Rep. Gene Taylor, D‑MS, thinks so. According to CongressDaily, Taylor is about to introduce a two‐page bill that would withdraw the United States from the North American Free Trade Agreement.
Taylor blames the agreement with Canada and Mexico for the loss of 5 million manufacturing jobs since it was enacted in 1994. This is a popular but false charge. Manufacturing jobs have declined in the past 15 years for one big reason: soaring productivity.
Overall output at U.S. factories was actually 37 percent higher in 2009 compared to 1993, the year before NAFTA took effect, according to Table B‑51 in the latest Economic Report of the President. We are producing a higher volume of stuff with fewer workers because individual workers are so much more productive than they were in the early 1990s.
As I’ve argued before, NAFTA has spurred more trade and deeper integration among the three partner countries. It has created new opportunities for American companies and their workers to raise their competitiveness in global markets. It has strengthened ties to our two closest neighbors.
The U.S. government would be foolish to withdraw from an agreement that continues to pay huge dividends.
Well, here's an interesting pair. Today's Washington Post contains an op-ed on climate change and trade, written jointly by Fred Bergsten, director of the Peterson Institute of International Economics, and Lori Wallach, director of Global Trade Watch at Public Citizen.
The authors readily admit, quite early in the piece, that they are usually on opposing sides of the trade debate. The Peterson Institute scholars are well-known and well-respected advocates of freer international trade. Global Trade Watch, and Wallach in particular? Not so much. She has called NAFTA a "disastrous experiment" and has a special section on her website calling on people to Take Action! on trade (example: by hosting a house party to celebrate the tenth anniversary of " the historic 1999 Seattle protest victory of people power over corporate rule.")
Yet here they are, claiming to agree on "a suprising number of aspects of the climate change debate and on the related need to overhaul global trade negotiations." I am still trying to make sense of the op-ed, because it lurches around a bit, and to work out exactly how deep the agreement of these strange bedfellows really is. But for now, let me comment briefly on what I think is the main thrust of their op-ed: a proposal for launching a new round of trade talks.
The authors point out that a new treaty on global warming would "require new trade rules in intellectual property, services, government procurement and product standards." So, hey, why not combine that into trade talks?The Obama Round (as if Obama-worship has not gone far enough) "would include, as a centerpiece, addressing these potential commercial and climate trade-offs and updating the negotiating agenda."
That, quite frankly, would be fatal for the World Trade Organization. Developing countries, now in the majority in the WTO, are in general very resistant to the idea of bringing extraneous issues into its agenda (witness constant struggles over linking trade to labor and environment issues, to name just two). More to the point, we already have a round in progress. The Doha round has been struggling over old-fashioned trade concerns like tariffs and subsidies (remember them?) since launching in 2001. The risks of overburdening the WTO agenda are, in my opinion, far greater than the possible benefits. It's fairly clear to me why Wallach would advocate a new round full of poison pills, but not so clear why Bergsten would put his name to such a suggestion.
In defending its tire tariff decision, the White House has glommed on to the “logic” that free trade first requires enforcement of trade agreements. Scott Lincicome exposes the absurdity of that defense here. But with that fallacy serving to undergird what sounds like a pre‐justification for more trade cases and more trade restrictions, let me remind the reader that we already have 299 active antidumping and countervailing duty measures in the United States, resticting or prohibiting imports from 43 different countries. We have all sorts of restrictions on imported textiles, clothing, footwear, food products, agricultural commodities, lumber, steel, pickup trucks, tobacco, and many, many more products, including tires. But despite all of this enforcement – of rules that are hard to justify, as they penalize most members of society for the benefit of a connected few – we still don’t have free trade in the United States. In other words, we’ve had the enforcement, where’s the free trade?
And if the holier‐than‐thou U.S. government is going to focus on enforcement of rules, then by all means do unto others. The United States remains baldly and defiantly in violation of its NAFTA commitments to open U.S. roads to Mexican trucks by the year 2000. The United States remains defiantly in protest of WTO Dispute Settlement Body decisions impugning U.S. cotton subsidies, U.S. prohibitions on gambling services offered by providers in Antigua, the antidumping calculation methodology known as “zeroing,” and the Byrd Amendment. Trade partners in some of these cases are either retaliating or have been authorized to do so.
The argument that more rigid enforcement leads to freer trade will be tested. But don’t let the inevitable slew of new 421 cases and related restictions in the name of enforcement fool you. After the restrictions, the retaliation, and the adoption of similar measures in other countries, free trade will be right around the corner. The next corner. Keep looking…