| 
  • If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • You already know Dokkio is an AI-powered assistant to organize & manage your digital files & messages. Very soon, Dokkio will support Outlook as well as One Drive. Check it out today!

View
 

trade liberalization

Page history last edited by PBworks 15 years, 6 months ago

Table of Contents:


 

USA

 

Does Free Trade lead to job losses at home?

 

Even if exaggerated claims that 100,000 jobs lost annually can be attributed to NAFTA are right, this figure is only six-tenths of one percent of the annual churn in the US job market, and this soundbite totally ignores the fact that an integrated and efficient North American economy preserves US production that would otherwise be outsourced to overseas plants.

 

Does free-trade lead to depressed wages at home?

 

As for the claim that NAFTA has depressed wages, increased trade has helped wages: Four of the top five US states, in terms of trade with Mexico, recorded nominal wage growth higher than the national average (49, 48, 45, and 28 percent by Texas, California, Arizona, and Illinois respectively, compared to the national average of 26 percent).

 

US Free Trade agreements

 

see:  USA free trade agreements

 

 

 

 

Trade liberalization

 

In the early 1990s, U.S. President George H. W. Bush began to draw up a U.S.-Mexican-Canadian free-trade proposal that came to be known as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). NAFTA was later signed into law by Bush's successor, President Bill Clinton, and the three North American countries agreed to gradually phase out or sharply reduce tariffs on foreign goods, a policy perfectly in line with the ideals of the Consensus. Current President George W. Bush continues to support NAFTA, and his administration negotiated a similar agreement known as the Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement (DR-CAFTA) with the Dominican Republic and Central America, which was approved by Congress in 2005.

 

Proponents of NAFTA and DR-CAFTA point out that they promote economic growth in the participating countries and are a boon to U.S. consumers, providing them with less-expensive foreign goods. Critics, who include figures coming both from a section of the political left (specifically including allies of the labor union movement and the anti-globalist left, such as Ralph Nader) and from part of the right (especially the nationalist/nativist tradition embodied by Patrick J. Buchanan), accuse the agreements of crippling the working class of the United States by promoting the relocation of production to cheaper labor markets in Mexico, and allege that such shifts have in addition resulted in the exploitation of Mexican laborers.

 

Empirical studies have found the quantitative impact of these trade agreements on the U.S. economy to be far smaller than predicted by either advocates or critics. [5]

While a Democratic president, Bill Clinton, signed NAFTA and a Republican president, George W. Bush, signed CAFTA, the United States Congress's subsequent support of these agreements has been more partisan. Most Republicans favor the agreements and most Democrats oppose the agreements.

 

 

 

Links from KookyPlan

 

  • Doha trade round [edit] Delivering on Doha: Farm Trade and the Poor by Kimberly Ann Elliott
  • TRIPS [edit] From Wikipedia: The Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellect
  • WTO [edit] ! WTO an international organization designed to supervise and liberalize inte

 

 

 

 

 

Comments (0)

You don't have permission to comment on this page.