2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: The Vatican smear campaign -- Can't just let someone enjoy something good [View all]Hoyt
(54,770 posts)"A STEP to rival the creation of NATO, or a mortal threat to American jobs from cheap Mexican labour? The arguments for and against the North American Free-Trade Agreement (NAFTA) before its launch on January 1st 1994 were hyperbolic. Twenty years on, NAFTAs backers have won the argument."
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21592612-north-americas-trade-deal-has-delivered-real-benefits-job-not-done-deeper-better
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/12/29/nafta-mexico_n_4515862.html
"Some critics single out Mexico's farm industry, saying NAFTA has crippled Mexican farming prospects by opening competition to the heavily subsidized U.S. farm industry. Economists dispute this assessment. The Economist notes that despite increased competition, Mexican farm exports to the United States have tripled since NAFTA's implementation, in part because of reduced tariffs on maize.
Experts say trade liberalization between Mexico and the United States has had positive consequences for Mexicans generally, not just Mexican business interests. For instance, the deal has led to a dramatic reduction in Mexican prices for clothes, televisions, and food, which helps offset slow income growth. GEA, a Mexico City-based economic consulting firm, estimates that the cost of basic household goods in Mexico has halved since NAFTA's implementation. Mexican workers in the car manufacturing and aeronautics sectors of northern Mexico have benefitted from the treaty and helped expand the country's manufacturing base.
And Mexico has enjoyed an intangible benefit of NAFTA: The country has adopted orthodox economic management practices and is no longer prone to crises. . . . . ."
http://www.cfr.org/trade/naftas-economic-impact/p15790
Remember, trade agreements are about more than trade.