NAFTA, net farm income for non-corporate Florida farm operations fell 74.4% between 1993 and 1999 from $51.4 million to $13.4 million. These bad outcomes for independent farmers are defining the growing national debates over President Bush s proposals to establish Fast Track trade authority and to expand NAFTA to 31 other Latin American and Caribbean nations through the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA)."

http://www.publiccitizen.org/publications/...ase.cfm?ID=7098 (http://www.publiccitizen.org/publications/release.cfm?ID=7098)

"In November of 1993, the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) released NAFTA We Need It, a collection of anecdotes from more than 250 companies describing how they would create U.S. jobs and face improved business prospects if Congress passed the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).



"As NAM President Jerry Jasinowski proclaimed in the report's forward: "U.S. companies are publicly sharing information on their market prospects in Mexico -- information normally considered 'company proprietary' and jealously guarded from the competition...They are doing so to convince Congress to approve the pact. These anecdotes...clearly illustrate how important the Mexican and other foreign markets are to U.S. companies and U.S. jobs."(1)



"Three years after NAFTA went into effect, Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch examined the specific promises contained in the NAM's report and other pro-NAFTA business and government reports and congressional testimony to determine whether NAFTA has actually created the U.S. jobs that its proponents promised. By tracking the performance outcomes of specific job creation and export expansion promises of businesses and industry organizations, this report documents a broad sample of NAFTAs real life results.



"As leading promoters of NAFTA, the firms surveyed for this report were the most likely to embody the promised benefits of NAFTA. This report reveals how the real life experiences of these pro-NAFTA companies three years into NAFTA now embody a very different story -- one which shows that NAFTA is not working. New U.S. jobs are not being created by NAFTA and NAFTA is causing major U.S. job loss.

"Despite NAFTA's three year record, many of NAFTA's original industry and political boosters are now urging an immediate expansion of NAFTA to additional countries in the Americas. Any prudent consideration of NAFTA's future must be based on the real life evidence of NAFTA's actual performance.



"With this study, Public Citizen demands: "Show Us the New NAFTA Jobs!" Recently, NAFTA's proponents have made weak attempts to use new statistical models to demonstrate NAFTA job creation. However, repeated inquiries to the Department of Commerce and our own studies have failed to uncover more than a few hundred actual new jobs attributable to NAFTA. These jobs stand in stark contrast to the NAFTA job loss reported by the NAFTA TAA program, which itself is a fraction of the actual NAFTA job loss. This study attempts to get past the phantom jobs NAFTA's defenders claim (using their economic models) and to look for the specific jobs created by NAFTA.



"In three years, NAFTA has already cost more than 600,000 U.S. jobs. The evidence of NAFTA's job losses is described in detail below. Among the total NAFTA job loss are over 109,000 specific jobs certified by the U.S. Department of Labor under one narrow NAFTA job loss assistance and retraining program called NAFTA Trade Adjustment Assistance (NAFTA TAA.)"

http://www.publiccitizen.org/trade/nafta/j...les.cfm?ID=1767 (http://www.publiccitizen.org/trade/nafta/jobs/articles.cfm?ID=1767)

"WASHINGTON — The Bush administration’s Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) has declined to provide information documenting the administration’s repeated assertion that the North American Free Trade Agreement and the World Trade Organization have increased U.S. household income by $1,300 to $2,000 annually.

"The USTR has repeatedly offered the dollar figure during its campaign to promote Fast Track but has failed to provide documentation pursuant to a Freedom of Information Act request for "substantiation of the USTR figure." The failure of the USTR to offer the underlying documentation for the alleged economic benefits of trade to American families — requested by Public Citizen under FOIA on June 13 — comes as the administration continues to press for Congress to consider its Fast Track proposal (now dubbed Trade Promotion Authority) before the August congressional recess.

"In the height of the Fast Track fight, the administration’s unwillingness to substantiate its implausible claim leads to only one conclusion: They’re using fuzzy math to promote their trade agenda," said Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch Director Lori Wallach. "There’s nothing like a campaign to push an unpopular trade policy to make trade officials get creative with numbers."

http://www.publiccitizen.org/pressroom/rel...ease.cfm?ID=675 (http://www.publiccitizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=675)

To top it all, NAFTA is anti-democratic (http://www.publiccitizen.org/publications/release.cfm?ID=7076)! While I'm sure Agusto doesn't mind something like that, I think most people would.

Unlike Agusto, I'm not foolish, and I'm not being "used" by Jose Bove. I'm simply aware of the reality beyond the sophomoric theory.

vox

[AgustoSandino]

I love doing this, and you know why? After so many futile attempts on your part vox, the pattern for retort is now established and your fallacies aren't even difficult to point out.

"Agusto's whole premise is faulty. He posits, like the capitalists at whose feet he worships, that labor and capital are equally free to move, but that, of course, is not the case. He states, "African labor is stagnant, they can't move around the continent and they can't leave the continent easily." He would like people to believe that it labor, moving from continent to continent, could somehow be better off than it is now, but that's clearly not the case"-Vox

Well Vox, I don't recall saying that labor and capital are free to move, rather that they should be. I know it's hard to realize but the largest amount of trade in the world is not between nations, its within nations. There are places in africa where there is not even interstate trade. Secondly, as the example of free labor within the US proves, the freedom of movement of labor, similarly to capital is hardly inhuman. What is inhuman about a person wanting to leave New York for a job in LA? Your contention to the freedom of movement of labor is based on the assumption that in some 'battle room' there is some capitalist standing over a map with pegs he calls labor. As if playing some giant board game he moves labor at will. You see, freedom of movement of labor is not "anti-human" whatever that means, it is a human freedom. It means that people should be allowed to travel freely. It's a concept that people who adhere to an economic theory, socialism, that is based on coercion can't fathom.

"Now, seven years later(after Nafta), the evidence shows the income of independent Florida farmers has declined, consumer prices have risen while some giant agribusinesses have reaped huge profits."-vox

Vox, I see now that in addition to sophistry you are a great 'cut-and-paster'. Actually NAFTA very much meant the decrease in jobs in the agricultural sector. This is actually what Yorokuamo (the subject of the initial post) wanted. As I pointed out in the previous post he was against farm subsidies, quotas and tariffs that benefit first world agriculture at the expense of third world agriculture. The reason why agribusines suffered in the US is because under NAFTA the US had to stop its farm subsidies, its quotas and its protective tariffs. Yes American agri-bussiness was hurt, but the big winner was Mexico's agricultural sector.
In turn those "Nafta Jobs" that you quote public citizen demanding appeared in abundance. Today, despite the downward cycle of the economy we stand at 5.6 percent unemployment, better than we did before Nafta was enacted. I won't contest your assertion that the american manufacturing sector shrunk, but it is apparent that the US financial, techological and service sectors grew tremendously. This is good. Do you remember that little economic concept called "comperative advantage" we taught you about earlier. Well other countries have comperative advantage in agriculture and manufacturing, it is only FAIR that they develop these sectors. Otherwise their economies won't grow and their people won't develop.
And yes it does help individuals, as I've mentioned before one billion people in India and China have escaped poverty thanks to globalization. The numbers are also impressive for Latin America, with Mexico,Chile, Argentina, Brazil and Peru leading the way. You see when I say GDP growth I am concerned with distribution and equity, I suppose you didn't read my post, since you failed to see I prefaced GDP with "per capita"

[gooddoctor]

you're such a dick agusto, i'm not even going to read your posts. why do you think the ugandan farmer's going to the wto round in qatar to lobby for fairer trade if there isn't any trade there in the first place? there's no logic in what you say. he's going to qatar to try and stop the trade liberalisation on the corporate elite's and us' terms, the article's very explicit about that. there will be no ears for him there though. we are the only ones who will hear his call for help. we are the only ones who can make the global economy work for everyone, not just the corporate elite. you have chosen to completely ignore the bare faced facts of life and skew it to your own ends. i don't understand why, i wonder if you even read it in the first place. all you care about is your phony theories, why don't you take a look around the world? something's gone seriously wrong and we've got to do something about it. that means stopping the corporations before they do any more damage. i just give up on you, i'm not interested in talking to you anymore if you aren't going to listen. goodbye.

(Edited by gooddoctor at 10:27 pm on Nov. 7, 2001)

[AgustoSandino]

Hey malte, look, I was insulted, ban him!!! Well Gooddoctor, first let me note how you never argue my points, at least I give you that courtesy. Then, if you read your own article you will note that the 'ugandan farmer' complained about the subsidies, quotas and trade restrictions that benefit European and American Agribussiness. This is something that must be remedied, and you know how, by abolishing subsidies, quotas and trade restrictions. And you know how this will come about, not through Union protectionism, not through Socialist reactionary agitation, but through free-trade agreements that force European and American markets open to third world goods. There is no trade in Africa, there is freedom of movement of goods, but it is only one way, from the US and Europe to Africa. Freedom of movement of goods has to be two-way, and the way to bring this about is through free-trade agreements that open US and European markets to Africa.
How are you going to help the global economy work for everyone?

[gooddoctor]

false start...

(Edited by gooddoctor at 12:03 am on Nov. 8, 2001)

[gooddoctor]

i'm just tired of you that's all. you and your stupid little fat man icon and outdated theories and irrelevant histories. your kind of political apathy is responsible for so much misery and suffering in this world. i come here to escape all that, but you just confront me with it, even in this little haven we've created. i don't want to hear about how hopeless our task is and how the world's always going to be fucked up no matter what we do. i want to discuss ways of changing the world for the better because i fell like i ought to as a responsible citizen of this planet. you just depress me.

[vox]

Agusto, you'd be wise to keep your arrogance in check, for, as you've shown countless times, you selectively edit my posts for your response. I'm still waiting for a real rebuttal in the Dear Capitalists thread. I toss out many facts, you cling to ONE where you think you may have a point! I'm not sure whether to laugh at you or be embarrassed for you.

Fact is, you lied again, Agusto. See, here's what you quoted from my post:

"Now, seven years later(after Nafta), the evidence shows the income of independent Florida farmers has declined, consumer prices have risen while some giant agribusinesses have reaped huge profits."-vox


And here's your falsehood:

"The reason why agribusines suffered in the US is because under NAFTA the US had to stop its farm subsidies, its quotas and its protective tariffs. "

See, if you were half as smart as you're pretending to be, you would have caught this, also from my post, but overlooked in your zeal to refute the truth:

"Total net income for "farm operations" in Florida increased between 1993 and 1999 but all of the income gain was in corporate farms."

See how that goes? Agribusiness wins, Agusto, while people suffer. You're clearly for that. I'm not. It's really quite simple. Perhaps you should try reading for comprhension sometime.

Your facile argument about labor and capital is another good example. I argue the there is a material difference between the two, and you claim I misrepresent you? Hee! Perhaps you recall that I wrote, "To suggest that labor can be as easily transported as capital is foolish from any practical stance." You do nothing to refute that at all.

Rather, you make up a straw man argument, suggesting that I believe "that in some 'battle room' there is some capitalist standing over a map with pegs he calls labor. As if playing some giant board game he moves labor at will." Very clearly, I said nothing of the sort. That you need to resort to such an astounding display of duplicitous drivel betrays the weakness of your philosolophy.

Agusto, when you write that you won't "contest [my] assertion that the american manufacturing sector shrunk, but it is apparent that the US financial, techological and service sectors grew tremendously," are you trying to link growth in those sectors to NAFTA? It's obvious that you're not, but simply picking areas of previous expansion, which are now contracting. Also, you posit service sector jobs, which may have grown due to NAFTA's effect on the manufacturing sector, as somehow equal to jobs in the technology and financial sectors by grouping them all together. However, a look at stability, wages and benefits will show you that, despite what your theory may say, service sector jobs are not that great. In fact, the service sector is one of the worst for people in the US. Again, I refer to you Nickel and Dimed by Barbara Ehrenreich.

Your praise for Mexico makes me wonder about what you think of Mexican enovironmental standards. Is GDP growth still good if it comes at the cost of mercury in the ground water? Does quality of life matter to the capitalist? I don't believe it does, and nothing you've said has shown me it does.

GDP per capita, figured with PPP? Right? Okay, I'm on board, Agusto. However, the GDP PPP per capita in the US has grown, but the disparity between the rich and the poor has grown as well, so forgive me if I don't swoon over it. It's not a clear indicator of actual wealth distribution. It has its utility, but I'm afraid this isn't it.

Now, Agusto, where are those jobs that NAFTA created for US workers, and what kind of jobs are they?

vox

[AgustoSandino]

I love this vox. As a matter of fact maybe too much, Redceltic was said that this forum was like crack, or something of the sort, I will agree it is rather addicting. I was losing interest, but now that your back...


Vox do you know what the breakdown in GDP of the US economy is. 2% agricultural, 18% industrial, 20% Service.

The breakdown of sectors of the US workforce are as follows Manegerial and Professional: 30.2%; Technical, Sales, administrative support: 29.2%; service(excluding those mentioned previously):13.5%; manufacturing AND mining AND transportation AND craft: 24.6%; farming, forestry and fishing 2.5%.

What does this all mean. First it means that agricultural employment has shrunk tremendously, the US is not an agricultural nation. Furthermore the revenues of the agricultural industry have decreased in proportion to the GDP of the US. Meaning that unless the US continued to subsidize is agricultural industry and "independant florida farmers," I didn't know florida was the only state of the union that mattered, at the expense of third world, in this case Mexican agriculture, small farmers aren't going to be able to stay in the game. The reason is because it is prohibitively expensive for these independent farmers to produce crops, if they continued to produce crops they wouldnt find buyers.
Actually I did refute the fact that it is not only practical but it is very human, and humane for labor to be able to move the way capital does. As I showed in a previous post labor moves freely in the US everyday. You seem to think that the freedom of movement of labor somehow dehumanizes labor. I see clearly that the freedom of movement of labor is the freedom of movement of people. A great example of the freedom of movement of labor is that of a person moving from NY to LA to change jobs. Now is that what you are against.

Furthermore I am clearly linking the growth of the service sector and the decrease in the industrial sector to Nafta, I'm not the only one with this mindset: http://www.sice.oas.org/geograph/north/Dat_ipp.asp
Nafta has helped transform the US economy from a heavy industrial one, to a technology and service oriented one. I think the figures up top show very clearly, the high skill technical sector, including professionals, managers, and technology related employes constitutes 60 percent of the US labor force. 13.5 percent of the labor force is in services related to the retail industry, I am assuming these are the jobs that you mention "are not that great" and I agree as a veteran of the service industry that they are not fantastic jobs to hold and will certainly not bring someone to retirement, yet it is interesting to note that US census bureau statistics show these jobs are almost exclusively the domain of teenagers who take on the jobs for supplemental income.
Then you fail to realize that NAFTA encourages enviromental preservation by creating incentive for Mexican bussiness to adhere to US enviromental standards at the risk of being denied access to US markets.
Finally, I think you've brought up the point regarding income inequality based on no actual data. I will refer you to the same study to which I previously referred you to.
http://www.heritage.org/library/cda/cda99-07.html

I don't disagree that incomes of the middle and upper classes have increased disproportionately to that of the lower classes. One major reason for this is that the minimum wage has not gone up, yet it is interesting to note that only 2 percent of the US workforce labors for the minimum wage. It is also important to note that income inequality data often overlooks these factors.

figures are incomplete and omit many types of cash and non-cash income.

figures do not take into account the equalizing effects of taxation.

population divisions actually contain unequal numbers of persons, a fact that greatly magnifies the apparent level of economic inequality.

Differences in income are affected substantially by large differences in the amount of work performed in each quintile, yet these differences in work effort are not acknowledged in Census publications




So while the disparity between rich and poor has grown, inequality has not.

Finally I don't think I have to mention where those NAFTA jobs are, since I broke down the US labor force for you at the top.

[vox]

Agusto,

You've overlooked the fact that I've presented to you about agribusiness in Florida doing quite well. How is that helping Mexico, Agusto? Why don't you answer this? I know why, but I like watching you try to squirm your way out of it.

The report didn't say that no one was making money, it said that family farms were losing while agribusiness, in the same state, gained.

Are you really this dumb, Agusto?

I think you are.

Here's another reason why I think so:

Labor and capital are not the same at all. This is obvious. Nowhere have I said that people should not have the right to move freely. Nowhere. That you claim I say such a thing is just another one of your lies.

I'll make it very simple for you, Agusto. When capital very rapidly fled Asia, could Asian labor follow it just as easily? Of course not, though you keep saying that is the case. There is a material difference between labor and capital. I know you don't want to admit that, but it's true and obvious. Your theory fails yet again.

I'm curious, Agusto, as to where you got the numbers about the US workforce, for I think that your conclusion is very, very misguided. To assume that 60% of the workforce is made up of "professionals, managers, and technology related employes [sic]" would mean that, on average, that's the composition of businesses in the US, which is clearly false. Dot coms alone do not employ enough people to skew the figures for tech workers. Please link to the US Census Report figures that show that teenagers almost exclusively hold service sector jobs, for I believe that's a lie.

"Then you fail to realize that NAFTA encourages enviromental preservation by creating incentive for Mexican bussiness to adhere to US enviromental standards at the risk of being denied access to US markets."

Show me the proof of this, please. I submit that it's another lie, just more unsubstantiated rhetoric. I've got the studies that show Mexican environmental degradation since NAFTA. Do you?

I talked about your link to the far-right Heritage Foundation in another thread. You may respond there.

vox