NAFTA is 20 years old this month ...

[Occam's Banana]

POLL:
- vote for "'managed trade' is a good thing" if you think such agreements are good things in and of themselves (or even just good "on net")
- vote for "'managed trade' is a bad thing" if you think such agreements are bad things in and of themselves (or even just bad "on net")
- vote for "neutral / don't care" if you think that the good & bad aspects of such agreements cancel out (or if you don't think the issue is important)
- vote for "not sure / don't know" if, for whatever reason, you haven't settled on any of the above opinions or positions on the issue

FTA (emphasis mine): http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/produce-and-nafta/

Produce and NAFTA

This month is the 20th anniversary of NAFTA. A story on NPR yesterday talks about how Americans have more produce because of NAFTA:

Walk through the produce section of your supermarket and you’ll see things you’d never have seen years ago — like fresh raspberries or green beans in the dead of winter. Much of that produce comes from Mexico, and it’s the result of the North American Free Trade Agreement — NAFTA — which took effect 20 years ago this month. In the years since, NAFTA radically changed the way we get our fruits and vegetables. For starters, the volume of produce from Mexico to the U.S. has tripled since 1994.

Could Americans have gotten more produce without NAFTA? Of course. It is called free trade, which NAFTA is not. A free trade agreement takes a paragraph, not hundreds of pages. For further reading, here is a great analysis of NAFTA by Murray Rothbard, here is my article “Managed Trade Is Not Free Trade,” and here is my article “The Moral Case for Free Trade.” The Mises Institute once put out The NAFTA Reader, but I am unable to locate it.

The notion that we should be thankful for NAFTA because more (varieties of) items are available than otherwise would have been is absurd. The only reason for the expanded availability of such items (under "managed trade" agreements such as NAFTA) is the prior imposition of trade restrictions upon those items in the first place!

NAFTA, CAFTA, etc. are all instances of "two steps backward, one step forward." And even the "step forward" part is more than a little dubious, given that it comes in the form of so-called "managed trade" (NOT free trade) - with all its attendant oppourtunities for bureaucratic jobbery, rent-seeking cronyism, and curtailments of national sovereignty.

Free trade requires the elimination of trade barriers - NOT the "management" of them ...

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Giant sucking sound.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Poll added to OP.

 

[donnay]

Free Trade is truly Orwellian.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

Giant sucking sound.

 

[James Madison]

Walk through the produce section of your supermarket and you’ll see things you’d never have seen years ago — like fresh raspberries or green beans in the dead of winter. Much of that produce comes from Mexico, and it’s the result of the North American Free Trade Agreement — NAFTA — which took effect 20 years ago this month. In the years since, NAFTA radically changed the way we get our fruits and vegetables. For starters, the volume of produce from Mexico to the U.S. has tripled since 1994.

More evidence the government class is completely out of touch with mainstream America.

'No job? Here's some fuckin' raspberries. Without us you couldn't pick seeds out of your teeth and celebrate Christmas at the same time! Progress!'

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Notice particularly that Perot was objecting to the ONE SIDED trade imbalance; that this would cause that 'giant sucking sound,' but if you pay attention to what he is actually saying, that he'd be Ok with it if it were 'two way.' In other words, he opposed NAFTA because it would suck all the jobs to the South, but he was implying that if it were honest to goodness REAL 'free trade' that it would not have that same effect.

He opposed NAFTA but supported the free market, even internationally. He articulated that NAFTA (managed) trade would crate job losses, but bilateral (free) trade would not cause that same problem.

I totally agree with him on that.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

Perot's statement on NAFTA was pretty prophetic.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

Here's the full video of Perot vs. Al Gore.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Fuck You, Frank!

 

[TaftFan]

In terms of lowering tariffs, yeah it is a good thing. In terms of the pile of international regulations it created, it is a huge mess.

 

[satchelmcqueen]

nafta is bad. mmkay?

lost my good levis job in 2002 because of nafta. so did 500 others. it all started in the levis corp in 2007 with the fist closure of several US plants. 2002 was the last round of closures.

2 of my fellow coworkers went to talk to our state governor at the time and asked if he could help reverse nafta and keep our jobs. they said he told them that "nafta is a good thing. you must share your way of life with others overseas." he then asked them to leave his office a few minutes later.

 

[Brett85]

Notice particularly that Perot was objecting to the ONE SIDED trade imbalance; that this would cause that 'giant sucking sound,' but if you pay attention to what he is actually saying, that he'd be Ok with it if it were 'two way.' In other words, he opposed NAFTA because it would suck all the jobs to the South, but he was implying that if it were honest to goodness REAL 'free trade' that it would not have that same effect.

He opposed NAFTA but supported the free market, even internationally. He articulated that NAFTA (managed) trade would crate job losses, but bilateral (free) trade would not cause that same problem.

I totally agree with him on that.

Can you explain why managed free trade causes the U.S to lose jobs but "real free trade" doesn't cause any job losses? I'm not arguing with you, but I just don't know that much about this topic.

 

[specsaregood]

He opposed NAFTA but supported the free market, even internationally. He articulated that NAFTA (managed) trade would crate job losses, but bilateral (free) trade would not cause that same problem.

Free trade would have the exact same problem (maybe even worse) as long as we have control of the global fiat currency and can print at will. Too bad Perot missed the forest for the trees.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

Al Gore looks like a fool in that video, even more so than usual.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

Bump for more votes!

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Seems like just yesterday NAFTA was taking its first baby steps...

 

[Zippyjuan]

It still pees on the sofa once in a while.

 

[Cutlerzzz]

The freer the trade the better.

Managed trade implies government control, making it coercive.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

I saw a something that said NAFTA cost the U.S. between 700k and 1 million jobs.