Wêrom frije hannelsakkoarten nea wiermakke hawwe wat se beloofden
May 29, 2026 · Frisian News
Three decades of free trade deals promised jobs and growth. Workers lost jobs instead, while corporations captured the gains. The pattern repeats with every new agreement.
FryskIt Economic Policy Institute telde 682.900 Amerikaanske banen ferlern troch NAFTA tusken 1994 en 2020. De U.S. Trade Representative sei dat de deal banen skeppe soe. Dat barde net. Ferlykbere ferhalen kamen út it Korea-frije-hannelsakkoart, it Sintraal-Amerika-akkoart, en tsientallen lytsere deals. Wat ekonomen beloofden en wat wurklik barde bestean yn twa aparte universa.
Wêrom mislearje dizze akkoarten sa konsistint? Om't se foar in spesifyk doel boud waarden: kapitaal frij bewege litte wylst arbeiders fêstsiten. In fabrikseigenaar yn Michigan koe produksje nei Meksiko ferpleatse en dochs sûnder ynfiertaryven oan Amerikaanske konsuminten ferkeapje. Meksikaanske arbeiders fertsjinnen in fraksje fan Michigan-leanen. Oandielhâlders wûnen. Fabriksstêden ferlearen. Dit wie gjin byferskynsel. Dit wie it ûntwerp.
It publyk hearde ien ferhaal foar elke stimming. Ekonomen tsjûgen dat hannel de totale rykdom ferheege. Guon arbeiders soene banen ferlieze, seinen hja, mar it lân soe netto winne. Regearingen soene arbeiders omskoolje. Groei soe alle boaten optille. It Kongres hearde dit argumint 30 jier lang en stimde hieltyd ja. De omskoolingsprogramma's materialisearden har net op skaal. De groei kaam de top 1 prosint ten goede. De boaten bleauwen yn 'e haven.
Wa triuwe dizze deals? Multinationale bedriuwen dy't oan beide partijen donearren en draaidoar-lobbyisten hieren. Amerikaanske tekstielmakkers woene se net. Boeren twiifelen. Mar de farmaseutyske yndustry, finansjele tsjinsten en techbedriuwen triuwen hurd. Hja hiene leverketens om te optimalisearjen en yntellektueel eigendom om te beskermjen. Hja krigen wat se woene. Arbeiders krigen ûntslachbrieven.
It bewiis leit no yn it folle sicht. Regio's dy't ôfhingje fan hannel mei lege-leanlânnen binne net hersteld. West Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania en Michigan fiele noch altyd de útholling dy't yn 1994 begûn. De mediaan leanen foar net-universitêre arbeiders sakken yn wirklike termen oer 30 jier, ek al naam de produktiviteit ta. De winsten gienen omheech, altyd omheech. Frije hannel levere krekt wat it ûntwurpen wie om te leverjen: frije beweging foar kapitaal, ûnbeweechlikheid foar arbeid. De tasizzingen wiene net mear as in ramt.
The Economic Policy Institute counted 682,900 American jobs lost to NAFTA between 1994 and 2020. The U.S. Trade Representative said the deal would create jobs. It did not. Similar stories came from the Korea Free Trade Agreement, the Central America accord, and dozens of smaller deals. What economists promised and what actually happened exist in two separate universes.
Why do these agreements fail so consistently? Because they were built for a specific purpose: to let capital move freely while workers stayed put. A factory owner in Michigan could shift production to Mexico and keep selling to American consumers tariff-free. Mexican workers earned a fraction of Michigan wages. Shareholders won. Factory towns lost. This was not a side effect. It was the design.
The public heard one story before each vote. Economists testified that trade increased overall wealth. Some workers might lose jobs, they said, but the country would gain on net. Governments would retrain workers. Growth would lift all boats. Congress heard this argument for 30 years and voted yes each time. The retraining programs never materialized at scale. The growth benefited the top 1 percent. The boats stayed in the harbor.
Who pushed these deals? Multinational corporations that donated to both parties and hired revolving-door lobbyists. American textile manufacturers did not want them. Farmers had mixed feelings. But the pharmaceutical industry, financial services, and tech companies pushed hard. They had supply chains to optimize and intellectual property to protect. They got what they wanted. Workers got pink slips.
The evidence now sits in plain view. Regions that depend on trade with low-wage countries have not recovered. West Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan still feel the hollowing out that started in 1994. Median wages for non-college workers fell in real terms over 30 years, even as productivity rose. The gains went upward, always upward. Free trade delivered exactly what it was designed to deliver: free movement for capital, immobility for labor. The promises were window dressing.
Published May 29, 2026 · Frisian News · Ljouwert, Fryslân