Should NAFTA be repealed and why?

[kentuck]

President Obama needs to do something dramatic to avoid political disaster in the next election. Why should he announce his support for the repeal of NAFTA?

Because the jobs he is so concerned about left this country via NAFTA, GATT, and other trade treaties. The companies that first moved to Mexico for the cheap labor have since moved to Indonesia, Vietnam, the Philippines, and other countries that had even cheaper labor. They were assisted by the huge taxcuts and write-offs afforded them by the Congress of the US. These jobs are not going to voluntarily return to the US anytime soon.

But if the President announced the repeal of NAFTA, it would be a dramatic move, no doubt. Who thought the Indians or the Philippinos could do a better job at customer service than Americans? They don't pay much but they are better than unemployment checks.

Some companies that received TARP money used it to move their jobs overseas. How crazy is that?

[OmahaBlueDog]

1. I'd repeal MFN for China first, but it's too late, and now we owe them too much money.

I like the theory of NAFTA. In the long run, a stronger, more stable Mexico could have been a good thing. It could have created a stronger trading partner, and that partnership could have led to great benefits on both sides of the border.

In practice, the treaty has never worked out as designed. Now, our workers are fighting for their lives. Our hog farmers are being undercut to the point of unprofitability.

It needs to be repealed or rewritten, IMO.

[Vincardog]

2. NAFTA is working out as designed witness:Our hog farmers are being undercut to the point of unprofit

Mexican as well as Latin and South American farmers can no longer afford to live on their land and must come here seeking to make enough money to feed their families.
Driving down wages in Amerikkka.

That was the plan

[kentuck]

3. Why doesn't Obama ask for its repeal??

How many millions of jobs has America lost? How many more do we need to lose? The writing is on the wall.

[tourivers83]

23. Thank you for posting this.

About damn time somebody did something don’t you think? I am all for helping other people in the world improve their standard of living but when the guy who lives in that trailer on the other side of the ridge has kids that are hungry and don’t have decent clothing because his job in the textile mill went to Mexico. Well he comes first. I know he gets food stamps and other assistance but it’s slowly killing him. He needs a decent job.

:mad: :evilfrown: :mad:

[blindpig]

41. Because the business of America is business.

Business is about making a profit, whenever, however. It is not about providing living wages to workers.

But you knew that.

[Hello_Kitty]

4. Cue DU's race-to-the-bottom globalization humpers in 3...2...1...

:popcorn:

[pampango]

6. Make the world go away.....Build walls, not bridges.....Keep those foreigners (and their stuff) out

of America. Sounds like my grandfather; and he was not exactly progressive (if you know what I mean). :)

Somehow more progressive countries in Europe, Canada, and Australia have more more trade, more open trade and lower tariffs than the not-so-progressive US and yet their people are better off than ours. The source of our problems isn't too much trade, it's too little of what progressive countries provide their citizens: effective national health care, support for strong unions, strong social safety nets, and progressive taxation.

Until we provide those to our citizens, we can build a wall 100-feet high around the whole country, keep out every immigrant and every foreign product, and our people will still suffer at the hands of our elite. In Europe it's the far-right that wants to reinstate intra-Europe tariffs and immigration controls (for the sake of national sovereignty, of course) and the left that works to open borders and promote trade.

[Hello_Kitty]

13. Pampango, this is getting old and really I'm tired of explaining it to you.

But for the benefit of others who are reading:

The source of our problems isn't too much trade, it's too little of what progressive countries provide their citizens: effective national health care, support for strong unions, strong social safety nets, and progressive taxation.

Had those things been put in place BEFORE the U.S. embarked on the free-trade-apolooza, we wouldn't be in this situation. But no, we allowed the plutocrats to place the cart before the horse and now they use globalization to bust unions and attack the social safety net. We workers gotta be more "flexible", dontchaknow, to compete with people making 86 cents an hour in China!

But hey, your "make the world go away" mockery is such an excellent and persuasive talking point. Nothing sways people to your point of view like insulting them and their intelligence. :eyes:

[pampango]

16. As does your characterization of "DU's race-to-the-bottom globalization humpers"

But you are right. I should not counter a "race-to-the-bottom globalization humpers" with a "make the world go away" mockery. I rose to the bait and I shouldn't have. I should be better than that and ignore the cheap name-calling with no factual content. I apologize for my characterization.

As to your factual point in your response, we probably agree that the end goal is providing "what progressive countries provide their citizens: effective national health care, support for strong unions, strong social safety nets, and progressive taxation". Where we disagree is the need to curtail trade in order to build this progressive society, while the evidence provided by Europe and Canada after WWII is that open trade and building a progressive society go hand-in-hand. It seems pointless to spend our energy fighting open trade, when the really progressive countries have more of it than we do. It's not the problem. If we can ever achieve the "effective national health care, support for strong unions, strong social safety nets, and progressive taxation", we'll be happy that we didn't throw the "baby" (open trade) out with the "bathwater" (all the repub policies that have so damaged our health care system, safety nets, unions, and taxation system).

[Hello_Kitty]

24. Here's the thing, pampango. Most of the country agrees with me.

Like it or not. YOU are the one who needs to do the persuading, not I.

And most countries in Europe don't have our lopsided (not open) trade policies.

[Nye Bevan]

27. Wow. Never heard of the EU? Or the EFTA? (nt)

[kentuck]

28. But the bottom line is: "Is America better off or worse off?"

Have we lost jobs? You don't miss your water until the well runs dry.

[Hello_Kitty]

31. Yeah, I have heard of them. eom

[Nye Bevan]

32. I guess you don't know that they provide for open trade

since you claimed that "most countries in Europe" do not have open trade.

[Hello_Kitty]

36. I said they don't have lopsided trade.

Do you honestly think our trade situation with China is a good thing? Is it something you want to replicate with other countries?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

33. That's A Logical Fallacy

"Here's the thing, pampango. Most of the country agrees with me."

That's a logical fallacy-appeal to popularity;nobody should know better than "us" that just because a lot of people support or oppose something doesn't make it right or wrong or wise or unwise. Repealing NAFTA wouldn't add one job but would sure piss off the Mexicans and Canadians.

As an aside it's interesting how many on the left want to let Mexicans in and keep their products out while many of the right want to keep Mexicans out and their products in. Like Marx "standing Hegel on his head" I have stood the right and left on their collective heads. I want to let Mexicans and their products in.

[Hello_Kitty]

35. I'm making a political point.

You see, one thing we "protectionists" have going for us is you free traders have some seriously shit-tastic talking points that persuade no one except your compatriots in the Tom Friedman Fan Club.

But I understand that it's hard to convince people that a shit sandwich is chicken salad.

[Romulox]

50. LOL. This is a discussion about DEMOCRATIC POLITICS, not formal logic.

"Repealing NAFTA wouldn't add one job but would sure piss off the Mexicans and Canadians."

In formal logic, this is known as a "naked assertion". Logic is fun! :hi:

[pampango]

34. You're right. Most European countries don't have our trade policies. They have more free trade

than we do. Each European country has free trade with 30 other European countries (the EU and EFTA). In addition they have free trade agreements with many non-European countries and adhere to the same WTO trading rules with other countries that we follow. Their success at establishing prosperous social democracies includes promoting trade, not restricting it.

You may be right about most of the country agreeing with you. I'd be interested to see the basis for your statement. Of course, majorities also support the Arizona immigration law and, perhaps conversely, a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants here now. A majority have also opposed gay marriage.

[Hello_Kitty]

37. We're going to get European trade and labor policies and their social safety net

Around the 12th of Never. Get it through your head, pampango, the wealthy elite who run the U.S. do not want that. They want to hoover every last dime out of the American middle class and turn us into a Third World sweatshop hellhole.

[pampango]

38. Do you think that the wealthy European elites were the ones that pushed through progressive policies

there? Of course not! Europeans are much more likely to take to the streets and force their governments to act in their interests. They don't assume that their elite will take care of them.

I agree "the wealthy elite who run the U.S. do not want that". My guess is that the wealthy European elite didn't want it either. "European trade and labor policies and their social safety net" didn't come from the benevolence of the European elite. I don't expect ours to come as a result of the benevolence of our elite either.

[Hello_Kitty]

39. Oddly, I've never seen European workers pouring into the streets demanding "more free trade".

Can you point me to any examples?

[pampango]

40. The only Europeans demanding less "free trade" are the British National Party and

its far-right counterparts in other European countries, e.g. the National Front in France, Jobbik in Hungary, the Freedom Party in the Netherlands and others. Every country seems to have one.

It is the left wing parties that support enlarging the EU which brings more countries into their free trade, open immigration area. The EU is finalizing a "free trade" deal with South Korea. As of now, only the right wing government in Italy is blocking it. The right wingers are commonly Eurosceptics who want intra-European tariffs and immigration controls reinstated.

I don't recall seeing European demonstrations for or against "free trade" or, for that matter, for stronger unions, higher taxes, less immigration. Since they do demonstrate when they are not happy about something, perhaps that means that there anger it directed elsewhere.

[Hello_Kitty]

44. Oh, so you're going to play that card now.

Okay, so some RW racist idiots oppose trade for idiotic racist reasons. But at the same time libertarian idiots oppose any barriers to trade because they believe in the Free Market Fairy.

Let's make a deal: Stop equating me with RW bigots and I promise I won't liken you to Ron Paul fanboys.

[pampango]

48. I wasn't equating you with anyone. Just pointing which Europeans support and oppose free trade.

You seemed to be implying that Europeans don't really support their open trade policies.

[Hello_Kitty]

49. Okay, fine. I'm just pointing out that libertarian idiots support unlimited free trade.

And no minimum wage, child labor laws, worker protections, safety standards, or pollution laws. Kinda like some of America's "most favored" trading partners.

[pampango]

53. Point taken. n/t

[Hello_Kitty]

42. And how about addressing the U.S situation as it actually exists and not your utopian one?

Right now the U.S. imports billions of dollars of goods from China. Which has sweatshops and no pollution standards.

Are you okay with sweatshops, pampango?

Are you okay with no pollution standards, pampango?

As for NAFTA:

Are you okay with how they exported thousands of manufacturing jobs from the U.S. to Mexico, which pays poverty wages? What do you think happened to the Americans who lost their jobs? And when the maquiladoras shut down because the owners realize that they can get even cheaper labor in other Latin American countries, what do you think happens to the Mexican workers? While we're on the topic, tell me your thoughts on the U.S. dumping agricultural products on Mexico, which drove a lot of farmers there off their farms. What happened to those farmers, pampango?

I'd appreciate answers to those questions and I'd also appreciate it you'd leave the aspirational stuff out of it. We don't have the European scenario that you'd like us to have. We have what we have and real people are being affected by it.

[Hello_Kitty]

51. Well? eom

[pampango]

54. I'm a slow typer.

:)

[pampango]

52. Do I support sweatshops and no pollution controls? No. I doubt that most Europeans do either.

Nor Canadians. They seem to believe that trade helps Third World countries so that sweatshops will disappear in time and pollution controls will come with prosperity like they did here and elsewhere in the West. I suppose they could have walled off the Third World and told them to come back when they were as progressive as Europe is as you seem to be recommending, but they have chosen a different path.

There has always been an isolationist sentiment in the US. "If the rest of the world will just leave us alone, we'll be fine." We are big, strong and separated by oceans from most of the rest of the world. As most other countries already know, the rest of the world never "leaves you alone". It's not the 1950's anymore so we have to live in the real world just as Sweden, Canada and Australia do.

We import more from Canada and the EU (combined) than we do from China and Mexico (combined). Our trade deficit with the EU ($61 billion) is greater than with (Mexico $48 billion). But of course we can't the level of our imports from Canada and Europe on poverty, sweatshops or pollution.

In 2009 our imports were as follows:

China - $296 billion
EU - $282 billion
Canada - $226 billion
Mexico - $177 billion

http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c6021.html

Manufacturing employment is down in all the advanced economies. Ours has decreased less than in some other rich countries. If you want to live in your "aspirational" world where our manufacturing jobs are going to magically come back with tariffs or quotas or border walls, it's not going to happen here or in Canada or Europe.

Real people have lost manufacturing jobs in all these countries. With the safety net they provide their people have been able to adapt to changes in the economy. It may be nice (aspirational?) to wish that the economy never changes, but it does in the real world. We need policies to help people adapt to change rather than tilting at the windmill of "we want our country (of the 1950's) back."

[Hello_Kitty]

55. You are okay with sweatshops and pollution

You admit it right here: They seem to believe that trade helps Third World countries so that sweatshops will disappear in time and pollution controls will come with prosperity like they did here and elsewhere in the West.

And for fuck's sake, ENOUGH about Europe. You're doing it as a distraction and it's not working. If you don't know (or don't care) about what I asked you, fine.

[pampango]

56. So wanting to pursue a policy that helps sweatshops disappear means I'm OK with them.

If you mean that I support them disappearing over time as opposed to waving a magic wand and making them all go away immediately, I plead guilty.

If I point to examples of social democracies that successfully combine progressive policies with a lot of trade that is just a distraction? I pointed out that all the advanced economies not just Europe but Canada, Australia and Japan, have lost manufacturing jobs, some more so than the US. They have dealt with it because it is a fact of life. They support their citizens and they deal with reality.

If you do not want to talk about what works and doesn't work in the rest of the world (if that's just a distraction to you), what framework do you wish to use to discuss what will improve the lives of American workers and the middle class?

So keeping out foreigners and their products is our ticket to reclaiming the golden age of a few decades after WWII? Why would your focus be on foreigners and their stuff rather than on fellow Americans who are skewing our tax system in favor of the rich, destroying our social safety net, and weakening our unions? Bashing foreigners is easier (partially because you can probably expect to get support from the repub base - maybe even a few wacked out teabaggers who certainly don't like foreigners very much - which wouldn't support us going after repubs who are screwing our system), but there is no evidence that it will solve the problem.

[Hello_Kitty]

57. There's no intention of them disappearing.

Why would the U.S. corporate elites want to do away with brutal working conditions when they profit handsomely from them and they keep workers in fear? It's not a bug in the system, it's a feature of it.

If you do not want to talk about what works and doesn't work in the rest of the world (if that's just a distraction to you), what framework do you wish to use to discuss what will improve the lives of American workers and the middle class?

Considering that nearly 2 decades of corporatist trade deals have made it so companies are free to trawl much of the globe for the cheapest labor and the most lax environmental standards, what leverage do American workers and the American middle class have? Since apparently protectionism is such an anathema to you what would you propose as an alternative? Specifics please.

BTW, please find one post I've ever done on DU where I've engaged in "foreigner bashing". I'm finding this constant accusation of yours to be tiresome and bordering on offensive. Just saying.

[L0oniX]

8. +++

:popcorn:

[OhioChick]

12. Damn...You're good!

;)

[HughBeaumont]

43. It's bizarre . . .

. . . not one single poster called "Ignore" has appeared yet!

Amazing.

[LWolf]

5. YES.

For the reasons you've already noted.

[L0oniX]

7. Ross Perot was right.

[Dappleganger]

11. Yes he was.

About that one thing.

[Joanne98]

9. YES! BECAUSE IT SUX!

[Omaha Steve]

10. No

Job training is much easier when you just tell all the new employees to ask every customer "Do you want fries with that?"

[Boojatta]

14. What's the plan?

Because the jobs he is so concerned about left this country via NAFTA, GATT, and other trade treaties.

\
After NAFTA is repealed, what should be done about other trade treaties? Should NAFTA be repealed before there is a plan?

[RB TexLa]

15. No, because as much as our xenophobic left wing Birchers hate it we are a part of this hemisphere

and world. We need to strengthen both the political and economic union between North American nations and the Organization of American States.

[Hello_Kitty]

25. IOW, America needs to be more sweatshop-friendly.

Damn xenophobic Americans with their insistence on fripperies such as "good wages" and "safe working conditions".

[wickerwoman]

17. Will the jobs come back if he does?

Or would that be closing the barn door after the horse has escaped?

[tourivers83]

21. Our people must come first.

Yes, close and lock the barn door. We can get another horse.

:cry:

[Nye Bevan]

18. YES. "Smoot-Hawley 2" is *exactly* what our economy needs! Bring it on! (nt)

[Hello_Kitty]

26. Whereas Friedmanism (that of Milton and Tom) will work out eventually.

If we just trust in the Free Market/Trade Fairy.

[UTUSN]

19. EACH issue benefits ONE Dem constituency and alienates ANOTHER

Guess what, Border Region Democrats were in favor of NAFTA and of the CLINTONs. And Union Dems WEREN'T. And guess what, you-me-us=WE are all Democrats. Get it?!1

[w8liftinglady]

20. outsourcing has destroyed American Industry-one thing Dobbs and I agree on

http://www.cceia.org/resources/transcripts/5054.html/_res/id=sa_File1/Exporting_America.pdf
http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/lou.dobbs.tonight/popups/exporting.america/content.html

[begin_within]

22. Yes, because it resulted in massive job losses in the U.S.

By the way I don't think that foreigners necessarily do a better job of customer service than Americans. I think they just read a script and try to fake the correct pronunciation and only do what they're told by their bosses. The old days of actual customer service were when the person would actually listen to you and then either fix the problem or connect you with the person who would fix the problem.

[seattleblue]

29. Obama said he would repeal NAFTA in the 2008 campaign.

He wouldn't have any credibility if he were to repeat that for 2010.

[Freddie Stubbs]

46. I am sorry, but you must be misremembering:

Obama Knocks Clinton, But Wouldn't Ax NAFTA
Obama: NAFTA Repeal 'Would Actually Result in More Job Loss ... Than Job Gains'
By JAKE TAPPER

LORAIN, Ohio, Feb. 24, 2008 —

Appealing to union voters in a dry wall manufacturing plant in this crucial primary state, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., Sunday afternoon said that even though he has repeatedly said the passage of NAFTA was bad for the country, he would not try to repeal it.

"I don't think its realistic for us to repeal NAFTA," he said during a town hall meeting on the economy.

He argued arguing that because the trade deal had been passed more than a decade ago, it was entrenched in the economy, and any attempt to repeal it "would actually result in more job loss ... than job gains."

In the fierce fight for votes here in Ohio, where NAFTA is not popular among many blue collar Democrats, Obama has repeatedly attacked Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., for the trade deal pushed by President Bill Clinton and passed in Congress in November 1993.

more: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4336481

[seattleblue]

47. He promised to unilaterally re-open NAFTA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ownOXa0JASA But your own quotes are odd. "he has said the passage of NAFTA was bad for the country" and "any attempt to repeal would actually result in more job loss ...than job gains" So that means that NAFTA has resulted in job gains ---- how is that bad for the country? These are the contradictions you run into when you try and have it both ways.

[kentuck]

30. How foolish would a politician have to be...

to sincerely believe that it would be a good thing for American workers to compete with workers around the world that made less than a dollar an hour in wages? Did Bill Clinton truly believe that? I doubt it. But that was sold to our Congress that voted for it. Now the chickens are coming home to roost, so to speak. It was a very unDemocratic thing to do, in my humble opinion...

[Hello_Kitty]

45. This 2003 report from EPI shows how NAFTA destroyed twice as many U.S. jobs as it created.

http://www.epi.org/economic_snapshots/entry/webfeatures_snapshots_archive_12102003/