NAFTA has hurt living standards, think-tank says (Economic Policy Institute)

Reuters on Yahoo ^ | 9/27/06 | Reuters

[NormsRevenge]

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The North American Free Trade Agreement has lowered the standard of living for workers in the United States, Mexico and Canada, according to a new report.

Signed in 1994, the trade deal was touted as a win-win situation for all three signatories. But the Economic Policy Institute, a Washington think-tank, said that NAFTA has led to cuts in social spending and prompted wages to stagnate or even fall.

"Twelve years later, it is clear that the costs to workers outweighed the benefits in all three nations," the report said. "Workers' share of the gains from rising productivity fell and the proportion of income and wealth going to those at the very top of the economic pyramid grew."

In the United States, the promise of more jobs proved elusive, the study noted, with NAFTA contributing to the most anemic employment recovery in recent history.

Mexico's benefits from closer commercial ties with the United States also largely failed to materialize, the study found. There was a visible boost in employment, but much of it took place in very low-wage maquiladora industries.

As for Canada, its embrace of the regional free-trade agreement has led to severe cuts in social programs, EPI said, noting that government transfers to individuals had dropped from 11.5 percent of gross domestic product in 1994 to just 7.8 percent currently.

[PhilipFreneau]

>>>Explain how Congress' plenary power to "regulate commerce with foreign nations" is restricted by required 2/3 supermajority (the Treaty Clause).<<<

NAFTA is not a regulation of commerce by the congress, but rather an abdication of the authority to regulate commerce to cabinet-level representatives of the NAFTA member nations. There is no such authority under the constitution for the congress to abdicate authority, except by treaty, and then by 2/3rds majority vote.

[Jaysun]

I am suggesting that when the wealthy and powerful create the trade rules, they will not create a free market. Ask yourself - What are the advantages of a free market? Increased competition, a demand for increased productivity, a drive for technological investment, lower prices, thinner profit margins,......etc.

PS - who is more wealthy and powerful than the government? And things such as increased productivity, a drive for technological investment, lower prices, etc. drive profits UP. It's how Sam Walton once came to be the wealthiest man on earth, how Rockefeller made what was expensive (sperm whale oil) absurdly cheap.

A nation doesn't become wealthy by raising taxes - you don't become rich by raising prices. Name for me, please sir, an absurdly rich man that didn't get that way by making his products or services cheaper? And, for that matter, a rich man that didn't do his damnedest to give it away before his death?

Freedom is absurd. But it is correct and moral.

[1rudeboy]

No. Congress authorized those representatives, through Fast Track, to negotiate agreements without relinquishing either oversight or final approval. The authority itself expires after a set amount of time (I believe the current deadline is in 2007).

You really need to think this through . . . if Congress has the ultimate authority, but that authority is governed by the 2/3 rule, which branch of government regulates commerce with foreign nations if a 2/3 vote fails?

In other words, if Congress has the ultimate, plenary authority, what happens when your inevitable vacuum occurs?

[PhilipFreneau]

>>>You really need to think this through . . . if Congress has the ultimate authority, but that authority is governed by the 2/3 rule, which branch of government regulates commerce with foreign nations if a 2/3 vote fails?<<<

Using your logic ... if Congress has the ultimate authority, but that authority is governed by a majority rule, which branch of government regulates commerce with foreign nations if a majority vote fails?

[1rudeboy]

Good question. We stop unloading ships?

I hate to do this to you, but below is roughly eighty pages of reading material on the subject. It's an 11th Circuit opinion that directly addresses your argument. It's notable for praising the lower court's decision (a rare event in legal circles), which also addresses your concern. I used to have a link to it, but no longer. It's available on the web, and recommended. Finally, I should add that the Supreme Court declined to hear the case. In other words, all three branches of government stand in opposition to your opinion, Judiciary, Legislative, and Executive.

Made in U.S.A Foundation v. United States.

[PhilipFreneau]

>>>It's an 11th Circuit opinion that directly addresses your argument . . . I should add that the Supreme Court declined to hear the case.<<<

You do know that the courts have about as much credibility as the New York Times, don't you?

>>>In other words, all three branches of government stand in opposition to your opinion, Judiciary, Legislative, and Executive.<<<

So what? All three branches of the federal government also support federal gun control, social welfare, and other blatantly unconstitutional laws.

[nitzy]

Name for me, please sir, an absurdly rich man that didn't get that way by making his products or services cheaper?

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=1841989

When there is lack of a free market such as an oligopoly you can get away with it.

Sam Walton started off making his money in a free market by beating the hell out of his competition and working his ass off. Then once he got ahead in the mid 90's he started to heavily use communist slave labor in China to tilt the board.

https://www.etrade.wallst.com/v1/stocks/charts/charts.asp?symbol=WMT

Republicans claim to love big business and hate big government.

Democrats claim to love big government and hate big business.

But you should understand that big government loves big business and big business loves big government.

If you ran a business and had a congress critter in your pocket, would you want him to have more or less power over the market?

If you were a congress critter, would you want potential bribe money to be spread out among the masses or pooled together in large companies who need to buy influence?

[nopardons]

Thanks for the ping! :-)

[Jaysun]

You win nitzy. Lets lock up those fu**ing oil CEOs and shut down Wal-Mart. I hope to God that you either remain harmlessly stupid or wise up before you're allowed any authority.

[FFIGHTER]

Economic Policy Institute is the source? No Thanks.

[nitzy]

Let's compromise, how about we go back to a smaller government that follows the constitution. Let's let our elected officials pass as few laws as possible but when they do pass a law it is because it benefits those who elected them. Not those who paid for their election.

When you reduce the power of government and forbid them to write 1800 page free trade agreements which give power to unelected bureaucrats, then there will be no need for business to buy them off. I bet you don't make political contributions to high school class presidents. Why? Because they don't have any power to affect your life. Neither should the megalomaniacs in Washington or their corporate sponsors.

[Jaysun]

Sounds reasonable.