Does Trump's NAFTA Correct the Damage Clinton Did to Workers?

[poster]

Robert Sheer of Sheer Intelligence interviews Lori Wallach on the changes made by the Trump NAFTA negotiations. I found it informative.

"Championed by Ronald Reagan and ultimately enacted by Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, the pact has hollowed out the manufacturing industry, leaving millions of Americans destitute and resentful. Enter Trump, who campaigned across the Upper Midwest on the message that NAFTA was “the worst trade deal in the history of the country” and that our partners were taking advantage of us. As director of Public Citizen’s Global Trade and a 25-year veteran of congressional trade battles, Lori Wallach reveals in the latest episode of “Scheer Intelligence” that he got it half-right, hyperbole notwithstanding."​

https://www.truthdig.com/articles/did-trump-get-it-right-on-nafta-2-0/

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

"DAMAGE" TO WORKERS? Which ones?

Most workers are better off from NAFTA (as consumers).

Robert Sheer of Sheer Intelligence interviews Lori Wallach on the changes made by the Trump NAFTA negotiations. I found it informative.

"Championed by Ronald Reagan and ultimately enacted by Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, the pact has hollowed out the manufacturing industry, . . .​

Only the uncompetitive part. Only those parts of industry which were less competitive left. It's good for the less competitive to be replaced by the more competitive. 300+ million consumers are made better off as a result, by the production being made more competitive, e.g., less costly.

. . . leaving millions of Americans destitute and resentful.​

I.e., the uncompetitive workers and companies. But 300+ million U.S. consumers are made better off, so the total destitution was reduced.

Enter Trump, who campaigned across the Upper Midwest on the message that NAFTA was “the worst trade deal in the history of the country” and that our partners were taking advantage of us.​

https://www.truthdig.com/articles/did-trump-get-it-right-on-nafta-2-0/

But 300+ million U.S. consumers are better off because of NAFTA. Maybe a million or so workers are worse off, while the vast majority of them are better off as consumers.

(Leaving aside the perverse protectionist elements in NAFTA, i.e., the negative part, which probably did benefit certain favored companies and workers at the expense of consumers. But this is a minor part of NAFTA, compared to the pro-trade part.)



What's good for THE NATION? Taking care of 300+ million consumers is better for the country than protecting the uncompetitive jobs of a few and driving up costs to everyone else.

Trump's changes can be good for consumers if they force other countries (Canada) to open their market more, so that free trade is promoted, which is good for everyone.

However, they might do the opposite. The requirement forcing Mexico to increase its wages to autoworkers will make production more costly and cause higher prices to consumers. Also requirements to force local content into the production.

These artificial measures, forcing production to be done where it's more costly, and driving up the wages artificially, can only be detrimental to consumers. Trump is basically pandering to the crybabies with these requirements, i.e., crybaby companies and workers who want to be protected and not have to compete.

So don't worry. Trump seems to be pandering to the crybabies still, i.e., to the uncompetitive companies and workers, to protect the uncompetitive "jobs" and to promote the "jobs! jobs! jobs! jobs! jobs!" obsession, along with Bernie Sanders and the other protectionist demagogues.

So the crybaby workers who were being protected will continue to get some of the protection they want, at the expense of all the consumers, and to the detriment of the nation overall.

But it would be much worse for consumers if NAFTA was abandoned and worse trade barriers should replace it.

The labor unions want to abolish NAFTA altogether, to promote more "jobs! jobs! jobs! jobs! jobs!" or Babbling Bernie's "good-paying jobs" for the uncompetitive, no matter how much damage it does to consumers.

It may be true that in the long run protectionist NAFTA-bashing promotes more "jobs! jobs! jobs!" by forcing everything to be produced domestically, thus eliminating the benefits of competition and trade, but it's more important to serve 300+ million consumers than to provide babysitting slots ("jobs") for uncompetitive crybabies.

 

[zorq]

Most workers are better off from NAFTA (as consumers).




Only the uncompetitive part. Only those parts of industry which were less competitive left. It's good for the less competitive to be replaced by the more competitive. 300+ million consumers are made better off as a result, by the production being made more competitive, e.g., less costly.



I.e., the uncompetitive workers and companies. But 300+ million U.S. consumers are made better off, so the total destitution was reduced.

Enter Trump, who campaigned across the Upper Midwest on the message that NAFTA was “the worst trade deal in the history of the country” and that our partners were taking advantage of us.​

https://www.truthdig.com/articles/did-trump-get-it-right-on-nafta-2-0/

But 300+ million U.S. consumers are better off because of NAFTA. Maybe a million or so workers are worse off, while the vast majority of them are better off as consumers.

(Leaving aside the perverse protectionist elements in NAFTA, i.e., the negative part, which probably did benefit certain favored companies and workers at the expense of consumers. But this is a minor part of NAFTA, compared to the pro-trade part.)



What's good for THE NATION? Taking care of 300+ million consumers is better for the country than protecting the uncompetitive jobs of a few and driving up costs to everyone else.

Trump's changes can be good for consumers if they force other countries (Canada) to open their market more, so that free trade is promoted, which is good for everyone.

However, they might do the opposite. The requirement forcing Mexico to increase its wages to autoworkers will make production more costly and cause higher prices to consumers. Also requirements to force local content into the production.

These artificial measures, forcing production to be done where it's more costly, and driving up the wages artificially, can only be detrimental to consumers. Trump is basically pandering to the crybabies with these requirements, i.e., crybaby companies and workers who want to be protected and not have to compete.

So don't worry. Trump seems to be pandering to the crybabies still, i.e., to the uncompetitive companies and workers, to protect the uncompetitive "jobs" and to promote the "jobs! jobs! jobs! jobs! jobs!" obsession, along with Bernie Sanders and the other protectionist demagogues.

So the crybaby workers who were being protected will continue to get some of the protection they want, at the expense of all the consumers, and to the detriment of the nation overall.

But it would be much worse for consumers if NAFTA was abandoned and worse trade barriers should replace it.

The labor unions want to abolish NAFTA altogether, to promote more "jobs! jobs! jobs! jobs! jobs!" or Babbling Bernie's "good-paying jobs" for the uncompetitive, no matter how much damage it does to consumers.

It may be true that in the long run protectionist NAFTA-bashing promotes more "jobs! jobs! jobs!" by forcing everything to be produced domestically, thus eliminating the benefits of competition and trade, but it's more important to serve 300+ million consumers than to provide babysitting slots ("jobs") for uncompetitive crybabies.

Will the new jobs producing old goods at higher prices slow down the economy and push other businesses to make cuts because the products they need now cost more? In other words, is it possible that these new protected jobs will lead to job cuts in other sectors? And if they do, will there be enough new protected jobs to cover all these other jobs that are destroyed by the higher prices?

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

More efficient production is always better, regardless if the number of jobs increases or decreases.

Most workers are better off from NAFTA (as consumers).



Only those parts of industry which were less competitive left. It's good for the less competitive to be replaced by the more competitive. 300+ million consumers are made better off as a result, by the production being made more competitive, e.g., less costly. . . .



. . . 300+ million U.S. consumers are made better off, . . .

Enter Trump, who campaigned across the Upper Midwest on the message that NAFTA was “the worst trade deal in the history of the country” and that our partners were taking advantage of us.​

https://www.truthdig.com/articles/did-trump-get-it-right-on-nafta-2-0/

But 300+ million U.S. consumers are better off because of NAFTA. Maybe a million or so workers are worse off, while the vast majority of them are better off as consumers.

(Leaving aside the perverse protectionist elements in NAFTA, i.e., the negative part, which probably did benefit certain favored companies and workers at the expense of consumers. But this is a minor part of NAFTA, compared to the pro-trade part.)



What's good for THE NATION? Taking care of 300+ million consumers is better for the country than protecting the uncompetitive jobs of a few and driving up costs to everyone else.

Trump's changes can be good for consumers if they force other countries (Canada) to open their market more, so that free trade is promoted, which is good for everyone.

However, they might do the opposite. The requirement forcing Mexico to increase its wages to autoworkers will make production more costly and cause higher prices to consumers. Also requirements to force local content into the production.

These artificial measures, forcing production to be done where it's more costly, and driving up the wages artificially, can only be detrimental to consumers. Trump is basically pandering to the crybabies with these requirements, i.e., crybaby companies and workers who want to be protected and not have to compete.

So don't worry. Trump seems to be pandering to the crybabies still, i.e., to the uncompetitive companies and workers, to protect the uncompetitive "jobs" and to promote the "jobs! jobs! jobs! jobs! jobs!" obsession, along with Bernie Sanders and the other protectionist demagogues.

So the crybaby workers who were being protected will continue to get some of the protection they want, at the expense of all the consumers, and to the detriment of the nation overall.

But it would be much worse for consumers if NAFTA was abandoned and worse trade barriers should replace it.

The labor unions want to abolish NAFTA altogether, to promote more "jobs! jobs! jobs! jobs! jobs!" or Babbling Bernie's "good-paying jobs" for the uncompetitive, no matter how much damage it does to consumers.

It may be true that in the long run protectionist NAFTA-bashing promotes more "jobs! jobs! jobs!" by forcing everything to be produced domestically, thus eliminating the benefits of competition and trade, but it's more important to serve 300+ million consumers than to provide babysitting slots ("jobs") for uncompetitive crybabies.

Will the new jobs producing old goods at higher prices slow down the economy and push other businesses to make cuts because the products they need now cost more? In other words, is it possible that these new protected jobs will lead to job cuts in other sectors? And if they do, will there be enough new protected jobs to cover all these other jobs that are destroyed by the higher prices?

It sounds like you're questioning whether protectionism really creates net new jobs, or whether free trade (or more trade, NAFTA, etc.) really eliminates more jobs than it creates. I.e., maybe the extra unrestricted trade allows more business to take place and more jobs to be created than the ones destroyed.

No one really has reliable numbers to prove one way or the other, or to show if there's a net gain or net loss of jobs as a result of free trade or protectionism.

No doubt there's a belief that if the protectionism is fine-tuned in some way, based on certain calculations, it can be done to promote more jobs and not backfire by causing the unprotected companies to cut back and do the opposite of what was intended.

Perhaps the trade protectionism can be aimed at high-employment industries, to protect only those which are labor-intensive, or in some other way be designed so as to minimize the negative consequence of cutbacks by the non-protected companies.

But the right approach is to stop obsessing on "jobs! jobs! jobs! jobs!" and instead to just promote the most efficient production, for the benefit of consumers.

If consumers are best served, then it does not matter if there are slightly fewer jobs.

An economy with fewer jobs but better-performing producers is preferable to an economy which protects the jobs and so has more jobs but at a lower-efficiency of production.

It's wrong to promote more jobs if they would end up forcing all consumers to pay higher prices. So even if we don't know whether there's more jobs or fewer, it doesn't matter -- it's better to gain the benefit of improved performance of the producers, regardless if the number of jobs decreases.

The more jobs have no net value if the result of them is a higher cost of living imposed onto all consumers, which is perverse, because workers are supposed to make consumers better off, not worse off.

 

[Patooka]

Which brings us to the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement reached earlier this month and currently headed to Congress for approval.

So it's not even in effect yet and people are wondering if it "Correct the Damage Clinton Did to Workers?" Why is Clinton taking sole responsibility when you article clearly outlines NAFTA was "Championed by Ronald Reagan and ultimately enacted by Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton" This is some presumptuous clickbait right here.

The bit that disappointed me most about that article/interview was it's casual dismissal of the Trans Pacific Partnership. Yes trade is a convoluted complicated process and no two situations are exact, but the best argument or insight I could imagine outlying the benefits of what Trump did to NAFTA 2.0 is highlighting how these changes could benefit a similar trade agreement. Instead Lori Wallach gives a one sentence sound bite on the TPP being allegedly "elitist", before speculating on hypothetical benefits to Trump's policies.

 

[poster]

Will the new jobs producing old goods at higher prices slow down the economy and push other businesses to make cuts because the products they need now cost more? In other words, is it possible that these new protected jobs will lead to job cuts in other sectors? And if they do, will there be enough new protected jobs to cover all these other jobs that are destroyed by the higher prices?

It sounds like you're questioning whether protectionism really creates net new jobs, or whether free trade (or more trade, NAFTA, etc.) really eliminates more jobs than it creates. I.e., maybe the extra unrestricted trade allows more business to take place and more jobs to be created than the ones destroyed.

No one really has reliable numbers to prove one way or the other, or to show if there's a net gain or net loss of jobs as a result of free trade or protectionism.

No doubt there's a belief that if the protectionism is fine-tuned in some way, based on certain calculations, it can be done to promote more jobs and not backfire by causing the unprotected companies to cut back and do the opposite of what was intended.

Perhaps the trade protectionism can be aimed at high-employment industries, to protect only those which are labor-intensive, or in some other way be designed so as to minimize the negative consequence of cutbacks by the non-protected companies.

But the right approach is to stop obsessing on "jobs! jobs! jobs! jobs!" and instead to just promote the most efficient production, for the benefit of consumers.

If consumers are best served, then it does not matter if there are slightly fewer jobs.

An economy with fewer jobs but better-performing producers is preferable to an economy which protects the jobs and so has more jobs but at a lower-efficiency of production.

It's wrong to promote more jobs if they would end up forcing all consumers to pay higher prices. So even if we don't know whether there's more jobs or fewer, it doesn't matter -- it's better to gain the benefit of improved performance of the producers, regardless if the number of jobs decreases.

The more jobs have no net value if the result of them is a higher cost of living imposed onto all consumers, which is perverse, because workers are supposed to make consumers better off, not worse off.

Should we be expecting any citations for any of these claims?

Workers and consumers are one in the same. It behooves producers to pay better wages so to enhance the purchasing power of their employees. One of many problems with the corporate mindset is that it neglects the importance of strengthening and supporting local economies. NAFTA is setup to support investors over employees. The idea behind that is that everyone will hop on board the investment train and we'll all get rich from it. That is, of course, a myth. Like any other financial scam, investors pay management and maintenance fees disproportionate to the investment. Managers become wealthy while small investors such as production or service industry workers get little. Often and more accurately referred to as ponzi schemes.

 

[poster]

Which brings us to the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement reached earlier this month and currently headed to Congress for approval.

So it's not even in effect yet and people are wondering if it "Correct the Damage Clinton Did to Workers?" Why is Clinton taking sole responsibility when you article clearly outlines NAFTA was "Championed by Ronald Reagan and ultimately enacted by Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton" This is some presumptuous clickbait right here.

NAFTA was enacted and officially entered into during the Clinton Administration, was it not?

The bit that disappointed me most about that article/interview was it's casual dismissal of the Trans Pacific Partnership. Yes trade is a convoluted complicated process and no two situations are exact, but the best argument or insight I could imagine outlying the benefits of what Trump did to NAFTA 2.0 is highlighting how these changes could benefit a similar trade agreement. Instead Lori Wallach gives a one sentence sound bite on the TPP being allegedly "elitist", before speculating on hypothetical benefits to Trump's policies.

Emphasis mine. Are you sure what doesn't disappoint you most is that it gives Trump a bit of credit?

 

[Harry Bosch]

Will the new jobs producing old goods at higher prices slow down the economy and push other businesses to make cuts because the products they need now cost more? In other words, is it possible that these new protected jobs will lead to job cuts in other sectors? And if they do, will there be enough new protected jobs to cover all these other jobs that are destroyed by the higher prices?

It sounds like you're questioning whether protectionism really creates net new jobs, or whether free trade (or more trade, NAFTA, etc.) really eliminates more jobs than it creates. I.e., maybe the extra unrestricted trade allows more business to take place and more jobs to be created than the ones destroyed.

No one really has reliable numbers to prove one way or the other, or to show if there's a net gain or net loss of jobs as a result of free trade or protectionism.

No doubt there's a belief that if the protectionism is fine-tuned in some way, based on certain calculations, it can be done to promote more jobs and not backfire by causing the unprotected companies to cut back and do the opposite of what was intended.

Perhaps the trade protectionism can be aimed at high-employment industries, to protect only those which are labor-intensive, or in some other way be designed so as to minimize the negative consequence of cutbacks by the non-protected companies.

But the right approach is to stop obsessing on "jobs! jobs! jobs! jobs!" and instead to just promote the most efficient production, for the benefit of consumers.

If consumers are best served, then it does not matter if there are slightly fewer jobs.

An economy with fewer jobs but better-performing producers is preferable to an economy which protects the jobs and so has more jobs but at a lower-efficiency of production.

It's wrong to promote more jobs if they would end up forcing all consumers to pay higher prices. So even if we don't know whether there's more jobs or fewer, it doesn't matter -- it's better to gain the benefit of improved performance of the producers, regardless if the number of jobs decreases.

The more jobs have no net value if the result of them is a higher cost of living imposed onto all consumers, which is perverse, because workers are supposed to make consumers better off, not worse off.

Should we be expecting any citations for any of these claims?

Workers and consumers are one in the same. It behooves producers to pay better wages so to enhance the purchasing power of their employees. One of many problems with the corporate mindset is that it neglects the importance of strengthening and supporting local economies. NAFTA is setup to support investors over employees. The idea behind that is that everyone will hop on board the investment train and we'll all get rich from it. That is, of course, a myth. Like any other financial scam, investors pay management and maintenance fees disproportionate to the investment. Managers become wealthy while small investors such as production or service industry workers get little. Often and more accurately referred to as ponzi schemes.

Actually, workers and consumers are not one in the same. Not all consumers are workers. In fact the proportion of workers to consumers is decreasing as a great percentage of workers are retiring. There were pros and cons to NAFTA. Below is a good and fair article on Nafta:

https://www.thebalance.com/nafta-pros-and-cons-3970481

 

[poster]

Should we be expecting any citations for any of these claims?

Workers and consumers are one in the same. It behooves producers to pay better wages so to enhance the purchasing power of their employees. One of many problems with the corporate mindset is that it neglects the importance of strengthening and supporting local economies. NAFTA is setup to support investors over employees. The idea behind that is that everyone will hop on board the investment train and we'll all get rich from it. That is, of course, a myth. Like any other financial scam, investors pay management and maintenance fees disproportionate to the investment. Managers become wealthy while small investors such as production or service industry workers get little. Often and more accurately referred to as ponzi schemes.

Actually, workers and consumers are not one in the same. Not all consumers are workers. In fact the proportion of workers to consumers is decreasing as a great percentage of workers are retiring. There were pros and cons to NAFTA.

I believe I acknowledged that in my post. All workers are consumers but not all consumers are working people. As I stated quite clearly, many are investors.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Should we be expecting any citations for any of these claims?

Workers and consumers are one in the same. It behooves producers to pay better wages so to enhance the purchasing power of their employees. One of many problems with the corporate mindset is that it neglects the importance of strengthening and supporting local economies. NAFTA is setup to support investors over employees. The idea behind that is that everyone will hop on board the investment train and we'll all get rich from it. That is, of course, a myth. Like any other financial scam, investors pay management and maintenance fees disproportionate to the investment. Managers become wealthy while small investors such as production or service industry workers get little. Often and more accurately referred to as ponzi schemes.

Actually, workers and consumers are not one in the same. Not all consumers are workers. In fact the proportion of workers to consumers is decreasing as a great percentage of workers are retiring. There were pros and cons to NAFTA.

I believe I acknowledged that in my post. All workers are consumers but not all consumers are working people. As I stated quite clearly, many are investors.

Okay. But many are kids, retired folks, house wives, house husbands, and etc. There's no doubt that Nafta caused some hardships for some. But it also opened up markets for others. I work in the medical products industry. NAFTA opened up markets for us in Canada and Mexico.

 

[untermensche]

Should we be expecting any citations for any of these claims?

Workers and consumers are one in the same. It behooves producers to pay better wages so to enhance the purchasing power of their employees. One of many problems with the corporate mindset is that it neglects the importance of strengthening and supporting local economies. NAFTA is setup to support investors over employees. The idea behind that is that everyone will hop on board the investment train and we'll all get rich from it. That is, of course, a myth. Like any other financial scam, investors pay management and maintenance fees disproportionate to the investment. Managers become wealthy while small investors such as production or service industry workers get little. Often and more accurately referred to as ponzi schemes.

Actually, workers and consumers are not one in the same. Not all consumers are workers. In fact the proportion of workers to consumers is decreasing as a great percentage of workers are retiring. There were pros and cons to NAFTA.

I believe I acknowledged that in my post. All workers are consumers but not all consumers are working people. As I stated quite clearly, many are investors.

Yes many are parasites living off the labor of others in society.

Not to say that parasitic investing is bad or should be abandoned.

But an equitable share of the profits between workers and investors should be open to negotiation at all times.

What we see constantly is corporations making huge profits and workers getting none of it and investors taking a lion's share.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I believe I acknowledged that in my post. All workers are consumers but not all consumers are working people. As I stated quite clearly, many are investors.

Okay. But many are kids, retired folks, house wives, house husbands, and etc. There's no doubt that Nafta caused some hardships for some. But it also opened up markets for others. I work in the medical products industry. NAFTA opened up markets for us in Canada and Mexico.

This is a bunch like Brexit, where the Brits were told about how much money the nation would save and how they'd be able to just tell the EU to accept whatever they gave them. Trade is give and take. You can't have it all.

I find it funny that these exact same people, that want NAFTA 'strengthened', are typically against UHC and minimum wage.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I believe I acknowledged that in my post. All workers are consumers but not all consumers are working people. As I stated quite clearly, many are investors.

Yes many are parasites living off the labor of others in society.

Not to say that parasitic investing is bad or should be abandoned.

But an equitable share of the profits between workers and investors should be open to negotiation at all times.

What we see constantly is corporations making huge profits and workers getting none of it and investors taking a lion's share.

Ohh, gotcha. Grandma and grandpa who worked for 40 years and are now living off their investments are parasites. I'm extremely glad that I don't live in your world...

 

[untermensche]

I believe I acknowledged that in my post. All workers are consumers but not all consumers are working people. As I stated quite clearly, many are investors.

Yes many are parasites living off the labor of others in society.

Not to say that parasitic investing is bad or should be abandoned.

But an equitable share of the profits between workers and investors should be open to negotiation at all times.

What we see constantly is corporations making huge profits and workers getting none of it and investors taking a lion's share.

Ohh, gotcha. Grandma and grandpa who worked for 40 years and are now living off their investments are parasites. I'm extremely glad that I don't live in your world...

They represent the tiniest fraction of the investing class.

Like I said I don't oppose this parasitic behavior in principle.

But it should be recognized for what it is.

It is humans laboring and humans doing no labor.

The question is how should profits be divided.

 

[Elixir]

They represent the tiniest fraction of the investing class.

...and the most vulnerable to being screwed by corporate interests' lobbying for Republicans' plans to gut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid so they can give even more handouts to billionaire donors.

Like I said I don't oppose this parasitic behavior in principle.

What's parasitic about it? Is it that they (we) have paid through the nose for decades of our life, into funds that Republicans now regard as their donors' slush fund? Or the fact that some of us would like to see some of that money returned to us as promised when it was extorted?

But it should be recognized for what it is.

Right. So WAKE UP!

It is humans laboring and humans doing no labor.

...and humans who have labored endlessly to provide for their ability to live past their ability to be worker bees...

The question is how should profits be divided.

That's a fucking QUESTION?
There are obviously two schools of thought:
1) Republican: Give us all the money and we'll make sure enough "trickles down" to keep the rabble out of the streets.
2) Ethical: Let people who worked and saved have at least some of the money back that they have paid into those funds, which are now regarded by rethuglicans as "entitlements".

 

[laughing dog]

NAFTA harmed some US workers and benefitted other US workers. NAFTA harmed some Mexican and Canadian workers, and benefitted other Mexican and Canadian workers. The new agreement will harm some US workers and benefit other US workers, and it will harm some Mexican and Canadian workers while benefitting other Mexican and Canadian workers.

Whether or not it will help make American great again - only time will tell.

 

[ZiprHead]

Is there a site that explains the differences between the two? All I have seen are abstracts, nothing concrete, and a lot of gloating by Bonespurs. Oh, and some analysts that are saying there is very little difference between the two.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Is there a site that explains the differences between the two? All I have seen are abstracts, nothing concrete, and a lot of gloating by Bonespurs. Oh, and some analysts that are saying there is very little difference between the two.

I think you get more milk and we get to veto any trade deals you make with China. Other than that, it's kind of just putting a shiny new cover on NAFTA and selling it as a collectors' edition.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

NAFTA harmed some US workers and benefitted other US workers. NAFTA harmed some Mexican and Canadian workers, and benefitted other Mexican and Canadian workers. The new agreement will harm some US workers and benefit other US workers, and it will harm some Mexican and Canadian workers while benefitting other Mexican and Canadian workers.

Whether or not it will help make American great again - only time will tell.

Other than the automobile stuff (which could screw all North American workers), did NAFTA change much at all to affect workers any more than they were affected before NAFTA 1.01 was announced?

 

[poster]

Is there a site that explains the differences between the two? All I have seen are abstracts, nothing concrete, and a lot of gloating by Bonespurs. Oh, and some analysts that are saying there is very little difference between the two.

I think you get more milk and we get to veto any trade deals you make with China. Other than that, it's kind of just putting a shiny new cover on NAFTA and selling it as a collectors' edition.

Haha!