Re: The Economy IS The Colateral Damage of War on Terrorism.

["Alan G. Isaac" <aisaac@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Aside from its general oddity and lack of empirical foundation,
to find the argument that the extent of free trade will be
determinative of employment rates on a Post *Keynesian* list is most
peculiar.  Don't you think?
Alan Isaac



On Mon, 10 Dec 2001 phillp2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Barkley, I think you are quite wrong about free trade not being a net
> job destroyer and that export jobs will offset jobs lost to imports
> (both in theory and in actual practice).  See the studies of Canada,
> the US and Mexico on the EPI website.  The Canadian study was
> based on a report to Industry Canada (which favours 'free trade') on
> the employment effects of FTA/NAFTA.  Using input-ouput
> statistics they estimate the loss of jobs due to exports  being less
> labour intensive than  (replacment) imports at around a quarter of a
> million.  The US study, using a slightly different methodology,
> found the net loss of US jobs at around 600,000+.  In Mexico,
> unemployment was very low both before and after NAFTA but real
> wages fell about 40% after NAFTA.  Many of the jobs created were
> in Maquiladora plants which source only about 2 per cent of their
> non-labour inputs from the Mexican economy.