NAFTA has been an absolute disaster for the Rustbelt states, but no academics seem interested in the bad news.

NAFTA was sold using the myth of "high value service jobs," which was a crock.

We have allowed the destruction of millions of manufacturing jobs so we can buy cheap stuff at Wal-mart. This is intelligent trade policy?

The "suits" who support unfair trade have secure jobs far away from the people who do the difficult work in this economy - or used to anyway.

Buggy whip manufacturers particularly hard hit.

I guess I'd point you to Matt Yglesias -- http://yglesias.typepad.com/matthew/2005/04/cafta_bad.html . He's by no means a protectionist. If you pay close attention to his writing, it's clear Harvard thoroughly indoctrinated him in standard economic thinking. Nevertheless, he still is against CAFTA for what seem like decent reasons.

I see why you might like CAFTA. I see why you might hope Dems would vote for it. I certainly see why freetrade.org would like it. But it's not a no-brainer. It's got all the hallmarks of recent policy blunders (e.g. pork and expensive corporate handouts). There are certainly at least a few decent reasons for vote no.

During the Clinton administration I would have been more sanguine about this stuff.

But now that we're billions in debt, in a war, in grinding personal economic insecurity, crappy public schools, crappy public corruption at the highest levels...

I'm not going to support this free trade stuff anymore. All this stuff about how it's supposed to make our standard of living better is just hooey, a false failed religion. If my representative votes for it I'll holler at him and work to turn them out of office.

I'm about two steps from pitchforks and torches, and I know plenty of other people who feel the same way. We're not going to go for it anymore.

CAFTA isn't just about free trade.

You owe it to yourself to check out all the links I provided here.

For the short version, click here now or just visit StopCAFTA.com.

See also FAIR's Statement Regarding Proposed CAFTA Treaty:

...The negative implications of the CAFTA provisions for illegal immigration to the United States are likely to be caused by the same effects that have generated increased illegal immigration from Mexico under the North American Free Trade Act. As the 2000 Census revealed, the number of illegal immigrants from Mexico has increased substantially since the adoption of NAFTA, with no end in sight. Illegal immigration from Central America is already too numerous without adopting trade policies that will likely displace and motivate more subsistence farmers from that region to find seek illegally in our country...

CAFTA isn't just about free trade.

You owe it to yourself to check out all the links I provided here.

For the short version, click here now or just visit StopCAFTA.com.

See also FAIR's Statement Regarding Proposed CAFTA Treaty:

...The negative implications of the CAFTA provisions for illegal immigration to the United States are likely to be caused by the same effects that have generated increased illegal immigration from Mexico under the North American Free Trade Act. As the 2000 Census revealed, the number of illegal immigrants from Mexico has increased substantially since the adoption of NAFTA, with no end in sight. Illegal immigration from Central America is already too numerous without adopting trade policies that will likely displace and motivate more subsistence farmers from that region to find seek illegally in our country...

CAFTA isn't just about free trade.

You owe it to yourself to check out all the links I provided here.

For the short version, click here now or just visit StopCAFTA.com.

See also FAIR's Statement Regarding Proposed CAFTA Treaty:

...The negative implications of the CAFTA provisions for illegal immigration to the United States are likely to be caused by the same effects that have generated increased illegal immigration from Mexico under the North American Free Trade Act. As the 2000 Census revealed, the number of illegal immigrants from Mexico has increased substantially since the adoption of NAFTA, with no end in sight. Illegal immigration from Central America is already too numerous without adopting trade policies that will likely displace and motivate more subsistence farmers from that region to find seek illegally in our country...

CAFTA isn't just about free trade.

You owe it to yourself to check out all the links I provided here.

For the short version, click here now or just visit StopCAFTA.com.

See also FAIR's Statement Regarding Proposed CAFTA Treaty:

...The negative implications of the CAFTA provisions for illegal immigration to the United States are likely to be caused by the same effects that have generated increased illegal immigration from Mexico under the North American Free Trade Act. As the 2000 Census revealed, the number of illegal immigrants from Mexico has increased substantially since the adoption of NAFTA, with no end in sight. Illegal immigration from Central America is already too numerous without adopting trade policies that will likely displace and motivate more subsistence farmers from that region to find seek illegally in our country...

CAFTA isn't just about free trade.

You owe it to yourself to check out all the links I provided here.

For the short version, click here now or just visit StopCAFTA.com.

See also FAIR's Statement Regarding Proposed CAFTA Treaty:

...The negative implications of the CAFTA provisions for illegal immigration to the United States are likely to be caused by the same effects that have generated increased illegal immigration from Mexico under the North American Free Trade Act. As the 2000 Census revealed, the number of illegal immigrants from Mexico has increased substantially since the adoption of NAFTA, with no end in sight. Illegal immigration from Central America is already too numerous without adopting trade policies that will likely displace and motivate more subsistence farmers from that region to find seek illegally in our country...

CAFTA isn't just about free trade.

You owe it to yourself to check out all the links I provided here.

For the short version, click here now or just visit StopCAFTA.com.

See also FAIR's Statement Regarding Proposed CAFTA Treaty:

...The negative implications of the CAFTA provisions for illegal immigration to the United States are likely to be caused by the same effects that have generated increased illegal immigration from Mexico under the North American Free Trade Act. As the 2000 Census revealed, the number of illegal immigrants from Mexico has increased substantially since the adoption of NAFTA, with no end in sight. Illegal immigration from Central America is already too numerous without adopting trade policies that will likely displace and motivate more subsistence farmers from that region to find seek illegally in our country...

The title of Dan's post sums it up.

Democratic opposition to CAFTA is not about either economics or foreign policy. The truth is that most Democrats in Congress were always unhappy about having to cross their union supporters on trade votes. The imperative in modern, low-turnout Congressional elections is to be for your most zealous and organized supporters all the way, all the time. The opportunity to inflict a defeat on President Bush -- who won't suffer much for it, though the country's credibility in international trade negotiations will -- merely provides an excuse for Congressional Democrats to do for trade unions and sugar farmers what they do already for trial lawyers and feminists. They will do what they are told to do, and they will like it. That is who they are.

Whatever else you might say, it is the people's will -- If CAFTA were put to popular vote it would lose.

Walker: this is precisely why we have representative, not direct, democracy.

I bet chevron is a republican firm.

and they have not hestitated to fan a bit of protectionism to suit their interests ...

i have seen a lot of Rs saying nasty things about CNOOC.

Dan,

You also know that free trade is a difficult sell politically. Which means that opposing CAFTA- giving consituents their short-sighted demands and hurting Bush at the same time- is a political no-brainer.

NAFTA was supposed to bring increased propsperity to "working people" but the opposite occurred.

So why should be we believe anyone in Washington this time around? Who is going to volunteer to give up their job and jeopardize their family to increase democracy in Central America? Dan?

The issue is not change, change is inevitable. The issue is how we manage change, and that has been a major failure.

Hey Dan,

Why are you picking on the Dem's? From my understanding of the Constitution, and party representation, the Republicans control all three branches of government. Yet in this article Weisman writes:

"Dozens of Republicans in districts dependent on the textile industry, the sugar growers or small manufacturers have already said they will vote against the bill."

Dozen's of Republicans! I expect the Dem's to be in opposition, that's the opposition's job. But the Republican party that can keep a single woman on life support can't pass a trade treaty?

Now why didn't you include that section in your post. Seems like pointless Democrat bashing to me.

It is truly outrageous that the Democrats are forcing the Republicans to choose between a making a tough vote and handing the President a defeat. The Democrats should vote the way the Republicans want, contribute to the Republicans' campaigns, and maybe bake the Republicans a nice cake.

Or stand on a principle and actually create their own policy instead of just opposing everything Bush supports. But that may be too much to ask.

And anyone who supported what Live 8 was trying to accomplish and opposes CAFTA is a straight up hypocrite.

Mark Buehner:

Are you will to lose your job, lose your home, and file personal bankruptcy to forward the cause of free trade and democracy in Central America?

If not, be careful with the name calling.

As a pro free-trade Democrat, I'm glad to see the
Dems in the House unified against CAFTA. Frankly,
I think free trade agreements are much better made
with bipartisan input. Needless to say, a Bush agreement
doesn't meet that threshold.

And the last line of Dan's post (who otherwise is generally perhaps the fairest of bloggers) is just really off. Just
under one quarter of the Senate Democrats voted for CAFTA. How exactly does that make "the entire party ... behaving in a protectionist manner"?

Why bash Dems? Because of their blatant partisanship. More Republicans voted for NAFTA in the House and Senate than Democrats -- for a Democratic president. Meanwhile, a grant total of 10 Democrats in the Senate voted for CAFTA in the Senate, and in the House a mere 5 say they will support it.

Save The Rustbelt,

What you argue is "economic superstition". After NAFTA, number of total jobs in the US did not go down, in fact it went up. Some people lost their jobs, but more people gained jobs. International Economic is not a zero-sum game. Looks up the theory of comparitive advantage. I cannot believe there are still people with such reactionary and obsolete idea.

Minh-Duc:

Tell it to the workers in Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania who lost their jobs, lost their homes and filed personal bankruptcy.

People, not statistics. Real live people.

So there are more longshoremen and truck drivers working in the southwest - good for them.
I'm neither reactionary or obsolete, just have a touch of humanity.

"Are you will to lose your job, lose your home, and file personal bankruptcy to forward the cause of free trade and democracy in Central America?"

Rust, i'm willing to accept the reality that i am not guaranteed a job, field, or career for the rest of my life. If i lose my job tomorrow ill find another. If that fails ill go to another field and succeed there. It was an ill-conceived house of cards fantasy of the last century trying to convince people they were guaranteed a job for life. Roll with the punches. China and India sure will.

Note to All:

"save_the_rustbelt" is a troll. Please don't feed.

Question for Dan: Ron Paul(R-Texas) voted against CAFTA for what I think are fairly sound reasons - it creates another unaccountable international body to regulate American commerce, a power given by the constituion only to the American Congress. Couldn't we accomplish the exact same thing by simply lowering or eliminating our own tariffs?

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2005/tst060605.htm

Dan,

I am interested in what you have to say about Brad DeLong's reply to your argument...
http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/.

I am in agreement with Brad's take on your commentary. I do enjoy reading your blog, but supporting CAFTA is not an all or nothing proposition.

I have embraced Economic Free-Trade much more so now than I ever have before. But don't talk crap about the free-trade democrats until you address the concerns raised about the additional crap that was added to the bill, especially as the Republican leadership shut out negotitiations on the bill.

Don Mynack:

I'm not certain what a "troll" is, but I guarantee I am not one.

Is this limited to people who agree with your positions?

By the way, I agree with your position on unaccountable international bodies.

In the past 4 years, George Bush and the Republicans have pissed away $2 Trillion of our savings and yet the US economy is still limping along and we have 7.6 million unemployed citizens.
See http://stats.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

One out of five of those unemployed citizens are long term unemployed.

As I've documented earlier, the bulk of the money from Bush's tax cut for the rich is going into foreign investments, NOT into renewing the US industrial plant.

We know that older industries are constantly shedding workers due to decline in demand, greater efficiency from maturing technology and economy of scale, etc. High Tech is important because that is the source of new jobs. So why should jobs needed by workers in transition be given to foreign workers?

Yet Daniel Drezner blandly assures us that things are peachly keen.

Why in the hell do US voters support our universities? What thing of value --what iota of real truth -- does the University of Chicago's Department of Political Science provide to us in exchange for the annual funding by the taxpayers?

Academicans can be blase about the poverty of US citizens because --like medieval churchmen -- their sophistry on behalf of the rich and powerful provides them with a comfortable living.

University of Chicago, for example, got $172.4 Million last year in Federal R&D funds alone --not counting the huge piles of federal tax dollars that get passed to it every year from students (federal loans and scholarships). And Chicago is just one of many institutions.

Re NAFTA, would Dan like to compare the post-NAFTA flow of Mexican capital into the US versus the flow of US capital into Mexican investments?

In my area, I saw several news stories about local companies closing businesses in order to relocate production to Mexico. I didn't see
any stories about Mexican millionaires building factories in this area however.

Of course, when I and other cite such real life facts, our comments are dismissed with sneers as "anecdotal evidence." We have not learned the academic tricks of making arguments based on abtuse handwaving --excuse me, "economic reasoning" that has a suspicious resemblance to theology. Or arguing that our advocacy is supported by "regression analysis"
and "advanced statistical sampling".

Give. Me. A. Break. Economy limping along at 4% growth and 5.1% unemployment. Thats a bad thing? Please. Most of Europe has half our growth and twice our unemployment. What a crock, how about a little perspective?

"Of course, when I and other cite such real life facts, our comments are dismissed with sneers as "anecdotal evidence."

Little tip, stop producing anecdotal evidence and you will not be sneered at for producing anecdotal evidence.

Free trade is generally good, and NAFTA helped the economy. But free trade is a hard political sell, esp to Dems who have many in their districts who lose from free trade. Esp when there isnt a Dem president pushing it. And from what I can gather, CAFTA is an inferior treaty as compared to NAFTA, in terms of special deals. While I would probably vote for CAFTA myself, I have a hard time getting excited about its defeat. Pelosi partisan? well its hardly like the admin has been spreading bipartisan sweetness and light. IF Cafta goes down, its back to the drawing board - come up with a better treaty, with bipartisan input.

Mark:

I can tell by your writing you are well educated and I imagine you would prosper in most economic circumstances, as do I.

I can also guess you have not given 20 or 25 years of your life to a manufacturing job that was moved overseas.

The problem with national growth and unemployment statistics is that lots of folks aren't enjoying the growth and employment.

So we are better off than Europe, I would expect that.

So what do we do with displaced workers? Bush wants to train them for nonexistent jobs. Any ideas?

"Rusty the troll"

Well Rusty, pardon me for calling you a troll, but just about every post you place on here is a diatribe about lost manufacturing jobs due to free trade, I would at least say you have an inability to see the bigger picture here - economies are dynamic, and those that refuse to change don't survive. The rust belt manufacturing jobs didn't go away because of politicians, they went away because they were no longer able to compete in a global market. The tarriffs necessary to support them are a tax that the rest of the nation is not obligated, nor should they be, to pay.

Europe's "safety net" of socialism is currently killing them now - would you rather be stuck with their problems, or ours?

Dan,

While I generally agree with you on most issues, I have to say that this posting amounts to partisan Dem-bashing for no good reason. The White House, as usual, failed to consult even with pro-trade Dems to come up with a bill that that they could sign onto in good conscience - and the White House did that with pure partisan gain in mind, not the good of the North or Central American people. You seem to be a good man and wise scholar, and you should know better than to toe the White House line at this point, after all the trouble they've put the country through for partisan advantage. Brad DeLong has a sensible response to this on his site.

Don:

Fair enough.

Bill Clinton told us (Rustbelters) trade would make us more properous, and we would be flooded with high value service jobs.

George Bush told us trade would make us more properous.

So, if the real policy was survival-of-the-fittest, shouldn't the workers/voters have been told the truth?

I have a comfortable life, but I can't be so cavalier about hundreds of thousands of workers (just in Ohio and Michigan) being tossed overboard. Although I am a Repub the social Darwinists in the Bush administration really burn my behind.

These are not statistics, these are real people.

If that makes me hysterical or something, well, excuse me.

Leaving aside that the least admirable aspects of CAFTA -- the sugar settlement and a questionable deal on pharmaceutical patents -- are not the ones most Democrats are criticizing, it's no more than common sense to ask ourselves if those liberals rallying to the defense of House Democrats are on the level.

On every major trade vote since NAFTA the number of Democratic Congressmen supporting trade liberalization has gone down: when Clinton was in the White House and after Bush was elected, when the economy was doing well and when it was not. While there has been some corporate support for free trade, the core Democratic constituency that cares about this issue -- the unions -- is overtly protectionist. It looks to me as if House Democrats choosing to describe themselves as "pro-trade" are looking for excuses more than reasons to vote against CAFTA; the heat is on, and they can't take it.

They at least have something to lose. What a blogger like DeLong thinks he has to lose I have no idea.

"The problem with national growth and unemployment statistics is that lots of folks aren't enjoying the growth and employment."

If that is the standard we are in bigger trouble than you think. The perfect is the enemy of the good after all. On the other hand so long as the economy is growing with strength there will be resources to train and educate people. Protectionism just puts us in a downward spiral where everyone suffers more equally. We've seen what that looks like.

"So what do we do with displaced workers? Bush wants to train them for nonexistent jobs. Any ideas?"

Well 95% of workers have seemed to figure it out. How about training in a growth field? Or finding a way to become an entrepeneur in a familiar field?

Lets not pretend American industry hasnt caused a lot of its own headaches. Its pretty conventional wisdom that entrenched American companies like GM and American Airlines have been so poorly managed that they simply cant be competitive, and that is where a lot of this comes from. Also Unions unwillingness to be flexible leads to a place where instead of cuts entire shops close down. Who's fault is that? A lot of American industries simply are not willing or able to go the extra mile service wise and speed wise to make up for the cost benefits of going offshore. The companies that have adjusted do well, those that dont dont make it. Cutting off competition so companies are free to be inefficient and unresponsive screws the consumer, the employer, and ultimately the worker. For every guy in Dayton who loses his job i'll point to you 500 working class moms all over the country glad to be able to afford gym shoes and t-shirts for their kids.

Mark:

Hard to disagree with any of that. I told my accounting and finance classes in the early 80s about BFS companies like GM (Big, Fat and Stupid) and the suicidal tendencies of the United Auto Workers.

I am in favor of change and have no illusions of perfection.

So do those of us who work with our brains have any obligation to those who work with their hands?
Or is humanity incompatible with economics?

By the way, the people we throw overboard now are less likely to have good health insurance and/or retirement benefits, so their security may be a dilemma in the future. They would rather be working now.

"Do you need a cart today?"

Here's the correct URL:

FAIR's Statement Regarding Proposed CAFTA Treaty

And, here's the Rep. Ron Paul link.

See also CAFTA's Threats to U.S. Independence

And, here's Rep. Charlie Norwood discussing the other plans the "free traders" have in mind.

Rusty,

An interesting debate. But before you get carried away with the "humanity vs. economics" argument, remember that all those manufacturing jobs that left Ohio and Michigan are now being filled by Mexicans, who last I heard were in fact part of the human race.

So let's go easy on the "touch of humanity" and "real, live people" arguments and acknowledge that your issue is not that "humanity" is losing but that "some Americans" are losing. Thanks.

Will free trade ever evolve past the unproven rhetoric of "these are real life people, not statistics?" There is absolutely NO statistical evidence to back up any claims that NAFTA hurt any part of this country.

It's a shame CAFTA is going to fail due to the efforts of the US Sugar lobby. Or because of Bush's "partisan-ship" in not consulting House Democrats. That's NOT a valid reason to not support legislation and is carny-speak for "We don't like Bush and this can make him weak."

Greg G.: there is plenty of statistical evidence generated on both sides that NAFTA helped/hurt the US economy.

c'mon Dan, Clinton offered to defend any Republican Member of Congress from an attack by Democrats if they voted with him on it--do you think Bush would do that for Dems? The Clinton White House also hired a former Republican Member to lobby Republicans. And let's not forget Gore dressing down Perot who was the center of Republican leaning opposition.

DRB

Yes, some Americans are losing.

Last time I checked, the federal government is not empowered to represent the interests of Mexican nationals. And yes, I care more about citizens of Ohio than about citizens of Mexico.

Greg G

According to the federal government NAFTA destroyed manufacturing jobs in Ohio without equivilant replacement jobs being created.

All of the "high value service jobs" are missing in action.

Rusty,

Thanks for your honesty. Since you've conceded that you're really just concerned about elevating one particular subset of people at the expense of other subsets, I trust you'll put the violin away now and stop emoting about "humanity", yes? Much appreciated.

Now, now.

I would be delighted to see the Mexican people (and the Chinese) be prosperous, happy and live in fully democratic countries.

I do object to the U.S. government setting policies to create jobs in Mexico by destroying jobs in Ohio.

If that is to happen, then the U.S. governemtn has some responsibility to displaced U.S. workers, other than phony job training programs and a 1950s unemployment program.

PS: Dan D's CAFTA commentary is now linked to the Club for Growth. I guess he is a full fledged supply sider now (?).

What we are seeing here is the fallout due to the utter lack of anything resembling a civilized social safety net in the United States.

Advocates of free trade cannot reasonably expect a vast majority of Americans to watch their jobs and living standards pissed away for the benefit of foreigners. Promises of "retraining" (for what, exactly) or "displacement aid" have been made and broken so many times that most people see them now as code for "Fuck you". The Social Darwinist face behind the mask is out, and it isn't pretty.

Dan, Brad, and all of the rest do not know what the hell they are talking about. So-called "free trade" has destroyed our economy and made the U.S. into a hollow giant. It's about time for real Americans to take back the nation and stop listening to arrogant, cloistered academics who never bear the brunt of their asinine policies.