Both Obama & Clinton want to renegotiate NAFTA. Why?

I didn't see this anywhere else so I assume this is new.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080227.wprimarydebate27/BNStory/usElection2008/home

I'm not sure why this is on the agenda. The treaty's 15 years old now and even as one who was against it originally---but not for the reasons you'd suspect--by and large it's been a boon to the three economies.

The stated impetus of reducing trade barriers is of course, a crock of shit. since the US has regularly violated both the spirit and the terms of the agreement and has even been rebuked by the WTO. (cf, lumber, softwood). And, of course, the Byrd amendment was the most egregious example of flouting international trade laws.

And if the US decided to renegotiate, the one card Canada has is oil .

We are the single biggest energy supplier to the US and under the terms of NAFTA there is guaranteed American access to Canadian oil.

Our Trade Minister, David Emerson has said that this sweetheart deal for our oil will be on the table if the treaty comes up for renegotiation.

I don't know. It seems to me like a political can of worms.

 

Re: Both Obama & Clinton want to renogitiate NAFTA. Why?

It's mostly looking south. The Maquiladores have been an embarrassment to everyone here.

 

No, I understand that. But you can clean that up without redoing the entire treaty.

You were around back then. That damn thing was the most contentious political issue since Quebec sovereignty.

 

Sending all those NHL teams here really pissed off the Democrats.

 

And they want to repatriate the Blue Jays.

 

Honestly, 2/3 of Americans who bitch about NAFTA probably don't know that Canada's even involved. It has become an easy shorthand for displaced blue-collar workers to complain about their jobs down at the mill having gone poof. They're all convinced that the textile mills and assembly plants would magically spring back to life here if it wasn't for damned ole gubment shipping their jobs to Mexico. (Many of these people will simultaneously bitch about all the Mexicans coming here to steal all the jobs, logic notwithstanding.) What they don't realize is that any jobs that left just made a pit stop in Tijuana before heading over to New Delhi or Shanghai.

 

As Fenian said it is mostly to do with Mexico part of agreement.

Original projections called for US to have trade surpluses with Mexico of upwards of 20 bil or so. Instead we have deficits approaching 100 bil.

It came up last night in debate because Ohio is one of states that was adversly affected by NAFTA.

It's funny that Hilary wants to separate herself from NAFTA yet claim that her experience of being in the White House for 8 years is why we should vote for her.

It turns out that Ross Perot and Pat Buchanan were right about NAFTA. Can you hear the sucking sound?

 

That all depends on who's buttering your bread. Try telling the citizens of once-prosperous now-dying industrial towns across the upper midwest that NAFTA was a boon to their economy. But you better duck right after you say it. NAFTA helped create countless closed factories and decimated local economies throughout Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, and elsewhere.

Now the shareholders of the companies that shut down those shops might loving it. It meant cheaper labor and higher profits for them. But for the workers, not so much.

 

I don't think you can just blame NAFTA for the loss of jobs to Mexico although that certainly jump-started things.

At the time, China was just starting to flex its muscles and North American manufacturers were heading their in droves to take advantage of slave labour wages.

In some ways it was the perfect economic storm.

The trade deficit with Mexico is a drop in the proverbial bucket compared to the deficit with China.

And Boom, whoever projected trade surpluses with Mexico was an economic idiot. It was never going to happen.

The biggest danger with NAFTA (from a Canadian perspective) was never just about the loss of jobs; it was giving up our sovereignty over natural resources i.e. oil and water.

 

I think the point is that all international trade agreements should have labor and enivironmental standards. Please don't take this personally SportsJournalists.com Canada.

 

You won't get any argument from me about that.

 

Absolutely.[crossthreading]