NAFTA Is 20 Years Old – Here Are 20 Facts That Show How It Is Destroying The Economy

[5.56NATO]

Back in the early 1990s, the North American Free Trade Agreement was one of the hottest political issues in the country. When he was running for president in 1992, Bill Clinton promised that NAFTA would result in an increase in the number of high quality jobs for Americans and that it would reduce illegal immigration.

Ross Perot warned that just the opposite would happen. He warned that if NAFTA was implemented there would be a "giant sucking sound" as thousands of businesses and millions of jobs left this country. Most Americans chose to believe Bill Clinton. Well, it is 20 years later and it turns out that Perot was right and Clinton was dead wrong. But now history is repeating itself, and most Americans don't even realize that it is happening.
http://www.activistpost.com/2014/08/...s.html#!bEA4at

[jet3534]

Back in the early 1990s, the North American Free Trade Agreement was one of the hottest political issues in the country. When he was running for president in 1992, Bill Clinton promised that NAFTA would result in an increase in the number of high quality jobs for Americans and that it would reduce illegal immigration.

Ross Perot warned that just the opposite would happen. He warned that if NAFTA was implemented there would be a "giant sucking sound" as thousands of businesses and millions of jobs left this country. Most Americans chose to believe Bill Clinton. Well, it is 20 years later and it turns out that Perot was right and Clinton was dead wrong. But now history is repeating itself, and most Americans don't even realize that it is happening.
http://www.activistpost.com/2014/08/...s.html#!bEA4at

Ross warned us. Too bad he was forced out of politics by the dirty tricks of the Bush machine. i.e., planned Bush attacks on his family. IMHO Perot would have made a far better President than Bush (either one), Clinton, or Obama.

[tank_monkey]

Ross warned us. Too bad he was forced out of politics by the dirty tricks of the Bush machine. i.e., planned Bush attacks on his family. IMHO Perot would have made a far better President than Bush (either one), Clinton, or Obama.

No. Ross was right on the issues, but Perot was not presidential material. Anyone serious would realize that. He did not have the fortitude nor the ability to lead, compromise, campaign, or deal with problems like the president should. Despite the disaster that we have right now in the White House, most presidents can do those jobs at least a little well or else they cannot function.

[Kadmos]

It's funny to me that after 20 years, no one can really definitively say whether NAFTA was good or bad overall, for the United States. It's still just as partisan an issue as it was, and both sides use various numbers to intelligently make points in both directions.

Personally, I think overall, it was more good than bad. Instead of watching as many jobs go to Asia, a lot went to Mexico instead. Mexico spends a ton on US products, as does Canada. We import and export goods from both without the tariffs.

What I do not get is Obama wanting to push this Trans Pacific thing the same way. It's one thing to send some jobs to Mexico, particularly if the choice is sending them to Mexico or sending them to Asia. We help Mexico's economy it means we stop bailing them out, we slow border jumping, we reduce crime, and a lot of that money ends up right back here in the states.

Sending jobs to Asia doesn't do any of that (except possibly some cash to the US), and it hurts Mexico, making all those other problems worse.

On the job loss thing about NAFTA, I'm not convinced that is really NAFTA's fault. A lot of those jobs still went to Asia, which NAFTA doesn't effect (except to actually slow that some by making Mexico a alternative), but for the most part I think a lot of that was mechanization, robots took over a huge number of factory jobs in the US.

[jet3534]

Interesting how the media has ignored the Trans Pacific Partnership.

[5.56NATO]

It's funny to me that after 20 years, no one can really definitively say whether NAFTA was good or bad overall, for the United States. It's still just as partisan an issue as it was, and both sides use various numbers to intelligently make points in both directions.

Personally, I think overall, it was more good than bad. Instead of watching as many jobs go to Asia, a lot went to Mexico instead. Mexico spends a ton on US products, as does Canada. We import and export goods from both without the tariffs.

What I do not get is Obama wanting to push this Trans Pacific thing the same way. It's one thing to send some jobs to Mexico, particularly if the choice is sending them to Mexico or sending them to Asia. We help Mexico's economy it means we stop bailing them out, we slow border jumping, we reduce crime, and a lot of that money ends up right back here in the states.

Sending jobs to Asia doesn't do any of that (except possibly some cash to the US), and it hurts Mexico, making all those other problems worse.

On the job loss thing about NAFTA, I'm not convinced that is really NAFTA's fault. A lot of those jobs still went to Asia, which NAFTA doesn't effect (except to actually slow that some by making Mexico a alternative), but for the most part I think a lot of that was mechanization, robots took over a huge number of factory jobs in the US.

As usual kad tries to make what atually destroys America look like a benefit.

[Kadmos]

Interesting how the media has ignored the Trans Pacific Partnership.

Once wikileaks showed documents that stated how far apart we are in negotiations, the media lost interest.

Combined with that, and of course it requiring a majority in the house, it's not going to go anywhere while Obama is in office.

It make make a few steps towards progress in the next couple rounds of talks, but it's gotta be close to a dozen rounds already and we are still so far apart. Even Obama said "If it's not a good deal then we'll just keep discussing it"...no one appears to be in any hurry.

The only thing I could see pressing the issue is if the Russia situation does become painful to western business.

[Kadmos]

As usual kad tries to make what atually destroys America look like a benefit.

Neither the wild claims that it would destroy America, or the wild claims that it would hugely enrich America came to pass.

It's a mixed bag.

[5.56NATO]

It has surely enriched those who fired up the maquiladors and sent US factories to other countries.
It has surely decreased decent paying jobs in the US.
Overall a big win for all who hate America.

[Kadmos]

It has surely enriched those who fired up the maquiladors and sent US factories to other countries.
It has surely decreased decent paying jobs in the US.
Overall a big win for all who hate America.

Or you could claim it saved the US auto industry..

[Oswald Bastable]

Or you could claim it saved the US auto industry..

So you're saying that the US auto industry, now having a place to build cars where they wouldn't be beholden to the UAW's demands, saved the industry?

Seems you've attributed its decline to the wrong reasons...

[Kadmos]

So you're saying that the US auto industry, now having a place to build cars where they wouldn't be beholden to the UAW's demands, saved the industry?

Seems you've attributed its decline to the wrong reasons...

There isn't one thing that lead to its decline, and NAFTA certainly wasn't the only thing that may have helped save it. But there is a strong argument that says it helped.

One of the big facts is that the industry had long been in trouble well before NAFTA. And it's certainly had trouble since. But it has way more market share than anyone could have realistically expected.

[Oswald Bastable]

There isn't one thing that lead to its decline, and NAFTA certainly wasn't the only thing that may have helped save it. But there is a strong argument that says it helped.

One of the big facts is that the industry had long been in trouble well before NAFTA. And it's certainly had trouble since. But it has way more market share than anyone could have realistically expected.

So the article lists 20 facts on how NAFTA has been destroying the economy since its inception, with links to supporting documentation/studies...

Can you list 10 on how NAFTA has helped the economy, along with links to supporting documentation/studies?

[Kadmos]

So the article lists 20 facts on how NAFTA has been destroying the economy since its inception, with links to supporting documentation/studies...

Can you list 10 on how NAFTA has helped the economy, along with links to supporting documentation/studies?

Could I? Of course.

Will I? Nope. Not worth my bother.

I'll give you a couple links though

http://www.cfr.org/trade/naftas-economic-impact/p15790
http://www.naftanow.org/results/default_en.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAFTA%2...tes_employment
http://www.debate.org/opinions/has-t...een-beneficial
http://www.investopedia.com/articles...-agreement.asp

Once again, the more honest articles will say something along the lines of "mixed bag, generally positive"

[Oswald Bastable]

Once again, the more honest articles will say something along the lines of "mixed bag, generally positive"

So you found dishonesty with the associated links in that article?

[Kadmos]

So you found dishonesty with the associated links in that article?

Of course, it's a hot button political topic.

I assume you are talking about the original article in post #1.

First it makes an attempt at rewriting history, trying to push the narrative of Clinton implementing NAFTA, when it was actually Bush 41 who spearheaded the thing.

Initially, if you recall, the democrats were against it, citing of course the potential loss of American jobs, particularly union jobs.

However, seeing the writing on the wall, and that we were already hemorrhaging American factory jobs, Clinton wanted to push ahead. He really didn't get a whole lot of democrat support on what was a Republican issue, but it got done.

That aside, for an example of a specific from the article, it states

#2 Overall, it is estimated that NAFTA has cost us well over a million jobs.

With this link embedded. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/20-ye...maging-policy/

Which as you can see is a link to a Pbs debate on the topic, where both sides are argued, and none are particularly heavily referenced, if a all.

Just a vague reference about a theoretical multiplier suggesting that we may have lost over 1 million jobs, and an non-cited database that supposedly lists 845,000 specific lost jobs.

Surely there must be something better to link to for those numbers than a Pbs debate.

Even if taken at face value, it's talking about specific job losses, not net losses. Because no one is claiming a net job loss, just making the suggestion without actually saying it.

Basically the are pointing at John Smith, so to speak, and saying "this guy lost his job". Without mentioning that possibly 3 or 4 jobs were created, right here in the US, and they on average pay 20% more. On top of that it might have created half a dozen jobs in Mexico, jobs that would have gone to Asia instead, and John Smith may have lost his job either way.

[Oswald Bastable]

Please highlight and explain why you feel any of the 20 are in error, and the dishonesty you found at the associated links...since you have claimed there was dishonesty...

[Kadmos]

Please highlight and explain why you feel any of the 20 are in error, and the dishonesty you found at the associated links...since you have claimed there was dishonesty...

Did you skip post 16? I gave examples of some of the issues. If you wish to find others, look for yourself. I'm not your personal researcher, or some student for you to give homework assignments to. You are sorely mistaken if you think I'm going to go through 2000 words of explanation only to have you bail from the thread, or give some snotty retort and brush aside what I said.

Read post 16, if you have any issues there you want to discuss then we can do that, or you can pick another one of the 20, but I'm not going to list out a point by point for no good reason.

[Oswald Bastable]

Did you skip post 16? I gave examples of some of the issues. If you wish to find others, look for yourself. I'm not your personal researcher, or some student for you to give homework assignments to. You are sorely mistaken if you think I'm going to go through 2000 words of explanation only to have you bail from the thread, or give some snotty retort and brush aside what I said.

Read post 16, if you have any issues there you want to discuss then we can do that, or you can pick another one of the 20, but I'm not going to list out a point by point for no good reason.

Read post 16...here's a better link: http://www.epi.org/publication/briefingpapers_bp147/

Note that this is only up through 2002, 879,000 lost jobs to that point...and we're now 12 years later? Seems #2 of the points was conservative, regardless of the link.

Next?

[Kadmos]

Read post 16...here's a better link: http://www.epi.org/publication/briefingpapers_bp147/

Note that this is only up through 2002, 879,000 lost jobs to that point...and we're now 12 years later? Seems #2 of the points was conservative, regardless of the link.

Next?

Not so fast...this shows 25 million US jobs gained

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/07/naf...on-employment/


Your link is based on an economic model, on the theory that for every billion in trade deficit 20,000 jobs are lost.

The problem is there is no actual research to suggest it works out that way, the idea was actually based on data of things moving in the opposite direction. In the 80's, it appeared that for every billion in exports growth, job growth was about 20,000.

Basically what they did was see that exports were up and jobs were up, and came up with the estimation. Bush 41 and Clinton both used this to try to show that more exports would create jobs.

The problem, of course, is that it's nonsense, exports aren't the only thing that creates jobs.

But as the trade deficit grew, opponents of NAFTA decided to use the same "formula" to try to say that the net deficit in trade balance meant 20,000 jobs lost per billion of imbalance.

Obviously, this is nonsensical also.

If it were true, then why do we have 25 million more jobs?

The reality is of course as I stated exports aren't the only thing that create jobs.

Imports (and other things) also create jobs. When products are imported someone has to unload them, someone has to sort them, ship them, warehouse them, distribute them, stock them, and sell them. Also a lot of imports are in component form, for instance, GM may import computers for cars, which get installed here in the US, creating even more jobs.

But it's not just the jobs in unloading, shipping, stocking, and selling imports. We also get high end management jobs, engineering jobs, purchasing jobs, etc. Someone often has to travel oversees, inspect the product, choose from various supplies, negotiate contracts, create new systems to better organize the operations, etc.