"The summit was overshadowed by Tuesday's Pennsylvania Democratic presidential primary race between Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, who have threatened to pull the U.S. out of NAFTA or renegotiate it to push for more protections for workers and the environment.My question is, does NAFTA threaten the economic prosperity and independence of the US? However, I think the long term health of the global economy is more important than appeasing some undecided workers in Appalachia. Ultimately the US does have a lot to gain from thriving markets and close ties to neighboring nations and that should take priority over some upset Americans. Eventually, environmental and worker's rights issues must be addressed in NAFTA and in future trade agreements but that is no reason to pull out of an agreement that has raised trade between the 3 nations from $290 billion to $1 trillion since 1994.With fears about job security already being fanned by downturns in the economy, trade has become a key issue of the presidential election. Bush argued that NAFTA has fostered prosperity in all three countries and that Clinton and Obama are wrongly using anti-trade messages to lure working class voters. Free-trade opponents say expanded international trade helps businesses, but threatens U.S. jobs and keeps wages from growing.
Bush warned that without NAFTA, migratory pressure from Mexico would be worse."
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jmKuBNlBk0kzs6GTa4n8q6--MkVQD9076F780
It may just be a conspiracy theory but i heard somewhere that NAFTA would eventually evolve into a union a lot like the EU between the US, Mexico, and Canada with a common currency called the amero. Is this plausible?
2 comments:
I am relatively certain that the conspiracy theory about the North American Union is utter hogwash. The U.S. would have nothing to gain from combining with two inferior nations, therefore, we would not agree to form this NAU. Also, such an organization would require super-highways to be constructed connecting the U.S. to Canada and Mexico. This would be an enormous project and would likely never be undertaken. allowing these three nations to join together would also bring unrestricted immigration into the U.S. from Mexico, which would flood the work market and cause great damage to our economy.
I agree with Greg, there is NO way Congress (let alone the liberal, or conservative, or tree hugging, or gun bearing American population) would agree to trading in George Washington for something called the Amero.
What is important is NAFTA. I understand that jobs are being hurt in the United States, but if the national and global economies benefit, then I dont see a reason to bash NAFTA.
Eddie is right, "the long term health of the global economy is more important than ... undecided workers" in this primary election. I believe Obama and Clinton said this for votes, and Congress would never agree with them (if they reach the Oval Office.)
Post a Comment