Headline says signed by Clinton in 93. First line of story says signed by US in 92.
This inconsistency is consistent with the confusion that is NAFTA. The concept of NAFTA was originally "free trade". But after labor unions, corporations, environmentalists and dozens of other special interests and campaign contributors in all three countries were done, there was nothing left in it that was "free trade" except the name.
It became "managed trade". For example, the Democrat Senators from WA, MT, SD, MN and led by ND created a very expensive process for Canada to ship its vast energy resources to the USA. This hurt both Canada and the USA when the free market would have been in the best interest of both countries. But it served the special interests of those Senators along the Canadian border and their campaign contributors.
Numerous other examples exist. It is understandable that NAFTA critics on the left would not understand the realities of economics. But it is frustrating that NAFTA critics on the right accept the mislabeling of this managed trade agreement and unfairly malign it for the wrong reasons.
Thanks for the heads-up. I was kind of puzzled myself about that 1992 and/or 1993 thing. Again, thanks for your insight.
Post of the day.
There were some democrats who considered Clinton's signing as misfeasence in that had he scrubbed NAFTA properly, he would have recognized the implications, and not signed it. There were also fewer democrats accusing Clinton of malfeasence in that he was aware of the implications when he signed.
Whether Clinton was or was not part of it, many democrats still think that NAFTA, CAFTA, and FTAA is a conservative conspiracy to "roll back the New Deal".