Reference no: EM131456900

150 - 200 words only please.

During the 2016 presidential campaign, trade deals were a constant source of disagreement. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) came under particular criticism and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) was also the subject of condemnation. The mere mention of trade agreements caused some voters to shout and scream.

As the Council of Foreign Relations has noted, "NAFTA fundamentally reshaped North American economic relations, driving an unprecedented integration between Canada and the United States' developed economies and Mexico, a developing country. NAFTA enjoyed bipartisan backing-it was negotiated by Republican President George H.W. Bush and passed through Congress and implemented under Democratic President Bill Clinton. It encouraged a more than tripling of regional trade and cross-border investment between the three countries also grew significantly."

The Council concludes that NAFTA has remained a perennial target in the broader debate over free trade, largely because it is accused by some as leading to a shift in production, and jobs, to Mexico.

Proponents of the agreements have pointed out that the agreements fuel economic growth and that job gains have occurred due to trade. Job losses, such as in auto manufacturing, could have happened due to other factors, rather than the trade agreements.

Critics of trade agreements have noted that the agreements can lower domestic employment and wages while threatening environmental and food safety laws.

Based on your study of trade, should we encourage or discourage international trade agreements? Is there a danger of functioning as an isolationist economy with a limited domestic market? Do trade agreements threaten American workers and endanger the environment? When political leaders criticize agreements are you skeptical or supportive of their claims?