blog post 3-NAFTA

Since Trump has been in office, he hasn’t been shy in voicing his disdain for NAFTA, and constantly gives threats to leave. Trump and his advisors advocate leaving NAFTA because a departure from the agreement is thought to be accompanied with a reduced trade deficit with Mexico. However, I strongly believe that the United States should stay in NAFTA as the benefit of being apart of the agreement heavily outweighs the pros of leaving.
It is said that if the United States leaves the trade agreement, the deficit between the U.S and Mexico will be cut. This is wrong however based on the rules that America agreed to when joining the World Trade Organization. Trump has said that he wants to raise tariffs on mexican imports after he leaves NAFTA. However, if the U.S leaves, they have to abide by rules set by the WTO. So by the United States raising tariffs on mexican imports, they will have to equally raise tariffs on all other non free trade agreement countries as well, which may damage ties and relationships with many. Economists are also saying that leaving NAFTA produces little to absolutely no economic gains. It is said that leaving NAFTA will create more jobs in the U.S, but it won’t, and unemployment is at the lowest it has been in years. It would also give advantages to Canada and Mexico if the United States leaves. Canada and Mexico will continue to trade freely with one another and other FTA countries, and this only makes them more powerful by giving them the opportunity to trade with the strongest economies in the world that we would be missing out on.
A departure in NAFTA would also lead to a heavy increase in prices for U.S companies and consumers. While Trump heavily criticizes NAFTA and referring to the worst deal made in the county’s history, staying a member is far more beneficial than leaving.

Comments

  1. Jared RostkowskiNovember 12, 2017 at 1:15 PM

    I like the perspective you took on this. You focused on how leaving NAFTA would hurt US trade internationally and how Canada and Mexico would continue to benefit for free trade while the US missed out. The benefits of being in NAFTA far outweigh the negatives, and it is strange that Trump doesn't realize it being the businessman and all. His argument is that companies are moving to Mexico and taking away American jobs, so he should put a tariff on those companies in Mexico. But the reality is, those companies wouldn't move back to America, they would most likely move to the next cheapest country, completely undermining Trumps plan and the US would continue hurt from leaving NAFTA. We definitely need to stay in

    ReplyDelete
  2. Victoria PierreNovember 12, 2017 at 6:48 PM

    Thank you for this perspective. I was not sure how much NAFTA benefits the US until you articulated it so nicely. I wanted to know why would prices increase in the US for companies and consumers? I wanted to know more how NAFTA is essential to our economy.

    ReplyDelete
  3. UnknownNovember 12, 2017 at 7:37 PM

    NAFTA is key part to our economy and creates various of jobs to to compensate for the large amount of trade. So I agree with you on how it would negatively effect our economy and dramatically decrease or unemployment rate if we were to leave. But I do find it important to also focus on creating more jobs in the US while also staying in NAFTA.

    ReplyDelete
  4. UnknownNovember 12, 2017 at 8:40 PM

    This is an interesting perspective. I like how you brought up that Mexico and Canada would continue to trade freely, putting the U.S. at a disadvantage. You can see that already happening with the TPP agreement. Trump pulled us out of that agreement, and yet every other signatory country just carried on with the agreement without the U.S. Continuing to back out of trade deals like the TPP will put the U.S. in dire jeopardy and at a huge disadvantage when it comes to trade. "America First" is a great sentiment, but it only carries you so far in our globalized world.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Blog post 2, Nukes in Iran

Throughout the past couple of weeks we have discussed numerous times, the effects of nuclear weapons, and the way international/regional relations are affected by them. More specifically, we discussed the nuclear situation in the middle east pertaining to Iran. We debated a little in class  about whether or not Iran acquiring a bomb would be a positive or negative occurrence. After debating the topic, and going over readings in class, I believe that Iran acquiring nuclear capabilities would be a good thing, rather than bad. Many have argued against this point. Many think that as soon as iran acquires nuclear capabilities, they will instantly use it against Israel. It is also argued that since Iran has ties to hateful groups like Isis, they will arm terrorist groups with nuclear weapons. Historically speaking, countries that have acquired nuclear weapons, have not become increasingly aggressive. They have actually become more retracted in their ways. Many believe that when a countr...
Read more

Blog Post 2: Syria and the Fate of Weakened/Failed States Jared Rostkowski

Blog Post 2: Syria and the Fate of Weakened/Failed States Jared Rostkowski In April 2017, President Trump ordered a missile strike on an airbase which allegedly carried out a chemical weapon attack on Syrian rebels by the Syrian government. This was the first military action the U.S. had taken on the war-torn Syria. Syria began the plunge into civil war back in 2011 when protestors were shot dead in the city of Deraa, and the U.S. had, for the most part, stayed away from any physical involvement in the civil war. But since the bombings back in April, it has sparked a debate on whether or not the U.S. should send soldiers into Iraq to try and end this civil war. The side that I have taken is with the Larison reading. Syria is a tar-pit, anyone who interferes is going to only damage themselves and further damage the country.  The problem with weakened and failed states is that they are doomed to stay that way the majority of the time. Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia are ju...
Read more

Blog Post 4 - Yousuf Sander

Global terror has plagued the international community in increasing frequency and tragedy for the last two decades. The rise of groups like Al-Qaeda, ISIS, Hamas, and others have left thousands dead and given rise to new fear, and an elusive enemy. These groups have used ever more brutal tactics to stage devastating attacks on civilians in both their home countries and abroad. In the early 2000s, the U.S. began a so-called “ War On Terror ” to combat the rise of such groups, only to have the even more dangerous organization of ISIS rise out of the ashes of our own operations in Iraq. These groups are hard to fight and even harder to dismantle, so what are our options in the War on Terror? I believe that the problem stems from the ostracized environment in which immigrant Middle eastern communities exist in the West.   As long as we continue to marginalize Muslim communities in the U.S. and Europe, we will continue to be fostering an environment that makes it easy for terrorist gr...
Read more