Nafta is also controversial. Policymakers disagree on whether the benefits of the free trade agreement outweigh its drawbacks. Here they are, you can decide for yourself. On September 30, 2018, U.S., Mexican and Canadian negotiators agreed on a replacement agreement for the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which President Trump called the « worst trade deal ever negotiated. » Two months later, Trump and his Mexican and Canadian counterparts signed the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), which modernizes 25-year-old NAFTA and overhauls it with good and bad manners. But before it comes into force, the USMCA must be approved by lawmakers from all three countries. It`s going to be a hell of a boost. Since Ross Perot`s description of a « giant vacuum cleaner » of U.S. jobs and investment south of the border, much has been achieved over the years. But, like trade and investment data, employment figures do not support this assertion.
Manufacturing employment in the United States peaked at 19.43 million people in 1979. Between 1979 and 1993 (the last year before NAFTA came into force), manufacturing employment declined by 2.66 million jobs. Over the next 14 years (between 1993 and 2007), when NAFTA was in effect, manufacturing employment declined by $2.89 million, virtually with no significant change. And in the first six years of NAFTA, the U.S. economy created 540,000 manufacturing jobs. This should not indicate that NAFTA should be valued by creating these jobs, but that those who accuse NAFTA of job losses in the manufacturing sector must take these opposing facts into account. The conditions may seem frightening, but the USMCA trade agreement did not change most of the parts of NAFTA that satisfied Canada. Many in Congress feel that the USMCA is not doing enough to improve NAFTA, so negotiations continue within the United States. There is also a 16-year sunset clause, which means that after 16 years, the terms of the trade agreement expire and new agreements are concluded.
In addition, the USMCA trade agreement is reviewed every six years. These clauses allow the United States to renegotiate as needed. Americans can expect the industry to benefit from many parts of the USMCA, particularly the auto industry, and will feel some of these benefits themselves. During the election campaign, Donald Trump promised to strengthen the enforcement of existing trade rules and negotiate better trade deals than his predecessors. With its national security rights on steel and aluminum, its protective tariffs on washing machines and solar components, its vast trade war with China and the emerging spectre of new barriers to the importation of cars, President Trump has kept his first promise, for worse or worse. On the other hand, it has little to show. It predicts that the prices of small cars will increase by 1.6%, with consumption decreasing by 2.35% (or 75,700 vehicles); Middle-class and full-class cars will experience a price increase of 0.42% and a 0.59% drop in demand (or 16,900 vehicles); Multi-personnel vehicles cost 0.53% more with a 0.40% decrease in consumption (or 32,900 vehicles); Pick-up prices increased by 0.37%, which caused consumption to fall by 0.51% (or 14,800 vehicles). These problems are costly. First, the difficult costs of help: consumers would be e-mail, and the native team should do some research on any shipping problem. Second, a poor consumer experience results in a loss of revenue due to greater chalk and less word-of-mouth propaganda. These same safeguards can lead to costs and other frictions that can result in inconvenience.
But it is a small price for the sustainable future of production and trade in North America. Overall, the drafts of the new agreement outweigh the disadvantages. Between 1993 (the last year before NAFTA came into force) and 2016, total trade in