[LINK] "Free Trade" Agreement (was: SCO's Congressional Lett
Richard.Chirgwin at informa.com.au
Mon Jan 26 08:40:08 EST 2004
One issue is that the FTA doesn't introduce "free trade". It introduces
politically-planned trade, in which the freedom is bestowed overwhelmingly
on a particular class of beneficiaries - those with lobbying weight.
Another is that, as Craig pointed out in another post, having free movement
of capital but restricting free movement of people introduces a distortion -
in my opinion, a distortion which ensures that >only< large companies can
benefit, because they have the mobile cash.
From: Rick Welykochy
To: Jan Whitaker
Sent: 25/01/04 16:25
Subject: Re: [LINK] "Free Trade" Agreement (was: SCO's Congressional
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004, Jan Whitaker wrote:
> At 09:39 PM 24/01/04 +1100, Rick Welykochy wrote:
> >I don't make this stuff up! It's been going on for fifteen years.
> >(Well, twelve for NAFTA, another three for negotiations that did not
> >involve the Canadian public)
> >Bushie has LJH naked over a barrel. Unless we save him.
> so who is in whose pocket in the media for why this isn't being
> reported? Why are we in danger of making the same mistakes?
I dug up the history of NAFTA on the web. That is one media that
is fairly forward in presenting "the facts".
Mother Jones (US lefty mag) reports honestly and openly about NAFTA.
PBS (public SDS-style TV in the US) does the same.
Free and open independent media have not hidden the facts.
It is not beyond the realm of that which is feasible to assume that
the three or four media conglomerates that feed the mainstream mass
news services in this country are highly selective about what is
broadcast about the FTA. It is in their interest to present the
sunny side of the upcoming arrangement - they can directly benefit from
What I have read about NAFTA and USAFTA consistently points to one
thing, and one thing alone:
Large multinational corporations are the only winners in FT
agreements. And the large corporations alwats win out over the
smaller, due to the way the agreement is structed.
Pretty simple. Pretty obvious. Add Chapter 11 style penalties (where
a corporation can sue as government for *perceived* and *presumed*
lost profits) and you are witnessing another attempt to replace true
democracy with a corporate oligarchy run by the America military
industrial complex. (Hint: search for "free trade agreement" on google)
Just like children overboard,
just like the governor general and institutionalised paedophilia,
just like WMD in Iraq,
the government is lying and covering up the facts w.r.t USAFTA.
With a groundswell of public interest in this *very* important
change to our economic and democratic landscape, I predict the FTA
could become the deciding factor in the upcoming election. Unless
Labor itself becomes hypnotised and hoodwinked in the same way the
Libs have about some perceived benefits of FTA. Let's hope Latham has
the balls to speak out against the selling out of Ausralian sovereignty.
Ask yourselves: what problems does free trade solve? And then ask
what problems it creates.
Rick Welykochy || Praxis Services Pty Limited
NAFTA might be friendly to investment but it was not all that
friendly to democracy.
-- Bill Moyers
Link mailing list
Link at mailman.anu.edu.au
More information about the Link