How do feel about Canada, USA, and Mexico forming a union (similar to the European Union)?
| Votes | Answer |
|---|
| 13 | I think it's a bad idea. | | 10 | I don't have a strong opinion either way. | | 9 | I don't think it will ever happen. | | 8 | Other. | | 7 | I think it's a good idea. | | 7 | I think it will happen, eventually. | | 5 | I think it would help North America compete better economically with Europe. | | 4 | I think it would be a mess. | | 4 | I think rich elites are pushing this and it will help them, but hurt the working class. | | 4 | I think it will improve the economies of all three countries. | | 4 | I think it will improve security in all three countries. |
|
| User | Comment |
|---|
Kristal_Rose    | | posted 27-Nov-2007 8:48am |
Where will us Americans expatriate to then?
Bad idea, likely to happen (1984 style), more mess, wont improve things for anyone, especially Canadians. Might improve economic position of both US and Mexican wealthy at further expense to US and Mexican poor. | | Otter | | posted 27-Nov-2007 9:10am |
I'm opposed to any union, treaty, of agreement that involves Mexico. I think the NAFTA is bullcrap, I think we need to set fire to the trucks coming in from Mexico. Burn them where ever we find them. We need to fence off the borders and work on homeland security. Deport anyone found in the United States illegally. Put military troops along the borders with live ammunition to stop the flow of people who hate us drifting in like the wind. Then stop shoving our policies down the throats of countries half way around the world who hate us. Let the world know, "Don't fudge with the US or Canada or we'll turn your craphole country into a nuclear test range." | cloudhugger   | | posted 27-Nov-2007 9:35am |
I'll have to read the link for a more intelligent reply, but until then....
A Canadian, a Mexican and a redneck walk into a bar... | | Iseult | | posted 27-Nov-2007 11:14am |
I don't know whether it's a good idea or not, but I don't like it. I guess it's kind of like NAFTA just encompassing other things. I was always against European Union - they're the reason why I get riped off every time I go to Europe.
I don't mind the States, they're very culturally similar to Canada, but Mexico??? | LJD  | | posted 27-Nov-2007 11:15am |
It is evil. I'm against it. We must not lose our sovereignty. | | Frostbrand | | posted 27-Nov-2007 11:56am |
I've heard a lot of people complaining about this, but no evidence that such a thing is happening. Even if it was, all the opposition seems to be based on thinly veiled racism and/or nationalism. Anyway, true or not I don't see it happening. Haven't we fudgeed Mexico enough? | | Enheduanna | | posted 27-Nov-2007 11:57am |
I would have to know a lot more about it and what effects it would have before I could feel one way or the other about it. | | Kristal_Rose | | (reply to LJD) posted 27-Nov-2007 11:57am |
Who do you think's drafting the thing? More us than anyone else. By us though, that's the global businesses which got their start here, and not anyone who believes in informed voting on matters.
Btw, it just dawns on me that your ideal presidential candidate (amongst those running) would probably be Dennis Kucinich, even though he's a democrat, and I suspect you're a republican. He's all for getting americans back to work for the benefit of americans. He also one of a mere handful of congressmen interested in restoring constitutional rights.
I'm sorry Mike Gravel dropped out. He's the first president since Eisenhower(?) to bring up that unnecessary wars will continue to happen as long as the defense indusry profits from it.
I wouldn't exactly call it evil. It's merely more of the same sort of greed by those at the top which happens here already. It's not unlike Bush buying So. Americas largest water aquifer, or giving his father's Canadian company free gold mining rights to US lands. | | Frostbrand | | (reply to Otter) posted 27-Nov-2007 12:01pm |
> I'm opposed to any union, treaty, of agreement
> that involves Mexico. I think the NAFTA is bullcrap,
> I think we need to set fire to the trucks coming
> in from Mexico. Burn them where ever we find them.
> We need to fence off the borders and work on homeland
> security. Deport anyone found in the United States
> illegally. Put military troops along the borders
> with live ammunition to stop the flow of people
> who hate us drifting in like the wind. Then stop
> shoving our policies down the throats of countries
> half way around the world who hate us. Let the
> world know, "Don't fudge with the US or Canada
> or we'll turn your craphole country into a nuclear
> test range."
In other words, you want to fix the immigration problem by doing everything EXCEPT the stuff that could actually work? I take it you're a Republican then.
Here's how you fix immigration. First, stop being a racist douchebag. 2, stop being a nationalist douchebag. 3, get rid of NAFTA. 4, stop supporting crooked politicans and business men in Mexico. 5, stop selling Mexico food that they have the land to grow themselves. That's what caused their agriculture community to collapse causing the farmers to migrate up here. 5, punish the EMPLOYERS who hire illegals. 6, if they pay taxes and follow the local laws, allow a path to citizenship for those who may want to stay anyway even after Mexico has gotten back it's own feet (after over a century of us knocking them down). They should have to pay a fine for illegally crossing the border, but we can certainly cut the Coyotes out of the picture. Lastly, a fence won't work, it's a waste of money that could be better spent on improving infrastructure. | | jettles | | posted 27-Nov-2007 12:52pm |
i think it is a bad idea because it hasn't been discussed very openly and it is something that the bushies have agreed to without any public discussion, congressional discussion or public forum. | | jettles |
nicely said frosty | | southernyankee | | posted 27-Nov-2007 12:57pm |
It would help the economies and securities of all 3 countries (not by much) and it be nice to have something to balance out China and the EU.
As for the "rich elites" argument, its partially true. Look, the abolition of slavery was mostly pushed by rich elites without caring what the working class thought and look how that turned out. | | thecomic22 | | posted 27-Nov-2007 1:03pm |
I'm unaffected. | | cerealkiller | | posted 27-Nov-2007 1:37pm |
I could maybe see Canada and the U.S. but leave Mexico out. We need to be shoving Mexico down and having them take their illegals back and not getting closer with them. | | Irene007 | | posted 27-Nov-2007 1:48pm |
I hope it won't happen... | | Irene007 | | posted 27-Nov-2007 1:53pm |
Hmmm... I wonder what inspired Bill to create this survey.  | | labjog | | (reply to Irene007) posted 27-Nov-2007 2:02pm |
maybe his greencard is ready to expire??? | | mrmarm | | posted 27-Nov-2007 3:48pm |
I think it's a good idea, since these separate countries are so diverse from each other it could be beneficial. | | Otter |
I'm not a republican, I agree with you, stop supporting politicians, the people need to take the country back from the professional politicians, we need people to do the work we won't do, but those people need to be paid a fair wage, the people who hire illegals and pay substandard wages need to be put in federal prison and forced to work in the fields and live in over crowded crapholes. I find it difficult to fault people trying to escape oppressed nations for a better life. It pisses me off that people have to live in such crapty conditions and be hungry in a country were over eating is a common problem. | | Irene007 | | (reply to labjog) posted 27-Nov-2007 4:59pm |
| | Irene007 | | (reply to Otter) posted 27-Nov-2007 5:00pm |
> I'm not a republican, I agree with you, stop supporting politicians,
> the people need to take the country back from the professional politicians,
> we need people to do the work we won't do, but those people need to
> be paid a fair wage, the people who hire illegals and pay substandard
> wages need to be put in federal prison and forced to work in the fields
> and live in over crowded crapholes. I find it difficult to fault people
> trying to escape oppressed nations for a better life. It pisses me
> off that people have to live in such crapty conditions and be hungry
> in a country were over eating is a common problem.
It's ironic to think that besides over eating; we also often dump our surplus... and people around the world are going hungry. | | RGirl | | posted 27-Nov-2007 6:04pm |
I think it will happen eventually. I think it will be good for the US at a later date. If I were Canadian I'd not like the idea at all. Mexico would be the opposite. | | Pomeranian | | posted 27-Nov-2007 6:15pm |
I don't think it will happen in my lifetime, and I don't really feel anything about it either way. | Crayons  | | posted 27-Nov-2007 8:02pm |
It sounds fun but don't ask me for any political advice. | | JessicaWoman99 | | posted 27-Nov-2007 9:00pm |
I do not believe this will ever happen in my lifetime dream on | | JessicaWoman99 |
> Where will us Americans expatriate to then?
> Bad idea, likely to happen (1984 style), more mess, wont improve things
> for anyone, especially Canadians. Might improve economic position
> of both US and Mexican wealthy at further expense to US and Mexican
> poor.
Sounds like somebody is dreaming and never in my life will this happen | | JessicaWoman99 |
> I don't think it will happen in my lifetime, and I don't really feel
> anything about it either way.
The day this happens a meteorite will hit the earth and kill us all | | Frostbrand | | (reply to Otter) posted 27-Nov-2007 9:08pm |
Right on Otter, right fudging on. The magic word for today is: privatization. That's what is killing Mexico for all but the wealthy, who respond to their growing poor population by telling them to go to the U.S. If it were any other country in the world doing that, we'd call it a form of ethnic cleansing, but because U.S. corporations are reaping financial benefits from it, they just try to distract you by fueling racism and encouraging the spreading of stereotypes. And if you doubt that such tactics are sadly effective, look at LJD. She's bought it hook line and sinker. | | Kristal_Rose |
What about the Euro? What about McDonalds restauraunts in India and China? It's as inevitable as the first prehistoric homesteads becoming villages. In a sense, it's already happened to some extent.
American business people have been setting up factories in Mexico for 30 years now just like New Yorkers might have set up factories in New Jersey 80 years ago. Since that time federal laws have userped state laws. Now, for some 60 years the WTO, WMF, and various international protocols control the behavior of entire nations. Already these protocols are determining things like food labeling and import restrictions in most 1st world nations. The US has a habit of drafting international law and not abiding by it itself though. This is gradually shifting though. The more this happens, the less significtant state and national borders become.
Just what is it that you think will never happen? | | Kristal_Rose |
I think you shouldn't bring up others, or you risk misrepresenting them. You're mixing two paradigms, that of freely opening the poor to convenient exploitation (here without benefits), and racism. She is against such trade plans, and is merely a patriotic religious sovereign racist (if I'm not misrepresenting her as well). She may buy their racist ideology cover story, but she's not buying their underlying globalist business intentions.
60's style revolution, trying to fight the 'other side' has already failed this time around. The most promising hope I see on the horizon is a new paradgm of populist revolution in which both sides come together on common ground, recognizing they have both been bamboozled.
Imagine that you and LJD represent two halves of american ideological beliefs, 50/50. As long as the two of you believe you are polarized, your hands are both tied with each other while the administration does what it wants. Now imagine instead that you and her got together and figured out that you actually had many common complaints and beliefs about public rights (even though you abhor the rest of what she believes), then marched together up the steps of the administration asking for change in those matters. It's one thing for them to hide behind their door and claim that half of america supports them, and another to defy unanimous objection.
If you can't achieve this on an interpersonal level within your close control, there's little hope of achieving this on a national level, leaving us indefinitely stuck with the status quo, unchecked un-publicly-guided government.
Just the other day I was suggesting that if she reads the bottom line, the brass tacks, that she would find that Dennis Kucinich actually best fits her hopes for this country, as well as my own, coming from different ideological attitudes. She hasn't responded yet, but hopefully she'll give it serious consideration.
I'm thinking to ask how you feel about libertarianism (which I think would be dreadful in light of unchecked global enterprise) but I'll save that discussion for it's own survey. Aspects of forms of it may appeal to both you and LJD. | | southernyankee |
> Right on Otter, right fudging on. The magic word for today is: privatization.
Well, I am undecided how I feel about privatization. On one hand, undeinabily its generally a more efficient than government run, but on the other hand some industries should be run by the government (police, military, etc). I just don't see why farming should be one of them (they're privatized in the US and it works just fine).
> That's what is killing Mexico for all but the wealthy, who respond
> to their growing poor population by telling them to go to the U.S.
So what would be your solution, short of a US sponsored coop to overthrow the corrupt Mexican officials? I am asking an honest question here?
> If it were any other country in the world doing that, we'd call it
> a form of ethnic cleansing, but because U.S. corporations are reaping
> financial benefits from it,
I am not sure why it wouldn't just be easier for the US corporations to move to Mexico. Their farm land and climate is probably even better than the one over here anyway. In a free market, it would be more efficient to just let them grow their own food instead of importing it from here (most of it grown by them anyway). Lets see here, option one: grow your own food in a country which has better farm land with your own people, or b, import it from a country whose farm land isn't as good with your own people who waste a lot of effort into crossing the border. Something doesn't add up. I don't see why the US corporations can't just move to Mexico and exploit the cheap labor over there and then import the stuff into the US, instead of going through the trouble of risking large fines by hiring the same people who snuck to the US.
>they just try to distract you by fueling
> racism and encouraging the spreading of stereotypes.
I don't quite get how the said greedy corporations would benefit from the racism. Wouldn't it be in their best interest for there to be less racism, so that the voters wouldn't push laws keeping their cheep labor from coming in? Pushing for more racism would be counterproductive to their interests.
| | bill | | posted 28-Nov-2007 7:11am |
It seems like a good idea to me. I don't really understand why people are generally against it. | | dab | | (reply to bill) posted 28-Nov-2007 8:00am |
One reason I'd be against such a union is that it is a move towards a more centralized and uniform society, to quote another survey. I don't think that's a good idea.
The other reason is that I don't think we'd end up with US civil rights, Mexican food, and Canadian foreign policy. I think we'd more likely end up with Mexican civil rights, US foreign policy, and Canadian food. | | bill | | (reply to dab) posted 28-Nov-2007 8:19am |
I guess I just have a more optimistic view of it. I'm not sure why.
I think it would give us (as a whole) easier, more natural to borders. The internal borders between the 3 of us are essentially impossible to defend. But, the ocean, arctic, and Mexico's small strip border with Central America all seem more reasonable.
Using the same currency would make trade/business a lot easier.
Eliminating customs between us would be appreciated too (mail between US/Canada can be such a pain in the ass). But, also tariffs and other crap could be removed. Free trade is a good thing, anything else is governmental market manipulation.
It seems like it could allow us to get over the whole Mexican migrant worker issues we're struggling with (illogically, in my opinion). Really, I think Mexico could be helped greatly by the union and that ultimately, that would help the US as well, since Mexico's problems tend to spill-over into the US.
But, yeah, the whole centralized and uniform thing is a bit scary. Though, it's fairly abstract concern. If I reverse things and instead consider separating every US state and Canadian/Mexican province into their own country, with individual borders, customs, and currency ... it seems utterly insane and wrong, a huge waste of resources and miles of extra red-tape to deal with.
I guess that's why I think it's a good idea to form a North American Union. It would seem to eliminate a lot of inefficiency and hassle. | | dab | | (reply to bill) posted 28-Nov-2007 9:14am |
I agree with you on a lot of that. I've been putting off sending a picture to a guy in Canada for months (maybe years) now because I just don't want to go to the post office to fill out the paperwork. I know, it's not really *that* hard but I'm just really lazy. But anyway, all the advantages you say, I agree with. I think they'd all be good things.
And I think you're right that an NAU could actually help Mexico. As far as I can tell, their biggest problem is corruption and there's a possibility that a merger of the three countries would help start to reduce that.
I guess, however, that the centralized and uniform thing is not so abstract for me. I read the US Constitution and see how the US was supposed to have been a federation of sovereign states and I see how we haven't been anything close to that for a long, long time. If it was somehow possible for a country to be good and remain good, I'd be all in favor of the union. Since it appears to not be possible, I think the best we can possibly do is to have as much diversity as possible so as one place turns bad there are other options. [Side note: it's not working right now though as I don't yet see a better alternative to the US.]
Let's put it this way. If we elect Ron Paul in a year and we elect a congress of similar opinions and an NAU agreement comes along that looks rather like the US started out but perhaps with stronger limits on the central government (limits with penalties this time), then I'd probably come around. I'd still be suspicious but free travel, free trade, strong civil liberties protections, and so on are all good thing and it'd be good if they covered a wider area. | | Frostbrand |
> |> Right on Otter, right fudging on. The magic
> word for today is: privatization.
>
> Well, I am undecided how I feel about privatization.
> On one hand, undeinabily its generally a more
> efficient than government run, but on the other
> hand some industries should be run by the government
> (police, military, etc). I just don't see why
> farming should be one of them (they're privatized
> in the US and it works just fine).
>
Actually it is deniable. Just ask the people on that bridge in Minnesota.
>
> |> That's what is killing Mexico for all but
> the wealthy, who respond
> |> to their growing poor population by telling
> them to go to the U.S.
>
> So what would be your solution, short of a US
> sponsored coop to overthrow the corrupt Mexican
> officials? I am asking an honest question here?
>
Well, first step would be to acknowledge the election fraud that went on ther in the last Presidential race. Ballots for Lopez-Obrador were being found in the trash, but Bush was the only world leader to step forwad and "congratulate Calderon" on his victory, thus throwing a wrench into the investigation.
>
> |> If it were any other country in the world
> doing that, we'd call it
> |> a form of ethnic cleansing, but because
> U.S. corporations are reaping
> |> financial benefits from it,
>
> I am not sure why it wouldn't just be easier for
> the US corporations to move to Mexico.
Uh, a lot of them are already doing that.
> Their
> farm land and climate is probably even better
> than the one over here anyway. In a free market,
> it would be more efficient to just let them grow
> their own food instead of importing it from here
> (most of it grown by them anyway).
Exactly.
> Lets see
> here, option one: grow your own food in a country
> which has better farm land with your own people,
> or b, import it from a country whose farm land
> isn't as good with your own people who waste a
> lot of effort into crossing the border. Something
> doesn't add up. I don't see why the US corporations
> can't just move to Mexico and exploit the cheap
> labor over there and then import the stuff into
> the US, instead of going through the trouble of
> risking large fines by hiring the same people
> who snuck to the US.
>
They may start doing that in the future if thing slike NAFTA aren't stopped.
>
> |>they just try to distract you by fueling
> |> racism and encouraging the spreading of
> stereotypes.
>
> I don't quite get how the said greedy corporations
> would benefit from the racism. Wouldn't it be
> in their best interest for there to be less racism,
> so that the voters wouldn't push laws keeping
> their cheep labor from coming in? Pushing for
> more racism would be counterproductive to their
> interests.
>
Not really. So long as the migrant workers are kept uninformed about things like labor rights (which is why the GOP got Civics classes taken out of schools, erroniously calling them Comunist) and terrified, they'll be easier to manipulate and exploit. There is no threat greater to these Leo Strausians than an educated populace. | | ultamate | | posted 28-Nov-2007 6:19pm |
I'm not really sure of the pros and cons of having a union with any other country's so I can't answer either way, although any" idea" of Bush's is an idea I wouldn't trust much. | | JessicaWoman99 |
> What about the Euro? What about McDonalds restauraunts in India and
> China? It's as inevitable as the first prehistoric homesteads becoming
> villages. In a sense, it's already happened to some extent.
>
> American business people have been setting up factories in Mexico
> for 30 years now just like New Yorkers might have set up factories
> in New Jersey 80 years ago. Since that time federal laws have userped
> state laws. Now, for some 60 years the WTO, WMF, and various international
> protocols control the behavior of entire nations. Already these protocols
> are determining things like food labeling and import restrictions
> in most 1st world nations. The US has a habit of drafting international
> law and not abiding by it itself though. This is gradually shifting
> though. The more this happens, the less significtant state and national
> borders become.
>
> Just what is it that you think will never happen?
I just could not vision Mexico and Canada forming a union with the USA sounds far fetched to me | | kcthedog | | posted 28-Nov-2007 8:26pm |
I have to admit I am not that well informed to give an opinion if it will ultimately be good or bad. I do think it is inevitable though. It is an economic issue and will benefit Mexico the most. The United States and Canada in my opinion make up North America. I don’t know why I feel I would want to exclude Mexico except that when you mix too many different colors of paint together you end up with a ugly shade of gray, (that was not a racial slur). Economically it would dilute the U.S. and Canada’s economy with Mexico’s. | LindaH  | | (reply to dab) posted 28-Nov-2007 9:36pm |
| | southernyankee |
> Actually it is deniable. Just ask the people on that bridge in Minnesota.
>
Didn't I just say police, military, etc were the exception to the rule. I would have guessed that the etc would encompass bridges.
> Well, first step would be to acknowledge the election fraud that went
> on ther in the last Presidential race. Ballots for Lopez-Obrador were
> being found in the trash, but Bush was the only world leader to step
> forwad and "congratulate Calderon" on his victory, thus throwing a
> wrench into the investigation.
>
Going on the assumption that you are right and it really was a fraud (not much of a stretch, a reseanable probability thats actually the case) . Well, that would be a start, assuming calling it fraud would actually make a difference. Afterall, even if Bush called him out on it, he would just deny it and there would be crap Bush could do about it. I mean short of trade embargoes, which would likely make the situation worse. You're also overlooking that a lot of the corruption takes place at the state and local level, not the federal. So even if a different president took over, how much of a difference would that make?
This isn't to say the situation is hopeless but lets be real here. Look at what Saudia Arabia is doing and theres crap Bush or anyone can do about it. Well, ok, Mexico number one trading partner is the US so they have at least some incentive to not pissing us off.
> |> I am not sure why it wouldn't just be easier for
> |> the US corporations to move to Mexico.
>
> Uh, a lot of them are already doing that.
>
[ignoring the fact that I am actually ok with companies hiring people for whatever wages they're willing to pay if the people are willing to do the jobs for that amount because thats how the free market works...] Yes, I am aware of that. But then again, I don't get why greedy Mexican corporations can't hire the people in Mexico willing to work for pesos as opposed to the US ones. Afterall, you would think that they would have just as much a shot at the cheap source labor, if not more because of the less overhead since they're already there. If Mexicans are willing to risk crossing the desert at 100 degree heat to work for pennies, then obviously the alternatives are worse: a) work for Mexican corporations stationed in Mexico for pennies, b) work for US corporations in Mexico for pennies. The exploitation obviously can't be as bad as you say it is if they're picking it over their alternatives. I am guessing that currency conversions have something to do with it.
PS-- Its not just the top dogs, we as consumers do benefit from the cheap labor in the form of lower prices (unless you're boycotting a lot of products).
> |> Their
> |> farm land and climate is probably even better
> |> than the one over here anyway. In a free market,
> |> it would be more efficient to just let them grow
> |> their own food instead of importing it from here
> |> (most of it grown by them anyway).
>
> Exactly.
>
My guess is currency imparity, but my guess is as good as yours.
> They may start doing that in the future if thing slike NAFTA aren't
> stopped.
>
NAFTA probably isn't as bad as you make it out to be, but to be honest I haven't really looked at the issue. You seem to be only focusing on the cons and not seeing both sides.
> Not really. So long as the migrant workers are kept uninformed about
> things like labor rights (which is why the GOP got Civics classes
> taken out of schools, erroniously calling them Comunist) and terrified,
> they'll be easier to manipulate and exploit. There is no threat greater
> to these Leo Strausians than an educated populace.
I am not sure where you get that GOP is cutting Civics classes but ok, I grant you that point. Anyway, I don't get why that would be relevant anyway. Most people who cross the border illegally looking for work are generally already adults, so I take it they wouldn't be spending much time in US high schools. Also, I am sure they're no dummies. I am pretty sure that they're fully aware of the rights that workers NORMALLY have under regular conditions. They're not ignorant about their rights at all. Otherwise they wouldn't be going through the effort to get their papers when they get the chance. And I take it that they understand the risks of reporting their employers and understand that their employers know that but still make the conscious choice to take the jobs. Also, don't get me wrong, I am very glad for the civics class I had in high school, but I don't think one needs it to understand the concept of minimum wages, overtime, human resources, consumer protection agencies, etc. For that, you need to not be functionally retarded and understand the basics of how the world works around you. | | Frostbrand |
> |> Actually it is deniable. Just ask the people
> on that bridge in Minnesota.
> |>
>
> Didn't I just say police, military, etc were the
> exception to the rule. I would have guessed that
> the etc would encompass bridges.
>
>
The etcetera should encompass a lot. I mean, let's look at the IRS for example. The collections of unpaid taxes that total more than $1 Mil. was farmed out to a private company (a subsidiary of DynCorp IIRC). They spend more taxpayer money on the collection efforts, but actually manage to collect less. That it just a classic example of what privitization is; spend more, get less.
>
> |> Well, first step would be to acknowledge
> the election fraud that went
> |> on ther in the last Presidential race. Ballots
> for Lopez-Obrador were
> |> being found in the trash, but Bush was the
> only world leader to step
> |> forwad and "congratulate Calderon" on his
> victory, thus throwing a
> |> wrench into the investigation.
> |>
>
> Going on the assumption that you are right and
> it really was a fraud (not much of a stretch,
> a reseanable probability thats actually the case)
> . Well, that would be a start, assuming calling
> it fraud would actually make a difference. Afterall,
> even if Bush called him out on it, he would just
> deny it and there would be crap Bush could do
> about it. I mean short of trade embargoes, which
> would likely make the situation worse. You're
> also overlooking that a lot of the corruption
> takes place at the state and local level, not
> the federal. So even if a different president
> took over, how much of a difference would that
> make?
>
> This isn't to say the situation is hopeless but
> lets be real here. Look at what Saudia Arabia
> is doing and theres crap Bush or anyone can do
> about it. Well, ok, Mexico number one trading
> partner is the US so they have at least some incentive
> to not pissing us off.
>
> |> |> I am not sure why it wouldn't just
> be easier for
> |> |> the US corporations to move to Mexico.
> |>
> |> Uh, a lot of them are already doing that.
> |>
>
> [ignoring the fact that I am actually ok with
> companies hiring people for whatever wages they're
> willing to pay if the people are willing to do
> the jobs for that amount because thats how the
> free market works...] Yes, I am aware of that.
> But then again, I don't get why greedy Mexican
> corporations can't hire the people in Mexico willing
> to work for pesos as opposed to the US ones.
> Afterall, you would think that they would have
> just as much a shot at the cheap source labor,
> if not more because of the less overhead since
> they're already there. If Mexicans are willing
> to risk crossing the desert at 100 degree heat
> to work for pennies, then obviously the alternatives
> are worse: a) work for Mexican corporations stationed
> in Mexico for pennies, b) work for US corporations
> in Mexico for pennies. The exploitation obviously
> can't be as bad as you say it is if they're picking
> it over their alternatives. I am guessing that
> currency conversions have something to do with
> it.
>
> PS-- Its not just the top dogs, we as consumers
> do benefit from the cheap labor in the form of
> lower prices (unless you're boycotting a lot of
> products).
>
Perhaps, but that lower cost is negated, as insurance premiums go up because people too poor to afford health care go to the ER, and more tax money is spent on prisons because there is a correlation between poverty rates and crime rates, among other things.
>
> |> |> Their
> |> |> farm land and climate is probably
> even better
> |> |> than the one over here anyway. In
> a free market,
> |> |> it would be more efficient to just
> let them grow
> |> |> their own food instead of importing
> it from here
> |> |> (most of it grown by them anyway).
>
> |>
> |> Exactly.
> |>
>
> My guess is currency imparity, but my guess is
> as good as yours.
>
>
>
> |> They may start doing that in the future
> if thing slike NAFTA aren't
> |> stopped.
> |>
>
> NAFTA probably isn't as bad as you make it out
> to be, but to be honest I haven't really looked
> at the issue. You seem to be only focusing on
> the cons and not seeing both sides.
>
Actually, I was initially a supporter of NAFTA. Back then, I wasn't looking at the cons.
>
> |> Not really. So long as the migrant workers
> are kept uninformed about
> |> things like labor rights (which is why the
> GOP got Civics classes
> |> taken out of schools, erroniously calling
> them Comunist) and terrified,
> |> they'll be easier to manipulate and exploit.
> There is no threat greater
> |> to these Leo Strausians than an educated
> populace.
>
> I am not sure where you get that GOP is cutting
> Civics classes but ok, I grant you that point.
They started it in the 1980s. I can remember that in 1st grade they still taught it but by second grade it was yanked from the ciriculum. Even at age 6 I could tell that something was wrong with the way Republicans did things, though it wasn't until I got older that I could actually figure out exactly what.
> Anyway, I don't get why that would be relevant
> anyway. Most people who cross the border illegally
> looking for work are generally already adults,
> so I take it they wouldn't be spending much time
> in US high schools.
This is true, but a lot of them bring their kids with them.
> Also, I am sure they're
> no dummies. I am pretty sure that they're fully
> aware of the rights that workers NORMALLY have
> under regular conditions. They're not ignorant
> about their rights at all.
Basic human rights sure, but how many illegals know about for example the Davis-Bacon Act? Hell, I didn't know about it until after Hurricane Katrina.
> Otherwise they wouldn't
> be going through the effort to get their papers
> when they get the chance. And I take it that
> they understand the risks of reporting their employers
> and understand that their employers know that
> but still make the conscious choice to take the
> jobs. Also, don't get me wrong, I am very glad
> for the civics class I had in high school, but
> I don't think one needs it to understand the concept
> of minimum wages, overtime, human resources, consumer
> protection agencies, etc. For that, you need
> to not be functionally retarded and understand
> the basics of how the world works around you.
If only it were that simple. | | LJD |
I agree with you Kristal Rose, there is a lot of greed, and unfortunately many of our precious young men and woman have lost their lives because of profit...this infuriates me. I admit I'm not knowledgeable about politics, but politics has always interested me, because I guess I want things right. Because of a few people in the world, don't care about our sovereignty....don't care about people, just the almighty dollar, we are losing our freedoms. I like what Ron Paul says. However, I don't know about strategies in the Mideast. I am concerned about Islamofacists, and sharia law....not here, no way. I am not a demo or republican, I'm registed as an Independent. I think this 2008 election will determine our future. | | Kristal_Rose |
Trade unions like Nafta exist already. Our national governments wouldn't be dissolved, they'd simply have to comply more with multi-national standards the way states have to comply by federal standards now.
The problem with it is that no mechanisms are being suggested for democratizing these multi-national bodies. It would essentially put nations in the hands of global business persons, with minimal consent by congress. | | Kristal_Rose | | (reply to LJD) posted 29-Nov-2007 4:47pm |
I figured you might be a Ron Paul supporter. Libertarianism wouldn't be a bad thing except that it doesn't keep the greedy globalists in check. If you thought democratic governments could be oppressive now, you haven't imagined what the world would be like if all the food, credit, and utility companies were totally unchecked, as they would be in pure libertarianism. Libertarianism takes as it's foundation stance that capitalism will compete to offer the public the best value. It does'nt seem to work that way. BofA is now merging with American Express. Soon there will be one, maybe two credit companies, with the second only slightly offering a better deal to attract switching. Already they've all seemed to agree on charging $40 late fees. Eventualy, if you don't comply with 'the' bank, your life will be ruined.
I believe in the very opposite of libertarianism in this regard. Once a company becomes large enough to affect he public (essentilly any corporation) I would subject it to democratic participation, not just a board of stockholders purely motivated by profit. Powerful global entities should be serving the public, and not the other way around. That's actually how corporations started here, drafted by democratic decree to serve mammoth public needs like bridge building which contracted sole proprietorships or government agencies could not fullfill. Unfortunately, from the start, business people involved in such endeavours realized the advantage of transforming corporations into something with a profit motive instead, and using their power to achieve political things which family owned businesses could not.
The Clintons are controlled by someone as surely as Bush. Kucinich is willing to investiagte 9/11 further. Bill Clinton is outraged that people suspect it's an inside job. Cleary it is though. As surely as cars slow down when they hit something, there's no way those buildings could have fallen at free-fall speed unless the bottom floors were detonated first. | | southernyankee |
> The problem with it is that no mechanisms are being suggested for
> democratizing these multi-national bodies. It would essentially put
> nations in the hands of global business persons, with minimal consent
> by congress.
Well, isn't that how republic bureaucracies work? People elect the President and Congress, who then votes on who should be their nation's representative in these global organizations.
| | southernyankee |
I am a bit of a libertarian myself, but Ron Paul takes the concept wwwaaaaaaaaayyyyy too far. Although he's still the closest to my vote on selectsmart (60%).
However, your idea on how to regulate corporations isn't the answer either. I just don't get why the public should get to vote on corporate matters just because its huge. Its that the whole point of owning stock? Doesn't seem very fair to the original stock holders, since gee, oh I don't know, the fact that its THEIR MONEY invested. If you don't like how a corporation is acting, um isn't that what the government is for? Make regulations in how businesses should operate. | | JessicaWoman99 |
> Trade unions like Nafta exist already. Our national governments wouldn't
> be dissolved, they'd simply have to comply more with multi-national
> standards the way states have to comply by federal standards now.
>
> The problem with it is that no mechanisms are being suggested for
> democratizing these multi-national bodies. It would essentially put
> nations in the hands of global business persons, with minimal consent
> by congress.
And look at China and the lead paint toys coming into America , we have had a food recall as well those pot pies
and frozen dinners and our beef has been recalled as well
We cannot trust the government or anybody to keep food safe nor can we trust China or any foreign country
any longer | | LJD |
I don't like a monopoly. I agree with what you've said. I'm not as learned in politics, but I can see something is really amiss. I think the banking/credit system is corrupt. The corruption of our government and corporate business sickens me.
I agree, 9/11 isn't what it seems. I saw a DVD on the explosions, and engineers describing the building. The thought of someone for mere profit, will hurt another life...it's too mind boggling....it's evil. | | Psychopath | | posted 30-Nov-2007 11:28pm |
I feel this would be a good idea if the right ground work was setup. Unless the industrialized civilized countries of the world do something quick we will either be bowing down to Mecca or welcoming the Chinese communists soon as our leaders. Mexico is not exactly civilized democratic country but that could be changed. | | Kristal_Rose |
Yes it is, unfortunately. I have to point out to people sometimes that we aren't actually a democracy, just a republic. We don't actually vote on anything which affects our daily lives, like the choice of flowers on our boulevards, the hours the library is open, drug usage laws, or the cost of canned spinach. We only vote when overwhelming public opinion is that that the representatives aren't dealing with something critical. | | Kristal_Rose |
"The whole point of stock"? So you believe democracy should be in proportion to people's wealth? The rich can decide whethar to do away with minimum wage or trade tariffs, or cut corners on product nutrition, but not the poor?
Government regulating corparotions would somewhat equate to what I was suggesting, but I'm saying that corporations have gotten out of check, that instead, they influence which policy makers get elected in the first place.
And overall, I don't agree that the worlds most powerful institutions should be run by profiteers. Powerful entities which do not necessarily serve the overall public interest have no business existing. I don't agree with them being powerful agencies run as republic either though.
I would set up the government with four branches, one being the corporations. I would require that all of their decision intents be public, with time for the public to raise concern, upon which a 2/3 vote would be required from 3 agencies, a gov't opinion body of elected officials, and two concerned NGOs chosen by election (via phone-menu or internet by whomever cares to vote in the affected domain). If it's something like how to treat radioactive waste, or whethar to pay for guerillas on the banana farms, the public votes on it.
I also had a lessor idea for products and services in which buying them makes you a share-holder. The more Pepsi or phone service you buy, the more say you have in how they run things. Tha's still not fair though, because even the consumers might choose to step on others toes at times to reduce their own costs. | | Kristal_Rose |
Yeah, because an informed public rarely has a say in such matters anymore as laws keep favoring handing more power to corporations.
That eminint domain could be used to take someone's house against their will to build a shopping center (because it's in the public interest) is clear evidence of how out of control corporations are getting. | | Kristal_Rose |
Standing against China probably does have a lot to do with the motive for such.
For quite some time we've been able to juggle the accounting so we appear to profit, but the fact of it is that we now rely on their labor and material resources, and they're getting ready to cash in the debt, buying up our property, if nothing else. And when they want more of the worlds oil, which is also on the horizon, we will suffer horribly. | | Kristal_Rose | | (reply to LJD) posted 1-Dec-2007 9:37pm |
Most wars are for profit. Most corporations are at war. The only thing really different about this is that it's more of a class war. That the victim shares the same national territory doesn't matter anymore. It's much along the lines of local businesses not caring if they hire foreign nations to work for $3/hr, or reduce the local minimum wage to $3/hr.
What's really scary is that half of the armed forces are really mercenaries fighing on behalf of Haliburton. Existing geneva conventions haven't yet geared up for private corporations hiring private armies of 100's of 1000's to accomplish their international goals. Unfortunately if you follow all the trends to their logical conclusion, it adds up to a day when we ourselves are locally subject to unchecked corporate armies as well.
We just officially became a police state about a month ago by about a 400:6 vote of congress. The latest patriot act declares that anyone verbally suggesting physical civil disobedience (They specifically brought up WTO protestors in accompanying documentation) is no longer a civil defendant, but a federal terrorist, subject instead to military prosecution (where torture is legal). If you suggest a revolt, they can pick you up and torture you without a trial. That's what I call an unconstitutional police state. Kucinich is one of those six who rejected this bill. That's one reason why I think it's important to vote for him, even if it's only a message about what's proper to stand up for, when all other candidates seem to have been bought out by some evil conspiracy. He's an upstanding guided Christian too. I think you'd be charmed if you ever met him. He's a bit of a socialist, but no communist. For instance he'd put up tariffs, raise wages, put american workers like the steel industry back to work, stop greedy privatisation of power and water utilities, preserve social-security, nationalize health insurance, and invest in infrastructure like space programs. - In other words, make sure the american public is being cared for, rather than being stomped upon by global profiteers.
That might not be quite the political ideology you were supporting a couple years ago, but I think you understand the nature of global corporate greed better now, it's power, and it's role in destroying the american dream. | | JessicaWoman99 |
> Yeah, because an informed public rarely has a say in such matters
> anymore as laws keep favoring handing more power to corporations.
>
> That eminint domain could be used to take someone's house against
> their will to build a shopping center (because it's in the public
> interest) is clear evidence of how out of control corporations are
> getting.
They are so way out of line those corporations yes , and even baby food was being recalled as well yes baby food
and yes even cat food was being recalled at that same time as well
Just more and more pet food and baby food our lovable pets and we have to worry about our babies and
children being poisoned
Sure we will just go ahead and trust our government with all our heart and see what happens
then there will be blame and finger pointing going around
Yes it was Banquet pot pies and frozen dinners pulled off the shelves and even Peter Pan peanut butter
was recalled as well and pulled off the shelves
I do not trust anybody at all in Washington they are all against Americans and little do they care about women and
children or the homeless and what the hell happens to anybody
And just what we need next is this Union you just cannot trust other countries and lay your life down for them no
it smells and stinks in Washington and the Bush Administration is in the thick of it all right square in the middle | | Kristal_Rose |
..and however bad it is now, unchecked private global trade unions would be worse. Yep yep. | | southernyankee |
So you believe democracy should be in proportion to people's wealth?
No, I believe we should render to the government what is the government's and render to the private sector what belongs to the private sector. Look, private citizens own corporations, because they bought them with their own money. Look, if you don't like what they're doing, pass laws to regulate what businesses can and cannot do, and have the law applied to everyone. How would you like it if your town voted how to run your own house.
The rich can decide whethar to do away with minimum wage or trade tariffs, or cut corners on product nutrition, but not the poor?
Um, no. CONGRESS can decide whether or not to do away with minimum wage or trade tariffs (and so far they haven't mind you), who are elected by the people. I don't know who taught you high school civics but I sure would like a word with them. Or maybe you've just slept thought it.
Government regulating corparotions would somewhat equate to what I was suggesting, but I'm saying that corporations have gotten out of check, that instead, they influence which policy makers get elected in the first place.
I think that you're overestimating their influence.
I would set up the government with four branches, one being the corporations.
Ok, lets for a second ignore the fact that the government can and does in fact own its own businessnes that compete with private sector businesses as a means to raise revenue. Why single out large corporations to be taken over by the government? That doesn't seem very fair to their owners when small businesses and medium sized corporations get exepmt. I mean if I work hard to make my company successful, by making profit while following all the laws and regulations, I should as a reward get to run it. And thats AFTER taxes. It probabbly makes logical sense that if I run something to be that successful then I probabbly know what I am doing.
I would require that all of their decision intents be public, with time for the public to raise concern, upon which a 2/3 vote would be required from 3 agencies, a gov't opinion body of elected officials, and two concerned NGOs chosen by election (via phone-menu or internet by whomever cares to vote in the affected domain).
Yes, because its not like the average person like you and me isn't influenced by their own selfish motives like the people on top--- ignoring that whole thing that nothing would ever get done because the executives would have their hands tied being their backs, similar to how the UN works.
I also had a lessor idea for products and services in which buying them makes you a share-holder. The more Pepsi or phone service you buy, the more say you have in how they run things.
To quote the debate moderator from the movie Billy Madson: "Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul." | | JessicaWoman99 |
> ..and however bad it is now, unchecked private global trade unions
> would be worse. Yep yep.
Our military is in such poor shape and how can the U S A take on three more wars and fighting with more
countries like Pakistan and Iran then North Korea this cannot keep going on and who is paying for all these wars
Yes we have become a police state for sure | | southernyankee |
Yes it is, unfortunately. I have to point out to people sometimes that we aren't actually a democracy, just a republic.
There is a thing called rational ignorance. Perhaps you've heard of it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_ignorance Believe it or not, the average person probably doesn't care what flower gets put in their boulevard. Shocker, huh? | | JessicaWoman99 |
|
