Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
Did you actually read what the Blog said. The purpose of a free trade agreement is to increase free trade. And CAFTA does that. All these criticisms of CAFTA critisize it for not doing things that have anything to do with free trade.
|
Newsflash: Under the rubric of "free trade," your party is negotiating treaties to weaken things like environmental protection, workplace safety, etc. If you don't like this, you have a problem with CAFTA.
Quote:
Its only crticisms are:
1) by imposing, for example, obligations to provide certain forms of intellectual property protection....
Is this such a terrible thing. Protecting intellectual property.
|
I think the authors' problem is with the specific form, not with the concept of intellectual property.
Quote:
2) the rule of origin in the textile provisions is sufficiently restrictive that it may impede the ability of industries in the DR-CAFTA countries to remain competitive....
This makes no sense to me.
|
It's protectionism for (American) textiles.
Quote:
3) The refusal of the Administration to include enforceable labor standards in the agreement, despite the well-documented absence of basic international labor protections in some of the DR-CAFTA countries, is a missed opportunity....
This is a free trade agreement. Not a international labor agreement.
|
That's their problem, eh? Are you in favor of forcing American workers to compete with workers in other countries who lack even the most basic enforceable labor standards? That's not a level playing field.
Quote:
4) the Administration is not dedicating the long-term resource and financial commitments necessary to realize the environmental goals of the agreement.
They should be happy it has environmental goals. Again this is a free trade agreement.
|
Whatever.
Quote:
5) The Administration's insistence on a provision that forbids DR-CAFTA countries from using test data submitted by one pharmaceutical company to approve a similar drug of another pharmaceutical company could increase the cost of much-needed drugs in the region....
This needs more explanation but is getting pretty nitpicky.
|
It's policy. Not fashionable in comtemporary GOP circles. You guys usually just let the lobbyists do it.
Quote:
6) Existing safety net programs such as extended unemployment insurance and trade adjustment assistance (TAA) already fall far short of needed support. Yet... the Administration has tightened the eligibility requirements....
Again - nothing to do with the Free Trade Agreement.
|
It's says "the Administration has tightened the eligibility requirements." That's CAFTA. Do you like the actual deal, or your fuzzy conception of it?
Quote:
7) On DR-CAFTA, as with each previous trade agreement, the Administration has failed to engage in bipartisan consultation.
This is such BS. It is either a good agreement or not whether or not he kissed up to egotistically congressman.
|
I think points 1-6 were establishing that it's not a good deal, and then 7 suggests why.
Quote:
|
This Agreement reduces tarrifs and subsidies. That is always a good thing. Every group that matter (to me anyway) supports this agreement. Are you saying the DLC is wrong to support it?
|
If DeLong is against it, I trust his judgment. Not every treaty is good just because someone slapped a "Free Trade" label on it.
