Does this mean that we're also going to be pulling out of talks over the Free Trade Area of the Americas?
At any rate, it may not be in Atlasia's short-term economic benefit to do this, in fact. If anyone has benefitted (at least economically in the short term) from NAFTA,
it's apparently Atlasia. Having read into the effects of NAFTA, however, I'm tempted to vote in favor of this for a completely different reason than this bill's title implies: NAFTA isn't fair to everyone
else. From what I've read, it seems to be the case that while we're asking for penalties on other nations for breaking the terms of NAFTA, we're turning a blind eye to our own infractions, even when we're told to stop doing whatever it is we're doing. In addition to that, our farmers' being subsidized, for example, is making our prices much lower than they should be, but under the terms of NAFTA, all signatories are required to sell our products at market value whether they want to or not, making domestic competition in those countries extremely difficult.
I want what's best for Atlasia, of course, but I feel that what we're currently doing is not what's best for Atlasia in the long run. A competitive international market filled with mutual respect and consideration is essential for effective diplomacy and cooperation between nations, and, as far as I can tell, we could be doing more towards that end.
In examining other articles, there are other reasons to oppose NAFTA, as well. I really don't like parts of its one-size-fits-all regulation policies, such as the requirement of limits on the safety and inspection of meat sold in grocery stores, new patent rules that apparently have raised medicine prices, and constraints on the government's ability to zone against sprawl or toxic industries, even if it feels that that's the best option.
I probably will support this.
