Don't Worry Be Happy

Have a wonderful day.

Thursday, November 24, 2005

Long time no see.

Happy Thanks Giving Day.
I think there are no classes today, right?
Happy Happy~
Enjoy it. See you later.

Thursday, October 27, 2005

I'm HOME.

I arrived home yesterday. Really really my home..
I was very excited to meet my family, but I disappointed when I saw them.
Nothing changed.. Their face, body, and habit..
But just one thing changed, my room was GONE.
When I came home, I surprised, because I couldn't fine my room.
Oh my god.
It was just 10 month, and it was true that my room was changed my brother's bed room.
So, I slept with my brother.

Many people said that they were just envy me.
But I don't know. It was not only comfortable, but nervous.
I was thinking why I felt nervous.
The truth is I have to find my job in next summer.
I thought if I went back to Korea, everything would fine. It was wrong..
I'm very worried about that.
About one year later, if you see me at Carbondale, you can guess that I couldn't get a job.
I left the U.S. about 2 days ago, but I really miss there.
And I really miss my friends, my teachers, and my customers. haha//
If I have a chance to go to the U.S., I'll see you.
See you than.
Take care your health from cold.
ByeBye~

Thursday, October 06, 2005

Globalization and music industry *Practice Final

Many people like music, and they can listen to the other country’s music. Nowadays it is easier for us to can encounter another country’s music. Globalization makes it easy for people to listen to music of every country music. It could be good for musicians, because they can get lots of money, and they will be really famous in every country.

I think globalization makes people comfortable, and lets them get some information of music easily. We can listen to a variety of country music; also, we can know many musicians.

Globalization is good for musicians and entertainment. Many people will know them when globalization increases; it means they can get lots of money easily. “Organizations, such as music publishers, simply earn vast amounts of money. They are entitled to these sums on the basis of their agreements with artists where a portion of copyrights are licensed to them” (Dolfsma, 2000, par. 13). For example, in Korea, there is a famous singer; her name is Boa. She started to be a singer in Korea, but many people didn’t like her, because she was very young, and people had a stereotype about her. So, she decided to be a singer in Japan, and she restarted to sing in Japan. Many Japanese liked her, and she was very famous. Nowadays Koreans changed their mind; finally, they liked her, too. Her case is a really good example that globalization makes musicians distinguished.

Also, I think nowadays CD and MP3 are really expensive, so many young people download it. They already knew that downloading is illegal, but they couldn’t buy it, because they don’t have enough money to buy the CD. The music industries recognize that; so, they cannot argue it (Silverstone, 2004). Many of my friends download music, but not always. They buy the music that they like, and sometimes they download the music. I don’t know how big the damage is to musicians, but I think it is not a big problem. Sometimes musicians sue the Internet music site, but I don’t know why they have to do that. If their song is in the Internet music site, many people can listen to their song. In that case, people know whose song that is, and they buy the song if they like. It is a kind of benefit, in my opinion. Silverstone said, “Internet music piracy not only doesn’t hurt legitimate CD sales, it may even boost sales of some types of music” (2004, par. 1).

In conclusion, it is true many young people download and copyright the music. Globalization makes people able to face a variety music easily, and musicians can earn lots of money more easily. It is a benefit to both customers and musicians.

Reference:

Dolfsma, W. (2000, May). How will music industry weather the globalization storm? First Monday. Retrieved from http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue5_5/dolfsma/, Oct. 5, 2005.

Silverstone, S. (2004, Jun. 21). Music downloads: Pirates- or customers? Working Knowledge, Harvard Business School. Retrieved from http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item.jhtml?id=4206&t=innovation, Oct. 5, 2005.

Disadvantages of CAFTA-DR *Research paper

Abstract

The U.S. president signed on CAFTA (Central America Free Trade Agreement) in Aug. 2, 2005. He mentioned lots of advantages from CAFTA, but many people are against CAFTA. People think that CAFTA will bring many serious problems, such as losing jobs. This paper disagrees with CAFTA, and I mention lots of problems. CAFTA makes NAFTA problems more serious. And many workers can lose their jobs; also, it is harmful to many industries, such as manufacturing jobs and agriculture jobs. The U.S. government should think about the solutions for CAFTA problems, and they have to make sure of the reason we have to agree with CAFTA.




CAFTA-DR stands for Central American – Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement; Costa Rica, El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, and Nicaragua are included in CAFTA. And Central America and the Dominican Republic is the second largest export region (Wisconsin State Journal, 2005). The U.S. president agreed to CAFTA-DR on August 2, 2005. “CAFTA would bring new investment that means good jobs and higher labor standards for their workers” (Bush, 2005, par. 3) and “CAFTA would create a more level playing field” (par. 4). Also he said, “CAFTA would bring the stability and security that can only come from freedom” (par. 5). He mentioned lots of benefits of CAFTA and he signed on it. In addition, CAFTA will increase Central American economics, and it reduces barriers (ITA, n.d.).

However, many people disagree with CAFTA, because they think that CAFTA will bring lots of problems. The problem is that the U.S. family farmer will have damages; also, Birns (2005) said that CAFTA causes the U.S. workers to lose their jobs, because the U.S. businesses want to use cheap labor in Central America. And it is harmful to many industries, such as manufacturing jobs, agricultural jobs, and textile jobs. People think that it is just problems of the U.S.; it is really big problems for Central American countries, too.

I think CAFTA will cause lots of damages to the U.S. and Central America. The president of the U.S. cannot think of the two sides of CAFTA. He thinks about advantages of CAFTA, but many people cannot agree with him. This is because of NAFTA problems, and also because they cannot believe what Bush said. I think the president already agreed to CAFTA-DR, but he should think about some problems and find solutions. The U.S. government cannot make the same problems as NAFTA; they have to make sure that everyone agrees with CAFTA. I know they cannot cancel it; they have to make solutions so that people can agree with CAFTA.

First, we can see lots of similarity between CAFTA and NAFTA. They are free trade agreements, and the U.S. president agreed with these negotiations while he was thinking just of advantages of NAFTA and CAFTA. CAFTA makes NAFTA, North American Free Trade Agreement, problems more serious. Canada, the U.S., and Mexico are included in NAFTA, and the U.S. agreed on it in the early 1990s. It caused many problems; that is why people are worried about CAFTA. NAFTA and CAFTA are similar negotiations, so people think that CAFTA will bring similar problems with NAFTA.

When Bill Clinton agreed with NAFTA, he said that NAFTA would make lots of jobs, but he was wrong. In the U.S., they lost more than 879,280 jobs (Texas Farmers Union, n.d.). Also, G. W. Bush spoke of similar advantages to what B. Clinton said. People don’t believe what G. W. Bush said, because he made the same promise as B. Clinton, but they already knew Clinton couldn’t keep his promise.

According to Morong (2005), in 1994, when the U.S. agreed with NAFTA, there were 17 million manufacturing jobs in the U.S., but it has fallen down by 3 million, so it was 14.3 million in 2001. It is a really big number; also, we can imagine how many people have lost their jobs. I think CAFTA will make that problem of unemployment more serious. “CAFTA has more in common with NAFTA than just sharing a similar name. It is based in the same premises and same promises as its older sister agreement” (Texas Farmers Union, n.d. par. 8). The Texas Farmers Union also mentioned, “CAFTA would be destined to bring us the same results as NAFTA: fewer jobs for Texans and an increased international trade deficit” (par. 9). NAFTA made lots of problems, and CAFTA is similar cooperation with NAFTA. I think CAFTA will bring serious damage like NAFTA.

Also, NAFTA caused damage to farmers. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, when B. Clinton agreed with NAFTA, he promised that would make 54,000 agricultural jobs, but they lost about 16,000 agricultural jobs in the U.S. (AFL-CIO, 2005). When G. W. Bush signed CAFTA, he said the same thing as B. Clinton said. That is the why people worried about CAFTA. If Clinton had kept his promises, people would believe Bush’s opinion that CAFTA will bring lots of advantages. But it was not true, so people cannot believe CAFTA will be helpful.

Second, many people who live in the U.S. will lose their jobs because of CAFTA. CAFTA is not good to improve human rights. CAFTA nations people are kind of poor and most people have job that are very low-paying and are in unsafe places. The U.S. companies will use them, because they are cheaper than people in the U.S. In that case, the U.S. people will lose their jobs. “CAFTA does not place any pressure on Central American nations or the Dominican Republic to pass tougher environmental laws or even enforce those already in place” (Sanderson, 2005, par. 8). In addition, many kinds of U.S. businesses want to use cheap labor in CAFTA nations, and already Central America products entered the U.S. without tariffs. They don’t need negotiation about free trade, because it will make more problems. Also, Birns said, “CAFTA countries today can freely export to the U.S. at no or very low tariffs and already are the second-largest U.S. export destination in Latin America, receiving $15 billion of the U.S. exports…” (2005, par. 7).

Especially, this problem will be more harmful to African Americans. There are lots of African Americans in manufacturing jobs. But CAFTA will make many manufacturing jobs disappear, and then many African Americans will lose their jobs (Lee & Shelton, 2005). “(B)lack men and women are now much more likely to be displaced from long-tenure, good-paying jobs than their white counterparts” (Lee & Shelton, 2005, par. 3). I think African Americans do more hard work than others, but they cannot make lots of money. CAFTA makes that they lose their jobs; also, they cannot make money.

Third, CAFTA will damage farmers. CAFTA nations have better and cheaper vegetables, so if these vegetables will come into the U.S., farmers have big damages. And it is not just the U.S.; it will be big disadvantages in Mexico. For example, NAFTA obliterated 1.7 million agribusinesses in Mexico, and CAFTA will make this problem more serious than NAFTA (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 2005). People believe that NAFTA made a big problem, and CAFTA will make the same problem as NAFTA.
However, the U.S. farmers will get problems, because of Central America, but it is not good for Central America farmers, either. “Farmers in Costa Rica, Nicaragua and other nations will be forced to produce at full capacity in an effort to survive and over time will not be able to compete with big agribusiness flooding these markets with cheap goods” (Sanderson, 2005, par. 4). CAFTA will bring lots of problems to both the U.S. and Central American countries.

Also, especially people who are against CAFTA mention the sugar industries. The U.S. sugar industries will all be damaged, because CAFTA will increase sugar prices (Sparshott, 2005). Up to 16 states are growing sugar cane, and 7 of these states were against CAFTA in the Senate on June 30. According to J. Sparshott, “Imperial is a lonely voice in supporting CAFTA in an industry that almost unanimously opposes the pact. The company is not owned or operated by sugar cane or sugar beet farmers and would benefit from some additional imports” (2005, par. 12). In addition, people said that CAFTA would hurt textile industries. According to Birns (2005), CAFTA will help China’s cheap textiles come to the U.S. It is a big problem for textile industries. CAFTA will bring lots of damages for many industries; how can people agree with CAFTA?

In conclusion, the U.S. had lots of problems from NAFTA. People don’t want to have the same problems. They believe that CAFTA will bring the same problem as NAFTA, or CAFTA will bring more serious problems than NAFTA. “After NAFTA was implemented in 1994, U.S. farmers, ranchers and food producers suffered job loss, stagnant or rapidly worsening trade flows, falling prices and revenues, declining incomes and a long string of failed promises…” (AFL-CIO, 2005, par. 2).

CAFTA has lots of problems, and it makes many employees lose their jobs. Also, farmers and Central America and the Dominican Republic employees will get a big problem. According to the article, “CAFTA would only extend to Central America the disastrous job loss and increasing inequality caused by NAFTA” (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 2005, par. 7). I think CAFTA will make the U.S. and Central American people lose their jobs, and cause big damages to industries.

The president of the U.S. agreed with CAFTA, but he has to recognize that CAFTA has lots of problems. CAFTA will have benefits, but there are fewer of them than disadvantages. The government should make an effort to find a good solution so that people who are against CAFTA can agree with CAFTA. “Forty percent of Central America’s workers earn less than $2 a day and workers’ rights are routinely abused. CAFTA does absolutely nothing to protect workers’ fundamental human rights” (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 2005, par. 16). The U.S. government cannot make the same problem as NAFTA anymore; they should think about that carefully and they have to keep the promises that they made, such as increasing jobs and raising human rights. I want the U.S. government to find solutions, so CAFTA will be useful to the U.S. industries and jobs. The U.S. government should make sure of the reason we have to accept CAFTA.




Bibliography

AFO-CIO. (2005, Jun. 12). CAFTA: a bad deal for farmers. America’s Union Movement. Retrieved from http://www.aflcio.org/issues/jobseconomy/globaleconomy/ns06072005.cfm, Sep. 27, 2005.

Birns, L. (2005, Jun. 3). CAFTA and its discontents. La Prensa San Diego. Retrieved from Lexis-Nexis, Aug. 25, 2005. pp. 1, 8.

Bush, G. W. (2005, May 12). President discusses CAFTA-DR. White House. Immediate Release, Office of the Press Secretary. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/print/20050512.html, Sep. 13, 2005.

International Trade Administration (ITA). (n.d.). Welcome to the CAFTA-DR gateway. U.S. government. Retrieved from http://www.ita.doc.gov/cafta, Sep. 27, 2005.

Lee, B. & Shelton, H. (2005, Sep. 26). CAFTA is a bad deal for African Americans. The Hill. Retrieved from http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/Comment/OpEd/072105.html, Sep. 27, 2005.

Morong, C. (2005, May 4). NAFTA and job losses. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from http://www.geocities.com/cyrilmorong@sbcglobal.net/NAFTA.htm, Sep. 26, 2005.

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. (2005, May 29). Say no to CAFTA. Retrieved from Lexis-Nexis, Sep. 14, 2005. p. J-2.

Sanderson, C. (2005, Aug. 1). CAFTA is bad deal for all workers. Deseret Morning News. Retrieved from Lexis-Nexis, Sep. 14, 2005.

Sparshott, J. (2005, July 11). Sugar industry fights CAFTA agreement. The Washington Times. Retrieved from Lexis-Nexis, Sep. 14, 2005.

Texas Farmers Union. (n.d.). CAFTA: bad for Texas and bad for USA workers. Retrieved from http://www.texasfarmersunion.org/cafbadfortex.html, Sep. 26, 2005.

Would CAFTA benefit U.S. businesses, workers? Briefing on CAFTA. (2005, Jun. 1). Wisconsin State Journal. Retrieved from Lexis-Nexis, Sep. 6, 2005, p. 10.

Wednesday, September 21, 2005

Disadvantages of CAFTA-DR *Argumentative Essay

CAFTA-DR stands for Central American – Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement. And Central America and the Dominican Republic is the second largest export region (Wisconsin State Journal, 2005). The U.S. president agreed to CAFTA-DR on August 2, 2005. “CAFTA would bring new investment that means good jobs and higher labor standards for their workers” (Bush, 2005, par. 3) and “CAFTA would create a more level playing field” (par. 4). Also he said, “CAFTA would bring the stability and security that can only come from freedom” (par. 5). He mentioned lots of benefits of CAFTA and he signed on it. But many people disagree with CAFTA because they think that CAFTA will bring lots of problems. The problem is that the U.S. family farmer will have damages; also, it will be good for Central American operators, but not their employees. Also he said that CAFTA causes the U.S. workers to lose their jobs, because the U.S. businesses want to use cheap labor in Central America (Birns, 2005).

I think the president already agreed to CAFTA-DR, but he should think about some problems and find solutions.

First, the U.S. sugar industries will all be damaged, because CAFTA will increase sugar prices (Sparshott, 2005). Up to 16 states are growing sugar cane, and 7 of these states were against CAFTA in the Senate on June 30. According to J. Sparshott, “Imperial is a lonely voice in supporting CAFTA in an industry that almost unanimously opposes the pact. The company is not owned or operated by sugar cane or sugar beet farmers and would benefit from some additional imports” (2005, par. 12).

Second, many people who live in the U.S. will lose their job. CAFTA is not good to improve human rights. Some countries make jobs that are very low-paying and are in unsafe places. “CAFTA dies not place any pressure on Central American nations or the Dominican Republic to pass tougher environmental laws or even enforce those already in place” (Sanderson, 2005, par. 8). In addition, many kind of the U.S. businesses want to use cheap labor in CAFTA nations; also, Birns said, “CAFTA countries today can freely export to the U.S. at no or very low tariffs and already are the second-largest U.S. export destination in Latin America, receiving $15 billion of the U.S. exports…”(2005, par. 7).

Third, CAFTA will damage farmers. CAFTA nations have better and cheaper vegetables, so if these vegetables will come into the U.S., farmers have big damages. NAFTA, North American Free Trade Agreement, obliterated 1.7 million agribusinesses in Mexico, and CAFTA will make this problem more seriously than NAFTA (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 2005). “Farmers in Costa Rico, Nicaragua and other nations will be forced to produce at full capacity in an effort to survive and over time will not be able to compete with big agribusiness flooding these markets with cheap goods” (Sanderson, 2005, par. 4).

In conclusion, CAFTA has lots of problems, and it makes many employees lose their jobs. Also, farmers and Central America and the Dominica Republic employees will get a big problem. According to the article, “CAFTA would only extend to Central America the disastrous job loss and increasing inequality caused by NAFTA” (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 2005, par. 7). The president of the U.S. agreed with CAFTA, but he has to recognize that CAFTA has lots of problems. CAFTA will have benefits, but there are fewer of them than disadvantages.


Reference:
Birns, L. (2005, Jun. 3). CAFTA and its discontents. La Prensa San Diego. Retrieved from Lexis-Nexis, Aug. 25, 2005. p. 1, 8.

Bush, G. W. (2005, May 12). President discusses CAFTA-DR. White House. Immediate Release, Office of the Press Secretary. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/print/20050512.html, Sep. 13, 2005.

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. (2005, May 29). Say no to CAFTA. Retrieved from Lexis-Nexis, Sep. 14, 2005. p. J-2.

Sanderson, C. (2005, Aug. 1). CAFTA is bad deal for all workers. Deseret Morning News. Retrieved from Lexis-Nexis, Sep. 14, 2005.

Sparshott, J. (2005, July 11). Sugar industry fights CAFTA agreement. The Washington Times. Retrieved from Lexis-Nexis, Sep. 14, 2005.

Would CAFTA benefit U.S. businesses, workers? Briefing on CAFTA. (2005, Jun. 1). Wisconsin State Journal. Retrieved from Lexis-Nexis, Sep. 6, 2005. p. 10.

Tuesday, September 20, 2005

Disadvantages of CAFTA-DR *Research Paper Proposal

I’ve just started learning about business and society. All of our topics were really hard for me, but I chose this topic, because I wanted to know about CAFTA. I heard lots of times about CAFTA, but I didn’t know about it. That is the why I chose this topic, but it was hard for me, also. CAFTA-DR stands for Central American – Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement. And Central America and the Dominican Republic is the second largest export region (Wisconsin State Journal, 2005). The U.S. president agreed to CAFTA-DR on August. 2. 2005. “CAFTA would bring new investment that means good jobs and higher labor standards for their workers” (Bush, 2005, par. 3) and “CAFTA would create a more level playing field” (par. 4). Also he said, “CAFTA would bring the stability and security that can only come from freedom” (par. 5). He mentioned lots of benefits of CAFTA and he signed on it. But many people disagree with CAFTA because they think that CAFTA will bring lots of problems. The problem is that the U.S. family farmer will have damages; also, it will be good for Central American operators, but not their employees. Also he said that CAFTA causes the U.S. workers to lose their jobs, because the U.S. businesses want to use cheap labor in Central America (Birns, 2005). The president already agreed to CAFTA, but they should think about some problems and they have to find solutions.

I plan on writing that CAFTA will be harmful to the U.S. First, the U.S. government will yield to Brazil on the FTAA negotiation, and then the U.S. sugar companies will all be damaged. Second, many people who live in the U.S. will lose their job, because companies want to use cheap labor in Central America and Dominican Republic. Finally, CAFTA will damage the U.S. farmers, because the U.S. will import cheaper and higher-quality vegetables.

I have found lots of background information of CAFTA in website, and have found many articles that help to know the advantages and disadvantages of CAFTA. I need more articles about why people disagree with CAFTA and how much CAFTA attacks the U.S.


Reference:
Birns, L. (2005, Jun. 3). CAFTA and its discontents. La Prensa San Diego. Retrieved from Lexis-Nexis, Aug. 25, 2005. p. 1, 8.

Bush, G. W. (2005, May 12). President discusses CAFTA-DR. White House. Immediate Release Office of the Press Secretary. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/print/20050512.html, Sep. 13, 2005.

Would CAFTA benefit U.S. businesses, workers? Briefing on CAFTA. (2005, Jun. 1). Wisconsin State Journal. Retrieved from Lexis-Nexis, Sep. 6, 2005. p. 10.

Monday, September 12, 2005

The preparations of CAFTA

The author who wrote “Would CAFTA benefit U.S. businesses, workers?; Briefing on CAFTA” discussed what CAFTA is and how the U.S. could prepare for CAFTA. First the author gave a definition of CAFTA, Central American Free Trade Agreement. These countries are very important for the U.S. because Central America and the Dominican Republic is the second largest export region. Even though Central American countries’ products already pierced the U.S., there weren’t high tariffs. Some countries that are included in CAFTA have to prepare lots of things for CAFTA. The author mentioned the U.S. exports, agriculture, sugar, textiles and apparel, access to services, technology and trade secrets, worker rights, and environment.

I agreed earlier that CAFTA is good, but after I saw some article about CAFTA, I became confused about whether CAFTA is really helpful to the U.S. And I changed my mind and decided that CAFTA has some problems.

First, I found some information on CAFTA, and I saw an interesting article. It was about “sugar industry.” It is one of the problems because some companies in Florida complained that the sugar import would be increased by10% or more. It is serious for companies in the U.S. because if the U.S. agrees to this convention, the U.S. government will yield to Brazil on the FTAA negotiation, and then the U.S. sugar companies will all be damaged.

Second, I mentioned jobs, but I was thinking a lot, and it was big problem, too. If the U.S. agrees to CAFTA, many people who live in the U.S. will lose their job, because companies want to use cheaper labor. And Central America and the Dominican Republic have cheap labor. It is big problem for Americans.

Third, CAFTA will damage the U.S. farmers. If CAFTA is agreed to, lots of vegetables, fruits, and cotton, etc. will come to the U.S. without tariffs. Farmers in the U.S. have damage, because the U.S. will import cheaper and higher-quality vegetables.

In conclusion, I was thinking a lot, and I recognized my thinking was wrong, so I changed my thinking. But until now, lots of Central America and Dominican Republic products have entered the U.S., so the U.S. government should think carefully and they have to find solution for CAFTA or disagree about CAFTA.


Reference:
Would CAFTA benefit U.S. businesses, workers?; briefing on CAFTA. (2005, Jun.1). Wisconsin State Journal. Retrieved from Lexis-Nexis, Sep. 6, 2005. p. 10.

Tuesday, September 06, 2005

CAFTA is bad for the U.S.

In “CAFTA and its discontents,” Larry Birns says CAFTA is bad for the U.S. Especially, CAFTA is bad for the U.S. family farmer or his Central American complement. Over 80% of Central America businesses already pierced the U.S. market and American products are gained more than 40%. Also, CAFTA presidents use the U.S. that worried about China because there is cheaper labor, and it is easier to get more spirited in globalization. If it will occur, they can lose lots of jobs. In addition, the EU and China will threaten North America’s power. CAFTA is just one-sided, so the Bush administration might consider that there are two sides of CAFTA.

In my opinion, CAFTA is good for the U.S.A, because nowadays there are a lot of China’s products in the U.S. So, the U.S. can use CAFTA to restrain China’s products.

First, many kind of goods are made in China, because they have cheap labor, and lots of people are there. The U.S. businesses want to go to China, so Americans can lose their jobs. The U.S. can use CAFTA to protect lots of goods from China. If CAFTA will be actively progressed, Central America countries can export to the U.S.

Second, I think that if the U.S. agrees with CAFTA, they can use cheap labor in Central America. Also, they don’t need lots of money, because it could be cheaper than using American labor. So, they can help Central Americans who are poor and don’t have jobs. It is good for Central America and the U.S.

In conclusion, CAFTA has benefits to the U.S. and the U.S. has to agree with CAFTA. If the U.S. agrees with CAFTA, not only can they save their money, but also they can stop importing lots of Chinese textiles. Also, they can help Central Americans who don’t have jobs. It could be good for all countries.

Reference:
Birns, L. (2005, Jun. 3). CAFTA and its discontents. La Prensa San Diego. Retrieved from Lexis-Nexis, Aug. 25, 2005. p.1, 8.