To opponents, this imbalance reflects a conscious effort by the MAI's drafters to place investors' rights in a privileged position relative to environmental, labor and other concerns. In this view, even regulatory laws that are not in direct conflict with the MAI could be threatened by an increasingly intense competition for capital. Opponents do not accept the idea that increasing the flow of capital around the globe will necessarily benefit the American public. They point to the fact that the U.S. trade deficit has grown substantially with increasing trade in good and services, costing millions of jobs. Exports have grown, as defenders of globalization predicted, but imports have grown faster.
Opponents argue that similar effects are likely with respect to direct investment.
They argue that there is no reason to believe that increasing the mobility of capital will send more investment into the U.S. economy than out of it. The MAI and the Threat to Sovereignty Opponents believe that in order to comply with MAI rules, federal, state and local governments in the U.S. would have to forego laws and policies in a number of areas, including environmental protection, local economic development and human rights. While the U.S. will likely seek exemptions for some existing statutes, time limits may be applied to these exemptions. Furthermore, governments would be constrained from enacting most such laws and policies in the future. Opponents are particularly concerned that corporations would abuse the power, granted them under the MAI, to sue governments for damages.