Arguments against NAFTA

Arguments against NAFTA Free Online Research Papers Implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) began on January 1, 1994. This agreement was made to remove most barriers to trade and investment among the United States, Canada, and Mexico. Under the NAFTA, all non-tariff barriers to agricultural trade between the United States and Mexico were eliminated. In addition, many tariffs were eliminated immediately, with others being phased out over periods of 5 to 15 years. This allowed for an orderly adjustment to free trade with Mexico, with full implementation beginning January 1, 2008. The agricultural provisions of the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement, which had been in effect since 1989, were incorporated into the NAFTA. Under these provisions, all tariffs affecting agricultural trade between the United States and Canada, with a few exceptions, were removed by January 1, 1998. Mexico and Canada reached a separate NAFTA agreement for agricultural products. This agreement did away with most tariffs either immediately or over 5, 10, or 15 years. Tariffs between the two countries affecting trade in dairy, poultry, eggs, and sugar were maintained. Economically, the result was supposed to be a large boon to the GNP of all concerned countries, a higher standard of living for each nation’s workers, and improved unemployment rates. Although these are the most obvious of the reasons for the unilateral agreement, there is one more very important goal that is less obvious. Mexico, an undeveloped country, has considerably less commerce and business potential than either the United States or Canada, two of the strongest economic powers in the world. NAFTA was also created to make the financial future of its citizens brighter, thus stemming the tide of immigrants, both legal and illegal, across our borders. Although there have been positive effects on each country’s economic picture, much of what has happened would have happened anyway, even without NAFTA. The Congressional Budget Office of the United States estimates that the increased trade resulting from NAFTA has probably increased U.S. gross domestic product, but by a very small amountprobably a few billion dollars or less, or a few hundredths of a percent. NAFTA has had a comparatively small, but growing, positive effect on U.S. exports to Mexico (ranging from 2.2 percent in 1994 to 11.3 percent in 2001) and a similar effect on U.S. imports from Mexico (ranging from 1.9 percent in 1994 to 7.7 percent in 2001). The effects of NAFTA on the U.S. balance of trade in goods with Mexico have been positive in most years, and very small in all years, since the agreement began. The CBO reports further that in 1994, the first year of the agreement, the total effect on the U.S. economy by way of the NAFTA was less than half a billion dollars, or 0.005% of the GNP. By 2001, that effect had increased to only 3.6 billion, or 0.041% of the GNP. In addition, the growth in U.S. trade in services with both Canada and Mexico has been even less impressive, amounting to about two-thirds the percentage increase between the U.S. and the rest of the world. Nor has the agreement had much effect on our country’s unemployment woes. In 1993, the year before the signing, the national unemployment rate was 6.9%. There has been a gradual decline over the years to 4.6% in 2006, but much of that can be attributed to a strong economy and other factors, and not much credit can be given to the NAFTA. Some of the lack of improvement in our unemployment picture can actually be directly attributed to the agreement which was supposed to improve that area. Many â€Å"maquiladoras† plants have sprung up on the Mexican border along the United States. These facilities import raw materials from U.S. manufacturers, cheap Mexican labor is used to assemble the final product, and then the units are shipped back over the border back to our country. This not only skews the optimistic import/export numbers upon which the NAFTA boasts much of its success, but it takes manufacturing jobs away from U.S. workers. For Mexico, the situation has been even worse. The country went through a recession in 1994, with a Gross Domestic Product that declined by 6.94 percent, and inflation reached 51.97 percent . In addition, the country’s unemployment rate from 1994 to 2006 has hovered from 3.0 to 3.7%, so no appreciable gain in that regard has been realized. In the 1980s, Mexican real wages fell 66%. In the 1980s, the average Mexican workers wage was one-third that in the U.S. In the 2000s, the ratio is one-eighth, and immigrants continue to flow across our borders at a rate of 400,000 per year. In summary, the NAFTA has changed little regarding the progression of import/export balance, the economic picture of any of the participating countries, or the unemployment rate for the United States. The flow of illegal immigrants that is a direct result of bleak economic outlooks in Mexico has not slowed appreciably. Big business should be left to large corporations who understand the balance of supply and demand, and can anticipate the cause and effect of major economic strategies. Government should only step in to handle the finer points of negotiation, and then only with the assistance of the corporations whose task it will be to make it all work. Research Papers on Arguments against NAFTAThe Effects of Illegal ImmigrationDefinition of Export QuotasPETSTEL analysis of IndiaQuebec and CanadaNever Been Kicked Out of a Place This NiceTwilight of the UAWAppeasement Policy Towards the Outbreak of World War 2Analysis of Ebay Expanding into AsiaAssess the importance of Nationalism 1815-1850 EuropeInfluences of Socio-Economic Status of Married Males

Introduction to Chinas May Fourth Movement

Introduction to China's May Fourth Movement The demonstrations of the May Fourth Movement (ä ºâ€Ã¥â€ºâ€ºÃ© â€¹Ã¥â€¹â€¢, WÇ”sà ¬ Yà ¹ndà ²ng) marked a turning point in China’s intellectual development which can still be felt today. While the May Fourth Incident occurred on May 4, 1919, the May Fourth Movement began in 1917 when China declared war against Germany. During World War I, China supported the Allies on the condition that control over Shandong Province, the birthplace of Confucius, would be returned to China if the Allies triumphed. In 1914, Japan had seized control of Shandong from Germany and in 1915 Japan had issued 21 Demands (ä ºÅ'Ã¥  Ã¤ ¸â‚¬Ã¥â‚¬â€¹Ã¦ ¢ Ã©  â€¦, Èr shà ­ yÄ «gà ¨ tio xing) to China, backed by the threat of war. The 21 Demands included recognition of Japan’s seizure of German spheres of influence in China and other economic and extraterritorial concessions. To appease Japan, the corrupt Anfu government in Beijing signed a humiliating treaty with Japan by which China acceded to Japan’s demands. Though China was on the winning side of World War I, China’s representatives were told to sign away rights to German-controlled Shandong Province to Japan at the Treaty of Versailles, an unprecedented and embarrassing diplomatic defeat. The dispute over Article 156 of the 1919 Treaty of Versailles became known as the Shandong Problem (Ã¥ ± ±Ã¦  ±Ã¥â€¢ Ã© ¡Å', ShÄ ndÃ… ng Wà ¨ntà ­). The event was embarrassing because it was revealed at Versailles that secret treaties had been previously signed by the great European powers and Japan to entice Japan to enter World War I. Moreover, it was brought to light that China had also agreed to this arrangement. Wellington Kuo (é ¡ §Ã§ ¶ ­Ã©Ë†Å¾), China’s ambassador to Paris, refused to sign the treaty. The transfer of German rights in Shandong to Japan at the Versailles Peace Conference created anger among the Chinese public. The Chinese viewed the transfer as a betrayal by the Western powers and also as a symbol of Japanese aggression and of the weakness of the corrupt warlord government of Yuan Shi-kai (è ¢ Ã¤ ¸â€"å‡ ±). Infuriated by China’s humiliation at Versailles, college students in Beijing held a demonstration on May 4, 1919. What was  the May Fourth Movement? At 1:30 p.m. on Sunday, May 4, 1919, approximately 3,000 students from 13 Beijing universities assembled at the Gate of Heavenly Peace at Tiananmen Square to protest against the Versailles Peace Conference. The demonstrators distributed fliers declaring that the Chinese would not accept the concession of Chinese territory to Japan. The group marched to the legation quarter, the location of foreign embassies in Beijing, The student protestors presented letters to foreign ministers. In the afternoon, the group confronted three Chinese cabinet officials who had been responsible for the secret treaties that encouraged Japan to enter the war. The Chinese minister to Japan was beaten and a pro-Japanese cabinet minister’s house was set on fire. The police attacked the protestors and arrested 32 students. News of the students’ demonstration and arrest spread throughout China. The press demanded the students’ release and similar demonstrations sprung up in Fuzhou. Guangzhou, Nanjing, Shanghai, Tianjin, and Wuhan. Shop closings in June 1919 exacerbated the situation and led to a boycott of Japanese goods and clashes with Japanese residents. Recently-formed labor unions also staged strikes. The protests, shop closings, and strikes continued until the Chinese government agreed to release the students and fire the three cabinet officials. The demonstrations led to a full resignation by the cabinet and the Chinese delegation at Versailles refused to sign the peace treaty. The issue of who would control Shandong Province was settled at the Washington Conference in 1922 when Japan withdrew its claim to Shandong Province. The May Fourth Movement in Modern Chinese History While student protests are more common today, the May Fourth Movement was led by intellectuals who introduced new cultural ideas including science, democracy, patriotism, and anti-imperialism to the masses. In 1919, communication was not as advanced as today, so efforts to mobilize the masses focused on pamphlets, magazine articles, and literature written by intellectuals. Many of these intellectuals had studied in Japan and returned to China. The writings encouraged a social revolution and challenged traditional Confucian values of familial bonds and deference to authority. The writers also encouraged self-expression and sexual freedom. The period of 1917-1921 is also referred to as the New Culture Movement (æâ€" °Ã¦â€"‡åÅ'â€"é â€¹Ã¥â€¹â€¢, XÄ «n Wà ©nhu Yà ¹ndà ²ng). What started as a cultural movement after the failure of the Chinese Republic turned political after the Paris Peace Conference, which gave German rights over Shandong to Japan. The May Fourth Movement marked an intellectual turning point in China. Collectively, the goal of scholars and students was to rid the Chinese culture of those elements which they believed had led to China’s stagnation and weakness and to create new values for a new, modern China.