No one is going to touch that agreement because it would affect the pockets of the real people who run our country, and it isn't the President or Congress.
3
Let's start by not buying cars manufactured in Mexico.
And all those profits that come back north....do those companies actually pay taxes on them?
Here's the problem jobs flow out social costs in the US shoot through the roof whether it's unemployment, welfare, Medicaid or just the social costs of humans wanting work and being faced with minimum wage jobs with with they cannot raise a family.
Obama is going to push another very bad deal down our throats ...TPP and it's going to do even more damage to our country and very frankly the world along with TTIP and other sovereignty crushing "deal/". These deals have nothing to do with trade. They are all about increasing corporations already crushing control over human lives. Stand up and say NO or soon you won't be able to because a non tax paying corproation will have control over free speec too!
And all those profits that come back north....do those companies actually pay taxes on them?
Here's the problem jobs flow out social costs in the US shoot through the roof whether it's unemployment, welfare, Medicaid or just the social costs of humans wanting work and being faced with minimum wage jobs with with they cannot raise a family.
Obama is going to push another very bad deal down our throats ...TPP and it's going to do even more damage to our country and very frankly the world along with TTIP and other sovereignty crushing "deal/". These deals have nothing to do with trade. They are all about increasing corporations already crushing control over human lives. Stand up and say NO or soon you won't be able to because a non tax paying corproation will have control over free speec too!
1
There is nothing funny here but I laughed a bit when I saw that the number 1 commodity sold to Mexico was CORN, that veggie out of Iowa, first in the nation for primary voting, the most coveted voting bloc around. Then I remembered that ethanol additives made from, yes, CORN, while not effective as might have first been thought is now impossible to out of our gas tanks. And, yes, there is another CORN-IOWA element to the story. CORN is used to make FRUCTOSE, a major factor in the Obesity epidemic, and part of that story is a couple of professors who helped sell the idea, with payment from the food industry, that CORN based FRUCTOSE was not the malefactor in heart disease, it was FAT. Now we are learning the truth of that one.
Of course others benefitted, the great auto industry which has flooded Mexico with car factories and parts factories to take advantage of low cost labor, all of this creates bad news for labor, it is their jobs and for those, nada except some training to become home care workers at a fifth of their former wages.
Mexican farmers took it in the teeth as they lost the market to Iowa.
We do need a reset and the issue is who can do that job best?
Of course others benefitted, the great auto industry which has flooded Mexico with car factories and parts factories to take advantage of low cost labor, all of this creates bad news for labor, it is their jobs and for those, nada except some training to become home care workers at a fifth of their former wages.
Mexican farmers took it in the teeth as they lost the market to Iowa.
We do need a reset and the issue is who can do that job best?
3
Do the profits really flow back north for American businesses building cars or other products in Mexico, or are they kept offshore to avoid taxes?
10
Messing with NAFTA amounts to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Jobs that Americans can do for $25/hr that Mexicans perform for $5 are never going to come back. This is how a capitalistic economy ought to work and it is working well. In the US the job is invention and research and development. That we haven't invented more new products and new jobs is a failing traceable to low taxes on the rich and corporations. The threat of taxation is an important driver of investment in risky new ventures. If investments succeed, those who put up the money have a happy problem, if they fail, investors often have tax deductions. Low taxes prompts risk aversion. Time to get back to risk taking and invention.
5
I was having lunch with a younger friend the other day and mentioned the 10%. He reminded me it's the 1% now which sent me on a nostalgic rambling about how the phrase "How the other half live", while not wholly accurate was actually a said thing. My point is that NFTA and most economic trade deals and policy is working perfectly to reach the riches next goal the .01%.
4
This is a complex issue as is pointed out in the article. Another part that was not brought out is "are Americans willing to pay more for products so that jobs can stay in US"? One of the drivers for trying to cut costs is so that people will purchase the finished product. I work in manufacturing and the fear mongering about cost is constant.
My mom and my aunt were complaining about America not having jobs. I went to the kitchen and all of the consumer goods in the kitchen were generics made by third party mostly nonUS based comapnies. Why did they by those products because they were cheaper. I do not blame them they still vividly remember the after affects of the Great Depression so they are always trying to save money. At some point we need to look beyond our own wants and pay more for a product so that it's made by a person making a living wage in a way that protects our enviroment. Before we blame others for NAFTA lest look at our purchasing practices.
My mom and my aunt were complaining about America not having jobs. I went to the kitchen and all of the consumer goods in the kitchen were generics made by third party mostly nonUS based comapnies. Why did they by those products because they were cheaper. I do not blame them they still vividly remember the after affects of the Great Depression so they are always trying to save money. At some point we need to look beyond our own wants and pay more for a product so that it's made by a person making a living wage in a way that protects our enviroment. Before we blame others for NAFTA lest look at our purchasing practices.
10
Trump the Chump
Donald Trump is the most flawed major party candidate of the last 70 years and perhaps ever. He’s verbally assaulted the US constitution, Pope Francis, women, minorities, a US president and nuclear restraint. His debate style and logic pattern has all the sophistication of a petulant pubescent wearing beer goggles. And yet political pundit Nate Silver gives Donald Trump a 38.1% chance of becoming our next president.
Who are the Americans who would put their children’s future in the hands of a rookie megalomaniac? Secretary Clinton, also highly flawed, suggests that Trump’s supporters are largely “A basket of deplorables”, but let’s drill down on that a bit. Trump’s army includes gun toting, Fox News watching, cross burning, climate change denying, Rush Limbaugh “ditto heads”. They yearn to make America great again like it was say before 1964. They want a business man for president and apparently missed the role business men played in the worldwide financial meltdown of 2008. They believe that Earth is really only 6000 years old and that evolution is nonsense. They want a different republican and their definition of different knows no limits.
What conclusions can we draw from this? America’s glass isn’t half full or half empty; it’s shattered.
http://www.slideshare.net/onesyrup23/trumpthechump
Donald Trump is the most flawed major party candidate of the last 70 years and perhaps ever. He’s verbally assaulted the US constitution, Pope Francis, women, minorities, a US president and nuclear restraint. His debate style and logic pattern has all the sophistication of a petulant pubescent wearing beer goggles. And yet political pundit Nate Silver gives Donald Trump a 38.1% chance of becoming our next president.
Who are the Americans who would put their children’s future in the hands of a rookie megalomaniac? Secretary Clinton, also highly flawed, suggests that Trump’s supporters are largely “A basket of deplorables”, but let’s drill down on that a bit. Trump’s army includes gun toting, Fox News watching, cross burning, climate change denying, Rush Limbaugh “ditto heads”. They yearn to make America great again like it was say before 1964. They want a business man for president and apparently missed the role business men played in the worldwide financial meltdown of 2008. They believe that Earth is really only 6000 years old and that evolution is nonsense. They want a different republican and their definition of different knows no limits.
What conclusions can we draw from this? America’s glass isn’t half full or half empty; it’s shattered.
http://www.slideshare.net/onesyrup23/trumpthechump
It would seem that politicians would work on fixing what ails NAFTA rather than attempting to shove another trade agreement down our throats. It appears that these trade agreements are designed to provide ultimate benefits for the wealthy while devastating the middle class and the poor. Our governments are supposed to protect the little guys from these market failures, but we have no one sitting at the table representing our interests. Corporations have purchased our government.
2
Free trade benefits the economy, as it has for millennia. If free trade didn't benefit the economy, then the economy would have failed in the year 1500, or 1776 or 1910 - pick any number or any century.
The economy has not failed. Trade is a benefit to economic growth. The argument that Mexico has a trade surplus of $58 billion with the US, therefore NAFTA is harmful, ignores the fact that the US is exporting hundreds of billions of dollars to Mexico. If you take away the surplus you take away the much larger exports to Mexico.
Putting a protectionist tariff wall around the country creates a system where countries have to be part of an empire to trade freely. This is Putin's goal, to destroy globalization in order to re-create the Soviet empire where only the chosen few, and the conquered countries, would be able to trade. Of course this would result in a smaller, poorer, less productive world, but anti-trade protectionists see this as a better alternative than globalization for their backward, isolationist, smaller, poorer country.
If American companies do not build factories in other countries, then our competitors will do so, and we will lose 100% of the business our competitor's take. The world is competitive, and we must compete, or be swept aside by countries that will compete.
NAFTA and similar trade agreements benefit the United States. Those who say otherwise are protectionists who seek to withdraw to our borders, in a less competitive economy.
The economy has not failed. Trade is a benefit to economic growth. The argument that Mexico has a trade surplus of $58 billion with the US, therefore NAFTA is harmful, ignores the fact that the US is exporting hundreds of billions of dollars to Mexico. If you take away the surplus you take away the much larger exports to Mexico.
Putting a protectionist tariff wall around the country creates a system where countries have to be part of an empire to trade freely. This is Putin's goal, to destroy globalization in order to re-create the Soviet empire where only the chosen few, and the conquered countries, would be able to trade. Of course this would result in a smaller, poorer, less productive world, but anti-trade protectionists see this as a better alternative than globalization for their backward, isolationist, smaller, poorer country.
If American companies do not build factories in other countries, then our competitors will do so, and we will lose 100% of the business our competitor's take. The world is competitive, and we must compete, or be swept aside by countries that will compete.
NAFTA and similar trade agreements benefit the United States. Those who say otherwise are protectionists who seek to withdraw to our borders, in a less competitive economy.
Don't blame the inequities on the Mexicans. OUR politicians made the deals and they did it for the election money. Three-quarters of a congress person's time is spent raising money. So, our companies moved and made more money, the congress persons made money for their elections, Mexico got jobs , and we destroyed the middle class for cheaper products. Good Job! Welcome to Walmart, Ford, GM, Carrier, Costco, Home Depot, and all the Banks, IBMs', Micro Softs, customer service centers. Welcome to payday check cashing services. Did you vote yet? That's how you will make a change.
4
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg who is jewish declared in July 11,“I can’t imagine what this place would be — I can’t imagine what the country would be — with Donald Trump as our president,” she said. “For the country, it could be four years. For the court, it could be — I don’t even want to contemplate that.”
It reminded her of something her husband, Martin D. Ginsburg, a prominent tax lawyer who died in 2010, would have said.
“‘Now it’s time for us to move to New Zealand,’” Justice Ginsburg said, smiling ruefully.
It reminded her of something her husband, Martin D. Ginsburg, a prominent tax lawyer who died in 2010, would have said.
“‘Now it’s time for us to move to New Zealand,’” Justice Ginsburg said, smiling ruefully.
1
The situation in Mexico is complex for a number of reasons.
But it's pretty clear that the Mexican people are sick of the people in charge there and the American people are fed up with them too.
The people with money in Mexico -- 13th richest country in the world -- will have to agree to tax themselves at the same kind of rates that the elites in First World countries tax themselves.
Wishful thinking about economic success does nothing if the elites are allowed to keep all the money and power (yes, that's something we Americans should keep in mind, too).
Mexico has been stuck in an economic, social and political purgatory decades because it's been unwilling to do what is necessary to become a First World nation and unwilling to accept the consequences.
Would voiding NAFTA help push Mexico along? I do not know. Given the disappearance of factory jobs around the world, I'd say it would make a lot of sense for them to help keep their farmers farming.
I know I am tired of living with the consequences to America of Mexico's continued inaction.
But it's pretty clear that the Mexican people are sick of the people in charge there and the American people are fed up with them too.
The people with money in Mexico -- 13th richest country in the world -- will have to agree to tax themselves at the same kind of rates that the elites in First World countries tax themselves.
Wishful thinking about economic success does nothing if the elites are allowed to keep all the money and power (yes, that's something we Americans should keep in mind, too).
Mexico has been stuck in an economic, social and political purgatory decades because it's been unwilling to do what is necessary to become a First World nation and unwilling to accept the consequences.
Would voiding NAFTA help push Mexico along? I do not know. Given the disappearance of factory jobs around the world, I'd say it would make a lot of sense for them to help keep their farmers farming.
I know I am tired of living with the consequences to America of Mexico's continued inaction.
3
How much has NAFTA kept down immigration from Mexico into the United States? Mexico has oil how does that factor in the trade numbers? How many services does the United States export into Mexico? Lastly, how many American owned goods get exported via Mexico to China and other countries?
2
Remember the old joke about the difference between a "recession" and a "depression?"
A "recession" is when your neighbor loses his job; a "depression" is when you lose yours.
Trade agreements -- NAFTA, TPP, whatever -- could benefit both sides, in theory, but they don't work out that way for US workers. They do work out that way for US consumers, of course, who pay lower prices for goods made in other countries. If you're only a consumer and not a worker, that makes trade agreements a good thing. But if you're both? Not so much.
A "recession" is when your neighbor loses his job; a "depression" is when you lose yours.
Trade agreements -- NAFTA, TPP, whatever -- could benefit both sides, in theory, but they don't work out that way for US workers. They do work out that way for US consumers, of course, who pay lower prices for goods made in other countries. If you're only a consumer and not a worker, that makes trade agreements a good thing. But if you're both? Not so much.
8
Bill Clinton is NAFTA. One of the ways he sold out to what is now the 1%. What do you think Hillary will do. She owes the 1%. Why would anyone vote for Clinton or Trump?
5
I was in favor of NAFTA when it passed, but I made a mistake. The most obvious bad consequence is the Canadian company that is suing the US over lost profits for protecting our environment from the Keystone pipeline.
So called free trade deals are not free at all--they do not bring us cheap products like drugs from India. They protect the global corporatists at the expense of everyone else.
Obama is losing the election for Democrats by pushing TPP. Americans know better now.
So called free trade deals are not free at all--they do not bring us cheap products like drugs from India. They protect the global corporatists at the expense of everyone else.
Obama is losing the election for Democrats by pushing TPP. Americans know better now.
5
NAFTA, Nah...after all these years old self-evident truths are still true: what is good for G. M. (and the likes) is good for the USofA.
Our real problem is that due to our continuing image problem and we are easily used Trump and all as the metaphoric piñata of their worldwide xenophobia.
At the end of the day, we Mexicans mean for them no more than just another brick in a global wall.
Our real problem is that due to our continuing image problem and we are easily used Trump and all as the metaphoric piñata of their worldwide xenophobia.
At the end of the day, we Mexicans mean for them no more than just another brick in a global wall.
No simple solutions tp the economic and political problems created by NAFTA.
The U and our Latin American neighbors need to form an economic union that would integrate the various economies including Cuba.
It worked in Europe until government expenditures increase at an unsustainable rate,
The U and our Latin American neighbors need to form an economic union that would integrate the various economies including Cuba.
It worked in Europe until government expenditures increase at an unsustainable rate,
We all know Hillary will do absolutely nothing to renegotiate NAFTA. She will make some superficial changes to TPP, tell the American people she has fulfilled her campaign promises, and get it passed.
I think this article showed exactly why NAFTA was bad for the American worker. Auto workers have good jobs paying in the $30/hr range, which is still only $60k/yr before taxes. These people make $10k a year in Mexico.
NAFTA took every single autoworker job lost in the last 15 years. Those Americans are now working at convenience stores and Walmart. Has anyone else noticed that every single gas station clerk is like 45-60 years old? I thought those jobs were for teenagers, but now they are filled with NAFTA refugees.
I think this article showed exactly why NAFTA was bad for the American worker. Auto workers have good jobs paying in the $30/hr range, which is still only $60k/yr before taxes. These people make $10k a year in Mexico.
NAFTA took every single autoworker job lost in the last 15 years. Those Americans are now working at convenience stores and Walmart. Has anyone else noticed that every single gas station clerk is like 45-60 years old? I thought those jobs were for teenagers, but now they are filled with NAFTA refugees.
4
Of these people are getting paid $40 a day to build cars, why does a mid-level Truck cost $45000 today? Shouldn't cars be, like, cheaper? Guess not.
Yay NAFTA, glad that the 1% has made so much money out of destroying the American worker.
Yay NAFTA, glad that the 1% has made so much money out of destroying the American worker.
3
Mexico outsourced their entire welfare system to the US taxpayers and most of their economy is based on the $25 billion in remittances from illegal aliens in the US and Nafta.
On top of that, they receive almost $400 millions dollars in American foreign aid, so why would any politician in Mexico ever want to change anything?
On top of that, they receive almost $400 millions dollars in American foreign aid, so why would any politician in Mexico ever want to change anything?
4
I'm glad this article mentions how NAFTA royally screwed Mexican agriculture and put tons of small-scale Mexican farmers, particularly corn farmers, out of business. Not enough people seem to know about that.
Aside from the economic consequences, there have been health consequences to this. The traditional ways of both growing and preparing corn in Mexico were much healthier than the cheap, mass-produced corn we are sending down there.
I doubt he and I have the same reasons for it, but much to my own surprise, I find myself in agreement with Trump about precisely one thing-- that NAFTA needs to be at least revised, if not entirely scrapped.
Aside from the economic consequences, there have been health consequences to this. The traditional ways of both growing and preparing corn in Mexico were much healthier than the cheap, mass-produced corn we are sending down there.
I doubt he and I have the same reasons for it, but much to my own surprise, I find myself in agreement with Trump about precisely one thing-- that NAFTA needs to be at least revised, if not entirely scrapped.
5
Greenpeace recently reported that "ADM, Bunge, Cargill and Dreyfus – control more than 75% of the global grain trade - which includes Corn grown in the USA. So what I am reading is that large agriculture corporations benefit from sending corn to Mexico, and other large companies benefit from using cheaper labor there.......and so .......what parts of NAFTA are good for the average worker?
4
Is this fair trade?We lose good paying jobs to Mexico and what do we get in return? Apparently several million illegal immigrants.
26
We also get cheap cars, white collar jobs (management, sales sales jobs at the maufactureres and dealers), corporate profits that get distributed to our 401Ks. So it's great for a lot of people, but potentially ruinous for those who lose jobs as a result. The problem is not free trade, but rather how we choose to redistribute wealth and income in this country. We need to improve both formal and continuing education and improve the safety net, so that those who work in jobs that are uncompetitive can quickly find new jobs without economic loss.
Remember Ross Perot (when he ran against both Clinton and Bush I) warning against "that giant sucking sound"? The sound of American jobs being hoovered south because of the extraordinary wage differential between the two nations. All the profits go to the multinationals. Perot was right. American workers lost. I'm not a Trump supporter, but Hillary doesn't inspire me, as she is the wife of the man to opened the drain to "that giant sucking sound." What say you, Hillary. Will you close the drain, or won't you?
14
Simply put, people thought of free trade as Americans buying and selling goods with Mexicans along the same lines that existed at the time of NAFTA. They were not thinking of American companies that would exploit the treaty to move south and sell Americans goods, which had been made by Americans, back to Americans.
14
Finally, a serious analysis about the formal economic relationship between the United States and Mexico front and center--where it belongs. While Grillo's article barely scratches the surface and does not consider the complicated relationship between the informal economy (hugely important in Mexico) and the formal economy, it does lay out some of the current major complications and contradictions. It would not be easy to rescind NAFTA but both Mexico and the United States seem to be recognizing that adjustments are in order; I imagine that Canada would agree to some talks. I daresay that many of the Times readers do not have a working knowledge about either Mexico or Canada.
But I vehemently disagree that Trump does not count. He has thrown ignorance and disrespect around in the public square so often and so arrogantly that Mexican society cannot ignore it. While President Enrique Peña Nieto enjoys little support in Mexico, he is still the president and represents Mexican society; yes, he was naive or stupid enough to open the country to a strange visit from Trump. But at the end of the day, Trump did not waste even a morning in lashing out at immigrants when he returned to the US. Perfect fodder for great piñatas and searing political satire!
But I vehemently disagree that Trump does not count. He has thrown ignorance and disrespect around in the public square so often and so arrogantly that Mexican society cannot ignore it. While President Enrique Peña Nieto enjoys little support in Mexico, he is still the president and represents Mexican society; yes, he was naive or stupid enough to open the country to a strange visit from Trump. But at the end of the day, Trump did not waste even a morning in lashing out at immigrants when he returned to the US. Perfect fodder for great piñatas and searing political satire!
7
We need a local content law, say 90% of what's used in the finished product must be produced in the USA. Also any President can reverse the trade deals by giving 60 days notice, as reported in the New York Times this week.
6
It's a myth that NAFTA was a boon to Mexico. If you take objective data since Mexico entered NAFTA, you can clearly see that Mexico has had, by far, the worst economic and social performances among the so-called "emerging economies"/"developing countries".
Although, as expected, Mexico's foreign trade grew from $60 billion to $400 billion in twenty years (1994-2013), its economy only grew 2.6% annually and mere 1.2% on a per capita basis. Even on the so much heralded "maquiladoras", employment grew only 20% in this period (only 700,000 jobs in 20 years). The other sectors of the economy only grew vegetatively in employment terms.
Also, salary participation stagnated at 29% of total income and absolute poverty grew significantly. The much promised integration with the "global productive chains" - a famous mantra of neoliberalism - didn't happen: average labor productivity grew only vegetatively. FDI also didn't have any significant change.
Mexico's neoliberal path reveals itself as an even bigger failure when we compare it to Brazil - a country that, between 2003 and 2012, adopted an anti-neoliberal policy. Avg. GDP growth: 4.21% vs 2,92%. Total GDP growth: 42.17% vs 29.29%. Annual exports growth: 6.59% vs 5.35%. Total exports growth: 65.95% vs 53.35%. Annual imports growth: 17.33% vs 6.75% (total: 173.32% vs 67.54%). Annual per capita income growth: 2.84% vs 1.42% (total: 28.4% vs 14.26%). Salary participation over national income: 45% vs 29%.
Although, as expected, Mexico's foreign trade grew from $60 billion to $400 billion in twenty years (1994-2013), its economy only grew 2.6% annually and mere 1.2% on a per capita basis. Even on the so much heralded "maquiladoras", employment grew only 20% in this period (only 700,000 jobs in 20 years). The other sectors of the economy only grew vegetatively in employment terms.
Also, salary participation stagnated at 29% of total income and absolute poverty grew significantly. The much promised integration with the "global productive chains" - a famous mantra of neoliberalism - didn't happen: average labor productivity grew only vegetatively. FDI also didn't have any significant change.
Mexico's neoliberal path reveals itself as an even bigger failure when we compare it to Brazil - a country that, between 2003 and 2012, adopted an anti-neoliberal policy. Avg. GDP growth: 4.21% vs 2,92%. Total GDP growth: 42.17% vs 29.29%. Annual exports growth: 6.59% vs 5.35%. Total exports growth: 65.95% vs 53.35%. Annual imports growth: 17.33% vs 6.75% (total: 173.32% vs 67.54%). Annual per capita income growth: 2.84% vs 1.42% (total: 28.4% vs 14.26%). Salary participation over national income: 45% vs 29%.
3
A Mexican replying: No question on your stats, but do tell us what has happened to Brazil since 2012 or so. How's Brazil doing compared to Mexico since then? Yes, Mexican growth in the 2000s left a lot to be desired compared to other emerging economies, but since the commodities bust at least Mexico continues on a modest but upward trajectory while most others go down. What ever happened to BRIC?? The path chosen by Mexico, heavier on manufacturing and services has turned out to be a lot more sustainable than the boom and bust cycles experienced by most of those who have gone for the easy money of selling commodities.
1
U.S. agricultural subsidies -- including for so-called bio-fuels -- are what have hurt the small farmer in Mexico most, not free trade.
7
That is the part of ther reason. However, NAFTA itself has actually destroyed Mexican agriculture due to its cost to produce being more than the U.S. due to subsidies that should even exist.
Wake up,
Only the evil Canadians have benefited from NAFTA because who makes canadian bacon except Canada.
Wake up,
Only the evil Canadians have benefited from NAFTA because who makes canadian bacon except Canada.
Seems to me that there are 130 million Mexican potential customers right next door and we should be figuring out how to sell them things they want at a price they can afford.
Why give the business to the Chinese or the Europeans when we can blow them our of the water on just in time inventory ?
Why give the business to the Chinese or the Europeans when we can blow them our of the water on just in time inventory ?
10
Mexicans are not potential customers because the can't afford to purchase our products. That is why globalization is a myth. It is impossible to close factories in this country, reducing the number of workers and customers who purchase your product and open factories in second and third world countries, paying $2 or $5 an hour, wages which are not high enough to create customers.
Corporations now have plenty of money to expand, but they are closing factories and stores all over the world because they don't have enough customers who can afford to buy their products. Wages for the middle class are up 6% since 1979. Wages for low income are down 5% since 1979. Greed has stagnated our potential.
Corporations now have plenty of money to expand, but they are closing factories and stores all over the world because they don't have enough customers who can afford to buy their products. Wages for the middle class are up 6% since 1979. Wages for low income are down 5% since 1979. Greed has stagnated our potential.
2
Since the passage of NAFTA, US median household income has stagnated, yet the economy continued to grow with all of the benefits thereof accruing entirely to the 1%.
As long as a country's trade delegation represent ONLY the country's corporate interests, this is the kind of outcome we can expect to continue to achieve.
As long as a country's trade delegation represent ONLY the country's corporate interests, this is the kind of outcome we can expect to continue to achieve.
42
That factory in Toluca (and many more like it) are the reason more Mexicans are leaving the U.S. than entering it. Trump should be grateful.
9
You're loco if you believe that, regardless of whatever bogus source (if any) you cite.
1
If you think that all of Presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama’s existing Free Trade statuses with third world nations that they created for their “DONOR CLASS” and PAC (foreign and domestic) CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTORS directed them to third world nations were destructive for US middle class wages and manufacturing employment for US citizens of all races, relocating middle class US jobs to foreign nations, and LOWERING THE MIDDLE CLASS PAY scale, and eliminated benefits for middle class US workers, then you had better hold onto YOUR HAT for when President Obama's PPT Pacific Rim Treaty to comes into effect to relocate middle class US jobs to third world nations on an unlimited multi-nation every possible product WHOLESALE basis.
President Obama’s creation of his TPP (or TPA) will be like President Clinton’s NAFTA for Mexico and/or President Clinton’s PNTR for Communist China, except on a much larger WORLDWIDE scope.
Middle class jobs are very important to voters, but the Democrats and the Republicans are all apparently in favor of President Obama's new secret Pacific Rim Trade (TPP) treaty to relocate the few remaining higher paying US manufacturing STEM jobs to Pacific Rim nations as they are directed to do by their “DONOR CLASS” and PAC (foreign and domestic) campaign contributors.
If the people in the US Ghettos still had those US jobs the last three US Presidents economically required US businesses relocate to foreign nations, then their problems would almost disappear.
President Obama’s creation of his TPP (or TPA) will be like President Clinton’s NAFTA for Mexico and/or President Clinton’s PNTR for Communist China, except on a much larger WORLDWIDE scope.
Middle class jobs are very important to voters, but the Democrats and the Republicans are all apparently in favor of President Obama's new secret Pacific Rim Trade (TPP) treaty to relocate the few remaining higher paying US manufacturing STEM jobs to Pacific Rim nations as they are directed to do by their “DONOR CLASS” and PAC (foreign and domestic) campaign contributors.
If the people in the US Ghettos still had those US jobs the last three US Presidents economically required US businesses relocate to foreign nations, then their problems would almost disappear.
9
A giant pepper grinder, multiple pairs of headphones, a mountain of chip clips, make-up bags, a dried flower arrangement, all from China, all in my house. The easy availability of cheap foreign detritus makes mindless consumerism inevitable. The trappings of middle-class life - health care, education, retirement - can't be imported. Get rid of the trade deals that flood our homes with junk and deprive our working classes of jobs.
12
It amazes me that Trump is ahead in Iowa with his NAFTA-bashing. Wouldn't the corn farmers, by far one of the state's most important voting blocs, have a great deal to lose as a result of this treaty collapsing? The midwest produces far more grain and soy than for an American-only market. The rest of the world is part of their customer based too. Have they thought to themselves that having a president who would be so loathed around the world is actually good for their business?
5
Yes, a renegotiation of NAFTA may be prudent, hopefully to satisfy the 'little man' in the process, and not only the behemoths sucking the life out of most 'ordinary' farming people. But crooked lying know-nothing arrogant Trump is not the guy to go to, full of rage, and unscrupulous about thrashing millions of folks just trying to survive, if his bullying ego demands it; Trump's irresponsible change of mind from day to day would make it impossible to carry out a sensible long-term agenda. His temperament is so deranged, that playing with fire is his 'modus operandi', and promising harvests will burn unabated. And Mejico will need a real statesman for a change, to redeem its people from just cheap manual labor to true entrepreneurship, a valuable partner to the U.S. and the world. And Trump and Penha Nieto are, quite frankly, the wrong choice, anchored in past nostalgia.
3
If the massive overproduction of maize ('Indian corn') cultivars in the USA were not funded by the US taxpayer, then the Mexican domestic maize sector would've been able to compete with imported US maize. The rural depopulation of Mexico, the movement into the shanty towns of the cities, and the burgeoning US-Mexican drug trade would not have happened.
Maize is grown in the USA largely to provide the mash of starches that are hydrolysed into dextrins that are hydrolysed in turn into aqueous dextrose (glucose syrup). The glucose syrup is then isomerised by enzymatic action into mixtures of fructose and glucose, initially 42% fructose, the most common of the high fructose glucose syrups (HFGS) made from maize. Later, using chromatographic techniques, HFGS 55 with 55% fructose content became economically feasible as a replacement for sucrose in soft drinks.
HFGS 55 is used in the USA as a sweetener in soda, and helps ensure that Americans collectively are one of the world's fattest nations.
Maize is grown in the USA largely to provide the mash of starches that are hydrolysed into dextrins that are hydrolysed in turn into aqueous dextrose (glucose syrup). The glucose syrup is then isomerised by enzymatic action into mixtures of fructose and glucose, initially 42% fructose, the most common of the high fructose glucose syrups (HFGS) made from maize. Later, using chromatographic techniques, HFGS 55 with 55% fructose content became economically feasible as a replacement for sucrose in soft drinks.
HFGS 55 is used in the USA as a sweetener in soda, and helps ensure that Americans collectively are one of the world's fattest nations.
8
Under NAFTA, some people have won and others have lost. It might have been possible to help Americans who lost under NAFTA had we been able to focus all of our resources on them. But, we have also been expected to help the Mexicans who lost. They slipped into our country illegally where they overload our schools and government programs.
The number of illegal immigrants is greater than the 11 to 12 million figure commonly cited. This figure is based on the self-reporting to the Census Bureau. Many illegal immigrants do not report themselves. There are “safe houses and apartments” for illegal immigrants all over the country that house MANY more people than are reported to the Census Bureau. On the Census Bureau’s web site is a paper by Eric B. Jensen, Renuka Bhaskar, and Melissa Scopilliti suggesting that foreign-born Hispanic males have been undercounted more than any other group.
The Mexican culture has traditionally placed more value on having many children than on educating them. Today, the average Mexican adult has no more than a 6th grade education. In the U.S., Hispanics lead the country in the teenage birth rate and the high school drop-out rate. This is despite all levels of our government pouring extra money into their education. Our country also pays for their medical care, social services, court and correctional services, and so on. If we did not have to subsidize the Mexicans who lost under NAFTA, we could focus on helping our own people.
The number of illegal immigrants is greater than the 11 to 12 million figure commonly cited. This figure is based on the self-reporting to the Census Bureau. Many illegal immigrants do not report themselves. There are “safe houses and apartments” for illegal immigrants all over the country that house MANY more people than are reported to the Census Bureau. On the Census Bureau’s web site is a paper by Eric B. Jensen, Renuka Bhaskar, and Melissa Scopilliti suggesting that foreign-born Hispanic males have been undercounted more than any other group.
The Mexican culture has traditionally placed more value on having many children than on educating them. Today, the average Mexican adult has no more than a 6th grade education. In the U.S., Hispanics lead the country in the teenage birth rate and the high school drop-out rate. This is despite all levels of our government pouring extra money into their education. Our country also pays for their medical care, social services, court and correctional services, and so on. If we did not have to subsidize the Mexicans who lost under NAFTA, we could focus on helping our own people.
18
Last time I checked, $583 billion in trade created jobs on both sides of the border. Eliminating that number reduces the American economy and reduces jobs in this country.
Economics is not a zero-sum game where one side wins and the other side loses. Both sides benefit from free trade.
With high tariffs, economic isolation, and lack of participation in foreign markets, you get economic collapse, unemployment, and backwardness. In other words, globalization makes the world economy grow, and makes our economy grow in the US.
Unemployment in the US is not caused by Mexico, although Mexicans are an easy target for hate. Just as Hitler targeted the Jews, a minority group can be used to elevate the leader with the support of bigots.
Unemployment in this country is caused by lack of economic growth. Lack of economic growth is caused by lack of aggregate demand, not enough spending to create jobs. Our military equipment is falling apart. Our roads, bridges, water systems, and electrical grid are all in dire need of repair. Yet the Republican Congress has cut spending and created unemployment.
Republican destruction of the economy - Mitch McConnell's strategy of obstruction - crippled our economy. Blaming Mexico does not fix the road in front of your house. Hating Mexico does not maintain aircraft or refurbish aircraft carriers. Mexicans have not prevented us from repairing a century-old drinking water system. Republicans have prevented it.
Economics is not a zero-sum game where one side wins and the other side loses. Both sides benefit from free trade.
With high tariffs, economic isolation, and lack of participation in foreign markets, you get economic collapse, unemployment, and backwardness. In other words, globalization makes the world economy grow, and makes our economy grow in the US.
Unemployment in the US is not caused by Mexico, although Mexicans are an easy target for hate. Just as Hitler targeted the Jews, a minority group can be used to elevate the leader with the support of bigots.
Unemployment in this country is caused by lack of economic growth. Lack of economic growth is caused by lack of aggregate demand, not enough spending to create jobs. Our military equipment is falling apart. Our roads, bridges, water systems, and electrical grid are all in dire need of repair. Yet the Republican Congress has cut spending and created unemployment.
Republican destruction of the economy - Mitch McConnell's strategy of obstruction - crippled our economy. Blaming Mexico does not fix the road in front of your house. Hating Mexico does not maintain aircraft or refurbish aircraft carriers. Mexicans have not prevented us from repairing a century-old drinking water system. Republicans have prevented it.
7
Another disgrace is the agricultural subsidies to American farmers which lower even more the cost of corn to Mexican consumers, and which then impoverishes Mexican small farmers resulting in them leaving their land for Mexican cities or, often, immigrating to the United States.
8
The beguiling politicians have an uncanny habit of offering quite a bit of promises that might smell of specious reasoning, in order to even make the voters salivate. What is perdu, oftentimes, in their rhetorical overdrives, is the basic truth that is being stretched. An otiose bunch of statements of theirs act as space fillers in their orations on omnibus approach to problems.
Hillary probably is no exception, and her off-putting absences of press conferences make one wonder if indeed she is an ochlophobic. And her obfuscating answers about email controversies, Benghazi blunders, and her Libyan logjam are already taking a heavy toll in her poll. Her supporters are mortified so much that they need so much than a simple mollification.
What could have been a cake walk for Hillary, now seems like an upheaval task. All this kibitz about her admission of guilt does not seem to wash with many of her supporters, and she is struggling to stage a successful comeback with all her might. When Americans are really longing for a Joie De Vivre, none of these 2 nominees are endowed, at the moment, with true pizzazz to encourage their surrogates.
Finally, a glimmer of hope can come from her, if she manages to hold her ground and remain aplomb, let alone morph into a jousting debater status. One can only hope she does not make any moth-eaten points, which can act as impediments to her progress. It had better not be too little, too lackadaisical, and too logorrheic, too late.
Hillary probably is no exception, and her off-putting absences of press conferences make one wonder if indeed she is an ochlophobic. And her obfuscating answers about email controversies, Benghazi blunders, and her Libyan logjam are already taking a heavy toll in her poll. Her supporters are mortified so much that they need so much than a simple mollification.
What could have been a cake walk for Hillary, now seems like an upheaval task. All this kibitz about her admission of guilt does not seem to wash with many of her supporters, and she is struggling to stage a successful comeback with all her might. When Americans are really longing for a Joie De Vivre, none of these 2 nominees are endowed, at the moment, with true pizzazz to encourage their surrogates.
Finally, a glimmer of hope can come from her, if she manages to hold her ground and remain aplomb, let alone morph into a jousting debater status. One can only hope she does not make any moth-eaten points, which can act as impediments to her progress. It had better not be too little, too lackadaisical, and too logorrheic, too late.
Just wondering how many of these self-righteous commentators have money invested in the stock market here. If you do, you've done pretty well since NAFTA was enacted, haven't you?
How about that!
How about that!
2
Lou it would do you good to read the comments. Many of us who have done well by Nafta realize it has been bad for America and may shortly lead to the destruction of the greatest Empire that ever was.
1
This is a good article, but you neglected to point out that NAFTA has three nations as signatories: Mexico, the USA, and Canada. If NAFTA is renegociated, Canada will also be involved.
9
Wheat,
Here in Canada we are having a Nafta debate but with the caveat that trade deals can be win/win except when the deal is done with the USA and when a US industry like say soft wood lumber says they don't like the provisions of the bill the bill is rendered meaningless.
At present Canada is negotiating free trade deals with both Mexico and China as a increasing number of Canadians realize as much as we love America and her people economically America is not our friend.
Wheat if you have 90 minutes to invest in learning how many of us see neoliberalism and the global economy this John Ralston Saul lecture in Queensland Australia is a must see.
Saul tells us what really happened to Canadians and Mexicans with the signing of Nafta.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBZns1PR1Po
Here in Canada we are having a Nafta debate but with the caveat that trade deals can be win/win except when the deal is done with the USA and when a US industry like say soft wood lumber says they don't like the provisions of the bill the bill is rendered meaningless.
At present Canada is negotiating free trade deals with both Mexico and China as a increasing number of Canadians realize as much as we love America and her people economically America is not our friend.
Wheat if you have 90 minutes to invest in learning how many of us see neoliberalism and the global economy this John Ralston Saul lecture in Queensland Australia is a must see.
Saul tells us what really happened to Canadians and Mexicans with the signing of Nafta.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBZns1PR1Po
1
Don't modify NAFTA, scrap it! We've given up good-paying manufacturing jobs for what, growing and exporting more corn? It's a no-brainer.
32
Hm....So now we know the real reason why the Mexicans are so upset about Trump. They fear the same thing is going to happen to their jobs that happened to American jobs when NAFTA was out in effect. I guess we can't blame them for that, but they weren't complaining while Americans were being laid off and auto plants being built there instead if here. What goes around comes around?
6
After a year and a half of Trump spouting absurdities about Mexico and trade with nary a challenge, the Times decides to look deeper with 50 days left!?
5
I appreciate this perspective on NAFTA from Mexico. However, you examples do not show "how interconnected the North American economy has become" if you mean interconnection as something unavoidable or a destiny. Rather they demonstrate how neolibral globalization is gutting the small to profit the big and powerful. There is a useful distinction between global interdependence and neolibral globalization. Elites are using the former to disguise the problem of the latter. Mexico seems to fit in this general pattern.
1
NAFTA was, and is, a treaty written by the corporations that are benefiting from it. TPP likewise. Our country is not a democracy. It is an oligarchy where the power resides in the corporations who dictate to the politicians they have purchased what trade acts to pass.
Now that we have good evidence that NAFTA provided cheaper goods, yes, but at the price of high unemployment and high underemployment at low wages, and TPP will do likewise, we should in a democracy be rewriting both legislative acts.
Unfortunately, as I said, we do not live in a democracy. We live in a country where companies make the laws through legislators who they have "bought and paid for" as they say. So under Clinton, neither act will be addresses for change. And under Trump, the greater disaster of such a madman in a position of power makes his possible changing this particular legislation
unimportant even if he could do it.
Now that we have good evidence that NAFTA provided cheaper goods, yes, but at the price of high unemployment and high underemployment at low wages, and TPP will do likewise, we should in a democracy be rewriting both legislative acts.
Unfortunately, as I said, we do not live in a democracy. We live in a country where companies make the laws through legislators who they have "bought and paid for" as they say. So under Clinton, neither act will be addresses for change. And under Trump, the greater disaster of such a madman in a position of power makes his possible changing this particular legislation
unimportant even if he could do it.
4
This is how Trump would get Mexico to pay for The Wall. NAFTA or the wall. Would be a brief negotiation, maybe just a phone call.
Really? And you think that any Mexican government which bowed to that kind of humiliation from the gringos would survive any longer than it took to make that "brief" phone call.
You know -- national pride is not something exclusive to America or Americans. Donald Trump and his supporters might want to sit down and ponder that for a while, because it's a concept which seems to have eluded them.
You know -- national pride is not something exclusive to America or Americans. Donald Trump and his supporters might want to sit down and ponder that for a while, because it's a concept which seems to have eluded them.
Out of work Americans and a diminishing middle class are too much to pay for using slave labor to make things to sell a bit cheaper and at greater profit. NAFTA makes money for the one percent by gutting the labor market. Minimum wages do not cover peoples costs and the country pays in a thousand hidden ways social, economic, and cultural for this industry sponsored short sighted bottom line.
5
Gee, I could have sworn Hillary was echoing Bernie Sanders, you know him, the guy the Times helped ensure would not get the nomination.
NAFTA has also destroyed tens of thousands of farmers in Mexico who couldn't compete with the cost of imported US corn. So they committed suicide.
NAFTA has also destroyed tens of thousands of farmers in Mexico who couldn't compete with the cost of imported US corn. So they committed suicide.
5
Ford just announced that it will build small engine cars in Mexico. Ford employees, who now build them in our country, will not lose their jobs because they’ll switch to making larger cars.
But one in 6 American men in unemployed. That is, one out of every 6 able-bodied, working-age American men is not in the work force. This does not even include the number of healthy women who cannot find a decent-paying job.
Why is Ford building state-of-the art manufacturing plants in Mexico, with plans to employ Mexicans long-term, instead of creating jobs in our country? The board members of Ford Motor Co. probably think their responsibility is to Ford's stock-holders; it is not their duty to employ more Americans.
1. They should remember that Henry Ford paid his employees enough for them to be able to afford to buy a Ford. Unemployed Americans cannot buy Ford cars.
2. The Ford Foundation uses its tax-free money to promote American citizenship for illegal migrants from Mexico. These undocumented workers drive down wages and take jobs from Americans. In Mexico, one has to have a high school diploma to work in an auto plant. Most illegal immigrants from Mexico have no more than a 6th grade education so they could not return to Mexico and get a job building a car. They prefer to stay here, where they are in competition for the very same jobs that our own citizens are scrambling to get.
Ford and its Foundation have hit the American worker with a double whammy!
But one in 6 American men in unemployed. That is, one out of every 6 able-bodied, working-age American men is not in the work force. This does not even include the number of healthy women who cannot find a decent-paying job.
Why is Ford building state-of-the art manufacturing plants in Mexico, with plans to employ Mexicans long-term, instead of creating jobs in our country? The board members of Ford Motor Co. probably think their responsibility is to Ford's stock-holders; it is not their duty to employ more Americans.
1. They should remember that Henry Ford paid his employees enough for them to be able to afford to buy a Ford. Unemployed Americans cannot buy Ford cars.
2. The Ford Foundation uses its tax-free money to promote American citizenship for illegal migrants from Mexico. These undocumented workers drive down wages and take jobs from Americans. In Mexico, one has to have a high school diploma to work in an auto plant. Most illegal immigrants from Mexico have no more than a 6th grade education so they could not return to Mexico and get a job building a car. They prefer to stay here, where they are in competition for the very same jobs that our own citizens are scrambling to get.
Ford and its Foundation have hit the American worker with a double whammy!
3
FYI Ford has Japanese, Korean and German competitors doing the same thing in Mexico with access to the US. That's life, folks!
TRUMP'S WALL = NAFTA? NO!!!!!!!!!! In Spanish, nafta is a slang expression for a petroleum derivative. Meaning that if you add a match you get an explosion. There goes Trump's wall, blown sky high. Oh well! Incidentally, when Trumps ratings go up in the polls, the value of the Mexican peso goes down. Mexico has, for example, had auto manufacturing plants built that produce American cars paying workers $5 per hour. The article does not mention benefits and pensions. In other words, the US corporations got a free ride and way to put their earnings on steroids, to please stockholders without regard for the effects of abandoning the US workers, some of whom still American cars made is North American, but in Mexico. The US, though, floods the Mexican agricultural market with cheap corn. A bad deal. Whatever the case NAFTA must be reworked and renegotiated (The Great Wall of Trump notwithstanding). With no doses of NAFTA taken on either side.
2
I have not the slightest doubt that in the future our current economic concepts and systems will seem more than a bit odd. For the moment we are stuck with a system that is unable to make decisions and allocate resources intelligently and effectively. Accordingly we see unemployment and excess productive capacity on the one hand and hunger and poverty on the other hand. Day laborers stand on the sidewalk waiting for a bit of work while much work remains undone. All of this is profoundly irrational but its familiarity makes it seem normal and even unavoidable.
At the center of our difficulties lies that fact that we make decisions based on money despite the fact that money is just an abstraction that can be adjusted as necessary. Our future rational and effective system will make decisions based on concretes: Labor, expertise, resources, equipment, infrastructure. These along with environmental requirements are the true limiting factors.
Money will simply be a tool for keeping track; procedural, not substantive.
We have the means to make far better use of what is at hand. We are currently making quite limited use of our capabilities. And yet our current system is far more effective than the systems of the past. Our current system will most certainly be superseded by a more advanced system. The sooner we understand this, the sooner we can get to work developing the next system.
At the center of our difficulties lies that fact that we make decisions based on money despite the fact that money is just an abstraction that can be adjusted as necessary. Our future rational and effective system will make decisions based on concretes: Labor, expertise, resources, equipment, infrastructure. These along with environmental requirements are the true limiting factors.
Money will simply be a tool for keeping track; procedural, not substantive.
We have the means to make far better use of what is at hand. We are currently making quite limited use of our capabilities. And yet our current system is far more effective than the systems of the past. Our current system will most certainly be superseded by a more advanced system. The sooner we understand this, the sooner we can get to work developing the next system.
1
Bata requires that every car made in Mexico sent to the US must contain not less than 60% American content.
We know that our trade deficit with Mexico, with NAFTA in effect, was $58B last year. Has anyone done an analysis of what it would have been without NAFTA? Compare our trade balance with China, for example, or other countries that we don't have a trade deal with. Take into account the trade that Mexico displaces with other countries. Is NAFTA still a bad deal?
1
Trade unconditionally improves welfare of BOTH parties. Economics 101.
Mr. Trump's new Economics, if workable, deserves a Nobel Prize. But before he puts it into practice, he may glance at the debacle of Muslims, people he dislikes the most.
The Sunni Kaliphate in 640 AD set up the first trading block in history, imposing Tariffs (Arabic word) on non-Muslim goods and services. Sitting smack in middle of Silk Road milked it royally. Easy unearned money made Muslims un-competitive and civilization lack-lustre.
Crusades, a valiant attempt to free trade, failed. 100 famines in Europe around 1300 AD starved Christians to half, spurning them to new routes (and new lands too!!) marginalizing Muslims to sorry state of today.
While we are still mired in cold-war mindset of TTIP/TTP to control snail speed sea lanes, China unites Africa, Europe, Asia into one with New Silk Road/OBOR fast, cheap, land routes and global trade.
Do we want to be left behind? Remember how Reaganomics turned out to be? Society divided, debt, depression, despair.
Mr. Trump's new Economics, if workable, deserves a Nobel Prize. But before he puts it into practice, he may glance at the debacle of Muslims, people he dislikes the most.
The Sunni Kaliphate in 640 AD set up the first trading block in history, imposing Tariffs (Arabic word) on non-Muslim goods and services. Sitting smack in middle of Silk Road milked it royally. Easy unearned money made Muslims un-competitive and civilization lack-lustre.
Crusades, a valiant attempt to free trade, failed. 100 famines in Europe around 1300 AD starved Christians to half, spurning them to new routes (and new lands too!!) marginalizing Muslims to sorry state of today.
While we are still mired in cold-war mindset of TTIP/TTP to control snail speed sea lanes, China unites Africa, Europe, Asia into one with New Silk Road/OBOR fast, cheap, land routes and global trade.
Do we want to be left behind? Remember how Reaganomics turned out to be? Society divided, debt, depression, despair.
1
Bash NAFTA all you want. If labor costs in Mexico are indeed one-fifth those in the United States, no trade deal (or lack thereof) is going to bring those jobs "back" to America. And even if they did, in they are going to be done by robots -- not people. What company is going to pay a person when a machine can do the job just as well, and at significantly less cost.
Like it or not, Americans are going to have to either (1) accept a standard of living on par with those in developing nations or (2) accept that it is impossible to improve your standard of living in a manufacturing job and train to do something else which the machines can't. The only alternative is to use the wealth generated by the machines to set up some sort of guaranteed income program, and I don't think Americans are willing to got there.
At least not yet. Not until hard reality overcomes all of the Trumpian fantasies built around somehow returning to the 1950s.
Like it or not, Americans are going to have to either (1) accept a standard of living on par with those in developing nations or (2) accept that it is impossible to improve your standard of living in a manufacturing job and train to do something else which the machines can't. The only alternative is to use the wealth generated by the machines to set up some sort of guaranteed income program, and I don't think Americans are willing to got there.
At least not yet. Not until hard reality overcomes all of the Trumpian fantasies built around somehow returning to the 1950s.
8
We are greatly increasing our population via immigration when we know that the future of America will consist of the use of a lot more machines and a lot fewer people to get our work done.
That's just nuts.
We had better hope that the idea of paying people a livable wage for 10 or 15 hours of work -- or even no work for people who take care of family members, say -- is going to be part of that future.
Otherwise, how will people be able to live? Guaranteed income or something like it will be the only way to give maintain all Americans at a First World standard.
That's just nuts.
We had better hope that the idea of paying people a livable wage for 10 or 15 hours of work -- or even no work for people who take care of family members, say -- is going to be part of that future.
Otherwise, how will people be able to live? Guaranteed income or something like it will be the only way to give maintain all Americans at a First World standard.
Why make it about trade? Why not make it about entrepreneurship? The US should initiate a comprehensive program to create a thousand companies in Mexico, assisted and mentored by business experts and newly minted MBAs (in exchange for loan forgiveness) with microlending and seed capital from north of the border, including Canada. The goal would be to have those 1000 companies grow quickly, get products and services to market and employ 50 to 100 people each. Concentrate them in larger cities so they create a cultural shift toward entrepreneurship and "knowledge workers." Right now, Mexicans work with their hands, work for the government or work in a conglomerate. A generation of successful entrepreneurs will be much less tolerant of corruption and deeply invested in raising educational standards across the country. Think big, people.
3
when multi-national corporations take the place of citizen-presented governments in forming 'trade-deals', the people on both sides of their respective geo-political borders lose - - - the "winners", by definition, can only be the companies, their top-level executives and shareholders.
in the meantime,
the environment, wage and labor conditions, bought-out politicians, with rampant corruption all around, are slowing killing us all, in one way or another.
citizens need representation and all of the processes must be transparent going forward.
7
I encourage Mexico to consider their own interests. Pity that our elite establishments on BOTH sides, but actually this time more conservatives than liberals, don't have the same ability to define OUR legitimate interests in the matter, or the slightest regard for protecting them.
Another negative effect of NAFTA not mentioned in this article is its impact on Mexican land--especially farm prices.
When Mexico was growing most of its own corn, small farms could support a family. That meant employment and a home, but also capitol in the form of a land and house that had value and could be sold.
When the US flooded Mexico with cheap corn, farmers could not grow corn cheaply enough to make a profit and support a family. The farms became basically worthless.
That change affected millions both now and in the future.
When Mexico was growing most of its own corn, small farms could support a family. That meant employment and a home, but also capitol in the form of a land and house that had value and could be sold.
When the US flooded Mexico with cheap corn, farmers could not grow corn cheaply enough to make a profit and support a family. The farms became basically worthless.
That change affected millions both now and in the future.
54
Actually, at the time of NAFTA over 50 percent of Mexico's arable land was an inalienable form of communal property known as ejido. Small farmers cultivate on ejidal rather than private property. Prior to the reform of Article 27 adjacent to NAFTA, these lands could not be bought and sold, nor could they be used as equity for a loan. While this formulation works in a typical market economy, it does not work for Mexico, and certainly for Mexico in the 1990s.
4
Not a Trump fan at all, but this passage stood out:
"Holding a magnifying glass to Nafta reveals other nuances. Mr. Trump likes to point out that Mexico sells more than it buys from the United States, by $58 billion last year. But many of the companies exporting from Mexico are American-owned, so much of the profit goes back north."
So the profit flows north to the shareholders and executives of the companies that have outsourced jobs to Mexico, but what about the North American workers who used to do these jobs? You'll see them running the cash register at convenience stores, pushing mops, flipping burgers, emptying bed pans in nursing homes, all jobs that pay much less than their old manufacturing jobs.
And what about the Mexican farmers who were displaced by a flood of cheap North American corn? With no other marketable skills, many of their young people have joined the illegal drug trade, either as growers or enforcers.
But as long as the "the profits flow north," that's all just fine?
"Holding a magnifying glass to Nafta reveals other nuances. Mr. Trump likes to point out that Mexico sells more than it buys from the United States, by $58 billion last year. But many of the companies exporting from Mexico are American-owned, so much of the profit goes back north."
So the profit flows north to the shareholders and executives of the companies that have outsourced jobs to Mexico, but what about the North American workers who used to do these jobs? You'll see them running the cash register at convenience stores, pushing mops, flipping burgers, emptying bed pans in nursing homes, all jobs that pay much less than their old manufacturing jobs.
And what about the Mexican farmers who were displaced by a flood of cheap North American corn? With no other marketable skills, many of their young people have joined the illegal drug trade, either as growers or enforcers.
But as long as the "the profits flow north," that's all just fine?
58
I can't blame Mexicans for being angry. THEY are funding the pockets of Chrysler executives, while dampening the wages of American workers. The only ones who come out ahead are the big wigs.
37
Simple. Deport all illegal aliens and jail all those who hire and assist them. They are all child abusers, robbers, druggies, drug dealers, guns, murderers, guilty of trespassing, using benefits meant only for legal immigrants and citizens, using faked or stolen IDs, etc. There is nothing good nor legal they provide. Come here legally, fine. Come here illegally, don't come at all! These crimes they commit would never have been committed had they not been here. And don't give they health insurance or driver's licenses, either.
Since they came here illegally, how can anyone trust what they say or do?! Simple. It is like breaking into a house and then demanding that you can stay there. Wrong is wrong!
Since they came here illegally, how can anyone trust what they say or do?! Simple. It is like breaking into a house and then demanding that you can stay there. Wrong is wrong!
10
simple lol, Trump calls for simple fixes to complex problems. Deportation takes a lot of resources, apprehension, detention (must be limited per conservative supreme court), hearings and disposition. President Obama has deported more illegals then any other president (the most he could given what a republican congress budgeted for) It's all about the money By the way illegal immigration has been flat (no increase in numbers) for a few years and being here illegally per our laws is a civil not criminal matter
3
You sound like a Trump fan. Are you aware that through the years he has been caught hiring lots of illegals and that a large percentage of his employees are here on H1B visas because he claims he can't find people qualified to wait on tables in this country?
3
Mr. Grillo has some good insights. Some comments: (1) Writers should, however, avoid falling into the trap of "trade vs anti-trade" because no one advocates no trade, rather the debate is on the rules of trade and the distribution of any benefits. (2) Also writers should avoid assuming the benefit if US transnational profit is the same as the benefit of job location. (3) Two-way trade increases are less important than the trade balance... medieval mercantilism strove to increase trade but also to maintain a persistent trade surplus which caused "beggar thy neighbor" of the deficit countries - in this case the US.
10
All deals in the long run need to work for all parties. Trade agreements should allow for a range of surpluses and deficits for both parties that when that "band" of trade losses/gains is hit there is a renegotiation to keep the agreement fair and balanced for all.
As far as NAFTA, Mexico has to adopt all of the environment, workplace, legal and labor standards that has been placed on the business in the USA. Otherwise it is not fair trade, but regulatory/labor differential trade. This will also force Washington to look at the regulatory burden placed on business in the USA, which actually causes more of a competitive disadvantage than paying a fair wage.
As far as NAFTA, Mexico has to adopt all of the environment, workplace, legal and labor standards that has been placed on the business in the USA. Otherwise it is not fair trade, but regulatory/labor differential trade. This will also force Washington to look at the regulatory burden placed on business in the USA, which actually causes more of a competitive disadvantage than paying a fair wage.
3
NAFTA seems to be a basic handout to large American corporations, especially car companies. The car companies, in return, charge ever greater prices for vehicles, while keeping labor costs down over the border. Is there a way to make NAFTA more about safety in the Western Hemisphere and less about helping the already filthy rich? Trade deals, deep down, are about security. I don't see Mexico as particularly secure.
16
Many analyses, including this one, miss a key point when they talk about the competitiveness of American labor and trade deals. The price of housing puts American labor at a disadvantage. American workers can't lower their price to compete with $5 an hour Mexican labor because they can't afford housing on that price.
The housing crash of 2007 was partially caused by the market trying to correct that imbalance; as American workers faced downward pressure on their wages, their housing prices should have followed. But instead of allowing the so-called free market to adjust to the new reality and make this necessary correction, the government spent trillions of dollars preventing it. It was a simple choice between banking and manufacturing, and banking won.
The housing crash of 2007 was partially caused by the market trying to correct that imbalance; as American workers faced downward pressure on their wages, their housing prices should have followed. But instead of allowing the so-called free market to adjust to the new reality and make this necessary correction, the government spent trillions of dollars preventing it. It was a simple choice between banking and manufacturing, and banking won.
20
Banking always wins.
And I might add that those well-intentioned folks who bemoan the fate of poor Mexicans who grow corn don't realize that they are, in effect, arguing for never-ending servitude in the field for even less than the Mexican minimum wage. They have no income, little education, no mobility, and, generation after generation, trash what remaining natural vegetation Mexico has (not much).
The best thing Mexico can do for its people is to get them away from subsistence-level farming.
The best thing Mexico can do for its people is to get them away from subsistence-level farming.
7
and into some reliable birth control.
1
Only 3% of all illegal aliens work in agriculture. The vast majority of agricultural workers are LEGAL immigrants.
What do people think happened to their wages since the first Reagan amnesty?
What do people think happened to their wages since the first Reagan amnesty?
I don't understand all the fuss > the successful business model..
Build a factory where you get the bet Tax break or incentive.... Don't modernize it, and in three or four years, when the break has run out, move to the next tax break..
This has been the model for GM and Ford for years.. (remember Suffren, NY)
and now gm moves to Canada..
Build a factory where you get the bet Tax break or incentive.... Don't modernize it, and in three or four years, when the break has run out, move to the next tax break..
This has been the model for GM and Ford for years.. (remember Suffren, NY)
and now gm moves to Canada..
3
Ha ha... I'm from Suffern and indeed we do have a huge, ababdoned GM factory near the train station in town. I grew up hearing stories from a social studies teacher about how you didn't want a car built on a Friday because Thursday was payday and vehicles builtbthe bext day would have loose bolts rattling around due to workers being hung-over. Weird bit of local lore. Anyway, small world.
By the way, I watched Bill Clinton sign Nafta live on TV eating breakfast w my dad. Even then I was astonished that the establishment really expected us to believe this would be good for Americans. Guess I was right. This election is just rediculous. Hillary is horrific, Trump is worse. Disgusting.
By the way, I watched Bill Clinton sign Nafta live on TV eating breakfast w my dad. Even then I was astonished that the establishment really expected us to believe this would be good for Americans. Guess I was right. This election is just rediculous. Hillary is horrific, Trump is worse. Disgusting.
1
NAFTA allows for a more efficient production of goods and services. Naturally some industries will benefit more one one side of the border than the other. NAFTA is good for the auto manufacturer in Toluca, MX and good for heavy equipment manufacturers in Peoria, IL. Even within an industry, the effects will be disparate for specific groups, take soy bean exporters in Iowa or avocado producers in Michoacan.
What's important is to be consistent in our narrative. If we want our cars to be affordable, then we should reconsider what paying higher wages in the auto industry means. If we expect those companies that we invest in to have higher returns, then we should also realize that cost efficiencies are oftentimes more likely to be achieved south of the Border.
We should also remind ourselves that any trade deal is a two-way street. That you have to give some to win some. That effects that such a trade deal are often disproportionate on individuals, take the laid-off worker in Detroit or the corn producing campesino. However evidence points that as Nations we are better off.
PS. As a Mexican and American citizen, I find your picture choice distasteful and offensive.
What's important is to be consistent in our narrative. If we want our cars to be affordable, then we should reconsider what paying higher wages in the auto industry means. If we expect those companies that we invest in to have higher returns, then we should also realize that cost efficiencies are oftentimes more likely to be achieved south of the Border.
We should also remind ourselves that any trade deal is a two-way street. That you have to give some to win some. That effects that such a trade deal are often disproportionate on individuals, take the laid-off worker in Detroit or the corn producing campesino. However evidence points that as Nations we are better off.
PS. As a Mexican and American citizen, I find your picture choice distasteful and offensive.
6
The U.S. auto market was supplies essentially entirely by U.S. manufactured cars for the first 60 years of its existence. Cars were affordable and most everyone had them.
Sure, some things will cost more. Travel to Japan and Germany and you will notice consumer goods and services are more expensive. Yet they have no poor underclass to speak of and all the crime, poverty and human misery that go with an underclass. I am tired of living in a country that seems to depend on the poverty of others to function. If I have to pay more for some goods that is a price I think many of us would be willing to pay.
BTW, I too found the picture very strange. However, it looks like is probably from a anti-NAFTA protest in La Reforma so in that context it is appropriate.
Sure, some things will cost more. Travel to Japan and Germany and you will notice consumer goods and services are more expensive. Yet they have no poor underclass to speak of and all the crime, poverty and human misery that go with an underclass. I am tired of living in a country that seems to depend on the poverty of others to function. If I have to pay more for some goods that is a price I think many of us would be willing to pay.
BTW, I too found the picture very strange. However, it looks like is probably from a anti-NAFTA protest in La Reforma so in that context it is appropriate.
3
I don't agree with most of your comment, but I too found the picture quite offensive and in playing on cultural stereotypes,thus insulting,
1
Yeah well new cars are less affordable than ever. I saw 7 year car loans available at a dealership. In 2000 the longest you could get was like 3 years.
I have never ever been able to afford a new car. I probably never ever will be able to afford a new car.
So, I fail to see your point...so we got access for more corn to be exported? Wow, that totally made it worth it to lose hundreds of thousands of jobs AND have a mid level truck cost $45000 in 2016?
I have never ever been able to afford a new car. I probably never ever will be able to afford a new car.
So, I fail to see your point...so we got access for more corn to be exported? Wow, that totally made it worth it to lose hundreds of thousands of jobs AND have a mid level truck cost $45000 in 2016?
I wonder when Ms. Clinton will show a bit of humility. On trade agreements, the White House she was a part of signed NAFTA. The following is from Wikipedia:
"After much consideration and emotional discussion, the House of Representatives passed the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act on November 17, 1993, 234-200. The agreement's supporters included 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats. The bill passed the Senate on November 20, 1993, 61-38.[6] Senate supporters were 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats. Clinton signed it into law on December 8, 1993; the agreement went into effect on January 1, 1994.[7][8] Clinton, while signing the NAFTA bill, stated that "NAFTA means jobs. American jobs, and good-paying American jobs. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't support this agreement.""
She played an active role in her husband's White House. Her and Trump can whine all they want, but when it comes to "free trade," is has not been mainly Mexico & Canada that benefited, but the US corporations that had the ability to invest in Mexico.
This article falls way, way short of serious analysis. One example, NAFTA had a devastating impact on Mexico's small farmers. That in turn drove a Mexican youth into urban centers, where they languished, their main hope being employment in a foreign-owned factory or, yes, employment by a drug cartel.
Chickens do come home to roost, or else they get slaughtered or become prey.
"After much consideration and emotional discussion, the House of Representatives passed the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act on November 17, 1993, 234-200. The agreement's supporters included 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats. The bill passed the Senate on November 20, 1993, 61-38.[6] Senate supporters were 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats. Clinton signed it into law on December 8, 1993; the agreement went into effect on January 1, 1994.[7][8] Clinton, while signing the NAFTA bill, stated that "NAFTA means jobs. American jobs, and good-paying American jobs. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't support this agreement.""
She played an active role in her husband's White House. Her and Trump can whine all they want, but when it comes to "free trade," is has not been mainly Mexico & Canada that benefited, but the US corporations that had the ability to invest in Mexico.
This article falls way, way short of serious analysis. One example, NAFTA had a devastating impact on Mexico's small farmers. That in turn drove a Mexican youth into urban centers, where they languished, their main hope being employment in a foreign-owned factory or, yes, employment by a drug cartel.
Chickens do come home to roost, or else they get slaughtered or become prey.
17
Sorry for the typos - especially where it should read "That, in turn, drove a lot of Mexican youth into urban centers, where the languished..."
And wasn't NAFTA the conduit that open the border to illegal immigration, caused by the Mexican corn prices decline, and family farm decline in Mexico?
Connect the dots...
Connect the dots...
2
Sorry. First Ladies do not create or sign treaties, legislation, etc. By your reasoning, we should be blaming Barbara Bush for the first Gulf War and Laura Bush for the second one!
Will I still be able to buy a 6 pack of socks for 3 dollars.
6
Yes, but at Walmart they are from China.
Good nuanced column.
Most workers in the US believe that NAFTA was the worst thing to happen to the US jobs market and It is easy to see that NAFTA was a bad deal for most Americans. The promised trade surpluses with Mexico turned out to be deficits, some hundreds of thousands of jobs were lost, and there was downward pressure on US wages.
Fortunately many Mexicans are also realizing that laissez faire capitalism à la NAFTA is a destructive force everywhere and globalisation mostly benefits the mega rich, and is no more than a vehicle to transfer wealth from the masses to the elites running the Shadow Government.
They should know even better than their northern neighbours, having lived under an oligarchy and colonialism forever.
Free trade agreements are the biggest con out there. They do not encourage free trade, nor are they meant to, just look at the TPP. The only thing these agreements do is spread and protect the monopolies of multinationals at the expense of local business and by transferring power from governments to corporations, dismantling the protections of society against corporate crime, nothing but regulated corporatist theft.
This is accomplished by replacing real courts with private arbitration courts run by corporate lawyers who decree the end of consumer protections including elemental ones like uncontaminated food supplies.
Ultimately, people, not our corrupt politicians, on both sides of the border will have to stand together to defeat greedy corporatism
Most workers in the US believe that NAFTA was the worst thing to happen to the US jobs market and It is easy to see that NAFTA was a bad deal for most Americans. The promised trade surpluses with Mexico turned out to be deficits, some hundreds of thousands of jobs were lost, and there was downward pressure on US wages.
Fortunately many Mexicans are also realizing that laissez faire capitalism à la NAFTA is a destructive force everywhere and globalisation mostly benefits the mega rich, and is no more than a vehicle to transfer wealth from the masses to the elites running the Shadow Government.
They should know even better than their northern neighbours, having lived under an oligarchy and colonialism forever.
Free trade agreements are the biggest con out there. They do not encourage free trade, nor are they meant to, just look at the TPP. The only thing these agreements do is spread and protect the monopolies of multinationals at the expense of local business and by transferring power from governments to corporations, dismantling the protections of society against corporate crime, nothing but regulated corporatist theft.
This is accomplished by replacing real courts with private arbitration courts run by corporate lawyers who decree the end of consumer protections including elemental ones like uncontaminated food supplies.
Ultimately, people, not our corrupt politicians, on both sides of the border will have to stand together to defeat greedy corporatism
93
How and why do you think US government tax loopholes, tax exemptions, tax exempt foundations, environmental damage liability limits, free trade agreements, most favored nation designations, permanent normal trade relation statuses (PNTR), pharmaceutical liability limits, product liability limits, tax exemption loopholes, agricultural subsidies, PAY TO PLAY Solyndra type government money loan guarantees, PAY TO PLAY CGI Federal government ACA no-bid contracts paying many times as much as other firms would charge for the same product, TOP SECRET Hughes Aircraft Missile Guidance Military Technology export to Communist China (Chinagate), presidential pardons for federally convicted felons, other “Pay to Play” contracts and other laws benefiting only a few people (or a few foreign nations) were created by our elected US Congress and US Senate, and then enforced by our elected presidents and their appointed bureaucrat administrators? Do contributions to the “Clinton Foundation” plus other direct and/or indirect payments to elected and appointed US government officials have anything to do with these government actions?
1
If we renege on all the trade packs that we signed in the last 70 years and abrogate the global economy, we set up circumstances similar to the late 1920's and the 1930's with depression, fascism, and radical isms of all kinds. We need to change the taxation and reward policies of capitalism so everyone benefits not just the rich and well connected; otherwise, the 1930's may look like the 'good old days'.
1
Mexicans haven't lived under colonialism since 1810. They celebrated their Independence Day last week.
Joan Grillo,
Ex-President Bill Clinton (and Professor Robert Reisch) could have said, "Once you were employed and were able to feed your family, so I signed NAFTA into law and that caused your manufacturing job to relocate to Mexico because you would not agree to work for the same wages that Mexican citizens would work for."
Then President Clinton could have also said, "Once you were employed and were able to feed your family, so I created PNTR for Communist China and this caused your manufacturing jobs to relocate to China because you would not agree to work for the same wages that Chinese citizens would work for."
Ex-President Bill Clinton (and Professor Robert Reisch) could have said, "Once you were employed and were able to feed your family, so I signed NAFTA into law and that caused your manufacturing job to relocate to Mexico because you would not agree to work for the same wages that Mexican citizens would work for."
Then President Clinton could have also said, "Once you were employed and were able to feed your family, so I created PNTR for Communist China and this caused your manufacturing jobs to relocate to China because you would not agree to work for the same wages that Chinese citizens would work for."
57
"could have said"???
Get a grip. Clinton and Reich (not Reisch) didn't say either of these things.
Get a grip. Clinton and Reich (not Reisch) didn't say either of these things.
1
President Bush could have then said, "Once you were employed and were able to feed your family, so I created fourteen additional Free Trade Agreements (with Jordan, Morocco, and other young democracies of Central America) and this caused your manufacturing jobs to relocate to these third world nations because you would not agree to work for the same wages that citizens in these third world nations would work for."
And then President Obama could have said, "Once you were employed and were able to feed your family, so I created a bunch of multiple new Free Trade Agreements with South Korea, Vietnam, Brunei, Singapore, Malaysia, New Zealand, Australia, Chile, and Peru plus several other Asian and South American nations and this caused your manufacturing jobs to relocate to these third world nations because you would not agree to work for the same wages that citizens in these third world nations would happily work for."
And then President Obama could have said, "Once you were employed and were able to feed your family, so I created a bunch of multiple new Free Trade Agreements with South Korea, Vietnam, Brunei, Singapore, Malaysia, New Zealand, Australia, Chile, and Peru plus several other Asian and South American nations and this caused your manufacturing jobs to relocate to these third world nations because you would not agree to work for the same wages that citizens in these third world nations would happily work for."
1
Absolutely true. And now his wife wants to make him the leader of Economics in her ( hoped for never to be) Administration. Oh, also the next Cabinet will also contain Loretta Lynch still as the head of Justice, she who doesn't know enough not to meet with the family or associates of those under legal scrutiny, and who also appears to have given immunity to everyone who could have been forced to testify in a Hillary email prosecution. May the fix be with us all.
Any one reading this article would think that NAFTA was a US/Mexico trade deal. But it is a three way deal involving the other North American country, Canada. In fact, it is a revised form of the original deal involving only Canada & the USA. Last I checked Canada/US trade was much larger than Mexico/US trade. Canada is not a low wage country. Perhaps that is why NYT is oblivious to Canada's role in North American trade ?
30
I am afraid discussions about NAFTA in the U.S. media are just talking points for low information American voters emphasizing Mexico and the border. As with all trade agreements and especially NAFTA, we were sold a bill of goods, particularly in this case, where an oil rich emerging economy like Mexico was to be brought in to the fold whereby their standard of living would rise and they then would be able to increase their purchases of both American and Canadian goods. 80 percent of what is in place in the current agreement between Canada and the U.S. already existed long before NAFTA was even a twinkle in some trade officials eye.
Ultimately, Mexico became another low wage country whereby the auto manufacturers, in particular, had free reign to build plants and pay Mexican auto workers FOUR dollars per hour, hardly the increase in standard of living that we were told would happen in Mexico as a result of this agreement. Plants in both Canada and the U.S. have suffered as a result of this as well.
Among many others, the forthcoming closing of the Carrier plant in Indianapolis is just another example.
Ultimately, Mexico became another low wage country whereby the auto manufacturers, in particular, had free reign to build plants and pay Mexican auto workers FOUR dollars per hour, hardly the increase in standard of living that we were told would happen in Mexico as a result of this agreement. Plants in both Canada and the U.S. have suffered as a result of this as well.
Among many others, the forthcoming closing of the Carrier plant in Indianapolis is just another example.
1
Canada is an ally and a neighbor, while Mexico is only the latter. It was been particularly disastrous for US jobs to attempt to merge the US and Mexican labor markets. I'm no fan of Trump, but I'm no fan of "open borders" either when there is nothing to gain on our side.
2
Actually this particular article was about the relationship between Mexico and the US. Why do Canadians always feel left out and defensive about a trade agreement that is benefiting you at the expense of the American worker. In fact Canada, as well as Mexico, benefits enormously and out of balance to the US from NAFTA. I cross the border frequently and at the Peace bridge I see almost nothing but trucks with Canadian plates coming and going across the bridge. Where are the American trucks? And as I travel the interstates in the Great Lakes region the site of trucks with Canadian (even distant Quebec ) plates is common. But I'm not seeing alot of American trucks in Canada.
2
In many ways, this article states the problem with the global economy. As Trump pointed out, Mexico received $58 billion more than America received as the result of the trade. It's also true as pointed out in the article, that American multinational companies exporting the cars to the foreign countries received a great part of that profit. It's true that American multinational corporations stated that they were going overseas to sell their products to take advantage of the foreign market only, and then, when it became open to them to sell these cars in the American market as well, that production greatly increased. This is at the heart of the problem with the global economy, because American companies are going overseas not only to gain the foreign market share but also to gain the American market share.
This is prevalent in the global market generally today. The question now is how long will the oligarchs who run the American companies be willing to compete against the American companies who did not engage in leaving this country for more profits. The American companies that went overseas to sell foreign products to this country in effect killed the profitability of the American companies who stayed in the US.
This is why the American multinational corporations became so rich at the expense of the American worker who faced unfair competition, and the companies who stayed became unable to compete against the low wages.
This is prevalent in the global market generally today. The question now is how long will the oligarchs who run the American companies be willing to compete against the American companies who did not engage in leaving this country for more profits. The American companies that went overseas to sell foreign products to this country in effect killed the profitability of the American companies who stayed in the US.
This is why the American multinational corporations became so rich at the expense of the American worker who faced unfair competition, and the companies who stayed became unable to compete against the low wages.
48
You should blame the last three US presidents who have almost unilaterally created all of the existing “Free Trade Agreements“ that removed the existing import tariffs that previously protected US labor rates and kept the higher paying US manufacturing jobs in the USA.
US Senators and US congressmen have almost nothing to say about US presidents creating new FTAs, MFNs, and/or PNTRs since they created the "Fast Track" legislation that allows US presidents to almost unilaterally create all of the FTAs, MFNs, and/or PNTRs that they want without any review for approval from the US congress of anybody else.
The US government has since created many more “FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS” that require US citizens to compete with the pay scales and benefits that workers in foreign nations are willing to accept, or those US jobs relocate to Bangladesh and similar nations.
US Senators and US congressmen have almost nothing to say about US presidents creating new FTAs, MFNs, and/or PNTRs since they created the "Fast Track" legislation that allows US presidents to almost unilaterally create all of the FTAs, MFNs, and/or PNTRs that they want without any review for approval from the US congress of anybody else.
The US government has since created many more “FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS” that require US citizens to compete with the pay scales and benefits that workers in foreign nations are willing to accept, or those US jobs relocate to Bangladesh and similar nations.
3
Something seldom, if ever, mentioned in the analysis of these deals is the fact that they benefit not only the multi-national corporations who produce goods, but also the consumers who buy them The fact that Chrysler can pay a fifth of the US wage and still produce an acceptable product means that the cars can be sold to US consumers for a lower price.
Yes, the auto workers are hurt by this. But, are there more auto workers or car buyers in the country? And as a follow up, isn't our government supposed to take the position which will benefit the most of its citizens?
The global market allows companies to find the most efficient mix of production facilities. This enables them to price their products lower than those companies who do not take advantage of the mix, and allows the American consumer to benefit from these savings. If you doubt this, price the shirts in a 'Made In USA' store, then compare them to other stores without the restriction.
Yes, the auto workers are hurt by this. But, are there more auto workers or car buyers in the country? And as a follow up, isn't our government supposed to take the position which will benefit the most of its citizens?
The global market allows companies to find the most efficient mix of production facilities. This enables them to price their products lower than those companies who do not take advantage of the mix, and allows the American consumer to benefit from these savings. If you doubt this, price the shirts in a 'Made In USA' store, then compare them to other stores without the restriction.
1
"Free Trade" is doublespeak for increased profit margins at the expense of those that actually create the assets, right out of 1984! The words sound good so how can you be against it? The proffered rational of the beneficiaries: increase the annual income of the recipient population's income from ten to one hundred dollars a year. Yet the abandoned population experiences constant loss of its standard of living. While this goes on we have a new guilded age, with the wealthy stealing from the worker without regard for political boundaries. Free Trade indeed!
23
Re-writing the almost 25 year-old NAFTA will also significantly impact the Canadian-American economy. This rarely makes the news but is also a big deal since NAFTA transformed the Canadian economy:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/free-trade-transformed-canadas-ec...
NAFTA allows tens of thousands (possibly millions) of Canadians and Americans to cross the border daily for work on the TN work permit providing middle class Americans and Canadians with good jobs and a good quality of life.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/free-trade-transformed-canadas-ec...
NAFTA allows tens of thousands (possibly millions) of Canadians and Americans to cross the border daily for work on the TN work permit providing middle class Americans and Canadians with good jobs and a good quality of life.
6
Jobs going back to the US would raise salaries paid out, and then raise the cost of the product. Who knows if US consumers, used to low low prices, would pay the difference at the till to create US jobs.
8
It's not just about NAFTA. It's about remittances sent by Mexican nationals in the US back to Mexico.
Here's the contents of a tweet by Vicente Fox, former President of Mexico, on Sept. 13:
@VicenteFoxQue
Quienes tienen parientes en USA, animen los a registrarse y votar. Protejamos nuestras remesas y defendamos nuestro Pais y nuestra dignidad.
Translated, it says essentially: Hey Mexicans, encourage your relatives living in the USA to register and vote to protect remittances and defend our country and our dignity.
Trump has suggested taxing those remittances as a means of paying for the border wall. Remittances sent to Mexico by Mexican Nationals living in the US count as Mexico's 3rd or 4th largest revenue stream. Any economist will tell you, follow the money.
I'm not sure how dignified it is for Mexico to rely so heavily on this sort of revenue for its economic well being, but there it is.
Dang right Mexico is following this election.
Here's the contents of a tweet by Vicente Fox, former President of Mexico, on Sept. 13:
@VicenteFoxQue
Quienes tienen parientes en USA, animen los a registrarse y votar. Protejamos nuestras remesas y defendamos nuestro Pais y nuestra dignidad.
Translated, it says essentially: Hey Mexicans, encourage your relatives living in the USA to register and vote to protect remittances and defend our country and our dignity.
Trump has suggested taxing those remittances as a means of paying for the border wall. Remittances sent to Mexico by Mexican Nationals living in the US count as Mexico's 3rd or 4th largest revenue stream. Any economist will tell you, follow the money.
I'm not sure how dignified it is for Mexico to rely so heavily on this sort of revenue for its economic well being, but there it is.
Dang right Mexico is following this election.
30
Mexicans working in the US already pay taxes on their wages, whether those wages stay here or are sent home.
4
Mexican nationals cannot register to vote, nor vote.
3
Here is what free trade looks like: Goods, services, people and ideas can move freely between Maine and Arizona, Washington and Florida, Maryland and California, within a framework of national minimum environmental and labor and safety regulations and constitutional rights.
What NAFTA should have been was a mechanism for the US to offer statehood to the individual states and territories of Canada and Mexico. Sonora joins the US and it is subject to minimum wage and environmental regulations but it's people goods and ideas can move freely to North Dakota and visa versa. Quebec joins same thing.
Let the individual Mexican and Canadian States decide by plebiscite to join and by national plebiscite to be allowed to leave Mexico and Canada.
Offer same choice for US states to join Canada or Mexico if they want. Individual states vote to leave and nation votes to allow them to leave.
Or maybe Canadian states/territories want to be part of Mexico? Who knows.
That is the way free trade should work.
Now that Brexit has happened in UK we should be offering statehood to Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland. All they have to do is renounce monarchy.
What NAFTA should have been was a mechanism for the US to offer statehood to the individual states and territories of Canada and Mexico. Sonora joins the US and it is subject to minimum wage and environmental regulations but it's people goods and ideas can move freely to North Dakota and visa versa. Quebec joins same thing.
Let the individual Mexican and Canadian States decide by plebiscite to join and by national plebiscite to be allowed to leave Mexico and Canada.
Offer same choice for US states to join Canada or Mexico if they want. Individual states vote to leave and nation votes to allow them to leave.
Or maybe Canadian states/territories want to be part of Mexico? Who knows.
That is the way free trade should work.
Now that Brexit has happened in UK we should be offering statehood to Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland. All they have to do is renounce monarchy.
1
There is no way that Canadians are ever going to consent to anything like this.
We like our decent and affordable single-payer public health care system too much. And don't have much patience with people who somehow manage to think that it is a "bad" thing.
We also like that fact that the 2nd amendment stops at our border and we don't have to worry about lunatics with assault rifles whining about their constitutional right to mow people down in droves.
And best of all, we don't participate in the ridiculous political system which is currently on display. One in which a candidate like Donald Trump can maintain the least bit of credibility. You know -- the one which actually makes constitutional monarchies look good.
What Canada (or the United Kingdom) might be willing to do is to allow some of the saner blue-states (nothing south of New York or Oregon) to join OUR system. All you have to do is adopt our parliamentary democracy, send Members of Parliament to Ottawa, and accept (or re-accept) the Sovereignty of Her Majesty.
Can you get back to us on that?
We like our decent and affordable single-payer public health care system too much. And don't have much patience with people who somehow manage to think that it is a "bad" thing.
We also like that fact that the 2nd amendment stops at our border and we don't have to worry about lunatics with assault rifles whining about their constitutional right to mow people down in droves.
And best of all, we don't participate in the ridiculous political system which is currently on display. One in which a candidate like Donald Trump can maintain the least bit of credibility. You know -- the one which actually makes constitutional monarchies look good.
What Canada (or the United Kingdom) might be willing to do is to allow some of the saner blue-states (nothing south of New York or Oregon) to join OUR system. All you have to do is adopt our parliamentary democracy, send Members of Parliament to Ottawa, and accept (or re-accept) the Sovereignty of Her Majesty.
Can you get back to us on that?
3
In The Con Don's world one can get whatever they want if they stroke his ego and pay him enough. He would fit right in with drug lords.
10
Any trade deal that cannot be revised or reversed should not be allowed by law.
63
You can't have free trade AND stability. Free trade means constant change and upheaval for working families. We get it now.
63
Free trade lowers prices of goods, and consumers benefit. In America, we value the livelihood of the men and women who lose their jobs because of free trade as much as we value the lower prices of the goods. SO, what to do ? It is hard to identify exactly who loses their jobs because of imported goods as opposed to other reasons. Since the nation as a whole benefits from lower prices, federal law should add tax credits to people who lose their jobs for a specific amount of time, so long as those people go through retraining programs or obtain other jobs at lower pay. Will it all match up perfectly ? Of course not. But erring on the side of protecting the men and women who lose their jobs is what the Democratic Party should be standing for. We know people like Trump will cry about "freeloaders" when he is the biggest freeloader of them all. Congressional republicans deny aid to people in states suffering natural disasters until it is their state in need. If you support Trump and the republican party approach to fairness in America, you should remember: "there but for the grace of god go I."
16
Tax credits don't do much good for people whose incomes have dropped below the threshold for paying federal income taxes.
I'm old enough to remember when most of our manufactured goods, including clothing and shoes, were made in the U.S. Prices for everyday items were about the same or lower in real terms; only electronic goods have come down in price.
Those "low prices" that we are supposedly benefiting from have come at the cost of financial hardship for many who are caught in a downward spiral. Earning wages with declining purchasing power, they are forced to buy the cheap stuff, which may look shoddy and not last.
A look at the retail industry shows that mid-level retailers are doing worse than the low end and the high end. The families that used to buy from Macy's are now shopping at WalMart, and J.C. Penney has now become a de facto discount store with its continuous sales and promotions.
One could therefore argue that America has not benefited from low prices. Instead, its people are caught in a downward spiral where low wages prompt a search for low prices, which prompts retailers to look for the cheapest suppliers, which prompts manufacturers to look for the cheapest workers, who are not in the U.S.
I'm old enough to remember when most of our manufactured goods, including clothing and shoes, were made in the U.S. Prices for everyday items were about the same or lower in real terms; only electronic goods have come down in price.
Those "low prices" that we are supposedly benefiting from have come at the cost of financial hardship for many who are caught in a downward spiral. Earning wages with declining purchasing power, they are forced to buy the cheap stuff, which may look shoddy and not last.
A look at the retail industry shows that mid-level retailers are doing worse than the low end and the high end. The families that used to buy from Macy's are now shopping at WalMart, and J.C. Penney has now become a de facto discount store with its continuous sales and promotions.
One could therefore argue that America has not benefited from low prices. Instead, its people are caught in a downward spiral where low wages prompt a search for low prices, which prompts retailers to look for the cheapest suppliers, which prompts manufacturers to look for the cheapest workers, who are not in the U.S.
30
Lower prices derives from lower wages and precarious employment. The former benefits everyone, but the latter only affects the economically insecure. Also the savings differ depend on what you buy. For a T-shirt, you could save perhaps 50 dollars from free trade, and a dozen T-shirts a year sound like a lot, if not too many. For a nanny/domestic servant, you could save 50,000 from free trade, that is, opening up the borders to low-skilled workers. Again, the T-shirts savings are for everyone, but the nanny savings are for the rich.
Retraining? As what, pray tell? H1B visas have assured that many of my engineer friends are replaced by lower-paid outsiders. And that's just one example. Take it from someone who has reinvented herself many, many times in a working life spanning over 4 decades ... this is not about retraining. It is about retaining profits at the top and paying everyone else a pittance. Maybe $5 a day will feed a family in Mexico, or $2 an hour will suffice in China. The corporate-run world decided long ago that America isn't so much the world's bread basket; it's the world's cash cow (consumer base). Just look at the foreign-owned pharma giants making the bulk of their profits off the backs of the American middle class. This spans the spectrum of everyday expenditures. The world still thinks it can make a mint selling to Americans. Fine. Except you have to pay commensurate salaries. And that's not happening in almost any field of enterprise anymore. Salaries flat-lined in the 80s, but I defy you to find housing, food and necessities that cost the same now as they did in the 80s. Telling people to retrain without protecting any salaries leads to constant education expenditures with no guarantee of a future. And if they aren't suited to the handful of jobs remaining, I guess you're saying they should just shut up and eat their gruel
5
NAFTA II is overdue. Phase Ii would promote Mexican investment in US supply and distribution chain links while encouraging jt venture investments to increase Mexican content in both local and export sales. Arithmetically, NAFTA has been successful on both sides of the arrangement, although success is largely regional and sector-specific. I.E. Laredo, Texas, El Bajio, Mexico; Automotive and big-box retail.
The failed premise of NAFTA was that US/Mexican joint ventures would kickstart a wave of new downstream investment in the " beach head" industries that would provide new impetus to worldclass production platforms and related quality(not Mexican minimum wage) jobs.The relief on immigration pressure and the enhanced purchasing power in Mexico were projected as positives to the US.
We are halfway toward a rotund success but have to revise the strategy shortfalls. First, Mexican family companies did not mesh with SEC listed names or corporate " head office" mentalities. I.E. Corporate governance. Consequently joint venture and, eventually, buy- out funds were not reinvested downstream but, rather, directed to the real estate, capital markets and offshore alternatives
The failed premise of NAFTA was that US/Mexican joint ventures would kickstart a wave of new downstream investment in the " beach head" industries that would provide new impetus to worldclass production platforms and related quality(not Mexican minimum wage) jobs.The relief on immigration pressure and the enhanced purchasing power in Mexico were projected as positives to the US.
We are halfway toward a rotund success but have to revise the strategy shortfalls. First, Mexican family companies did not mesh with SEC listed names or corporate " head office" mentalities. I.E. Corporate governance. Consequently joint venture and, eventually, buy- out funds were not reinvested downstream but, rather, directed to the real estate, capital markets and offshore alternatives
6
Mexican 'family' companies have always largely been monopolistic ventures that abused their own countrymen (e.g. Carlos Slim and TelMex/Tel-Cel).
NAFTA has been a godsend for Mexicans who use any form of telecommunications because it forced competition with much more professional/responsive/service-oriented U.S. companies.
NAFTA has been a godsend for Mexicans who use any form of telecommunications because it forced competition with much more professional/responsive/service-oriented U.S. companies.
5
As important as NAFTA may be, that certainly is not our major concern as Mexicans about the outcome of these elections. Business knows no walls and we already read about the next move towards highly specialized workers combined with state-of-the-art technologies becoming the new driver for taking business elsewhere. Our worries are linked to the positive leadership or lack thereof that is required of a powerful country that can tip the trend of hatred and intolerance that permeates the world today either way: less or more. We already know what one candidate, including advisers and most ffollowers think and feels towards Mexican and Latin American people in general (and any non-caucasian peoples from the US for that matter). Our choice, if we had any, is quite easy to guess.
19
Perhaps if the Mexican people took care of their own low skilled citizens, instead of urging them northwards to dump their healthcare and welfare costs on the US taxpayers, comments like yours would not seem to be quite so self-serving.
So simply put, our political leaders were high jacked by special interest lobbyists for a foreign power and we lost economic ground and jobs and a non stop flow of foreigners was not slowed enough to make a difference. Why would we now trust any trade agreement by these leaders or their words on immigration? Their self interest and the corruption of our political system speaks volumes on whose government we have in Washington.
53
Hijacked ??? that's, play for pay
3
You know -- that's pretty much the way that Canadians feel about the agreement. Except that it was our leaders who were high-jacked by a lobbyists representing a foreign power based in Washington. The net result is that we see decent paying manufacturing jobs bled off to states which not only tolerate, but promote and advertise poverty-level wages, while fighting collective agreement benefits and protections tooth and nail. My own home town in Ontario recently saw a major manufacturing plant closed down and shipped off to Wisconsin for just those reasons.
What goes around, comes around. From our perspective, American workers have done very, very well under NAFTA. Stop whining!
What goes around, comes around. From our perspective, American workers have done very, very well under NAFTA. Stop whining!
4
There have been 250,000+ NEW applications for unemployment EVERY month for the past decade, while we have allowed in 100,000+ new immigrants EVERY month for more than 20 years.
Do the math.
Do the math.
Superb analytical piece. One rarely sees this sophisticated an analysis in the NYT. Too often we are treated to the ill-informed 'the U.S. treats Mexico badly' nonsense promulgated by those who know nothing of Mexico.
Unquestionably, NAFTA has been a huge financial boon to Mexico and, frankly, a middle-class economic drain to the U.S. Canada has benefited immeasurably as well while retaining their own ferocious trade barriers with respect to telecommunications and air travel.
Certainly, poor Mexicans have been hurt by lower corn prices, which in turn fuels their tendency to grow illicit crops, but the life of the 'average' Mexican has improved measurably over past 20 years.
Unquestionably, NAFTA has been a huge financial boon to Mexico and, frankly, a middle-class economic drain to the U.S. Canada has benefited immeasurably as well while retaining their own ferocious trade barriers with respect to telecommunications and air travel.
Certainly, poor Mexicans have been hurt by lower corn prices, which in turn fuels their tendency to grow illicit crops, but the life of the 'average' Mexican has improved measurably over past 20 years.
35
How much is your American dollar worth, and how much can you buy with it? It depends on how those that control our money feel about it today, and apparently they react to polls. If only news sources were more responsible about releasing changing poll numbers by the day which affect the power of our paychecks, which don't change according to how we feel today.