I love how the author avoided discussing the kinds of jobs that are lost to free trade, and the kinds of jobs that are gained from free trade.
When the author said that we gained 2 millions some-odd jobs, he neglected to indicate that those are net-gained. The only hint he gave to jobs lost was when he said "some" jobs are lost, but look at all of these jobs we created! Isn't it magnificent?!
His "some" represents about 1.3 million jobs.
What he also fails to mention is that we lost mostly high-paying, skilled labor and gained low-paying, low-skilled labor.
Ralph Nader had a joke about this in the 2000 campaign: Clinton or Gore would say, "Look at all these jobs we created!"
Punch line: "Tell me about it, I had 3 of them!"
Also the increase in imports as a result of NAFTA is not a credible indicator of the health of a trade agreement, because most of the imports are trade within a corporation. It's like taking a product off a shelf and putting it somewhere else in the store.
Free trade equals free exploitation.
On a slightly related note: No country in the history of the world developed successfully under free markets.
That is not to say countries didn't try.
Corporations don't want you to realize that they
want to be regulated, because ultra competition would see the devastation of any corporation no matter how big.
They also want you to believe that the Investor Protection Agreement (NAFTA) is about free trade. In the
words of that Rupublican aid in Texas, ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha..."