Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: NAFTA at 20: One Million U.S. Jobs Lost, Higher Income Inequality [View all]pampango
(24,692 posts)24. Many will be interested to know that NAFTA was not about trade.
We already had statistically insignificant tariffs around the world before all of the recent press for "free trade". Variations on exchange rates vastly dwarfed tariffs.
Agreed.
The jobs were lost not because of falling trade barriers. ... these trade agreements are about capital.
Even FDR put protection for investors in his International Trade Organization. That is not the problem. The problem is that labor rights and the environment do not have similar protections in modern agreements.
Mexican and Canadian companies have benefits that US companies can not access.
Those damn Canadians and Mexicans! As long as the food I eat is safe to consume, I don't care whether it comes from Missouri, Alberta or Chihuahua. Americans, Canadians and Mexicans are equally capable of producing safe food products. Each national government should ensure that their consumers are protected no matter where the food is coming from.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
56 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Basically, it's consumer economics. Belief that a country can grow economically through
Exilednight
May 2015
#44
Yep. What percentage of those jobs are living wage jobs like the ones that went overseas?
jwirr
May 2015
#26
Tariffs on imports from Mexico averaged 4% before NAFTA. Inequality had been rising since 1969.
pampango
May 2015
#4
So you are saying that NAFTA had nothing to do with job lose in this country? And that is also has
jwirr
May 2015
#28
Well, the "giving a blowjob to Wall Street agreement" didn't focus group as well.
jeff47
May 2015
#25
The question is not each country is capable of producing safe food products. The question is will
jwirr
May 2015
#31
"How is the USDA going to protect us from unsafe foods from other countries?" The same way
pampango
May 2015
#34
It is a matter of trust. As to inside the USA the USDA has the authority to do that. I will turn the
jwirr
May 2015
#35
I don't want them "unlabeled". I want them to be 'labeled' (certified) as safe to eat.
pampango
May 2015
#42
I don't trust everyone with my food either, but their nationality is not the issue. n/t
pampango
May 2015
#46
That is actually one of the big points about TPP. There will be universal labeling standards (which
okaawhatever
May 2015
#48
Do you think that WTO rules would not protect manufacturers in Mexico as they have
pampango
May 2015
#21
The EPI report is deeply flawed. The Congressional Research Service came out with
okaawhatever
May 2015
#7
The EPI study, and the claims made in this "report" are laughable. A sixth grader can see the
okaawhatever
May 2015
#23
No, the report dosn't get bad for NAFTA. I only picked out the parts that directly addressed
okaawhatever
May 2015
#36
Having read several reports how jobs has been lost, I have not seen a sturdy which gives
Thinkingabout
May 2015
#29
It's too bad you are part of the 'social issues don't matter' crowd because some of the strongest
Bluenorthwest
May 2015
#15
Silly. That was 20 years ago. You can't keep blaming the Clintons for that forever.
L0oniX
May 2015
#19
Let's assume for a moment that Public Citizen is right and we lost 1 million jobs to Mexico/Canada.
Hoyt
May 2015
#32
Yes, and Mexico had been losing jobs to China before signing NAFTA. Also, the 1 million
okaawhatever
May 2015
#37