NAFTA gets mixed reviews after 10 years

[54anickel]

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/mexico/20040102-9999_1n2nafta.html

WASHINGTON – After 10 years of NAFTA, California is enjoying a boom in exports to Mexico even as it continues to struggle with problems along the border that include illegal immigration, pollution and poverty.

Between NAFTA's inception in 1994 and 2000, California's shipments to Mexico soared 142 percent in dollar value while export earnings from Canada, the third free trade partner, have been only slightly less robust, according to U.S. Commerce Department figures.

Mexico has proved a magnet for U.S. capital, drawing $15 billion in direct U.S. investments in 2001 compared with $1.3 billion in 1992.

"NAFTA has been a huge success in terms of expanding trade and investment with Mexico . . . well beyond the expectations of those of us who were making projections when it was passed," said Gary Hufbauer, an economist with the Institute for International Economics.

But imports under NAFTA have grown more quickly than exports, turning what was once a U.S. trade surplus with Mexico into a deficit.

more....

[papau]

1. Major benefits to both sides - but mainly to rich

The average fellow in Mexico is seeing nothing from Nafta, while some rich and corporate obtained more wealth. No social changes, working condition changes, higher wages, more hires, better environmental, or any other good for Joe Average.

Nafta did not hurt - and more trade is a plus - and capital investment in Mexico is a plus.

But it could have been better designed - but not with the GOP controlling both Senate and House. Clinton took what he could get.

[vonZapfenau]

2. Demos controlled Congress in 1993

Read your history!

Clinton worked with the GOP against the opposition of most Democrats to push NAFTA through. That's one of the main reasons we lost the Congress in 1994 - Clinton had demoralized his base.

[Bandit]

3. Not sure if Nafta had anything to do with losing the house in 1994

But NAFTA certainly was not a Clinton idea. It was first put forth by Reagan and because the House was controlled by Democrats back then it was soundly defeated. IMHO Clinton was a very good Republican President. He related well with the people though so everyone but the wing-nut loved him. He passed some very republican things during his eight years. NAFTA being one of those things along with GATT, Welfare Reform, More money for Cops on the streets and he backed Star Wars defence.

[54anickel]

4. If I remember correctly, he did run as a centrist, did he not?

[schultzee]

5. Clinton lobbied very hard for NAFTA. He was a DLC democrat

or more appropriately a sold out to corporations democrat. He did not have to take the corporate football and run with it. He paved the way for the misserable failure we have in the White house now. He destroyed and demoralized the base of the party, and damn his for that. I could care less about his sex life, but he hurt the party.