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.

After a lengthy negotiation of over 3 years, Canada, the United States, and Mexico reached an agreement on trilateral trade ― the North American Free Trade Agreement. Commonly referred to as NAFTA, it came into effect on the first day of 1994. Covering 450 million of population and reaching $17 trillion in combined GDP, NAFTA proudly ranks the first among the world’s free trade agreements (USTR). It is usually seen as a remarkable success for the countless benefits it brings to its members. Some of NAFTA’s main advantages are promoting closer relationships, eliminating trade barriers, and increasing market opportunities. However, as the first proposer of NAFTA, the United States has indeed benefited the most from it in several different

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

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.

When countries have needs but not the capacity to satisfy those demands they enter into trading through the exchange of surplus, produce to help their trading partners. Canada, Mexico, and the United States created a treaty to establish a relationship that can benefit everyone in this process known as NAFTA. This agreement has been criticized and has been blamed for hurting the US economy more than helping. Although speculations may be misguided, I do not know much about this agreement, and I must research multiple sources. This paper seeks to understand if NAFTA has produced significant benefits for Canada, Mexico, and the United States economies.

By 1997, three years after the ratification of NAFTA, 47% of Canadian manufacturing plants that existed in 1988, which accounted for 28% of the jobs in the economy, had closed. To add on, 350,000 manufacturing jobs from 2002 -2008, were lost due to industrial plants moving to Mexico. This drastic drop in factory/plant numbers can be attributed to the fact that companies put their bottom line first - moving facilities to Mexico because Mexican minimum wage is only $5.10 compared to a minimum wage of $11.00 in Ontario. As a further incentive to relocate south, because of NAFTA, corporations don’t have to pay tariffs on products shipped back to domestic markets. Therefore, it is evident that NAFTA has resulted in many industrial firms/plants moving to Mexico for cheaper labour, and the impact of such actions has cost thousands of Canadians their jobs.

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

With the rise of industrialization, the question of free trade has arisen. Free trade is the elimination of taxes, tariffs and quotas over international borders. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), consisting of Mexico, the USA and Canada, creates the largest free-trading zone in the world (Stand 51 1). Does NAFTA help or harm an economy is one of the most poignant questions? The Mexican economy seems to benefit from NAFTA through increased trade of Mexican made products and the availability of more jobs to the Mexican people; however, along with benefits comes a downside. Many American companies have taken advantage of NAFTA and moved production plants to Mexican because there they can exploit the workers. Many companies pay less than 1 dollar an hour in unsafe and unsanitary conditions.

On “January 1994, the United States”, Canada and Mexico went into the “North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)”, making the biggest facilitated commerce region and wealthiest market on the planet. The “NAFTA” is the mainly complete provincial exchange ascension ever arranged by the “United States” and is booked to be completely executed. In “1996, U.S.” two-route exchange merchandise under the “NAFTA” with Mexico and Canada remained at “$420 billion a 44 %” expansion because the “NAFTA” was agreed upon.

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was designed to create trade that was mutually beneficial for all North American countries. Yet a recent change in the U.S. administration has threatened continued trade between the three major players – the U.S, Canada and Mexico. New President Donald J. Trump’s promises to renegotiate NAFTA have both Canada and Mexico on edge, and without stability, can possibly force Mexico to opt out of the agreement altogether. While NAFTA has holes in its implementation, this agreement has aided in economic growth, tripled foreign investment, and lowered prices within the US.

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

One of NAFTA's greatest financial effects for the United States and Canadian exchanges has been to increase bilateral agricultural flows (NAFTA’s Economic Impact). From all three countries, Canada, from the statistics gathered, showed that it had the most economic increase because of the previous organized free trade deal that originated before NAFTA (NAFTA’s Economic Impact). Canada is the main exporter of products to the United States, furthermore, Mexican interests in Canada have tripled, and Canada has included 4.7 million new work occupations since 1993 (NAFTA’s Economic Impact). With NAFTA, Canadian organizations are turning out to be more productive and competitive prompting new jobs (when a business profits, they have enough money to bring more

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

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.