NAFTA and the Recession

everyone probably knows by know that NAFTA is to blame for the recession in this country, i am a business owner myself and i suffer everyday because of this. we send our companies off to other countries and get the products made at a lower cost and in my opinion a lower quality. why? every country should pay its citizens a decent wage to do a good job but as it stands we don't, why is this can anyone explain this to me........

A country run primarily by CEOs and members of various boards (in government and culture) who believe in the bottom line first might explain the big push for NAFTA and the WTO and the IMF and so on and so forth for the most part.

Although I wouldn't pin the responsibility for recessions exclusively on these organizations.

But I'm no economist nor linguist, so I'm probably just babbling out of my ass again.

Welcome to the global economy. Nation states don't matter that much just the bottom line. Small business gets harder big business gets better. I would say that NAFTA isn't to blame but instead the lack of development and work standards else where in the world is what is to blame. Now, who to place the blame on that's the interesting question. Laissez-faire economics is a race to the bottom unless the top end consumers bring market pressure to bear, unfortunately this won't happen because we are all too ignorant caught up in our daily lives etc, etc.

Until there is a legitimate form of global governance there can be no real enforcement of global labour standards.

[Edited on Nov 29, 2003 by Sparagmos]

[Edited on Nov 29, 2003 by Sparagmos]

My machine went haywire and did a mulitple posting in the middle of my typing sorry.

[Edited on Nov 29, 2003 by Sparagmos]

[Edited on Nov 29, 2003 by Sparagmos]

If CEO positions were being outsourced ( to third world countries) at the same rate that workers jobs are, I think we would see NAFTA end pretty abruptly.

Better yet, let's reduce CEO compensation in direct proportion to the amount that they might save by reducing labour costs through the outsourcing of jobs.

Problem solved.

Everybody knew the world was flat once too.

Funny, the things everybody knows.

Everybody thinks that everybody knew the world was flat once. Funny how that is.

Edited because I found a better source. Check out
Inventing the Flat Earth

[Edited on Dec 02, 2003 by wildanarchist]

I meant it in the same ironic way in which everybody thinks that "everyone probably knows by know that NAFTA is to blame for the recession in this country".

Yeh, unfortunately not everybody does know that policy developed from NAFTA (initiated by Clinton), the WTO, etc. is causing a recession in the U.S.

BTW, Washington Irving is the cause of a lot American Myths that are accepted as historical fact by the general public.

*slaps self in head*

I have a bridge I'd be willing to sell you, except judging by your handle, you don't believe in property.

In case it was not explicit in the first post. Most of Europe did not beleive that the world is flat at the time of Columbus, nor did Columbus himself.

I don't think Columbus would have sailed had he thought it was flat.

It is worth noting that NAFTA covers only trade between the United States, Canada and Mexico.

The recent push to move jobs from the US to places like India, Pakistan, China, etc. is in no way connected to NAFTA.

While many consider NAFTA damaging to the US manufacturing industry, you only need to look at the origins of the things you buy every day. How often do you see a tag, sticker or label on goods that says: 'Made in Mexico' vs. 'Made in China'. NAFTA may be the cause of goods being manufactured in Mexico, but anything made in China would be made there even in a NAFTA-less world.

-oAk-


-oAk-

One of a whole slew of reasons why linking a particular trade agreement to yet another swing in the business cycle (which have been going on for centuries) is ridiculous.

*deep sigh*

Agreed. NAFTA wasn't an issue in the late 1990's when the technology boom put US unemployment at historical lows - now that the economy has slowed it's growth, everyone begins to look for the same old excuses.

-oAk-

It was not until reciently that the tech sector abandoned the west coast including Portland, OR.

Hell, I come from a small town with a record of having the worse employment record in the Pacific NW- the timber industry gutted the region, then left for new territory. When the tech sector left Portland, Portland suddenly had the highest unemployment rate in Oregon. Is it any wonder that Oregon has the highest unemployment rate in the country, we embraced the tech boom.

Portland relied on the tech industry, the tech industry is abandoning Portland for cheaper business overseas.

[Edited on Dec 02, 2003 by wildanarchist]

And thus a nationwide recession is born? Um, no.

They aren't the same old excuses Essexboy,they are the reality of a capitalistic system.The bigger the system the bigger the economic upturns and downturns.Kind of like a boat in the water.The bigger it is the larger the swell,with the waves representing the economy going up and down.
Nothing inherently right nor wrong,after all the market is just a tool.We just need to take this into consideration as we forge on ahead with these Free Trade pacts.

YAWG, if what you're saying is economic "shocks" originating from overseas can lead to fluctuations at home, that's correct. The old saying goes "When the US catches cold, the world gets the flu."

Hint: Where NAFTA is concerned, Mexico and Canada are much more at risk from catching flu form the US than the reverse. (And this held true before the ratification of NAFTA as it did afterwards.) The US is the big economy in this troika, and the proportion of output in the US economy that gets traded is much smaller than for the other two partners. In plain English, that means bumps and swells in Canada or Mexico aren't going to do much to the total US economy. They're just not.

US economic cycles still largely originate from within the US. To the extent there's a foreign determinant, it ain't got much at all to do with the ratification of NAFTA.

How many times do we have to go through this?

I agree with you on the point about the U.S.A being the dominant economic force in NAFTA TheFuckOffKid.I was trying to get at the loss of economic self determination for nation states that is being brought on by unfetterd trade.
All three countries in NAFTA have become far too susceptible to market forces,in my opinion.This has led to the economic upheavels caused by the buisness cycle to become more pronounced in local economies than ever before.
I'm not against trade,I like eating strawberries in December,but forgetting that the market is a tool and not a religion countries are letting the horse steer the cart.

Which in turn tends to nullify the opening claim of this thread.

I don't know what this has to do with the question of the origin and propagation of business cycles.

Again, in the case of the US, the market forces it is "susceptible to" are mostly its own.

Um, I think you're just making this up as you go along now. Australia's trade is closely tied to Asia, but we rode through the Asian crisis reasonably unscathed, in clear contradiction to your hypothesis. The reason? A different business-cycle-management regime and new "shock absorbers", like, y'know, a floating currency and stuff like that.

Uh, I guess. But, since there is lots of work out there done to try and answer these sorts of questions seriously, why do people come in here with their own made-up-on-the-spot theories and say stuff like "Well, I think it's 'cos we're all 'too susceptible to market forces now'", as if that has any real meaning? I mean, really, why?? Maybe I should go off and start a new thread where we all take turns rewriting the laws of physics.

The whole idea of NAFTA was to get rid of government regulation.It sounds like to me TheFuckOffKid that is the opposite of how Australia dealt with the Asian economic slowdown.
As for the U.S.A being responsible for it's own rescession that would mean that the government is actively controling the buisnesses in the country,which it isn't.It is letting them have more and more freedom to do what they want.
I didn't agree with the start of this thread any more than you obviously do.I thought it was a pretty flawed generalisation.I was replying more to Essexboy's comment on NAFTA being an excuse for the rescession.