In an article discussing the prospect for new trade deals with the Democratic Congress, the Post again uses the term "free trade" to describe these agreements. As BTP readers know, these deals are not really free trade agreements -- they generally do little to reduce the barriers that protect the highly paid professionals (e.g. doctors, lawyers, economists) and they increase protection for intellectual products -- so it is inaccurate to call them "free trade" agreements. This is not just semantics. The Post, and other media outlets, are actively misleading the public about the purpose of these trade agreements. At one point the article comments that the discontent with trade follows "more than a dozen years of efforts by the Bush and Clinton administrations to boost trade by opening foreign markets to U.S. goods while allowing greater access to imports from China, Latin America and elsewhere." Well, it is very questionable as to whether the prime purpose of these agreements "open foreign markets to U.S. goods" and "allowing greater access to imports." Large chunks of NAFTA were devoted to investment rules and tightening patent and copyrighgt protection in Mexico. It would be more accurate to describe the agreement as a plan to facilitate the shift of U.S. manufacturing capacity to Mexico and increase profits for producers of intellectual products. This isn't being nitpicky, the public should understand that the loss of manufacturing jobs to the developing world and the resulting downward pressure on the wages of workers without college degrees is not an accidental outcome of these trade deals, it is the point. Economists can still argue that these deals are beneficial to both the United States and the developing world, but it would be nice if the media could be more honest about what is at issue.
--Dean Baker