Re: trade

["Bruce R. McFarling" <ecbm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Coming back to this discussion after a week of
physical exertion house moving, I find it quite
odd for NAFTA to be used in terms of arguing for
OR against free trade.  Isn't the free trade in
NAFTA the amount of trade liberalisation required
to get the more fundamental freedom of capital
acquisitions from national protective reactions to
glolbalisation?  Indeed, I was under the impression
that less than a fifth of the NAFTA was actually
about FT, with more than four fifths about investment.

It would seem at least plausible that the fundamental
employment or efficiency gains or losses would be the
consequence of the changes in the rules on rights of
cross-border owners of capital assets.  Indeed,
looking at the dangers to Caribbean island economies of
the threatened FTAA, by far the greatest danger seems to
be losing their already limited ability to manage the
impact of their chronic current account constraints on
economic growth and development.



Virtually,

Bruce McFarling, Newcastle, NSW
ecbm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx