Discussion for article #233192
Liberals talk about “NAFTA” the way conservatives talk about “The Deficit.” That is, sloppily, without regard to objective reality and in a way that deflects attention from the real problem.
The manufacturing jobs didn’t all go running down to Mexico because of NAFTA, or at least they netted out to zero due to increased Mexican purchases of manufactured goods. Instead, the manufacturing jobs were all shipped off to China which, last time I check, is neither in North America nor a party to NAFTA. If you want to attack a trade treaty for the loss of manufacturing jobs, blame the GATT nations (us included) for allowing China in without any checks on all the nasty little things China does to keep apparent labor costs low, from thinly veiled subsidization to the absorption of massive externalities to outright oppression.
The nation that truly lost jobs because of NAFTA is Mexico. The loss of agricultural jobs due to competition from American factory farmed foods is a big part of why so many people from down there have come here to find work.
“NAFTA” isn’t a handy symbol. It’s an actual thing with its own actual real problems that have very little to do with the problems attributed to it. Because, again, turns out Mexico isn’t China.
1 Like
Many fear the Asia and Europe trade deals Obama is negotiating, arguing that, just like NAFTA, they would undercut the interests of American workers and put them at a competitive disadvantage if trade barriers with low-wage nations — with little in the way of labor or environmental protections – were lowered, thereby encouraging American jobs to be exported to cheap labor areas with poor labor and environmental practices.
Others claim the deal under development would undermine national sovereignty in favor of the international corporations.
I can understand the concern, and the use of NAFTA as a cautionary tale, but since there is no draft available – it is still being crafted – I’m afraid too many will reflexively resort to hair-on-fire opposition in the belief that these deals represent a continued race to the bottom.
But what if this were not the case? At the European Summit several months ago, the head of the European Council expressed concerns that, given the US right-wing’s preference to anti-union “Right to Work” laws and an easing of environmental regulations in some Republican-led states, a trade pact with the US could lead to a loss of European jobs. The man reminded me of Ross Perot warning of that “giant sucking sound” re NAFTA, but Obama assured him he had no intention of easing environmental regulations or worker protections.
Do you think such a trade deal, even if it were conditioned on firm labor and environmental
protections to support American workers and jobs, would lead to WTO-style protests from the Left?
Also, as the President said the other day to Vox, the US is currently at a disadvantage with regard to trade in Asia, and this might be an opportunity to level the playing field, if safeguards were put in place that provide for environmental and labor protections.
Also, continued globalization is inevitable; the question is whether we will be in a position to position ourselves advantageously for it and regain some lost ground. If we do nothing, we will only be ceding ground to China, which seeks a hegemonic position in Asia.
Also, re the suspicion over the “fast track” authority the administration is seeking: who do you trust more to craft an international trade agreement, Obama or the current Congress? Or China?
"Liberals talk about “NAFTA” the way conservatives talk about “The Deficit.”
Good analogy. I was going to liken liberal concerns to NAFTA with the hair-on-fire opposition to Chained Whatever-it-was, (the offer of reducing Social Security cost of living allowances Obama made to deficit hawks in exchange for more revenue). But then that was before I could get the comment page to open, and after several attempts hitting a dead comment button, it slipped my mind.
Anyone else had trouble opening this comment page?
I did. No idea what causes that to happen when it happens, but it does.
NAFTA has been the biggest disaster for American working people in US history. But if this rotting piece of shit TPP is passed, we will see the few remaining jobs in the US removed immediately. We need to do everything to stop this piece of crap. Obama has been a disaster for working people. He increased the H-1Bs, and what happens? SC Edison fired hundreds and hires H-1B scum. Disney fires hundreds and hires H-1 scum. Obama lies about trade all the time.
Your amazingly poor grasp of history is slipping. NAFTA DIRECTLY led to the founding of the “machiladoros” in Mexico, and hundreds of jobs from Galesburg IL (Whirlpool), IA, and many other states. As to your stupid question about trusting Obama or the congress, there is not a difference between them. Obama has been a disaster for working people, in his support for illegals in construction who destroy jobs for American skilled trades workers, scum H-1Bs in high tech who steal jobs from American IT, and many other areas.
The problem is the TPP is no NAFTA and its exponentially worse. It has very little to do with trade and everything about letting Big Corporations do an end run around existing laws that protect health and safety of products, environmental concerns, and basically any other law they claim hurts their bottom line…oh, and its negotiated in secret because if it was public we would reject it out of hand (paraphrasing our own USTR).
oh, and the 3rd way is a “pro-democratic” advocacy group? Who the hell wrote that? Its enough to make you wanna vomit.
The 3rd way is a Peterson shill group (Harold Ford Jr ring any bells?).
Agreed, Third Way is a centrist group, and Public Citizen I believe was founded by Ralph Nader.
Also, to your point about secret negotiations, when have trade deals ever been negotiated in public?
I don’t mean to be disagreeable, I just hope we don’t jump to conclusions based on NAFTA.
Fact is, we have a chance to improve our position with regard to these Asian nations – many of which have quite protectionist trade regimes – and prevent China from extending its regional influence at our expense.
Also, many of the European nations that would be included in a trade deal already have stringent labor and environmental protections – some more stringent than in the US. And some of them enjoy higher average wages than we do. So that should alleviate some concerns about any potential “race to the bottom.”
And I understand the objections presented by Mr. Reich, but don’t forget he was Clinton’s Labor Secretary, so he does own some of the criticism leveled against NAFTA.
As always, of course, the devil is in the details, it’s just that doing nothing will not put us in a better position than we are in now, and I have confidence that Obama will at least try to craft an agreement that supports US worker interests.
Most trade deals (as far as I know) have never restricted a member of Congress and their staff from seeing the documents being negotiated. The USTR only allows a member of congress (no staff) to read the documents and the member is not allowed to copy any of the text. If its all puppies and unicorns why is that level of secrecy called for…also why are corporate lobbyists at the table but no one representing consumer interests? This treaty is a race to the bottom…the country with the lowest standards (clean air and water for example) is the new normal. Corporations dont even have to go to court…they have an arbitrator made up of…industry. Wonder how that works out.
Forget NAFTA this is much worse
We shall see…
Hopefully not…because then (by design) it will be too late