Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
What ABOUT NAFTA, anyway?
I've seen various mentions of NAFTA in here recently, often in the context of the candidates "backtracking" or "regretting" ,etc. References tend toward a perjorative sense - toward NAFTA in particular, and I would assume toward globalism and trade deals in general.
Is it pretty much concluded that NAFTA is a bad thing? Isn't it still regarded by many interested, unbiased observers as either a good thing, or at worst an uncertain thing, with its long-term effects still to be fully demonstrated? If it actually has any real day-to-day effect on Americans, is that effect uniformly bad or uniformly good? Do the more positive effects around the world (if there are any) rebound to America's ultimate advantage anyway? If NOT NAFTA, or similar attempts to cope with increasing globalization, than what? Protectionism? Is that better?
I won't go any further into the weeds on this, because I'm not an economist and don't have any special expertise to contribute. However it seems to me that to suggest that supporting NAFTA in 2008 is something akin to supporting Joe McCarthy in the 1950's is a trifle overblown.
I'd be interested in hearing from some real experts on this. As a sort of DLC-type Dem, I do think economic considerations and dealing with the modern (and more or less inevitable) shrinking of the globe are among the most important arguments in ANY campaign, and I'd like to know people's thinking.
Comments (13)
I definitely agree. I waded into the material this morning and realized that there is a lot of disagreement and it would take a lot of time to figure out. But what I did seem to glean was that the impact does not seem to be very large either way. Many of the trends that people blame on Nafta were occurring before Nafta was signed. My take is that manufacturing jobs continue to leave the country, and people and Nafta is an easy scape goat.
I'm a bit appalled by Obama's demagoguery on this issue. It's fine for him to have criticisms of Nafta, but he's overstating it's effects and exploiting popular misconceptions for political gain. It's particular hypocritical when he says in the next breadth that we have to help Mexico create jobs in order to discourage illegal immigration. How are we suppose to help them create jobs without encouraging trade?
If someone can set me straight on this, I would appreciate it because I would like to be more comfortable with Obama's position.
February 24, 2008 8:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I figured I'd go ahead and respond here, since you used some of this post in a comment on a blog that I did here: http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/02/whos-shooting-straight-on-naft.php
My intention wasn't to indict NAFTA as bad policy, or even to have a policy discussion, but rather to look at what the candidates are saying about NAFTA. If you look at what they're doing and saying in Ohio and Texas, it's pretty clear that the message is that NAFTA has hurt working people in those states and that they want to be seen as sympathetic to that view.
As for whether or not NAFTA was good or bad, I'm honestly not sure. I don't know if anyone really knows for sure.
Both you and Genghis are correct to point out that any sort of real discussion about the pros and cons of NAFTA and similar trade agreements ought to be quite a bit more nuanced (or even just nuanced, period.)
However, I'm not sure about Genghis' charge of demogoguery. As I noted in my blog, I really hate the tone of these mailers in general, but despite the tone Obama isn't really telling them how to feel about NAFTA. The fact is, they already feel that way. Is he pandering to them here? That I might be able to buy. The problem is that these people want to hear someone tell them that they understand what they're going through and that they're not getting left behind as America moves forward.
How does a candidate go about this? You can't just go tell them that NAFTA didn't do this to them, as many are already convinced that it did. Can you envision a way to encapsulate a nuanced discussion of NAFTA as a campaign message? Personally, I don't see how. This leaves candidates with little other choice but to try and convince potential voters that they are nearest in point of view.
February 24, 2008 9:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is destroying Mexican agriculture with subsidized produce from the U.S. helpful to creating jobs in Mexico you think? You do know that was what the Chiapas revolt was about don't you? Or did you know there was one? The maquiladoras on the Mexican border that hire displaced workers for terrible wages and sweatshop conditions may not be ultimately to Mexico's benefit but they work wonders for the income of the owners and the local gangsters.
The free trade purists have done horrendous damage to American workers and industrial capability. The benefit of shipping dollars outside the country for good that then return to buy American assets as well as creating astronomical debt is not an unmitigated good.
In reality there is no such thing as free trade. All trade is hedged with conditions.
Give me lots more of that demagoguery and less child and slave labor producing goods for Walmart and putting American workers in breadlines so that the upper classes (generally defined as middle class these days) can live well.
I have the strange notion labor should be rewarded rather than punished. Sorry about that.
Best, Terry
February 24, 2008 9:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, you have no clue what you are talking about Terry. How many farmers do you know?
I am involved in the farming community in California.
Here's the scoop: US farmers can't compete with produce coming in from Mexico and Chile. Despite the fact that the farmers literally grow their produce around the corner.
Why? Because energy is cheap enough to have produce travel great distances. And because USDA regulations make the produce more expensive. Places like Mexico and Chile don't have regulations, for example, about what shit (literally) you can spread on your crops.
Now, do I think the US is over-regulated on this issue? Hell, no! But I'm willing to buy more expensive produce as a result.
Are you?
As usual, Americans will want it both ways, high paying jobs, but really cheap goods. Life doesn't work that way.
Or as it's expressed on the Internet:
http://www.jibjab.com/originals/big_box_mart
But please spare us the Che Guevara talking points in the future. This is the 21st century -- not the 20th.
February 25, 2008 3:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is one of those trends that was happening before Nafta, and it's unclear how much Nafta impacted it.
But allowing that, you've got Americans saying that jobs are going to Mexico, and Mexicans saying that their agriculture is being undermined, but these are both true, that would suggest that there is more manufacturing going on in Mexico and more grain being sold by American farmers, the flip side of the coin.
Now of course, if all the manufacturing is sweatshop work, that's a problem, but Mexico does not have the reputation of many third world countries for sweatshops, and it's my understanding that Mexican manufacturing is actually being undercut by China and other places.
Obama's stance on trade agreements is that they have to accompanied by labor agreements, and I agree with that, but if his only plan for nafta is to add in labor standards, I don't think that he'll satisfy the people who are clamoring for it to be dismantled.
February 24, 2008 10:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm an Obama supporter and have a hard time listening to him knock NAFTA. It's silly for the US to become protectionist. History has frowned on societies that have taken that road. There is no reason why we should be fighting to bring back back breaking factory jobs that pay poorly. We should be focused on education, skill training and technology to compete not trying to figure out how to bring back sewing jobs to rural America.
February 24, 2008 10:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is, of course, where the future will inevitably lead us. I thought John McCain had one of his lauded "straight talk" moments, just before Romney dropped out, when he told crowds in Michigan that all of those manufacturing jobs aren't coming back. It may well be true that trade agreements like NAFTA accelerated the hemorrhaging of these jobs, but we've been on a steady trajectory away from the post-war manufacturing economy for some time now.
February 24, 2008 11:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
clearthinker,
Sometimes it is helpful to consider that perhaps someone you disagree with is perhaps neither an idiot nor inexperienced.
I was raised in farming country. My father was a cattle and sheep farmer. There are some great writings about the high desert country where we once lived by Bill Kittredge, a now-retired professor in Montana, that discusses the agriculture that I knew. He discusses it in considerable depth. I can assure you his "novels" aren't really fictional at all.
I have no idea what your "involvement" with agriculture means but I will not argue that it might not be a great idea to raise bananas in Minnesota and that it is probably hard to compete with vine-ripened tomatoes from Mexico.
Want to discuss Chiapas that I alluded to or is that beneath you?
Think the maquiladoras that pay abominable wages and have deplorable working conditions are an undiluted blessing for Mexicans?
Want to claim there is any such thing as free trade? Never has been to my knowledge. Want to point some out?
Maybe you would like to tell us what Che Guevara proposed? I have no idea and don't care.
Up to you if you think such tripe is worth the effort.
Best, Terry
February 25, 2008 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
DF,
Best we just sell armaments and mortgages overseas and print dollars for the balance you think? Who needs to make things any more in this country when everybody else is eager to do for us?
You might call it the selling of America.
Before Reagan became president, the U.S. was the world's greatest creditor. When Reagan left office, we were the world's biggest mooch.
That good you think?
It's gotten worse.
Seemed to some of us more like evening than morning in America.
But then we aren't Republicans.
Best, Terry
February 25, 2008 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh well. So much for a thoughtful discussion from experts.
February 25, 2008 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do business internationally selling food processing and packaging equipment. NAFTA has devastated small dairy processors and cheesemakers in Mexico as big US companies like Kraft have taken over. Mexicans eat corn tortillas like we eat white bread. The price of corn tortillas has doubled there as we convert the corn crop into ethanol. These kind of factors are driving ever more campesinos north to the US in search of work.
Anecdotally my sister in Milwaukee lost her long time job with a packing company that moved it's business out of state. That was unrelated to NAFTA. It's a long term trend to move meat packing to states like IA and NE where they raise the animals. She then lost a job she had for three years with IBM when they moved the whole office to India.
February 25, 2008 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Doesn't that have more to do with our subsidies than free trade?
February 26, 2008 11:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Put me on the list of Obama supporters who wishes Obama would back off on NAFTA. The better position, it seems to me, is to argue that the U.S. needs a much stronger social safety net for those who lose their jobs, but are trying hard to find new jobs.
The book that turned me around on free trade is Martin Wolf's "Why Globalization Works." I have yet to see a compelling response to this by those who oppose corporate globalization.
February 25, 2008 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment