Re: nafta
If the trade -evolution- of a country gives you any idea of what is happening with its economy, its people, I suggest you before any analysis is done, have a look to Mexico's trade figures in the last ten years. Alexander Guerrero - Original Message - From: "john hull" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2002 10:44 PM Subject: nafta > Howdy, > > I recently visited a web page by a political scientist > that seemed to suggest that NAFTA was a failure. I'd > enjoy reading your opinions on the question of whether > NAFTA made the world a better place or a worse place, > or if it really had no impact. Also, if you could > also say why you feel this way or that would be > interesting as well. > > You're the best! > -jsh > > __ > Do You Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Games - play chess, backgammon, pool and more > http://games.yahoo.com/ >
Re: nafta
> I hope that answers your question Fabio, without too > much prattle. > Best wishes to all! > -jsh I think you certainly answered my question and it seems that the anti-free traders employ unusually low standards. And of course, they seem to jettison basic economic thinking. I think the real question is how do you identify a consequence of NAFTA and what the is distribution of consequences? If somebody gets a job post-1994, how do you know it was NAFTA related? In some cases, it's but others it's hard. I wonder if anyone's done a really thorough study of NAFTA's effects that doesn't amount to a handwaving story about aggregate trends. Fabio
Re: nafta
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/
Re: nafta
John, Paul Krugman has an article on NAFTA you might find interesting. "HOW IS NAFTA DOING? It's Been Hugely Successful - As A Foreign Policy" http://www.pkarchive.org/trade/nafta.html He writes "NAFTA's defenders are saddled with a big public relations problem: The agreement was sold under false pretenses. Over the protests of most economists, the Clinton Administration chose to promote NAFTA as a job-creation program. Based on little more than guesswork, a few economists argued that NAFTA would boost our trade surplus with Mexico, and thus produce a net gain in jobs. With utterly spurious precision, the Administration settled on the figure of 200,000 jobs created--and this became the core of the pro-NAFTA sales pitch. The overall number of U.S. jobs, however, was never going to be noticeably affected by swings in our trade balance with Mexico. Our economy employs more than 120 million workers; it has added more than 8 million jobs since 1992. Job growth has slowed since 1994, but not because those 200,000 export-related jobs failed to materialize (the real culprit is the Federal Reserve's interest rate policies). If job creation isn't the point of NAFTA, what is? Another possible justification is the classic economic argument that free trade will raise U.S. productivity and hence living standards. Few economists, however, thought the pact would yield large gains of this type. Mexico's economy is simply too small to provide America with the opportunity for major gains from trade. Typical estimates of the long-term benefits to the U.S. economy from NAFTA are for an increase in real income on the order of 0.1 percent to 0.2 percent. So, where's the payoff from NAFTA for America? In foreign policy, not economics: NAFTA reinforces the process of economic and political reform in Mexico." Scott Merryman On Sun, 21 Apr 2002, john hull wrote: > Howdy, > > I recently visited a web page by a political scientist > that seemed to suggest that NAFTA was a failure. I'd > enjoy reading your opinions on the question of whether > NAFTA made the world a better place or a worse place, > or if it really had no impact. Also, if you could > also say why you feel this way or that would be > interesting as well. > > You're the best! > -jsh > > __ > Do You Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Games - play chess, backgammon, pool and more > http://games.yahoo.com/ >
Re: nafta
> I recently visited a web page by a political scientist > that seemed to suggest that NAFTA was a failure. I'd > -jsh Could you summarize the evidence he/she presents? Fabio
nafta
Howdy, I recently visited a web page by a political scientist that seemed to suggest that NAFTA was a failure. I'd enjoy reading your opinions on the question of whether NAFTA made the world a better place or a worse place, or if it really had no impact. Also, if you could also say why you feel this way or that would be interesting as well. You're the best! -jsh __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Games - play chess, backgammon, pool and more http://games.yahoo.com/
