Nafta has been structured to increase cross-border trade in North America and stimulate economic growth for each party. But Democrats who controlled Congress would not approve the deal. And when Democrat Bill Clinton was elected in 1992, it was widely assumed that the political pendulum would recede from the right and that NAFTA would never happen. But Clinton surrounded herself with Wall Street economic advisers and, in her first year, pushed Congress for approval of NAFTA. Discussions made progress on a number of issues, including telecommunications, pharmacy, chemicals, digital commerce and the fight against corruption. But the way in which the origin of automotive content is measured has proved to be a sensitive point, as the United States fears an influx of Chinese auto parts. Discussions will be further complicated by a World Trade Organization (WTO) proceeding against the United States in December. NAFTA shows the classic dilemma of free trade: diffuse benefits with concentrated costs. While the economy as a whole may have recovered slightly, some sectors and communities have experienced profound disruptions. A southeastern city loses hundreds of jobs when a textile factory closes, but hundreds of thousands of people find their clothes slightly cheaper.
Depending on how you quantify it, the overall economic benefit is probably greater, but not very noticeable at the individual level; the overall economic loss is small in the grand scheme of things, but devastating for those it directly affects. Unlike the first generation of free trade agreements – which have focused on reducing or eliminating tariffs and tariffs that stifled trade – these more recent pacts are more comprehensive. As Scott explains, they contain “30 or more chapters that offer special protection to foreign investors; Extending patents and copyrights; privatization of procurement of public services such as education, health and public services; and “harmonization” of rules in a way that prevents or prevents governments from protecting public health or the environment.” While critics of the TPP are mixing their criticism of the pact with their criticism of “free trade,” they lack a key element of the TPP that has dissatisfied many otherwise loyal supporters of previous agreements, which really focus on the deregulation of “trade” per se, he notes. In July 2017, the Trump administration presented a detailed list of changes it wants to make to NAFTA. [131] The top priority was to reduce the U.S. trade deficit. [131] [132] The government has also called for the abolition of provisions allowing Canada and Mexico to challenge U.S. tariffs and impose import restrictions on the United States, Canada and Mexico. [131] The list also highlighted subsidized state-owned enterprises and monetary manipulation. [131] [133] Despite these benefits, the United States, Mexico and Canada renegotiated NAFTA on September 30, 2018.