Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think NAFTA has the Bush name all over it. This is coming from someone who never voted for Reagan and only voted once for Bush, the father. It was big businesses way to screw the middle class. Clinton signed the agreement almost immediately after he was elected. So Trump was correct when he criticized every former president sitting behind him when he had just been sworn in. None of these people had done anything to protect the rights of the American worker but it was Obama and Mrs. Clinton who took it to a new level and started the elites and made fun of the hard working middle class.
They were all a sorry bunch of presidents and politicians starting shortly after World War II. We need to improve education and become constitutional patriots again. That is what Trump means when he says, "Make America Great again." Makes me sad that we who know what a great America is like are dying off and if some of these people marching don't gain some insight it will never be great again.
Bush signed the agreement but it was much more Reagan's pet project than Bush's or Clinton when it was finally ratified. Trump really wouldn't know the constitution if he wiped himself with it. He'd rather it just went away because it keeps inconveniencing him when he grossly violates not only the letter but core spirit of it.
Bush signed the agreement but it was much more Reagan's pet project than Bush's or Clinton when it was finally ratified.
Well, that's certainly the re-scripted spirit in which the Heritage Foundation went all ga-ga over Senate ratification of NAFTA in 1993. Manna from Reagan. In actual history, what Reagan got in 1984 was the sort of "fast track" authority to negotiate trade deals that the right-wing so railed against when it passed into the hands of Barack Obama. Bur discussion of a bilateral trade deal with Mexico did not begin until 1990. Those talks were expanded in 1991 when Canada (which already had its own bilateral deal) suggested and then joined in work to create a trilateral deal. In the end, NAFTA as written was all Bush-41. It was his people at the table from the outset, and it was he who signed the final agreement in 1992. Reagan was a distant and fading memory throughout the process. All Clinton did was sign what the Senate had sent him.
In the 1980's USA had a very depressed economy,The manufacturings of USA were losing MARKET SHARE in the global market, Japanes and German manufacturings were gaining much market share over USA producers. And in the 1980 Taiwán and Hong Kong also started to gain MARKET SHARE by producing in China with Cheap Labor and relabeling as Taiwanese or Hong Kongnes Manufacturing since China was not Part of the World Trade Organization.
These harsh competence that the USA Manufacturing companies faced was not able to be reversed unless USA could fund a way to decrease the salaries of US Workers. Otherwise the MARKET SHARE of USA MAnufacturings will not only decrease in the rest of the World but also INSIDE USA ITSELF.
The only way to avoid that was to hire Mexican cheap labor to keep prices of manufactures low enough to reduce the gaining of Japanese/German/Chinese exportations.
In few words, Competence in the global market caused the North American Free Trade Agreement.
The incompetitive labor of US citizens caused the US industrials to look for new horizons to keep having gainings and Market Share
On the other Hand Europe was evolving from the European Comunity to the European Unión. which caused US Manufacturings to lose market share in Europe where Germany manufactures Started to Dominate the european markets.
Well, that's certainly the re-scripted spirit in which the Heritage Foundation went all ga-ga over Senate ratification of NAFTA in 1993. Manna from Reagan. In actual history, what Reagan got in 1984 was the sort of "fast track" authority to negotiate trade deals that the right-wing so railed against when it passed into the hands of Barack Obama. Bur discussion of a bilateral trade deal with Mexico did not begin until 1990. Those talks were expanded in 1991 when Canada (which already had its own bilateral deal) suggested and then joined in work to create a trilateral deal. In the end, NAFTA as written was all Bush-41. It was his people at the table from the outset, and it was he who signed the final agreement in 1992. Reagan was a distant and fading memory throughout the process. All Clinton did was sign what the Senate had sent him.
Not so much re-scripted as fact. I mean, it's not like Reagan didn't campaign on his tri-lateral North American Accord. It's only re-scripted in that NAFTA is far, far smaller than what Reagan originally proposed way back in the '70s. What we actually got implemented by Bush and ratified under Clinton was indeed a much tamer version of Reagan's North American Accord. Calling it Reagan-lite would be an underestimate and much more accurate than whatever re-scripted means. Reagan wasn't really always pragmatic and, yeah, the North American Accord just wasn't doable at the time. It was, however, the brainchild that lead to the US-Canada bilateral agreement that Reagan did effect and which ultimately is what NAFTA was modeled off. If stating this fact is Heritage Foundation re-scripting, I suppose you just mean re-scripting is fact. Lies are are alternative facts and facts are re-scriptings. Too complicated for my brain.
Like the break-up of the USSR, Reagan had no actual relation to or impact on the ultimate creation of NAFTA. Or on trade areas in general. The entire legend of Ronaldus Maximus is just more political fiction and theater.
I just find it funny to see people ranting about NAFTA/globalism/free trade etc, using the technological tools developed and advanced by free trade and globalism around the word: internet, satellite and cell phone networks, GPS, smartphones, laptops social media, etc.
the interlocking of the US and Mexican economy due to demographics, proximity and cultural affinity is something that will not be undone by simple rants from the WH on twitter. I do understand the psychological reasons why loser people view others with resentment and think everything is a zero sum game.
Not so much re-scripted as fact. I mean, it's not like Reagan didn't campaign on his tri-lateral North American Accord. It's only re-scripted in that NAFTA is far, far smaller than what Reagan originally proposed way back in the '70s. What we actually got implemented by Bush and ratified under Clinton was indeed a much tamer version of Reagan's North American Accord. Calling it Reagan-lite would be an underestimate and much more accurate than whatever re-scripted means. Reagan wasn't really always pragmatic and, yeah, the North American Accord just wasn't doable at the time. It was, however, the brainchild that lead to the US-Canada bilateral agreement that Reagan did effect and which ultimately is what NAFTA was modeled off. If stating this fact is Heritage Foundation re-scripting, I suppose you just mean re-scripting is fact. Lies are are alternative facts and facts are re-scriptings. Too complicated for my brain.
Kudos to Malloric for going back to the genesis of the idea rather than starting mid-stream. Reagan specifically mentioned the North American Accord in his 1979 announcement speech for his 1980 campaign. The agreements, both 1986 and 1994, ended up removing a lot of anti-American economic discrimination that had built up in the laws of Canada and Mexico. These included laws limiting American ownership and investment and precluded American business from selling more products into these countries.
I don't know all the ins and outs of the specific provisions of NAFTA as it was actually enacted to know if Mexico got special breaks rather than just an Even Playing Field. It was a middling-poor country in the early 1990s and so they may have pleaded poverty to get a better deal than can now be tolerated. However, I will say if we are going to outsource manufacturing to a foreign country, and some manufacturing was bound to move abroad, it is far better for that country to be Mexico than China.
Mexicans, as their incomes rise:
1) are far more likely to buy American products than Chinese with money will,
2) fewer will migrate illegally into the US, and that has proved true.
The locus of our current problem with illegal immigration has moved south to Central America and to Asia and Africa. It's just that illegal migrants continue to use the Mexican border as their entrance point (along with overstaying visas).
Wake-up call for those barking up the wrong tree. While manufacturing OUTPUT has soared since the mid-1990s, manufacturing EMPLOYMENT has fallen in ALL of the world's 12 largest manufacturing economies over that time. US losses have been about average for the group. China has LOST more manufacturing jobs than the US presently has.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
