Free Essays on NAFTA

The North American Free Trade Agreement: Did the  ¡Ã‚ §Giant Sucking Sound ¡Ã‚ ¨ Occur as Predicted? This paper takes the famous quote of Ross Perot that states that the North American Free Trade Agreement, better known as NAFTA, would  ¡Ã‚ §create a giant sucking sound ¡Ã‚ ¨ as it sucked jobs out of the United States. This paper is an investigation into such claims as well as an examination of primarily negative, as well as some positive, effects that NAFTA has had on the United States, Mexico, and Canada. This paper covers the effects of NAFTA on things such as employment, produce, and transportation, as well as many other things concerning NAFTA and whether or not it is beneficial. During the investigation of this paper, it was discovered that the full effects of NAFTA cannot properly be seen for almost another ten years. Because of this, we can conclude that ¡Xalthough Perot was correct in saying that jobs would be pulled from the United States, he assumed that this would be a negative effect. This may not be the case. Positive effects can result from these negative effects. The North American Free Trade Agreement: Did the  ¡Ã‚ §Giant Sucking Sound ¡Ã‚ ¨ Occur As Predicted? In 1993, when the North American Free Trade Agreement, better known as NAFTA, was in the process of being approved by President Clinton there was a great debate over whether this agreement would help or hinder the United States. This debate continues today, nearly six years after the agreement began. Ross Perot, one of the biggest opponents of NAFTA, is known for telling people that NAFTA would create  ¡Ã‚ §a giant sucking sound ¡Ã‚ ¨ as it sucked jobs and money out of the United States. This paper is an investigation into such claims to determine whether the outcome has happened as opponents of NAFTA predicted or whether NAFTA ¡Ã‚ ¦s advocates were correct when stressing the benefits of the agreement. The North American Free Trade Agreement took effect o... Free Essays on NAFTA Free Essays on NAFTA The North American Free Trade Agreement became a regional trade agreement between the three governments of Canada, United States, and Mexico in 1993. However, the first adaptation of this type of agreement came as the 1979 Trade Act, which also talked about the beginning of a trade embargo. During the eighties, the Mexican Government had many problems that the United States did not want to get into such as debts and precluded trade liberalization. Instead of dealing with Mexico, the US went north to Canada to setup the FTA (Free Trade Agreement). About a year later, NAFTA was approved on November of 1993, and became completely active on January 1, 1994. The Clinton Administration proposed expanding NAFTA to whole of Latin America as the FTAA, the Free Trade Area of the Americas. Supposedly, if the expansion of NAFTA were to go through, it would create a comprehensive trading regime, reducing both tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade among the thirty four democratic states of North America and South America. The first obstacle for the FTAA was the authority of Fast Track. The procedure of Fast Track is when Congress gives the President authority to negotiate trade agreements and provides special rules for considering those agreements. In other words, Fast Track transfers constitutionally-mandated powers of Congress to the Executive Branch of the government. (Public Citizen 2/15/02) Now many people do not agree with Fast Track for many reasons. Some say that by limiting public demand and constricting citizens ability to have meaningful discussions with their representatives on trade issues, Fast Track would concentrate even more power in the hands of transitional corporations that already enjoy privileged access to the trade policy-making process. The role of congress as our voice in trade negotiations would be diminished. The American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) is a voluntary federation ... Free Essays on NAFTA The North American Free Trade Agreement: Did the  ¡Ã‚ §Giant Sucking Sound ¡Ã‚ ¨ Occur as Predicted? This paper takes the famous quote of Ross Perot that states that the North American Free Trade Agreement, better known as NAFTA, would  ¡Ã‚ §create a giant sucking sound ¡Ã‚ ¨ as it sucked jobs out of the United States. This paper is an investigation into such claims as well as an examination of primarily negative, as well as some positive, effects that NAFTA has had on the United States, Mexico, and Canada. This paper covers the effects of NAFTA on things such as employment, produce, and transportation, as well as many other things concerning NAFTA and whether or not it is beneficial. During the investigation of this paper, it was discovered that the full effects of NAFTA cannot properly be seen for almost another ten years. Because of this, we can conclude that ¡Xalthough Perot was correct in saying that jobs would be pulled from the United States, he assumed that this would be a negative effect. This may not be the case. Positive effects can result from these negative effects. The North American Free Trade Agreement: Did the  ¡Ã‚ §Giant Sucking Sound ¡Ã‚ ¨ Occur As Predicted? In 1993, when the North American Free Trade Agreement, better known as NAFTA, was in the process of being approved by President Clinton there was a great debate over whether this agreement would help or hinder the United States. This debate continues today, nearly six years after the agreement began. Ross Perot, one of the biggest opponents of NAFTA, is known for telling people that NAFTA would create  ¡Ã‚ §a giant sucking sound ¡Ã‚ ¨ as it sucked jobs and money out of the United States. This paper is an investigation into such claims to determine whether the outcome has happened as opponents of NAFTA predicted or whether NAFTA ¡Ã‚ ¦s advocates were correct when stressing the benefits of the agreement. The North American Free Trade Agreement took effect o... Free Essays on Nafta NAFTA: Are We Better Off Because of It? By Nick Campolo, May 1998 The North American Free Trade Agreement was approved by the U.S. Congress, the U.S. Senate, and the Mexican Senate in November 1993. The Canadian government's approval followed shortly after in December 1993. This agreement called for a complete removal of trade barriers within 15 years. Many trade barriers have already been removed. There has been much debate among different interest groups and individuals as to what the overall effect of this agreement would be. Although the agreement includes the countries of the U.S., Canada, and Mexico, the major debate in the U.S. focuses on the issue of Trade with Mexico. For this reason, this paper focuses on that part of the agreement. First, it makes sense to discuss why the prediction was that we would all be better off with this trade pact than we were without it. Ricardo's Theory of Comparative Advantage predicts we would be better off with free trade as participants specialize in their areas of greater factor productivity's. The Heckscher Ohlin (HO) Theory agrees with this, and elaborates on it. The HO theory argued countries with different factor endowments could benefit from free trade. The theory shows that if one nation is capital abundant and another is labor abundant, each nation will specialize in producing goods that uses its most abundant resource. The U.S. is capital abundant, and Mexico is labor abundant. While greater output is predicted with free trade, it is also predicted that in the U.S., owners of capital will benefit while laborers will loose. However, the gains are large enough that if the winners would compensate the loosers, all would still be better off. So, while gains from trade are pre dicted, there is still a valid argument for trade adjustment assistance in the U.S. In Mexico, it is predicted that laborers will gain at the expense of capitalists. The HO Theory model makes several assumptions, ... Free Essays on Nafta NAFTA: Are We Better Off Because of It? By Nick Campolo, May 1998 The North American Free Trade Agreement was approved by the U.S. Congress, the U.S. Senate, and the Mexican Senate in November 1993. The Canadian government's approval followed shortly after in December 1993. This agreement called for a complete removal of trade barriers within 15 years. Many trade barriers have already been removed. There has been much debate among different interest groups and individuals as to what the overall effect of this agreement would be. Although the agreement includes the countries of the U.S., Canada, and Mexico, the major debate in the U.S. focuses on the issue of Trade with Mexico. For this reason, this paper focuses on that part of the agreement. First, it makes sense to discuss why the prediction was that we would all be better off with this trade pact than we were without it. Ricardo's Theory of Comparative Advantage predicts we would be better off with free trade as participants specialize in their areas of greater factor productivity's. The Heckscher Ohlin (HO) Theory agrees with this, and elaborates on it. The HO theory argued countries with different factor endowments could benefit from free trade. The theory shows that if one nation is capital abundant and another is labor abundant, each nation will specialize in producing goods that uses its most abundant resource. The U.S. is capital abundant, and Mexico is labor abundant. While greater output is predicted with free trade, it is also predicted that in the U.S., owners of capital will benefit while laborers will loose. However, the gains are large enough that if the winners would compensate the loosers, all would still be better off. So, while gains from trade are pre dicted, there is still a valid argument for trade adjustment assistance in the U.S. In Mexico, it is predicted that laborers will gain at the expense of capitalists. The HO Theory model makes several assumptions, ...