The North American Free Trade Agreement, also known as “NAFTA” took effect January 1, 1994. It is a trade agreement between the three countries of North America, which are The United States, Canada, and Mexico. The Canadian Prime Minister, Brian Mulroney, the Mexican President, Carlos Salinas de Gortari, and former United States President George H. Bush organized the agreement. The relationship between the countries were already on good terms, especially between the two northern countries US and Canada which five years before NAFTA had gone into effect by the agreement that was signed of Free Trade Agreement that eliminated all tariffs between the two countries. It was only time before a more integrated agreement was put into effect for all of North America. The geographic location and the previously established trade of goods and services made NAFTA a logical decision welcoming Mexico into the bargain. There has been a lot of positive and negative dispute with this agreement among these northern countries. Many experts have a wide disagreement persisting’s on how and to what degree NAFTA accounts for changes in net employment from adjustments in the labor market. Supporters of NAFTA, and many economists, see a positive impact on U.S. employment and note that new export related jobs in the United States pay 15 to 20 percent more on average than those focused on domestic production. But side effects of the treaty must not be ignored. Our case explains both sides of the coin in relations to the Mexican trucking and being able to commute in US roads.
Potentially, everyone could benefit from the trucking provisions. If it wasn’t for the US trying to benefit from the Mexican trucks condition, they could have avoided the huge taxes that they are facing now. The US did not benefit from that economically in the long run. At this point in the case, Mexico benefits more than the US, but if the Mexican trucks were to be allowed to cross the border