Tornado Alley (PROG)

[fuagf]

B402, Reagan started the trade agreements push. You were wrong back when you first
jumped on your anti-dem bandwagon, you have been wrong in refusing to question it ...

No, not "Exactly" at all. You are still wrong in saying Clinton started it. And you are wrong, and have become as boring as listening to Gaetz, in your incessant knocking dems for a mindset the whole developed world was into. One that Reagan and Thatcher pushed and one that yeah, a pragmatic Clinton carried on because he felt it was good for the USA and because it was the only way he had a hope in hell of being elected. That's the reality you...

https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=170912995

And see

AI Overview

The impetus for the "rush" of free trade agreements (FTAs) in America began with President Ronald Reagan, who first proposed a North American common market during his 1980 presidential campaign.

While the idea originated with Reagan, the tangible momentum was built through the following key actions:

* The Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (1988): Negotiated by the Reagan administration and Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, this agreement laid the foundational framework for broader regional free trade.

* George H.W. Bush & NAFTA (1990-1992): Building on the Canadian deal, the administration of George H.W. Bush initiated negotiations with Mexico and Canada, resulting in the signing of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in December 1992.

* Bill Clinton & Ratification (1993): President Bill Clinton pushed for the final ratification of NAFTA in 1993, adding labor and environmental side agreements to secure necessary support in Congress, leading to it taking effect on January 1, 1994.

Though NAFTA was the cornerstone, the broader shift toward a"rush" of bilateral agreements across the globe was accelerated later under the George W. Bush administration in the early 2000s, which utilized "fast-track" authority to secure deals with countries in the Middle East, the Pacific Rim, and Latin America.

https://www.google.com/search?q=who+started+the+free+trade+agreement+rush+in+america&client=firefox-b-d&hs=Zu69&sca_esv=2655d2f286957cb7&biw=1291&bih=585&sxsrf=ANbL-n5p2VBO3c1gcDfj-xseWD3oR-mIPA%3A1772409833653&ei=6dOkac7LJ9TA4-EP1K-BqAw&ved=0ahUKEwiO5J-U9f-SAxVU4DgGHdRXAMUQ4dUDCBE&oq=who+started+the+free+trade+agreement+rush+in+america&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiNHdobyBzdGFydGVkIHRoZSBmcmVlIHRyYWRlIGFncmVlbWVudCBydXNoIGluIGFtZXJpY2FIAFAAWABwAHgBkAEAmAEAoAEAqgEAuAEMyAEAmAIAoAIAmAMAkgcAoAcAsgcAuAcAwgcAyAcAgAgA&sclient=gws-wiz-serp

Also see again, maybe this time you have a reply:

B402, The "on balance" is a qualifier (it's not really, but if you want) for anyone looking at any big picture,
rather than through narrowly jaundiced lenses as yours. It never is nor has been anything as you say there.

As i thought you barely read that post, even on the 2nd time around. If you had you would have seen the pro and con positions i take on the trade agreements shared by those more knowledgeable about them than i:

According to Robinet, “NAFTA has driven down our costs,” making it possible for an integrated North America — as a single manufacturing platform — to become a major force in global automotive trade. Thanks to NAFTA trade preferences, automotive companies in the U.S.,Canada and Mexico “can use an engine from Mexico and a transmission from Canada, and then build the car in the U.S.” and still enjoy the NAFTA preferential treatment, so long as 62.5% of the value of that vehicle comes from within those three countries. Nowadays, the “vast majority” of vehicles built in North America have at least 75% (combined) value-added from those three countries, while some have well over 90% of North American value-added.
[...]
That is to be expected for several reasons, he says. Before NAFTA, “there were automobile plants in Mexico, but they were not really oriented toward the U.S. market. They were mostly for the Mexican market, and they were not very efficient. So in anticipation of NAFTA, and during the NAFTA period, American companies, the Japanese and South Korean firms have invested in world-class factories — with the best equipment — for the export market, which is primarily the U.S.” So part of the increase in productivity is due to better equipment in new plants. Another part is training of the labor force, for the same reason. These were cars made for export, so they needed to be well-done cars. The third reason is that Mexico, in general, even without NAFTA, would have made progress. “People have brought in better machinery,” on which workers have been trained, and educational levels, in general, have improved.

Guillen argues that “you see the same things in electronics, especially appliances, automotive parts, furniture” and other sectors such as aerospace and computers. However, the trend is more visible in the automotive sector because there are less than two dozen vehicle assembly plants in Mexico. “That’s why one decision by Nissan or Volkswagen – for example, to set up a world-class factory — makes a big difference. You can more readily see the changes in the automotive industry, but it is happening in the others too….

“Now think of where Mexico would be today without NAFTA,” Guillen adds. “Today, Mexican migration to the U.S. has come to a halt. There are Central Americans coming to the U.S. – but virtually no Mexicans. That’s because Mexico is doing well. So just imagine, without NAFTA and with Mexico not doing that well, we would have had the additional problem of an unstable Mexico with lots of people wanting to come to the United States.”
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=170952283

And you also would have seen one comment on inequality ..

Guillen says he “completely disagrees with those economists who say this has generated inequality. Whenever there is this kind of growth process, especially when foreign investment comes in, you always get that inequality. Are you better as a country – or worse off? Ask the 30% of Mexicans who got well-paying jobs. Without NAFTA, they wouldn’t have those jobs, because those jobs would be in China or somewhere else.” Guillen contrasts the Mexican situation with that of the U.S., where “we are generating inequality because the lower wages are either stagnating or going down. How do they go down? When a factory worker is earning $35 an hour, gets laid off and has to go to the service sector and only makes $12 an hour.”

Overall, Guillen states, “NAFTA has been great for Mexico. The only doubts are about whether it has been good for the United States. I believe it has been, but there is more of a mixed balance between losers and winners [in the U.S.]. For Mexico, it is a total success. The problem in Mexico, though, is that the export industry there has not been big enough to employ everybody in a large population…. Inequality has been produced, not because the wages of low-wage workers got lower, but because a significant number of workers are now receiving higher wages.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=170952283
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=176413226