NAFTA-- A Twenty Year Assessment with David Shirk -- 20 Years After NAFTA

UC San Diego visiting professor David Shirk evaluates the North American Free Trade Agreement at its 20th anniversary, an important milestone for the U.S., Mexican, and Canadian regional partnership. NAFTA was accompanied by continued economic integration, significant periods of job growth, and dramatic increases in foreign direct investment flows across all three countries. The agreement remains somewhat controversial because of its implications for currency valuations, industrial restructuring, and the environment. This lecture will review NAFTA’s pros and cons as all three countries contemplate moving toward a new era of free trade and economic integration through the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement. [4/2014] [Show ID: 27718]

Donate to UCTV to support informative & inspiring programming:

Explore More Public Affairs & Politics on UCTV
Public Affairs UCTV goes beyond the headlines to explore economics, public policy, race, immigration, health policy and more. Hear directly from the researchers so you can be informed to make important decisions.

UCTV is the broadcast and online media platform of the University of California, featuring programming from its ten campuses, three national labs and affiliated research institutions. UCTV explores a broad spectrum of subjects for a general audience, including science, health and medicine, public affairs, humanities, arts and music, business, education, and agriculture. Launched in January 2000, UCTV embraces the core missions of the University of California -- teaching, research, and public service – by providing quality, in-depth television far beyond the campus borders to inquisitive viewers around the world.

[anonviewerciv]

Just kind of side-stepped answering the question of whether NAFTA was good or bad.

[kalebnbrown]

Thanks, this was extremely insightful and well articulated.

[yepyep]

Without a level playing field ex: wages, safety regulations, employee rights the UNITED STATES cannot win against lower wages being payed in Mexico as well as China, this is the reason for our massive trade deficits, if companies payed the Mexicans the same as American wages that would help prevent some from immigrating to the U.S.A. but then there would be no reason for U.S. companies to go to Mexico

[bertbaker]

At Coffeewood Correctional Center in Mitchells, VA. there used to be a factory refurbishing Delco alternators. Prisoners were paid a maximum wage of $4.50/hr. That factory was shut down and moved to Mexico because it was cheaper to hire free Mexicans than prisoners in the US. Who cares if the job can be done cheaper elsewhere, we need to eat here too.

[hcwcars]

Obama told us he would fix NAFTA back in 2007 what did he do in 7 1/2 years to fix it?

[yepyep]

How many of those jobs created are full time, higher than minimum wage jobs, non fast food or retail jobs?

[PeterProf]

If comparative advantage is used to justify trade, then the speaker is off. Absolute advantage is the reason for trade not comparative advantage. Comparative advantage can be used to explain how work is provided in a domestic firm but it has so many holes when you deal with unemployment (zero opportunity costs), floating exchange rates (prices), and when comparing the quality of products. Also, mercantilism has not decreased substantially since 1776. Countries still do what they can to make sure their exports exceed their imports. Especially countries that rely heavily on trade like China and Japan.

[hcwcars]

If only all countries abided by free trade laws

[Kalepherion]

If all of this is wonderful, beneficial and important to embracing this new internationalism; than why is life in these United States not vastly improved after 20 years? Why are the negotiations for the TPP held in secret, even when it’s authority extends in areas where it will influence not only American politics, but it populace. This is not a reasonable or fair evaluation of the job losses caused, or the shifting of companies away from America to places abroad. This type of integration is diminishing and demoralizing to the nation as a whole. Small companies are suffering while the “Too Big to Fail” boys get fatter and fatter. I do not agree with this at all. Look around you, is everything so vastly superior to 20 years ago? or is there a marked reduction of American productivity, and employment? 

[maximme]

can someone edit and summarise this video ?
maybe suitable for conference but for youtube you need shorter video.

[tonytackett]

I lost trust in anyone educated in California.

[marcusporciuscatotheyounge]

Free trade helps all of the trading country's economies on NET. Assuming Of Course that the trade is done in good faith. With good faith, we do not have to worry about currency manipulation and tariffs for example. The people in the USA and Mexico who benefited from NAFTA are FOR EXAMPLE, the Mexican manufacturing firms with lower prices for goods sold to USA consumers. But, the jobs lost to Mexico from the USA firms of course hurt the USA laborers who used to produce the goods now produced in Mexico.: USA consumers better off because of lower prices, USA firms worse off because they can not compete with Mexico producers. Mexican workers better off with more jobs at higher pay and USA workers worse off.

The USA goods that we produce better and cheaper than Mexico make Mexican consumers better off because USA goods are less expensive. USA producers better off with more demand. Mexican Workers worse off and Mexico firms worse off because they cannot compete with USA lower prices and higher quality.

The Trade between Canada and USA OR Canada and Mexico helps both countries on NET.

In summary: free trade helps all countries involved 'on net'. But there are always winners and losers. The winners out weigh the losers if Free Trade doers not involve cheating. Therefore ON NET, Free trade helps more than it hurts all countries involved.

[ajg]

well, his job cant be outsourced to Mexico,

[grazzitdvram]

This talk really does a horrible job of answering questions and examining what the #'s mean, he just brings up things like trade with mexico before nafta was about 100 billion and now its closer to 600 billion, but never breaks down what accounts for that trade. The whole talk is like that on every point he hits, its like a college kid that half assed a project the night before.

[Chiefab]

NAFTA or TPP are not FREE Trade at all!! There very bad deals!!

[archiehendricks]

What is nafta( well heres my definetion)
Lets get rich off these liberals