From: sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent)
Subject: Re: NAFTA (was Re: Bush's position on Bosnia)
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 00:22:12 GMT

In article <Bsxz2o.6tw@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
>> 
>> 
>> NAFTA will be good for all parties concerned.
>
>  The US has enough poor people, and miserable enough conditions 
>  among the poor.  I'm not going to support NAFTA it it will
>  only benefit people like me (educated, well-off, salaried 
>  employees with enough money in the bank, learning skills, and
>  sophistication to easily find other jobs, or go back to college
>  and retrain if needed because of a changing economy).  But if
>  NAFTA will benefit all segments of the economy ("all parties")
>  then I'm all for it.    Convince us.
>
>

   Hmm.   Seems and odd to place the burden of proof on a free trade
agreement.  History has shown time and time again the benefits of free
trade (from Smoot-Hawley to GATT and even Australia's flirtation with
strong protectionism in the early 80s and subsequent reversal of its
policy.)

  What don't you try to convince us that for some odd reason protectionist
barriers are good in this case?  After all, your position (if you oppose NAFTA)
is not neutral.  If you oppose NAFTA, you are _for_ the barriers that
are in place.  Tell me why.  
   
    Also, you may want to check out some of
Bovard's work on how these protectionist barriers are implemented if you
need further convincing.  It is a joke that protectionist barriers try to
protect much of anything other than the special interest groups who 
insist on them.

  Quite frankly, I don't see how you can believe that there is a future
in "protecting" low skill jobs or even that it will work.  However, see the
recent New York Times series for some hard examples of all types of jobs
(including low-skilled) that are being added merely in preparation for NAFTA.
Mexico is our fastest growing export country. This is likely to remain
true even as they get richer.

  It also strikes me as odd that this would be your position.  I've read
enough of your articles to believe that you are reasonably well-informed
on the history and failures of protectionist policies.  It seems odd that
you would assume that free-trade is guilty until proven innocent.  I
would certainly be interested in hearing your evidence (historical or
whatever) that leads you to conclude that protectionist barriers are
good until proven bad.

  As an aside, I think education reforms and job training programs should
be pushed as an entirely separate issue.  The future is in a well-educated
economy with a strong infrastructure.  No amount of "protectionism" is going
to change the simple fact that without these two factors we are going
to see more poor and a less healthy economy.  However, history has shown
that protectionism may be helpful in enhancing these problems. :-) 

  Please note that I am not particularly up for another endurance post
on this.  I've done several both here and in sci.econ and I'm not interested
in doing it again.  I'm willing to dig up some of my old posts, recommend
some of my sources (including the studies which you disregard), but 
if you cannot defend protectionist barriers as they are implemented by
our government, I'm not particularly interested in defending (again) the
policies which have historically been shown to work time and again.


Pat

-- 
Patrick Sugent				"Cry 'Havoc!' and let slip   
sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu		 the Hogs of Peace."
(708) 447-1771				 --P.J. O'Rourke
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:10352 talk.politics.misc:39159