Pros And Cons Of Nafta

This paper will examine the pros and cons of the current US-Mexican economic relationship established through NAFTA. Specifically, it will examine how NAFTA can be improved to strengthen the Mexican economy and to define the reforms necessary on behalf of both countries. The North American Free Trade Agreement was signed by the U.S., Mexican, and Canadian presidents on December 17, 1992, on the proposition of bringing more jobs into the three countries. The immediate intention of NAFTA was to break trade and economic barriers and protect established capital on negotiated products between the North American countries. The initial pursuit of NAFTA conveyed the discarding of tariffs on Mexico and the U.S. Now that trade is flowing

The booming exports led to a progressive growth in the metropolitan regions of Mexico, however, this has created exceedingly high poverty rates and additionally hard living and working conditions. What is fundamental to help trade flow properly and to accommodate the influx of people is an investment in the national infrastructure of Mexico. Mexico needs efficient railroads and highways, so it is not as difficult getting products to other cities. On the agronomical spectrum, Mexico has changed from being a limited provider in 1993, to the second greatest exporter of the farming goods sent to the U.S. in recent years. Even though the bulk of the development arose nearly a decade after the enactment of NAFTA, Mexico is still increasing exports exponentially. The adoption of open trade eliminated obstacles that slowed business among U.S. and Mexican partnerships. Respectively, Mexico has maintained an expanding market for corn, sugar, and meat products for the U.S. that has led to a surge in sales and profit for the U.S. and Mexico’s industries. Considerably more industrial employment opportunities would be lost to China if it was not for NAFTA, implemented in the 1990’s. However, disease is more easily spread, and limited aid is offered to the people who unknowingly sacrifice their wellbeing for capital growth. The act has taken a toll

should work towards balancing Mexico’s welfare with agricultural trade by further providing aid to the neighboring country. Financially, the U.S. is stable and has a history of designing programs to help other nation’s infrastructures. Since so much cost is saved by the agreement, why not get companies and legislature to invest in building something completely beneficial for our partner? Mexico needs more roads, highways, airports and railroads to make life easier on Mexicans and faster trade flow in the region. The maquiladora program is a small gesture to the amount of action that the U.S. could demonstrate to strengthen the economy and welfare of the Mexican people. The program is already in place and could use much more expansion providing aid. Food stamps and healthcare could be added. The U.S. could promote sending doctors, nurses, teachers, and other professionals to Mexico to help with their problems and lift them out of an economic depression. Another unfortunate disadvantage that NAFTA has created is the degrading of the Mexican climate and environment by cost driven, U.S. companies, all for the sake of keeping prices at rock-bottom. This can also be address with the help of scientists, environmentalists, and further health care professionals that can easily be funded in a mutually beneficial program to oversee the effects factory pollution has on the health and environment that U.S. companies