What you should know about NAFTA...... My fellow lefties are wrong

[Florencenj2point0]

This was a comment on another thread and I decided to just post it as a new thread since the subject seems to never die. If you are voting for anti-vaxer Jill Stein (Putin fan) in part because of NAFTA, please read this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement

NAFTA has two supplements: the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC) and the North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation (NAALC).

...
Following diplomatic negotiations dating back to 1990 among the three nations, U.S. President George H. W. Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and Mexican President Carlos Salinas, each responsible for spearheading and promoting the agreement, ceremonially signed the agreement in their respective capitals on December 17, 1992. The signed agreement then needed to be ratified by each nation's legislative or parliamentary branch.

The Canada–United States Free Trade Agreement had been very controversial and divisive in Canada, and the 1988 Canadian election was fought almost exclusively on that issue. In that election, more Canadians voted for anti-free trade parties (the Liberals and the New Democrats) but the split caused more seats in parliament to be won by the pro-free trade Progressive Conservatives (PCs). Mulroney and the PCs had a parliamentary majority and were easily able to pass the 1987 Canada-U.S. FTA and NAFTA bills. However, he was replaced as Conservative leader and prime minister by Kim Campbell.LC) and the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC), to protect workers and the environment, plus allay the concerns of many House members. It also; however, Chr required U.S. partners to adhere to environmental practices and regulations si Campbell led the PC party into the 1993 election where they were decimated by the Liberal Party under Jean Chrétien, who had campaigned on a promise to renegotiate or abrogate NAFTAétienthe s subsequently negotiated two supplemental agreements with the new U.S. president. In the U.S., Bush, who had worked to "fast track" igning prior to the end of his term, ran out of time and had to pass the required ratification and signing of the implementation law to incoming president Bill Clinton. Prior to sending it to the United States Senate Clinton added two side agreements, The North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation (NAAmilar to its own.

After much consideration and emotional discussion, the House of Representatives passed the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act on November 17, 1993, 234-200. The agreement's supporters included 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats. The bill passed the Senate on November 20, 1993, 61-38. Senate supporters were 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats. Clinton signed it into law on December 8, 1993; the agreement went into effect on January 1, 1994. Clinton, while signing the NAFTA bill, stated that "NAFTA means jobs. American jobs, and good-paying American jobs. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't support this agreement."

...
Provisions
The goal of NAFTA was to eliminate barriers to trade and investment between the U.S., Canada and Mexico. The implementation of NAFTA on January 1, 1994 brought the immediate elimination of tariffs on more than one-half of Mexico's exports to the U.S. and more than one-third of U.S. exports to Mexico. Within 10 years of the implementation of the agreement, all U.S.-Mexico tariffs would be eliminated except for some U.S. agricultural exports to Mexico that were to be phased out within 15 years. Most U.S.-Canada trade was already duty-free. NAFTA also sought to eliminate non-tariff trade barriers and to protect the intellectual property rights on traded products.
...

Intellectual Property
The North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act made some changes to the copyright law of the United States, foreshadowing the Uruguay Round Agreements Act of 1994 by restoring copyright (within the NAFTA nations) on certain motion pictures which had entered the public domain.

Environment
Securing U.S. congressional approval for NAFTA would have been impossible without addressing public concerns about NAFTA’s environmental impact. The Clinton administration negotiated a side agreement on the environment with Canada and Mexico, the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC), which led to the creation of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) in 1994. To alleviate concerns that NAFTA, the first regional trade agreement between a developing country and two developed countries, would have negative environmental impacts, the CEC was given a mandate to conduct ongoing ex post environmental assessment of NAFTA.

...

A 2007 study found that NAFTA has "almost zero welfare impact on member and nonmember countries". A 2015 study found that Canada's welfare decreased by 0.06% as a result of the NAFTA tariff reductions, and that Canada's intra-bloc trade increased by 11%.
...

NAFTA has also been credited with the rise of the Mexican middle class. A Tufts University study found that NAFTA lowered the average cost of basic necessities in Mexico by up to 50%. This price reduction has increased cash-on-hand for many Mexican families, allowing Mexico to graduate more engineers than Germany each year.

United States
In a survey of leading economists, 95% supported the notion that on average, US citizens benefited on NAFTA. A 2001 Journal of Economic Perspectives review found that NAFTA was a net benefit to the United States. A 2015 study found that US welfare increased by 0.08% as a result of the NAFTA tariff reductions, and that US intra-bloc trade increased by 41%.

...

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce credits NAFTA with increasing U.S. trade in goods and services with Canada and Mexico from $337 billion in 1993 to $1.2 trillion in 2011, while the AFL-CIO blames the agreement for sending 700,000 American manufacturing jobs to Mexico over that time.

...

Environment
For more details on this topic, see NAFTA's Impact on the Environment.
Overall, none of the initial hypotheses were confirmed. NAFTA did not inherently present a systemic threat to the North American environment, as was originally feared. NAFTA-related environmental threats instead occurred in specific areas where government environmental policy, infrastructure, or mechanisms were unprepared for the increasing scale of production under trade liberalization. In some cases, environmental policy was neglected in the wake of trade liberalization; in other cases, NAFTA's measures for investment protection, such as Chapter 11, and measures against non-tariff trade barriers threatened to discourage more vigorous environmental policy. The most serious overall increases in pollution due to NAFTA were found in the base metals sector, the Mexican petroleum sector, and the transportation equipment sector in the United States and Mexico, but not in Canada.

...

So NAFTA was more of less a done deal by the time Clinton was sworn in. It only had to be ratified and signed. He could have refused to sign it but that would have been a waste of political capital before he got started.
Overall it was not the disaster the far left would like to pretend. There was both good and bad outcomes. One of the reasons jobs are coming back to the US is that when you open up trade workers wages go up with the countries you trade with.
When Clinton signed it was with the agreement that the additions to the bill be kept in , environmental and worker protections.

[Sancho]

1. Just for those who want to look into NAFTA...

http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2013-12-30/nafta-20-years-after-neither-miracle-nor-disaster

http://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/1212/pros-and-cons-of-nafta.aspx

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/u-s-economy-since-nafta-18-charts/

http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/nafta-20-years-later-benefits-outweigh-costs/

http://www.ttgconsultants.com/articles/freetrade.html

[zipplewrath]

2. An underlying assumption

Buried in most of these analyses is the assumption that being able to purchase cheaper stuff somehow balances the loss of industry. Cheaper stuff is pretty meaningless when your wages don't go up, even while your productivity does. Wage stagnation is a demonstrable fact. That it is not ENTIRELY due to NAFTA doesn't change the reality that it is a component of the supply side economics that BOTH parties have pursued for the last 30 years. I'm glad that the top 20% have benefited so much from this agreement, the effect on the bottom of the income scale isn't nearly so clear, but it appears it has hurt more than helped.

[DanTex]

3. The Dems have not pursued supply side economics.

[zipplewrath]

4. Hard to explain

Your withering explanation not withstanding it's hard to explain how the Clinton Administration much less the Obama Administration did not continue the basic fundamental forces of supply-side economics. We have a top tax rate of 37% and a system that insists on maintaining the banking system without any haircut at all after collapsing the entire system while maintaining their bonuses and yet there is little if any support of unionism or any other " Progressive" features of our economy that FDR might recognize. Really, please explain, in detail, how any administration over the last 24 years has advanced any sort of progressive economic policy.

[DanTex]

5. The top tax rate is 39.6%, not 37%.

And "banking system without any haircut at all" is a totally meaningless phrase.

Supply side economics has a definition, look it up.

[zipplewrath]

14. a distinction looking for a difference

They bought the toxic assets at 100% of original value ensuring the bankers bonuses, that's what "without a haircut" means.

[DanTex]

15. So you just make things up and then pretend that it doesn't matter when called out on it.

Which means it's not surprising that you're wrong about TARP as well. The government didn't buy toxic assets at "100% of the original value", I have no idea where you got that, or any of your ideas. They bought the assets at what they determined to be fair market value, not the original value when they were issued.

And by the way, TARP has nothing to do with supply-side economics. Have you googled the definition yet?

[zipplewrath]

16. Have you read Geithner's book?

Ya know, where he admits over paying for the assets because he felt forced to?

You are over focused on the minutia and under concerned with the outcome.

[DanTex]

17. Does factual accuracy mean nothing to you?

You have no clue what the top marginal tax rate is, and you also have no clue what "100% of original value" means.

Facts are not minutia. You're getting everything wrong, which is why your conclusions are so off-base.

Have you googled "supply-side economics" yet?

[zipplewrath]

18. Yes

Have you figured out the functional difference between 37 and 39 yet? Have you read Tim's book yet? Have you understood anything yet? The party doesn't need and editor. It needs a leader.

[DanTex]

19. Yes it means nothing? Please clarify.

You've gotten nothing right so far in this conversation. You obviously don't know marginal tax rates, and you probably don't know that both Clinton and Obama raised the top ones, which is in direct contradiction to your "supply-side economics" argument.

By the way, have you googled that yet?

And you also obviously don't know what "100% of original value" means.

Here's a suggestion. How about trying to make an argument without sprinkling it with totally false claims. I think that would be a good idea.

[zipplewrath]

20. Before Reagan

What were the top tax rates? How does that compare to ANYTHING that either Clinton OR Obama has done? Are you even capable of doing that? I'm dubious.

Have you read Tim's admissions yet? What is your conclusion from that?

[DanTex]

21. Why don't you just make up a number, like you do for everything else?

You obviously don't care about facts. 37% means nothing to you, and 100% means nothing to you, do you care about any facts at all?

Have you looked up "supply-side economics" yet?

[zipplewrath]

22. So you don't

You have no idea what the tax rate prior to Reagan was, much less how there has been no real effort to go anywhere back towards it in any administration since. But keep obsessing about 2%. And keep ignoring Timmy's own admissions about toxic assets that you haven't read. It's sad really. You understand nothing but criticize everything.

[DanTex]

23. I know exactly what the top tax rate was before Reagan. Do you?

I doubt it. Because you don't even know what the top tax marginal rate is right now. And you have no clue how TARP worked, and you certainly have no clue what "100% of original value" means.

You see, you're very far into "boy who cried wolf" territory here. In this short discussion you've gotten fact after fact totally wrong. And you refuse to even google "supply-side economics," which is too bad, because if you did, you'd find out how absurd what you are trying to argue is.

[zipplewrath]

24. So you don't know anything about Timmy's book

Can you even do a dual variable parameter plot?

And what is the difference between the tax rate before Reagan and now?

More importantly, what has ANY president/administration attempted to do to actually reverse this? You won't answer because the reality is that none have done anything. But you'll continue to focus on the specific definition of supply side (according to that which serves your point) and a 2% difference in tax rates. Again, a distinction looking for a difference. One you cannot express.

[DanTex]

25. So you don't know what tax rates were before Reagan.

We'll add that to the list of things you don't know. Which is getting pretty long.

Let me know when you finally look up what "supply-side economics" means.

[zipplewrath]

33. Yes, I do

What do you know about how Geithner decided what to pay for toxic assets? Nothing I presume.

[Recursion]

7. Wages at every quintile rose more in the 20 years after NAFTA than the 20 years before it

So, basically, the opposite of what you're saying.

[zipplewrath]

13. And yet

The distribution in those quintiles has changed for the worse. It's why the middle class is basically shrinking.

[Vinca]

6. Here is what I know about NAFTA.

Pre-NAFTA there were about 10 manufacturing facilities within 5 miles of my house including a book bindery and a paper products manufacturer that employed hundreds of people. People worked at them for their whole lives and bought homes, put kids through school and retired with dignity. Soon after NAFTA was enacted they began to close. Now they're all gone. All of them.

[Recursion]

8. Was already happening, and would have happened anyways

We've been losing manufacturing jobs since the 1960s; the rate of loss actually slowed down after NAFTA passed, though that's probably a coincidence.

[B Calm]

9. I had a union job at a biodegradeable cellophane company. The company slammed the doors

shut and reopened in Mexico.

[SticksnStones]

10. The government didn't close those factories

Business owners -some with shareholders holding impractically high expectations of dividends and share prices - closed those factories. Business owners with a mindset that profit above all else is paramount closed those factories.

I wonder, how many of those shuttered factories were really failing? How many of those factories were shuttered so that a good profit margin could be an extraordinary profit margin?

Why is blame laid soley at the feet of government? Greed is going to happen.

Trade agreements in general give us a voice internationally in environmental regulations and labor conditions...

Personally, I'd like to see a de-emphasis on share price as the be all end all. Slightly off topic yet anecdotally, i remember not long ago, the (foreign) company Alibaba announced an earnings statement that showed a $4 billion profit. Its stock prices then fell because analysts expected a higher number. I couldn't help but wonder what got cut so that going forward Alibaba met expectations. How broken is a system when $4billion in profits has ANY kind of negative impact on a company?

I get that there are sophisticated formulas that dictate the win/lose of stock prices. I contend the formula is broken.

[Hoyt]

26. Do you think loss of the book bindery and paper products might have been due to other factors, like

the internet and ebooks?

I agree with Krugman, otherwise smart people blame NAFTA for things caused by other factors.

Buggy whip manufacturers didn't become obsolete because of global trade.

Truth is, opposition to TPP, NAFTA is based on Nationalism, America Firstism, and treating foreigners as undeserving scabs. That is wrong.

[Vinca]

29. No. It was the infancy of Internet access and there were no ebooks yet.

People - and probably the Clinton administration - assumed NAFTA would mean U.S. goods would be shipped overseas which would have been good for the country. Instead, jobs were shipped overseas. Books are still printed, but if you check the back of the title page you will note that most are printed in China.

[BigBearJohn]

27. Ten factories in my home town closed, including a MAJOR 10-city-block Reynolds Aluminum plant

Where my father and uncle worked

[Vinca]

30. It's why many former bustling Main Streets are now ghost towns.

If there are no workers, there is no need for businesses to serve them.

[Adrahil]

11. NAFTA has some deep flaws...

But it has become a boogeyman blamed for everything.

One friend of mine (a Bernie supporter in the primaries, though now a Hillary supporter), actually blamed outsourcing to CHINA on NAFTA. I shit you not. I pointed out that we do not have a trade deal with China.

[Vinca]

31. NAFTA was like a flood breaking open a dam. It doesn't matter that China wasn't a signatory.

Once corporations figured out they could make a nickel's more profit on something if it was produced offshore, the decimation of the American worker began.

[cali]

12. You appear to know very, very little about it. Wiki? The Chamber of Commerce. Yikes.

[Exilednight]

32. Some people are too busy looking at what was suppose to happen

versus what actually happened.

Was NAFTA a mixed bag? Yes. The rich got richer and the middle-class disappeared.

People don't want to hear this, they just want to demonize others instead of studying the problem and finding the solutions.

[Elwood P Dowd]

35. Using The Chamber of Commerce as a source claiming NAFTA was a success for US workers

is the same as using Dick Cheney as a source claiming our invasion and occupation made the lives of Iraq citizens better.

[cali]

36. Spot on. And frankly, it offends the hell out of me to see on DU- which used to be, uh, different.

[Glamrock]

28. No.... We are not.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/4550207

" The study makes for a blood-boiling read. For instance, we track the specific promises made by U.S. corporations like GE, Chrysler and Caterpillar to create specific numbers of American jobs if NAFTA was approved, and reveal government data showing that instead, they fired U.S. workers and moved operations to Mexico.

The data also show how post-NAFTA trade and investment trends have contributed to middle-class pay cuts, which in turn contributed to growing income inequality; how since NAFTA, U.S. trade deficit growth with Mexico and Canada has been 45 percent higher than with countries not party to a U.S. Free Trade Agreement, and how U.S. manufacturing exports to Canada and Mexico have grown at less than half the pre-NAFTA rate.

NAFTA’s actual outcomes prove how damaging this type of agreement is for most people, demonstrating why NAFTA should be renegotiated or terminated. The evidence makes clear that we cannot have any more such deals that include job-offshoring incentives, requirements we import food that doesn’t meet our safety standards or new rights for firms to get taxpayer compensation before foreign tribunals for laws they don’t like."

Study available in above article or:
http://www.citizen.org/documents/NAFTA-at-20.pdf

[Orsino]

34. Apologists for corporate wish lists are not lefties. n/t

[cali]

37. I'm glad this op was posted. Gives me the chance to post this

which makes for quite interesting reading.

http://www.citizen.org/documents/investor-state-chart.pdf

TABLE OF FOREIGN INVESTOR-STATE CASES AND CLAIMS UNDER NAFTA AND OTHER U.S. “TRADE” DEALS June 2015
The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) included an array of new corporate investment rights and protections that were unprecedented in scope and power. NAFTA’s extreme rules have been replicated in various U.S. “free trade” agreements (FTAs), including CAFTA and bilateral FTAs with Peru, Oman, Korea, Panama and Colombia.

These special privileges provide foreign investors new rights to own and control other countries’ natural resources and land, establish or acquire local firms, and to operate them under privileged terms relative to domestic enterprises. The scope of the “investments” covered by these rules is vast, including derivatives and other financial instruments, intellectual property rights, government licenses and permits, as well as more traditional forms of investment. The pacts provide foreign firms with a way to attack domestic public interest, land use, regulatory and other laws if they feel that a domestic policy or government decision has undermined the firms’ new “trade” pact privileges, such as by contravening their “expectations.”

These firms have access under the deals to an “investor-state” enforcement system, which allows them to skirt national court systems and privately enforce their extraordinary new investor privileges by directly challenging national governments before extrajudicial tribunals. These investor-state cases are litigated outside any domestic legal system in special international arbitration bodies of the World Bank and the United Nations. A panel composed of three private attorneys listens to arguments in the case, with the power to award an unlimited amount of taxpayer dollars to corporations for the “expected future profits” that the attorneys surmise the firms would have earned if not for the challenged measures. Because the mechanism elevates private firms to the same status as sovereign governments, it amounts to a privatization of the justice system.

If a corporation wins its investor-state case, the taxpayers of the “losing” country must foot the bill. More than $440 million in compensation has already been paid out to corporations in a series of investor-state cases under NAFTA-style deals. This includes attacks on natural resource policies, environmental protections, health and safety measures and more. In fact, of the more than $34 billion in the 18 pending claims under NAFTA-style deals, nearly all relate to environmental, energy, financial, public health, land use and transportation policies – not traditional trade issues.

<snip>

all details of ISDS cases under NAFTA, CAFTA and others, are in the chart at link.