what is a "Central America Free Trade Agreement"?
400061
This is an agreement commonly referred to as CAFTA. It is basically an agreement between the U.S. and the countries of Central America where we can do trade back and forth without any sort of tariffs or other penalties. This is about like the North American Free Trade Agreement that we signed with Canada and Mexico. And the same way that NAFTA cost a lot of Americans their jobs, CAFTA will cost even more Americans their jobs because we cannot manufacture things as cheap as they can because they have no labor laws and a very low standard of living.
1049614
it depends on what aspect you are talking about, in commerce there is NAFTA which is USA,Canada and Mexico, then is Mercasur which includes Brazil and Argentina I think, and then is Europe, mostly all countries, Asian countries have a high penalty in Taxes if you want to import from Mexico, if you are talking in war issues, Mexico doesn't go to war.
294129
Can you give us a hint what Ufta is?
564850
They're all in North America and belong to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)
41916
The Installation of Celulose processing plants and a difference of oppinion with argentina, which has got us a virtual economic blockage from them to us.\n\nThe economic development, current but permanent.\n\nThe closage of a cooperative of credit and savings, known as cofac and the funding of a new enterprise coming from international investors and the ashes of cofac.
383627
http://worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/camerica.htm\nor\nhttp://www.infoplease.com/atlas/centralamerica.html
1007505
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_San_Francisco\n\nLook it up....
884449
I am sorry I could not understand the difference either.  \n\nThe definitions are: "In international trade, free trade is an idealized market model, often stated as a political objective, in which trade of goods and services between countries flows unhindered by government-imposed prices." Otherwise commom market "is a customs union with common policies on product regulation, and freedom of movement of all the four factors of production (land, enterprise, capital and labour)."\n\nFor me it's looks like the same, the implications of that is that when you open all your barriers to other countries you could threat some not developed economical goods...for example...\n\nUSA wanted to integrate Brazil to NAFTA, but it's a very controversial issue for US farmers to accept a completely open market for Brazil's orange farmers (for example) as how Brazil's industries worry to open the market for US 'cause US has more capacity to invest in technology and marketing than Brazil industries, so it could happen to an "unfair" commerce.
1036186
1)The Treaty of Cahuenga ended the fighting of the Mexican-American War in California.\n\n2)The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was the peace treaty that ended the Mexican-American War\n\n3)The North American Free Trade Agreement, known usually as NAFTA, is a free trade agreement among Canada, the United States, and Mexico\n\n4)The 1944 United States-Mexico Treaty for Utilization of Water of the Colorado and Tijuana Rivers and of the Rio Grande alloted to Mexico a guaranteed annual quantity of water from these sources\n\nThe US also has a limited extradition treaty with Mexico.\n\n\nThese are treaties between the U.S. government and Native Americans in the United States.\n\n    * 1778 - Treaty of Fort Pitt (1778)\n    * 1784 - Treaty of Fort Stanwix\n    * 1785 - Treaty of Fort McIntosh\n    * 1785 - Treaty of Hopewell\n    * 1786 - Treaty of Fort Finney\n    * 1788 - Treaty of Buffalo Creek\n    * 1789 - Treaty of Fort Harmar\n    * 1790 - Treaty of New York\n    * 1792 - Treaty of Holston\n    * 1795 - Treaty of Greenville\n    * 1805 - Treaty of Fort Industry\n    * 1807 - Treaty of Detroit\n    * 1814 - Treaty of Fort Jackson\n    * 1815 - Treaty of Springwells\n    * 1817 - Treaty of Fort Meigs\n    * 1818 - Treaty of St. Mary's\n    * 1819 - Treaty of Saginaw\n    * 1821 - Treaty of Chicago\n    * 1825 - Treaty of Prairie du Chien\n    * 1825 - Treaty of Indian Springs\n    * 1825 - Treaty of St. Louis: 1,400 Missouri Shawnees were forcibly relocated from Missouri to Kansas. `\n    * 1826 - Treaty of Mississinwas\n    * 1826 - Treaty of Washington (1826)\n    * 1829 - Treaty of Prairie du Chien\n    * 1829 - Treaty of Fort Wayne\n    * 1830 - Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek\n    * 1831 - Treaty of Lewistown\n    * 1832 - Treaty of Cusseta\n    * 1833 - Treaty of Chicago\n    * 1835 - Treaty of New Echota\n    * 1836 - Treaty of Washington (1836)\n    * 1842 - Treaty of La Pointe\n    * 1851 - Treaty of Traverse des Sioux\n    * 1851 - Treaty of Fort Laramie (1851)\n    * 1851 - Treaty of Mendota\n    * 1854 - Treaty of La Pointe\n    * 1855 - Treaty of Neah Bay\n    * 1858 - Treaty of Washington (1858)\n    * 1867 - Medicine Lodge Treaty\n    * 1868 - Treaty of Fort Laramie
88244
its a power play. imagine a shadow coming from usa. the object is to take over inluence of all 'south america'. so, they call the shadow the 'free trade zone', its quite the opposite, orwellian.
582618
South America, most of Central America, and the Caribbean
845723
Central America is not a continent.  It is part of North America.
1186676
Free trade with low barriers to trading would and should not increase corruption or poverty in poorer nations. How could any one get that idea??\n\nAs in the marketplace, the old phrase "buyer beware" is still applicable. The biggest embarrassment I remember is allegedly Nestle was pushing their breast formula with free samples, and native Africans were not breast feeding since their breasts ran dry.\n\nBut with free trade, both buyer and seller benefit. The only alternative to free trade is to drop out of the "world game" and remain backwards. Isn't that pretty much the definition of a 3rd world country anyway??
422297
Free Trade Agreement (FTA or Free trade), in modern usage, trade or commerce carried on without such restrictions as import duties, export bounties, domestic production subsidies, trade quotas, or import licenses. The basic argument for free trade is based on the economic theory of comparative advantage: each region should concentrate on what it can produce most cheaply and efficiently and should exchange its products for those it is less able to produce economically. \nInternal Free Trade\nFree trade within national borders is in some countries a comparatively recent development. Jean Baptiste Colbert tried to abolish internal trade barriers in France in the 17th cent., but that was not accomplished until the French Revolution, a hundred years later. In the German states Prussia took the lead in organizing the Zollverein movement after 1818. The desire to assure freedom from internal trade barriers in the United States was a factor in calling the Constitutional Convention. In Britain, the classic home of the free-trade movement, the term free trade was first used during the agitation for removal of the privileges of the chartered companies in the 17th cent.\nInternational Free Trade\nIn 18th-century Britain, free trade eventually came to mean the desire for a moderate tariff policy in international trade, especially with France. The rapid growth of British industry in the late 1700s gave added force to the attack on international trade restrictions. Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations (1776) provided a powerful intellectual basis for the free trade movement, and the later work of David Ricardo was important in developing the notion of comparative advantage as an argument in its favor. The most important practical blow in favor of the free-trade movement came with the formation (1839) of the Anti-Corn-Law League, and the repeal (1846) of the corn laws. The Anglo-French commercial treaty of 1860 represented perhaps the high-water mark of free trade. \nAfter World War I, Britain reintroduced protection and a system of imperial preference in an attempt to establish a greater measure of economic autonomy. France, along with other European nations, historically followed a policy of protection. In the period of international economic dislocation in the mid-1930s, the United States reversed earlier policy and signed reciprocal trade treaties with many foreign governments, embracing a policy of selective tariff reduction for economic and political reasons. At present the United States is a relatively low tariff nation, although it still maintains a fairly restrictive system of import quotas. Japan also has restrictive import quotas, as well as high tariffs and other trade restrictions.\nAfter World War II, strong sentiment developed throughout the world against protection and high tariffs and in favor of freer trade. The results were new organizations and agreements on international trade such as the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade General (1948), the Benelux Economic Union (1948), the European Economic Community (Common Market, 1957), the European Free Trade Association (1959), Mercosur (the Southern Cone Common Market , 1991), and the World Trade Organization (1995). In 1993 the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was approved by the governments of Canada, Mexico, and the United States. In the early 1990s the nations of the European Union (the successor organization to the Common Market) undertook to remove all barriers to the free movement of trade and employment across their mutual borders.\nCritics of free trade zones argue that such measures are detrimental to domestic economies. In the case of NAFTA, for example, opponents contended that the jobs of some American workers would be "exported" to Mexico, where labor costs are lower. Many have continued to oppose the international impetus toward freer trade, arguing the accords not only fail to protect jobs in more developed nations but also harm workers and
40081
An objective analysis of the effect of constructing a sea-level canal across Central America is attempted. This canal, unlike the present Panama canal, has not been built, though it is a feasible proposition. The canal would run almost north-south, and would be 50 miles long. Proposed routes are noted; these resulted from a joint study by the US Army Corps of Engineers, the Atomic Energy Commission and the Panama Canal Co. in 1964. Extracts from their report are reproduced. In evaluating the report, the author takes account of some biological and physical features of the area, with particular attention to the potential effects of allowing mixing of Atlantic and Pacific biotas. The work of the Committee of Ecological Research for the Interoceanic Canal (CERIC), established to investigate the possible effects of building the canal, is reviewed. Finally, an alternative plan, involving the construction of a third, larger, set of locks on the present canal is presented, and the author concludes with the hope that ecological impact of canal building will be given as much attention as economic etc. when the decision to build, or not to build, the new canal is taken.
79467
The origin of the term is related to the way that United Fruit Company (Chiquita brand) controlled the government (overthrowing one dictator) as well as controlling the major banana crop and exports of Honduras around the turn of the last century. Many Latin American and Caribbean countries once were (and in some cases still are) dependent on bananas as their major source of export revenue. Many of these countries have also been unstable dictatorships so the term has come to mean any small country that has an unstable and corrupt dictatorship.\n\nSeveral banana companies have exerted control over small countries in the past, controlling large land plantations, major employment, and both the exports and imports of these islands through their shipping companies. Geest, a European company was once the only shipping company to call on several Caribbean islands and almost nothing was imported to these islands that did not arrive on a Geest boat.
496078
Yes, and not just in Mexico - the countries of Central America all consider their citizens who are illegally in the US working and sending money home to be heroes, too.