Folks, I am sorry, I am still new at this so if the spacing or scope of the document is not correct, I apologize. I am not opposed inter-Americanism or pan-Americanism and I never really have been. I like the idea of an "empire of liberty" that Jefferson said his principles would bring about. I think it is the best and most socially responsible model out there for the development of trade agreements. That being said, that model is opposed to our managed free trade agreements in NAFTA and CAFTA which both 1.) create net job loss in the intended countries are fueling immigration, 2.) create jobs on one end, for one class, in the social scale, but are non-reciprocal agreements that do not promise jobs in this country and 3.) create political tensions in each region they are enacted in. Much like Roman trade agreements that assure stability by protecting the propertied classes, NAFTA and CAFTA fuel the problems of immigration normal North Americans are forced to deal with.
I am saying this as a pan-American and the core argument comes from my uncle Roberto. Not me. So I do not want to hear any anti-Latin American BS from the liberals. If it was a matter of credentials, unless you are a full blooded Yanamano or Arawak ready to beat me with your paddle, let's argue reasonably. OK? If you are a Yannamano or Arawak, we'll duel it out for women and plantains and squash and let the chips fall where they may. OK?
I am getting tangential....Non-violencia por favor. Here, I am espousing the principles of Jeffersonian pan-Americanism and the Doctrina Latina America expounded by Bolivar and De San Martin.
My point is, that this is not what Jefferson had in mind, this is not the clear vision of American idealism that places and gives everyone equal opportunity either. If you go to the Democratic Leadership Committee website you can see a 21% "select middle class" was isolated on the pyramid. Is that what the middle class should be? In the Republican model there is even less wiggle room though they have not publicly displayed it as far as I know. If that is not direct social control, I am not sure what is....I agree with the model proposed below as opposed to the current anti-Adam Smith aggressive trade policies of the Administration, special interests like Exxon-Mobile and WTO.
Now on to the critique compliments to the American Friends Service Committee at http://www.afsc.org/trade-matters/trade-agreements/cafta-measure-up.htm. I was trying to publish excepts of the document here but it is not working so I'll wait until the morning to do so. No matter what you do read this document.
I am saying this as a pan-American and the core argument comes from my uncle Roberto. Not me. So I do not want to hear any anti-Latin American BS from the liberals. If it was a matter of credentials, unless you are a full blooded Yanamano or Arawak ready to beat me with your paddle, let's argue reasonably. OK? If you are a Yannamano or Arawak, we'll duel it out for women and plantains and squash and let the chips fall where they may. OK?
I am getting tangential....Non-violencia por favor. Here, I am espousing the principles of Jeffersonian pan-Americanism and the Doctrina Latina America expounded by Bolivar and De San Martin.
My point is, that this is not what Jefferson had in mind, this is not the clear vision of American idealism that places and gives everyone equal opportunity either. If you go to the Democratic Leadership Committee website you can see a 21% "select middle class" was isolated on the pyramid. Is that what the middle class should be? In the Republican model there is even less wiggle room though they have not publicly displayed it as far as I know. If that is not direct social control, I am not sure what is....I agree with the model proposed below as opposed to the current anti-Adam Smith aggressive trade policies of the Administration, special interests like Exxon-Mobile and WTO.
Now on to the critique compliments to the American Friends Service Committee at http://www.afsc.org/trade-matters/trade-agreements/cafta-measure-up.htm. I was trying to publish excepts of the document here but it is not working so I'll wait until the morning to do so. No matter what you do read this document.
Needless to say, I am in strong disagreement that the idea of "free" trade has to ruthlessly managed to protect one class over another, or be a quest between hegemony or survival as Noam Chomsky once wrote, but it seems that given the current policies and weighted rules, it is bound to create more hardship than opportunity and that means bare survival for most, hegemony for a select few. It should be made up of voluntary associations between peoples in the same way that the Quakers made Delaware and Pennsylvania a place that Voltaire could say of "never before has a society so close to the golden age, if it ever existed, been brought forth as colony of Pennsylvania." Bilateral, mutually beneficial trade agreements make for free society and more peaceful pan-American development along Jeffersonian lines.
That model of libertarian tolerance, for more than a few people will ensure a social explosion that will transform the way people interact with each other, and who are not part of the privileged 21 (or lower) percent solution.
I am basically calling the current plan a genocidal 21% solution which if you read it, it is. Hats off to all the Quakers and others out there fighting for human dignity and liberty through enlightened self-interest. I want, and think most people want a Renaissance in the Western Hemisphere not a ruthless system of control and to do that you need liberty of thought, and freedom of action.
Most of our friends in the hemisphere sadly have neither and one day they are going to stop playing our games unless some nameless "we" in Washington decides to reduce them to 21% of their current population, which is genocide. The Quakers with help from Nobel Laureates are offering a much better solution for us all.
Comments