How you guys think about us-korea fta?


jellyfish16
#1
U.S-KOREA FTA is now in the final stage to be ratified by both countries' council but several opposition parties in korea and civic groups impedes it's ratification. As obama focused on in his new year speech,it makes a loss for both of parties to delay it. Luckily, car industries and council in korea accepted additional negotiations and they agreed to fast ratification. i heard, there are several good points to make a contract with one of the emerging nations-korea. the best merit is that more than 7 million jobs could be increased and also we can established a bridgehead to enter into Northeast Asia market such as Japan,China. some economists higly appreaciated those things in FTA. Anyway, I hope U.S-KOREA FTA will be ratified as soon as possible to be profitable for both countries because it's final negotiations already used a lot of time and have been quite delayed until now. FTA need to make outcomes in U.S & Korea market economy.

 
dumpthemonarchy
Free Thinker
#2
For one thing, right now, South Korea sells 50 cars in the USA for every 1 car the USA sells in South Korea. Time for a little fairness. And this deal will do nothing to ensure Canadian made cars are sold in SK. SK has 65 million consumers, they need to open up their market. This FTA will do that a bit.

U.S.-South Korea trade deal inches closer to final approval | Reuters (external - login to view)
 
Highball
#3
I don't expect to see anything positive come out of this agreement either fore the US or Canada. Look at the actual results of the NAFTA and CAFTA agreements to date. Both nations have been put in some bad trade situations. Automobiles is just one commodity. Look at the electronics and clothing sectors too.
 
jellyfish16
#4
thank you guys for reply. I agree with you guys at some points. as dumpthemonarchy said, Korea need to open economy market to other countries and to be globalization. as highball said, we can't jump to conclusion of this FTA just seeing one product's competitiveness. but almost ratification is done, so I just hope this FTA start good to bring up profits.
 
taxslave
No Party Affiliation
+1
#5  Top Rated Post
So far as I can see this will just export even more manufacturing jobs off shore or people here had best be getting accustomed to working for $20/day. If we keep exporting real jobs soon the only rich left in North America will be government workers.
 
BaalsTears
#6
Free trade has impoverished American workers.
 
EagleSmack
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

So far as I can see this will just export even more manufacturing jobs off shore or people here had best be getting accustomed to working for $20/day. If we keep exporting real jobs soon the only rich left in North America will be government workers.

Yup... just another way to send jobs overseas.
 
BaalsTears
#8
This agreement reminds me of NAFTA.
 
Machjo
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by HighballView Post

I don't expect to see anything positive come out of this agreement either fore the US or Canada. Look at the actual results of the NAFTA and CAFTA agreements to date. Both nations have been put in some bad trade situations. Automobiles is just one commodity. Look at the electronics and clothing sectors too.

What? Are you saying North Koreans can produce higher-quality products more efficiently and so at a better price?

Well then, how about we improve our education system to ensure our workforce has the skills to compete. Protecting our model-T industry is not the way to advance. Free trade helps:

1. clear out our model-T industries so as to allow more space for our new industries to grow.
2. make more obvious any flaws there may be in our economy such as poor labour skills, etc. which might spur governments to increase spending on education.
3. Force our industries to become more efficient.

Free trade is painful because it forces us to do just that. Once the transition is over though, both sides benefit.

I'm not a US citizen, so it's not up to me to decide. But if it were up to me, I'd be all for it.

Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

So far as I can see this will just export even more manufacturing jobs off shore or people here had best be getting accustomed to working for $20/day. If we keep exporting real jobs soon the only rich left in North America will be government workers.

You're way exaggerating. Let's suppose that in fact all jobs moved to South Korea. All of a sudden the US dollar could collapse, the South Korean won would rise, and suddenly South Korean exports wouldn't be so attractive anymore while US exports would be dirt cheap. Also, with the consumer being free to buy the product that best suits him, it forces both Americans and South Koreans to focus on their relative advantages, thus benefiting both countries in the end.

Consider too that this increased efficiency also helps to combat inflation in both countries.

The only losers are those less efficient industries that shouldn't be in the market in the first place.

We must consider too though that for the most part the South Korean economy is a more corporatist than capitalist one, meaning that the government encourages collaboration between labour, management, lenders and other players in the economy, this collaboration ensuring common interest and goals.

Of course different forms of corporatism exist. In South Korea, it's mostly influenced by Confucian teachings about community unity and harmony. This collaborative culture also naturally encourages the government and the private sector to develop a more highly educated workforce to ensure all members of the community can participate in its development.

I can see how free trade between a corporatist economy and one based on a capitalist economy can cause problems. After all, though on the surface they appear the same in that they are both based on a predominantly private sector, the former is based on collaboration between various sectors of the economy (whether between labour and management, different companies, etc. all working together on common goals), whereas ours and the US' are based on compeition, whether between labour and management, different companies, etc.

Needless to say, an economic system that does not waste precious resources on competition but rather on developing efficiency through collaboration is bound to be far more efficient.

The question then is, do we isolate themselves from them, or do we engage them so as to allow it to reveal our relative strengths and weaknesses ans so improve on both sides.

Quote: Originally Posted by BaalsTearsView Post

Free trade has impoverished American workers.

And given better deals to American consumers. Are we all all workers and consumers in one way or another?

Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmackView Post

Yup... just another way to send jobs overseas.

What ever happened to freedom?

Quote: Originally Posted by BaalsTearsView Post

This agreement reminds me of NAFTA.

And was it all that bad? The inefficient companies sunk, giving way to the more efficient ones to grow more quickly.

The only real draw back to free trade that I see is that the pressure to make industry more efficient means that for the government to maintain full employment, it must then take much more responsibility to ensure all workers and the unemployed are provided with an opportunity to upgrade their skills to keep up with the faster pace of change that comes with free trade. Think of quality universal compulsory education as the free-trade safety net. As long as that net is in place to retrain those who lose their jobs as a result of free trade, they will go back into the workforce performing more efficiently and thus able to provide quality products at a lower price. Granted free trade does not help much to push salaries up. But we must also look at the bigger picture. It's likely to push costs down faster than protectionism would push salaries up. Looking at it that way, it's still better in terms of how far your salary will take you.
 
BaalsTears
#10
If we had a do over on NAFTA, most Americans would oppose it. It's not all that popular down here.
 
Said1
Free Thinker
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

What? Are you saying North Koreans can produce higher-quality products more efficiently and so at a better price?

Well then, how about we improve our education system to ensure our workforce has the skills to compete. Protecting our model-T industry is not the way to advance. Free trade helps:

1. clear out our model-T industries so as to allow more space for our new industries to grow.
2. make more obvious any flaws there may be in our economy such as poor labour skills, etc. which might spur governments to increase spending on education.
3. Force our industries to become more efficient.

Free trade is painful because it forces us to do just that. Once the transition is over though, both sides benefit.

I'm not a US citizen, so it's not up to me to decide. But if it were up to me, I'd be all for it.


It's about who has the absoute advantage, and although I'm not sure what the average income in South Korea is, I'm guessing that, at the end of the day, after all imputs are calculated, South Korea is the winner. The fact is, no amount of education will change that.
Last edited by Said1; Feb 15th, 2011 at 08:18 AM..
 
Machjo
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by Said1View Post

It's about who has the absoute advantage, and although I'm not sure what the average income in South Korea is, I'm guessing that, at the end of the day, after all imputs are calculated, South Korea is the winner. The fact is, no amount of education will change that.

If SK has the absolute advantage, then it wouldn't take long for the currencies to adjust as Canadians rush to buy South Korean products. That advantage would be but temporary. Once the currencies are natrually readjusted, then there would also be the advantage of pressure for both sides to become as efficient as possible, not to mention possible collaboration between US and SK companies too.
 
lone wolf
Free Thinker
#13
People who work in the call centres that high-paying - and bartered away - industry was replaced with aren't going to rush to buy anyone's product once the grocery bill, rent and utilities are paid.
 
Machjo
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolfView Post

People who work in the call centres that high-paying - and bartered away - industry was replaced with aren't going to rush to buy anyone's product once the grocery bill, rent and utilities are paid.

Well if they won't be buying anything, then how would SK benefit?

Following the same premise, wealthier provinces ought to have trade barriers against poorer provinces, right?
 
lone wolf
Free Thinker
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

Well if they won't be buying anything, then how would SK benefit?

Following the same premise, wealthier provinces ought to have trade barriers against poorer provinces, right?

You're the one writing all the rules....
 
Machjo
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolfView Post

You're the one writing all the rules....

What rules?

It's been long established that under free trade, even when one country has an absolute advantage over another in all respects, that the relationship will still be mutually beneficial in that it still allows each country to exploit its relative advantage. Even if one country has an absolute advantage over the other, the other will still have a relative advantage over the first in one area or another, with each specializing in its relative advantage to benefit each other mutually. It's not different from free trade between provinces, or between cities for that matter. The relationship is always mutually beneficial overall.
 
lone wolf
Free Thinker
#17
Ever heard of Canada's lumber industry? Caterpillar? Free Trade really helped those jobs stay in Canada didn't it? How does losing a good paying job for a minimum wage one benefit anyone?
 
Machjo
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolfView Post

Ever heard of Canada's lumber industry? Caterpillar? Free Trade really helped those jobs stay in Canada didn't it? How does losing a good paying job for a minimum wage one benefit anyone?

If we'd lost those industries, it's because clearly they were not sufficiently efficient. As for the minimum wage jobs, yes I fully agree with government, especially in an open economy, to ensure all Canadians get the education they need to raise their salaries and thus their taxable income. The government has certainly failed on that front. Without the highest quality education available to all workers, yes, we're bound to slip. That however is a matter apart from free trade. Free trade merely accelerates the process of economic development.
 
lone wolf
Free Thinker
#19
All the education in the world isn't going to get McDonalds, Wendy's, Hortons or the call centres to pay the same sort of wages traded-away industry did. You just get a lot of well-educated and bored people.
 
taxslave
No Party Affiliation
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

If SK has the absolute advantage, then it wouldn't take long for the currencies to adjust as Canadians rush to buy South Korean products. That advantage would be but temporary. Once the currencies are natrually readjusted, then there would also be the advantage of pressure for both sides to become as efficient as possible, not to mention possible collaboration between US and SK companies too.

Thats fine for those of you that get a cheque from the government every month but those of us that have to work for a living would soon have no jobs to make money to buy anything with. Nevermind paying the mortgage and food. The only reason NAFTA works as well as it does is because Canada and the US have roughly the same standard of living. Try and buy a tire made in North America. THe last pair of lower priced snow tires I bought were made in Thailand but they were only about $40 cheaper than Michelins.
Even with NAFTA we are getting screwed over with lumber. Many mills in B.C. have shut down and the logs are going to Washington where they have built some hightec mills that pay between$12-14/hr. with **** for bennies. That is about 1/3 of our labour rate in a union mill. Now we all know that you cannot feed a family and pay a mortgage on $14/hr in BC. And you want us to compete with people that work for a bowl of rice a day?
 
Machjo
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

Thats fine for those of you that get a cheque from the government every month but those of us that have to work for a living would soon have no jobs to make money to buy anything with. Nevermind paying the mortgage and food. The only reason NAFTA works as well as it does is because Canada and the US have roughly the same standard of living. Try and buy a tire made in North America. THe last pair of lower priced snow tires I bought were made in Thailand but they were only about $40 cheaper than Michelins.
Even with NAFTA we are getting screwed over with lumber. Many mills in B.C. have shut down and the logs are going to Washington where they have built some hightec mills that pay between$12-14/hr. with **** for bennies. That is about 1/3 of our labour rate in a union mill. Now we all know that you cannot feed a family and pay a mortgage on $14/hr in BC. And you want us to compete with people that work for a bowl of rice a day?

I don't work for the government by the way, but at the same time I should have the freedom to spend my money where I want to buy the best product available at the best price available. All free trade does is slow down the inevitable. By the way, why are you so worried about your job under free trade yet I'm looking forward to free trade even though my salary is entirely private sector?

Hmmm...Again, I'd be more than happy to pay my taxes to retrain you for a better job if you lose yours under free trade. Don't expect a hand out of course, but I'd have no qualms about my taxes giving you a hand up.
 
taxslave
No Party Affiliation
#22
I forgot the other important point to free trade with third world countries. We have stringent and expensive health and safety laws and they have?... a line of poor willing to risk life and limb (literally) for that bowl of rice a day.
 
Machjo
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolfView Post

All the education in the world isn't going to get McDonalds, Wendy's, Hortons or the call centres to pay the same sort of wages traded-away industry did. You just get a lot of well-educated and bored people.

No, but it will attract new companies.

Remember how right after NAFTA, many companies moved to Mexico and then regretted it. Sure the salaries were low, but then the companies had to spend mucho money on training their workers, and some even raked back their initial shift to Mexico. Low-skilled businesses went anyway, but many high tech ones had to stay here.

So if we upgrade our workers' stills, we then make Canada more attractive not to low-paying companies like the ones you like to mention, but rather to more advanced ones.

Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

I forgot the other important point to free trade with third world countries. We have stringent and expensive health and safety laws and they have?... a line of poor willing to risk life and limb (literally) for that bowl of rice a day.

And if what you say is true, they'd be so swamped with wok soon enough that they'll companies would soon have to compete for their labour shortage, thus naturally pushing their salaries up. Again, even with protectionism this will happen anyway. Protectionism just slows the project down.
 
Trotz
Bloc Québécois
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

I forgot the other important point to free trade with third world countries. We have stringent and expensive health and safety laws and they have?... a line of poor willing to risk life and limb (literally) for that bowl of rice a day.

Agreed.
Means of subsistence

1950s --> automobile, 2.1 kids (average) and suburb home (without debt)
2010 --> automobile, 1.5 kid and a condo (with debt)
2060 --> no automobile (it's more "green", according to the banker with his own automobile), 0.5 kids and a rented bedroom.

Even though people then should be getting loads of inheritance, that inheritance will be tied into currency (which will lose all value because of inflation!) and the bankers will find a way to swindle the inherited property.


Of course I believe the state propaganda machine will be stronger as well, anyone who challenges the status quo will be called a racist/fascist or fracist which will be easier to remember for the idiocratic populations. I.E. "DON'T YOU KNOW, YOU BIGOT, THAT PEOPLE IN POORWACKISTAN GET A MUD HUT AS OPPOSE TO A RENTED BEDROOM AND *HAPPY-PILLS!?"

*Happy Bills being reflective of the 2060s, when most of the population is on mind-altering substances, i.e. anti-depression pills.

Ironically, this is coming from someone who probably won't be affected by globalism but being a good nationalist (as per the 1848 Liberal Nationalists who went after the bankers) I am not comfortable with the idea of Canadian Proletariat working for slave wages.
 
tay
#25
On Fifth Anniversary of U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement, Deficit With Korea Has Doubled as U.S. Exports Fell, Imports Soared

President Trump Appoints a Leading Promoter of Korea Pact as White House Special Assistant for Trade and Goes Silent on Deal After Decrying ‘Job-Killing Trade Deal With South Korea’ on Stump.

WASHINGTON, D.C. –President Donald Trump has been conspicuously silent about the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement (FTA) since taking office, so whether the administration comments on the pact’s March 15 fifth anniversary is being closely watched. Trump spotlighted the "job-killing trade deal with South Korea" in his nomination acceptance speech and on the stump, where he also often noted "this deal doubled our trade deficit with South Korea and destroyed nearly 100,000 American jobs."

Trump’s approach to the pact was called into question when he appointed one of the Korea FTA’s most persistent promoters, Andrew Quinn, to be special assistant to the president for international trade, investment and development. When the deal was initially completed in 2007, Quinn, who played a role in FTA negotiations as counselor for economic affairs at the U.S. Embassy in Seoul, declared: "It's a great agreement" that "demonstrated the effectiveness of the model, i.e., a comprehensive high-standard agreement."

When Quinn later served in the Obama White House National Security Council as director for Asian economic affairs from September 2010 to August 2012, he worked on the ratification of the Korea FTA. He most recently served in the Obama administration as the deputy lead negotiator for the TPP.

"Our trade deficit with Korea doubled under this deal, so it’s not surprising Trump spotlighted it as a job-killer during his campaign. But voters who supported him because they thought he’d do something to reverse the damage of this and other deals will be furious if he fails to act, and more so when they learn that the very ‘insiders’ he criticized on the stump are calling the shots," said Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch.

The agreement, sold by the Obama administration with a "more export, more jobs" slogan, had already resulted in the doubling of the U.S. goods trade deficit with Korea by its fourth year, as U.S. exports declined 10 percent ($4.5 billion) and imports from Korea increased 18 percent ($10.8 billion), resulting in a trade deficit of $31.6 billion relative to one of $15.9 billion in the 12 months before the pact went into effect on March 15, 2012.

Meanwhile, the U.S. service sector trade surplus with Korea has increased by only $2 billion from 2011 to 2015, a growth rate of 29 percent that is notably 64 percent slower than our services surplus growth over the four years before the FTA went into effect. In the 10 months of available trade data since the FTAs full fourth year, the goods deficit with Korea has totaled $25.5 billion compared with $25.3 billion in the comparable period a year ago. Goods trade data for the full fifth year of the deal will be released May 4 and service sector data in October.

The division among Trump staff over trade policy was on display in the only Trump administration comment on the Korea FTA, which came in the March 1 President’s Trade Agenda report that reflects the views of Trump’s nominee for U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer: "Further, the largest trade deal implemented during the Obama Administration – our free trade agreement with South Korea – has coincided with a dramatic increase in our trade deficit with that country. From 2011 (the last full year before the U.S.-Korea FTA went into effect) to 2016, the total value of U.S. goods exported to South Korea fell by $1.2 billion. Meanwhile, U.S. imports of goods from South Korea grew by more than $13 billion. As a result, our trade deficit in goods with South Korea more than doubled. Needless to say, this is not the outcome the American people expected from that agreement. Plainly, the time has come for a major review of how we approach trade agreements. For decades now, the United States has signed one major trade deal after another – and, as shown above, the results have often not lived up to expectations."

Despite the Korea FTA including more than 10,000 tariff cuts, 80 percent of which began on Day One:

The U.S. goods trade deficit with Korea increased 99 percent, or $15.4 billion, in the first four years of the Korea FTA (comparing the year before it took effect to the fourth year data) and in the 10 months of its fifth year is on track to beat the fourth year deficit. Nearly 80 percent of the deficit is in the automotive sector. Record-breaking U.S. trade deficits with Korea have become the new normal under the FTA – in 47 of the 48 months since the Korea FTA took effect, the U.S. goods trade deficit with Korea has exceeded the average monthly trade deficit in the four years before the deal.

Since the FTA took effect, U.S. average monthly exports to Korea have fallen in 10 of the 15 U.S. sectors that export the most to Korea, relative to the year before the FTA. Exports of machinery and computer/electronic products, collectively comprising 27.8 percent of U.S. exports to Korea, have fallen 21.6 and 8.2 percent respectively under the FTA.


 more

www.citizen.org/documents/Tru...nniversary.pdf (external - login to view)
 
Curious Cdn
Conservative
#26
The Americans are about to pour $ trillions into Korea anyway, as they will have to build up, support and supply the army and fleet required to remove Kim Jong Un (and, perhaps engage with the Chinese, in the process). There don't seem to be many other options.
 
petros
+1
#27
Sell your Hyundai back to them.
 

Similar Threads

2
Hey Guys!
by Anonymous | Apr 3rd, 2004
no new posts