Why Did President Bill Clinton Support the North American Free Trade Agreement

The United States, Canada and Mexico are now at the dawn of a new era of economic cooperation. With the possible ratification of the North American Free Trade Agreement, the three countries are poised to significantly expand their trade and economic relations, creating a more prosperous and competitive North American economic community. NAFTA will create a much more predictable business environment and reduce risk for U.S. companies operating in Mexico. It also promises to build the world`s largest and richest market, with about 360 million people and an economic output of more than $6 trillion. Once adopted, the free trade pact will help improve the economic situation of American industries, which have suffered in recent years. By approving NAFTA, the U.S. Congress could also ensure that the relationship between the U.S., Canada, and Mexico remains firmly on track, helping to usher in a revolution in free trade and the free market in the rest of America, creating even more new markets for U.S. exports. However, if NAFTA is defeated, relations between the United States and Mexico will certainly deteriorate. The United States could face an unstable country on its southern border, and a new wave of global protectionism — similar to that of the 1930s — could reappear. It is probably prudent to give NAFTA at least some of the credit for doubling actual trade between its signatories.

Unfortunately, this is where the simple assessments of the impact of the agreement end. U.S. Crude Oil Imports, 1993: US$37.8 Billion Today As you all know, it is the top officials in the union establishment who are the main critics of opposition to NAFTA. They would be concerned about the jobs that American workers will lose as a result of the deal. Alan Keyes notes, however, that these same bureaucrats have been at the forefront of efforts to raise taxes, increase onerous regulations, and expand inefficient, government-dominated welfare programs: all policies that destroy jobs, affect productivity, and dramatically increase America`s vulnerability to foreign competition. Following diplomatic negotiations in 1990, the Heads of State and Government of the three countries signed the agreement on 17 December 1992 in their respective capitals. [17] The signed agreement then had to be ratified by the legislature or parliamentary branch of each country. One might assume that Waldman received the highest possible estimate from a pro-trade think tank to create a million jobs. But Waldman told the Fact Checker that it was an invented number, a placeholder that would later be replaced by a more realistic number. (In the news industry, journalists often write ”TK” so the numbers come later. Waldman wrote ”Million.”) The bipartisan meeting of NAFTA advocates, which met at the White House two weeks ago, showed that support for the deal is not divided along party lines, but according to two different economic visions. Those in favor of NAFTA see the economy in global terms and believe that American workers can compete and win in the global market.

They also believe that free and expanded trade will benefit all Americans and that the United States will benefit greatly from agreements like NAFTA. However, opponents of the free trade agreement tend to turn inward, favor the status quo, and be afraid to compete with other countries. They believe that opening U.S. markets to foreign products is causing great harm to American workers and the economy. They also argue that U.S. sovereignty and security will be threatened if NAFTA is passed. Even Clyde Prestowitz, the president of the Economic Strategy Institute, a Washington-based think tank that was once strongly opposed to NAFTA, now says the pact should be ratified. Last fall, Prestowitz claimed that NAFTA would cost up to 222,000 jobs in the United States. Today, however, he argues that ”NAFTA will be a plus in the long run.” His reasoning: Many U.S. companies are likely to cease operations in Mexico and return home once Mexico lowers its trade barriers.

If U.S. companies can enter the Mexican market without facing tariffs, one of the main reasons to set up shop in the first place disappears. In addition, it is likely that many U.S. companies will relocate their Asian manufacturing facilities to Mexico once NAFTA comes into effect, making it almost certain that they will import components from the U.S., creating new jobs in the U.S. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was implemented to promote trade between the United States, Canada and Mexico. The agreement, which eliminated most tariffs on trade between the three countries, entered into force on 1 January 1994. Many tariffs – especially with regard to agriculture, textiles and automobiles – were imposed between 1. January 1994 and 1 January 2008. In 1992, Reform Party presidential candidate Ross Perot, who had challenged both Clinton and George H.W.

Bush, the incumbent president seeking re-election, argued that if Congress passed NAFTA, Americans would hear a ”huge sucking noise” from companies fleeing the U.S. to Mexico. where workers could be employed for a lower wage and without benefits. The immediate objective of NAFTA was to increase cross-border trade in North America, and in this regard it has undoubtedly been successful. Lowering or eliminating tariffs and removing certain non-tariff barriers to trade, such as Mexico`s local content requirements. B, NAFTA triggered an increase in trade and investment. Most of the increase came from U.S.-Mexico trade, which was $481.5 billion in 2015, and U.S.-Canada trade, which was $518.2 billion. Trade between Mexico and Canada, while by far the fastest growing channel between 1993 and 2015, amounted to only $34.3 billion. .

Det här inlägget postades i Okategoriserade. Bokmärk permalänken.

Kommentarer inaktiverade.