[southernmissouri2007]

Are there any Democrats who are against Free Trade and NAFTA ?

[Red Barn]

Dennis Kucinich.

[Drlee]

Most democrats are against NAFTA or at least they were.

[KurtFF8]

Most democrats are against NAFTA or at least they were.

Really? I was under the impression that the Party for the most part supported it. Is there any source or website perhaps that sums this up?

[Drlee]

Clinton leaned on folks to vote for it. Still the vote in the Senate was: 61 to 38. As was the case
in the House, Republicans supplied the most support, accounting for 34 of the favorable votes to 27 from the Democrats.

This bill is still wildly unpopular with democrats particularly labor. It is a bad law anyway. It has cost the US tons of jobs. Just recently we started allowing Mexican trucks into the US while they do not allow ours in Mexico. It is pathetic.

[nucklepunche]

I do not think this has been a partisan issue lately. It seems there are plenty of free traders in each party as well as protectionists. The Democrats were historically the free trade party though.

[Fraqtive42]

Really? I was under the impression that the Party for the most part supported it. Is there any source or website perhaps that sums this up?

I remember Obama saying that NAFTA isn't that bad, but I think that it's split both ways between the more fiscally conservative and fiscally liberal factions of the Democratic party. Many Democrats have switched from an anti-NAFTA to a pro-NAFTA position, including Hilary Clinton.

[nucklepunche]

Obama is definitely a free trader. In his infamous "clinging to guns and religion" comment he also claimed that they cling to anti-trade sentiment. Yet this was overlooked. As for me I see nothing wrong with free trade in principle, the problem is when NAFTA and these sorts of things rig the game. It needs to go both ways. In other words Mexico and China and the rest cannot demand no tariffs from us while propping up their own.

[KurtFF8]

As for me I see nothing wrong with free trade in principle, the problem is when NAFTA and these sorts of things rig the game. It needs to go both ways. In other words Mexico and China and the rest cannot demand no tariffs from us while propping up their own.

You don't see anything wrong with it in principle?

And it's interesting you single out Mexico and China when one of the more notorious violations is US farm subsidies.

[Drlee]

And it's interesting you single out Mexico and China when one of the more notorious violations is US farm subsidies.

Very true. They have done immeasurable damage to Mexico for sure.

They are the cost of votes in the fly-over states. Just and the absurd continuing saga of "clean coal" is used in the south.

[Aekos]

You don't see anything wrong with it in principle?

Care to outline your argument against free trade? Out of all the contentious economic issues (inequality, redistribution, etc), support for free trade is a no-brainer for anyone with understanding of the principle comparative advantage.

[nucklepunche]

If an issue can unite Paul Krugman and libertarian economists then it must make sense. Free trade is such an issue. Granted I do not think NAFTA truly is free trade. I think it is a rigging of the game in favor of certain industries at the detriment of consumers and workers in all countries participating.

[Soulflytribe]

Why is Ron paul against Nafta? Never really understand that...

[nucklepunche]

He is against it for the exact same reasons I am, which I explained in the post above. It is not free trade. Lee showed an example of this. Mexican trucks are allowed into the USA under NAFTA without tariffs but US trucks are not let back into Mexico. Don't tell me this does not make low wage outsourcing more reasonable. Yes, free trade, but free trade is only free when it is free on both sides, not when one side cuts tariffs and the other keeps them.

[Soulflytribe]

He is against it for the exact same reasons I am, which I explained in the post above. It is not free trade. Lee showed an example of this. Mexican trucks are allowed into the USA under NAFTA without tariffs but US trucks are not let back into Mexico. Don't tell me this does not make low wage outsourcing more reasonable. Yes, free trade, but free trade is only free when it is free on both sides, not when one side cuts tariffs and the other keeps them.

Yeah, I agree with you.

[Nunt]

NAFTA is not a free trade agreement but a preferential trade agreement, read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preferential_trading_area and you'll see why. It make trade more free within the trading bloc, but keeps barriers for countries not in the trading bloc. So where before import taxes made it cheaper for Americans to buy American goods instead of Mexican goods, NAFTA makes it cheaper for Americans to buy Mexican goods instead of Chinese goods.

Thus, producers in the trading bloc get a preferential treatment of the government. The only difference that NAFTA makes is that the size of the preferential treatment bloc is expanded from only the USA to now also include Canada and Mexico.

[Negotiator]

NAFTA is not a free trade agreement but a preferential trade agreement, read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preferential_trading_area and you'll see why. It make trade more free within the trading bloc, but keeps barriers for countries not in the trading bloc. So where before import taxes made it cheaper for Americans to buy American goods instead of Mexican goods, NAFTA makes it cheaper for Americans to buy Mexican goods instead of Chinese goods.

Thus, producers in the trading bloc get a preferential treatment of the government. The only difference that NAFTA makes is that the size of the preferential treatment bloc is expanded from only the USA to now also include Canada and Mexico.

Okay, its not fully free trade worldwide, and its not fully dropping tariffs, only reducing them.

And how exactly is that not more free trade than there was before ?

[mikema63]

its a sort of sideways wobbly step in the right direction, but there are a few arguments that even if only one side dropped its tariffs that side will still gain cheaper goods and more money to buy other things and the only industries that would lose jobs would be industries that were protected by government and other industries would absorb the jobs.

i would like to see global free trade, everyone who isn't ideologically motivated usually support it by an overwhelming majority.

[Fraqtive42]

i would like to see global free trade, everyone who isn't ideologically motivated usually support it by an overwhelming majority.

Isn't globalism ideologically motivated?
__________

I don't want to see global free trade, mainly because it has the tendency to destroy local industry, disrupt communities, and force local economies to conform to a global market.

[mikema63]

force local economies to conform to a global market.

it forces them to produce what they produce most efficiently, which would make them more money than also trying to do everything else they need to do. conforming to a global market increases the standard of living and increases the amounts of goods and services (real wealth) in the economy in question and the global economy as a whole.

the fact that states have free trade with each other is never questioned or objected to for disrupting local economies, its never seen as anything but beneficial. the division of labor is expanded and people can specialize without worring about producing food, clothes, or anything but what their best at.

if its true that on net the entire world having free trade is bad for the people then it would be the same for the US states, and counties, and cities, and neighborhoods, and even individuals.