NAFTA (SLP) Module5 - Essay Example

NAFTA (SLP) Module5 Affiliation: Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader have issues that do not allow them to accept the provisions andagendas of NAFTA. With reference to the framework of the NAFTA and its perceived purpose it should serve with reference to the member states, Pat and Ralph disagree with these provisions. The structure of the NAFTA shows that the agreement amongst the three countries; Canada, Mexico, and the USA, is aimed at increasing the output of the three countries while at the same time cultivating their political environment to showcase unity among the states.

However, the problems created by NAFTA continue to affect some of the member states – a problem that has not been received well by critics such as Ralph and Pat. Reasons for opposing NAFTA include the loss of jobs that has affected the USA. It is estimated that since 1995, NAFTA is responsible for the loss of some 765,000 jobs. This loss of jobs has also created a ripple effect on the economic wellbeing of the laid off workers. After the loss of jobs, finding new jobs has a 23% less pay within the same industries they used to work.

Additionally, investment on manufacturing industries has increased Mexican problem in that, around the maquiladora zones along the Mexico-US border, pollution and poor disposal of waste has threaten to cause adverse environmental issues (Global Exchange, 2011). In the USA, NAFTA has been viewed as a free trade agreement that has caused multiple employment and investment issues. For example, a study by the Cornell University shows that two-thirds of manufacturing and communications companies have threatened their employees that they would move their operations outside the USA.

This move aims at exporting well-paying jobs from the USA to either Mexico or Canada where labor is expected to be cheaper. In this case, more employees are left jobless or underpaid as companies thrive to create value through the free trade agreement (Workorg, 2010). NAFTA is an export dependent trade agreement which affects the resources of the nations involved. For example, natural resources such as forests and fish have been overexploited to settle trade debts among member states. Mexico has been on the receiving end as 15 US-based wood products’ companies have established operations in Mexico drastically increased logging.

Guerrero, a Mexican State has lost 40 percent of her forest cover following the establishment of US-based wood products’ companies. Family farmers face the adverse effects of the NAFTA free trade doctrine. It is seen that NAFTA has influenced governments to support the agendas of agribusiness while ignoring the concerns of family farmers. Farmers’ incomes have incurred negative growth as a result of the export nature of the NAFTA trade agreement. Thus, markets can import products from other nations provided that no import duty is levied on the product.

For countries with agricultural overproduction, dumping of surplus products has continued to hurt farmers who rely on the sale of their products with the local markets. With negative issues such as the loss of jobs, escalation of environmental pollution and increase of alternative products that compete with locally produced goods, Pat and Ralph agree on these issues. The economic costs associated with the development of NAFTA continue to be a problem for Mexico and the USA especially on the aspect of developments.

For example, USA companies are forced to invest in countries such as Mexico with cheap labor in order to cut spending and create value. Mexico, on the other hand, has been forced to over-exploit her resourced in order to pay up her trade debts (US Trade Representative, 2008).ReferencesGlobal Exchange. (2011). Top Ten Reasons to Oppose the Free Trade Area of the Americas. Retrieved April 23, 2014 from http://www.globalexchange.org/resources/FTAA/opposeUS Trade Representative. (2008). NAFTA - Myth vs. Facts. Retrieved 2/27/11* from http://www.ustr.gov/sites/default/files/NAFTA-Myth-versus-Fact.

pdf Workorg. (2010). Thoroughly anti-worker, environmentally unsafe. Retrieved April 23, 2014 from http://www.workers.org/marcy/cd/samnafta/nafta/nafta01.htm