2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: Bernie/Trump/Hillary On Trade Policy - When You Say You Are Against Free Trade Agreements [View all]PufPuf23
(8,689 posts)I am for trade, trade is very good.
A global economy is very good also if fair.
Smoot Hawley not very good and was enacted after the market crash of 1929 and beginning of the Depression.
Smoot Hawley ("protectionism" restrained trade so there was a short turn positive blip and then things got worse.
As FDR rebuilt the economy, the trade restrictions of Smoot Hawley were reduced piece meal.
There was WWII and embargos and the world was pretty messed up.
After WWII, there was Bretton Woods and GATT to organize monetary, financial, and trading policy for the western industrial nations and their minions in the developing and third world.
Learn about GATT that was structure between 1947 and the WTO in 1995.
The problemwith NAFTA and all the free trade agreements is that the social, labor, and environmental benefits are not being achieved.
Trade is increased and profits and utility is increased but not well distributed because of the parties that game the system.
GATT was dynamic (most everything is dynamic) and worked well (and was gradually improved) between 1947 and 1995. There was no good reason not to build upon GATT but political and those that saw an opportunity to shift income and wealth to their accounts.
GATT is Keynesian economics and the free trade agreements neo-liberal.
If the free trade agreements were actually working as theorized and advertised, the deficit and surplus accounts would clear; employeement would change not go away; everyone would benefit, and the system would be good for the environment rather than create natural resource booms and busts.
Parties need to operate in good faith and long time horizons but don't. Some folks get very wealthy and most others lose.