Here's the US distribution of wealth in 2001:

Top 1% Next 9% Bottom 90%

2001 33.4% 51.0% 15.5%


Global:

"most comprehensive study of personal wealth ever undertaken" reveals such facts as that, at the turn of the century, the top 2% of the world's population owned more than half of all global personal wealth. Within that "the richest 1% of adults alone owned 40% of global assets in the year 2000, and that the richest 10% of adults accounted for 85% of the world total."

That people think international free trade exists within or outside of NAFTA and other trade agreements is an affirmation of widespread ignorance.

While the US enjoyed its greatest reign of prosperity in post ww2 by dominating world trade when the rest of the developed and developing world was in shambles, low labor costs contributing to efficient manufacturing with supporting infrastructure are now the determining factor of capital attraction. To deny that fact is denying global redistribution of labor functions. The emotional stance of US laborers enjoying wages and benefits that facilitate a high standard of living is commendable as an isolationist viewpoint, but unrealistic in the current circumstance of global trade.

Citizens benefit from the lower cost of consumer goods that trade brings and if they own stock in companies that do business in other countries which most do.

__________________
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Makes one wonder how the US general public with its declining purchasing power would dress and be shod without the flood of dirt cheap clothing and shoe imports.

I don't like being called ignorant. I can be very spiteful over such inferences.

And I put pseudo-quotes on the word for that reason.

NAFTA however does give Canada free-trade access to the US market. I don't see much there that would suggest that the vast majority of trade between Canada and the USA isn't actually free trade.

My apology if you were personally offended. I do not consider you ignorant. I could attempt posting the numerous restrictions on Canadian products exported to the US, including tariffs based on volume of Canadian exports of products competing with US produced products, but my time on this planet is limited. IMO Canada, and other countries who export goods and services to the US, overcomes blatant US protectionism initiated by lobbyists representing inefficient US industries and subsidized US food products. Most other countries impose these same types of restrictions on specific US exports, so I'm not solely blaming the US.

My definition of free trade would be confined to elimination of government restrictions inspired by the private sector in protectionist, unilateral form. That just doesn't happen.

For anyone truly interested in the employment pros/cons of NAFTA and its predecessor CUFTA, this report and subsequent testimony to the US Senate Subcommittee on International trade of The Committee On Finance is a good read and presents the employment consequences of NAFTA to Canada, Mexico and the US:

http://www.carnegieendowment.org/fil...ntestimony.pdf

There are some surprises in the report that counter popular US sentiment of US jobs being lost to Canada and Mexico due to NAFTA, and affirmation of the fact that all three North American countries are becoming no more than assembly points for products actually produced in China and other developing countries who now possess the cheap labor, efficient manufacturing and infrastructure support required in a global economy.

Glad to hear that my acceptance of NAFTA as good public policy is not to be considered evidence of my ignorance.

I'm aware of the many non-tariff barriers to free trade that are routinely invoked in NAFTA disputes. And yes, the majority of these derive from private capital seeking to use the Government to create pseudo-monopoly conditions for thier products.

That being said, the point I'm making about NAFTA is that, for the most part, the majority of trade between the USA and Canada is indeed free trade - comparatively speaking.

It is to be noted that Canadians used to make many of the same complaints about NAFTA as are common in the USA these days. That was until it was conclusively proven that NAFTA produced a net gain in real jobs in Canada. That pretty much shut down the anti-NAFTA arguments in Canada.

I would still consider it protectionism, whether it is intended or not. The two percent tax rate raises the cost of imported goods by two percent thus making them less attractive relative to thier domestic counterparts. You could argue that this increase is insignificant but I would still say it is protectionism. This, of course, does not mean that the policy cannot be justified it just has to be understood that it is a mild protectionism.

Unfortionatly, to the best of my knowlege, every taxation policy beyond a pigovian tax (for example a pollution tax) ends up being a tax on consumption, income or savings. In import tax has the advantage of levying part of the tax on foreign companies but these policies tend to be recropricated making it so foreigners tax American companies.

There a still some in Canada who believe that NAFTA is bad. If I recall corectly in the last federal election Jack Layton campaigned against NAFTA.

Ok thanks for answering but...
1. You are assuming that when companies employ "cheap" labor they will pass the savings on to the customer by reducing the price of their product. Has this been shown to be true.

2. Also what good does cheaper goods do U.S. citizens if they are unemployed, or underemployed? Which is what happens when companies hire "cheap" labor from other nations.

Please bear with me I am not trying to argue I honestly am uninformed on both sides of the arguement. If there is merit to NAFTA and other "free trade" ideas I would like to know.

Just out of curiosity...

What do the opposers of NAFTA say about the fact that it made Mexico the 9th richest country in the world? It was 16th before NAFTA was enacted.

I am against NAFTA becuase it involves governance of ecomomics which is a sin in world. Just curious about the above, though.

__________________
"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."
-Samuel Adams

I suppose I am an opposer and I would say I don't care what NAFTA did for Mexico I care what it does for the United States. So the question for me is. What good does NAFTA do for the United States in comparison with what bad it does?

Well many consumer goods are in fact cheaper when adjusted for inflation than they where before NAFTA. You can in fact go to Wal-Mart and buy things for a fraction of what they would have cost 20 years ago.

And right now unemployment is still at 4.something percent which is considered virtual full unemployment. People notice the job losses because they happen in specific sectors while the gains to GDP and lower costs are spread out across the whole economy which makes them less noticeable to each individual. I am all for using a portion of the gains to GDP to pay for educational or retraining programs.

__________________
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

You can find diehards and reactionaries on any issue.

And how many seats/votes did Jack Layton bring in that election? If I'm not mistaken, he came in 4th out of 4 parties and is fighting hard to maintain borderline official party status in Ottawa.

Obviously, there aren't very many of those Canadians out there.