Breaking
191 Murders, 190 of Them Children: Kenya Cult Leader Paul Mackenzie Convicted✦17.8% of UC Freshmen Fail Intro Math, Double the Rate Since SAT Was Dropped✦€32 Million a Year: Spain Quadruples Union Subsidies as Membership Hits Record Low✦32% Fewer Irregular EU Crossings as Central Mediterranean Collapses✦€1.13 Million in Ministry Grants, Then the CEO Role: Germany's Revolving Door✦Italy: Boy of 13 Sets Sleeping Man Alight and Cannot Be Prosecuted✦191 Murders, 190 of Them Children: Kenya Cult Leader Paul Mackenzie Convicted✦17.8% of UC Freshmen Fail Intro Math, Double the Rate Since SAT Was Dropped✦€32 Million a Year: Spain Quadruples Union Subsidies as Membership Hits Record Low✦32% Fewer Irregular EU Crossings as Central Mediterranean Collapses✦€1.13 Million in Ministry Grants, Then the CEO Role: Germany's Revolving Door✦Italy: Boy of 13 Sets Sleeping Man Alight and Cannot Be Prosecuted✦
Wednesday, 21 October 2026Est. 2026

FRISIAN NEWS

The numbers behind the news

English · Frysk · Nederlands

Why Free Trade Agreements Have Never Delivered What Was Promised
Opinion

Why Free Trade Agreements Have Never Delivered What Was Promised

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.

English

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