U.S. President Donald Trump opposed it during his election campaign and promised to renegotiate and „tear up“ the deal if the U.S. could not get its desired concessions. A renegotiated agreement between the United States, Mexico and Canada was approved in 2020 to update NAFTA. But why did Trump and many of his supporters consider NAFTA „the worst trade deal that could have been the worst ever“ while others saw his main manko in a lack of ambition and the solution to even more regional integration? What was promised? What was delivered? Who were the winners of NAFTA and who were the losers? Read on to learn more about the history of the agreement as well as the main players in the agreement and its terms. „A lot of NAFTA instant experts don`t really understand trade and what drives trade,“ Kemmsies said. „This is how they become confused between NAFTA and the globalization of the global economy. The fact is that with or without NAFTA, we would have done a lot more trade with Mexico anyway. I am not sure that NAFTA has encouraged trade growth between the United States and Mexico. Look at Mexico and forget everything else for a second: what is the largest trade corridor in the world? It is East-West, from Asia to North America via Europe. It turns out that Mexico is sitting in the middle of the east-west trade flow.
Here Mexico, with 120 million people, and all these skills to extract raw materials. They have cheap labor, a global geographic advantage, an emerging middle class. It`s a good place to do things. The fundamental error in Rob`s analysis is the assumption that trade deficits increase overall unemployment in the United States. Over the past 25 years, we have implemented a large number of trade agreements. During this period, the U.S. trade deficit has generally fluctuated in line with U.S. economic performance. The deficit grows when times are good and contracts when the economy slows.
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). But now, right and left, Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders have won by attacking the free trade agreements of supporters they say cost working-class Americans well-paying jobs. Proponents of deals like Nafta have promised that they will lead to broader economic development, which would compensate more than U.S. jobs relocated abroad. But do these pacts help or hurt average Americans? It is difficult to make an honest assessment of NAFTA because it is impossible to keep any other variables constant and consider the effects of the agreement in a vacuum. China`s rapid rise as the world`s largest exporter of goods and its second-largest economy has taken place, while NAFTA provisions have come into force. In 1993, the United States bought only 5.8 percent of its imports from China, according to MIT.
In 2015, 21% of imports came from the country. Between 1993 and 2015, the real gross domestic product (GDP) of the United States grew by 39.3% to $51,638 (2010 USD). Canada`s GDP per capita grew by 40.3% to $50,001 and Mexico`s by 24.1% to $9,511 $US. In other words, Mexico`s output per person grew slower than that of Canada or the United States, whereas at first it was barely one-fifth of its neighbors. Normally, one would expect the growth of an emerging market economy to exceed that of developed economies. After all, three discrete events have had a significant impact on the North American economy, none of which are due to NAFTA. The failure of the tech bubble has affected growth. The September 11 attacks led to repression at border crossings, including between the United States. . . .