Dean Baker on NAFTA, Tump

[portlander23]

Washington Journal: Trade Policy and Jobs
Dean Baker and Gary Hufbauer previewed trade policy under the Trump administration. Other topics included globalization’s effect on U.S. jobs and the possibility of re-negotiating NAFTA.
C-SPAN

Host: We wrap up our program today on the "Washington Journal" with a roundtable discussion on trade policy. We're joined by dean baker, he's co-founder of the center for economic and policy research and gary hufbauer, senior fellow at the peterson institute for international economics. Mr. Hufbauer, we've been talking about nafta this morning. Donald Trump vowed to renegotiate NAFTA, rip it up if he can't get a better deal. As an authority on presidential trade power, can he do that?

Gary Hufbauer: Yes, he can. NAFTA itself has an article, 2205, which is the termination article. It's a matter of giving six months notice to the other parties if the mexico and withdrawing. He has that power. There's some legal scholars who have argued that since nafta agreement itself is not U.S. law, it's the nafta implementing act passed by congress, which is U.S. law and because of that, the president should, or must, consult with congress. I disagree with that legal interpretation, i think he can do it by himself. If he did terminate nafta, then the question is what happens to U.S. trade restrictions with canada and mexico.

Host: Mr. Baker, should Donald Trump renegotiate it and if he can't get a better deal, rip it up?

Dean Baker: I'm be more agnostic on it, i don't have a clear idea what renegotiation with Donald Trump and the white house would look like. Some aspects would be great to change. The dispute mechanism under which the united states is being sued for canceling the keystone pipeline. This is something done for environmental reasons, i never hold anyone ever say it is a canadian company, we're being sued on that, that is absolutely absurd because of NAFTA. Getting rid of the special treatment that investors have in that would be a good thing. It would have been great when they negotiated nafta, labor side agreements improved largely, some people talking about, you have the europe an union, you have to guarantee four weeks vacation a year to your workers, not necessarily in nafta, but an example. Having actual labor rights. If unions were victimized, they could organize in mexico or canada, they were actions you could take within NAFTA. Things would be great additions, my guess is that is not Donald Trump's agenda.

Host: What do you think his agenda is?

Dean Baker: I don't know, he may be on the mark in terms of threatening companies. Again, watching the carrier, we saw that, on the one hand, good to see president-elect go to bat for U.S. workers. On the other hand, the idea we will do trade policy, case by case, president threatens a company, not a good way to do things.

Video can be found here.

NAFTA and trade is a vary dangerous topic. While Trump's Carrier deal is mostly a sham, he has the very real possibility of assuming the appearance of a populist concerned about workers. This is a position progressives must not let him assume, even if it's just an appearance.

[Chipper Chat]

1. please do not edit your title.

I love 'Tump'

[portlander23]

2. Damn you

Now I can't un-see it.

[Chipper Chat]

4. Rhymes with 'Dump' and 'hump' and 'Rump'

all fitting

[yallerdawg]

3. Well, this is a fine kettle of fish.

Many Democrats and that 'independent' candidate: "NAFTA bad, NAFTA bad, NAFTA bad!"

Now that someone declaring "NAFTA bad" actually won, we can't even give them that?

How "Republican" of us.

[TheBlackAdder]

5. A nice Heritage Foundation article on NAFTA, and how it's a good thing for the USA.

.


http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/hl468nbsp-the-north-american-free-trade-agreement

As I am sure you know, the Clinton Administration at long last launched its campaign to secure congressional ratification of the North American Free Trade Agreement last September 14. Bill Clinton, flanked by former Presidents Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and NAFTA architect George Bush, used the occasion of the signing of the side accords on environmental and labor standards to kick off his pro-NAFTA drive. Clinton's mission: convince the American people and members of a dubious Congress that the free trade pact with Canada and Mexico will create new U.S. jobs, expand exports, and improve U.S. economic competitiveness.

However, the President and other NAFTA supporters are facing an uphill struggle. In an effort to frustrate the pro-NAFTA enthusiasm generated by the White House ceremony, House Majority Leader Richard Gephardt announced last week that he would vote against the agreement. Moreover, anti-NAFTA forces, led by Ross Perot, Patrick Buchanan, Jesse Jackson, Ralph Nader, and a conglomeration of radical labor and environmental groups, have made the defeat of the NAFTA their top priority.

Despite their anti-NAFTA demagoguery, almost every independent and U.S. government study shows that Perot and the other anti-NAFTA leaders are dead wrong on the free trade pact. For example, it is estimated that there will be a net increase of as many as 200,000 new jobs as a result of increased U.S. exports to Mexico under the NAFTA. Today, trade with Mexico alone sustains at least 700,000 jobs in the U.S. Moreover, the NAFTA will help address many of the other concerns raised by NAFTA critics. The agreement will accelerate the rate of rising Mexican wages, it will address environmental concerns along the border and inside Mexico, it will help lock into place Mexican President Carlos Salinas de Gortari's free market and democratic reform programs, and it will diminish over time the flow of illegal immigrants and drugs crossing the U.S. border.

This is the NAFTA thought that got it passed.

.