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
Editorials & Other Articles
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)45. Great post.
And FDR was in a world of high tariffs and relatively low international trade due to them.
We aren't in a high tariff world anymore. And we're not only trading with other "first world" countries. As a result, we need different agreements.
We aren't in a high tariff world anymore. And we're not only trading with other "first world" countries. As a result, we need different agreements.
Indeed by 1944 it was not a 'high tariff' world anymore. FDR had achieved that. He wanted to insure that such a world could not easily return.
The International Trade Organization that he proposed and Truman negotiated and signed had 23 signatory countries, including Mexico, China and India, as well as Canada, Australia and European countries. So FDR and Truman were not just concerned with trade with Europe and the other 'first world' countries.
And cost of living isn't radically different between Germany and Italy. Thus wages aren't radically different between Germany and Italy.
Living standards in Germany's neighbor, Poland ($13,000 per capita), are less than 1/3 of Germany's ($46,000) today. And Polish living standards were much lower in 2004 when it joined the EU.
So there is a substantial difference between living standards in neighboring countries in Europe; even more so when you compare Germany to the newest members like Bulgaria and Romania. And yet Germany maintains a strong middle class, healthy unions and high wages. Germans (except for some on the far-right) don't blame their economic problems on Poland joining the EU in 2004.
They operate with the "European mentality". Your neighbors' problems are not just their problems. They are your problems too. If not now then in the future. It is better to help your neighbor, even at some pain to yourself, than to ignore their troubles in the hope that you will be insulated from them by a wall or something.
The difference is the EU countries already had extremely similar labor, environmental and consumer protections before forming the EU.
At the beginning of the EU that was true for the most part. Countries that have joined the EU since then have had to conform their "similar labor, environmental and consumer protections" to EU standards before they are allowed to join.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
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