> Certainly, NAFTA was never a pro-worker deal. As
> Dorgan and Brown correctly say in their December
> op-ed, the intent was to open Mexico to U.S. finance and insurance as well
> as farm, pharmaceutical, machinery exports, and to protect the rights of
> investors. In return, Mexican elites wanted, and got, closer financial
> cooperation from the U.S. Treasury in times of crisis. Overall, the effect
> on Mexican factory workers was hard and the effect on Mexican farmers was
> even harder.
>
> But NAFTA was not a "job-killer" for Americans. It had
> little effect on American manufacturing jobs and wages, for a basic reason:
> NAFTA made almost no
> difference to the tariff treatment of Mexican goods entering the United
> States.
Ah, dear me. Galbraith seems to recognize the letters of the system, but doesn't want to name the monster: E-M-P-I-R-E. Yes, NAFTA was just one more paper-cut on the bleeding corpse of a US industrial base sacrificed to benefit Wall Street rentiers. But that isn't a license to let that awful treaty or its equally awful backers (Clinton: "NAFTA, we hafta") off the hook. At least Galbraith seems to get the awfulness of CAFTA right.
-- DRR