Myth: NAFTA was a failure for the U.S.

Office of the U.S. Trade Representative ^ | November 2003 | press release

[1rudeboy]

•NAFTA has been a huge success for the U.S. and its NAFTA partners. It has helped Americans work smarter, earn more and increase purchasing power. It has contributed to more trade, higher productivity, better jobs, and higher wages.

•In ten years of NAFTA, total trade among the three countries has more than doubled, from $306 billion to $621 billion in 2003. That’s $1.7 billion in trade every day.

•U.S. exports to Canada and Mexico grew from $142 billion to $263 billion in NAFTA’s first ten years. And Mexican exports to the U.S. grew 242 percent, improving lives and reducing poverty in Mexico.

•Some claimed NAFTA would contribute to U.S. industrial decline and a “giant sucking sound.” But after NAFTA was passed in 1993:

--U.S. manufacturing output soared in the 1990s, up 44% in real terms.
--U.S. employment grew over 20 million between 1993 and 2000.
--U.S. manufacturing wages increased dramatically, with real hourly compensation up by 14.4% in the 10 years since NAFTA, more than double the 6.5% increase in the 10 years preceding NAFTA.
--Income gains and tax cuts from NAFTA were worth up to $930 each year for the average U.S. household of four.

•More recent problems for manufacturers and their employees came long after NAFTA. These problems are due to a recent recession from which the U.S. is now recovering strongly. Much is blamed on imports, but in fact 80% of the increase in the U.S. manufactures trade deficit in the last three years is attributable to reduced exports and weak demand overseas, not increased imports.

•Some blame NAFTA for recent economic problems. But in fact, during the recent U.S. economic downturn, U.S. imports from Mexico were up less than 2 percent (last three years). By contrast, the U.S. economy added more than 20 million jobs during a time when imports from Mexico were booming in 1993-2000 (up 241 percent).

•Clearly U.S. employment trends reflect the health of the U.S. economy far more than the negotiation of trade agreements like NAFTA.

[Gunslingr3]

Didn't take the Bush economic team too long to screw up Reagan's heritage. If NAFTA did not cost Americans 3 million jobs, then Bush's other policies did. His dividend tax cut has to kick in real soon. We need another America first conservative like Reagan.

Ah, the Fuehrerprinzip, the big chief is responsible for everything that goes on, right? It's GWB's fault that consumers and businesses ramped up debt and overcapacity in the '90's, right? It's GWB's fault that production structures must align themselves eventually with the reality of supply and demand, right? He could've waved a magic wand or something and made it better, but he's a jerk and wouldn't do it...

[Moby Grape]

Having worked in textiles for more than 20 years, I can assert, with confidence, that the decline textile MANUFACTURING in the US began YEARS before NAFTA.

[Moby Grape]

Yes...yes...yes...YES to ALL your questions...in fact, it is Bush's fault...because if it isn't Bush's fault, then the third party doom and gloom folks have nothing to spit and spew about.

[thoughtomator]

Wasn't NAFTA supposed to reduce illegal immigration by improving the Mexican economy? How they doing these days?

[1rudeboy]

. . . the United States maintains some of its highest tariffs on clothing imported from the developing world.

Source: Risky textiles policies

[1rudeboy]

If you click on the link at the top of the thread, you can locate the release titled, "Myth: NAFTA was a failure for Mexico." Enjoy.

[Libertarianize the GOP]

bump

[Joe Bfstplk]

"By contrast, the U.S. economy added more than 20 million jobs McJobs during a time when imports from Mexico were booming in 1993-2000 (up 241 percent). "

[Starrgaizr]

The FIRST North American Free Trade Agreement was called the Constituion of hte United States, the Commerce Clause of which prohibited individual states from erecting tarrifs or other barriers to interstate competition. It seems to have worked out fairly well.

[1rudeboy]

Where have I heard that before? Wait, now I remember. The first time was when the Democrats were whining during the Reagan era.

[Choose Ye This Day]

the decline textile MANUFACTURING in the US began YEARS before NAFTA.

Thought so. Thanks for the eyewitness, first-hand account.

Why do you think it has been in such decline for so long?

[free from tyranny]

"McJobs"

Hey you better watch it. That is a trademarked name. This is the way you add value to your economy once all your industrial jobs and tech jobs have been outsourced.

[ex-snook]

"the big chief is responsible for everything that goes on, right? "

Yep, the buck stops with the President. Making China one of his favored trading partners was his idea.

[superloser]

Is this adjusted for inflation?

Bear in mind, prices have doubled since 1990 so a claim of "doubling trade" using *dollars* as the measure for the last decade or so without adjusting for inflation gives you a big fat ZERO.

[texastoo]

NAFTA is so great that we have HAD to include ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS with the just passed Medicare bill.

[FITZ]

If you click on the link at the top of the thread, you can locate the release titled, "Myth: NAFTA was a failure for Mexico." Enjoy.

People leaving a country by the millions, millions more planning to leave, hundreds even dying trying to leave does not indicate success. A wealthy country very rich in natural resources mind you.

Then check our growing welfare rolls and you'll see how successful NAFTA really has been. Not very.

[Willie Green]

The FIRST North American Free Trade Agreement was called the Constituion of hte United States, the Commerce Clause of which prohibited individual states from erecting tarrifs or other barriers to interstate competition. It seems to have worked out fairly well.

Yeah. That's because the states competed on a level playing field established by all the other clauses in the Constitution. NAFTA doesn't do that.

U.S.-Mexico (Willie Green supports NAFTA and open borders!!!)

[1rudeboy]

In order for prices to double over the past ten or so years, I think you'd have to average 7-10% inflation per year.

[palmer]

Didja ever notice that the handout-game is always a one-way street? The textile folks want something from me, but do I get a free shirt from them every now and then? Oh, nooooooooo.

When you buy their shirts (instead of the cheaper Mexican shirts) they stay employed, contribute to the economy and pay taxes which benefits everyone here. Of course you could invest the savings from the cheaper merchandise to do the same thing. But as is obvious from debt levels and the trade deficits, "you" are squandering the savings on even more cheap imported crap.

[1rudeboy]

Yup, just blame NAFTA for it . . . what next, sunspots?