Argument: NAFTA has failed to give Mexico a competitive edge in the global economy.

Although NAFTA gives Mexico a slight advantage over its competitors, this edge has been insufficient; Chinese labor is still cheaper, and imports more goods to the US than Mexico does1. Real wages in Mexico have actually decreased 0.2% and income disparities between Mexico and the US have grown2. In failing to provide sufficient means for Mexico to compete with other developing nations, NAFTA has failed to serve its parties' interests.

1 Smith, Geri and Cristina Lindblad. "Mexico: Was NAFTA Worth it: A Tale of What Free Trade Can and Cannot Do." Business Week, December 22, 2003.

2 Stiglitz, Joseph E. "The Broken Promise of NAFTA." New York Times, January 6, 2004.

Candidate 1: "There is little reason to believe that NAFTA was a key agent in Mexican political change. In the time after NAFTA was signed, Mexico also experienced an economic crisis linked to a currency collapse1. Its president fled the country on corruption charges and drug-related corruption continues to plague the country. Mexico has had both good and bad political and economic experiences since the implementation of NAFTA, and it is impossible to say that NAFTA caused the freer elections in 1994 and therefore has been overall beneficial for Mexico.

1Paul Magnusson, "Did NAFTA Backers Bamboozle America?" Business Week, May 8, 2000."
Candidate 2: "Corn is only one product in a complex trade system. While NAFTA has undoubtedly given US corn farmers an advantage, it has also benefited Mexican avocado famers- and everyone employed in the industry1. Automobile production has shifted away from the US and towards Mexico after NAFTA2. Each country cannot expect to export more of every product- what Mexico has lost in corn production, it has gained in other areas.

1Amy Clark, "Is NAFTA good for Mexico's Farmers?," CBS, February 11, 2009.

2 Scott, Robert, Carlos Salas, and Bruce Campbell. "Revisiting NAFTA: Still Not Good for North America's Workers." Economic Policy Institute, September 28, 2006."
Candidate 3: "The loss of US production jobs is part of a greater global trend; NAFTA is not responsible for this change. Mexico and Canada are responsible for only one-fifth of the growth in the US trade deficit. The rapid acceleration of technological communication has made outsourcing and offshore production easier than ever1, and the US is losing jobs to countries that do the work as a fraction of the cost.

1 Thomas L. Friedman, "The World is Flat: a Brief History of the Twenty-First Century," (New York: Picador, 2007), 148."
Candidate 4: "NAFTA gave Mexico an edge; that does not mean Mexico's problems would disappear. Mexico's economic problems are the result of a low tax base and poor education, among other issues1. A trade agreement alone cannot solve a nation's complex socioeconomic issues. Though it is impossible to know what would have happened, it is fair to speculate that Mexico would import even fewer goods to the US if not for NAFTA. Therefore, even if Mexico has yet to become an industrial powerhouse, NAFTA can still be considered advantageous.

1 Joseph E. Stiglitz, "The Broken Promise of NAFTA," New York Times, January 6, 2004"
Candidate 5: "NAFTA has reduced the cost of production. In a free trade economy, workers only have the upper hand in bargaining if there is a labor shortage. NAFTA does not deprive workers of something they are entitled to; if a company saves money by relocating production, new workers get hired, goods become cheaper, and consumers benefit. NAFTA may have disadvantaged certain workers, but it benefits other workers and consumers."
Candidate 6: "NAFTA's harmful effects on American industry outweigh its benefits. Americans are not helped by lower prices if they lose their job and have no money. Furthermore, evidence shows the American jobs lost through NAFTA were largely high-wage manufacturing jobs, thereby exacerbating income inequality."
Candidate 7: "If anything, NAFTA has harmed international cooperation by damaging the parties involved. Due to the continental free trade agreement, Mexican farmers have lost their livelihoods, American manufacturers have been laid off, environmental harms have increased, and the agreement has failed to create the job stimulus it promised. We can only hope that NAFTA is not a typical example of international cooperation, for such would not bode well for the international community."
Candidate 8: "NAFTA allows companies to shed light on antiquated regulations. The advantages and disadvantages of MMT are contested1, and the Canada's grounds for prohibitions on the water exportation that Sun Belt wanted to do were questionable1. Environmental protection is necessary, but should be reasonable; if regulations are preventing business for no good reason, those regulations should be reconsidered.

1 http://www.autos.ca/auto-tech/environment/auto-tech-mmt-the-controversy-... "&gt; Jim Kerr, "Auto Tech: MMT: the Controversy Over this Fuel Additive Continues," March 10, 2004, &lt;"
Candidate 9: "While Canada has experienced some economic benefits due to NAFTA, these benefits do not outweigh the harms for North America overall. Furthermore, as the Con discusses below, Canada has struggled to reconcile its environmental regulations with NAFTA, thereby hurting it environmentally, if not economically."

NAFTA gave Mexico an edge; that does not mean Mexico's problems would disappear. Mexico's economic problems are the result of a low tax base and poor education, among other issues1. A trade agreement alone cannot solve a nation's complex socioeconomic issues. Though it is impossible to know what would have happened, it is fair to speculate that Mexico would import even fewer goods to the US if not for NAFTA. Therefore, even if Mexico has yet to become an industrial powerhouse, NAFTA can still be considered advantageous.

1 Joseph E. Stiglitz, "The Broken Promise of NAFTA," New York Times, January 6, 2004
