The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) in the US believes free trade agreements and bilateral deals are worth pursuing (and implies multilateral ones are not working out too well). True-blue economists will blanch at the scope for trade diversion, but manufacturing interests have views of their own. NAM's Frank Vargo states "Our free trade partners account for close to half of our exports, but only six percent of our manufactured goods deficit." He adds that "while we want to help find a compromise that works for everyone, we can’t take our eye off the ball – we need to cut foreign barriers to our exports, and more trade agreements are the only way to do that." This not-so-subtle chart reinforces NAM's stance:
NAM has traditionally been an exponent of trade agreements. It helped Bush gain fast-track authority and backed China's entry into the WTO. However, it may be souring on the WTO in general and China in particular as NAM members that benefit from trade with China become fewer than those that are hurt. Thus, NAM's recommendation at the current time is geared towards cutting smaller deals such as those with Colombia, Panama, and Peru--countries that one wouldn't expect to be sending boatloads of manufactures to America anytime soon.
NAM has traditionally been an exponent of trade agreements. It helped Bush gain fast-track authority and backed China's entry into the WTO. However, it may be souring on the WTO in general and China in particular as NAM members that benefit from trade with China become fewer than those that are hurt. Thus, NAM's recommendation at the current time is geared towards cutting smaller deals such as those with Colombia, Panama, and Peru--countries that one wouldn't expect to be sending boatloads of manufactures to America anytime soon.