Based on the quote, critics of NAFTA might have claimed that:
A) Mexican workers would be unfairly taken advantage of
<h3>What can be deduced about the critics of NAFTA from the text?</h3>
The critics of NAFTA believe that Mexico was not as strong as the other countries who entered the trade agreement so the possibility that they will be taken advantage of was there.
Having read the above statement from the 1993 agreement of NAFTA, we can see that the reference to the United Mexican states must have proved that the union was needed to stand side by side with the American and Canadian states.
Critics might have believed that Mexico was vulnerable and could be unfairly taken advantage of in the deal.
Learn more about NAFTA here:
brainly.com/question/27372794
#SPJ1
Answer:
a rise in national economic growth rates. a reduction in imports and a rise in exports. a rise in the number of health care professionals. a drop in the number and productivity of workers
Explanation:
In 1929, ongoing economic issues led to the stock market crash in the United States of America. This was the first signal for the coming Great Depression. The Wall Street crash happened in the month of October. This not only created economic problems for the United States but also for the European countries.<span />
Answer: Populism from the Latin word "Populus," which in translation would mean the people.
Explanation:
Similar to the notion of democracy, populism implies a rule that is in the service of the people. It is the opposite of government, which includes in its interest group a small group of people whose interests are defended, which is the case with aristocracy and plutocracy. And if they are similar synonyms, democracy today implies positive connotations in public, while populism is taken in the context of the negative.
This is because the strategy of populism is based on using the sensibilities of society, their essential life issues for political purposes. For example, it is possible to take two groups, which are separated by different antagonisms. On the one hand, it is an ordinary people and on the other a corrupt elite who argue that politics should be an expression of the will of the people
<span>Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted</span>
