i love bill clinton,voted for him twice but nafta was wrong.

For some reason I subjected myself to the debate last night. Interestingly enough, Kucinich got many of the biggest ovations despite being given almost no time to speak; but nobody's saying anything about all that. Check out this chart on how air time was distributed.

I do think it's a little freaky how Hillary cackles when asked about things like war and mass poverty and displacement.

...Teenage wasteland! It's only teenage wasteland!...

I loved the Clintons, too, until this week. Hillary is really starting to scare me. I voted for Perot back in the day, now I don't feel quite so silly about that.

kai, you first line cracked me up. i hear you. and that chart is rather telling, eh?

the Who seem to be sounding increasingly relevant lately.

MTV needs to resurrect Celebrity Death Match. I've decided. Most of them act like clay figures anyway.

It's going to take some convincing for me to agree that we should abandon an EU-style model of economic integration as a long-term goal. In the four stages of economic integration, with NAFTA we're still stuck at the free trade agreement level (stage 1) while the EU is at full economic union (stage 4). One could argue that Europe's workers are worse off than workers in the U.S. or Mexico, but I don't hear David Sirota or the Economic Policy Institute making this argument. But this would be a logical extension of their argument against NAFTA.

With greater economic integration comes freer movement of people across borders, which is what I would like to see. NAFTA was a step towards more open borders. Stepping back from NAFTA means stepping back towards a more insular approach towards our neighbors.

Yes there are problems with NAFTA--they are more generally problems with American capitalism: lack of labor and environmental protections or a social safety net. Congress and the next president should work to fix these problems, not jettison NAFTA.

If Lou Dobbs and Ross "sucking" Perot are both so strongly against NAFTA, it might be a good idea to ask why before joining in.

Quoting the Economic Policy Institute on issues regarding free trade is like quoting Exxon Mobile on issues regarding global warming - in other words, not objective at all. Honestly, Hillary Clinton's support for free trade is one of the few things I like about her.

well seeing how you and i almost always disagree on whatever topic we discuss, i feel i'm right on track. :)

Oh please, the pro-NAFTA pro-robber-barron crowd says Milton-Friedman-bullshit like "we're only in stage one of shock doctrine" all the time, no matter what the street reality, that's part of the ongoing hustle. It's like a prince telling a conquered duke that they're in stage one of kingdom-integration or a mugger telling a mugging-victim that this is ultimately for their own good as the stolen cash will be redistributed according to market principles. That kind of abstraction is cool if you're the one doing the mugging. Since at least the Opium Wars, "free trade" has been a euphemism for "I rob you at gunpoint" since a law that says "no robbing at gunpoint" is decried as a "regulation" and "trade barrier".

Why are racist nativists like Dobbs and Perot against NAFTA? Because they're racist nativists and they're realistic enough to admit that it propels immigration.

Beyond NAFTA, other hallmarks of the Clinton era include: two illegal wars costing thousands of innocent lives (Dems blink and shrug), starving of social services ("welfare reform"), expansion of militarism, deregulation of Wall Street Enron-style financial rackets, neglect of environmental protections, shrugging at genocide in Rwanda...that's enlightened liberalism for ya!

Homelessness in NYC increased every year of the Clinton-Giuliani era (according to the NY Dept of Homeless Services) even as poor people disappeared from public view and Wall Street gorged itself on economically meaningless windfalls driven by ponzi-scheme propaganda and consumption, not production or value. There are names for people who are into this kind of thing: hucksters and suckers.

My point still stands that I'd rather be moving towards an EU-style model than away from it. I don't think too many supporters of NAFTA will openly admit they want to see economic and political union with our neighbors down the road. At least I don't hear them making those arguments--Lou Dobbs would love it if they did. But constraining the U.S. the way Germany and France constrained themselves after WWII would be a good way to avoid future Iraqs and Afghanistans and spread economic benefits more equitably across the region.

If closer economic union were so bad for developing countries, why have the countries at Europe's periphery, almost without exception, been clamoring for entry?

And HP, I don't see any reason not to quote EPI on issues of free trade (although I don't agree with them in this case)--it's no more "biased" than quoting Cato or Heritage, which are also ideological think tanks. Your analogy to Exxon-Mobile is misplaced.

Close Yave.............change "economic and political union" to "economic and political domination" and you're getting closer to a reality of how our society actually functions. "Free-Trade" is a coined euphemism for unfettered corporate control and profit. I would suggest that the creation of the EU was more of a reaction against American corporate hegemony and the method chosen is merely the same. The result will be the same. But, if using the word "Free" makes you feel better about the end result, I am happy for you and HP. Any gospel, whether coming from the AEI or the mouth of a presidential candidate in this corporate dominated "democracy" should be questioned. If, as a quantitative measure, freedom was defined by the workers of the world, as the ability to walk into work on Monday morning and tell the boss to go screw himself, then I suspect the reality of freedom is much less than the illusion.
I know that I am a peasant. Expecting corporations or their governments to make me less so contradicts their historical behavior. Believe....Believe....Believe...YEAH!.. That's the ticket!

It makes me sick that so many progressives wanted Gore to re-enter the race, and that so many still support Clinton.

Clinton/Gore are responsible for NAFTA, even though the stage was set by Reagan.AGGGGGHHHHHHHH

And HP, I don't see any reason not to quote EPI on issues of free trade (although I don't agree with them in this case)--it's no more "biased" than quoting Cato or Heritage, which are also ideological think tanks. Your analogy to Exxon-Mobile is misplaced.

But I didn't quote Cato or Heritage, now did I? The EPI is an arm of the unions, nothing more. And given that free trade is clearly at odds with unions (though beneficial to the citizen at large) the EPI will never find a reason to support - hence the Exxon global warming comparison.

I don't need to go to Cato or the Heritage foundation to find support for free trade. It is such a widely accepted belief (except, of course, by those economic illiterates that take The Shock Doctrine as something more than fantasy) that even the Europeans now widely support it. Don't believe me, look at the Wiki post on free trade:

"The literature analysing the economics of free trade is extremely rich with extensive work having been done on the theoretical and empirical effects. Though it creates winners and losers, the broad consensus among members of the economics profession in the U.S. is that free trade is a large and unambiguous net gain for society.[3] [4] In a 2006 survey of American economists (83 responders), "87.5% agree that the U.S. should eliminate remaining tariffs and other barriers to trade" and "90.1% disagree with the suggestion that the U.S. should restrict employers from outsourcing work to foreign countries."[5] Quoting Harvard economics professor Gregory Mankiw, "Few propositions command as much consensus among professional economists as that open world trade increases economic growth and raises living standards."

In other words, it is those against free trade - and the EPI - that are so far out of the scientific mainstream that it must be blamed on either ignorance (the average joe) or bias (the EPI).

I don't need to go to Cato or the Heritage foundation to find support for free trade. It is such a widely accepted belief (except, of course, by those economic illiterates that take The Shock Doctrine as something more than fantasy) that even the Europeans now widely support it.

appeal to intelligence. appeal to europe, for christ's sake. appeal to wiki. damn, when you look at it, your entire comment is a logical fallacy with a carom shot to boot. it's a weak argument you make here, o pundit.

You missed one - appeal to economists. Remember, economists are the ones whose whole profession is based around free trade and improving the standard of living of a country. Now granted, economists can also be wrong, but I'd trust the unbiased consensus of trained professionals in their own field more than I would trust anybody else and more than I would trust anecdotal evidence...wouldn't you?

But if anecdotal evidence is what you are looking for, as a frequent traveler to Mexico (I leave to Monterrey on Wednesday) I have that too. For example, compare northern Mexico - an area that exhibits more free trade, being that it is closer to the United States, to southern Mexico. I know some on the left take great joy in seeing farmers work long hours, under horrific conditions, but I consider northern Mexico's industrial life a significant improvement over the arduous farm life.

My parents are from el campo, they grew up in a small pueblo in Guerrero, Mexico. One of the areas hardest hit by free trade. My dad owns a rancho in Mexico (one he visits twice a year, he comes back from his recent visit this Sunday), a house (where my abuelita still lives), and this property was his dads, his grandparents, his great grandparents, as far back as he can remember. Yet he would be the first to tell you that factory life, for all its hardships, is a significant improvement to farm life.

i'm actually not "looking for" anything, as you put it. and i respect one man's anecdotal experience, i do. i'm sure your dad has much wisdom to share.

you have not swayed me.

HispanicPundit, hehehe good one! though frankly if I wrote and thought like you, I don't think I'd be calling anyone else illiterate! (Woohoo, let's square dance!) Ya know, I actually spent my younger professional years as a computer programmer working on the Wall Street software systems the keep the global finance system ticking, saw the whole hustle from inside the racket of the world's largest investment banking firms, have heard (right there on the trading floors and in the batch-processing backrooms) every bullshit supply-side rationalization you could possibly imagine, and could bury any argument you raise in my sleep. Trust me, investment bankers and corporate capitalists themselves don't believe the claptrap about free trade and rising tides lifting all boats, they're completely clear about the fact that they're engaged in a hustle, all that warm and fuzzy rhetoric is intended solely for the consumption of suckers like you. But I won't argue with your punditry, I prefer to sit back and sip my tequila as you continue to sink your reputation in the vaudevillian misery of fatuous aspirant-intellectual dislogic and the eager and ongoing audition to be a waterboy at Fox News.

Nez, sorry bout that, I don't do passive-aggressive carom shots, I just chop heads off dumb-asses! I'm done though with this one, though, I promise! ;-) Though if anyone literate does want to read up on economics, may I recommend Nobel laureates Joseph Stiglitz or Amartya Sen, or better yet Right Livelihood Award winner Vandana Shiva.

Peace.

bro, you had me at "vaudevillian misery of fatuous aspirant-intellectual dislogic." holy shit that was classic. roffle.

Vaudevillian Misery is a great name for a band.

Vaudevillian Misery and the Free Trade!! LIVE AT MADISON SQUARE GARDEN!!!

LOL part of the Phase One Shock Doctrine tour!!

Was the video clip from this week's debate at UNLV?

Of course you can. Of course you would. For now, as Nez said, "you have not swayed me." :-)

oh yeah. NOW you note the mightiness of my word. sheesh. does anyone ever talk to you about timing?

It's not just a matter of being for or against free trade, or for or against globalization. Those are slogans, not policy arguments. I’ve read Sen and Stiglitz, and I think they have done wonders in shifting the terms of the debate away from the one-dimensional market/anti-market discussion towards finding ways to improve the situation for the powerless.

But Sen and Stiglitz are both economists, after all, and share many of the assumptions of mainstream economists, like HP mentions above. From a Guardian article about Sen a few years back:

More substantial criticisms revolve round his role in the current globalisation debate. Richard Jolly, while being an enormous admirer, says: "On the issue of liberalisation and the opening up of economies, Amartya has been rather mainstream. He hasn't raised very deep questions about the whole process and of globalisation in general. He's more of a mainstream economist than many people realise." . . .

Sen gets quite heated by the suggestion that he has changed his line on the market. "Nothing I've ever written was anti-market. Being against the market is like being against conversation. It's a form of exchange," he snaps. "But I was just as hostile in the past to giving any privileges to the market as I am now. Besides, those who are great advocates of the market don't always make it easier for people to have access to the market through basic education, credit or whatever." . . .

Even in trying to change the road, Sen's line on globalisation is relatively soft. "Opponents may see globalisation as a new folly, but it is neither particularly new or a folly," he says. He supports the "themes" raised by anti-capitalist and environmental protesters at Seattle, Prague and Davos, but not their "theses", which he finds too simple. He says the problem is not free trade, but the inequality of global power. He strongly welcomes the rise of the NGO movement, which combines with media coverage to produce the beginning of some "countervailing power" to the larger corporations and the traditional policies of first world governments.

Stiglitz’s work has, until recently, focused more on the IMF and capital markets than trade, but in this 2003 article on the next stage of the Doha trade round, he argues that the negotiations should be more equitable, not that they should be abandoned and the WTO disbanded. His principal complaint is that the rich countries are hypocritical in maintaining trade barriers while requiring poor countries to remove theirs. This doesn’t mean he thinks the U.S. should maintain its own barriers to trade (like ag subsidies or steel tariffs). From a review of his 2006 book on fair trade:

Stiglitz and Charlton do agree with most economists that “free trade is, in the long run, the preferred regime,” but they fear developing countries have markets that are incomplete, imperfect, and missing vital components. They point out, for instance, that eliminating agricultural subsidies in the “developed” countries is likely to have the net effect of promoting development.

The WTO constrains large trading powers like the U.S. from enforcing punitive terms of trade on smaller partners. WTO procedures are currently skewed towards the powerful, but people like Sen and Stiglitz want to see it become more democratic and equitable, not to see it vanish so the U.S. can enter into a bunch of bilateral agreements unconstrained by wider rules or norms. Think of the U.S. as Wal-mart, with huge market power it can use to pressure weaker trading partners. The WTO and, to a lesser extent, NAFTA, are like government regulations that restrain the U.S. from acting in certain ways and bind it to a set of universally applied rules.

Sorry this comment is so long, and I know this issue is one that won’t be resolved in a single thread, but I’m just saying the issue is more complicated than Sirota’s video above contemplates.

And HP, I think EPI provides a much-needed counterweight to AEI, Heritage, Cato, etc. Would you also complain if those conservative think tanks weighed in on the global warming debate when they are so far outside the scientific mainstream?

Great post yave begnet! I knew much of what you said, but frankly, didn't have the energy to post it. Anti-free trade is like a religious belief for some, and no amount of empirical or anecdotal evidence ever seems to be enough. Props to you for doing so.

Btw, I have met Amartya Sen in person. He gave a talk at UCSD (the school I go to) in October of last year and I attended. I remember the host of the talk referring to him as the 'conscious' of economists....as soon as he took the podium he strongly repudiated that claim and said many of the things you wrote above.

About AEI, Heritage, Cato and global warming, it depends. Remember, the EPI is not a bunch of scientists discussing an economic issue - on the contrary, it is a bunch of economists discussing an economic issue, so the bar is held higher. So when the EPI comes to conclusions far out of the economic mainstream it raises suspicions, and forces one to consider the influence of its backers - trade unions, who btw, would never support any free trade agreement, especially the most humanitarian ones, the ones with poor countries.

This is something the EPI is known for - instead of giving you mainstream economics, even left wing mainstream economics (which would be acceptable), it tends to always give you heterodox economics. So naturally, you begin to question the integrity of the organization itself (including, the membership of Robert Reich, an economist under integrity criticism himself).

I don't remember ever seeing the AEI, Heritage, or Cato, give something so far out of the economic mainstream that it causes you to question the organizations empirical integrity. Sure, it may give you a more right centered economic view, and people know that when they read the studies, but even those studies are usually accepted as acceptable views, incorporating debatable premises within the economic community.

I guess what I am trying to say is that the AEI, Heritage, and Cato, tend to stay within the acceptable realms of mainstream economics - drifting to the right, yes, but still within the bounds of what mainstream empirical economics would suggest. The EPI, on the other hand, always tends to tow the heterodox line. And as such, should be seen with suspicion much more so than any other organization.

It would be like CATO funding a study by a bunch of scientists who argued about the nuances of global warming - points true in themselves, but points that ignore other aspects of global warming....vs....funding a study by a bunch of scientists who argued that global warming does not exist at all, and that it's one big hoax by power hungry scientists.

Clearly the former is on a different level than the latter. The former can arguably be seen as a counterweight to the often left biased news on global warming, both ignoring different aspects of the other - but both within the realms of mainstream science. On the other hand, the latter being so far out of the mainstream that you question the integrity of the organization itself and the influence the CATO funding had on it. The AEI, CATO, and Heritage, fall in the former category, the EPI in the latter.

Economists are held to higher standards than scientists? AEI, Heritage, and Cato's leaning to the right is within the acceptable realms of mainstream left economics but if the EPI disagree it's heterodox? Why do you keep mentioning global warming?

It's like you think that

A. if you repeat enough talk radio sound bites no will be able to figure out you have no argument, which is just another flavor of appeal to intelligence or a straw man (why does the right decide what mainstream left economics are?)

and B. if you concede the Global Warming issue, after a decade of evidence, maybe these liberals will shut about this NAFTA mess.

It sounds very condescending and maybe it's the Northern Lights I just smoked but I'm finding it difficult to construct an intelligent and effective post like Kai did. (it's taken me 45 minutes to type this)

You can't measure international trade policy only by it's benefit for U.S. corporations. You're ignoring the negative impact on worker's rights, environmental damage, and poverty in Mexico and huge loss of jobs and more poverty in the U.S. This type of economic growth is not sustainable. I find it sickening that you repeat all this propaganda without even considering the human loss and environmental destruction being waged for economic growth.

Nez- please delete/edit anything that is too incoherent, from now on I'll stay away from your blog when stoned.


Pete, I think the Northern Lights view is really the only one to take on all the pro-NAFTA noise that HP loves to stir up. Trumpeting these pro-corporate causes is like a religion to some, what are you gonna do? Let him worship in peace, speak in tongues, all that.

You can't measure international trade policy only by it's benefit for U.S. corporations.

I don't, and neither do economists. The sole importance to economists and myself in supporting free trade is standard of living and alleviation of poverty, and nothing does that better than free trade. To see what free trade does on a massive scale, just look at modern day India and China, the two countries currently exhibiting the most free trade. Do you honestly think those countries were better off 50 or so years ago, when they practiced the very policy you support - isolationism? Who do you think fights for more free trade, the very poor countries of China and India or the United States?

Clearly free trade helps the poor country much more than it helps the rich country (though it helps both), and what is true with India and China is true generally - the biggest gains are to be made in the poor countries, not the rich. To cut off a country from free trade is, quite simply, to cut it off from the greatest hope of alleviating poverty known to man.

If you don't believe me, take Paul Krugman's word for it. See here. Or take the word of Jagdish Bhagwati, a native of India and professor of economics at Columbia University, see here. I continue to quote economists and give anecdotal evidence not because I think either is definitive, but to get you to see that no matter how you look at free trade, historically, empirically, theoretically, or by mere personal experience, the overall conclusion is that its power at reducing poverty is great, and to ignore such, is to harm the very countries one seeks to help.

methinks thou doth protest too much.

The people that I usually hear advocate free trade are western countries and the elite in the rest of the world. I will say that even though free trade and globalization may bring a few benefits in the short-term, it seems to leave other problems in place-especially in the long term. I also get the impression that corporations want free trade to take noticeable advantage of cheap labor and allow corporations to get away with taking advantage of workers abroad by paying them about a tenth of what they pay workers in Western countries and downsizing their jobs at home.Not to mention making it that much harder for domestic industry and enterprise to develop in the countries that the free trade agenda take place in. To the extent it does help, it does not eliminated poverty for the simple fact that capitalism as a setup need somefolks that got and some that don't.I wish I could say more but I don't know much else to say right now.Globalism may have some advantages, but it is no panacea. It also seems to me that countries successful today-many of the ones in support of free trade- are the ones that had protectionist policies in the past during the early stage of industrial development. What benefit the process may bring, when corporations move out, it put the economy of the developing world back in shambles. They try to make free trade/globalization sound benign, when on the ground in practice it is anything but that. In terms of actual practice, there is nothing benign about it.