GATS freed up the international health care market to imports from U.S. corporate health care services, companies like Aetna and CIGNA. These and other health care corporations already have a monopoly over health services in the U.S., which is the only industrialized nation on the planet without national health insurance. Should the FTAA be implemented, every nation in the Western Hemisphere will have to privatize its public health services, a trend that's already begun in Latin America because of GATS. This will force poor nations to have to sacrifice public health, which means tens of millions of impoverished citizens in the Western Hemisphere will not be able to afford health care.

The FTAA will accelerate privatization of other public services as well. For one, it could lead to the widespread privatization of public schools and prisons. This would expand the private prison-industrial complex (which is far more concerned with profit than prisoner rehabilitation) throughout 34 countries, and could realistically usher in the first Coca-Cola High School, or something to that effect. The recent attempt to subvert free education in Mexico and Nicaragua was confronted by massive student protests, as the privatization of schooling is disastrous for most of the world's population, who cannot afford private education.

In addition, the privatizing trend could spill over into areas like postal services and licensing standards. Corporations like UPS or Fed-Ex could conceivably overwhelm the postal service market, and, using "investor to state" suits (which I'll explain next) could abolish all public postal programs (already happening in Canada), and then hike up prices to their heart's content. The removal of licensing standards for highly trained professionals (like doctors, lawyers, etc.) would allow professionals in one country to migrate and set up shop in any country, even if their level of training or technological expertise is completely inadequate. This means Jimbo could drop out of high school in the U.S., get faux-certification at the Southwestern Polytechnic Institute of Trinidad and Tobago, and perform brain surgery on you in New York.

Investment

In free trade lingo, "foreign investment" is when a corporation in one country sets up a firm in another country. The FTAA initiative for investment is to create a system where corporations can override the laws and regulations of foreign governments, in effect establishing a New World Order of transnational "pirate governance" This will make it exceedingly difficult for governments to provide and maintain community-based services, like those designed to protect public health and safety. The FTAA investment policy will extend NAFTA's Chapter 11 provision (nothing to do with bankruptcy), which empowers corporations to sue governments if a law or regulation causes a loss of profit (so-called "investor-to-state" suits). This applies to any government policy. NAFTA is the first trade agreement to allow corporations to overpower governments not just in the marketplace, but in the courtroom as well.

The FTAA investment policy will be identical to the WTO's Multilateral Agreement of Investment (MAI), which, you may remember, was killed after the massive anti-globalist protests in Seattle in 1999. The MAI would have expanded NAFTA's Chapter 11 rules into WTO member nations around the world. Anti-globalist protesters, realizing this would establish a tyrannical New World Order of all-powerful corporations, fought hard to stop the MAI. Should the FTAA pass, their efforts would amount to no more than a roadblock in the corporate stampede for ludicrous and useless profits.

As you might have guessed, these investment measures will work hand in hand with the FTAA services agreement. The picture will look something like this: corporations will be granted unlimited market access to all public services (water, energy, health), and at the same time will have the right to eliminate any government policy that gets in their way. Hence, the New World Order.

We've already seem numerous instances of NAFTA's Chapter 11 being exploited by corporations in ridiculous attempts to override governments in their pursuit of profit. In Mississippi, the Loewen Group, a Canada-based funeral home chain, sued the U.S. government for $750 million when a Mississippi court indicted them on charges of fraud and malicious business practices, which were undermining small, local companies. Loewen's argument? They stated that the very existence of a state court system in Mississippi infringed on its NAFTA rights!

The FTAA investment policy (kind of like a bionic Chapter 11) will be instrumental in the process globalists like to call "harmonization". Harmonization is another way of saying "complete cultural and political takeover of standards that stand in opposition to the homogenous global marketplace." These standards are often in place to preserve indigenous cultures, or they're uniquely designed to facilitate growth in a particular region. Therefore, a "harmonized" globe will be unable to solve local problems, and will perpetuate the viral spread of insipid consumer culture throughout the world.

In another instance of NAFTA's "crush thine enemy" investment approach, an American corporation, Ethyl Corp., successfully forced the Canadian government to overturn a law that banned MMT. MMT is a gasoline additive proven to attack the human nervous system, and although it's been banned in many countries, Canadians will have to deal with it in the years to come because corporate earnings are more important than public health. Were these people raised by wolves or what? Why do sociopaths always seem to rise to the top in our society? But I digress . . .

Two more examples for you to chew on: in Mexico, the U.S.- based Metalclad Corporation sued the Mexican government after an environmental zoning law was passed that forbade the dumping of toxic waste in the state of San Luis Potosi. Metalclad, who had promised to clean up the polluted area when they bought it, was awarded $16.5 million dollars by a NAFTA tribunal. The court decided that the environmental protection law constituted a seizure of the company's property.

The Canadian government is being sued by UPS, who is arguing that the very existence of a federal postal service in Canada amounts to unfair competition. If UPS wins, this will likely start a trend where all government services are challenged by corporations.