It was a pretty good year for global free trade and thus capitalism.
Despite the loud and shrill opposition of leftists and Buchanan clones, voters in Costa Rica decided to join CAFTA. Meanwhile the Bush administration moved fully to implement NAFTA.
Congress passed a new free trade law, albeit watered down, with Peru. The vote largely was along party lines. Earlier in this administration GOP Congresses enacted along party lines much better trade laws with the likes of Australia, Singapore, Morocco and Western Africa, not to mention CAFTA itself.
Speaking of free trade, in the 14 years since NAFTA was enacted -- during which the GOP controlled Congress for 11 years and the U.S. House for 12 years -- the average annual U.S. unemployment rate has been 5% and aggregate consumer inflation has been 45%.
In the 14 years immediately preceding NAFTA, however -- with Democrats in absolute control of the "purse strings" of the federal government plus the Senate for most of that time too -- the average annual U.S. unemployment rate was 7.1% and aggregate consumer inflation was 99%.
7.1 avg. unemployment - 1980-1994 - pre-NAFTA - Democrats controlled gov't purse strings
5.0 avg. unemployment - 1994-2008 - post-NAFTA - GOP mostly controlled gov't purse strings
99% total inflation - pre-NAFTA - 1980-1994 - Democrats controlled gov't purse strings
45% total inflation - post-NAFTA - 1994-2008 - GOP mostly controlled gov't purse strings
Complete coincidences?
Nope.
Permalink | E-mail This | Technorati Links | Sphere: Related Content | Digg this! | FARK It!
Filed under:
Business
Comments (5)
Reagan introduced more inde... (Below threshold)1. Posted by jpm100 | December 10, 2007 9:28 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Reagan introduced more indexing to inflation for benefit payouts and the tax brackets. Therefore the government has been incentivized to find ways to under report inflation.
And the way inflation is accounted has been continually rigged errr "improved" through the years.
So I'm not exactly overwhelmed by the numbers on inflation.
1. Posted by jpm100 | December 10, 2007 9:28 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on December 10, 2007 21:28
2. Posted by Paul Hooson | December 10, 2007 10:19 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
The flip side of things is that NAFTA reduced most Mexican farm labor wages by a 1/3 or more, helping to fuel an economic crisis there that has resulted in a huge wave of illegal immigration to the U.S. since NAFTA to seek farm or food service work in the United States. In addition, NAFTA fueled many Detroit automobile assemby jobs to either Canada or Mexico. In fact other than the recent Toyota NASCAR entry, none of the Chevy, Ford or Dodge NASCAR entries are produced in the U.S.
2. Posted by Paul Hooson | December 10, 2007 10:19 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on December 10, 2007 22:19
3. Posted by SPQR | December 11, 2007 12:45 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Paul, Detroit moved auto assembly to Mexico before NAFTA. And you do know that NASCAR cars are not production automobiles, don't you?
3. Posted by SPQR | December 11, 2007 12:45 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on December 11, 2007 00:45
4. Posted by SPQR | December 11, 2007 2:03 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Of course good protectionist policies have worked great in Europe for Airbus ... uh not.
4. Posted by SPQR | December 11, 2007 2:03 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on December 11, 2007 02:03
5. Posted by jpm100 | December 11, 2007 6:32 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
"Of course good protectionist policies have worked great in Europe for Airbus ... uh not."
If the 777 didn't have to beat the A330, it would have been a steaming pile of crap too. A protectionist cushion on Airbus may have hurt Europe in the short term. But keeping them alive gives Europe the option to buy some 777s today and gives Airbus something to beat (and in turn Boeing something to beat). If only Boeing existed Europe and NA would both be screwed.
5. Posted by jpm100 | December 11, 2007 6:32 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on December 11, 2007 06:32