ILS elects new officers for 2008-2009 year

Recently, the ILS elected new officers for next year.  We would like to thank all of the outgoing officers including President Andrew Stubbs and Secretary Brytt Ebeling-Belt for all of their hard work.  Both helped make this past year a wonderful one for the society.  

On a different note, we would like to welcome our new officers for the upcoming year.  The new President is Andy Thomas, who served as Vice-President this past year.  Our new Vice-President is Laura Moore, a rising 2L.  Finally, our new Secretary is Kat Pantazis, a rising 3L.  We are in the midst of planning some great events and speakers for the upcoming year and look forward to a great next year for the officers and the society.  Again, congratulations to all of the new officers.  

NAFTA: Good or Bad?

There has been much discussion in recent weeks whether NAFTA has been beneficial or not for the U.S.  Much of the discussion has come from the two Democratic Presidential candidates, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.  Both have expressed strong dislike for NAFTA stating that the treaty has been the cause of huge losses in American jobs (Obama claims that it has cost the U.S. over 1 million jobs).  Yet, many questions still remain: 1) Is NAFTA really the source of these job losses?; 2) How many jobs have actually been gained because of NAFTA and other FTAs similar to it?; 3) Is all of this "talk" just political rhetoric to reach out to union voters in Ohio and Pennsylvania?.  

In my International Trade Regulation class the other day, we had a discussion of the current Presidential candidates and their positions on trade (this included both Republican and Democratic candidates).  It can be plainly seen that John McCain is completely for FTAs.  He has a 100% voting record for FTAs in the senate.  The other two (Democratic) candidate's views are a little more murky.  Obama seems farther to the left (opposes free trade) while Hillary seems to be riding the fence (what a surprise!).  They will often vote for one agreement and then not vote for the next one, often citing lack of labor or environmental standards.  Yet, one student brought up an extremely good point--both Obama and Clinton did not start faulting NAFTA for job losses until the Ohio presidential primary got closer.  This opposition was not present in primaries in New Hampshire, South Carolina, Iowa, California, etc.  This fact makes a strong case that their opposition is strictly based on political motives in pandering to presidential voters.  Particularly Hillary, who's husband oversaw the signing and establishment of NAFTA seems to have no consistent stance toward trade--good for the country here but bad there.  Now, obviously, there have been job losses since the inception of NAFTA.  Many manufacturing jobs have been lost, but many jobs in services have been created.  Neither of which can be completely credited to NAFTA.  In all actuality, globalization (which neither America nor any other country can control) is mostly to blame.  Globalization is caused by multiple factors including liberalization of market access, rapidly developing foreign financial markets, changes in currency, media, etc.  Because of these factors and many more, the U.S. has no choice but to stay economically competitive with FTAs--this IS a situation where one can argue that since everyone else is doing it we should too.  

As a result, one should be careful not to put to much faith into the rhetoric of Presidential candidates in their positions to amend or even worse, do away with NAFTA or other similar agreements.  I would hope that voters in not only Ohio and Pennsylvania can see through this rhetoric, but also other Americans as well.  We as Americans must realize that our domestic economy is changing whether we like it or not.  Manufacturing jobs are going to continue to leave this country while other service oriented jobs will continue to grow.  We have to learn to sacrifice and change--we cannot stop the integration of our economy with the global economy.   While labor unions will not admit it, they may be the root cause of the loss of manufacturing jobs.  These organizations push for higher wages (sometimes $15-20 dollars an hour), less working hours, better working conditions, etc.  While these requests are commendable, corporations get tired of having to give in to these requests and end up going to less developed nations to manufacture products.  Take China for example: Companies can go there and pay workers 1/10 of what they pay workers in America, get workers to work 12-15 hour days, and have less desirable working conditions.  Strictly from a business point of view, what company would not take those jobs overseas.  Now, I am NOT advocating companies leaving or have lower wages and bad working conditions in America.  However, Americans need to understand that we have the highest wages and the best working conditions of any country on earth, and that when unions push for more and more, companies will finally get tired of the pressure and leave.  

In conclusion, one should not be quick to blame FTAs for the loss of jobs or other economic woes that the U.S. is facing.  There are many problems that will involve intelligent solutions rather than undoing past accomplishments (such as NAFTA).  

For more info, see here.

A. Thomas