- To what extent are the elitist and hierarchical tendencies of Mexican politics found in liberal democracies?
- What bringing
- Mexican corporatism brings various social actors (e.g., labor, business professionals) into an officially sanctioned ruling coalition. While guaranteeing certain privileges for these groups (e.g., job security for unionized labor and subsides for businesses), it also limits such freedoms as choosing when to strike or how to allocate capital. Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of such arrangements.
Friday, October 30, 2015
Blog Discussion Group Seven
Blog post due at 11:55pm on November 3 and comment due at 11:55pm on November 6.
Mexico
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Is bringing Mexico into a free-trade agreement with the United States and Canada a good idea or a bad idea for the three countries? Why?
ReplyDeleteI believe that bringing Mexico into a free-trade agreement with the United States and Canada is a good idea for the three countries. I believe that the most was gained between the opening the cross-border trading between Mexico and the United States. The United States has a huge need for agricultural needs for products imported in from Mexico. At the same time the United States also does a lot of exporting of items to Mexico as well. It has enhanced the competitiveness of both countries thus pushing growth in both countries’ economies.
It has also helped improve Canada’s dependency of imports due to limited resources available internally. Until the free trade agreement, Canada had to depend largely on the United States to provide resources. This agreement has allowed my products to reach Canada and at cheaper rates.
Lisa, I agree with what you said. I liked you point about "It has enhanced the competitiveness of both countries thus pushing growth in both countries’ economies." In a global, competitive economy, the North American countries should help each other out. It is in the best interest of Mexico and the US. It doesn't affect the well-being of Canada very much because the vast majority of Canadian intracontinental trade is with the United States, not Mexico.
DeleteIs bringing Mexico into a free-trade agreement with the United States and Canada a good idea or a bad idea for the three countries? Why?
ReplyDeleteI think it would be a good idea to bring Mexico into a free-trade agreement with the US. There are many US states along the southern border whose exports mostly go to Mexico. If it was more difficult to sell these goods to buyers in Mexico, this would have a dramatic, negative effect on the economies of southern US states. I also believe that these states would have higher unemployment rates because there would be a decrease in demand for their products.
Furthermore, it is useful for the US to buy gods from Mexico. Some crops grow better in warmer climates, so it is useful to have these crops grown in Mexico and pay for them (therefore helping Mexico's economy. I think that, overall, it would be a great idea to include Mexico in a free trade agreement with Canada and the US.
Vincent, I agree with some of what you stated. However, with NAFTA properly administered it can serve all three countries equally. If you recall that each country flourished during the Clinton administration who originally implemented NAFTA.
DeleteWhat bringing Mexico into a free-trade agreement with the United States and Canada a good idea or a bad idea for the three countries? Why?
ReplyDeleteNAFTA is a very controversial topic with varying opinions related to each country involved and the impact that the agreement had on each. I believe that Mexico and Canada benefited greatly from NAFTA, with the United States seeing much less direct benefit from the free trade agreements. It is very idealistic to assume negotiation will results in mutual benefit from both sides, as one often times must make some form of sacrifice, and in this case, I believe that party was the United States.
Early results from NAFTA in Canada showed modest gains in Gross Domestic Product and the ability to hold manufacturing employment during a period where many countries were faced with a downward trend in that department. As of 2008, Canada has experienced a very positive international trade ratio, with Canadian exports to the United States and Mexico totaling $381.3 billion, and imports from NAFTA were at $245.1 billion. In Mexico, manufacturing income increased 15.5%, with maquiladoras experiencing massive gains in gross revenues. These are factories that import in materials, tariff-free, and manufacture products to be exported, often times back to the country that provided the raw materials. This is the basis for many frustrations that American’s have concerning job loss to Mexico as a result of NAFTA. Mexico's agricultural exports increased 9.4 percent annually between 1994 and 2001, and they became the 2nd largest provider of agricultural products to the United States in 2004. Mexico also experienced a very significant rise in per capita GDP as a result of NAFTA and their ability to drastically increase exports.
Analyzing the deal for the United States is very tricky. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce credits NAFTA with increasing U.S. trade in goods and services with Canada and Mexico from $337 billion in 1993 to $1.2 trillion in 2011, but a loss of 700,000 jobs to Mexico has been credited by the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO). I do not like to see manufacturing being performed overseas, but do realize that as a business major, I would want to produce my products at cheaper rates as well. All in all, I do not believe that this drastic loss in jobs was worth the increased export revenue to Mexico and Canada, and was a contributor to the lack of manufacturing jobs and opportunities that we experienced still today in the U.S.
Matthias, I really liked your discussion in regards to the loss of manufacturing jobs in america that occurred after the implementation of NAFTA. While I would normally agree with your point that the practice of corporations to send manufacturing opportunities to foreign countries (and in turn their economies) is a serious detriment towards American job-creation, I would argue that the overall American workforce is trending away from the traditional manufacturing or textile industries and would see more of positive growth in the technology-based careers or service oriented sectors of the market. This, in my opinion, is the result of numerous aspects of the U.S.-China trade relations, especially in light of the overwhelming reliance we have to import Chinese manufactured products. But I personally think that the only logical path to move towards maintaining a healthy global economic standing, as well as supporting our ability to compete with economic alliances like the EU, is by increasing the level of cooperation and extent of trade relations between our allies and especially those whom we share borders with.
DeleteJoe,
DeleteI don't even know that much about NAFTA (education and biology major) so reading your post was very informational. If I read your post right, I see that there are some positives and negatives to bringing Mexico into the free-trade agreement. It seems as though the massive amount of job loss is a negative, but looks like maybe the positive of the GDP being much higher outweighs this negative. It saddens me to think of people having to leave their own city to work, but leaving their home country to find work is even worse. I think that this is a big negative in that respect to the US having the influx of Mexican workers migrating in, either legally or illegally, to work. This seems as though letting Mexico onto the agreement may have more negatives than positives when all is weighed out for all involved.
Holly, I agree – his post is very informative and well written. I also agree that NAFTA was less of a benefit and more of a sacrifice for the United States. The increased trade deficit and loss of jobs is certainly telling.
DeleteNick, you also made some valid points. But, I’m curious, is the consistent increase in our national deficit a concern? I can’t blame our national debt on NAFTA, but it definitely hasn’t helped.
Was bringing Mexico into the free trade agreement with the U.S. and Canada a good idea or bad idea for the three countries? Why?
ReplyDeleteThere are some good and bad points to adding Mexico to the free trade agreement with the U.S. and Canada, but in my opinion, the good points out weighs the bad.
It eliminated the tariffs on goods which in turn translated to lower prices for the consumer. With the elimination of tariffs, it has also allowed for small business to try and trap into the markets across language barriers. The NAFTA has been credited for an increase in wages for the Mexican people at 1.3%. It has also increased wages for the American and Canadian people. Trade between the three countries has increased since the agreement was signed to 1.6 trillion in goods and services. According to the US Chamber of Commerce that increase trade has created 5 million American jobs. The environment has been affected in a good way by adding Mexico because health, safety, and industrial standards has to be adhered to now because of the agreement. This standard protects everyone in the northern hemisphere.
You bring up some very valid points. All in all NAFTA was a great help to Mexico as a whole, helped sustain Canada, and presented both positive and negative effects on the United States. I really enjoy your points related to the tariff and small business and how the agreement effected them. Eliminating the tariff across borders was very beneficial in facilitating trade, as history shows that the tariff debate was a hotly contested one in many international relationships as well as main priority of many early presidential candidates in the US. Opening up relations across North America also opened up the market for small business, but I would also argue helped create a niche for them within the United States as well. With many large firms moving production to Mexico and overseas, small businesses had a little more room to thrive and could lean on the "American made" tag to generate a little more sales traction, so the benefits of NAFTA for small businesses occurred on multiple fronts. Obviously NAFTA has a variety of impact on the United States, and seeing various opinions and thoughts such as yours is very eye opening and beneficial.
DeleteWhat bringing Mexico into a free-trade agreement with the United States and Canada a good idea or a bad idea for the three countries? Why?
ReplyDeleteThe North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, has helped boost intraregional trade between Canada, Mexico, and the United States. NAFTA is a trilateral free-trade deal that came into force in January 1994, signed by U.S. president Bill Clinton, Mexican president Carlos Salinas, and Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien. NAFTA was designed to promote economic growth by spurring competition in domestic markets and promoting investment from both domestic and foreign sources. It has worked
Intraregional trade flows have increased significantly over the treaty's first two decades, from roughly $290 billion in 1993 to more than $1.1 trillion in 2012. Cross-border investment and travel have also surged. The United States trades more in goods and services with Mexico and Canada than it does with Japan, South Korea, Brazil, Russia, India, and China combined.
I agree with the points you made here. While the US and Canada had a fair-trade agreement prior to NAFTA, the growth of Mexico's economy would be non existent had they not been included. Hopefully, along with the increase in trade flow, we will begin to see the wealth gap become smaller in both Mexico and the US thanks to the economic growth NAFTA is responsible for.
DeleteI think the NAFTA was a bad idea. It probably seem like a good idea for all the leaders at that time. They were trying to help out our economy. There should have been stricter guidelines on the business that went over to Mexico and Canada. In between 1994 – 2010 the trade deficits with Mexico totaled 97.2 billion displacing 682,900 US jobs. 80 percent losses were in manufacturing. Mexico lost 1.3 million farm jobs. It increased the mobility of people across the borders. And people were paid lower wages. Today wages are still lower and there is still a huge loss in manufacturing job.
DeleteMexican corporatism brings various social actors (e.g., labor, business professionals) into an officially sanctioned ruling coalition. While guaranteeing certain privileges for these groups (e.g., job security for unionized labor and subsides for businesses), it also limits such freedoms as choosing when to strike or how to allocate capital. Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of such arrangements.
ReplyDeleteBy blending interest groups into government, Mexico’s corporatism both helps and hurts the social groups. Like in many countries, when guaranteeing protection, the personal freedom of the citizens is limited. When increasing positive rights for citizens, it is easy for negative rights to slowly be eroded. However, the pragmatic accommodation of interest groups is generally helpful for all. By accommodating these groups, the Mexican government has efficiently avoided huge conflict. (Kesselman 469) When groups are accommodated, they are less likely to hurt the stability of the country. Even though there is accommodation, there is still the possibility that groups will not be pleased and could go against the government. When freedoms are limited too much, people will revolt. The government has to be careful not to overstep into the private sector.
Was bringing Mexico into a free-trade agreement with the United States and Canada a good idea or a bad idea for the three countries? Why?
ReplyDeleteThere is a valid argument on both sides of the issue of whether or not NAFTA was a ‘good’ or ‘bad’ idea for the U.S., Canada and Mexico. The trend to consolidate alliances in order to create economic benefits, as seen by the European Union or United Arab Emirates, is in theory a significantly effective method of raising the GDP and increasing trade in countries that are at an economic disadvantage as compared to their allies or the neighboring countries. So when we consider complex international economic interrelations between countries and the issue of how to benefit all parties involved in such a free-trade agreement, it is imperative to understand that such agreements will most certainly result in a disparity of economic benefits between all countries involved.
So if we take this question and frame it strictly an economic perspective, all three countries saw a moderate increase in GDP and many industries opponents of NAFTA feared would suffer from the agreement actually expanded. Mohammad Ali Sergie stated in his 2014 report NAFTA’s Economic Impact, which drew on results from a think tank sponsored by the Council of Foreign Relations, proposed that NAFTA’s biggest impact on U.S.-Canadian trade was to increase bilateral agricultural trade. Mexico obviously received a remarkable benefit through increased agricultural trade to the U.S. which includes a remarkable contribution towards U.S.’s meat industry that specifically coincided with an increase in Mexican per capita GDP. Needless to say, the economic effects have been generally positive, but there are still outstanding issues on the continued positive trade relations between these three countries.
When considering NAFTA from a legal perspective, the free-trade agreement raised some serious concerns especially in relation to Chapter 11. This chapter stipulates that corporations or individuals could sue the U.S., Canada, or Mexico on actions that are taken by any of these governments which violate international law. This raises some serious concerns both in social and environmental issues that will generally stem from Mexico’s practices both in the international drug distribution and/or Mexican corporations creating industrial waste without oversight or regulation by the Mexican government. While the concerns revolving around Chapter 11 don’t necessarily have a basis when considering the U.S.-Canadian relationship, it seems like a step backwards for our country in international relations.
Generally, I will always argue in favor of political agreements that consolidate and enlarge our presence in the international economy because these types of coalitions serve to strengthen or solidify America’s standing as a global superpower. So yes, NAFTA was a good idea for these countries as a whole but each country involved has experienced some negative economic and social effects stemming from NAFTA.
In many ways bringing these social groups to me to help stimulate growth , industry and economy for the Mexico and potentially trade via these tho doc arrangements. Thus stimulating wealth, creating jobs and encouraging tourism and attraction to Mexico. There is also a control factor of the eve with the unionization and in my opinion greaterpotential for corruption .
ReplyDeleteSo now there is one or a small group of people impacted and the business is
Put before needs and desire of the employees. And becuase of current eco you may I. A since create corsage sweatshops. Th employees have no rights and becuase of the poverty jobs are need and desperately desired.although it seems to be a good deal giving certain benefits itis strtgically limited by the company but it also I in creases jobs and stimulates the economy. I think Mexico probly S needs this types of agreements although I am not sure I agree on the process but the Mexican people need the opportunity to grow and develop. So much of country is impoverished the stimulation can start it off In good direction.
Mexican corporatism brings various social actors (e.g., labor, business professionals) into an officially sanctioned ruling coalition. While guaranteeing certain privileges for these groups (e.g., job security for unionized labor and subsides for businesses), it also limits such freedoms as choosing when to strike or how to allocate capital. Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of such arrangements.
ReplyDeleteMexican corporatism advantages would be more jobs available. The needs of the country need to be met, so offering job security to those that are unionized workers makes it easier to get a job. This would limit their freedom to strike, but it would be better for the economy if strikes were not able to happen anyway. The strikes are a freedom that would be revoked in order to keep the control with those union leaders so that there is not a threat of them losing their labor force. This could make for an unhappy work situation because I am assuming that this means lower wages and little or no overtime pay for long days. This also means a less than adequate work environment in some cases as well. I watched a movie about the food industry (McDonalds) bringing in illegal Mexicans and working them to death (sometime emotionally, and sometimes literally). They offered no benefits to those who came to work for them. They offered them very little pay and sub-par living arrangement. If there was an injury or death, there would be no compensation to the person or the family. If that is how they have been treated here in the US, who knows the horrible situations they could be facing in their own country.
In reading your comment it occurred to me that had not considered the settlements within corporatism.
DeleteAlthough I did consider the limitations and benefits, it didn't consider the limits is in wages or the overall lack of benefits I apparently take for granted , paid days off, breaks, lunches and medical leaves.
This makes me angry that although it could be benrfical to overall economy how much more corruption and indentured Slavery is still prevalent and money driven. It's a lose lose situation
Even With the promise of consistent pay ,and some benefits it's not nearly enough compared to the American people abs the bare minimum we require to be considered acceptable or sufficient .
That speaks to our sense of Self entitlement or how desensitized of a people we've become
Was bringing Mexico into a free-trade agreement with the United States and Canada a good idea or a bad idea for the three countries? Why?
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion I would have to say that it was a good idea! Why? Well we can look at the numbers and justify that it has been beneficial for each country. I myself would like to think it is a larger step forward than that. If we look at some of the more advanced countries, (China, Japan, Korea) a major influence to their success has been the linked trade with one another.
I'd like bring up the Heckscher-Ohlin theory in economics to clarify why this was beneficial for Asian countries, and why it will be beneficial for North America. Certain countries are more capable of producing, growing, or providing a particular good or service in comparison to other countries. Based on a country's resources, (land, labor, capital) it is more beneficial for countries to trade with one another so as to maximize their capital and goods.
With North America, the free-trade agreement has allowed each country to specialize and maximize their capital based on their comparative advantages. It should be noted that trading within the continent has brought about more jobs as well as a larger annual GDP for each country. Looking at this from an economic standpoint I would say that it was a great idea! Not to mention a great way to keep a good relationship with the neighboring countries.
Was bringing Mexico into a free-trade agreement with the United States and Canada a good idea or a bad idea for the three countries? Why?
ReplyDeletePrior to 1993, Mexico's economy was heading into a dead end. NAFTA was expected to provide Mexico, US and Canada level playing fields in terms of economic growth. Bringing Mexico into a fair trade agreement along with the US and Canada was also expected to substantially slow immigration. In the last twenty years all three countries have seen economic growth overall, but it has happened at a much slower rate than initially thought. While Mexico did gain jobs from the US, it cannot be blamed on NAFTA as the jobs the US has lost to Asia is substantially higher. Overall, Canada has seen the most economic growth, but it should be noted that Canada already had a fair trade agreement with the US prior to NAFTA. The US economy hasn't flourished by any means in the last twenty years, but it should be noted that the manufacturing jobs that had been creating capital gain were losing demand at a high rate prior to NAFTA. Overall there has been marginal economic improvement in North America in the past 20 years. NAFTA has however contributed in generating a massive revenue in exports between the three countries, superseding the revenue generated between US trade with many countries combined. The ability to manufacture goods among three separate economies in order to assemble one larger product (such as car manufacturing) has created a very steady demand for jobs in all three countries. Mexico is currently rising above many other nations in car manufacturing. Without the fair-trade act between the three countries, there would likely be less overall economic development seen in North America in the past twenty years. This leads me to conclude that including Mexico in fair-trade with the US and Canada was a good, although slow to produce, idea.
What brings Mexico into a free-trade agreement with the United States and Canada a good idea or a bad idea for the countries? Why
ReplyDeleteNAFTA meaning North American Free Trade Agreement is a trilateral free trade deal that was established in January, 1994 signed by US president Bill Clinton, Mexican president Carlos Salinas, and Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien. This agreement was to eliminate tariffs on products traded among the United States, Mexico and Canada. It is one of the largest free market in the world. NAFTA was designed to promote economic growth.
I think the NAFTA was a bad idea. It opened up Mexican markets to US companies giving them more job opportunities. US has experienced job losses as companies moved production manufacturing to Mexico to lower cost. The jobs moved to Mexico but the Mexican people moved to the US. Since 1994 to 2013 there are 12 million Mexican people in the US. Canada has seen the strongest gains. They are the leading exporters of goods. Manufacturing has been a steady employment for them.
In the 2008 president election several democrats wanted an amendment of NAFTA to include additional labor and environmental standards. The idea was abandoned and it was not a factor in the 2012 election. It should have been strict rules and stipulations on the NAFTA. A lot of the US companies made money but the American people lost jobs.
Corporatism allows certain social actors to have a voice in politics that is truly heard that can allow for these heads of coalitions to represent the needs of their constituents. It furthermore allots various priveleges through these heads, and offers access to governmental organizations and programs. However, these groups become dependent and in many ways under the mercy of the government. Furthermore, when corruption runs rampant, corporatism allows businesses, for example, to accept and act upon political processes in such a manner that favor them and can disadvantage and harm others and the state itself. Furthermore, it encourages client-patron relations as votes and political support are ‘traded’ for governmental access, power and various privileges, trading, in some cases the shortterm security and needs for the long term security and needs.
ReplyDeleteRegulations often vanish within corporatist structures, and have in the past in Mexico. This can be both a good and a bad thing. It can help others produce a fountain revenue at great speed that stays within the country. However it can also allow corporations and goods to be unchecked.
I agree that in theory an arrangement such as Mexico's corporatism can grant voices to certain social actors who might not be heard otherwise, and this in turn can give a powerful voice to entire demographics. In reality, however, this often presents a very real danger in that certain groups who are favored may recieve undue influence over other groups that should be heard. The potential for corruption and unethical practices is extremely high in such a scenario. While the weakening or disappearance of regulations allows businesses to act freely and increase revenue, the danger of corruption may outweigh this benefit. This may be case where regulations are necessary to protect not just those favored by the government, but all those who need to be heard.
DeleteWas bringing Mexico into a free-trade agreement with the United States and Canada a good idea or a bad idea for the three countries? Why?
ReplyDeleteI believe that NAFTA was a bad idea for Mexico because it opened Mexico to exploitation as many U.S. firms relocated production to Mexico to take advantage of its low wages and weak environmental standards. Also, after NAFTA, inexpensive food (agriculture) from the U.S. flooded Mexican markets which resulted in lost jobs for 1.1 million small farmers and 1.4 million other Mexican farm workers between 1993 and 2005. The current wage for a Mexican farm workers is now one-third of what is was before NAFTA.
I believe that NAFTA was a bad idea for the United States for many reasons. For starters, the U.S. now has a huge trade deficit with Canada and Mexico. “The U.S. trade deficit with Canada of $29.1 billion and the $2.5 billion surplus with Mexico in 1993 (the year before NAFTA took effect) turned into a combined NAFTA trade deficit of $181 billion by 2012. This represents an increase in the “NAFTA deficit” of 580 percent.” (http://www.citizen.org/documents/NAFTAs-Broken-Promises.pdf)
Additionally, an estimated 1.2 million U.S. manufacturing jobs have been lost since NAFTA took effect. To name just a few, in 2008 Caterpillar laid off 338 workers at its Mapleton, Illinois facility as it shifted production to Mexico, while 105 workers were laid off from its Pendergrass, Georgia facility due to rising imports from Mexico in the same year. Siemens eliminated over 1,500 U.S. jobs while shifting production to Mexico. Johnson and Johnson offshored over 800 U.S. jobs to Mexico and Canada since NAFTA went into effect.
Sunny, I think that you made some very valid point regarding some of the negative effects of NAFTA. When you think about the export of food, you would think that more foods are exported to North America and Canada then the other way around. But I can see how exporting foods from North America has caused job reductions in Mexico. Already in Mexico the rural farmers already have low incomes and are already poverty stricken, they now have to compete with external sources sending products into Mexico.
ReplyDelete