I.
(1). How NAFTA is doing economically really depends on who you ask (Wharton). On the one hand, NAFTA has definitely been a helpful in liberalizing trade between the United States, Canada, and Mexico. It has also been helpful in increasing the amount of goods and services that the North American public has access to as well as lowering the prices, generally, for those same goods and services. This has also created jobs in all three countries to satisfy the increased demand. On the other hand, NAFTA has also increased the trade surplus that Mexico has with the U.S. In addition, the increased globalization that NAFTA has brought between the three nations has had some adverse effects in each nation. Still, most would agree that NAFTA’s benefits so far outweigh its negatives (Wharton; Sergie).
(2). On the positive side, two economic benefits that resulted from NAFTA are a reduction in tariffs between the United States, Mexico, and Canada, as well as increased trade and industrial integration among the three nations. First, as a result of NAFTA the three governments decreased or eliminated taxes on a wide range of goods entering and exiting each nation, respectively. The lower taxes made the goods such as crude oil, fresh meat and produce and automobile, more affordable for citizens from Whale Cove to Acapulco (Fontinelle). Second, with less barriers to trade, trade naturally increased between the nations to nearly U.S. $2 trillion in 2011 (Sergie). This also included significant industrial integration especially in the automobile industry which has literally made North America a “single manufacture platform” that has become “a major force in global trade” (Wharton). Despite the benefits, NAFTA has not been without its negatives. Two such issues are the relocations of many U.S. manufactures and the loss of U.S. jobs (Sergie). Indeed, as globalization has made it attractive for U.S. businesses to move abroad to save expenses, one of the key destinations for relocation has been Mexico. The result has been the collapse of some domestic industries as abandon the U.S. As more of these companies relocate, they left thousands of American workers without a job or means of making an income.
II
(1). By most accounts “fast track” authority will ultimately not be good for the American worker. The reason for this is found in the framework of a fast track deal. In that frame work a decision to enter into a trade deal is pushed through Congress with no or limited opportunity for debate and consideration. As a result, a deal potentially can be made without reflection of how it might hurt the American worker or what protections can be or should be put into place to mitigate the harmful effect that a deal would have on an American worker. Opponents, such as Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders has argued that based on the history of U.S. corporate influence on the Executive Branch, it his highly likely that a president will more likely side with Big Business in authorizing trade deals than with protecting the rights of the American worker (Bhattacharya).
(2). Fast track authority, similarly does not provide any benefits that would outweigh its negatives for the American consumer. While fast track authority might allow for the expedited entry into a trade deal with a partner, whether the deal would be beneficial to the consumer has no bearing on whether it is agreed to quickly or not. It might be possible that it would be beneficial but it might also be harmful. Accordingly, as there is no clear benefit, from an economic perspective, of giving fast track authority to the president for consumers; it is simple a tool of authorization. It can be used in a manner that is helpful to the American consumer if the president that is using it is focused on helping them. But that may not necessarily be the case.
Works Cited
Bhattacharya, Ananya. “What Obama’s trade deal (likely) means for American jobs.” CNN Money, 13 Jun. 2015. Web. http://money.cnn.com/2015/06/12/news/economy/obama-trade-authority-deal-tpp/
Fontinelle, Amy. “Pros and Cons of NAFTA.” Investopedia, 16 Dec. 2012. Web. http://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/1212/pros-and-cons-of-nafta.aspx
Sergie, Mohammed Aly. “NAFTA’s Economic Impact.” Council of Foreign Relations, 14 Feb. 2014. Web. http://www.cfr.org/trade/naftas-economic-impact/p15790
Wharton School. “NAFTA, 20 Years Later” Do the Benefits Outweigh the Costs? Wharton School, 19 Feb. 2014. Web. http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/nafta-20-years-later-benefits-outweigh-costs/
