Matthew Yglesias (February 27, 2008) - NAFTA on the Merits (Politics)

Im curious how NAFTA helped consolidate moves toward political reform in Mexico. Not necessarily doubting you, but I'd not heard this argument before.

Posted by VG | February 27, 2008 10:37 AM

The amazing thing here, and I don't know if you people are being dishonest or what, but you don't seem to realize that when people SAY 'NAFTA' they don't just mean NAFTa. They mean NAFTa, CAFTA, PNTR, and all of the other trade agreements. NAFTA is just the shorthand, because to many of us that's where this all started. We look at it all as being the same policy, extended by the wealthy and monied interests in this country. We look at the net results, andwhole you can make the claim that they have increased GDP, they have NOT led to a rising standard of living for most Americans. For most americans, we have watched our standard of living fall.

We just don't believe you when you say this isn't the fault of NAFTa. You all lied to get NAFTA passaed. Despite what you think, being honest about that now doesn't add to your credibility. Your faction just does not have any credibility on trade issues anymore, and a decade spent lying about the positive effects is responsible for that. Cry all you want that it's unfair, you only did it to yourselves.

Posted by soullite | February 27, 2008 10:38 AM

I feel like I lose 20 IQ points every time I read a soullite comment.

Posted by George | February 27, 2008 10:43 AM

That said, it's simply not the case that U.S. trade policy is the cause of the structural decline of American manufacturing. It's mostly been driven by other factors, and lowered trade barriers have made most Americans better off.

Some actual evidence of this, in the form of data, would be nice.

Posted by Tim H. | February 27, 2008 10:44 AM

Some actual evidence of this, in the form of data, would be nice.

Dude, he linked to a random paper, and mentioned Brad DeLong in passing. What else does he have to do, think for himself?

Posted by Christmas | February 27, 2008 10:50 AM

"lowered trade barriers have made most Americans better off."

Seriously?

The only way you could assert this is if you believe there is no relationship, NONE, between real wages and barriers to trade. Real wages have been stagnant or declining since the late seventies. Even in the neoclassical model, lowered barriers to trade, along with shifts in labor across borders, have an effect on real wages. In an overdetermination model, there are even more factors: corporate monopoly, outsourcing, higher commodity prices (oil, gas, corn, gold), deregulation of the financial industry.

I don't think Americans are better off. I think the top 5% of Americans are doing just fine, but the rest of us are dealing with the consequences of bullshit like NAFTA, and even in a neoclassical framework(which I don't subscribe to), it is difficult to make the claim that just because GDP is larger than it was in 1994, that we're all magically "better off," and NAFTA is the reason why.

Posted by alli | February 27, 2008 10:51 AM

MY's comments are reasonable. soullite correctly wraps the other important trade agreements under the code NAFTA. The problem with his assessment is the analysis of the counter-factual: assume NAFTA was not done. I don't believe (and yes this is belief not fact because we are discussing counter-factuals)that the standard of living (pick your sub-popuation)) would be higher without NAFTA. There would have been extended pain in the heavy manufacturing sectors because of uncompetitive labor; we would have seen faster bankruptcies in those industries. IMO, life would have been worse -- on the other hand would Bush have been elected and reelected (ponder that C-F).

As for professional service providers, bring 'em on and bring 'em in. The issue is certification (i.e. gatekeeping) but certainly accounting and some medical providers (radiology for example) have been successfully "off-shored". This is another area where US immigration policy has been woefully inadequate (is there an adequate area?).

Posted by mike c | February 27, 2008 10:54 AM

Relative economics seem to mean that many (most?) free trade agreements with other countries are bad news for American workers. If American Company X can move its plant to Cambodia, and manufacture the same product at the same quality while paying its workers $5 per day instead of $25 per hour, that's a great deal for them. Meanwhile the American worker loses a great-paying job with great benefits. Sure they can get T shirts from Cambodia for $3 at Target, but that doesn't make up for the loss of a well-paying job.

The basic argument--that the loss of jobs and decline in wages experienced by American workers is more than made up for by the fact that imported goods are cheaper--seems to completely miss the severity of what the American worker loses vs. what he or she gains. There are such massive wage disparities between America and other parts of the world that the idea of wage competition between them is obscene. I mean, how are American workers supposed to compete with Cambodians--accept $5 daily wages ourselves? I don't think we should have to accept that as a fundamental economic reality, and if that means a certain degree of tariffs and protectionism, then so be it. I deserve more than $5 a day, and so do all of those blue-collar people in Ohio or wherever.

Of course, protectionism comes with its own line of problems, but it's not like we don't do it when we feel like it. No one's living fatter than a Florida sugarcane grower, for example. Why can't we extend protection to the average Joe, who can't necessarily contribute huge amounts of money to political campaigns? (Wait, I think I just answered my own question.)

Posted by spokeytown | February 27, 2008 10:54 AM

I think the short summary of the case against NAFTA is a massive loss of manufacturing, mostly to the advantage of China.

Is it ridiculous or not? Yes and no. Basically, proponents of NAFTA all to often are defending ANY so-called trade liberalization, and what those treaties are negotiated, workers rights are surrendered at once, environmental concerns are erazed, but the "intelectual rights" of our corporations are defended tooth and nail. And, of course, we give big advantage to China where workers have no rights over, say, India and Mexico where they have some rights.

So politicians and economists defending NAFTA are not credible if they do not explain the difference between what we have and what they want.

Posted by piotr | February 27, 2008 10:54 AM

"I think it's clear that NAFTA was oversold during the initial debate...."

Are you serious, Yglesias? You're actually offering an opinion of the climate at the time of the initial debate? You were about 12 or 13 years old at the time. No one will hold it against you if you claim a bit of ignorance on a topic due to having to study for your geography bee.

Posted by Adam | February 27, 2008 10:57 AM

On occasion it should probably be borne in mind that "NAFTA" is not some sort of short-hand for "free trade" or "smarter than dumb protectionism" policies.

For example, if you actually read Dean Baker's article, which covers quite a bit more than how to get U.S. professionals to compete directly with international professionals, it recommends things which run directly counter to NAFTA.

So, for example, when he discusses how environmental regulations are currently forced under NAFTA-type agreements to be run through unelected trade panels for evaluation, you can't change that without essentially abandoning NAFTA.

That is, if you're talking about the actual agreement as signed and implemented, rather than a notion of "NAFTA" as representing "free trade".

Further, I'm not sure that Baker's making a flat recommendation, or showing where the logical outcomes of this kind of logic goes:

This assessment of standards could be especially important for the practice of law in the United States. Each state currently sets it own rules for who is allowed to practice law, often applying criteria that serve no obvious purpose, except to exclude potential lawyers. In effect, each state’s lawyers set up protectionist barriers for the purpose of not having to compete with lawyers from other states. In the context of eliminating national (and state) barriers to legal services, it would be essential that each country or state reserve the right to set its own penalties for crimes or civil actions. However, there is no reason that countries could not adopt common procedures for filing briefs and motions. Such standardization would allow a lawyer who learned the legal procedures in Malaysia or Peru to be prepared to work with the legal procedures in Germany or the United States. It would take a great deal of time to standardize legal procedures across countries, but the potential gains – at least in the United States – suggest that such a process should be near the top of the agenda for those committed to free trade.

Baker does not specifically include himself in the term "those committed to free trade."

I think he's trying to make the point that those who seem to be so happy when U.S. (or Mexican, etc.) workers in blue-collar or low wage jobs get hurt by 'competition' (often from the same employer) seem less likely to take on high wage, high social class professionals in the U.S.

And note how he concludes:

For the last fifty years, the trade agenda of the United States has been dominated by efforts to remove barriers to trade in manufactured goods. This has had the effect of placing manufacturing workers in the United States in direct competition with low paid workers in developing nations. This competition has been one of the key factors in reducing the relative wages not only of manufacturing workers, but of the less-skilled workers that make up the vast majority of the labor force in the United States.

However, the decision to focus on removing barriers to trade in manufactured goods is a political decision, not an economic one. Economic theory implies that there would be large potential gains from removing barriers to trade in highly paid professional services. This paper produces some simple calculations suggesting the potential magnitude of the gains to consumers in the United States from removing barriers for four categories of highly paid professionals –doctors, dentists, lawyers, and accountants. These calculations indicate that the annual gains to consumers could be between $160 billion and $270 billion, or between $2,200 and $3,700 a year for an average family of four.

It is also easy to design mechanisms that will ensure that developing countries share in these gains. One such mechanism, foreign remittances, would ensure some gain to developing countries, even without any government action. However, it would be desirable to have measures in place, such as a tax on the earnings of foreign professionals, which would ensure that governments in developing countries are compensated for the expenses associated with educating these workers. It would also be reasonable for the United States, as a rich nation, to share some portion of the efficiency gains associated with having access to a large number of foreign professionals, with poorer nations. The efficiency gains calculated in this paper would allow an increase of between 100 and 160 percent in the current annual level of foreign aid.

I think he's making a point about consistency & hypocrisy among mainstream advocates of "free trade", not simply making recommendations.

Hence his column here:

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/beat_the_press_archive?month=02&year=2008&base_name=why_is_the_nyt_so_opposed_to_f

Posted by El Cid | February 27, 2008 11:01 AM

It's interesting that all discussions relating to NAFTA hinge on the trade relationship between the US and Mexico while completely ignoring the much bigger trade relationship with your northern neighbor.

Canada has a some grievances against NAFTA; they relate to some of the issue the Democratic candidates identified:

a) labor standards: unionization rates, minimum wages, workers protection, benefits are generally worse in the US than in Canada;

b) environmental standards: Canada's standards are generally as bad in the US than they are in Canada;

c) dispute resolution mechanisms: I'll grant you a point. They don't work that's for sure. We've seen that in the numerous decisions against the US in the softwood lumber dispute;

d) Corporate lawsuits against governments: we've been on the receiving side of most of them

I wish the US would be more careful in its condemnation of the free trade agreement. It's not black and white.

Posted by ClaudeB | February 27, 2008 11:03 AM

Assuming you are correct that most Americans are better off with NAFTA -- is that the right test for public policy? Is it okay to intentionally make some people's conditions worse, as long as conditions for most people get better? If so, I sure hope I'm not in the group of people you decide to stomp on.

Posted by DKT | February 27, 2008 11:04 AM

So, I watched Brad DeLong. His findings:

-Mexican GDP has grown at a rate of about 1%, controlling for population
-Mexican urban workers have seen their share of GDP stagnate, at best
-Mexican rural workers have seen their share of GDP decline significantly

He didn't talk about America or Canada at all - it was merely about the effects on Mexico.

He says he "still believes in NAFTA", but I'm at a complete loss as to why, if that is the data he cites. There has been negligible economic growth, and for Mexican workers, there has been either stagnation or significant loss in economic power.

If you're with Brad DeLong, I'd be interested to hear what there is in the effects of NAFTA, as cited by DeLong, that would lead you to cite that particular DeLong video as 50% of your evidence that NAFTA was "a smart policy". The DeLong video presents strong evidence for NAFTA being harmful to the lives of actual Mexican people.

The EPI study on NAFTA from 2006 is some of hte best work out there that attempts to actually look at the effects of this one agreement, rather than peddling theoretical mush.

Posted by DivGuy | February 27, 2008 11:05 AM

I am still not seeing anything about specific proposals that Clinton or Obama made that contradict any of the above. I probably missed it, and would be interested in what they are so we can discuss the specifics in their policies that should be changed.

Posted by theCoach | February 27, 2008 11:06 AM

I am still not seeing anything about specific proposals that Clinton or Obama made that contradict any of the above. I probably missed it, and would be interested in what they are so we can discuss the specifics in their policies that should be changed.

Posted by theCoach | February 27, 2008 11:06 AM

I think it's important to make a distinction between the generally appealing goal of "reducing trade barriers" and the actually-existing treaties we sign to achieve these goals.

The European Community was built in such a way as to increase trade and openness between nations who were all roughly equal. The goal was to harmonize their economic regulations and pool their resources in collectively beneficial ways. When newer, poorer countries from Eastern Europe have been accepted to the Community, they have generally been expected to transform their own economies and meet certain benchmarks before being accepted as members. It was by no means a perfect process, but it's a model for "free trade" that I think progressives ought to be able to support.

NAFTA is an entirely different model for free trade. It opened the floodgates to goods and services crossing the border without asking Mexico to make any structural or regulatory reforms. (And exacerbated a labor black market that's been treated with a wink and a nudge for decades) The end result was weakened environmental protections, a broad decline in blue-collar wages and labor rights on both sides of the border, strained American social services, and devastated Mexican agriculture. On top of this, our increased trade with China meant that Mexico started losing jobs to even lower-paid workers overseas.

NAFTA has been a boon to the corporate bottom line and those profits led to the creation of a great many white collar jobs in the US. It would have been possible to channel the windfall into public services that benefit all Americans, but that simply hasn't been the case. Promises have not been kept. Neoliberal economists have been quite happy to cut taxes for the wealthy and keep public spending relatively static. And that's why people in Ohio are looking for candidates who are willing to look beyond the dogma on trade that's held for the past 15 years.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | February 27, 2008 11:11 AM

The correct solution to the inequality-boosting elements of lowering trade barriers with low wage countries is higher taxes and better public services

This is the same dodge that centrists always trot out.

If we're going to talk about NAFTA, we need to talk about what actually happened, not what would have happened if Matt Yglesias had a time machine and the power to enact US policy retroactively.

We've had a decade of NAFTA without any of those "solutions" being implemented. We've had a decade of job loss and union-busting and decline in workers' economic power, but none of those solutions.

I would suggests that those are the necessary precursors to a "free trade" agreement, and without protections for workers and social services and environmental protections, we shouldn't jump into agreements. And NAFTA, as Baker points out, actively works to strip workers of economic power, and to strip individual signatory nations of the ability to implement good environmental protections.

Posted by DivGuy | February 27, 2008 11:13 AM

Dean Baker thinks there can be free trade for high-end services. In fact, he writes as if there can be free trade for any and all occupations. But that's impossible. Some services must be local.

The best way to level the playing field is to not have free trade at all. Then all goods and services are traded within a single economic entity, without having selected elements undercut by cheap labor from overseas.

Also, Brad DeLong asserts the free trade and globalization will help people outside the U.S.A. In other words, some of the disadvantages of free trade for domestic workers is "offset" in DeLong's view by it's value to offshore workers. I dissent from that position.

Of note, neither Matt nor DeLong are under any economic threat from globalization/free-trade, so it's understandable why they would like the lower cost of consumer goods and services that are the result of such advocacy. But "consumerism" is the handmaiden of cutthroat capitalism; it looks at only one side of the equation (price) while ignoring the impact on labor.

Posted by Quiddity | February 27, 2008 11:16 AM

I largely follow Brad DeLong on such matters.

Well, there's your mistake right there.

(I can snark because LaFollette already made the serious points for me.)

Posted by Steve LaBonne | February 27, 2008 11:17 AM

Also, Brad DeLong asserts the free trade and globalization will help people outside the U.S.A. In other words, some of the disadvantages of free trade for domestic workers is "offset" in DeLong's view by it's value to offshore workers

DeLong may assert that, but in his video he demonstrates that this has not been the case in Mexico, and that Mexican workers have seen their situation get worse since the implementation of NAFTA.

Posted by DivGuy | February 27, 2008 11:18 AM

[i]I think the short summary of the case against NAFTA is a massive loss of manufacturing, mostly to the advantage of China.[/i]

Does anyone have any data for this? This is data I have: China lost 15 million manufacturing jobs between 1995 and 2002, compared with 2 million shed in the US.

Productivity is behind the loss of manufacturing jobs worldwide. Today, America is still the largest manufacturer by employment with roughly 20 million people employed in manufacturing roles.

[i]And, of course, we give big advantage to China where workers have no rights over, say, India and Mexico where they have some rights.[/i]

You need to be careful when you talk about 'China' beyond a statistical context. Its an enormous country, and its not true that workers have no rights. Workers are protected by the laws, and some of the laws are more strict than in the US. But in some places enforcement is problematic and corruption is rampant.

Posted by Kuros | February 27, 2008 11:22 AM

I'll believe in free trade when I see major corporations dump their upper management and hire CEOs from India or Malaysia for $30K a year.

Posted by justawriter | February 27, 2008 11:23 AM

I agree with DivGuy's last comment. MY attempts to dodge the effects of free-trade agreements by saying that of course he's for protections of people hurt by them. This reminds me of people like Friedman and Ignatius and Joe Klein saying that they'll support Bush on Iraq if he does x, y, and z "smart" things on the diplomatic front. As folks like Atrios have pointed out, however, in the real world we aren't asked to support their "dream pony" plans that they would prefer but a mindless policy of occupation forever, that MY among others has rightly criticized. Similarly, free-trade agreements in the last 15 years have NOT come with binding and enforceable agreements and protections for displaced workers and others harmed by the agreements. MY's soothing words don't exist as something real on the actual planet we inhabit, and I resent him selling us another "pony" plan when I expect better from him than from Broder and his buddies.

Posted by scottreads | February 27, 2008 11:24 AM

Is it okay to intentionally make some people's conditions worse, as long as conditions for most people get better?

Um, of course it is, DKT. It's pretty hard to imagine any treaty or international agreement that didn't make somebody worse off. Take something nearly all liberals and conservatives agree is a bad thing -- US barriers to cane sugar importation, for instance. Jettisoning our insane policy in this area would be an unambiguously good thing for nearly everyone. But "nearly" is not the same as "all" -- and it wouldn't be hard to think of somebody who would be worse off.

The guiding principal should be economic growth maximization. That, combined with a robust safety net to compensate the losers -- is the way to go. (Remember all that stuff about the Nordic model?). America's problem is lack of the aforementioned safety net, not shitty trade agreements.

Posted by Jasper | February 27, 2008 11:26 AM

Like others, I'm puzzled by the fact that Matt thinks the DeLong vido somehow supports his position on the merits of NAFTA. DeLong basically says he started off as strong supporter of NAFTA. Then he lists the many ways that the many economic problems Mexico has suffered since NAFTA including anemic economic growth. (DeLong could have added that Mexico's economic growth was much higher in the 1960s and 1970s -- i.e., when it was not following neo-liberal economic policy. DeLong ends by saying: "I'm still a believer in NAFTA, yes, but my belief is relatively shaky now." How on earth can this be taken as an endorsement of NAFTA?

Posted by Jeet Heer | February 27, 2008 11:26 AM

Matt writes: The correct solution to the inequality-boosting elements of lowering trade barriers with low wage countries is higher taxes and better public services.

Do that first, then we'll talk trade policies. Even then, I doubt that "better public services" includes the economic security that a high-paying job (now outsourced) used to provide. In fact, the only way "better public services" can do that is if we have an entirely state-run economy. Free tuition. Free new car every five years. Etc.

How about we work within the capitalist system, but without having countries export to us their retrograde economic situation. The fact is, whenever you trade, you are changing the domestic economy so that it (eventually) matches the system "over there". As a general rule, the U.S. has traded with similar societies (e.g. Europe, Japan) that has a reasonably well paid and strong middle clase. That's not the case with China and India. Why should the U.S. trend in the direction of those two countries, simply because Matt wants a cheaper toaster?

Posted by Quiddity | February 27, 2008 11:28 AM

I think the short summary of the case against NAFTA is a massive loss of manufacturing, mostly to the advantage of China.

That is completely nonsensical. Care to explain how a free-trade agreement that applied to Canada and Mexico leads to moving manufacturing to China? Or are you saying NAFTA when you mean something else, like this other poster:

I don't know if you people are being dishonest or what, but you don't seem to realize that when people SAY 'NAFTA' they don't just mean NAFTa. They mean NAFTa, CAFTA, PNTR, and all of the other trade agreements.

It really does take some gall to accuse others of dishonesty when one's engaging in a classic debating dodge, "when I said X I really meant Y." Here's a hint: when you mean Y, say Y.

There is little doubt as per the research that NAFTA boosted American GDP. Ergo, the debate should not be about whether NAFTA makes Americans as a whole better off, but rather how to go about distributing the gains more fairly (since there is also little doubt that the gains from NAFTA were unevenly distributed, with certainly some people being worse off); the solution is to address the erosion of unions, the Republican assault on progressive taxation, and the tax-privileging of income from wealth vs income from labor.

Posted by Ivan | February 27, 2008 11:30 AM

I'm for free trade, but advocates of it should acknowledge its limitations in terms of transforming other countries. Mexico is in a rut still primarily because of its corrupt and ineffective government. The massive numbers of illegal aliens from Mexico that we allow to live here perpetuate this dysfunction by taking pressure off of the Mexican government to make real economic reforms, such as busting monopolies, privatizing state-owned companies, allowing more foreign investment, etc. Any country where the richest man (in fact, the richest man in the world) got rich not by being an entrepreneur but by running the telco monopoly has a screwed up economy.

Another example of a free trade deal not working out as planned is the one with Jordan. Rather than providing jobs to Jordanians, Jordanian business men have imported sweatshop workers from other parts of the world to make clothes there. So the deal has only benefited a handful of Hashemite sweatshop owners, IIRC.

"That said, it's simply not the case that U.S. trade policy is the cause of the structural decline of American manufacturing."

One clarification: American manufacturing is at record levels, in terms of the value of the goods we export. Companies such as John Deere, Boeing, etc. have been cleaning up. The reason why manufacturing employment had declined is increased productivity: it takes fewer workers to make a tractor, or a plane, or what have you.

Posted by Fred | February 27, 2008 11:30 AM

The larger question should be, is neoliberalism a good development strategy. Doug Henwood, an excellent economic analyst admired by Brad DeLong, put the case against neo-liberalism very well in a 1994 talk found here: http://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/Anti-market-forces.html

A quote from Henwood:

"Nowhere can this be seen more clearly than Mexico, the poster country for neoliberalism. Even on its own terms, Salinastroika has failed disastrously. Comparisons with a country that went from quite poor to nearly rich in only a generation, South Korea, point this up starkly. South Korea has made remarkable strides in catching up with U.S. incomes; Mexico hasn't. South Korea has consistently invested at high level s; Mexico hasn't. What is most theoretically interesting about this comparison is that South Korea violated every rule of economic development ever promulgated by Adam Smith, Jeffrey Sachs, or the IMF. Foreign investment and imports were strictly limited, the financial sector was tightly regulated, investment was centrally allocated to favored sectors; and prices of important commodities were strictly controlled. Yet compare the press the two countries get. Mexico, at least until the Zapatistas took up ar ms, was loudly touted as a Latin replay of the German Wirtschaftswunder [economic miracle]. South Korea, I learned from a Wall Street Journal article a couple of months ago, was by contrast experiencing severe economic problems that pointed up the limits of its model. Yet last year, Korean growth was 13 times Mexico's -- 5.2% vs. 0.4%. And South Korea didn't experience an armed uprising, the assassination of a presidential candidate, or the kidnapping of two leading businessmen.

"In fact, the Mexican miracle has been based on a very insubstantial economic foundation -- low investment levels, heavy reliance on fickle hot money inflows, and, in recent years, fresh borrowing. In fact, about half the capital inflow of the last 4 years has been the result of new borrowing, a little-known fact. According to the Institute for International Finance, the Mexican government's official debt estimate of around $110-120 billion, which the World Bank dutifully parrots, is reached only by ignoring about $25 billion in government debt, meaning that debt is now at record levels despite official debt reduction programs. The eased debt burden on Mexico and its Latin neighbors has virtually nothing to do with the Brady debt-reduction machinations, an d nearly everything to do with lower U.S. interest rates. If Alan Greenspan keeps jacking up interest rates, then sounds of distress will soon emanate from below the Rio Grande."

Posted by Jeet Heer | February 27, 2008 11:33 AM

The larger question should be, is neoliberalism a good development strategy. Doug Henwood, an excellent economic analyst admired by Brad DeLong, put the case against neo-liberalism very well in a 1994 talk found here: http://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/Anti-market-forces.html

A quote from Henwood:

"Nowhere can this be seen more clearly than Mexico, the poster country for neoliberalism. Even on its own terms, Salinastroika has failed disastrously. Comparisons with a country that went from quite poor to nearly rich in only a generation, South Korea, point this up starkly. South Korea has made remarkable strides in catching up with U.S. incomes; Mexico hasn't. South Korea has consistently invested at high level s; Mexico hasn't. What is most theoretically interesting about this comparison is that South Korea violated every rule of economic development ever promulgated by Adam Smith, Jeffrey Sachs, or the IMF. Foreign investment and imports were strictly limited, the financial sector was tightly regulated, investment was centrally allocated to favored sectors; and prices of important commodities were strictly controlled. Yet compare the press the two countries get. Mexico, at least until the Zapatistas took up ar ms, was loudly touted as a Latin replay of the German Wirtschaftswunder [economic miracle]. South Korea, I learned from a Wall Street Journal article a couple of months ago, was by contrast experiencing severe economic problems that pointed up the limits of its model. Yet last year, Korean growth was 13 times Mexico's -- 5.2% vs. 0.4%. And South Korea didn't experience an armed uprising, the assassination of a presidential candidate, or the kidnapping of two leading businessmen.

"In fact, the Mexican miracle has been based on a very insubstantial economic foundation -- low investment levels, heavy reliance on fickle hot money inflows, and, in recent years, fresh borrowing. In fact, about half the capital inflow of the last 4 years has been the result of new borrowing, a little-known fact. According to the Institute for International Finance, the Mexican government's official debt estimate of around $110-120 billion, which the World Bank dutifully parrots, is reached only by ignoring about $25 billion in government debt, meaning that debt is now at record levels despite official debt reduction programs. The eased debt burden on Mexico and its Latin neighbors has virtually nothing to do with the Brady debt-reduction machinations, an d nearly everything to do with lower U.S. interest rates. If Alan Greenspan keeps jacking up interest rates, then sounds of distress will soon emanate from below the Rio Grande."

Posted by Jeet Heer | February 27, 2008 11:33 AM

I deserve more than $5 a day, and so do all of those blue-collar people in Ohio or wherever.

You only deserve more than $5 a day if you add enough value to justify it. The only way the US will stay competitive with Asia and the rest of the world is if people quit complaining about what they "deserve" and try to use the massive resources at any American's disposal to add value and productivity in a way that a Cambodian cannot do.

Is it okay to intentionally make some people's conditions worse, as long as conditions for most people get better?

Is it okay to implement an effective tax on all consumers through protectionist policies, to protect the jobs of a minority of the country? Is that a policy that's in any way sustainable in the future?

Posted by right | February 27, 2008 11:33 AM

There is little doubt as per the research that NAFTA boosted American GDP. Ergo, the debate should not be about whether NAFTA makes Americans as a whole better off,

This does not follow. Why should we use economic averages to guage whether "Americans are better off"?

A: 10
B: 10
C: 10

A: 5
B: 5
C: 22

I don't think that the nation ABC is better off in the second example, even though they have more on average.

This is precisely the point - Mexican workers have seen their share of the economy, their economic well-being, decline on average with NAFTA. American workers have seen real wage stagnation and the massive increase in other costs, a big increase in job uncertainty. And we've had zero progress on environmental regulations. That a bunch of people at the top have made huge profits doesn't mean Americans are better off. It's a definitional question, and I think averages are peculiarly unsuited to answering it properly.

Posted by DivGuy | February 27, 2008 11:35 AM

Re: NAFTA not helping Mexicans

Well, you have to bear in mind that Mexican workers have to compete with workers in Asia and other places just like U.S. workers do. NAFTA would probably have helped Mexican workers if the only alternative to Mexican labor was U.S. labor, but it's a big world with a lot of hungry people in it. I think it's true that free trade does help poor workers eventually, but in many cases it turns out to be workers at the very bottom.

And of course, from the selfish perspective of a middle-class American, I'm not eager to see my standard of living drop so that others' may improve theirs. I wager that is a very normal, human reaction, and probably has something to do with the continued appeal of comparative advantage, whether or not the data support it.

Posted by demisod | February 27, 2008 11:37 AM

The larger question should be, is neoliberalism a good development strategy. Doug Henwood, an excellent economic analyst admired by Brad DeLong, put the case against neo-liberalism very well in a 1994 talk found here: http://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/Anti-market-forces.html

A quote from Henwood:

"Nowhere can this be seen more clearly than Mexico, the poster country for neoliberalism. Even on its own terms, Salinastroika has failed disastrously. Comparisons with a country that went from quite poor to nearly rich in only a generation, South Korea, point this up starkly. South Korea has made remarkable strides in catching up with U.S. incomes; Mexico hasn't. South Korea has consistently invested at high level s; Mexico hasn't. What is most theoretically interesting about this comparison is that South Korea violated every rule of economic development ever promulgated by Adam Smith, Jeffrey Sachs, or the IMF. Foreign investment and imports were strictly limited, the financial sector was tightly regulated, investment was centrally allocated to favored sectors; and prices of important commodities were strictly controlled. Yet compare the press the two countries get. Mexico, at least until the Zapatistas took up ar ms, was loudly touted as a Latin replay of the German Wirtschaftswunder [economic miracle]. South Korea, I learned from a Wall Street Journal article a couple of months ago, was by contrast experiencing severe economic problems that pointed up the limits of its model. Yet last year, Korean growth was 13 times Mexico's -- 5.2% vs. 0.4%. And South Korea didn't experience an armed uprising, the assassination of a presidential candidate, or the kidnapping of two leading businessmen.

"In fact, the Mexican miracle has been based on a very insubstantial economic foundation -- low investment levels, heavy reliance on fickle hot money inflows, and, in recent years, fresh borrowing. In fact, about half the capital inflow of the last 4 years has been the result of new borrowing, a little-known fact. According to the Institute for International Finance, the Mexican government's official debt estimate of around $110-120 billion, which the World Bank dutifully parrots, is reached only by ignoring about $25 billion in government debt, meaning that debt is now at record levels despite official debt reduction programs. The eased debt burden on Mexico and its Latin neighbors has virtually nothing to do with the Brady debt-reduction machinations, an d nearly everything to do with lower U.S. interest rates. If Alan Greenspan keeps jacking up interest rates, then sounds of distress will soon emanate from below the Rio Grande."

Posted by Jeet Heer | February 27, 2008 11:37 AM

First off, anyone who wants to discuss NAFTA should read Jamie Galbraith on the subject, a particularly lengthy version of which is on the TAP website. Although Brad DeLong's post-NAFTA assessment isn't bad either. Bottom line, the only story on NAFTA is what it didn't do. It's proponents claim that it was a vital boost to the American and Mexican economies and created all sorts of jobs and improved our golf swings. It's detractors pretend as if NAFTA caused the loss of several billion manufacturing jobs, destroyed the American family, ruined primetime network programming and probably made baby jesus cry a few more tears. In reality, NAFTA was in any direction the most overrated trade deal in history, especially when you consider how much time and effort has been spent talking about it.

From it's benefits side, read Brad DeLong's post-NAFTA assessment. Summary: It didn't do near as much for the Mexican economy as it's architects predicted it would. Mexico post-NAFTA has experienced only mediocre economic growth and job creation. A number of pro NAFTAers have convenient excuses I.E. the poor functionality and lack of quality institutions in Mexico and they probably have a point. But that's just what they are, excuses, caveats that were hardly mentioned when NAFTA was being orchestrated.

From it's supposed negative side there's also more wind than matter. As Jamie Galbraith points out, the U.S. in the time before NAFTA was put into place, already had a pretty liberalized trade regime and tariff policy vis a vis Mexico. NAFTA was primarily about opening up Mexico to the U.S. , not vice versa. Secondly, as he pointed out, there wasn't a lot of outsourcing of "American" jobs, there just wasn't. The actual amount of jobs outsourced to Mexico were pretty small and the majority of the ones that were outsourced, were done so BEFORE, NAFTA was even put in place. Plus as Galbraith says again, the jobs that did leave to Mexico, would have gone anyway without an extensive protection regime.

NAFTA was essentially a bust; it's main feature was tying the fates of Mexico and the U.S. together. It's main negative, economically speaking, was subjecting rural maize farmers in Mexico into competition with heavily government subsidized big corn producers in the U.S.

Posted by DRR | February 27, 2008 11:38 AM

"Assuming you are correct that most Americans are better off with NAFTA -- is that the right test for public policy? Is it okay to intentionally make some people's conditions worse, as long as conditions for most people get better? If so, I sure hope I'm not in the group of people you decide to stomp on."
Posted by DKT

I happen to like the idea of a progressive income tax.

Posted by Njorl | February 27, 2008 11:39 AM

Is it okay to implement an effective tax on all consumers through protectionist policies, to protect the jobs of a minority of the country?

Yes. Assuming I care about making sure my brothers and sisters have decent jobs and that changes in the economy make sure to take them along.

If our goal is to grow the US economy, it must be a stated goal to ensure that all regions of the US are carried along the path of this growth, and we should engage in whatever policies are necessary ensure this. And that's more important than the possibility that someone, somewhere, might benefit from harmonizing our intellectual property laws with poor countries.

Posted by Tyro | February 27, 2008 11:44 AM

One additional point where Democrat free-traders get snagged by reality: They are right when they say that the way that first world countries successfully deal with free trade is to cede the low-margin, low skilled, low wage manufacturing and start exporting more sophisticated goods and services, e.g., high-end manufacturing, consulting and financial services, etc. This is correct, but it tends to be easier to do in countries where the population is more homogeneously high-achieving.

In America, there are certain groups that have difficulty making the transition to these higher-skilled, higher-wage jobs. Of course, there are some low-skilled jobs that can't be outsourced: landscaping, basic residential construction, busing tables, etc. But for these jobs, the Democrats have conspired with the GOP to import competition to low-skilled Americans.

Posted by Fred | February 27, 2008 11:46 AM

The larger question should be, is neoliberalism a good development strategy.

No. This has been another edition of simple answers to simple questions.

On a slightly more serious note, things like NAFTA aren't part of "The Neoliberal agenda" if you want to be really honest. They are certainly favored by elites, but not because of neoliberal economic and development principles. These "free trade" agreements, which Dean Baker has rightly summized that they simply be called "trade agreements" are full of rules, regulations, relaxations, tariff schedules, quotas and demands. They are almost more about what they can't do than what they can do. Under the misnomer of "free trade" are agreements featuring two nations trying to better themselves economically vis a vis the other, and playing hardball while doing it.

Posted by DRR | February 27, 2008 11:46 AM

--I absolutely agree that it's important to distinguish between NAFTA, or any other trade agreement; and "nafta" as basically any and all trade agreements, and the idea of reducing trade barriers in general.

--It would be very difficult to demonstrate that highly complex changes such as have characterized the economies of Mexico, Canada, and the US in the last few decades can be attributed so directly to NAFTA, or to trade agreements in general, as some posters here seem to think. I think it's impossible.

On the other hand, where specific features of the existing NAFTA treaty can be shown to be having a direct net negative effects on both sides of the border, like allowing subsidized US corn to devastate Mexican small farmers turning them into economic refugees we call "illegal immigrants", we should apply an immediate fix. This ain't rocket surgery.

--"The correct solution...is higher taxes and better public services."

This, I suppose, is what Fightin' Bob means by "...channel the windfall into public services..."

I don't think so, gentlemen. My Danish friends tell me the essential question is not how high the taxes are, but what you get for your money. Americans have had the experience of seeing the "higher taxes" result not in "better public services", but with the systematic destruction of our urban centers, massive projects destructive to the environment, and a military establishment that seems determined to develop the capabilities to invade Mars. The burden of proof in on The State. Show us the "public services" and maybe we'll listen about the taxes.

Posted by Robert Powell | February 27, 2008 11:54 AM

Jasper -- then shouldn't NAFTA have been postponed until such time as a generous social safety net was in place?

Njorl -- a progressive income tax is in the best interest of all income groups, because it helps create and maintain a stable society, to the benefit of all.

Posted by TKD | February 27, 2008 11:57 AM

I'm going to sound naive here, because on this subject I am naive, and the older I get the less urge I feel to pretend to any expertise I don't already have.

Now, I know that the big picture for American workers for the last several decades is bad. Real wages are down for most. Union membership has just barely begun a small uptick after great decline. Inequality is up. The quality of infrastructure is down. Health care costs are up, reasons for denying care multiply. Pension benefits are looted and cut. Insecurity is up.

I don't quite understand what can be the overall good benefits of NAFTA in the midst of all that. Do NAFTA advocates want me to believe that some of these things would be worse without it? If so, which ones? I do actually believe that sometimes the effects of good laws can only be to keep things from getting worse more quickly than they do - sometimes life sucks that much.

But I see that NAFTA led to no lasting or even very noticeable short-term improvement on any of this big-picture stuff. So I'm left wondering just how it's a good idea at all.

Posted by Bruce Baugh | February 27, 2008 12:12 PM

The social safety net bullshit is something free traders always say. Then they spend absolutely no time on getting a generous safety net. It's a lie. These people are just liars. They will say anything to get what they want.

There's no point in listening to the arguments of people who have lied to yu about everything else. People like Matt Y were lying to us in 1992, and it's likely that Matt Y is lying to us now. If he wants to rebuild the credibility of his movement, he can go right ahead. But he can't pretend that they have any left.

The only think you people are interested in is channeling the profits into your own pockets.

Posted by Soullite | February 27, 2008 12:13 PM

What are you talking about not spending time on getting a generous safety net? Didn't Bill Clinton end welfare as we knew it? Why, you people just will never be satisfied.

Posted by El Cid | February 27, 2008 12:18 PM

The real question is not how you feel about NAFTA, but how you feel about Bretton Woods.

Posted by ML | February 27, 2008 12:21 PM

TKD,

The fact that you like the progressive income tax doesn't mean that it doesn't create winners and losers. "A stable society, to the benefit of all" is just handwaving.

One might as well say the free trade creates a prosperous society, to the benefit of all. This has the added virtue of being true.

Posted by heedless | February 27, 2008 12:24 PM

actually

"...and lowered trade barriers have made most Americans better off."

this is almost surely not true, and, if it was it would be counter to what every textbook teaches about a rich country lowering barriers to trade.

winnings > losings from liberalization, but, for a country like the US (ie, abundant in capital and professional labor relative to the global economy, but, with blue-collar and non-degreed workers still in the majority domestically) winners

this is, again, straight out of the textbook.

Posted by josh bivens | February 27, 2008 12:24 PM

"...these proposals from Dean Baker for freer trade in high-end professional services are also a good idea."

The problem is that no pro-NAFTA politician will ever push for that, since that would defeat the purpose of NAFTA. The effect of NAFTA has been to put American workers in competition with workers in the developing world, but to keep the professional class immune from such competition. That isn't incidental -- that was the point of NAFTA. The consequence is that the wealth produced by increased competition among workers is redistributed to the professional class, which does not thereby allow the increased wealth to "trickle down" to the workers whose struggling and suffering created the wealth in the first place. Not everyone against NAFTA is a xenophobe. We need to realize that NAFTA-style globalization is but one kind of globalization, and that there are far better kinds worth pursuing. We need an open-border immigration policy. We need the professional jobs to be open to outsourcing as well. We need better labor, environmental, and safety standards in other countries. And so on. One of the great successes of the rich in our time is to have succeeded in making everyone opposed to corporate globalization appear to be desiring a return to the stone age, when in fact most of those people just care more about the welfare of the world's working class than about "economic growth" which in non-technical terms just means more money for the rich.

Posted by R. Vangala | February 27, 2008 12:25 PM

Bruce,

The trouble isn't what you don't know, it's what you know that just ain't so. (I forget who said this, but I always thought it clever)

Real wages, once you include non-cash benefits, are up across all income brackets. If you include government susidies such as the EITC, Medicaid, and mortgage deductions, the gains for the lower quintiles are even stronger.

Medical care as a whole is more expensive, but this is because we can now offer more treatments than we could in the past. The cost per procedure has not increased extravagently.

Inequality is certainly up, but I have yet to see a convincing argument that protectionism would make us all more equal. The basic argument of free-traders is that protectionism will make us all poorer, with the only gains going to politically powerful industries.

Posted by heedless | February 27, 2008 12:35 PM

Thank you, Heedless, I'm familiar with your denials of reality in this regard and am mostly interested in the response of people who don't need to fudge the evidence for the sake of their favored classes.

Posted by Bruce Baugh | February 27, 2008 12:41 PM

Mmm... generally speaking, there's no reason free trade would lead to the loss of manufacturing jobs; if capital flowed from rich countries to poor countries (which one might expect -- and which has historically happened often), then rich countries would run current account surpluses, which would probably mostly consist of trade surpluses. People in poor countries would be less involved in manufacturing and more involved in fixed investment, such as construction.

However, that's not how things are working in the American case. The trade deficit in 2007 was $847 billion. Consider that goods production (agriculture, manufacturing, etc) within the United States is 14.9% of the $13.75 trillion GDP, or $2.049 trillion dollars. If you added $847 billion to $2.049 trillion, that would be a 42.7% increase! (Or, alternatively, reducing the hypothetical $2.9 trillion goods-production sector by $847 billion is a 30% decrease).

Now, I don't think that free trade agreements like NAFTA are the cause of our massive trade deficit -- I view it as more owing to domestic factors regarding extraordinarily low personal savings and huge government deficits. However, saying that the effect of trade on manufacturing is inconsequential in light of other trends defies the data we have about the comparative sizes of our trade deficit and manufacturing sector.

What really seems to be going on is that the U.S. government issues bonds, which the Chinese central bank purchases to control the Yuan's price. That has nothing to do with NAFTA or any other trade policy as normally conceived, and has nothing at all to do with free markets, needless to say, but it has a lot to do with manufacturers in the U.S.

Posted by Julian Elson | February 27, 2008 12:51 PM

It's not an issue about which I feel super-strongly, but I've concluded that I oppose many NAFTA-type agreements: I've come to the conclusion that my policy preferences with regard to trade are ranked as follows, from best to worst.

1. Trade agreements which ensure free trade, and possibly free investment, along with some flexible measures to protect the environment, labor organization, democracy, etc.

2. Pure and simple trade agreements -- free trade (and maybe investment), nothing else.

3. Unilateral free trade by the U.S., regardless of whether other countries pursue protectionist policies or not.

4. U.S. protectionism of the level we might expect given the usual horse trading of congress.

5. Trade agreements which, in addition to ensuring free trade, inhibit domestic policy oriented toward improving labor conditions, the environment, etc (e.g., trade agreements specifying that new regulations on pollution requiring foreign companies to be compensated for lost profits), impose bad intellectual property rules, etc.

Posted by Julian Elson | February 27, 2008 1:32 PM

Extremely well said, Mr. Elson. The problem here, it seems to me, is confusing serious macroeconomic policy with the politics of macroeconomic policy. It's pretty hard to make good policy in an environment characterized by bumper-sticker level debate.

Posted by Robert Powell | February 27, 2008 1:50 PM

Apart from the arguments above, the notion that US academic institutions are not open to foreign labor is just wrong. As both a student and a member of the professoriate at a total of 6 universities (yes, I can't hold a job) the proportion of non-native faculty members is large and growing. That may not be true in all fields --I have no clue about sociology, for instance -- it's certainly the case in others.

Posted by Gene | February 27, 2008 1:55 PM

Re Matthew's comment argument if favor of NAFTA:

"insofar as NAFTA was intended to improve the U.S.-Mexico geopolitical relationship and help consolidate moves toward political reform in Mexico, it seems to have been a success"
----------
Why should the average US citizen -- and his Member of Congress -- give a hairy rat's ass about political reform in Mexico?

And the "US-Mexico geopolitical relationship" is the same as it has always been -- we're bigger, far more powerful militarily , and we will kick Mexico's ass if it annoys us. Nor even the Mexican government is stupid enough to think that NAFTA changed that.

Posted by Don Williams | February 27, 2008 1:55 PM

Heedless--If you think that the uninsured and those of us who are insured via most insurance plans offered to ordinary wage-earners have access to those excellent treatments via our non-cash benefits, then dream on. Insurance companies are in the business of denying expensive treatments to policy-holders. Throwing mortgage deductions in the same pot as Medicaid and the EITC gives away the dishonesty of your argument.

By the way, have you ever tried to assist a low-income worker to access the much cited (by the right) Medicaid assistance? I have, and it is practically impossible to get such benefits. I was told that my friend (who was diagnosed with Chagas disease after her cardiac myopathy was noticed during a pregnancy) should just go to the county hospital clinic. When I reminded the bureaucrat (who, but the way, it took my 5 hours of phone calls even to find) that she would be billed hundreds of dollars for such a visit, I was told that they don't go after people for these bills. What? She and her family, like other people, want to only incur obligations they have a reasonable belief that they can pay.

Posted by bemused | February 27, 2008 2:07 PM

Bruce,

You are simply wrong on the facts here. I doubt you are open to persuasion, but if you are going to slur my honesty, you might at least do me the courtesy of offering some sort of evidence.

Bemused,

Of those below the poverty line, the home ownership rate is commonly estimated at around 33%. That represents a significant group of recipients for the mortgage deduction. I highlighted the EITC, Medicaid and mortgage deductions specifically because they are the largest government transfers of wealth to the lower middle class.

Medical services in both the private and public sector health plans are often poorly administered and grudgingly dispensed. Nevertheless, they have a definite value, and one that has been increasing at a rapid clip. When the value of these non-cash benefits is added to the basic wage, this gives a better estimate of total compensation. And this comprehensive estimate has been rising.

Posted by heedless | February 27, 2008 3:32 PM

I gave up reading the comments after 20 or so. Based on what I read, this is one of the lease enlightening discussion threads I've ever seen here. Lots and lots of mistaken categories and pure assertions.

Every credible study of which I am aware shows that as a result of comparative advantage and other dynamics, a country as a whole benefits from lower trade barriers (unilateral or mutually negotiated) in the vast majority of real world circumstances. The benefits (increased income, lower priced imports, higher productivity), however, are widely disbursed, while the costs (lost jobs in certain industries, perhaps lower wages for those workers when they shift industries) are concentrated. The political result is that there is a highly motivated minority that (for understandable reasons) dislike free trade.

As economic policy should generally speaking be aimed at the good of the country as a whole, particularly when the benefits of the policy far outweigh the costs overall, I favor free trade agreements. (This is purely on economic grounds and does not take into account the benefits of continued US leadership in getting countries to buy into the post-WWII web of economic and political international institutions that the US helped create and champion.)

Given the enormous benefits of free trade and the natural political calculus above, greatly increased trade assistance and other measures to "losers" seems like a much better system than abandoning free trade agreements.

(Note also that the costs of free trade pale in comparison to the costs of our domestic "free trade" or capitalist system, as do the benefits. But no one complains about "losing jobs" to Texans or Floridians.)

For a quick op-ed assessing free trade agreements, see this.

http://www.iie.com/publications/opeds/oped.cfm?ResearchID=524

For a free (but read-only) copy of an enlightening chapter on which the op-ed is based, see here.

http://www.iie.com/research/topics/hottopic.cfm?HotTopicID=6

Posted by Chunche | February 27, 2008 4:56 PM

NAFTA was essentially a bust; it's main feature was tying the fates of Mexico and the U.S. together.

Geography(and oil) did that. From a strategic perspective it's still about controlling the Canal and it's approaches(the Caribbean). Investment in Mexico has gone into areas that have crossover military application like transport infrastructure. CAFTA projects are following a similar pattern. Rapid movement of the US Army and it's auxiliaries to defend the Canal is primary. Producers access to low cost labor is secondary.

Given the huge economic and military disparities in these relationships it's hard to argue winners and losers and keep a straight face.

The domestic demagoguery is to placate older white male blue collars whose insistence on being first among equals has retarded the US labor movement for forty years.

Clinton isn't going to renegotiate anything. Obama might lean on Calderón so Hoffa can organize the cross border drivers. Lots of noise, not much action.

Posted by HatBox | February 28, 2008 1:29 AM

Best comment on the thread, better than the original post (sorry Matt):

....The benefits (increased income, lower priced imports, higher productivity), however, are widely disbursed, while the costs (lost jobs in certain industries, perhaps lower wages for those workers when they shift industries) are concentrated. The political result is that there is a highly motivated minority that (for understandable reasons) dislike free trade....

continued just a couple comments above @

Chunche | February 27, 2008 4:56 PM

Posted by artappraiser | February 28, 2008 2:53 AM

I appreciate your efforts, but you're swimming against the current of "everybody knows".

Everybody knows that virtually everything wrong with the US, if not the world, economy is due to the predatory behavior of the Ruling Class. Any suggestion that we should perhaps consider actual evidence, or try to attribute cause and effect in a way that comports with reality, or in fact that "American workers" aren't being ruthlessly exploited so that they have it worse than Chinese coal miners, indicates that you are just a flunky of the Ruling Class.

This is similar to the case of the war in Iraq, which "everybody knows" was ginned up out of thin air by a clique of deviants in the White House after 9/11 in order to entangle us in the worst illegal pre-emptive/preventive war for oil based on lies in the history of civilization, which war is far more disastrous than Napoleon's retreat from Moscow and Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union combined.

Good luck on trying to hang in the reality-based community.

Posted by Robert Powell | February 28, 2008 7:04 AM

07:04 comment directed to heedless, of course. Sorry for the glitch.

I share artappraiser's appreciation of Chunche's comments.

Posted by Robert Powell | February 28, 2008 7:07 AM

Thanks for the kind words artappraiser and Robert.

Trade is a very touchy subject these days among Dems. Personally, I hope Obama wins and then is somehow able to sqaure the circle bringing the party generally back into the free trade camp. I am not as optimistic about that prospect as I am about other aspects of a possible Obama presidency.

Posted by Chunche | February 28, 2008 10:50 AM

NAFTA on the Merits

Comments (64)

Search

Books by Matthew Yglesias

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Weekly Archives

Categories