Posted on 04/21/2008 10:54:42 AM PDT by shrinkermd
It is amazing how some presidential candidates are blaming the North American Free Trade Agreement for U.S. job losses. They seem to believe that a substantial part of the three million manufacturing jobs lost since 2000 resulted from Nafta, and that outsourcing of manufacturing production to Mexico and Canada resulted in a huge trade deficit.
...What the antitrade advocates have been hiding from the candidates (or maybe don't know themselves) is that almost all of the increase in our Nafta deficit since 2000 has been in increased U.S. imports of energy from Canada and Mexico. In fact, $58 billion of the $62 billion increase in our Nafta deficit has been in energy imports. That's 95% of the total increase...
Except for energy, though, our trade deficit within Nafta has hardly grown at all – only $3.5 billion from 2000-2007. Our agricultural and manufactured goods sales to Nafta countries have just about kept pace with our imports. That's a lot more than one can say about the rest of our foreign trade.
While the nonenergy deficit within Nafta has grown less than $4 billion since the job loss started, with the rest of the world it grew over $150 billion. Put another way, the increase in our nonenergy deficit within Nafta has accounted for only 2% of the increase in our global nonenergy deficit since 2000.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
As I recall, our total trade with Mexico dramatically rose after NAFTA. So even though we may have a smaller piece of the pie than before, the pie size multiplied several times.
I’m with you. Reminds me of the old saying “When trade doesn’t cross borders armies do”. Sticking a finger in the eye of our two nearest neighbors and largest trading partners makes no sense. It’s self-destructive.
I wanna know into whose pockets go the profits from NAFTA?
Have American families profited from NAFTA?
And let’s also add the cost of illegal immigration to the equation—all those Mexican farmers betrayed by Mexico for allowing cheap U.S. produce to put Mexican farmers out of business . . .
So they either sneak into the U.S. for work or starve.
-
Somehow, I don’t think this article is gonna make the more than 3 million Americans who have lost their manufacturing jobs over the past few years feel any better. But heck, we can all go down to Mexico and apply for the same job at lower wages working for Ford Motor Company. Habla Espanol?
And lets not forget about the thousands of folks who are receiving “pink slips” from the “Wall Streeters” this week...
Anyone who buys or sells to Canada or Mexico. Or who works for someone who does. Or who owns shares in someone who does.
And let’s also add the cost of illegal immigration to the equation—all those Mexican farmers betrayed by Mexico for allowing cheap U.S. produce to put Mexican farmers out of business . . .
The ethanol fiasco is making US corn more expensive. So now all the Mexican farmers will move back?
Not just the three million. Don’t forget the women and children.
And since that is what the actual terms of NAFTA does to the U.S., you have to admit that it is destructive. Self-Destructive. "We" did it to ourselves because "We" agreed to unfair terms that were neither fair nor even rational, but benefitted unilaterally interests in our foreign "neighbors" interests.
E.g., consider the trucking issue alone. That is purely an attempt to erase borders, and have Mexican and Canadian truckers run everywhere. The NAFTA terms PREVENT the U.S. from gaining anything like reciprocity until 2010. Hence the pressure to let them have their total freedom in the US prior to that date. This will continue to be unevenly implemented, in such a fashion that the viability of 300,000 or more U.S. owner/operators will be undermined by an incipient invasion of low-wage drivers working for a few massive entitities that will exploit the opportunity.
The U.S. trucks into Canada have to return more or less immediately, and can't traverse far afield to pick up return loads. The Canadians on the other hand don't have similar economic constraints placed by the US upon them, and are at an enormous advantage even without a wage differential.
"Free Trade"? This is not it.
Canadian drivers already run throughout the United States, and have for years. If you don’t know that . . . .
I'm reminded of a film shown in grade school.
It showed how air pollution from factories hung heavy in the air while the car exhaust simply disappeared, making zero contribution to the smog layer. At the end of the film I noticed it was produced by General Motors.
Unlike us Canada and Mexico negotiated the treaty in good faith. For us to unilaterally abrogate NAFTA, as Democrats and many Freepers want, sends a message all over the world that our word is not our bond.
“..What the anti-trade advocates have been hiding from the candidates (or maybe don’t know themselves) is that almost all of the increase in our Nafta deficit since 2000 has been in increased U.S. imports of energy from Canada and Mexico. In fact, $58 billion of the $62 billion increase in our Nafta deficit has been in energy imports. That’s 95% of the total increase...”
With such an august reputation, the WSJ sure can put out some shoddy ‘analytical’ attempts.
Why start in 2000? Why not start in 1993 when NAFTA was passed and show us how and why the trade deficit has grown. Oh, I see why. In 1993 (or 1992), we had a $900 million dollar trade SURPLUS with Mexico. Now, we have, what, a $140 Billion dollar trade DEFICIT with Mexico.
So, now, how much of that $141 Billion increase in the deficit was due to the increased value of US oil purchases, and how much was due to something else???
The WSJ should try to be a little more credible and thorough with its ‘analytical’ work.
Umm . . . it’s an opinion piece by the head of the National Association of Manufacturers appearing on the Op/Ed pages. Understand the difference?
Last year about $74.3 billion.
So, now, how much of that $141 Billion increase in the deficit was due to the increased value of US oil purchases, and how much was due to something else???
You remember that little Peso crisis in 1994? That might have done a little something.
“Umm . . . it’s an opinion piece by the head of the National Association of Manufacturers appearing on the Op/Ed pages. Understand the difference?”
So, the WSJ chose to publish it. But do you agree or disagree with the silly tactic of starting the ‘analysis’ in 2000 on an agreement that began in 1993 or 1994.
The good former governor seems to have (only partially) proven that jobs lost to China and other nations since 2000 weren’t lost to Mexico.
Let’s nominate him for a Nobel prize in economics.
And, as usual, you slide into inanity and avoid the real issue: does the article really provide support and evidence for what it claims?
No, it doesn’t. It’s just a typical shoddy use of numbers by NAFTA apologists.
Why not analyze the $141 Billion growth in the deficit since NAFTA was adopted in 1993.
I run a business that carried products from Canadian suppliers before NAFTA, and now carries products from American suppliers.
So, yes, American families in Texas, Missouri, Illinois, California, New Jersey, and Kentucky have benefited from NAFTA.
Nice to know, eh? :-)
Because the Dems (and their fellow travelers) are complaining about the 3 million jobs lost since 2000. If that's the parameter the opponents are using (with regard to this piece), why can't the author use the same?
Have American families profited from NAFTA?
And let’s also add the cost of illegal immigration to the equation—all those Mexican farmers betrayed by Mexico for allowing cheap U.S. produce to put Mexican farmers out of business . . .
So they either sneak into the U.S. for work or starve.
Go away, no one wants to talk about what has really happened, they just want everyone to eat cake.
“It is amazing how some presidential candidates are blaming the North American Free Trade Agreement for U.S. job losses. They seem to believe that a substantial part of the three million manufacturing jobs lost since 2000 resulted from Nafta, and that outsourcing of manufacturing production to Mexico and Canada resulted in a huge trade deficit.”
The entire premise of the article seems to be deceptive. I haven’t heard any presidential candidates blaming NAFTA for job loses SINCE 2000. I’ve heard them cast general blame on the agreement that was passed in 1993, and for losses in the Rust Belt over a some unspecified period of years.
Most who have any understanding of our manufacturing job losses due to trade policy know that the NAFTA losses probably occurred in the several years following passage, and as corporations sought even greener pastures and cheaper labor, the losses began to shift to China and other Asian nations, slowing but not ending the losses to Mexico.
You must be living on another planet if you haven’t heard the “3 million since 2000” chant, and the “2.8 million since 2000” chant before that.
“Last year about $74.3 billion.”
Yep, the author is lumping deficits with Mexico and Canada together for a NAFTA total, which makes his use of those lumped and netted figures even more suspect. He doesn’t prove that the job losses to Mexico have stopped because we might have large agricultural exports offsetting manufacturing import increases. We don’t know what other offsets are in those numbers. And:
“In fact, $58 billion of the $62 billion increase in our Nafta deficit has been in energy imports. That’s 95% of the total increase.”
To accept that, we have to assume that the good former governor has correctly analyzed all the ups and downs in various categories of trade and correctly drawn that conclusion. He’s making claims about net trade figures. I’d like to see some support for that.
“{You remember that little Peso crisis in 1994? That might have done a little something.”
You remember those huge wage differentials between the US and Mexico, which remained huge after the peso devaluation., and remain huge to this day? But Asia is cheaper now.
And, again, why try to analyze since 2000, rather than for the life of the 15 year old agreement?
And again, your question is answered in the first two sentences of the piece.
“You must be living on another planet if you haven’t heard the “3 million since 2000” chant, and the “2.8 million since 2000” chant before that.”
I don’t recall the candidates being that specific, but provide us with some links since you believe it’s been so common.
The candidates, not some columnist.
“And again, your question is answered in the first two sentences of the piece.”
Not at all. Engler’s contentions are presented in the first two sentences of the piece. I’m questioning his contentions.
I’ll Google some and see if I can find the presidential candidates making those specific claims.
If you look at the entire life of the agreement, opponents are in the embarrassing position of explaining why the supposed giant sucking sound was actually an increase in manufacturing jobs thru 2000.
How do you explain that? Jobs increased even while the trade deficit increased. Or do only the most recent 7 years count and not the first 7 years?
“Said Obama, “One million jobs have been lost because of NAFTA, including nearly 50,000 jobs here in Ohio. And yet, 10 years after NAFTA passed, Sen. Clinton said it was good for America. Well, I don’t think NAFTA has been good for America — and I never have.”
I’ve seen several variations of that statement by Obama, but nothing that matches Engler’s first two sentences of his article. Examples:
Gotta leave this for the time being. Still wonder if Engler is quoting Engler, or accurately representing what any presidential candidate has said in his opening of the article.
You need to present some specific numbers. But if that 2,000 increase is some total increase for the US, don’t bother. It would prove nothing about the impact of NAFTA on US manufacturing. Such an analysis would require that the NAFTA impact on manufacturing imports and exports be isolated for other manufacturing imports and exports, and that would take a fair amount of work and raw numbers.
You can’t draw conclusions about NAFTA by looking at any number that represents the total US economy. NAFTA is too small a part of the total. It’s not a tail wagging the dog, and any total number will contain many offsets, or increases and decreases from various factors.
No problem.
 Back to Top |
www.dol.gov |
NAFTA passed in December 1993.
But if that 2,000 increase is some total increase for the US, don’t bother.
LOL! That's funny.
It would prove nothing about the impact of NAFTA on US manufacturing. Such an analysis would require that the NAFTA impact on manufacturing imports and exports be isolated for other manufacturing imports and exports, and that would take a fair amount of work and raw numbers.
Are you saying that you can't look at the total number of jobs and blame or credit NAFTA?
LOL! That's funny too!!
You can’t draw conclusions about NAFTA by looking at any number that represents the total US economy. NAFTA is too small a part of the total. It’s not a tail wagging the dog, and any total number will contain many offsets, or increases and decreases from various factors.
Stop it, you sound like Engler.
It's worth noting that the presidential campaign was months old before NAFTA even became an issue. This is because neither Democratic candidate gave a damn about the issue until they began campaiging in competitive Rust Belt states like Ohio and Pennsylvania.
And these candidates are so non-serious about trade policy that you've got one of them (Clinton) criticizing a "flawed" trade agreement (NAFTA) even though there are clear, indisputable video clips of her singing its praises back in the 1990s.
I'd like someone to point out any five-year or ten-year period of time in the last 50 years when manufacturing employment actually INCREASED in the U.S.
How about we consider all unemployment and the current account (AKA 'trade deficit').
OK, politics is politics and people can have their minds made up, but for business purposes there's two things that are clear. One is NAFTA sure as hell didn't hurt unemployment (it got better), and the other is that unemployment goes down when the 'trade deficit' goes negative.
They're both coming back up now too...
Profits from NAFTA? Nearly all major companies in the US are publicly traded, so the American people own most of that equity. Nearly all the small companies are, well, owned by Americans as well and employ Americans.
And Mexico hasn't lost jobs to the US agribusiness. They've lost some jobs to China, though.
What do you carry?
But cake tastes sooo gooooooood.
They kinda have to say since 2000 so that it is Bush’s fault, although he and the Republicans in Congress were out of power then.
You can't read can you? I already alluded to their being in the U.S. And the disparate terms and treatment.
It sounds like it is you that were unaware of the bilateral arrangement, that is unequal in its provisions. And destructive to U.S. owner/operators. The true free enterprises extant in this situation. The point which you conveniently missed.
Something to think about. These 'manufacturing jobs' are transitory and temporary. They were here, went to MX, headed to Asia. But all along the way there have been less and less of them as machines do more and more of the work. In 10 years they are going to disappear forever as automation replaces all but a few that require real human skill. And then were do they go? To the most secure country with the most enticing capital investment tax scheme. You know, Ireland.
They did save civilization. So having a bunch of bots making your Mercedes while five extremely skilled technicians fix the bots that fix the bots that fix the bots that make the car can still have jobs in manufacturing, you and your kids need to look to careers in science, engineering, and art.
It is certainly amazing to read some of the comments.
For some, it just has to be that thousands of jobs have migrated to Mexico and that this is the cause of our trade deficit with Mexico. It makes little or no reason what the actual facts are. The Mexicans have taken our jobs and that is it!
This seems to be an affliction equally distributed between t he parties. Barack Obama is runing with it, garnering votes and about to capture significant Republican votes on something that is not true.
Manufacturing jobs are antithetical to human nature. Anyone who can get out of doing it will and anyone who is in it is a piss poor parent if they want their child to do anything even close to it.
Manufacturing jobs aren't disappearing just from America; they are disappearing from the Earth. Forever. The Chinese aren't competing against Mexicans, they are competing against net present value of an investment to create the Terminator. And they can't fight the future.
They are shipping us cars, raw materials, steel, oil, Xboxes, cherries, etc. And we are giving them? Fiat currency.
Whose the real dummy here?
Not if its about "free trade." They demanded...and got...unilateral advantage for their operations and people in so many areas.
Some good faith. It wasn't.
And nobody I know of has ever accused the Clintons of caring about good faith or not. They just wanted legacy, and paper product. They certainly didn't care about preserving U.S. sovereignty or freedom from foreign national encroachment and monopoly.
For us to unilaterally abrogate NAFTA,
First: We should all find it truly baffling that the sorry deal slipped past Congress. Clearly it could never have been passed as a treaty. So now "agreements" which are tantamount to simple legislation....legislation which can be revoked, overuled, and amended at the drop of a hat....is now being equated, improperly as a "treaty". NAFTA is no treaty. And it never was our nation's "solemn word." Give it a rest...that was Xlinton you're talking about after all.
And there is nothing wrong with admitting that "we" (you really) made a mistake and backing up and trying to fix it.
Second, you must confront the hyprocrisy of the unequal terms and timelines. Why is it okay for them to enforce their unilateral advantages that our side, "us" were consistently promised would not hardly ever happen, that we would get "free trade"... but such unilateral advantage consistently advanced and defended doesn't undermine your...or the "trade partners" "solemn words"?
The hypocrisy has made all the proponents words empty of substance.
as Democrats and many Freepers want, sends a message all over the world that our word is not our bond.
So you're a champion of the Madeline Albright, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter cave-in school. We have to stick to their bad deals...no matter how egregious, dangerous to national security, or patently unreasonable, FOREVER AND EVER....never changing anything.
If we followed your myopic rules, and questionable logic, we could never have abdicated from the Clinton committment that we would support the Kyoto Treaty. Or a mindless support of the defunct ABM Treaty.
Your posture is sort of reminiscent of how the indian tribes here in Minnesota extracted a tax free status on their casinos from the loony-tunes democRATs ...and now, forever more due to that "negotiated" compact...the State can never revisit that arrangement...while meanwhile those same tribes milk the Minnesota taxpayer for "equal benefits."
How about the billions in remittances that illegal aliens in the US\send home?
How about the billions in FICA (Social Security and Medicare) that they pay into the US treasury plus any local, state and federal taxes and fees?
In other words, for you to believe that Engler has misrepresented what Obama and Clinton are saying, then they must be claiming that an insubstantial amount of manufacturing jobs have been lost since 2000 due to Nafta, and that outsourcing of production has not resulted in a huge trade deficit. And that's simply not true (on this planet).
Oh, I can read all right. At best, you contradict yourself in your own comment. As for these “unfair” restrictions on American drivers in Canada, let’s just say that I take nothing you write on faith.
Don’t fall for the red herring. For all the times I’ve read the text of NAFTA (and the codicils), I’ve never seen a section regarding remittances. You might as easily blame NAFTA for ATM fees.
By the way, I'm trying to buy a new toilet and would prefer American made. All the toilets that I've looked at are made in Mexico. Can you help me? I can't hold it in much longer.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
