FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

Free Trade Should Benefit the People Not Corporations

There is a lot of angst in the US corporate world. They are quite concerned that the renegotiation talks between the US, Canada and Mexico (the three participants in the North American Free Trade Agreement –NAFTA) may not deliver a new agreement that is as lucrative as the old NAFTA.

NAFTA has been in place since 1994. It is a classic neoliberal trade agreement as described by essayist George Scialabba: “investor rights agreements masquerading as ‘free trade’ and constraining the rights of governments to protect their own workers, environments, and currencies.” As such, it has served corporate interests well.

US corporations counted on NAFTA and other trade agreements to keep wages low by the threat of, or actual movement of manufacturing jobs to wherever it was easiest to exploit workers and the environment.

A re-negotiated NAFTA, would, if U.S. negotiating positions were accepted, force Canada to scrap the price protections that give their dairy farmers a fair price for their milk. In Mexico, US corporate interests would hope to prevent Andrés Manuel López Obrador, if elected president, from trying to bring Mexican farmers out of poverty. Obrador calls for expanding the country’s dairy industry and rebuilding its native corn production. (American agri-business destroyed Mexican family farm corn production by dumping cheaper corn on the Mexican market—hence the spike in illegal emigration to the U.S. after NAFTA went into force.)

Protectionist policies on the part of Canada and Mexico? Yes, but what is the function of government if not to protect its citizens? Trump says “America first” but it goes both ways. Presumably, our government was not founded with the intent of protecting corporate interests. In fact, as Thomas Jefferson noted, “The end of our democracy— will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed incorporations”.

Looks like we’re there.

If farmers, union members and small businesses were the intended beneficiaries of free trade agreements we should all be doing quite well financially. Dairy farmers should be getting a fair price for their milk, workers should be earning a living wage and small businesses should be lining the main streets of America again–but we know that is not the case.

Multinational corporations, the real beneficiaries of free trade agreements, write the rules, stash their profits in off-shore tax havens, all while they cleverly tout the agreements as being in the best interests of the farmer and wage earner.

As a dairy farmer I am told trade agreements have and will continue to help me “compete globally”. Through NAFTA we can increase our sales of dairy products to Mexico and crack Canada’s protection of their farmers milk price. Notice they do not say this will increase our profitability, only our sales— so why should I want to produce more, sell more, when there is no profit? It only means farmers will need to work harder to make the same or less at the expense of Canadian and Mexican farmers.

Of course, that is not the concern of the “dairy industry”. Their profit is insured by the willingness of farmers to produce more and never question why they cannot get a fair price. If dumping our cheap corn on Mexico or putting Canadian dairy farmers out of business is the price of increasing corporate profit– so be it.

President Trump promised to make NAFTA better or pull out. What he and his administration would define as better is a very loaded question. I have seen little in the past year to indicate the administration wants to do anything to raise farm prices, wages, or curb the influence of corporate interests on government. Just look at the new tax bill–let the good times roll for the rich and corporations!

Wisconsin Assembly Speaker Robin Voss is wrong when he says “NAFTA has worked for Wisconsin. It’s not the time to put new obstacles in place that would hurt the very markets that our business owners and farmers depend on.” If NAFTA has worked why are farmers being told to expect continued low prices in 2018?

So, rather than more of the empty populist rhetoric that fueled his campaign and election, the President, for once, actually needs to follow through on a promise: NAFTA should be replaced not re-negotiated.

As Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch noted, “Trump launched the promised NAFTA renegotiation in August, but U.S. corporate interests have persuaded Canada and Mexico to not engage on U.S. proposals to transform NAFTA in ways that U.S. unions, small businesses and consumer groups have long argued would slow job outsourcing and downward pressure on U.S. wages”.

Anyone who supports the continuation of NAFTA without questioning who actually benefits really has no concern for the best interests of farmers or workers in the US, Canada or Mexico.

More articles by:

Jim Goodman is a dairy farmer from Wonewoc, Wisconsin.

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550
November 14, 2019
Chelli Stanley
In O’odham Land
November 13, 2019
Vijay Prashad
After Evo, the Lithium Question Looms Large in Bolivia
Charles Pierson
How Not to End a Forever War
Kenneth Surin
“We’ll See You on the Barricades”: Bojo Johnson’s Poundshop Churchill Imitation
Nick Alexandrov
Murder Like It’s 1495: U.S.-Backed Counterinsurgency in the Philippines
George Ochenski
Montana’s Radioactive Waste Legacy
Brian Terrell
A Doubtful Proposition: a Reflection on the Trial of the Kings Bay Plowshares 7
Nick Pemberton
Assange, Zuckerberg and Free Speech
James Bovard
The “Officer Friendly” Police Fantasy
Dean Baker
The Logic of Medical Co-Payments
Jeff Mackler
Chicago Teachers Divided Over Strike Settlement
Binoy Kampmark
The ISC Report: Russian Connections in Albion?
Norman Solomon
Biden and Bloomberg Want Uncle Sam to Defer to Uncle Scrooge
Jesse Jackson
Risking Lives in Endless Wars is Morally Wrong and a Strategic Failure
Manuel García, Jr.
Criminalated Warmongers
November 12, 2019
Nino Pagliccia
Bolivia and Venezuela: Two Countries, But Same Hybrid War
Patrick Cockburn
How Iran-Backed Forces Are Taking Over Iraq
Jonathan Cook
Israel is Silencing the Last Voices Trying to Stop Abuses Against Palestinians
Jim Kavanagh
Trump’s Syrian See-Saw: From Pullout to Pillage
Susan Babbitt
Fidel, Three Years Later
Dean Baker
A Bold Plan to Strengthen and Improve Social Security is What America Needs
ADRIAN KUZMINSKI
Trump’s Crime Against Humanity
Victor Grossman
The Wall and General Pyrrhus
Yoko Liriano
De Facto Martial Law in the Philippines
Ana Paula Vargas – Vijay Prashad
Lula is Free: Can Socialism Be Restored?
Thomas Knapp
Explainer: No, House Democrats Aren’t Violating Trump’s Rights
Wim Laven
Serve With Honor, Honor Those Who Serve; or Support Trump?
Colin Todhunter
Agrarian Crisis and Malnutrition: GM Agriculture Is Not the Answer
Binoy Kampmark
Walls in the Head: “Ostalgia” and the Berlin Wall Three Decades Later
Akio Tanaka
Response to Pete Dolack Articles on WBAI and Pacifica
Nyla Ali Khan
Bigotry and Ideology in India and Kashmir: the Legacy of the Babri Masjid Mosque
Yves Engler
Canada Backs Coup Against Bolivia’s President
November 11, 2019
Aaron Goings, Brian Barnes, and Roger Snider
Class War Violence: Centralia 1919
Steve Early - Suzanne Gordon
“Other Than Honorable?” Veterans With “Bad Paper” Seek Long Overdue Benefits
Peter Linebaugh
The Worm in the Apple
Joseph Natoli
In the Looming Shadow of Civil War
Robert Fisk
How the Syrian Democratic Forces Were Suddenly Transformed into “Kurdish Forces”
Patrick Cockburn
David Cameron and the Decline of British Leadership
Naomi Oreskes
The Greatest Scam in History: How the Energy Companies Took Us All
Fred Gardner
Most Iraq and Afghanistan Vets now Regret the Mission
Howard Lisnoff
The Dubious Case of Washing Machines and Student Performance
Nino Pagliccia
The Secret of Cuba’s Success: International Solidarity
Binoy Kampmark
Corporate Mammon: Amazon and the Seattle Council Elections
Kim C. Domenico
To Overthrow Radical Evil, Part II: A Grandmother’s Proposal
Marc Levy
Veterans’ Day: Four Poems
FacebookTwitterRedditEmail