NAFTA




The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is the largest trading block in the world with over a million customers with a combined annual gross domestic product GDP over $8 trillion dollars. The combined countries and the United States, Canada and Mexico. The most important benefit was to be the people of these countries. Some others are.

2. Oppositions. Arguments against NAFTA range from environment to wages and compensation for blue collar American work force. Some cities say that American’s lost 420, 000 jobs, which resulted in a deficit of 17 million from a surplus of in 1993.
Wages have declined- Cause -low wage jobs are lost in the United States due to American Companies moving production to foreign low wage countries. Immigration has also added to this low wage pool of workers. As the pool grows larger, manager’s leverage has increased over this pool of workers. Rights of the workers in Mexico will go unchanged by NAFTA even with all it’s agreement s to provide protection for its work force.
Environmental Conditions exist in what are called “border towns” on the Mexican side.
These so-called border towns have been unable to improve the infrastructure around them. NAFTA treaties contain provisions for enforcing the laws, but lack the means and the will for doing so. The opposition to NAFTA has been strong and vocal and the controversy will continue.

3. The arguments are in support of NAFTA, that it will provide well being to all three nations by the use of free trade. They also argue that Mexico’s economy and trade are such a small part of the United States GDP and that it will not have an impact on the U.S. Economy. Trade showed an increase after 1988 due to drops in the average tariffs on both sides of the border. Until then, (1980) trade was virtually stagnant. Canada was the largest trading partner with the U.S., while Mexico had the second largest export markets. Some U.S. companies will hurt a bit, while some will loose their competitive position to Mexico. These companies will find that Mexican companies will have a high-skilled work force, and will favorably compete with the U.S. This will be a positive impact for NAFTA. Wage rates, due to NAFTA, were not affected. A study showed that 67 of 86 industry markets had no effect on wages. The study also showed that very few U.S. Workers are in direct competition with their Mexican counterparts. The environment, the NAFTA’s CEC reported a seventy two percent reduction in serious environmental violations. It also reported a 43% increase in the use of facilities compliance. Workers rights, due to NAFTA child labor laws, has reduced the number of work place injuries, the enforcement of occupational health and safety regulations. However, due to budget problems, full implementations have been minimal.

4. Yes, I see NAFTA as being positive to the United States. NAFTA will lift the U.S. GDP from 0.1% to 0.5% annually. NAFTA has lowered the trade barriers to allow companies to take advantage of low wages in Mexico. This will reduce the prices in other world markets, which in turn will make companies more competitive. The Mexican economy is also viewed as a positive because the free trade will benefit Mexico. It has enhanced the economic growth, which means more jobs. It has also stabilized the country politically.

5. No, economic impacts on the United States do not outweigh the political and social advantages. The tariffs and agreements as outlined do not show or seek any economic growth for the U.S. NAFTA widened our borders, North and South, the make the three countries a free trade zone. The NAFTA agreements seek to provide protection for environmental laws to be enforced on all sides of the borders. With an agreement to protect American workers from the loose of their jobs. I do not see where America will gain economically.

6. Yes, by doing this we are better able to provide the three nations to the ability to become more stable countries. Without any foregone conclusion NAFTA will be a good thing for all involved. NAFTA will need some work to solve some of its problems before this can happen. Reconstruction of the administrative structure of the trade agreements can only be good for all concerned.