This NAFTA thing

[SoFlaJets]

so many are making a big deal out of it and truth be told I am a pretty active person politically and can not tell you the details.To assume that most Americans are seeing this as a big campaign issue is,...well over estimating the populate.I could lie and say "of course I know all the details but I would then be an elitist-a know-it-all like some around here try to be-no names

[Robroy]

1. Good Intentions..

I hope someone here can explain where NAFTA went bad. I beieve the original intent was to benefit us and our neighbors by expanding labor pools, production and buying power. Did it have something to do with the peso crashing? What else?

[lovedems]

2. I tried that argument a few days ago with little success.

I was never FOR NAFTA, and I think some people misunderstood my intentions but my argument was, if there was a democrat in office, they would not have looked the other way why jobs were being outsourced. I think it would have been changed or repealed. I am just guessing though.

[54anickel]

3. JMHO, The idea of "Competitive Advantage" was redefined or misuderstood

It was meant to mean that countries would concentrate their production on what they did best and what was the best use of their resources - sort of a specialization ideology.

Corporations only looked at the single advantage of cheaper with less regulation - sort of a exploitation ideology. Not the best use of resources, but the cheapest use of resources.

[lovedems]

4. So, when Clinton signed NAFTA was it to be for the purpose of

importation and exportation of GOODS? I know alot of critics worried about and complained about jobs being included in the outsourcing and that was the sole purpose of not supporting it. You can blame Clinton for signing NAFTA but isn't bu$h administration ultimately responsible for letting it become what it has become? We all know how much he takes care of his corporate backers. Again, for those of you who want to jump down my throat, I am asking.

[ramapo]

8. Wasn't a big worry over jobs

Jobs were more plentiful when NAFTA was signed. The software offshoring was barely a ripple. We were importing expertise through the H1B visa program.

Neither the H1B or exporting jobs ever made much sense to me...

Free trade is all well and good but to me NAFTA has done more harm than good.

[54anickel]

9. I don't know what was on Clinton's mind. I don't think it was necessarily

strictly limited to goods, but was meant to provide a healthy balance. The idea that all involved would benefit. I do not think it was meant to allow for exploitation of underdeveloped nations, although that was may have been the hidden agenda of the corporate elitists that pushed for it. :shrug:

[mac2]

21. Was it to negate our democracy for World Union fascism?

Four Unions under the WTO? To be in place by Jan. 2005? Ours under FTAA would be the Americas. Read about it..globalization, trade on Public Citizen web site, AFL-CIO trade information web site.

It's more about control by corporate and banking wealthy elite than trade. We can do that without these trade organizations.

[buckeye1]

5. You are right.

Wining is confidence. It is the idea that this one can govern better. The election will be won there. We have the advantage of 8 years of better times against the uncertainy of now.

Tell me about something better,because its not good now. Give me a future.

[BayCityProgressive]

6. I am not anti-NAFTA

here in the USA we had sweat shops and child labor until the people rose up and demanded rights. I think creating industry in poor nations will only help democracy as those people will eventually rise up as we did here and in Europe. However, this is hindered when we allow corrupt businesses and politicians to financially aide dictators.

[seasat]

7. I'm not anti-NAFTA either.

Mexico is currently losing jobs to China. The problem I see is that some countries do not really engage in free trade practices. China manipulates it's currency and others indirectly subsidize their products by having lower environmental and labor standards. I think those issues need to be included in trade pacts and reenforced with penalties for noncompliance.

[cprise]

11. If you enfirce those things, then its not 'Free Trade'

... it becomes Regulated Trade, which is what we used to have.

NAFTA is concerned with profit potential: If a government creates a "barrier" to profit, then that's considiered illegal and the NAFTA court will strike-down whatever democratically-enacted law had created the barrier.

NAFTA is a government infrastructure designed to put the interests of corporate investors above everyone else. It nullifies our rights as citizens and workers.

[54anickel]

18. IMHO Using the term "Free Trade" in NAFTA is the misnomer that

is creating confusion in the current geopolitical debate. The economic theories and principals of free trade are not at all reflected in the NAFTA arrangement. They did a great disservice to the old economic theories of free trade in drafting the documents.

[cprise]

10. Not true

When we rose up, it worked because the industrialists lived here and were accountable to us; we could strike against them and vote to regulate their activities, and they had to comply.

NAFTA and 'free trade' agreements in general relieve industrialists from public pressure in foreign communities. They are still really only answerable to the U.S. voting public, which doesn't care anymore about wages and working conditions in textile factories because those operations have been moved offshore. So the uber-rich in this country are allowed to become global slum-lords.

'Creating' industry in poor nations doesn't work, because you can't truly have industry in a country where THERE ARE NO INDUSTRIALISTS, no local entrpeneurs or other highly successful people who care about or have to answer to the community around them. So all you get in those countries are poor wages and conditions. If the workers try to rise up, who will they hold accountable? Their politicians? Then you are talking about revolution, which the western media will instantly label as Marxist and justify invasion or the financing of death squads to prevent loss of control over that producing region.

Think about other economic success stories of the past. Did Japan become well-off by letting US companies set up shop, prevent local entrepeneurs from becoming established, and using the Japanese public as a cheap, disposable labor pool? Not on your life-- They insisted on a government that would look out for the interests of their own businessmen, laborers, and general public. The Japan and other Asian powerhouses we know today would not exist if we had forced them into 'free trade' and having their industries owned by foreigners.

[Gin]

12. NAFTA has a chapter11 (I think thats the right #) If we or any country

in the agreement decides to stop using the products imported from these other countries...for whatever reasons...a secret 3 member panel decides on what punishment to hand out...and we pay the country who makes the products we no longer use for the lost revenue...with no end in sight...so..bankrupting the country is another side affect of NAFTA.

[mac2]

22. You'd better be against NAFTA if ..

you want to live in a democratic country.

NAFTA gave us a huge trade deficit and loss of American companies to Mexico and China. Using it as a stepping stone...they are now into FTAA (Free Trade Agreement for the Americas) to form the World Union.

What is the "Americas Union"? All of the Continent..S.& N. America and a few Island into one government/trade organization. The Capital to be in Miami probably headed by Jeb Bush. So even if they lose the Presidency, they still have all of the continent to rule. There will be new laws and Constitutions...without a shot being fired.

NAFTA is old stuff. They're onto bigger bait...like fascism and tyranny world rule.

Read up on it. Public Citizen's web site trade information, AFL-CIO information.

Don't be a uninvolved citizen who believe what the media tells you.

Why do you think people are in the streets all over the world protesting WTO, NAFTA, FTAA, GATS, etc.

[lovedems]

13. I have been reading all of these interesting replies and now I find

myself more confused then I was before. Should something like this be so difficult to understand? I still can't shake the feeling that this mass exodus of jobs overseas is what Clinton had in mind when he signed NAFTA. I think he was largely looking at the benefits like global human rights laws with working conditions and the ability to lift 3rd world countries out of poverty and allow them a middle class lifestyle. Then in comes bu$h and looks the other way while blue collar and white collar jobs leave the country. Couldn't there have been incentives in place to stop that from happening? There are tax breaks and tax incentives for everything else! Is it the bush administration who has allowed NAFTA to get out of hand by paying off their corporate backers?

Finally, why should I hold the dem candidates responsible for voting for NAFTA if I should even hold them responsible at all? Were the risks were taking and we failed or should we have been against this from the beginning KNOWING this would happen (if you can actually state that you knew this would happen).

I am looking for an honest question/answer discussion because I am torn about what NAFTA was meant to be and what it has become and if I should hold (Kerry/Edwards) responsible for supporting it or if I should not. I am not looking for insults because I am not sure on my opinion, I am looking for answers. You catch more flies with honey than you do vinegar.

[cprise]

15. Many legislators raised these objections about NAFTA

before is was enacted. But Clinton, DLC and the Republicans railroaded it. They should have known they were recreating the conditions of the banana republics of the 1890s.

NAFTA sell was this: "Look over there at the EU, stupid American voter! They have a new trade system and will bury us if we don't do the same! So we must enact NAFTA ( which is almost entirely unlike the EU system)!"

It was a bait-and-switch. Europe moved to integrate itself further and a large part of that involved trade (and human and labor rights), and big business in the US told us that NAFTA was the same thing. It isn't close.

In the end, good intentions only go so far. It doesn't matter now what they intended. Perhaps NAFTA architects were deluded, blinded by free-market ideology. Perhaps they hated the American workers and foreign industrialists (competition) making life challanging for them. Perhaps they considered the success of the Asian Tiger economies as bad mistake (they were supposed to remain poor and desperate). Perhaps Clintonites were embarrassed from all the rhetoric about Democrats' economic blunders and just wanted to out-do the Republicans. None of it is an excuse.

You don't give corporations special international courts with the power to trump the laws of democratically-elected governments, and leave everyone else with no legal redress. I believed in NAFTA because I supported Clinton, and his "freedom" rhetoric gave me a tool to bash the "protectionists". Back then it was all Boomer liberals, who became defenseless and stupid the moment you say the words "freedom" and "choice". So it worked, and conservatives are still using the tactic. Should we apply "freedom" to the sex act to the point where rape is legal? Should we allow women to deny "choice" to desperate men? Should we keep letting our brains fall out?

[lovedems]

16. First of all, let me start by saying that I totally appreciate your

insight without feeling the need to insult me. I have tried to question NAFTA in other threads and some people are ready to pounce on me for even questioning it.

If I remember correctly, there were alot of democrats who did not support NAFTA fearing exactly the scenario we find ourselves in, the outsourcing of manufacturing as well as white collar jobs. They could see the writing on the wall. I am completely like you, I trusted Clinton and had this overwhelming feeling that he knew what he was doing. I never, ever thought of Clinton as a "corporate whore" nor did I ever think he would do anything to harm the working families of this country.

I also know that Bush 1 was the primary architect of NAFTA. Clinton came in and added and took away. I agree with you about good intentions only going so far but I still can't shake the feeling that if we had an administration that wasn't so concerned with corporate welfare, we would not be in this sitution. It seems to me like the bush admin. is purposefully looking the other way, and for those companies who find it difficult to move overseas right now, hell, bush will provide cheap labor right here at home (enter the immigration reform). This administration has made it a behind the scenes mission to see to it that the "rich" and the "corporations" DO NOT get taxed. They have seen to it that profits are the highest they have been in 50 years! I continue to be torn, because I am all for lifting 3rd world countries out of poverty but not at the expense of making our nation a 2 class country where you have the rich and the poor nor at the expense of exploitation of the 3rd world countries.


Should we be in a position to offer AMERICAN COMPANIES incentives to STAY IN AMERICA? Absolutely not. The idea that we need to sugar coat incentives to keep jobs here sucks. To take things to the next level, let's look at state governments. I live in Illinois where our budget crisis looms. Our governor (and I am aware that other gov's in other states are doing the same) has decided to close tax loop-holes on business to help close the deficit. That is a great idea as a consumer and tax payer, but will that cause business to leave our state? What has to happen to force companies to stay in america and pay their fair share of the services this great nation has to offer while still being competitive globally? Can we have it all? What are the sacrifices that we need to make? Can an insightful person come in a amend NAFTA to say if you are going to take your jobs overseas you will abide by international human rights laws, you will abide by not exploiting a nation of his natural resources and labor force. Can we make so it doesn't matter what country we move our business to you will pay the same and follow the same rules? Can anything be salvaged out of this that would be truly beneficial to the global corporations, global consumners and global labor force all at the same time or does this whole idea of NAFTA need to shelved? Then what? What about the jobs that are already gone? Do they come back?

There has to be a balance between profit, which companies have to make, and living wages, which consumers have to make. The scales are heavily tipped in favor of the corporations right now because of NAFTA. The get a bigger profit at the expense of living wages.

Sorry for the ramble. I have soooooo many questions. If you could do your best to address one or several of my points, it would be appreciated. I need this Q and A and I need to mooch off of others peoples research because I have 4 kids and don't have the time to thoughtfully research this on my own.

[cprise]

17. Insidious problems mean we have our work cut out for us

It's not as difficult as you might think to make things better.

The two keys as I see them are to raise unionization and public enterprise to sufficient levels. Promote tham as values. Without these, you are dead in the water and there is no real culture to keep private enterprise in check. With them, you have both collective bargaining pressure on wages/conditions and widespread and strong urge to get the taxes and reinvest them in people (education, etc.) and to dump expensive military adventurism.

Knowing this, we need some measures to allow the above sort of movement to succeed:

Media reform to breakup huge conglomerates; the added competition and reduced wealth concentration will have the effect of returning a populist aspect to news coverage and help stop the brainwashing that's been going on. Look at enstating a true public broadcasting corporation along the model of the BBC (not a weak charity like PBS) that will compete with the private broadcasters. Avergae people need good information.

Put caps on the % of employees and general operations in foreign lands; gradually phase them in. If most employees are abroad, then their investors are probably involved in tax havens and illegal activities that complement the offshoring from a profit perspective; subject them to automatic investigation for racketeering and let them know that as tax evaders we'd just assume see them relocate to Indonesia where their businesses actually are.

Give corporations a choice: personhood or full taxes. They can't have one without the other.

Stall the formation of free-trade agreements while other regions form their own trade-standardizion pacts. Once trade zones like Mercosur (S. America) gain more momentum, then the 3rd world will be in a better position to demand an end to double standards.


There are no global consumers. There is no birth certificate that establishes people as such; we are citizens who stay in certain places for most of our lives and need structures in place to protect us from corporations' global scheming. We are fair to people around the world when we respect their rights to run their own lives, and to grow their own industries.


Here is a perspective from a successful region of the world that does a better job of controlling its corporations. It doesn't apply directly to 'free trade' but you can see the difference in business culture:
http://www.american-pictures.com/english/racism/articles/welfare.htm

International human rights law are unenforcable. That would fall under the purview of the UN, which has no power. Only pro-corporate bodies like WTO can enforce international laws. We used to be able to prosecute war crimes, but the U.S. has used "the war on terror" to destroy any real power it had.

NAFTA could be amended, but I would replace it with something else just because of the precedents and worldview NAFTA has set (a kind of ideological extremism that dictates anything interfering with profit must be eliminated). I say eliminate NAFTA to help get rid of that culture.

Do we get jobs back? Well, ask yourself how many big American investors and executive want to move to Indonesia. Find ways to put them in that corner, to make that choice, to indentify and really work with our society.

[lovedems]

19. I think I am starting to get it.

However, I still can't shake the feeling and urge to blame bu$h for what NAFTA has become and ruined anything posotive that should have come out it. NAFTA turned 10 years old this year. How under the first 6 years, under Bill Clinton, did unemployment fall to new lows? Didn't Mexico initially benefit from NAFTA? It seems to me like NAFTA was not a perceived problem under Clinton. The economy was good, job creation was abundant and jobs were not being exported. If they were, jobs with equal pay and benefits were being created. It is only since 2000, since bu$h took office that NAFTA has suddenly become an issue front and center.


I came across this very informative forum. Joseph E. Stiglitz, professor of economics at Columbia University and author of "The Roaring 90's," was chief economist of the World Bank from 1997 to 2000. He won the Nobel Prize in economics in 2001. There might be something in here that would be of interest to you. Since you were so kind to share with me, let me share with you.

http://boards.charlierose.com/board/topic.asp?ti=5207

(snip)
Maintaining full employment is the concern of monetary and fiscal policy, not of trade policy.

Conservatives have long sought to receive compensation for regulations that hurt them, and American courts and Congress have usually rejected these attempts. Now businesses may have accomplished indirectly, through treaty, what they could not get more openly through the democratic political process.

Meanwhile, those harmed by the actions of the foreign firms, for instance by what they do to the environment, do not have comparable protections of appealing to an international tribunal and receiving compensation. The concern is that Nafta will stifle regulation, no matter how important for the environment, health or safety.

(end)

It seems to me, and again, correct me if I am wrong (if you aren't sick of this already) that it is the conservatives and their CEO friends who have taken advantage of any loop holes in NAFTA and have created this giant that needs to be addressed. I am still at a loss as to how NAFTA seemed an unimportant national issue for the first 6 years of it's existence but now under republican controlled congress and WH, suddenly it is one of the hot button issues in this election because of the absurdity that it has become. Can you help me get passed the point that I shouldn't fault Clinton (and Kerry and Edwards) for this? If I even need to get passed that point? I just can't find a resonable reason that I should blame them for what has become of NAFTA.


Anyway, one of the solutions that you stated was to bring the importance of the union back, I couldn't agree more. My step dad has been a union man for 35 years and he is literally watching it crumble before his eyes. He said it was happening under bush 1 and now again under jr. Again, all for the benefit of big business. He is losing benefits left and right which of course indirectly affects his salary. His union members are being told take it or we will move! I think you are 100% correct that one of the biggest solutions to this problem is to give corporations a choice: personhood or full taxes.

You have been so incredibly helpful I can't even begin to thank you for helping me with what is a complex issue for me. If you find any glaring misinformation, please clear me up.



Edit: That article from the Dane I found fascinating. I am going to venture a guess that the reason they are able to live in such a wonderful society is because of taxes. The one thing all Americans want to avoid paying. It is sad isn't it? They want the luxuries of this great nation but want somebody else to pay for them! When will people realize that with tax cuts comes the loss of vital services? The republican mantra "no country has ever taxed itself into prosperity" I think is hogwash.

[mac2]

24. EU is not much different...

EU is part of the World Union (EU, Americas, Africa, Asia). The EU started out about currency and then trade...open borders. Now, it is trade/government like us. Citizens turned down the new Constitution that doesn't include worker rights, etc.

The head of the EU is a corporate media thug President from Italy. This is a world Mafia guys!! Control over government for profit and power...otherwise known as fascism.

EU is doing better because, they refuse to lose many of their big companies. They have a stronger currency and are buying our resources, etc. Can you think of a huge American company that hasn't moved off-shore or that hasn't been bought by foreign ones?

They aren't paying for a huge defence budget so can do more for their citizens and infrastructure. They aren't bankrupt...we are.

There has been anti-globalization/trade organization protests in Europe, Australia, etc. All around the world. It a world wide grab for power using 9/11 without a shot even being heard...well maybe a few wars in the ME and Africa.

[muriel_volestrangler]

26. No, you don't quite understand the EU

It started out as trade (steel and coal cooperation at first), expanded to agricultural subsidy, and then move to governmental matters. The currency union is the latest thing it has done. The citizens haven't yet had a chance to accept or turn down the proposed constitution - it's the governments that are arguing about it. But existing EU laws do have things like workers' rights - eg the "Social Chapter", which the Tory government kept the UK out of, but Blair put Britain back into, once he came to power.

The Italian Prime Minister Berlusconi (note their President is largely ceremonial, but he can occasionally shaft Berlusconi) was the head of the EU (ie "President of the EU") for 6 months last year - it's a rotating job; the Irish Prime Minister has it now. It doesn't carry real power; they're responsible for organising the governmental conferences, so they can influence the agenda more, and are expected to lead negotiations. But they don't get to order anyone about.

There's not that much difference between the EU and US economies; for instance, unemployment is generally higher in the EU:

Unemployment rates (2002)
UK 5.2%
USA 5.8%
Italy 9.1%
France 9.1%
Germany 9.8%
Spain 11.3%

The difference is there's a better welfare system in the EU, and taxes are higher, and more progressive, so the wealth is more evenly distributed. You're right that defence spending is lower, and this helps; but even so, the French and German governments both had deficits larger than 3% of GDP in 2002 (EU average was 1.9% - 173 billion Euros, compared with about 3.1% for the USA). Total government debt for both the EU and USA was about 62% of GDP in 2002.

Possibly the biggest difference is the trade deficit. This was 11.8 billion Euros for the EU in 2003; for the USA it looks like it will be over 500 billion dollars.

The EU faces the same future problems as the USA on paying for 'baby boomer' retirement, so the USA is no more bankrupt than the EU. In fact, the European problem may be worse - we're less welcoming to immigrants than the USA, and have less room, so the proportion of retired to working age people will be higher in Europe.

[lams712]

14. NAFTA SUCKS!!!!

It's not so much the much bigger trade deficit we now have with Mexico, or the loss of jobs, its that all this "FREE TRADE" crap is exactly what it is, CRAP.

The system of free trade that was first written about by Adam Smith DOES NOT EXIST. Our modern version of "free trade" has NOTHING to do with great principles or comparative advantage or economic effiency. Free trade in the modern sense has to do more with multi-national corporations having an easier time in extracting natural resources and using cheaper labor in less developed countries. Most of what is called "trade" is done between different divisions of multi-national corporations (e.g. GM Mexico "trades" with GM USA and these "transactions" are counted as "trade").

It would be nice to say things like "a richer Mexico would be good for the US..." (or a richer China, India, etc.), but multi-national corporation are not going into the lesser developed countries to make them rich, they are going there to take advantage of the lower wages, etc. and would have no interest in improving the countries they go to. To think that they will become viable export markets for our products is a little naive.

[kalian]

20. Exactly....

the only "free trade" in all this crap is for corporations to move
around the globe in search of the cheapest labor and the most
benefits for its bottomline. This does NOT benefit the worker nor
the consumer.

[mac2]

23. NAFTA is old stuff...read my post #22

It's a critical campaign issue to working and freedom loving Americans.

[Sorry.]

25. NAFTA/Globalisation

NAFTA was a flat out attempt to undermine worker's rights in all three companies. Fluid capital that can flee at the first sight of unionisation or militancy. US corporations can now tell their workers that if they don't shut up and take what their given, then they'll just shift production over the border to sweatshop labourers. Meanwhile they're telling Mexican workers that their jobs will go to China. The result being that your job is worth less than ever before, because a Mexican will do it for 1/10th of the cost.

It's part of the WTO/IMF privatise everything/open markets cowboy capitalism.

Before the legislation was signed most Americans were against it.

It's one of the (many) reasons to see Republicans and Republicrats as one and same - more beholden to 'le grand capital' than their voters.

[Gin]

27. I heard Nader say this morning that both NAFTA and The WTO have a 6 month

clause allowing the US to withdraw from the agreements.I did not know that. The new Dem president should take that option and renegotiate our participation with the agreements.