IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New NAFTA wasn't just one person pushing/stopping it.
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1992-12-18/news/1992353055_1_treaty-renegotiate-clinton

Bush signs North American trade pact Clinton says he won't renegotiate
December 18, 1992|By Gilbert A. Lewthwaite | Gilbert A. Lewthwaite,Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON -- President Bush signed the North American Free Trade Agreement yesterday, and his successor-in-waiting Bill Clinton immediately announced that he would not seek the treaty's renegotiation.

Mr. Clinton, in a statement issued in Little Rock, Ark., said the signing represented "an important step" toward the economic integration of North America. He repeated his campaign assertion that there would have to be new job and environmental protections, and safeguards against sudden trade "surges," but these could be settled without renegotiating the treaty with Mexico and Canada before he submitted implementing legislation.

"I will pursue those other things that I think need to be done in the public interest, then I will prepare implementing legislation and try to pass it in Congress," he said.

His new administration would also take domestic action on assisting workers, protecting the U.S. environment, helping farmers, encouraging public participation in consideration of the agreement and closing loopholes for foreign workers, he said.

"I believe these steps do not require renegotiation of NAFTA," said Mr. Clinton, promising to work closely with the two neighboring governments and with congress to "move this process forward."

[...]

Mr. Bush's action yesterday fulfilled the requirements of the "fast-track" legislative process, under which Congress can now only vote the agreement up or down. It cannot change the signed document.

Mr. Bush had to allow Congress 90 days to consider the agreement before signing. Yesterday was the first possible day for his signature. The clock will start ticking again when Mr. Clinton submits implementing legislation to make the necessary changes in U.S. law and tariffs required by the treaty. There is no deadline for Mr. Clinton to take this action, but once he does Congress will have up to 90 legislative days to vote up or down on the implementing legislation or change it.

The vote on the implementing legislation will ratify the treaty, which is due to go into effect Jan. 1, 1994.


Clinton signed the enabling legislation in December 1993:

When I affix my signature to the NAFTA legislation a few moments from now, I do so with this pledge: To the men and women of our country who were afraid of these changes and found in their opposition to NAFTA an expression of that fear—what I thought was a wrong expression and what I know was a wrong expression but nonetheless represented legitimate fears—the gains from this agreement will be your gains, too.

I ask those who opposed NAFTA to work with us to guarantee that the labor and side agreements are enforced, and I call on all of us who believe in NAFTA to join with me to urge the Congress to create the world's best worker training and retraining system. We owe it to the business community as well as to the working men and women of this country. It means greater productivity, lower unemployment, greater worker efficiency, and higher wages and greater security for our people. We have to do that.

We seek a new and more open global trading system not for its own sake but for our own sake. Good jobs, rewarding careers, broadened horizons for the middle class Americans can only be secured by expanding exports and global growth. For too long our step has been unsteady as the ground has shifted beneath our feet. Today, as I sign the North American Free Trade Agreement into law and call for further progress on GATT, I believe we have found our footing. And I ask all of you to be steady, to recognize that there is no turning back from the world of today and tomorrow. We must face the challenges, embrace them with confidence, deal with the problems honestly and openly, and make this world work for all of us. America is where it should be, in the lead, setting the pace, showing the confidence that all of us need to face tomorrow. We are ready to compete, and we can win.


(Emphasis added.)

Did Congress do that? Not that I recall.

NAFTA was a GOP idea. GHWB signed it - it's kinda hard for him to see it enacted when he signed it, as a lame duck a few weeks before he left office. Bill seemed to try to use it to help people who were already being affected by increased global trade - not a bad idea.

Was there insufficient followup? Maybe. Did NAFTA destroy the US economy? No. Was it a boon for the US? No.

FWIW.

Cheers,
Scott.
New 700,000 of your countrymen would disagree about the destruction.
The historic agreement, signed just three years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, tore down trade barriers between the U.S., Canada and Mexico, making trade and investment easier for businesses without allowing for the cross-border movement of labor. Despite the agreement being considered a boon for Mexico, the country’s economy grew only 1.6 percent per capita on average between 1992 and 2007, The New York Times reported in 2009.

The EPI’s calculation of 682,900 jobs lost to NAFTA takes into account jobs created as a result, too. Last year, for example, U.S. exports to Mexico supported 791,900 jobs. It’s just that those jobs created pale in comparison to the 1.47 million U.S. jobs that would be necessary without the imports resulting from NAFTA, the report found.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/12/nafta-job-loss-trade-deficit-epi_n_859983.html
bcnu,
Mikem

I think religion should be treated with ridicule, hatred and contempt. And I claim that right.
Christopher Hitchens.
New "without allowing for the cross-border movement of labor" that is what was wrong with it
a truly capitalist society would allow capital to move freely. Those of us who are poor the only capital is their labor
always look out for number one and don't step in number two
New It, like everything else in this country, wasn't written for labor.
bcnu,
Mikem

I think religion should be treated with ridicule, hatred and contempt. And I claim that right.
Christopher Hitchens.
New Dunno.
How about a dispassionate look at the manufacturing employment numbers over a long period of time? Isn't manufacturing the thing that was "decimated" in the US by NAFTA?

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES3000000001

[edit: Here's the graph - dunno how long it will last]



If you look at the BLS data for Manufacturing Employment from, say, 1970 - 2016 you see a three obvious features:

1) lots of oscillations around a level of about 17.5 M (oscillations apparently due to the business cycle)

2) a dramatic fall from 2001 - 2010

3) a rise from 2010 - 2015

It's hard for me to see that you can tie the changes in manufacturing employment from 2001 on to NAFTA. NAFTA took effect on January 1, 1994. It took 7 years for it to have a big impact on manufacturing employment? Really?

And manufacturing employment did go up from 1994 - 1998 according to those numbers.

Maybe electing W, and the bursting of the Tech Bubble, and the freakout over 9/11 and the rise in oil prices, and a bunch of other things, had much more to do with fall in manufacturing employment than NAFTA.

Maybe. (I haven't read your link yet, but I'm suspicious of too much precision in numbers like "682,900 jobs lost to NAFTA".)

FWIW.

Cheers,
Scott.
Expand Edited by Another Scott Nov. 8, 2016, 02:47:41 PM EST
     So, President Trump. - (pwhysall) - (67)
         Probably a lot like Brexit -NT - (drook) - (1)
             Re: Probably a lot like Brexit - (pwhysall)
         Sam Wang still says it's Hillary's and nothing has changed in many months. - (Another Scott) - (2)
             Re: so many of Hillary's voters aren't assumed to be interested in voting - (a6l6e6x)
             Interesting analysis at Vox - (pwhysall)
         no, its a clinton landslide, I have been assured by stalwart clintonians. - (boxley)
         Well.. PBS--our ~Beeb?--has been showing the "Eyes on the Prize" doc. ..generate some Backbone? - (Ashton)
         We're fairly well doomed either way. - (mmoffitt) - (49)
             Re: We're fairly well doomed either way. - (Another Scott) - (48)
                 You did not contrast that with the Trump plan. - (a6l6e6x)
                 Ah yes, her public view -NT - (boxley) - (7)
                     She has an actual record you could examine if you'd like. -NT - (Another Scott) - (6)
                         Curious that no one is reporting on the good emails - (malraux) - (1)
                             Yup. - (Another Scott)
                         i thought you said she has never been convicted? -NT - (boxley) - (3)
                             nyuk, nyuk, nyuk. :-) -NT - (Another Scott) - (2)
                                 You could have said the record went platinum! :) -NT - (a6l6e6x) - (1)
                                     D'Oh! :-) -NT - (Another Scott)
                 You might want to look at that chart again. - (mmoffitt) - (38)
                     The rich get richer when the economy does well. Film at 11. - (Another Scott) - (37)
                         So, nothing wrong with wealth distribution here, move along. - (mmoffitt) - (36)
                             Eh? - (Another Scott) - (35)
                                 How about increasing the top rate *BACK* to 70%? You know, the Pre-Reagan rate, 30.4% higher. -NT - (mmoffitt) - (34)
                                     How about it? - (Another Scott) - (33)
                                         Oh sure. Nothing happens fast. Reagan and Bush's cuts were incremental, of course. - (mmoffitt) - (32)
                                             I don't call Reagan's tax cuts "progress" myself. YMMV. ;-) -NT - (Another Scott) - (31)
                                                 So bad things happen fast, but we have to be patient for good things? - (mmoffitt) - (30)
                                                     So who should we elect instead? - (drook) - (29)
                                                         As I've already said, I think it doesn't matter much. - (mmoffitt) - (28)
                                                             Bernie who can't get hardly anyone to co-sponsor his legislation? That Bernie? - (Another Scott) - (27)
                                                                 The Amendment King. -NT - (mmoffitt) - (26)
                                                                     Meh. - (Another Scott) - (25)
                                                                         It's EASY to pass PRO WALL STREET/BIG PHARMA/BANKSTER/MIC legislation. HTH. -NT - (mmoffitt) - (24)
                                                                             Trump is the one who wants to do that. Yet somehow Hillary is the evil one....? -NT - (Another Scott) - (23)
                                                                                 See: TARP, Patriot Act, Wall St speeches, etc. -NT - (mmoffitt) - (22)
                                                                                     Re: See: TARP, Patriot Act, Wall St speeches, etc. - (Another Scott) - (21)
                                                                                         were you speaking about senator obama, the prez obama just steamrolled over it -NT - (boxley)
                                                                                         Dude. Enough with the binary thinking. - (mmoffitt) - (19)
                                                                                             Re: Not voting for Hillary is not the same thing as voting for Trump. - (a6l6e6x) - (16)
                                                                                                 More than that. - (Another Scott) - (15)
                                                                                                     Funny that. - (mmoffitt) - (14)
                                                                                                         No, it's not funny. - (Another Scott) - (13)
                                                                                                             I'm not completely unsympathetic to your argument. I bought Moore's Trumpland this week-end. - (mmoffitt) - (4)
                                                                                                                 So you were OK with Bernie? - (Another Scott) - (3)
                                                                                                                     He supports airplanes and guns and that's supposed to make him a bad guy with me? :-) - (mmoffitt)
                                                                                                                     I am - (scoenye) - (1)
                                                                                                                         Good post. Thanks. -NT - (Another Scott)
                                                                                                             I just reread a part of your post and you COULD NOT be more wrong. - (mmoffitt) - (7)
                                                                                                                 Yeah, Bill was just a Taft Republican - (Another Scott) - (6)
                                                                                                                     Riddle me this. If "A President is constrained by his/her times ..." - (mmoffitt) - (5)
                                                                                                                         NAFTA wasn't just one person pushing/stopping it. - (Another Scott) - (4)
                                                                                                                             700,000 of your countrymen would disagree about the destruction. - (mmoffitt) - (3)
                                                                                                                                 "without allowing for the cross-border movement of labor" that is what was wrong with it - (boxley) - (1)
                                                                                                                                     It, like everything else in this country, wasn't written for labor. -NT - (mmoffitt)
                                                                                                                                 Dunno. - (Another Scott)
                                                                                             Not voting for Hillary turned out to be EXACTLY the same thing as voting for Trump, dinnit? -NT - (CRConrad) - (1)
                                                                                                 Not for me. My failure to vote for her meant nothing. - (mmoffitt)
         Perhaps the most important thing to note. - (mmoffitt) - (8)
             Meh. - (Another Scott) - (7)
                 Bernie would have buried Trump. -NT - (mmoffitt) - (6)
                     Only in your dreams. - (Another Scott) - (5)
                         I don't agree with this - (malraux) - (4)
                             Bernie has different baggage. - (Another Scott) - (3)
                                 yup, hers to lose as she had the entire DNC and press in her pocket -NT - (boxley) - (1)
                                     Amen. -NT - (mmoffitt)
                                 This Neo-McCarthyism is getting creepy. -NT - (mmoffitt)
         Dupe. -NT - (mmoffitt)

Powered by Arkadiy!
82 ms