<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: NAFTA Bashing Heats Up</title>
	<atom:link href="http://emac.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2008/04/22/nafta-bashing-heats-up/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://emac.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2008/04/22/nafta-bashing-heats-up/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 19:57:36 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Kevin, PA</title>
		<link>http://emac.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2008/04/22/nafta-bashing-heats-up/comment-page-1/#comment-1356</link>
		<dc:creator>Kevin, PA</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Apr 2008 11:03:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emac.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2008/04/22/nafta-bashing-heats-up/#comment-1356</guid>
		<description>NAFTA is not the real problem...we could have absorbed the job shifts from a North American trade union.  The real problem lies with the GATT treaty.  GATT allows almost any country to circumnavigate the tarrifs of almost any other country. Add this to the use of unreasonable import standards being required by certain U.S. trade partners (trade standards that emulate import restrictions) and you end up with a disaster for the American worker...but overseas slave labor certainly makes for a great profit margin for CEO&#039;s!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>NAFTA is not the real problem&#8230;we could have absorbed the job shifts from a North American trade union.  The real problem lies with the GATT treaty.  GATT allows almost any country to circumnavigate the tarrifs of almost any other country. Add this to the use of unreasonable import standards being required by certain U.S. trade partners (trade standards that emulate import restrictions) and you end up with a disaster for the American worker&#8230;but overseas slave labor certainly makes for a great profit margin for CEO&#8217;s!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joe</title>
		<link>http://emac.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2008/04/22/nafta-bashing-heats-up/comment-page-1/#comment-1312</link>
		<dc:creator>Joe</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Apr 2008 21:47:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emac.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2008/04/22/nafta-bashing-heats-up/#comment-1312</guid>
		<description>NAFTA - the North American Free Trade Agreement.  In school I was taught that China is in Asia not North America.  But I could be wrong - after all it was an American public school.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>NAFTA &#8211; the North American Free Trade Agreement.  In school I was taught that China is in Asia not North America.  But I could be wrong &#8211; after all it was an American public school.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: TJ</title>
		<link>http://emac.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2008/04/22/nafta-bashing-heats-up/comment-page-1/#comment-1301</link>
		<dc:creator>TJ</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Apr 2008 02:18:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emac.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2008/04/22/nafta-bashing-heats-up/#comment-1301</guid>
		<description>I believe NAFTA has done great damage that is starting to really show. The pressure on wages and loss of production jobs is coming to bite us. Yes it lead to cheap prices and boosting Canada and Mexicos economy. But our terrible education system just has not kept up with the new age as well as we should have. So we are left with consumer jobs for the poor and working class. NAFTA fundamentally changed our economic structure. We have been able to patch it up so far. But it is very fragile.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I believe NAFTA has done great damage that is starting to really show. The pressure on wages and loss of production jobs is coming to bite us. Yes it lead to cheap prices and boosting Canada and Mexicos economy. But our terrible education system just has not kept up with the new age as well as we should have. So we are left with consumer jobs for the poor and working class. NAFTA fundamentally changed our economic structure. We have been able to patch it up so far. But it is very fragile.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: joey45</title>
		<link>http://emac.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2008/04/22/nafta-bashing-heats-up/comment-page-1/#comment-1300</link>
		<dc:creator>joey45</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Apr 2008 16:33:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emac.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2008/04/22/nafta-bashing-heats-up/#comment-1300</guid>
		<description>My view on &quot;Globalism&quot; is a bit wider than pro or con:
1.  I am, indeed, a gloabalist at heart...in theory.
2.  We entered into the fray paying far too little attention to details that are seldom mentioned.

As to number one, I find it hard to accept that we are so xenophobic, that we would not, ceterus paribus, welcome a world in which humankind could live together in peace, sharing resources on an equal footing.

As for number two:
1.  We entered into globalism too hastily, when more caution was called for.

2.  We gave too little consideration to health concerns...&quot;super bugs&quot; and diseases, the We still have no clear answer to many of these issues.  What and who should be able to cross our borders?  What would it cost to monitor things enough to ensure safety?  Do agricultural enterprises of our trading partners share our views and practices concerning cleanliness and safety (consider the current issues with China, and long-standing issues with the monitoring practices of even such issues as irrigation?

3.  You are right when you say that a small percentage of jobs have been added do to the loosening of trade, and most globalists are correct when they point out that, given the methodology used when calculating unemployment, that unemployment is still at record lows. I don&#039;t think unemployment is as much a problem as the protectionists would have you believe.  The real problem, in my view, is not unemployment, but UNDER EMPLOYMENT.  I believe that there are large numbers of people who have lost the well paying jobs they had, and have, out of necessity, have had to accept positions paying only a fraction of what they were making.  And it strikes me that not that many lost those jobs because they weren&#039;t doing well at what they were hired to do.  Many fell victim to a cost reduction move to enhance their next quarterly balance sheets, earnings, and profit numbers, all of which were usually rewarded, and cheered by Wall Street through boosts in their stock prices, and profit pictures.  Just how many of those individuals, who lost the jobs they had, and accepted less just to try to keep their heads above water, have become discouraged as they house loosing value, and their personal balance sheets slowly sinking from green to red Ink?

Why do we hear so little about Under employment and its effects?  How do you think such voters will react in the coming election when caught in this squeeze?

I suspect that these are not just my opinions, but also those of many others as well.  I also wonder how history will judge the descisions we have made in this area. And...not all of us who feel this way are xenophobes.  Many are thoughtful, conservative, realists who are fearful of going too far too fast.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My view on &#8220;Globalism&#8221; is a bit wider than pro or con:<br />
1.  I am, indeed, a gloabalist at heart&#8230;in theory.<br />
2.  We entered into the fray paying far too little attention to details that are seldom mentioned.</p>
<p>As to number one, I find it hard to accept that we are so xenophobic, that we would not, ceterus paribus, welcome a world in which humankind could live together in peace, sharing resources on an equal footing.</p>
<p>As for number two:<br />
1.  We entered into globalism too hastily, when more caution was called for.</p>
<p>2.  We gave too little consideration to health concerns&#8230;&#8221;super bugs&#8221; and diseases, the We still have no clear answer to many of these issues.  What and who should be able to cross our borders?  What would it cost to monitor things enough to ensure safety?  Do agricultural enterprises of our trading partners share our views and practices concerning cleanliness and safety (consider the current issues with China, and long-standing issues with the monitoring practices of even such issues as irrigation?</p>
<p>3.  You are right when you say that a small percentage of jobs have been added do to the loosening of trade, and most globalists are correct when they point out that, given the methodology used when calculating unemployment, that unemployment is still at record lows. I don&#8217;t think unemployment is as much a problem as the protectionists would have you believe.  The real problem, in my view, is not unemployment, but UNDER EMPLOYMENT.  I believe that there are large numbers of people who have lost the well paying jobs they had, and have, out of necessity, have had to accept positions paying only a fraction of what they were making.  And it strikes me that not that many lost those jobs because they weren&#8217;t doing well at what they were hired to do.  Many fell victim to a cost reduction move to enhance their next quarterly balance sheets, earnings, and profit numbers, all of which were usually rewarded, and cheered by Wall Street through boosts in their stock prices, and profit pictures.  Just how many of those individuals, who lost the jobs they had, and accepted less just to try to keep their heads above water, have become discouraged as they house loosing value, and their personal balance sheets slowly sinking from green to red Ink?</p>
<p>Why do we hear so little about Under employment and its effects?  How do you think such voters will react in the coming election when caught in this squeeze?</p>
<p>I suspect that these are not just my opinions, but also those of many others as well.  I also wonder how history will judge the descisions we have made in this area. And&#8230;not all of us who feel this way are xenophobes.  Many are thoughtful, conservative, realists who are fearful of going too far too fast.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Peter</title>
		<link>http://emac.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2008/04/22/nafta-bashing-heats-up/comment-page-1/#comment-1299</link>
		<dc:creator>Peter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Apr 2008 15:07:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emac.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2008/04/22/nafta-bashing-heats-up/#comment-1299</guid>
		<description>We need Mexican and Canadian oil.  We need true free trade, Ron Paul style.  What we don&#039;t need is huge trade deficits with China.  What we don&#039;t need is outsourcing of American companies to Mexico.  What we don&#039;t need is more globalism and a North American union.  This is a fight &#039;til the death.  NAFTA is a problem, but the bigger problem is the strength of American unions.  Unions are no longer neccessary in this country, and they have to go before anything will change.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We need Mexican and Canadian oil.  We need true free trade, Ron Paul style.  What we don&#8217;t need is huge trade deficits with China.  What we don&#8217;t need is outsourcing of American companies to Mexico.  What we don&#8217;t need is more globalism and a North American union.  This is a fight &#8217;til the death.  NAFTA is a problem, but the bigger problem is the strength of American unions.  Unions are no longer neccessary in this country, and they have to go before anything will change.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>