Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: I think this TPP deal might be the beginning of the end of Hillary's Presidential aspirations [View all]mother earth
(6,002 posts)121. The reality of NAFTA: same link from huffpo, there's no shortage of articles on NAFTA failures.
But if NAFTA wasn't a plausible economic bonanza for the U.S. and America's establishment knew it, then what was going on? Krugman again supplies an answer, writing in Foreign Affairs that, "For the United States, NAFTA is essentially a foreign policy rather than an economic issue." The real agenda was to keep people like President Carlos Salinas, friendly with powerful interests in the U.S., in power in Mexico City.
Bottom line? Free trade was pushed not because of any sincerely anticipated economic benefits, but to serve an extraneous foreign policy agenda. To his credit, Krugman later admitted the utter chicanery of it all, writing in The New Democrat in 1996 that:
The agreement was sold under false pretences. Over the protests of most economists, the Clinton Administration chose to promote NAFTA as a jobs-creation program. Based on little more than guesswork, a few economists argued that NAFTA would boost our trade surplus with Mexico, and thus produce a net gain in jobs. With utterly spurious precision, the administration settled on a figure of 200,000 jobs created--and this became the core of the NAFTA sales pitch.
NAFTA was sold in Mexico as Mexico's ticket to the big time. Mexicans were told they were choosing between gradually converging with America's advanced economy and regressing to the status of a backwater like neighboring Guatemala.
What actually happened? In reality, the income gap between the United States and Mexico grew (by over 10 percent) in the first decade of the agreement. This doesn't mean America boomed; we didn't. But Mexico slumped terribly.
Bottom line? Free trade was pushed not because of any sincerely anticipated economic benefits, but to serve an extraneous foreign policy agenda. To his credit, Krugman later admitted the utter chicanery of it all, writing in The New Democrat in 1996 that:
The agreement was sold under false pretences. Over the protests of most economists, the Clinton Administration chose to promote NAFTA as a jobs-creation program. Based on little more than guesswork, a few economists argued that NAFTA would boost our trade surplus with Mexico, and thus produce a net gain in jobs. With utterly spurious precision, the administration settled on a figure of 200,000 jobs created--and this became the core of the NAFTA sales pitch.
NAFTA was sold in Mexico as Mexico's ticket to the big time. Mexicans were told they were choosing between gradually converging with America's advanced economy and regressing to the status of a backwater like neighboring Guatemala.
What actually happened? In reality, the income gap between the United States and Mexico grew (by over 10 percent) in the first decade of the agreement. This doesn't mean America boomed; we didn't. But Mexico slumped terribly.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
122 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I think this TPP deal might be the beginning of the end of Hillary's Presidential aspirations [View all]
bigdarryl
Jun 2015
OP
If she is not against it then she is for it. If she was against it she would have come out swinging
snagglepuss
Jun 2015
#2
Obama is trying to push the monster through Congress before Hillary comes out with her
JDPriestly
Jun 2015
#27
She has the option to rally her substantial base to oppose at the very least fast track.
snagglepuss
Jun 2015
#54
In a world were you can't be sure your candidate can win you grasp for straws.
upaloopa
Jun 2015
#12
Interesting that you don't defend her stand, you don't defend the TPP, why is that?
rhett o rick
Jun 2015
#18
Yep. What a pickle to be in. Can't pick a side because HRC hasn't told her swooners which side to
GoneFishin
Jun 2015
#97
Oh no you don't. I've waited to for her VIEW on this as it cuts Medicare. I tolerated Keystone...
TheNutcracker
Jun 2015
#83
You are in good company because nobody is going to vote for your mythical Dem.
upaloopa
Jun 2015
#13
She could do what leaders are supposed to do which is to rally her base to demand
snagglepuss
Jun 2015
#56
I will keep dreaming, dreaming of a government not controlled by the billionaires.
rhett o rick
Jun 2015
#21
He fawns all over Robert Kennedy when Kennedy pushes his anti-vaxxer bullshit.
MohRokTah
Jun 2015
#24
Who cares about the anti-vaxxers? Only You because its a great way to hijack a TPP
Katashi_itto
Jun 2015
#64
I am guessing you don't like anyone that might dare to question authority.
rhett o rick
Jun 2015
#84
Was her private server hacked by the Chinese when the rest of the govt was hacked?
Hekate
Jun 2015
#71
I have to assume that if was an area of significant concern to her . . .
markpkessinger
Jun 2015
#66
TPP is a total game changer, if you are alive & breathing & don't understand how screwed people and
mother earth
Jun 2015
#38
YET. They soon will feel its impact & there is no room for complacency on anyone's part.
mother earth
Jun 2015
#49
NAFTA was a great success? I beg to differ...or perhaps it was successful for the corporations?
mother earth
Jun 2015
#88
Supporting NAFTA Was the Kiss of Death for Democrats --Why Dems Should Think Twice About Voting for
mother earth
Jun 2015
#120
The reality of NAFTA: same link from huffpo, there's no shortage of articles on NAFTA failures.
mother earth
Jun 2015
#121
Where are you getting 1995? You should read your link. Plus it said "real income"
Recursion
Jun 2015
#108
Oh, I see, you don't care that average workers were making more money after NAFTA
Recursion
Jun 2015
#110
You can ask the average Democratic voter what TPP is and they will say "What?"
leftofcool
Jun 2015
#50
So far, that may be true, come the election it may well not be so. Naysayers, I'm repeating, TPP is
mother earth
Jun 2015
#52
And you think that says something positive about the "average Democratic voter"?
tularetom
Jun 2015
#53
Your opinion, a real leader gathers the information before making decisions, makes Hillary very
Thinkingabout
Jun 2015
#57
Is she in the line of passing TPP? No, in fact this will be decided before she could
Thinkingabout
Jun 2015
#68
Hillary will not be voting on TPP or signing it after it passes in Congress.
Thinkingabout
Jun 2015
#96
Considering that she's already called it the "Gold Standard of trade agreements",
Art_from_Ark
Jun 2015
#70
She is a leader, she has not seen the final agreement, she will not be forced into going in either
Thinkingabout
Jun 2015
#73
My thoughts also, for crying out loud, how many times does she need to repeat her decision.
Thinkingabout
Jun 2015
#76
Good, continue to believe them, in the meantime allow those who wants to wait until the final
Thinkingabout
Jun 2015
#87
Series-ly this is the umpteenth DU post giving a reason why Hilary is destined to lose...
joeybee12
Jun 2015
#81