CourseTool

By riders for riders

An Expected Consequence Of The Implementation Of The North American Free Trade Agreement Was

December 3, 2020 Uncategorised 0

In July 2017, the Trump administration presented a detailed list of changes it wants to make to NAFTA. [131] The top priority was to reduce the U.S. trade deficit. [131] [132] The government has also called for the abolition of provisions allowing Canada and Mexico to challenge U.S. tariffs and impose import restrictions on the United States, Canada and Mexico. [131] The list also highlighted subsidized state-owned enterprises and monetary manipulation. [131] [133] Many small U.S. companies depended under NAFTA on the export of their products to Canada or Mexico. According to the U.S. Trade Representative, this trade has supported more than 140,000 small and medium-sized enterprises in the United States. [94] The adoption of NAFTA has resulted in the removal or removal of barriers to trade and investment between the United States, Canada and Mexico. The impact of the agreement on issues such as employment, the environment and economic growth has been the subject of political controversy. Most economic analyses have shown that NAFTA has been beneficial to North American economies and the average citizen,[5][6] but has been detrimental to a small minority of workers in sectors subject to trade competition.

[7] [8] Economists have estimated that the withdrawal from NAFTA or the renegotiation of NAFTA, in a way that would have created restored trade barriers, would have affected the U.S. economy and cost jobs. [9] [10] [11] However, Mexico would have been much more affected, both in the short term and in the long term, by the loss of jobs and the reduction of economic growth. [12] In a 60-minute interview in September 2015, presidential candidate Donald Trump called NAFTA “the worst trade deal ever approved in [the United States][121] and said that if elected, “he would either renegotiate or we would break it.” [122] [123] Juan Pablo Castaen [es], chairman of the trade group Consejo Coordinador Empresarial, expressed concern about the renegotiations and the desire to focus on the automotive industry. [124] A number of trade experts have stated that abandoning NAFTA would have a number of unintended consequences for the United States, including limited access to its key export markets, lower economic growth and higher prices for gasoline, cars, fruits and vegetables. [125] Members of the Mexican private initiative noted that many laws needed to be adapted by the U.S. Congress to eliminate NAFTA. Finally, this would give rise to complaints from the World Trade Organization. [124] The Washington Post found that a review of academic literature by the Congress Research Service concluded that “the overall net effect of NAFTA on the U.S.

economy appears to be relatively modest, mainly because trade with Canada and Mexico accounts for a small percentage of U.S. GDP.” [63] A Canadian member of the United States The free trade agreement was concluded in 1988 and NAFTA extended most of the provisions of the agreement to Mexico. NAFTA was negotiated by the governments of U.S. President George H.W. Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and Mexican Prime Minister Carlos Salinas de Gortari. An interim agreement on the pact was reached in August 1992 and signed by the three heads of state and government on 17 December. NAFTA was ratified by the national parliaments of the three countries in 1993 and came into force on January 1, 1994. Proponents of NAFTA in the United States stressed that the pact was a free trade agreement and not an economic community agreement. [37] The free movement of goods, services and capital did not extend to work. By proposing what no comparable agreement had attempted to open up to a “great third world country”[38] – NAFTA avoided the establishment of a common social policy and employment.