With failure of NAFTA, why more Trade Deals?

Why Move Jobs From Democracies To Thugocracies? By Dave Johnson, Campaign for America's Future "Free trade" treaties like NAFTA have wiped out entire regions of our country and left entire segments of our population without good-paying jobs -- or in so many cases with no jobs at all. And they have had similar results with our trade "partners." We can see that now. So why are we even talking about doing more of these treaties? Democracy vs Thugocracy Democracies set up protections for their people. Democracies protect wages, rights, safety, dignity and the environment. The so-called "free trade" agreements we have been getting into allow companies to get around the borders of our democracy, pitting their employees against the exploited people living under thugocracies with few or no protections at all. But these treaties have brought vast wealth to a very few, and maybe that was the point all along. Now with the NAFTA and China trade record clear, the DC/corporate elite and Wall Street/Chamber of Commerce multinationals are pushing new trade treaties with South Korea, Columbia, Oman and Panama. Their goal seems to be to make the rich even richer while making things even worse for the rest of us. NAFTA - "Case Study In Failure" Ian Fletcher writing at Huffington Post in, More Free Trade Agreements? When NAFTA Failed?, How have our past trade agreements worked out? Above all, how's the grand-daddy of them all, NAFTA, doing? Unfortunately, NAFTA is a veritable case study in failure. How is NAFTA working out for us? For the four years prior to NAFTA's implementation in 1994, America's annual deficit with Canada averaged a modest $8.1 billion. Twelve years later, it was up to $71 billion. Our trade with Mexico showed a $1.6 billion surplus in 1993 but by 2010, our deficit had reached $61.6 billion. Fletcher cites the Economic Policy Institute to detail the dramatic loss of jobs we have suffered. But not just jobs, also wages. NAFTA has eliminated some 766,000 job opportunities--primarily for non-college-educated workers in manufacturing. Contrary to what the American promoters of NAFTA promised U.S. workers, the agreement did not result in an increased trade surplus with Mexico, but the reverse. As manufacturing jobs disappeared, workers were down-scaled to lower-paying, less-secure services jobs. Within manufacturing, the threat of employers to move production to Mexico proved a powerful weapon for undercutting workers' bargaining power. And how is NAFTA working out for Mexican workers? It turned low-wage workers into even-lower-wage workers. In reality, the income gap between the United States and Mexico grew (by over 10 percent) in the first decade of the agreement. This doesn't mean America boomed; we didn't. But Mexico slumped terribly. In NAFTA's first decade, the Mexican economy averaged 1.8 percent real growth per capita. By contrast, under the protectionist economic policies of 1948-73, Mexico had averaged 3.2 percent growth. ... Mexican workers can often be hired for less than the taxes on American workers; the average maquiladora wage is $1.82/hr. The maquiladora sector is deliberately isolated from the rest of the Mexican economy and contributes little to it. Workers' rights, wages, and benefits are deliberately suppressed. Environmental laws are frequently just ignored. Mexican agriculture hasn't benefited either: NAFTA turned Mexico from a food exporter to a food importer overnight and over a million farm jobs were wiped out by cheap American food exports, massively subsidized by our various farm programs. [. . .] Between 1990 and 1999, Mexican manufacturing wages fell 21 percent. How have our other free-trade agreements worked out? Fletcher again, (please go read his entire post, and take a look at his book, Free Trade Doesn't Work: What Should Replace it and Why, as well) FTA is not America's only free trade agreement, of course. But our other agreements tell similar tales. We have signed 11 since 2000: with Australia, Bahrain, Chile, Colombia, Jordan, Korea, Oman, Morocco, Singapore, Panama, and Peru. (El Salvador, Nicaragua, Honduras, Guatemala, and the Dominican Republic were lumped together in the Central America Free Trade Agreement or CAFTA.) Every agreement but one has coincided with greater American deficits. Not such a great record. Let's not do more of this. A Better Way Trade doesn't have to be used to pit people against each other. It can be used to lift each other up. We can instead negotiate treaties to demand that the thugocracies offer better wages and protections, or they can't sell to us. Or if they do sell to us as add a tariff that undoes any advantage they get from mistreating their people, and use the money to strengthen our infrastructure and competitiveness in world markets. We can use trade to lift the world for the benefit of all instead of to exploit the world for the benefit of a few. Read original post here