Democratic presidential contenders trash NAFTA

Toronto Star ^ | August 24, 2007 | Tim Harper

[yorkie]

When U.S. President George W. Bush stood beside Prime Minister Stephen Harper this week extolling the benefits of NAFTA, he was pumping up a trade pact that is under increasing pressure here.

It has become a convenient target for those seeking the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination who are following a campaign rite of demonizing trade deals to appease the party's labour base before moving to the centre during the general election.

But in 2007, the North American Free Trade Agreement is under more concerted attack than perhaps any time since it was signed at the beginning of 1994, and Democrats have high hopes of regaining the White House they lost in 2000 to Bush and the Republicans.

Those who are now raining scorn on the deal were among those who heaped praise on it when it was being negotiated 14 years ago.

"I had said for many years that NAFTA and the way it's been implemented has hurt a lot of American workers," says Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton, who was the country's first lady when her husband, Bill Clinton, signed the deal.

Clinton had turned to a key Democrat ally of the day, Bill Richardson, now New Mexico governor and a 2008 contender for the presidential nomination, to get Democrats onside to back the deal.

"We should never have another trade agreement unless it enforces labour protection, environmental standards and job safety," Richardson says now.

Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton's main rival for the Democratic nod, says he would "immediately call the president of Mexico and the president of Canada" – betraying a lack of knowledge of the Canadian political system – to amend NAFTA to get more favourable labour language in the deal.

[William Terrell]

. . .for all its faults, they are still better than the alternatives.

Why not just make everything Americans need and use to live life in this country using domestic industries? We used to, and, matter of fact, made ourselves into a great nation and superpower. What prevents us now?

[gondramB]

>>Why not just make everything Americans need and use to live life in this country using domestic industries? We used to, and, matter of fact, made ourselves into a great nation and superpower. What prevents us now?<<

There are two ways to make that happen.

1. A fully centralized economy. North Korea is the only one left but they used to be quite fashionable. Such economies suffer from inefficiencies that cause problems. Enforcing such an economy takes a police state.

2. Tarrifs and other trade barriers so hight that incoming trade stops. This generally stops trade in both directions as other nations retaliate. The simultaneous loss of jobs related to exports plus the inflationary pressure as everything previously imported now has to be produced here no matter how high the cost tends to upset people a great deal. Combined with the current highest budget deficit in history the U.S. would quickly be unable to meet its obligation and the form of government would likely change.

So the only real solution is to either work very hard at improving efficiency coupled with strategic investments around the world or to accept the long term prospect of a lower standard of living.

[William Terrell]

All of which is completely beside the fact domestic production/distribution/consumption was the way we did it until recently (I believe the turning point was when vehicles doubled in price in the late '70s). We could go back at any time, except for the propaganda problem, made so successful by the complete economic ignorance of the people.