Talk:Dominican Republic–Central America Free Trade Agreement/Archives/2012

Environmental Group Opposition Needs Expansion

Many environmental groups are opposed to the agreement, including the U.S. based Sierra Club, EnviroCitizen and the Safe Earth Alliance because people will become richer and happy and breed more people.

This statement doesn't really represent the views of these environmental groups - overpopulation is among their concerns, but also increases in consumption and production which can lead to greater rates of environmental degradation. The assumption that free-trade will 'make people richer and happier' is a neo-liberal economic view, not the view of these groups. It's rather poorly worded as well. The views and concerns of environmental groups really needs to be expanded upon here. Zaridu (talk) 20:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Remove CODEX Part?

The sources that mention Codex Alimentarius superceding CAFTA do not seem reputable. Even according to the American Herbal Products Association, it can not override US drug laws. Additional sources rebutting such claims are at [1]

NPOV?

I don't think this article is very NPOV... It seems to lean heavily against ratification of CAFTA. I'll try to fix it later, but I just wanted to point this out. —Sasha Slutsker 13:36, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Since I think I can freck the NPOV here, the CAFTA will lead to the FTAA, the FTAA is so frecked up that it will be literally the precursor to a fascist-like entity such as the European Union where representatives are not elected and a foreigner with no real knowledge of your country's problems (or cares for hta tmatter) precides over your bought-out parliment. Then again, much of the same can be said for Bush, who is so out of it that he was not even aware that the White House had been evacuated 25 May 2005 due to a possible hijacked plane. No, he only found out when he called his wife asking why she had missed lunch and found out she was in the emergency shelter :-/ Bush: The Most Extraneous President (wow, really off-topic but thought you should know) —User:HopeSeekr of xMule 22:47 CDT 28 July 2005. Hope's Blog

I think a prerequisite for commenting on encyclopaedia articles should be a sufficient ability to SPELL CORRECTLY!

And what does Bush not knowing about the White House being evacuated have to do with DR-CAFTA?

I agree this article clearly violates NPOV. The pro side seems reasonably dispassionate, but the anti side uses many loaded terms ('massive pro CAFTA propaganda', putting the term "negotiations" in scare quotes, etc). The anti side doesn't seem to be trying to explain what the anti-CAFTA position is, but rather to persuade the reader of the evils of CAFTA. Explaining that many people are angry about CAFTA clearly belongs in the section on the anti side, but such rhetoric seems inappropriate.--Scotchex 15:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this article doesn't reflect a NPOV. It uses too many loaded words and expressions; this is my favorite: "Intellectual property rights: privatization of and monopoly over technological know-how." The section on "Criticism" is almost twice as long as the section on "Support" (781 and 406 words, respectively). The "Support" section seems mostly devoted to provide a timeline and to list the organizations in favor of CAFTA. It does not explain their reasons or interests. The "Support" section includes no quotations, as opposed to two quotations in the "Criticism" section. Perhaps most striking of all, both sections end with sentences critical of free trade. Trsg (talk) 00:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Something Else

In El Salvador, the leftist FMLN party is in a strong position to win the presidential elections in March, 2004, a development that may effect the country's participation in CAFTA.

Does this mean effect -- bring about -- or affect -- influence? I'm guessing the latter. -- Montrealais

If they already participate in CAFTA, it must be affect. - Hephaestos 00:09, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Ah I see, it's still in talks. So I'm not sure. - Hephaestos 00:10, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Costa Rica not negotiating CAFTA? WRONG

Costa Rica, just as all the other central american countries concluded the negotiations of the free trade agreementent, and it is in process of aproval from the congress, and posterior to that to the Constitutional Court. The difference is that Costa Rica requested more negotiation time to discuss key points, such as the opennig of telecomunications and insurance (now a days a estate monopoly). Today, people all over Costa Rica are commmenting on the impact of an eventual signing of the agreement. There are numerous debates all over (in universities, public and private institutions, press, etc) about the issue. So, considering these facts, and many others not mentioned here, the Wkipedia article about CAFTA is a bit inaccurate, and by these means I intent to emend it.

I see objective info and criticism

but no supportive links. what teh F. J. Parker Stone 04:58, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

what is the time line

Past and future...

also what countries have signed on and who hasn't... refence the EU page...

US centred

This article is completely US centered which is not to say it supports the view of the US government merely that it only covers the events from a US perspectives as if the other countries don't really exist. This is not acceptable in an international encyclopedia, SqueakBox 17:44, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

The CAFTA is primarily made to benefit the United States. It is written in doctoral level English, which does not translate well to Spanish, the primary language of Central America. Even in this respect it is hard for even most English-speaking Americans to understand. Therefore the true points of the act, which take away power and money from these countries are not correctly understood by the people of Central America; they understand it as doing them justice, when in reality it is ripping off the countries involved, giving the US priority is all Central American exports.CAFTA will be another job-killing trade agreement the American people don’t want as well. This article does not touch on the biased aspect of the act that many have no clue about.

Tariffs

Can this line be expanded/explained?

DR-CAFTA reduces tariffs, which are a form of tax. However, every nation in CAFTA remains free to set its overall tax level as it sees fit.

---I agree that it is an odd turn of phrase. Nonetheless, the paragraph is accurate. Countries such as Nicaragua or the U.S. remain free to create new, non-tariff taxes, and to set whatever rates for any non-tariff taxes. For example, just like a tax on cigarretes is used to discourage smoking, a tax each employer must pay to the government on the salary of each worker could be invented. Oops, sorry, that one exists already, it is called "employer SS tax" and it is 8 or 9% in the U.S. and about 12% in El Salvador. Anyway, those governments could raise this tax, for instance.

Where is labor under opposition?

I seem to remember organized labor groups in the United States being major opponents of CAFTA. I would like to see information on their protests, and their list of the CAFTA-15, under the opposition section, since it is certainly relevent. Hopefully someone will add that on their own accord. I'll try to find research on this. Ihavenoheroes 04:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Mexico belongs to north America

In the main description says: "Bordering Central American nations not in the agreement include Belize, Mexico, and Panama on the mainland" The reason why Mexico is not included in the free trade agreement it's because Mexico belongs to North America (like it or not), and already have a free trade agreement with United States and Canada called NAFTA. --Shamhain (from the Spanish Wikipedia)

US Gov calls it "CAFTA-DR"

Is DR-CAFTA the real name? The US government doesn't seem to think so [2]. Also, I think it's ridiculous to pronounce "DR-CAFTA" is pronounced "doctor cafta". Who pronounces it like this, and are they morons? AdamRetchless 23:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

It's called DR-Cafta in the Dominican Republic, it's just a question of point of view. Here's a local newspaper referring to it as DR-CAFTA. http://listindiario.com/economia-y-negocios/2012/1/12/217905/El-72-de-empresas-dominicanas-pueden-competir-en-el-DR-Cafta 190.0.75.213 (talk) 16:23, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Last part of Summary out of date

Currently this sentence reads "Haiti, also a CARICOM member, is expected to be given certain additional trade preferences with the US under the Haitian Hemispheric Opportunity through Partnership Encouragement Act before Congress adjourns during 2006." This needs updated to present (I don't know if that legislation was enacted or not). Jon 17:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Provisions section

I introduced substantial edits to the "Provisions" section. I left intact the basic structure of the section, added a few sections, and expanded most of the explanations relying on the summary of the Agreement found at the US Trade Representative's website (cited in the section). Also, I deleted several sentences for which I couldn't find a basis in the text of the Agreement or the USTR's summary. Trsg (talk) 01:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)