Now is not the time to renegotiate or cancel NAFTA - Bush

[Toro]

but.. wasn't alabama still AMERICA? you say that cheap shit will let people buy more (cheap) shit that is supposed to generate jobs. In practice, it's created the means to sell the cheap shit rather than the means to create American shit. This lowers the American standard of living. We don't owe mexico that.

What you are defending is the concept that trade destroys net jobs and wealth. If that were the case, why would New York trade with California? Why would New York City trade with Buffalo? Why would Manhattan trade with Queens? Why would the Upper East Side trade with Soho? Why would each of these jurisdictions not throw up trade barriers with all the others to "protect" jobs?

The reason is because trade increases specialization, which increases productivity, which is a critical key to a growing economy.

Do you honestly believe that America's standards of living would be higher if we didn't allow cheaper foreign cars in this country? The average price of a new car in this country is, what, $20,000. Would you say that America would be better off if we had banned all car imports? The average price of a car in this country would be much, much higher if we had done so, maybe $30,000 or $35,000. It would have been better for the couple hundred thousand auto workers but it would be much worse for the couple hundred millions of Americans.

Trade protectionism destroys wealth and protects a privileged industry that exists only because of political power, not because of economics. It exists at the expense of everyone else and is a tax on the incomes of every day people.

 

[Gunny]

I didn't realize you were for tax increases, Gunny, especially tax increases on consumer. That surprises me. I always thought you leaned to the right. But tax increases are exactly what you are proposing.

Not just tax increases, but the worst type of tax increases - those that distort resource allocation. What you are saying is that you should take money out of consumers pockets and give it to industries that are in decline. Raising the prices for everybody - which is what protectionism does - destroys jobs because it raises the costs of doing business. That is poor economic policy.

Trade protectionism results in a deadweight loss to the economy. It doesn't help Americans. It hurts them.

That isn't what I'm saying at all. I'm saying we need to be a self-sufficient nation. That doesn't require a tax increase. It requires a balance, and some moderation.

I don't lean to the right where what is best for this Nation is concerned. I lean toward a solution. I no more support runaway capitalism than I do absolute socialism. The problem in this case, is runanway capitialism -- pure, selfish greed. The wealthy can't be satisfied with $10B, they have to have $20B.

Applying some simple common sense and logic, why do they need that much? It's their business if they want it, but if they want it at the expense of what's best for this Nation then, IMO, they want too much.

 

[Toro]

What you are proposing is something called "autarky" and it is a discredited concept in economics. Autarky is what caused Latin American economies to collapse in the 1970s and 1980s. America can not be self-sufficient any more than you or I can be self-sufficient.

You fail to see that protectionism is a tax increase, first by imposing actual tariffs - which are taxes - on goods coming into the country, or implicitly by forcing the cost up on consumers. The fact that banning imports isn't an actual tax has the same effect as taxing someone and giving that money to someone else, except you cut out the middle man, ie the government.

Take your argument to its logical conclusion. If you think we don't "owe" Mexico or any other country, or that we should be self-sufficient, okay, let's apply that to the entire economy. Let's stop importing all oil. After all, think about all the jobs that have been destroyed by all those oil imports.

Would the country be better if we stopped importing oil? America is one of the largest producing energy countries in the world. The problem is that there are 300 million of us. America consumes about 26 million barrels of oil a day. About half are imported. Let's stop importing because we know that imports kill jobs, right? That's the argument, isn't it?

We can be self-sufficient with energy, but we're going to destroy our economy as oil goes to $300 a barrel.

Trade barriers on all goods have the same effect, only in a much less dramatic fashion.

 

[manifold]

I agree with Toro for the most part here. Protectionism has never worked, anywhere. However, free trade doesn't work either when it's only a one-way street. And that's where most of the NAFTA criticism stems from. I'm not nearly as up on this topic as I used to be, so I can't really say whether the criticisms are fair. But it would appear that what was supposed to be a North American FREE TRADE agreement has in reality become welfare for Mexico, but apparently not enough to keep them from coming here.

 

[Shogun]

What you are defending is the concept that trade destroys net jobs and wealth. If that were the case, why would New York trade with California? Why would New York City trade with Buffalo? Why would Manhattan trade with Queens? Why would the Upper East Side trade with Soho? Why would each of these jurisdictions not throw up trade barriers with all the others to "protect" jobs?

The reason is because trade increases specialization, which increases productivity, which is a critical key to a growing economy.

Do you honestly believe that America's standards of living would be higher if we didn't allow cheaper foreign cars in this country? The average price of a new car in this country is, what, $20,000. Would you say that America would be better off if we had banned all car imports? The average price of a car in this country would be much, much higher if we had done so, maybe $30,000 or $35,000. It would have been better for the couple hundred thousand auto workers but it would be much worse for the couple hundred millions of Americans.

Trade protectionism destroys wealth and protects a privileged industry that exists only because of political power, not because of economics. It exists at the expense of everyone else and is a tax on the incomes of every day people.

Yes, and, in fact, if you look at trends from the class of Americans that were supported by auto manufacturing 30 years ago compared to what we see now it's absolutely ridiculous for you to argue otherwise. In fact, we can see how the steady decline of middle class supporting manufacturing jobs have been traded for (outsourced) TECH and SERVICE jobs (india, anyone?) and low skill retail employment that is LAUGHABLE when compared to the jobs retained IN AMERICA, putting uncle bob and pops to work, a mere couple decades ago. Acting as if the more we can CONSUME leads to more specialization is erroneous because you ignore where we continue to GET this cheap plastic shit imported from when conjecturing off with "will create more jobs". The reality doesn't match the rhetoric. Much like the rhetoric that sold Nafta in the first fucking place.

Every example you gave was AMERICA trading with AMERICA. Every one of em. Nafta is not a matter of trading within our own country. INVESTING in ourselves, so to speak, which is exactly what every single example you listed IS. If you can't see the difference between NYC trading with CALI and the US trading with MEXICO then I don't know what to tell you.





ps, you can define your own jargon and assume labels on what YOU post but kindly allow me to interpret my own offerings.



Best U.S. Manufacturing Jobs in Rising Jeopardy

By Mark Trumbull, Christian Science Monitor. Posted February 17, 2008.

In an era of corporate-led "globalization," U.S. factories are competing by trimming workers and wages.
http://www.alternet.org/workplace/77270/


U.S. manufacturing jobs fading away fast

Fifty years ago, a third of U.S. employees worked in factories, making everything from clothing to lipstick to cars. Today, a little more than one-tenth of the nation's 131 million workers are employed by manufacturing firms. Four-fifths are in services.

The decline in manufacturing jobs has swiftly accelerated since the beginning of 2000. Since then, more than 1.9 million factory jobs have been cut — about 10% of the sector's workforce. During the same period, the number of jobs outside manufacturing has risen close to 2%.

Many of the factory jobs are being cut as companies respond to a sharp rise in global competition. Unable to raise prices — and often forced to cut them — companies must find any way they can to reduce costs and hang onto profits.

Jobs are increasingly being moved abroad as companies take advantage of lower labor costs and position themselves to sell products to a growing — and promising — market abroad. Economy.com, an economic consulting firm in West Chester, Pa., estimates 1.3 million manufacturing jobs have been moved abroad since the beginning of 1992 — the bulk coming in the last three years. Most of those jobs have gone to Mexico and East Asia.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2002-12-12-manufacture_x.htm



Re-examining Nafta in Hopes of Curing U.S. Manufacturing

The attacks on Nafta, first in the Ohio primary and more recently before Tuesday’s vote in Pennsylvania, have surprised some experts and analysts. There is little doubt that the rise of Asia, particularly China, has accelerated job losses in the United States faster than Nafta did.

Still, the argument carries a strong punch — particularly when famed American brands pack up and move to Mexico. One recent example is the Hershey Company, the chocolate maker. This month, the president of the Teamsters union, James P. Hoffa, traveled to Reading, Pa., to visit what the union called “Nafta victims,” 260 workers in a Hershey plant that is moving to Mexico by the end of the year.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/22/b...dc14129eb6d1fb&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss



What You Don't Know About Nafta
Predictions Missed the Target

There is no shortage of statistics making Nafta look bad. Free traders' claims in the early '90s that Nafta would create hundreds of thousands of U.S. jobs, turn the slight deficit with Mexico into a $10 billion annual trade surplus, and eliminate illegal immigration proved wildly off the mark. Instead, America's deficit with Mexico passed $74 billion in 2007. The U.S. has also shed 3 million manufacturing jobs since the early '90s.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_13/b4077000922817.htm

 

[TopGunna]

Manufacturing output in the US has actually TRIPLED since 1970. It has increased in a fairly linear fashion, INCLUDING recent times (since the mid-1990s).

However, manufacturing output has become a smaller proportion of GDP, because other sectors have grown even more. The reason other sectors have grown even more is because we've had such high productivity in manufacturing over the last 40 years. That's freed up people and resources to make other stuff.

Additionally, the US unemployment rate when NAFTA was passed was over 7% and is currently 5.1%. The problem with the perception of NAFTA is that it is relatively easy to spot job losses due to foreign competition (cars, apparel, memory chips) and much harder to find the jobs that were created due to lower cost materials supplies and increased exports.

 

[Toro]

Yes, and, in fact, if you look at trends from the class of Americans that were supported by auto manufacturing 30 years ago compared to what we see now it's absolutely ridiculous for you to argue otherwise. In fact, we can see how the steady decline of middle class supporting manufacturing jobs have been traded for (outsourced) TECH and SERVICE jobs (india, anyone?) and low skill retail employment that is LAUGHABLE when compared to the jobs retained IN AMERICA, putting uncle bob and pops to work, a mere couple decades ago. Acting as if the more we can CONSUME leads to more specialization is erroneous because you ignore where we continue to GET this cheap plastic shit imported from when conjecturing off with "will create more jobs". The reality doesn't match the rhetoric. Much like the rhetoric that sold Nafta in the first fucking place.

You seem to mis-understand basic economics. Consumption does not lead to more specialization. What leads to more specialization is efficiency and productivity. Efficiency and productivity lower costs for people, something you apparently are arguing against, given your rhetoric above. Lower costs increases the real incomes of consumers, which increases their incomes and allows them to consume more which generates more jobs. Thus, specialization leads to more consumption, not the other way around.

Every example you gave was AMERICA trading with AMERICA. Every one of em. Nafta is not a matter of trading within our own country. INVESTING in ourselves, so to speak, which is exactly what every single example you listed IS. If you can't see the difference between NYC trading with CALI and the US trading with MEXICO then I don't know what to tell you.

Again, you seem to mis-understand basic economics as I was using local examples to show the effects on local people. The principles of economics do not change because of borders or because or the color of one's skin or the language they speak. Specialization increases productivity and productive capacity. Economic growth and the creation of wealth occurs through increasing productivity. Putting up trade barriers in no way shape or form for a developed country does this. In fact, it does the complete opposite because it shields weak industries that should go out of business and reallocates resources elsewhere. The only reason why these companies continue to exist is because of government patronage and protection. If you want to make a national security argument, fine, that's different. But what you are doing is propping up industries that are destroying wealth because they either lose money or generate profits below their cost of capital. A very good way to go broke is to borrow at 8% then invest at 4%. This is what you are doing using protectionism. This is what you are advocating.

How very sad for this country - one that accounts for nearly a third of all production in the world - that this defeatist attitude seems so widespread. Having lived in two other Anglo-Saxon countries and having traveled extensively in Europe, the greatest thing about America is its eternal optimism and its self-belief that its people can solve any problem. But hiding behind trade barriers is a sign of defeatism and weakness, not strength and confidence.

As for manufacturing jobs, they account for 10% of all American employment. You would think listening to the critics that much of America is on the verge of collapse because manufacturing employment is declining. But manufacturing output is not. Manufacturing output has been rising.

The same argument was made at the end of the 1800s when manufacturing was becoming more important and agriculture was becoming less important. Around 1900, something like 40%-50% of Americans were employed in agriculture. The number is less than 5% today. Yet America produces something like 50x more food. Back then, the argument was "who was going to produce our food" since people were leaving the farm for the city. Agriculture was very important to the economy. A declining agricultural base would be bad for the economy. The critics were wrong then as they are now.

Protectionism is a bad idea. It increases costs for most people for the benefit of the few.

 

[manifold]

Yeah, what Toro said!

 

[Shogun]

do you have a source to post? I've listed mine.


manufacturing has INCREASED, eh?



ok.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

NAFTA is not really about "free trade" but all about protecting special interests...like oil, agriculture, pharmaceuticals, etc.

It is also about undermining the sovereignty of the United States and establishing a competitive world trade group....like the EU.

True "free trade" legislation would only need about one sentence from Congress instead of the reams of agreements they are creating without any real input from the people.

And the best way to bring back/create jobs would be to eliminate taxes to encourage business to come to America instead of leaving it.

 

[Shogun]

You seem to mis-understand basic economics. Consumption does not lead to more specialization. What leads to more specialization is efficiency and productivity. Efficiency and productivity lower costs for people, something you apparently are arguing against, given your rhetoric above. Lower costs increases the real incomes of consumers, which increases their incomes and allows them to consume more which generates more jobs. Thus, specialization leads to more consumption, not the other way around.



I don't have a misunderstanding of basic econ. I was quoting your post.

The reason is because trade increases specialization, which increases productivity, which is a critical key to a growing economy.

After all, we sure do see the SPECIALIZATION of our auto industry, don't we? Indeed, we kick all sorts of ass in foreign markets there. yup. Now, if you want to dance around the jargon some more and assume shit about what I am arguing against that's fine. I don't need to shift the debate in order to feel smart here. But, let me point out specific bullshit to your reply:

Efficiency and productivity lower costs for people, something you apparently are arguing against, given your rhetoric above. Lower costs increases the real incomes of consumers, which increases their incomes and allows them to consume more which generates more jobs.

Can you show me a real life scenerio outside of the rhetorical bullshit? 'cause I can use the loss of mom and pop retail stores to wal mart, the importation of cheap plastic shit from third world countries that the american standard of living CANNOT compete with, AND the overall decrease in manufacturing jobs.

Did you notice that you JUST insisted that CONSUMPTION doesn't increase specialization right before using a circular arguement to suggest exactly that?

"Which generates more jobs" doesn't indicate how those new jobs COMPARE to old jobs, does it? Why are you trying to be ambiguous about our current RETAIL REALITY after the husk of a middle class supporting Manufacturing sector has all but been gutted?

also, if you want to cry about who doesn't understand what I"VE posted my sources so feel free to jet them your email on basic econ.





Again, you seem to mis-understand basic economics as I was using local examples to show the effects on local people. The principles of economics do not change because of borders or because or the color of one's skin or the language they speak.


um, are you REALLY trying to suggest that the collective GNP of a united states INCLUDING alabama, NY and Cali is the same thing as the GNP of... MEXICO? Economics DON"T CHANGE because of borders, eh? Tell that to someone living in tijuana.


Specialization increases productivity and productive capacity. Economic growth and the creation of wealth occurs through increasing productivity. Putting up trade barriers in no way shape or form for a developed country does this.

ya.. because CLEARLY what you've read in some dude's book is like a Nostradamus prediction ten years after the implementation of Nafta.



Thank god econ is a hard science instead of a soft one with a broad range of opinions, eh?





In fact, it does the complete opposite because it shields weak industries that should go out of business and reallocates resources elsewhere.


YUP!

and we SEE that very thing happen every time a wal mart shuts down a small town downtown!





The only reason why these companies continue to exist is because of government patronage and protection.

yea, because we never see government patronage and protection ELSEWHERE, do we?




If you want to make a national security argument, fine, that's different. But what you are doing is propping up industries that are destroying wealth because they either lose money or generate profits below their cost of capital. A very good way to go broke is to borrow at 8% then invest at 4%. This is what you are doing using protectionism. This is what you are advocating.



just so you know, your "wealth" creation is not as important as the American Standard of living. You can run me through another lecture of trickle down econ and the rationalized concentration of wealth too but, given that only one of us has posted viable sources...

Face it, the free trade types have had their way and it isnt working how you predicted with all your econ theories and glass half full optimism. Like I said, feel free to email USA Today.




How very sad for this country - one that accounts for nearly a third of all production in the world - that this defeatist attitude seems so widespread. Having lived in two other Anglo-Saxon countries and having traveled extensively in Europe, the greatest thing about America is its eternal optimism and its self-belief that its people can solve any problem. But hiding behind trade barriers is a sign of defeatism and weakness, not strength and confidence.

You seem to think that using the words like Taxes and Defeatism means the same to anyone else as it does to you. I assure you, your opinion has more in common with assholes than it does universal applications. We heard your ETERNAL optimism back when your kind were busy dangling carrots that simply never manifested. Indeed, I have a different concept of sad: that some American's would sacrifice their nation for the sake of a pittance of personal increased income.



As for manufacturing jobs, they account for 10% of all American employment. You would think listening to the critics that much of America is on the verge of collapse because manufacturing employment is declining. But manufacturing output is not. Manufacturing output has been rising.


OUTPUT is not EMPLOYMENT, is it? yea, I guess OUTPUT WOULD increase when AMERICANS are out trying to compete with chinese child labor, eh? I guess OUTPUT WOULD increase when the exact same product can be made south of the border for exponentially less labor cost, eh? Are you quoting a CURRENT 10% or the percentage of AMERICANS who relied on this kind of employment 30 years ago? You know, when the middle class could support itself on more than your excuses for "wealth creation"?

The same argument was made at the end of the 1800s when manufacturing was becoming more important and agriculture was becoming less important. Around 1900, something like 40%-50% of Americans were employed in agriculture. The number is less than 5% today. Yet America produces something like 50x more food. Back then, the argument was "who was going to produce our food" since people were leaving the farm for the city. Agriculture was very important to the economy. A declining agricultural base would be bad for the economy. The critics were wrong then as they are now.

Shipping jobs to mexico isn't a step up from an agrarian age to an information age. YOU MIGHT have had a point if tech jobs were not so tritely enough being sent overseas too. But, since reality doesn't support your book lernin'..


Protectionism is a bad idea. It increases costs for most people for the benefit of the few.



Your theory isn't validated by the facts. Like I said, I"VE posted my evidence. Feel free to share your joke with them and the rest of America who doesn't share your rosey opinon of the job exodus since the implementation of nafta.

 

[Shogun]

NAFTA's Overall Effect on North America Has Been Positive: St. Louis Fed Analysis

ST. LOUIS — The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) didn't produce the large "sucking sound" of jobs and factories that some pundits predicted. In fact, between 1993 and 1997, trade exports overall among the United States, Canada and Mexico increased, based on an analysis by Howard J. Wall, an economist with the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.


http://www.stlouisfed.org/news/releases/2003/03_04_03-b.html



By the way, HERE is the link you didn't want to post. I wonder if 93-97 is as applicable to understanding where we are in 08 as product OUTPUT is, apparently, the same thing as EMPLOYMENT.

 

[Shogun]

Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA)
The Trade Act of 1974 established the TAA program to assist workers employed by a firm that produces an article who lose their jobs or whose hours of work and wages are reduced as a result of increased imports or shifts in production to foreign countries.
The TAA program provides an array of reemployment and retraining services. Workers who believe they have been adversely affected by foreign trade, or others acting for those workers, may petition the U.S. Department of Labor (USDOL) for a determination of eligibility. Workers certified as eligible to apply for TAA may receive reemployment services, training in new occupational skills, a job search allowance when suitable employment is not available in the workers’ normal commuting area, a relocation allowance when the worker obtains permanent employment outside the commuting area, and Trade Readjustment Allowances (TRA) while the worker is in training.

Number of Participants
In Fiscal Year 2006, states reported that 80,700 individuals participated in training, and 53,493 participants began receiving TRA. Of all participants, 61% received occupational training, 13% received remedial education, 3% received customized training, and 3% received on-the-job training. The average training duration was 59 weeks.
The typical participant is an unemployed white female, between the ages of 30 and 45, with at least a high school diploma or its equivalent, who had been working in the trade affected employment for approximately nine years at the time of layoff.


http://www.doleta.gov/tradeact/docs/FactSheet.pdf

 

[Shogun]

Nonfarm payroll employment edged down in March (-80,000). Over the past
three months, nonfarm payroll employment has declined by 232,000.


In the first quarter of 2008, employment has decreased by a monthly average of
77,000. This is down from monthly job growth of 75,000 in the last half of 2007
and of 107,000 during the first half of 2007.


In the goods-producing sector, both construction and manufacturing employment
continued to decline, while job growth in natural resources and mining trended
upward.


In the service-providing sector, retail, financial activities, and professional and
business services experienced job losses; education and health services, leisure
and hospitality, and government employment continued to expand.


Manufacturing employment decreased by 48,000 in March and by 310,000 over
the past 12 months. Job losses in manufacturing were heaviest among motor
vehicle and parts and construction-related industries.

BE SURE to check out the nifty little graph depicting the loss of manufacturing jobs since 97.

I mean, it's only the DEPT of LABOR's office of LABOR STATS.



http://www.bls.gov/web/ceshighlights.pdf

 

[Toro]

do you have a source to post? I've listed mine.


manufacturing has INCREASED, eh?



ok.

You do understand the differences between "employment" and "output," right?

Manufacturing output has been rising. The graph is from the St Louis Fed. Index data used to construct this graph.

http://www.economagic.com/em-cgi/data.exe/blsin/inu0002us0


You're "links" are news stories and politicians saying that NAFTA is bad. So?

 

[Toro]

Nonfarm payroll employment edged down in March (-80,000). Over the past
three months, nonfarm payroll employment has declined by 232,000.


In the first quarter of 2008, employment has decreased by a monthly average of
77,000. This is down from monthly job growth of 75,000 in the last half of 2007
and of 107,000 during the first half of 2007.


In the goods-producing sector, both construction and manufacturing employment
continued to decline, while job growth in natural resources and mining trended
upward.


In the service-providing sector, retail, financial activities, and professional and
business services experienced job losses; education and health services, leisure
and hospitality, and government employment continued to expand.


Manufacturing employment decreased by 48,000 in March and by 310,000 over
the past 12 months. Job losses in manufacturing were heaviest among motor
vehicle and parts and construction-related industries.

BE SURE to check out the nifty little graph depicting the loss of manufacturing jobs since 97.

I mean, it's only the DEPT of LABOR's office of LABOR STATS.



http://www.bls.gov/web/ceshighlights.pdf

Gee, no kidding. That's why I've spent too much time on this board telling Republican cheerleaders that the economy isn't in great shape.

Now show me the cause and effect. Show me empirically that NAFTA is is the cause of these job losses.

Its false causality. Politicians and ideologues saying it is so doesn't make it so.

As for this idea that manufacturing jobs are being replaced by low wage jobs, wrong! The change in jobs since 1997.

http://usmessageboard.com/showthread.php?t=51331

 

[Toro]

NAFTA's Overall Effect on North America Has Been Positive: St. Louis Fed Analysis

ST. LOUIS — The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) didn't produce the large "sucking sound" of jobs and factories that some pundits predicted. In fact, between 1993 and 1997, trade exports overall among the United States, Canada and Mexico increased, based on an analysis by Howard J. Wall, an economist with the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.


http://www.stlouisfed.org/news/releases/2003/03_04_03-b.html



By the way, HERE is the link you didn't want to post. I wonder if 93-97 is as applicable to understanding where we are in 08 as product OUTPUT is, apparently, the same thing as EMPLOYMENT.

Thanks for the link but you are wrong about output and employment. Output is the total amount made. Employment is the number of people employed. Different things.

 

[Toro]

On jobs in America

Total employed in America

Free trade between Canada and the US signed 1988...... 105,345
NAFTA signed 1993...... 110,844
2007...... 137,623

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.ceseeb1.txt

 

[Toro]

The empirical evidence on international trade

International trade accounts for only a small share of growing income inequality and labor-market displacement in the United States. Lawrence deconstructs the gap in real blue-collar wages and labor productivity growth between 1981 and 2006 and estimates how much higher these wages might have been had income growth been distributed proportionately and how much of the gap is due to measurement and technical factors about which little can be done. While increased trade with developing countries may have played some part in causing greater inequality in the 1980s, surprisingly, over the past decade the impact of such trade on inequality has been relatively small. Many imports are no longer produced in the United States, and US goods and services that do compete with imports are not particularly intensive in unskilled labor. Rising income inequality and slow real wage growth since 2000 reflect strong profit growth, much of which may be cyclical, and dramatic income gains for the top 1 percent of wage earners, a development that is more closely related to asset-market performance and technological and institutional innovations rather than conventional trade in goods and services. The minor role of trade, therefore, suggests that any policy that focuses narrowly on trade to deal with wage inequality and job loss is likely to be ineffective. Instead, policymakers should (a) use the tax system to improve income distribution and (b) implement adjustment policies to deal more generally with worker and community dislocation.

http://benmuse.typepad.com/custom_house/2008/01/blue-collar-blu.html

There have been several other studies concluding the same.

 

[Paulie]

True "free trade" legislation would only need about one sentence from Congress instead of the reams of agreements they are creating without any real input from the people.

More like 2 words. LOW TARRIFS.