I see a conflict between the two kinds of goals in the NAFTA statement.

opening of NAFTA statement

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has, to a significant extent, defined the relationship between the three North American nations over the last fifteen years. NAFTA was sold on the promise that it would bring more and better jobs and faster growth to the region and reduce emigration from Mexico to the United States and Canada. While trade and investment flows did increase, NAFTA did not create more net trade-related jobs and those that it did were very often less stable, with lower wages and fewer benefits. Instead, increased trade largely benefited the corporate elite in all three countries. Income inequality has also grown in the region. We believe that the trade liberalization and investors' rights provisions contained in NAFTA were important contributors to these results.

NAFTA's statement

Rebuilding our industrial base is essential for maintaining our living standards. As high-wage countries in a globalizing world, we must restore our competitiveness by developing national industrial strategies centered on innovation. This means raising the level of public and private investment, harnessing distinctive technological and organizational capacities and developing the skills of our workers. Further, we need to use government purchasing power and attendant social policy to renew our local economies, creating the conditions necessary for broad social inclusion. We should also be thinking regionally to enhance the long-term competitiveness of these industries vis-í -vis the world market. This will require cooperation, both among governments and between governments, labor, and management, to improve productivity while respecting labor rights and improving wages.

Pancake Air

I cannot seem to cut and paste my next post. Surely I don't have to write everything this way.