NAFTA had three key advantages. U.S. food prices were lower due to duty-free imports from Mexico. Oil imported from Canada and Mexico prevented gas prices from rising. NAFTA has also increased trade and economic growth for all three countries. According to U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, the Trump administration`s goal was to “stop the hemorrhage” of trade deficits, plant closures and job losses, insisting that labor and environmental protection be tougher in Mexico and eliminating the “Chapter 19 dispute.” Colonization Mechanism” – a Canadian favorite and a thorn in the side of the U.S. softwood lumber industry. Because in a way, Mexico beats the United States at the border. Prior to NAFTA, the trade balance between the two countries was modest in favour of the United States. In 2018, Mexico sold the United States more than $72 billion more than it bought from its northern neighbor. NAFTA is a huge and extremely complicated market. Looking at economic growth can lead to one conclusion, while looking at the trade balance leads to another.
While the effects of NAFTA are not obvious, some winners and losers are reasonably clear. The United States concludes a new preferential agreement with increased frequency and the Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was concluded in 2004. This justified free trade with Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and the Dominican Republic. (35) Free trade is currently in place in large parts of Latin America and, therefore, it is very likely that the US will experience a further increase in unformed immigration from Latin Americans driven out of their respective jobs. Finally, the 2008 financial crisis had a profound impact on the global economy, making it difficult to determine the impact of a trade agreement. Outside of some sectors where the effect is not yet entirely clear, NAFTA has had a small obvious impact on North American economies. The risk of being scrapped probably has little to do with its own merits or flaws, but much more to do with automation, the rise of China and the political consequences of September 11 and the 2008 financial crisis. Critics of NAFTA often focus on the U.S. trade balance with Mexico. While the United States enjoys a slight advantage in services trade by exporting $30.8 billion in 2015 and importing $21.6 billion, its overall trade balance with the country is negative due to a yawning deficit of $58.8 billion in merchandise trade in 2016. In comparison, in 1993, the surplus was $1.7 billion (in 1993, the deficit was $36.1 billion in 2016).
According to estimates, 80% of US GDP consists of services such as financial services and healthcare. NAFTA removes barriers to trade in most regulated services sectors. NAFTA requires governments to publish all rules in order to reduce the hidden costs of their activities. Key NAFTA provisions called for the phasing out of tariffs, tariffs and other barriers to trade between the three members, some of which were removed immediately and others over a maximum period of 15 years. Finally, the agreement ensured duty-free access for a wide range of industrial goods and goods traded between the signatories. “Domestic goods” status has been granted for products imported from other NAFTA countries, and any state, local or provincial government has been prohibited from levying taxes or customs duties on such goods. . .
.
