What NAFTA Trade Deficit?

[Pangloss]

According to former Michigan governer John Engler, writing in today's Wall Street Journal, the increase in the trade deficit due to NAFTA is mainly due to increased domestic energy purchases from Canada and Mexico, NOT lost manufacturing jobs. If you remove that from the accounting, lost jobs due to NAFTA are almost offset by agricultural and manufacturing exports.

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120873451908929781.html?mod=djemEditorialPage

 

It actually makes a lot of sense to buy more energy in North America. It seems likely in fact that the amount will climb even higher, as Canada increases shale production.

 

That makes NAFTA a good thing, not a bad thing. What do you all think?

[Phi for All]

I've always thought NAFTA's detractors were simply businessmen who either wouldn't make as much profit from it or were unable to place themselves appropriately in its path, misinformed citizens passing along fear rhetoric or politicians whose states were concerned about job losses. Now the only objections should be from people who weren't prepared to profit, and you'll never hear anything good about NAFTA from them anyway.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Losses in American jobs are also offset by lower prices paid for goods by American consumers, so I wouldn't be surprised if NAFTA worked out to be a positive influence.

[Aardvark]

I'm constantly amazed that apparently serious commentators can still doubt that NAFTA is a good thing for all concerned.

 

Do we really need to rehash the arguments about comparative advantage? Of course there will always be special interests who benefit from prtotectionism and will try and argue that they should be protected for the public good. I'm worried by how much these self serving and ultimnately dishonest positions are making it into the mainstream.