|
U.S. Nears a Crossroads on Trade |
|
|
|
|
Written by LNC
|
|
Thursday, 11 March 2010 |
|
The following article was written by Sewell Chan and appeared in the NYTimes yesterday here.
WASHINGTON — After a year in which global exports declined 12 percent in the biggest contraction since World War II, trade policy is heating up again.
But the question is whether the United States is prepared to lead the way or whether protectionist pressures will make it all but impossible for the Obama administration to engage fully with the country’s trading partners. |
|
Read more...
|
|
|
U.S. lawmakers launch push to repeal NAFTA |
|
|
|
|
Written by LNC
|
|
Friday, 05 March 2010 |
|
The following article by Doug Palmer appeared at Reuters online here.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A small group of U.S. lawmakers unveiled legislation on Thursday to withdraw from the North American Free Trade Agreement in the latest sign of congressional disillusionment with free-trade deals.
The bill spearheaded by Rep. Gene Taylor, a Mississippi Democrat, would require President Barack Obama to give Mexico and Canada six months notice that the United States will no longer be part of the 16-year-old trade pact.
|
|
Read more...
|
|
|
Trade policy and job loss |
|
|
|
|
Written by Sara Haimowitz
|
|
Friday, 26 February 2010 |
|
Robert E. Scott
February 25, 2010
EPI Working Paper #289
Trade Policy and Job Loss
Advocates of free trade agreements, including the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce, rely on deeply flawed projections for estimating the jobs
impact of signing new free trade agreements (FTAs). As a result, these
projections generally show that signing new FTAs will create jobs in
the United States, when in fact doing so may destroy or displace jobs.
This Economic Policy Institute analysis examines the likely jobs
impact of signing pending FTAs with Korea and Colombia. It shows, based
on past experience, that these trade agreements will increase the
U.S.’s trade deficit with both countries. Contrary to the Chamber’s
projections, the EPI analysis then shows that the increased trade
deficit per se will correspond to the loss of 214,000 jobs in the U.S. by 2015.
Depending on economic conditions, other factors may intervene to
offset job losses, although they won’t change the fact that these jobs
are displaced: The trade deficit per se will correspond to
lost jobs in industries that compete with imports. While other factors
could help spur job creation in other parts of the economy, for the
factory worker who loses his or her job, this macroeconomic fact
matters little. And given the weak U.S. economy, it’s unlikely that
workers displaced from their jobs will find other employment quickly or
easily.
Read this paper in pdf format.
|
|
|
