Why are you for/against free trade agreements?
459367
i like freedom, so all free is good.
739494
Not only are we endorsing the slave labor in China, we are also going to reduce our wages to the same level in order to compete.\n\nWe should not trade with nations that do not observe basic human rights.
332844
The Peruvian Free Trade Agreement also know as TLC for Tratado de Libre Comercio, which was recently signed, but there is quite a lot of opposition in both countries to avoid its implementation. Once implemented, 80 percent of consumer and industrial products and more than two-thirds of current U.S. farm exports to Peru would become duty-free. Many products from Peru already enter the U.S. market without duties. The agreement ensures that this status would remain unchanged.\n\nCurrent governments favor this agreement, however there are several groups in the US like Sierra Club that oppose it, as well as international groups like Oxfam.  In Peru, the winner of the first round of presidential elections, Ollanta Humala, vigorously opposes the TLC saying this agreement doesn't favor Peruvian interests and its agriculture.
689811
Nope, it is working for others, just not you.\n\nTry getting a better job that doesn't depend on NAFTA.
384506
The best way to look at this question is to start at the beginning: with the Individual person.\n\nAfter all, it is individuals that trade with one another, not countries.\n\nTake two people (Bob & Jim)\n\nBob has 2 apples and Jim has 2 oranges.\n\nBob would like one of Jim's oranges, so he offers to trade one of his apples.\n\nJim agrees and the two make the trade (1 apple for 1 orange).\n\nWhat's the economic impact?\n\nAfter the trade, you have two satisified individuals. Each now has the things that they value most. Bob valued Jim's orange more than his extra apple, and vice versa with Jim.\n\nIt's a win-win situation.\n\nThat is the economic impact of EVERY trade that occurs in the marketplace (UNLESS there is outside interference with the exchange).\n\nNow, imagine that Bob lived in Italy and Jim in Canada...\n\nIt wouldn't make a difference. \n\nThe principles are the same.
969245
It's annoying, but I think it is probably only a temporary refusal.  The EU is gradually becoming a true single economy which will mean common taxation in all forms.  Economic theory suggests this outcome is pretty much inevitable - NAFTA, ASEAN and the EU will become the only three global economic entities and we will get cheap booze and fags through larger scale competition and common economic policy.\n\n'Course it will be at the expense of self-government ...
522218
Your question is not very clear, but here's are some facts and opinions on the topic.\n\nFACTS\n-----\n\nW.T.O. stands for "World Trade Organization".  The W.T.O. was created, at least in part, to reduce barriers to trade.  \n\nBarriers to trade can include direct barriers, such as government prohibitions on imports, or high taxes on imports.  Some people (mostly businesspeople who don't want any sort of government regulation) say that barriers to trade include such things as laws to protect the environment, laws to protect workers (e.g. from being exposed to poisonous substances), etc.  \n\nFree-market economists say that free trade allows the economy to function at maximum efficiency, with each country producing the products that it produces most efficiently, and then trading some of those products to other countries that produce other products most efficiently.  By minimizing barriers to trade, those economists say, we can maximize the living standards of people in all countries.  \n\nHowever, this is true only under special conditions, including the absence of "external costs".  An external cost is a cost that is not paid for by the producer or the buyer/consumer of a product.  For example, my factory might produce $1,000,000 of product per year.  But the pollution that my factory dumps in the river might cost people downstream $10,000,000 in damage.  Thus my factory, instead of producing $1,000,000 of net benefit, might actually cause $9,000,000 of net loss.  If this $9,000,000 is not paid for either by me or by the people who buy my products, then this $9,000,000 is an "external cost".  \n\nThus, although businesspeople and most well-known free-market economists generally won't admit it, environmental protection, labor protection, etc. can save more money than they cost, and eliminating those protections may reduce, rather than increase efficiency in some cases.  \n\nOPINIONS\n--------\n\nMost people's opinions on this topic are based on how their own income is affected by the WTO's trumping of environmental and labor protection laws.  People who make a lot of money from corporate profits generally want the WTO to destroy governments' ability to protect the environment and labor.  People who feel that the corporations are polluting the area that they live in or abusing workers generally emphasize that free trade is a means, not an end, and feel that governments should not allow "free trade" to trump environmental protection and labor protection.  These people feel that trade should be regulated when it causes external costs.  \n\nMy own OPINION is that our political leaders, such as George W. Bush, have expanded the powers of the WTO etc. too much.  The WTO etc. allow corporations to veto environmental and labor protections.  This allows corporations to essentially overthrow democracy and pillage the environment without regard to the harm to humans or even to the long-term sustainability of the economy.
368193
Why would you want to? True, like any profession they have their nuts. They help millions of people every year. It is one of those things, that if you don't like it, don't use it. Why try to take rights away from others that may benefit?
789666
I think you already know...but here goes...\n\nI support the illegal immigrants because our immigration laws are messed up, because we have become an exclusive resort. All other countries are inclusive, we discriminate against people due to the amount of money they have...and sadly the economies of other countries are not great.
850110
the thing is if u import cheaper ur resources will be located to some other industry so in the long term ur economy will benefit from it..the thing the more open and liberal u are the better u get..we could build an utopian society if only we wanted so..
1162812
Obrador says he wont let beans etc come in under the NAFTA deadline.  Our government is saying it must occur as scheduled.  Personally, I think NAFTA was never looked at as having a potential impact on immigration, and I think that dialog would be healthy.  I'm not even sure which side I'd be on.\n\nHowever, big business here wants both cheap labor AND free trade, and would be more comfortable with Fox's party.  Much as I hate the thought, they may well come out the winners over here, which would put Mexico in a position of maybe getting significantly loosened immigration (legally) for poor immigrants.  I don't know if they would be comfortable horse trading with Obrador.  Big business (right or wrong) has a suspicion that those on the left don't consider themselves bound by agreements once they get what they want.\n\nThis is just speculation.  I'd rather not have Obrador because he seems volatile.  I don't vote there, however.\n\nBy the way, I found an article that might interest you.  I don't know if I agree with its conclusion, but here you go: http://www.whittierdailynews.com/opinions/ci_3991732
14362
depends if you think trading your liberty for a possible gain in your security is a good idea.\n\nalso depends if you think that a country that says it is 'free' should allow that to happen behind its back and if you think a country that says its 'free' has its own definition of what that means.\n\nany response that would suggest 'do you want people who could bomb us to be able to bomb us?' as a reason that its ok, is exactly the person that is saying 'its ok to take away my liberty which many many many people fought for so that i don't have to be afraid.'\n\nthe people that fought did not fight so that you could be 'safe', that is a very self-centric point of view. they fought and died for 'liberty'. if you think trading it in for a piece of safety is a good idea, then you have no respect for *what* the people fought for and probably don't have a good understanding of the problems this 'free' country faces.\n\ni hope there is a scandal.
1084696
It is great between equals. However it encourages slavery and unethical business practices in cases where it isn't between equals. \n\nIn essence globalization helps the business owners and investors in well off countries. It slows economic progress in countries that aren't well off as owners and investors get to dictate too many terms that they shouldn't have available to them. The only way to correct this situation is to get better laws into 3rd world nations, which owners and investors don't want and, under most of these free trade agreements, have the ability to stop. Or to remove those protection here in the US and let americans be hung out to starve. \n\nMillions of different products are produced in 3rd world nations and shipped to America. Most of the workers making those products aren't paid enough to buy one of the products they make, whether that be roses, batteries, or cars. We are not doing them a favor.
214881
Free Trade is good for the economy, nation and bridges people from different parts of the world. You should not think like a racist. People make the good world.\nPeople from all parts depend upon each other one way or the other.
436353
You really don't.\n\nhttp://www.gao.gov/new.items/d01933.pdf\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement
884449
I am sorry I could not understand the difference either.  \n\nThe definitions are: "In international trade, free trade is an idealized market model, often stated as a political objective, in which trade of goods and services between countries flows unhindered by government-imposed prices." Otherwise commom market "is a customs union with common policies on product regulation, and freedom of movement of all the four factors of production (land, enterprise, capital and labour)."\n\nFor me it's looks like the same, the implications of that is that when you open all your barriers to other countries you could threat some not developed economical goods...for example...\n\nUSA wanted to integrate Brazil to NAFTA, but it's a very controversial issue for US farmers to accept a completely open market for Brazil's orange farmers (for example) as how Brazil's industries worry to open the market for US 'cause US has more capacity to invest in technology and marketing than Brazil industries, so it could happen to an "unfair" commerce.
685724
Think of it as selling lemonade in a cul-de-sac as opposed to selling it on a busy street. Tons more customers on the street, right? International free trade means that developing countries don't only get to sell to their neighboring third-world countries anymore, but to the entire "rich" world.