So, NAFTA hurt us because all our jobs went to Mexico? Mexico was hurt because all their jobs came here? It's a lose-lose situation? Thanks for straightening that out.
I've already documented the damage to the farm industry.
Did we produce more farm products in 2004 than in 1994? Did we just export a record amount of ag products last year?
Toddsterpatriot:
Did we produce more farm products in 2004 than in 1994? Did we just export a record amount of ag products last year?
It gets tiresome refuting the same DNC/AFL-CIO/E.P.I./Public Citizen misinformation all the time. Here it is again:
To understand how much NAFTA has benefited U.S. exporters, compare our export performance to Canada and Mexico since 1994 with our performance to the rest of the world. The difference is startling. Between 1994 and 2005, global U.S. agricultural exports have increased from $46.2 billion to a projected $60.5 billion, a total gain of $14.3 billion. During the same period, exports to Canada and Mexico increased from $9.5 billion to a projected level of $19 billion in 2005, a gain of $9.5 billion. This means that our NAFTA partners – Canada and Mexico – now account for 31 percent of overall U.S. agricultural exports and two-thirds of the worldwide increase in U.S. exports since 1994. Of that $9.5 billion increase, $5 billion was to Canada and $4.5 billion to Mexico. As a result, in 2005, they will be our two largest export markets in the world and, along with China, our fastest growing markets since 1994 - by a wide margin.
Myths Regarding the Impact of NAFTA on U.S. Agricultural Trade
Some farmers produced more. Those in competing agribusiness, like sugar took it on the nose. Yes we exported more, but we imported more than we exported. Our agricultural balance of trade is negative, not positive. In the pursuit of increased trade, we have massively disrupted our own agribusiness. If farmers are doing so great, why have farm subsidies increase more than 10%?