Mark Milke's Views On NAFTA Policies

Three years after the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) created the largest free trade area in the world, the debate rages on.

In 1994, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was enacted between two industrial countries and a yet still developing nation. This was an agreement that was the first of its kind due to the relationship that the countries had and the investment opportunities that it presented. The United States, Canada, and developing Mexico decided to work towards eliminating most tariffs and non-tariff barriers between the three in order to increase the flow of trade in goods and services. Since its enactment NAFTA has led to the providing of over 40 million more jobs throughout the countries, and it has also tripled merchandise trade between the three participants to an astounding $946 billion USD in 2008 (NAFTA Now). However even then it is still not very clear whether enacting NAFTA was worth the time and effort and in fact the United States may have been better off not having joined NAFTA.

The North American Free Trade Agreement, commonly known as the NAFTA, is a trade agreement between the United States, Canada and Mexico launched to enable North America to become more competitive in the global marketplace (Amadeo, 2011). The NAFTA is regarded as “one of the most successful trade agreements in history” for its impact on increases in agricultural trade and investment among the three contracting nations (North American Free Trade Agreement, 2011). Supporters and opponents of the NAFTA have argued the effects of the agreement on participating nations since its inception; yet, close examination proves that NAFTA has had a relatively positive impact on the economies of the United States, Canada, and Mexico.

Clearly NAFTA is a highly debated topic because of the ambiguous effects it has had on the US economy. Brent Snavely questions NAFTA in his article published in the Detroit Free Press by pointing out that “the US lost more than 670,000 jobs as a direct result of NAFTA between 1993 and 2010,” he also explains that NAFTA has been blamed for the “manufacturing job losses and plant closures as the auto industry spent billions to build assembly plants and parts in Mexico,” it seems that one of the main issues is that jobs and money has been lost because of NAFTA. NAFTA “provided for liberalization of trade in agriculture, textiles, and automobile manufacturing.” On the contrary, Bruce does highlight some of NAFTA’s positive attributes such as: after NAFTA the “total goods traded with Mexico and Canada – imports and exports combined – grew from $291 billion in 1993 to $1.1 trillion in 2016 which is a 267% increase,” this increase in trade “has benefited the US economy and created jobs in other industries.” Either way, Canada and Mexico have agreed to renegotiate NAFTA, which took two years to agree upon, in order to reduce the US trade deficit in a fair way that still allows for an improved market access between the US, Canada, and Mexico and are attempting to come to a conclusion within the next seven

Since 1993, total trade between the three signatory nations has gone from $290 billion to $1.1 trillion in 2016, with foreign direct investment (FDI) in Mexico increasing by over $90 billion (“NAFTA’s Impact on the U.S. Economy,” 2016). In addition, per capita American GDP growth is estimated to have been around $400 (“NAFTA’s Impact on the U.S. Economy”). Critics, however, still have plenty of material to work with. Though American jobs created by the deal pay on average 15-20% more than jobs lost, across the border in Mexico wages have stagnated with an increase of only 400,000 new jobs (“NAFTA’S Impact on the U.S. Economy”). It is also reasonable to argue that free trade has come at the price of necessary regulation. Since companies could move operations north or south more easily, many unions lost their bargaining power and some businesses began ignoring environmental regulations (Faux, 2013). Mexican small businesses also suffered, giving rise to the claim that NAFTA could have caused more illegal immigration (Faux). As far as FDI was concerned, the U.S. and Canada benefitted significantly more than Mexico (Feils & Rahman, 2008, p. 162). Job losses in labor intensive industries like auto manufacturing were felt the most as the low wage labor became available elsewhere (“NAFTA’s Impact on the U.S. Economy”). Inevitably, these various effects created groups of winners and losers that struggled to agree on NAFTA’s true

Since the beginning of civilization, trade has been an important issue. Christopher Columbus sailed to the Americas in search of a faster and safer trade route to India. We as Americans fought for our independence over trade related issues, such as tariffs and rules on with whom we were allowed to export and import goods. Our people have always fought for the rights and ability to buy and sell what they want at a reasonable price. The North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, is yet another attempt at this. NAFTA was signed on December 17, 1992 and put into effect on January 1, 1994 (SICE). It is a trade agreement between Canada, the United States, and Mexico. This paper will explain all the finer points of the agreement, its

On January 1st, 1994, Canada, the United States of America, and Mexico had signed a free trade agreement, under the name - the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). This Free Trade Agreement was created to achieve its goal of eliminating barriers to trade and investment between Canada, Mexico and the United States of America. However, the question that politicians and economists of our nation are facing is whether Canada should remain in NAFTA with its partners, United States and Mexico. Despite a multitude of benefits that NAFTA is said to have by our political elites, 20 years later, it is evident the agreement has been counterproductive; which is evident by the slow move by Canadian manufacturers to Mexico, significant losses in

In the recent 2016 election Mr. President, Donald J. Trump has repeatedly voiced his opinion about the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). According to Tami Luhby from CNN (2016), Mr. President is quoted saying, “NAFTA is a disaster and one of the worst trade deals in history.” However, without NAFTA we would not be able to import nearly half of the goods we receive. For instance, Ford, one of the leading car manufactures is located in Mexico. With most of the cars America imports being from Mexico (Valdes-Dapena, 2016). With all the media hype surrounded around NAFTA it is hard to not let the media persuade you. However, I am here to explain why NAFTA is making our economy stronger and stronger every day.

Fifteen years ago, the United States entered an agreement with its neighboring countries, Canada and Mexico, to not only increase trade productivity for itself but, allot its sister nations to the north and south the same advantages. Although the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has come with many benefits to our nation, it has also brought in many consequences. The United States is now facing similar challenges with Asian countries through the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP). The significance of Free Trade Agreements on our economy has sparked a movement and is now currently one of the most widely debated topics in our country.

"The free trade argument states that, if each nation produces what it does best and permits trade, over the long run all will enjoy lower prices and higher levels of output, income, and consumption that could be achieved in isolation."

With the United States currently experiencing another presidential election the world is in suspense, watching to see who will become the next leader of the free world. Such halt corresponds to the running of two presidential candidates: Hillary D. Clinton and Donald J. Trump. Such halt derives from candidates proposed trade policies for the United States and its latter ramifications. This emphasis on trade originates from this idea that we live in a globalized economy and with the United States being a predominate actor within the international community, policies, for instance, that do not support globalize trade potentially harm developing and developed countries who have ties to the U.S.. Both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump share similarities amongst their trade agendas; for example, Clinton’s policies surrounding trade must “work” for the U.S. while Trump 's objective is to renegotiate current and future trade agreements to better suit the U.S.. Therefore, each candidate’s trade proposal must undergo an evaluation of the potential outcomes that derive from each proposal and identify which candidate 's agenda is better suited for the United States and the global aim to liberalize trade. Candidate Hillary Clinton’s trade policies, although minimal in its size, maintains relationships with allied countries and does not harm the United States in trade; while on the other hand, candidate Donald Trump’s trade policies lead to negative ramifications that

This opinion piece written by the New York Times editorial board analyzes the two major presidential candidates positions on international trade deals, primarily President-elect Donald Trump’s proposed isolationist policies. The article examines the increasingly common perception among the American public that trade agreements such as NAFTA and the TPP are responsible for causing economic hardships due to prioritizing global interests over American interests. The writers of this article oppose this view and present evidence to refute it. The authors have a liberal viewpoint on this issue and are pro-free trade, however they do concede that there are certain issues that need to be resolved as a result of these trade agreements. They disagree with Trump, viewing his statements as “nothing more than hot air”. The article sets out to dispel some common myths about international free trade deals and also takes a look at the development of the anti-free trade sentiment in the United States over the years.

In this paper I will summarize the arguments for and against trade protection for United States industries. Among the measures that can be used to restrict foreign trade are tariffs and trade quotas. Industries can also get nontariff barriers, miscellaneous legislation which give domestic products an advantage. In general, experts agree that restricted foreign trade benefits workers and domestic businesses, while under free trade consumers have a greater quantity and quality of choices available to them. [1] I will also look at arguments for and against NAFTA, an important trade agreement between the countries of North America.

Mui continues to argue that the US could save the situation by signing bilateral deals with the individual countries involved in the TPP especially Vietnam and Japan. However, there is a need to make a swift move since China is aggressively seeking to lock in trade contracts with most of the same countries that were involved in the signing of the TPP. Trump had also vowed to renegotiate the NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement), which significantly vital to the economic relationship between Canada, US, and Mexico. According to Mui, Mexico’s president, Pena Nieto continues to assert that his country would be looking to diversify its political and trading partners during the Trump’s era so that it could stop relying heavily on the US government. The author continues to

The North American Free Trade Agreement is a 20-year-old agreement signed by the United States, Canada, and Mexico, which “created the world 's largest free trade area, which now links 450 million people producing $17 trillion worth of goods and services” (Office of the United States Trade Representative). While its intentions were to create jobs for the American People, the actual results from this trade agreement have been much more bleak for the U.S. labor force. “…The most significant effect has been a fundamental change in the composition of jobs available to the 63 percent of American workers without a college degree” (Bonior, 2014). The Trans-Pacific Partnership is based strongly off of the layout of the NAFTA, which allows the removal of risks to investors that decide to move production to lower-wage countries. With the implication of the TPP the American people will feel an increased pressure on wages for people competing against the poorly paid workers abroad where investors have moved their manufacturing. This was a trend that was heavily documented following the enactment of the NAFTA. Today, the United States has a large amount of goods, which were