Howdy again: Scott: Thanks for the article! I will check it out.
Fabio: Unfortunately, the gentleman, Mark Rupert at Syracuse, doesn't make any arguments himself. In his "Capitalism FAQ's," under the heading "I told you so" he has a number of links to articles detailing the failure of NAFTA. [http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/merupert/Politics/capfaq.htm] Three are from the Economic Policy Institute and don't lead to the articles he cites. Two links are dead. The remainder link to articles on the Mulitnational Monitor web site. One claims that NAFTA is bad because it has increased the frequency of plant closing (and the threat of plant closing) as a means to crush labor unions. Here's a quote: "This 15 percent shutdown rate within two years of the [union] certification election victory is triple the rate found by researchers who examined post-election plant-closing rates in the late 1980s, before the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) went into effect." This article seems to imply that, in response to union formation, firms go to Mexico where there are evidently no unions. [It's ironic to me that anti-trade people so frequently seem to paternalistically regard citizens of LDCs as ignorant savages in need of saving from the ravages of big-business.] The other valid link goes to an article that sums up NAFTA's failures in three points: 1) "U.S. corporations have shifted investment to Mexico at a record pace," 2) "U.S. imports from Mexico have grown faster than U.S. exports to Mexico," and 3) "the Mexican economy is a world-class mess." [As a side note, I once read an anti-trade/globalization manifesto which asserted that free trade would send U.S. jobs to the third world AND increase income inequality! I never understood how the richest country losing jobs and the poorest countries gaining jobs leads to income inequality....] Anyway, these arguments seem rather weak to me, at least in regards to NAFTA making North America a worse place to live. "More investment in Mexico? It's a disaster!" doesn't sound like an inspiring battle cry. However, it seems that with protectionism, the null-hypothesis is always that free trade will hurt us and them, and it is up to free trade advocates to prove that it works. A sly shifting of the burden of proof, I suppose, but one which people seem to believe is valid. I hope that answers your question Fabio, without too much prattle. Best wishes to all! -jsh __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Games - play chess, backgammon, pool and more http://games.yahoo.com/
