Matt-Y tips off a riveting debate over "NAFTA on the merits".
While I've despaired that the Democrats as "no where" on trade, being unable among themselves to come up with (a) an accurate diagnosis and (b) an easily communicated cure, it does appear that the general level of awareness about the problems are near to sweeping away the academics, who got wowed by textbook theories of the benefits of trade.
I'd add that the historical context of NAFTA, in my mind, was the broader perceived threat from regional trade deals in South Asia. In short, unfettered trade as a ... "weapon", to choose a crude term, a must-have tool of "economic survival in the 21st century".
From the comments, my selections:
- Not all of Canada is so happy with the U.S. standards, making the claim of a superior-minded opt-out look ... egregious.
- The rush to "build a highway to Mexico" was a uniquely crude American approach, unlike the highly-technocratic EU approach to trade-area enlargement.
- The neo-classical model of free-movement of capital as a sine qua non of economic development is in question, looking at some important counter examples, including S. Korea.
- Workable ideas on how to accurately describe and to address the "inequality-boosting elements" are perpetually left unclarified.
