Rebuilding the American middle class = blowing off NAFTA?

[eridani]

Not hardly.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-mudcat-saunders/how-many-americans-unders_b_68524.html

First, it is callous and offensive to the many Americans who have been "sucking wind" due to Clinton trade policies for Hillary to tell them "to take a deep breath." Secondly, Hillary, you want more "supporting evidence" other than your own statement? Top-tier economists, many who were tricked on these ill-thought, ill-negotiated, ill-enforced, and erroneously presented to Congress trade treaties, are now taking a second look themselves. Former Clinton official and Berkeley economist Brad DeLong, Clinton Treasury secretary Larry Summers, Nobel laureate Paul Samuelson, and a former vice chair of the Fed, Princeton's Alan Blinder, have all voiced strong concerns. Blinder has gone so far as to argue that off shoring and outsourcing of American jobs could ship away as many as 40 million jobs in the next two decades.

The reason Hillary is distancing herself from the trade treaties, rather than continuing to talk about ridiculous "unintended consequences," is because she "understands politics" like nobody else. In the early primary states, Iowa and South Carolina have lost twice as many jobs to NAFTA than they gained, and in New Hampshire, they have lost two-and-a-half times more jobs than they gained. The bottom line is that the Clintons did a number on small-town rural America and blue-collared workers everywhere. To get in tight with the big boys, they brokered a deal to trade local economies, jobs, and benefits (code word: healthcare) for Wall Street dividends. I think the greatest verifier to the validity of that last statement is on the cover of Fortune back in July. The headline over a posed shot of Hillary says "BUSINESS LOVES HILLARY! WHO KNEW IT?" I'll tell you who knows it. Many, many rural and blue-collared Americans know it. That cover is a perfect illustration as to why Hillary can not win the general election and why the collateral damage to the down ticket of her toxic coat-tails could cost us Congress. The question is not whether Hillary "understands politics," but instead, how many of us understand Hillary.

[pampango]

1. I wonder how it was determined that so many jobs were lost to NAFTA,

when Mexico is hardly prospering with a consequent influx of factory and textile jobs.

It would seem likely that much of the job loss in Iowa and South Carolina, as in other states, comes from outsourcing to and imports from China, India, and other countries other than Mexico. That has happened due to China, India and 180 other countries being members of the WTO and GATT which control the rules under which countries trade with each other.

It would be relatively simple to withdraw from NAFTA or renegotiate it with Canada and Mexico. The WTO and GATT, however, are organization to which practically every country in the world belong. Withdrawing from, or changing the rules of, those would be much more difficult and consequential.

[eridani]

2. What NAFTA did to Mexico was to allow agribusiness to displace peasants

--taking away their livelihood and giving them nothing. Mexico was also flooded with the products of subsidized US agriculture. Whether you are talking NAFTA or WTO, you are talking about policies which drive the race to the bottom. Everybody loses except for Bush and Clinton campaign donors.

[pampango]

5. I agree that Third World agriculture has been devastated by subsidezed

farming in the developed world. The last round of trade talks fell apart because of the rich countries refusal to reduce agricultural subsidies, so that Third World farmers could compete.

My point was that, while NAFTA may be easier to "fix" either by withdrawing from or renegotiating it, since it is an agreement with just two other countries, it is probably not the cause of most of the economic dislocation we have endured in the past 15 years.

The expansion of the economies of China and India and the outsourcing and exports they are known for was caused by their membership in the WTO. IMHO they have caused more problems for American workers than NAFTA and Mexico have. The WTO has 150 members and governs practically all international trade. To withdraw from it would be a very big deal and renegotiating its rules, as evidenced by the latest Doha round of talks, can be very complicated and frustrating.

[FormerDittoHead]

4. Just because they don't have unions doesn't mean we didn't lose jobs to them...

http://www.aflcio.org/aboutus/thisistheaflcio/publications/magazine/0404_manufacturing.cfm

"Since NAFTA was launched 11 years ago, U.S. workers have lost 879,280 jobs and real wages have fallen in Mexico, according to the EPI."

I see plenty of things in the stores made in Mexico, more made in China, but two wrongs don't make a right.

[pampango]

6. I agree that NAFTA needs to be "fixed" - either withdraw or renegotiate.

It has been bad for workers in all three countries. I don't know how anyone can know how many of those 879,280 jobs were lost due to NAFTA and how many due to China and India joining the WTO.

Once NAFTA is dismantled, the trading rules of the WTO will govern trade between them, since all three countries are members. Given the US' trade deficit and outsourcing problems with non-NAFTA countries, eliminating NAFTA will not solve these problems and may not even improve them very much.

[HughBeaumont]

3. But for some reason, her poll numbers continue to rise.

Probably because only columnists and not the mainstream media itself, are choosing to make light of one of her major weaknessess; that is, her support of free trade, NAFTA and job offshoring.

See, if those polled would get their heads out of the Return-to-the-Clinton-Years pipe dreams and really take a good look at her positions on war and free trade, maybe they should question if this is really the candidate they want running the country.

I mean, she believed the worst president in history when lives were on the line . . . twice . . . and has not apologized for it. She believes there are positives to NAFTA and job offshoring. In the words of Steve Martin: "Is everybody here bananas?"

Why are people refusing to get behind a candidate that will unite the left and the center rather than divide them?

I only hope this is temporary and Edwards gains some ground with his union support.

[antigop]

7. sHillary's true colors.....

http://youtube.com/watch?v=UhLBSLLIhUs

[jmp]

8. Clinton sold out American workers ...

When they crammed NAFTA down our throats.