Skip to comments.Today in History: NAFTA signed into law by President Bill Clinton. [12/08/93]
Posted on 12/08/2006 4:07:16 AM PST by yankeedame
Map of NAFTA
President Clinton signs the agreement
Trade pact signed by Canada, the U.S., and Mexico in 1992, which took effect in 1994. Inspired by the success of the European Community in reducing trade barriers among its members, NAFTA created the world's largest free-trade area. It basically extended to Mexico the provisions of a 1988 Canada-U.S. free-trade agreement, calling for elimination of all trade barriers over a 15-year period, granting U.S. and Canadian companies access to certain Mexican markets, and incorporating agreements on labour and the environment.
I wonder if anyone has a voting record on NAFTA I wonder if Dorgan -D ND voted yes on it.
Dorgan is the author of "Take This Job and Ship It"
I remember thinking at least Clinton would kill NAFTA but no it flew through a dem congress and he signed it.
Headline says signed by Clinton in 93. First line of story says signed by US in 92.
This inconsistency is consistent with the confusion that is NAFTA. The concept of NAFTA was originally "free trade". But after labor unions, corporations, environmentalists and dozens of other special interests and campaign contributors in all three countries were done, there was nothing left in it that was "free trade" except the name.
It became "managed trade". For example, the Democrat Senators from WA, MT, SD, MN and led by ND created a very expensive process for Canada to ship its vast energy resources to the USA. This hurt both Canada and the USA when the free market would have been in the best interest of both countries. But it served the special interests of those Senators along the Canadian border and their campaign contributors.
Numerous other examples exist. It is understandable that NAFTA critics on the left would not understand the realities of economics. But it is frustrating that NAFTA critics on the right accept the mislabeling of this managed trade agreement and unfairly malign it for the wrong reasons.
I always find myself reminding people that Bill Clinton WAS the president who signed NAFTA into law when the discussion of my area's extremely high unemployment rate and gutted work force comes up in conversation. Not that the Republicans are without fault, but people fail to realize that it was a two party sellout.
Thanks for the heads-up. I was kind of puzzled myself about that 1992 and/or 1993 thing. Again, thanks for your insight.
The OBL is bipartisan, as are the globalists who wish to see a New World Order, including the Bushes and the Clintons.
Their agenda will destroy this country as we know it.
Post of the day.
So, free trade is bad? While I realize that NAFTA is far from being a true free trade pact...what the heck is wrong with letting the market dictate prices?
There were some democrats who considered Clinton's signing as misfeasence in that had he scrubbed NAFTA properly, he would have recognized the implications, and not signed it. There were also fewer democrats accusing Clinton of malfeasence in that he was aware of the implications when he signed.
Whether Clinton was or was not part of it, many democrats still think that NAFTA, CAFTA, and FTAA is a conservative conspiracy to "roll back the New Deal".
Please clarify. I am constantly getting recruiters desperate for me to take a job in VA (as well as the entire ring from VA to TX, and of course, my Midwest).
The national unemployment rate is a full percentage point below what Humphrey-Hawkins full employment act defines as full employment and the point at which inflation is unacceptable even to those who favor inflation. Immigration and outsourcing are big precisely because American companies cannot find enough American workers. Here in Illinois that is certainly true. Parts of Ohio and Michigan have unemployment problems precisely because they have pretended for 50 years that the laws of economics didn't apply to themn.
But Virginia? That is hard to believe.
You are right. But it is not just liberals. Both many liberals and many conservatives ... including some allegedly pro-free market talk show hosts ... do not deal with the objective truth of the NAFTA process.
Clinton signed it precisely because every special interest group that supported him, or gave him money, got what they wanted in the fine print and addendum ... far removed from the title page.
It's a very rural area. The primary local employment base used to be in textiles and furniture. Both have all but vanished in the last 10 years. I'm glad I got into the IT field, but such jobs are very few and far in between in this area. I'm lucky I found a good job here, and wasn't forced to relocate.
Issues like this are painful bumps in the road. I'm working in the cornfields 120 miles south of Chicagoland. The IT duties are perfect for my skills and interests. The pay is fantastic precisely because Americans, even those with no roots in a community, or willing to relocate, turn up their nose at working in a community of 120,000 in the cornfields when they'd prefer to work in a suburban metro of millions population.
I have plenty of job offers in Chicagoland. But either the money is no good, or the pay is great but the nature of the duties is not my cup of tea. Of course, if I were truly desperate, I would take one of those jobs that was less than perfect.
I've seen numerous attempts at tele-commuting. In the IT shops I've been around, it has not worked well. Often, but not always, productivity is telecommuters is much lower than those who come into the office.