If you think DR-CAFTA is a bad idea...

[cobraboy]

One can choose to live in the past or live for the future.

One cannot stop "progress".

If you live each day as "the best day in your life", the future takes care of itself.

[batich]

Originally Posted by cobraboy

One cannot stop "progress".

.

Yes. Unfortunatelly it is 100% true.

And of course, everyone must protect himself against "future" as much as possible. Otherwise, indeed, it takes care of itself.

[Squat]

Anyway, there's no point in arguing... FYI, I am mostly pro-american, but I just can't approve something when it is plain wrong in my view.

No point arguing because whether we like it or not, the DR-CAFTA is coming...

I am not happy about it, but then it is just my view. History is made of decisions, sometime right, sometime wrong, and we just have to live with it...

I was a bit tongue-in-cheek when I joked about how blindly some posters trust the US lobbyists, and I compared it to how blindly they followed their GVT's decision to go to Irak... This is not US bashing. This is "naive people-bashing"... No offense, it is only a bit of fun made on some of you guys... Like I said, I am mostly pro-american...

But don't expect me to applaud that MASSIVE FRAUD that is the DR-CAFTA !!!

It will happen just like in 1985, the US GVT imposed the slaughtering of all creole pigs in Haiti, resulting in a huge disaster (our neighbouring nation never recovered). In 1990, the US GVT imposed to Haiti to open its gate to a tax-free US rice : it killed the Artibonite region in less than a year. FYI, the Artibonite was the rice fields region in Haiti, and now all these ex-agricultors are living in the Port-au-Prince SLUMS.

When I take position against a mesure coming from a nation I respect and admire (the USA), it is for a good reason. I am not analysing this from a building in New England. I am here, I study, I travel, I natively speak both of this island's nation languages.

The CAFTA will KILL & DESTROY the dominican agriculture, period.

Anyone who wants to write a good argument to contradict me on why dominican agriculture will ever benefit from CAFTA is welcome...

Anyone who has good arguments (no bumper sticker reasoning please !) on CAFTA not being a source of MASSIVE RURAL EXODUS and creation of a new SLUM DWELLER GENERATION, please, I would be very interested to read it, I am open-minded, I am mostly pro-american in general, and I easily accept different views if they prove to make sense.

[Chris]

Originally Posted by Squat

The CAFTA will KILL & DESTROY the dominican agriculture, period.

Anyone who wants to write a good argument to contradict me on why dominican agriculture will ever benefit from CAFTA is welcome...

Anyone who has good arguments (no bumper sticker reasoning please !) on CAFTA not being a source of MASSIVE RURAL EXODUS and creation of a new SLUM DWELLER GENERATION, please, I would be very interested to read it, I am open-minded, I am mostly pro-american in general, and I easily accept different views if they prove to make sense.

Let's hope all here accept different views. Instead DR-Cafta destroying the DR agriculture as a whole, I think it will destroy the DR small farmer. The big ones or the ones structured in very strong co-operatives, will survive. The produce will become more and more mass produced, more and more mono-culture and more and more suitable to a feedlot, instead of good wholesome produce to feed people.

Slum-dwellers, yes of course. The small farmers and the subsistence fishermen and the very low income folk who manage to feed their families in traditional ways.

But, for people working with technology, it would be a good thing. (That is the aduana ever figures out the rules...!)

There is good and bad in the agreement. But, in such agreements, the little person mostly always loses. If only the countries involved could have presented themselves in a cohesive and coherent trading block and approached the agreement in concert. This would have at least levelled the playing field a little. As it is, the DR was 'tacked on' to the end of this agreement. But yes, I am too idealistic.

[RHM]

I started this thread last night. We now have three pages of good discussion and nobody has lost an eye.

I wanted to weigh in also.

FYI: I do not claim to be an expert. Read this line twice if you must.

In my opinion, free trade is a good thing "IF"...notice the big "IF":

1) The country getting involved already has a stable economy.
2) The country getting involved has strong domestic monetary policy, banking...yada...yada...yada.
3) A strong, reliable, and transparent judicial system and rule of law.
4) Here's the kicker...an educated and agile workforce that can adapt to the economic changes that are SURE to come.

You can grade the DR yourself. Does the DR have any of those things?

The "success stories" are never states that jump into everything without some pretty common sense prerequisites.

Yes, as stated before, we live in a global economy. But running before you can walk is like building a metro when the general infrastructure is in disrepair (or never existed in the first place).

I hope I'm wrong but I imagine the DR is about to get its clock cleaned.

The issue of farm subsidies always comes up. Here's the other side of it:

If the US lifted the gazillions of dollars it spends on agricultural subsidies the biggest winners would be the American taxpayers and small farmers in the developing world. The losers? Anyone? Anyone?

The consumer, or general population, in the developing world.

Why? Because when farmers in the US lose their subsidies their output will decrease and raise prices. These are passed along to the consumers. The American public has considerably more disposable income to spend but the "little guy" in the developing world gets whacked. The "little farmer" in the developing world is happier, but the general public suffers most-those with little or no money.

Comments?

Scandall

[cobraboy]

Scandall, I understand your position fully; you make good points.

But any progress comes with some pain. Throughout history, each phase of man's economic development had casualties. it is NEVER 100% win-win for all parties. The most developed nations ALL were once backwater agrarian societies.

I'm not defending any party subject to any trade agreement, DR-CAFTA or not.

But don't you think, just focusing on the agricultul segment of the Dominican economy, that some forced modernization, at the end of the day, might be a good thing?

I believe an argument can be made that individual, small farmers might be overall better off in cooperative arrangements with like farmers. That model has worked well throughout the world, throughout history. It increases productivity, production, and lowers aggregate costs. Cooperatives and Guilds were early models of productive consolidation.

It's one area that separates the 1st/2nd Worlds from the 3rd.

I'm sure the Amalgamated Buggy Whip Union thought the horseless carriage would end the US economy too. True, folks were misplaced. But shortly thereafter, they found better employment opportunities and the overall economic climate benefitted.

I am sympathetic toward the plight of those who may not benefit short-term for such trade agreements. But I'm also sympathetic toward those who suffer under inflation, lack of or negative economic growth, and any other of situations not within their direct control.

Sometimes surgery is painful, but recovery is beneficial. I cannot see not implementing DR-CAFTA because one singular, inefficient segment of the economy may suffer.

[aegap]

The question one should ask is whether DR would be better off with DR-CAFTA or with no DR-CAFTA in the future, while everything else is the same (e.g. Caribbean Basin Initiative expires, the Central Americna countries implement DR-CAFTA, etc.)

My answer: Hell NO!!!

[RHM]

Aegap and Cobra...good points...and trust me, I am a free trader and libertarian...but you have to look both ways and prepare before crossing the street.

Vamos a ver,

Scandall

[NALs]

Originally Posted by Scandall

If the US lifted the gazillions of dollars it spends on agricultural subsidies the biggest winners would be the American taxpayers and small farmers in the developing world. The losers? Anyone? Anyone?

The consumer, or general population, in the developing world.

Why? Because when farmers in the US lose their subsidies their output will decrease and raise prices. These are passed along to the consumers. The American public has considerably more disposable income to spend but the "little guy" in the developing world gets whacked. The "little farmer" in the developing world is happier, but the general public suffers most-those with little or no money.

Comments?

Scandall

It makes perfect sense, however one needs to take the following into account as well.

For certain, US agricultural output will fall. However, it will fall while simultaneously third world agricultural output increases. Of course, this will not be the same in all third world countries, but many countries will certainly increase their agricultural production if the global market price for the agricultural product such country specializes in is worth the effort.

Thus, while US agricultural output deminishes, in the short run consumers will see an increase in the price of foodstuffs. However, as more and more third world countries either increase their agricultural output and/or focus on production of agricultural products that their country (due to climate, soil conditions, etc) has a greater comparative advantage, the overall global agricultural output will increase and will begin to affect the price of such foodstuffs.

So yes, in the short run consumers would see a rise in the price of food, but in the long run the price of food will correct itself as global agricultural output increases.

I'm not too sure if the "little guy" would actually benefit much if agriculture would be traded in a free and fair fashion. Much of the most productive land in third world countries are in the hand of large land owners. The "little guy" is often crowded farming tiny plots of land where production is either very high at the beginning and quickly tapers off as nutrients are extracted from the soil and/or on soil that is simply not very productive to start with.

On the other hand, large land owners would be able to utilized their large estates or fincas to achieve economies of scale and thus, beat the "little guy" in the process. Not to mention that large land owners are usually very wealthy and have the resources to fund new farming techniques and/or incorporate new technology which further increases the productivity in some of the highest yielding land within any given third world country.

The "little guy" farmer will most likely be attracted to work in the expanded and more productive fincas rather than attempt to enter the market on his/her own, given the inferiority of his land and his farming techniques, not to mention the inability to reach economies of scale due to the small plots many small farmers farm on.

The beauty in this is not whether or not the small farmer gains something from this, but that wealth that should be created in a third world country would be created in such country. Via government taxation and other means it will have a positive effect on government budgets, overall wealth of the country, etc which would allow for greater public investment in other aspects of that society.

Then we have to take into account those third world countries where absentee land ownership (usually by multinational corporations) dominate their agricultura sector. In those countries, much of the wealth in agriculture will be created by multinationals and as is often the case, multinationals would extract the wealth from the country as soon as the wealth is created.

Consumers, big business, and large land owners are the really big winners in a truly free and fair trade of agricultural products on a global level.

The little guy's prospects increases on the probability of his government investing in his future, thanks to the increase in budget from tax collection from the new source of wealth. However, this is something that varies greatly from country to country.

In short, true free trade and fair trade in agriculture would lead to increase in wealth of many third world countries, BUT increase wealth doesn't mean redistribution of wealth and that is a point worth mentioning.

-NALs

[aegap]

The mess that is the U.S Farmers Welfare System:

State of the U.S Farmers Welfare System
brought to you by the U.S. Freedom of the Press

Harvesting Cash

Here's the latest article

Here's a funny one, you don't have to be a farmer to get farm subsidies:

Farm Program Pays $1.3 Billion to People Who Don't Farm

Quote:

EL CAMPO, Tex.—Even though Donald R. Matthews put his sprawling new residence in the heart of rice country, he is no farmer. He is a 67-year-old asphalt contractor who wanted to build a dream house for his wife of 40 years.
Yet under a federal agriculture program approved by Congress, his 18-acre suburban lot receives about $1,300 in annual “direct payments,” because years ago the land was used to grow rice.

this is funny,..
farming welfare for the rich:

Quote:

“I don’t agree with the government’s policy,” said Matthews, who wanted to give the money back but was told it would just go to other landowners. “They give all of this money to landowners who don’t even farm, while real farmers can’t afford to get started. It’s wrong.”
The checks to Matthews and other landowners were intended 10 years ago as a first step toward eventually eliminating costly, decades-old farm subsidies. Instead, the payments have grown into an even larger subsidy that benefits millionaire landowners, foreign speculators and absentee landlords, as well as farmers.
...The cash comes with so few restrictions that subdivision developers who buy farmland advertise that homeowners can collect farm subsidies on their new back yards