|
Chip
|
Seenitbefore wrote: <quoted text>
Go ahead there Einstein, hurl forth the benfits of NAFTA THIS country and it's general population and it's economy are reveling in. Trade and Investment Flows Have Substantially Increased From 1993 to 2006, trade among the NAFTA nations climbed 198 percent, from $297 billion to $883 billion. U.S. merchandise exports to our NAFTA partners grew more rapidly – at 157 percent – than our exports to the rest of the world, at 108 percent. As of 2006, each day the NAFTA countries conducted nearly $2.4 billion in trilateral trade. Canada and Mexico are our first and second largest export markets; last year, U.S. exports to our NAFTA partners alone accounted for 35 percent of total U.S. exports. For agriculture, Canada and Mexico alone account for 50 percent of the increase in U.S. agricultural exports to the world since 1993. NAFTA has been good for Mexican agriculture. Trade growth has been remarkably balanced, with U.S. agricultural exports to Mexico increasing by $7.3 billion and U.S. agricultural imports from Mexico increasing by $6.7 billion during the last 13 years. Result: U.S. Economic Growth during the 14 years of NAFTA Has Been Strong Jobs. U.S. employment rose from 112.2 million in December 1993 to 137.2 million in December 2006, an increase of 25 million jobs, or 22 percent. The average unemployment rate was 5.1 percent in the period 1994-2006, compared to 7.1 percent during the period 1981-1993. Manufacturing. U.S. manufacturing output rose by 63 percent between 1993 and 2006, exceeding the 37 percent increase achieved between 1980 and 1993. Compensation. Growth in real compensation for manufacturing workers improved dramatically. Average real compensation grew at an average annual rate of 1.6 percent from 1993 to 2006, compared to just 0.9 percent annually between 1980 and 1993. Investment. Productive investment, central to rising living standards, has increased. Even excluding housing, U.S. non-residential fixed, or business, investment has risen by 107 percent since 1993, compared to a 45 percent increase between 1980 and 1993 Increase in Trade: Trade between the NAFTA signatories tripled, from $297 billion in 1993 to $903 billion in 2007. Specifically, U.S. goods exports to Canada and Mexico grew 157%, from $142 billion to $364.6 billion. Exports from Canada and Mexico to the U.S. grew 231%, from $151 billion in to $501 billion. NAFTA provides the ability for firms in member countries to bid on government contracts. It also protect intellectual properties. Increase in Trade of Services: More than 40% of U.S. GDP is services, including financial services and health care. These aren't as easily transported as are goods, so being able to expand services to nearby countries is important. Thanks to NAFTA, U.S. services exports to Canada and Mexico grew 125%, from $25 billion to $62 billion in 2006. Services exports from Canada and Mexico grew to $37 billion. NAFTA eliminates trade barriers in nearly all service sectors. Service industries are often highly regulated, and the regulations aren't always apparent. NAFTA requires authorities to use open administrative procedures and publish all regulations. Increase in Foreign Direct Investment: Since NAFTA was enacted, U.S. foreign direct investment (FDI) in Canada and Mexico tripled to $331 billion (as of 2006, latest data available). Canadian and Mexican FDI in the U.S. was $165 billion. NAFTA reduces risk for investors by guaranteeing they will have the same legal rights as local investors. It also guarantees they will receive fair market value for their investments in case the government decides to nationalize the industry or take the property by eminent domain. NAFTA provides a legal mechanism for investors to make claims against a government, if needed.
|
|
Chip
|
U.S. manufacturing output soared, up 44% in real terms, U.S. employment grew by over 20 million from 1993 to 2000, and U.S. manufacturing wages more than doubled the rate of increase over the previous decade.
NAFTA has been successful in opening trade between the three countries through the elimination of virtually all tariffs. This free trade agreement will eliminate almost all tariffs on NAFTA-originating goods traded between the U.S. and Mexico by 2008 and has already eliminated tariffs on goods traded between the U.S. and Canada. A lower tariff rate on any good, or final product made from such goods, makes the product available at a lower price than non-NAFTA (higher tariff) competitors’ goods
Since implementation on January 1, 1994, trade between the three countries has increased more than 200%, creating the largest trading area in the world. Our NAFTA partners purchase more U.S. exports than all of Europe and purchase about 36% of total U.S. exports.
our NAFTA partners, Canada and Mexico, purchased $18.2 million worth of agricultural products or 29.6 percent of total U.S. agricultural exports in 2004, up from 28.9 percent in 2003 and 20.8 percent in 1993.
Although U.S. imports have grown under NAFTA, so have U.S. exports. Without NAFTA, the United States would have lost these expanded export opportunities.
Since implementation of the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement, U.S. agricultural exports to Canada have nearly doubled. Canada is now the No. 1 market for U.S. agricultural exports, which climbed from $5.3 billion in 1993 to $9.3 billion in 2003 and on to $9.7 billion in 2004.
Mexico and Canada have become two of the top three U.S. poultry markets in the world: In 2004, U.S. poultry exports to Mexico were valued at $331.1 million while Canada reached $330.3 million (the Russian Federation came in at $530.5 million). Exports to Mexico increased 61.5 percent and 100 percent to Canada since 1993. The export increases from 2003 are remarkable at 27.6 percent for Mexico and 22.8 percent for Canada.
Sales of U.S. corn to Canada and Mexico increased 175 percent and fifteen-fold in value, respectively, between 1993 and 2004. In 1993, Mexico and Canada were ranked 16th and 9th, respectively, in U.S. corn markets worldwide. By 2004, they had risen to 2nd and 4th, respectively. Mexico chose to expedite its market openings for corn under NAFTA in order to provide lower cost food to its increasingly urban population and to ensure sufficient animal feed. Changes in U.S. corn exports in 2004 compared to 2003 are more ordinary than pork and poultry, registering a quite modest 3.5-percent gain to Mexico and a 3.3-percent decline to Canada (and a 3.9-percent decline since the record of $394.6 million worth in 2002).
Exports of U.S. fresh fruits and vegetables to Canada, out top market, reached $1.9 billion in 2004. This is an increase of 45.5 percent since 1993 and 5 percent from 2003. Mexico’s growth as a market for these products is even more striking: rising from our fifth largest market in 1993 to third in 2004. Exports to Mexico surged 98 percent from $134 million in 1993 to $265.8 million in 2004. The changes between 2003 and 2004 were mixed: exports to Canada rose 5 percent but declined 0.5 percent to Mexico.
Though U.S. investment in Mexico has increased, American cash hasn't exactly been gushing southward. In the past four years, America's direct manufacturing investment in Mexico has averaged $1.9 billion a year, a fraction of the $200 billion invested annually in our domestic manufacturing capacity. In fact, U.S. companies invest far more each year in other high-wage, high-standard economies, such as those of Western Europe and Canada, than they do in such developing countries as Mexico.
|
|
Chip
|
NAFTA has been a blessing for many U.S. manufacturers. Our domestic automobile industry, for example, now produces about the same number of cars and light trucks in the United States as it did before the agreement, but it assembles those vehicles more cost-effectively by spreading out its sourcing among the three NAFTA countries -- the United States, Mexico, and Canada. Total manufacturing output in the United States has risen 41 percent during the past ten years, compared to 34 percent in the preceding 10 years. In the first five years of NAFTA, the U.S. economy added a net half million manufacturing jobs. By allowing American manufacturers to more efficiently allocate their production, NAFTA deserves a share of the credit for the healthy uptick in U.S. worker productivity since the mid-1990s.
|
|
Chip
|
U.S. manufacturing output soared, up 44% in real terms, U.S. employment grew by over 20 million from 1993 to 2000, and U.S. manufacturing wages more than doubled the rate of increase over the previous decade.
NAFTA has been successful in opening trade between the three countries through the elimination of virtually all tariffs. This free trade agreement will eliminate almost all tariffs on NAFTA-originating goods traded between the U.S. and Mexico by 2008 and has already eliminated tariffs on goods traded between the U.S. and Canada. A lower tariff rate on any good, or final product made from such goods, makes the product available at a lower price than non-NAFTA (higher tariff) competitors’ goods
Since implementation on January 1, 1994, trade between the three countries has increased more than 200%, creating the largest trading area in the world. Our NAFTA partners purchase more U.S. exports than all of Europe and purchase about 36% of total U.S. exports.
our NAFTA partners, Canada and Mexico, purchased $18.2 million worth of agricultural products or 29.6 percent of total U.S. agricultural exports in 2004, up from 28.9 percent in 2003 and 20.8 percent in 1993.
Although U.S. imports have grown under NAFTA, so have U.S. exports. Without NAFTA, the United States would have lost these expanded export opportunities.
Since implementation of the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement, U.S. agricultural exports to Canada have nearly doubled. Canada is now the No. 1 market for U.S. agricultural exports, which climbed from $5.3 billion in 1993 to $9.3 billion in 2003 and on to $9.7 billion in 2004.
Mexico and Canada have become two of the top three U.S. poultry markets in the world: In 2004, U.S. poultry exports to Mexico were valued at $331.1 million while Canada reached $330.3 million (the Russian Federation came in at $530.5 million). Exports to Mexico increased 61.5 percent and 100 percent to Canada since 1993. The export increases from 2003 are remarkable at 27.6 percent for Mexico and 22.8 percent for Canada.
Sales of U.S. corn to Canada and Mexico increased 175 percent and fifteen-fold in value, respectively, between 1993 and 2004. In 1993, Mexico and Canada were ranked 16th and 9th, respectively, in U.S. corn markets worldwide. By 2004, they had risen to 2nd and 4th, respectively. Mexico chose to expedite its market openings for corn under NAFTA in order to provide lower cost food to its increasingly urban population and to ensure sufficient animal feed. Changes in U.S. corn exports in 2004 compared to 2003 are more ordinary than pork and poultry, registering a quite modest 3.5-percent gain to Mexico and a 3.3-percent decline to Canada (and a 3.9-percent decline since the record of $394.6 million worth in 2002).
Exports of U.S. fresh fruits and vegetables to Canada, out top market, reached $1.9 billion in 2004. This is an increase of 45.5 percent since 1993 and 5 percent from 2003. Mexico’s growth as a market for these products is even more striking: rising from our fifth largest market in 1993 to third in 2004. Exports to Mexico surged 98 percent from $134 million in 1993 to $265.8 million in 2004. The changes between 2003 and 2004 were mixed: exports to Canada rose 5 percent but declined 0.5 percent to Mexico.
Though U.S. investment in Mexico has increased, American cash hasn't exactly been gushing southward. In the past four years, America's direct manufacturing investment in Mexico has averaged $1.9 billion a year, a fraction of the $200 billion invested annually in our domestic manufacturing capacity. In fact, U.S. companies invest far more each year in other high-wage, high-standard economies, such as those of Western Europe and Canada, than they do in such developing countries as Mexico.
|
|
Seenitbefore
|
Post part 1:
Okay. I'm seeing a lot about agricultural products...food stuffs. Then why are we having a food "crisis"...being expanded prices not seen in decades. "Normal" "market theory is when supplies rise, price drops. Not seeming to making a positive affect.
Thus far it appears to be a bunch of figures without any real world advantage.
|
|
Seenitbefore
|
Chip wrote: NAFTA has been a blessing for many U.S. manufacturers. Our domestic automobile industry, for example, now produces about the same number of cars and light trucks in the United States as it did before the agreement, but it assembles those vehicles more cost-effectively by spreading out its sourcing among the three NAFTA countries -- the United States, Mexico, and Canada. Total manufacturing output in the United States has risen 41 percent during the past ten years, compared to 34 percent in the preceding 10 years. In the first five years of NAFTA, the U.S. economy added a net half million manufacturing jobs. By allowing American manufacturers to more efficiently allocate their production, NAFTA deserves a share of the credit for the healthy uptick in U.S. worker productivity since the mid-1990s. Okay. Then where is the real world advantage? Why is it that "these strikes" will kill the U.S. auto manufacturers? Again, no real world advantage for the American workers and incomes. Worker productivity only benefits the company bottom line.
|
|
tbird19482
AOL
|
Ritch Bich wrote: And where are all the union employees when a company is LOSING money? Right in there offering to share in the loss as much as share in the gains, right? HA!!!!!!!!!! Maybe YOU should look back over the last 40 or so years and see all the GIVE BACKS the union gave back . HOW MANY times the Autoworker GAVE back things they were Given over the years, and HOW much Money was to be put into the retirement fund and to pay for their med. A person that started at an auto Co . on 1970 is now paying over $7.oo per hour into these funds , they don't get even near the Vacation time that a state worker gets [ C.O.'s included ]and what about the teachers , DA? I can tell you I have someone I Know was the Biggest union Basher Until He got a Job at one of the prisons in the area well he changed his mind when he had to join the teachers union started at $42,000 a year 25 yrs ago got every day the reg, school got off [ snow days / summer vac. every day the KIDS grades 1-12 were off he got off / I can only say his students were there 365 days a year for at least 5-10 years so why didn't he have to teach ] so auto workers don't get so many days off and do give back to the CO when the CO is in trouble [ I know I only got 4 weeks vacation after 30 years ' 1 week sick leave and 1 week at xmas'] so go look back and see what the AUTO WORKER is paying into his retirement / health care/ and gave back to keep the U.S. auto CO.'s ALIVE/ Befor any of you say that the AUTO WORKER is Greedy ' we have bent over backwards many times when the BIG 3 had CEO's running them into the ground IT WAS the person on that production floor that KEPT things running and gave back what they earned/ look back at all the contracts the U.A.W. have had with the BIG 3 and you will see WE DO CARE what happens to them and we are more than willing to work with them / but DON'T SCREW US and give the big Boss's the $$$$$$$$$$ BE Fair and we are willing to be fair back. it's all there in black and white just look and see then come back and say the autoworker on the floor didn't care.
|
|
crmm
|
general motors making money? I need to go back & check my stocks
|
|
|
|
Seenitbefore
|
Post #3
Okay. Once again. Where's the real world advantage. I'm seeing numbers once again. Not real world increases in the American lifestyle. "U.S. manufacturing output soared, up 44% in real terms, U.S. employment grew by over 20 million from 1993 to 2000, and U.S. manufacturing wages more than doubled the rate of increase over the previous decade." In what exactly. Canned vegetables? Corn again?
"U.S. employment grew by over 20 million from 1993 to 2000, and U.S. manufacturing wages more than doubled the rate of increase over the previous decade." So Bush managed to destroy all those gains? He was elected in 2000 and took office 2001, yes?
Again, the majority of your posts are about farm goods. Food. Sparsely about hard good output. Mexico has always been flush with farming.
We are now talking about the issues of 2008. The majority of this NAFTA promotion has been about prior to the last couple of years. We need to start living in the past?
I said, "hurl forth the benefits of NAFTA THIS country and it's general population and it's economy are reveling in."
Look around you and tell me how we, the general population, are in real world terms better off. All I've seen is typical accounting analyzation and reliance that people can live in and eat numbers. It's numbers. Perhaps someone should tell the Fed that we really aren't teetering on the edge of recession. I'm sure they haven't seen your set of numbers yet so they are not knowing what they are talking about. Oh, I'm no lover of the FED, believe me. Still, if you'll show them these numbers they'll change their mind.
|
|
Chip
|
Seenitbefore wrote: <quoted text>
Okay. Then where is the real world advantage? Why is it that "these strikes" will kill the U.S. auto manufacturers?
Again, no real world advantage for the American workers and incomes. Worker productivity only benefits the company bottom line. No real word advantage are you joking or are you just that stupid and ignorant?
|
|
Chip
|
Seenitbefore wrote: Post part 1:
Okay. I'm seeing a lot about agricultural products...food stuffs. Then why are we having a food "crisis"...being expanded prices not seen in decades. "Normal" "market theory is when supplies rise, price drops. Not seeming to making a positive affect.
Thus far it appears to be a bunch of figures without any real world advantage. Are you serious, never mind I didn't realize that the dumbest person on earth just learned how to type.
|
|
NAFTA
|
Yeah, Nafta is a real good idea. People used to make $15 an hr at Electrolux in Greenville. Now they are lucky to get a part time job for $8 an hr. So now they pay less in state, federal, and social security taxes and receive benefits from the govt.
|
|
Seenitbefore
|
Chip wrote: <quoted text>
Are you serious, never mind I didn't realize that the dumbest person on earth just learned how to type. Well thank you for that. Let me introduce you to more of the dumbest people on earth that have learned to type. http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/briefingpapers... http://afsc.org/trade-matters/trade-agreement... http://www.siliconv.com/trade/tradepapers/naf... And please don't try to insult me with your dribble about anyone can cut and paste. I know you didn't personally come to those conclusions all by yourself. I'm giving you the opportunity to be honest enough to put forth the energy to click so you can read them rather than my taking up so much space on this forum to post every word.
|
|
tbird19482
AOL
|
Seenitbefore wrote: Post #3
Okay. Once again. Where's the real world advantage. I'm seeing numbers once again. Not real world increases in the American lifestyle. "U.S. manufacturing output soared, up 44% in real terms, U.S. employment grew by over 20 million from 1993 to 2000, and U.S. manufacturing wages more than doubled the rate of increase over the previous decade." In what exactly. Canned vegetables? Corn again?
"U.S. employment grew by over 20 million from 1993 to 2000, and U.S. manufacturing wages more than doubled the rate of increase over the previous decade." So Bush managed to destroy all those gains? He was elected in 2000 and took office 2001, yes?
Again, the majority of your posts are about farm goods. Food. Sparsely about hard good output. Mexico has always been flush with farming.
We are now talking about the issues of 2008. The majority of this NAFTA promotion has been about prior to the last couple of years. We need to start living in the past?
I said, "hurl forth the benefits of NAFTA THIS country and it's general population and it's economy are reveling in."
Look around you and tell me how we, the general population, are in real world terms better off. All I've seen is typical accounting analyzation and reliance that people can live in and eat numbers. It's numbers. Perhaps someone should tell the Fed that we really aren't teetering on the edge of recession. I'm sure they haven't seen your set of numbers yet so they are not knowing what they are talking about. Oh, I'm no lover of the FED, believe me. Still, if you'll show them these numbers they'll change their mind. Seenitbefor, Isn't it really ammasing HOW SOME PEOPLE just can't see their hand in front of their face/ yes nafta did create jobs most in the service sector at $5 per hour. and good paying jobs were lost and are still going, and in time it will come that there will be no good paying jobs / there will only be the RICH and POOR in the U.S. and no middle class, and as for chip glad you finally figured out how to type.
|
|
Shawn
|
I am glad to see you wizards and your intellectual knowledge of NAFTA. However that is nothing more then a blame game. Plain and simple. You want to keep a job? Tell me why people who can barely read or write deserve $17 to 27.50 an hour. A majority of the work force has nothing more then a high school education, and the reason we are hearing so much about the strike... because now they are going to have to live like me and the rest of us. Pay check to pay check, no over time, and goddamn it pay for your health benefits.
I am so tired of hearing how wonderful unions are, really? They are not worth a crap, bullies that is what they are, and now they no longer can bully. They whip the work force of those they represent into fighting for a "cause" tell you go on strike and then refuse to consolidate, compromise, or give up anything. That is why Tyco wipers moved south, and a majority of the growth in the united states is in the south. Duh, no unions. They have served their purpose and are no longer needed. Time for unions to say bye, bye.
There will be two classes of people, the have and the have nots. Those of you who want to dig your heels in and lick on your union boss all the power to you... you WILL be a, have not (bethlahem steel). Those of you who take advantage of your company and further your education will be a Have. Those of you who blame it on NAFTA will be a have not. There is nothing you can do about NAFTA move on. I have lived in western new york and watched this area go right into the toilet and the UNIONS had their greedy hands in it all.
|
|
Scott
|
Wow that's just perfect! Aren't we just proud of ourselves!!! Classic union tactics are making great progress for Buffalo. A better than average decent wage isn't good enough. I know the economy isn't good, so we need to strike and put AAM in a bad way. Then we need to keep this up till we get our way. We need to make the AAM pay more. To bad the AAM would rather due without any more headaches and pull the plug, not on one area plant, but two!!!
I guess we'll have another thousand in the unemployment lines.
|
|
Chip
|
Forget it, even the democratic candidates have admitted they could never pull the plug on NAFTA, so there is no point me wasting my time further. Im done trying to convince a couple of idiots that they are wrong, time will prove it to them.
|
|
bye-bye
|
Seenitbefore wrote: <quoted text>
So are you saying you also think they were overpaid? That's the impression I get. I thought all Michigan workers were overpaid. That's what a certain millionaire cu n t named Betsy DeVos said.
|
|
fastedrose
|
Re Hi Folks,
Stupid and SMART
and 4 U James from KT
I WOULD SHOVE THE AAM HOT ROD UP YOUR LOCH MOSS MASTER
UU MONKEY
thanks cnitb4
post
AAM hf - Welcome to a global economy. At one point in time it was the U.S. that was "stealing" jobs from Europe as we were the ones who could do it better, faster, and cheaper. Now - it is countries like China, India and others who are taking this position.
unions are hilarity
SERVICE JOBS BUFFALO
MAKE YOUR gRANDKID aN
JACKINTHEBOX SERVICE WORKER
WITH ENOUGH TECHNOLOGY TO CHANGE THE OIL
after U send the used oil to India or so your dumb american butt, a smart american grandkid about to be able to pour that oil into your dumb american butt, heating instructions take more than two weeks, boil the oil before pouring, prove american smarts when working with excessive heat or caustic liquids, make them proud.
Oh yEAH
Tourists wanted
IGNORANUSPERSON-throatsliscunn inless-tourist winers that need more CEO cheese-tourist lost cheese- help! help!
TOURIST LOST CHEESE.
Tourist wanted. Please call Steve Miller.
Chip has no clue
he is NOTSEE-JIMMYK
nobody PAYS 4 chip cheap
cunsult full CNIT
please choose your words wisely, when you dog american workers you may be closing doors that you did not even know were open.
|
|
unions are hilarity
|
fastedrose wrote: unions are hilarity
SERVICE JOBS BUFFALO
MAKE YOUR gRANDKID aN
JACKINTHEBOX SERVICE WORKER
WITH ENOUGH TECHNOLOGY TO CHANGE THE OIL
after U send the used oil to India or so your dumb american butt, a smart american grandkid about to be able to pour that oil into your dumb american butt, heating instructions take more than two weeks, boil the oil before pouring, prove american smarts when working with excessive heat or caustic liquids, make them proud. umm....... what? lol was that english? If it was, it's so abruptly incoherent that i cant even understand what your actually saying
|
Judge it!
Most Popular
