Gore, Perot Debate NAFTA

Hats off to Vice President Al Gore for his intelligent, reasoned, polite and level-headed delivery of the Clinton Administration’s position on the North American Free Trade Agreement--and shame on Ross Perot for his insulting, whining, nasty, platitude-ridden and contentless drivel . . . not to mention his refusal to answer a question and his constant complaints about being interrupted (a behavior for which he ought to chastise himself, not Gore).

Perot did more to convince me of NAFTA’s merits than could any supporter of the program, for his comments in opposition were all too reminiscent of his behavior during the 1992 presidential campaign--full of empty catch phrases and devoid of any significant alternative recommendations. Furthermore, his refusal to discuss how he and his son might benefit financially from NAFTA’s failure convinced me that he is opposing its passage for purely selfish reasons.

In the end, the only “sucking sound” I heard was a wheezing gasp of hot air escaping through the egotistically huge holes in Ross Perot’s head.

MARCY ROTHENBERG

Northridge

* I didn’t interrupt the letter writer before me, did I? Did I?! Now if I could just get a word in here edgewise, I’d like to tell you what I thought was wrong with the Gore-Perot NAFTA debate on “Larry King Live.” But since I’m being so rudely squeezed out by the gorilla dust coming from the next letter, you ain’t gonna hear the facts, so I hope y’all are happy!

BOB CANNING

Burbank

* Re the “debate”: I was disappointed that neither party really addressed specifics. For instance, specific examples demonstrate that American manufacturers already have moved manufacturing and jobs to Mexico and more will do so in the future with or without NAFTA. After all they are in business to make the almighty dollar. Ford, GM and Chrysler all have plants in Mexico that are producing cars at a 456,000 units per year rate in 1993 (per data in Oct. 11 Automotive News). Contrary to Gore, almost 63% of this production is exported, primarily back to the U.S. Also contrary to Gore, who stated that in a few years Mexico’s economy will absorb a million cars, the projected ’93 car sales from the “Big 5” in Mexico (add VW and Nissan to the three above) will only be 274,000. Increasing that amount 400% will take a lot more than a few years!

The bottom line is that almost 300,000 vehicles per year are being produced across the border which could have been produced here. That surely cost a “few” American jobs.

JOHN F. KERKHOFF

Somis, Calif.

* Seems to me both Gore and Perot miss the main point on NAFTA. That point is that they are on the wrong subject.

The problem is not with Canada and Mexico. The problem is with Japan and the other countries with which we have lopsided, unfavorable trade imbalances.

Our industry and our jobs are being sucked off to those countries, not to Canada and Mexico. Our economy is being plundered by the economies of those countries, not by the Canadian and Mexican economies.

GENE POMERANTZ

Tarzana

* “If it doesn’t work (NAFTA), we can always cancel it in six months,” Gore said. Let’s see . . . you mean that after multinational corporations begin building new plants and factories in Mexico, and billions of U.S. investment dollars become committed to Mexico, we will just say “sorry” and it will all go away? I am comforted in the knowledge that our country is in the hands of such forward-thinking intelligent deal-makers.

JACK R. DORTIGNAC

La Habra

* Count me among the small minority of economists who oppose NAFTA.

One might argue that NAFTA is a national choice being considered by the U.S., Canada and Mexico now. But the decision before us is with respect to a 2,000-plus-page document with additional pages of side accords. It is rather like going to the market with a shopping list for the next 20 years without knowing how our tastes will change in the future.

While I have numerous qualms about NAFTA, I am most concerned that the working classes in the U.S. and Canada will be paying for Mexico’s development through lower wages and greater job insecurity while U.S. and Canadian capitalists will be better off than ever. The lengthy agreement has numerous details to protect specific capital interests. Workers and environmentalists were only party to the drafting of the side accords. Heretofore, we have tried to promote development in Latin America out of general tax revenues, which ostensibly taxed the rich more than the poor. NAFTA will bring incomes closer together by lowering the wages of U.S. and Canadian workers in order to raise the wages of workers in Mexico.

NAFTA also will hurt small and medium capitalists in Mexico as well as in the U.S. and Canada, the very people who support rural areas and provide an alternative to the “Walmartization” of North America. NAFTA is a trade pact which supports existing corporations, not a set of rules which will facilitate opportunity for all North Americans.

RICHARD B. NORGAARD

Professor, UC Berkeley

* Stripped of its verbiage, the NAFTA sounds to me suspiciously like an economic Marshall Plan for Mexico--with Canada tossed in to lend an air of respectability to the scheme.

GLORIA ARRINGTON

Tustin

* Is “protectionism” a bad trade policy? Ask the Japanese. As the most “protectionist” country in the world, they have built an economy that is the strongest in the world, with the strongest currency, largest trade surplus, world-class technology and products, highest per capita income, high savings rate, low crime rate, zero immigration, etc. Indeed, their trade strategy has succeeded in capturing market after market in the U.S., and sent millions of Americans to the unemployment lines.

I wonder if our NAFTA trade negotiators are the same “deal-makers” who allowed Japan to export millions of cars to the U.S., while our imports in Japan are limited to only 20,000? Maybe we should hire the Japanese to renegotiate NAFTA for us.

ROBERT WELTON

Los Angeles