Why did Bombardier deliberately tap into the three member countries in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), instead of concentrating its work in one country? Our text, Global3, defines regional economic integration as efforts to reduce trade and investment barriers within on region (Peng, 2016, p, 117). Nations are interested in themselves. It is about growing and advancing, and exploring how other nations can assist in that growth. Moreover, how it can utilize its economic integrations to boost exchange amongst neighboring nations. The North American Free Trade agreement (NAFTA) is “a treaty between Canada, the United States and Mexico” (Amadeo, 2017). In additions, these three countries have come to agreement to remove all trade
…show more content…
It was a brilliant connection, as we want to get along with our neighboring nations. What better way to do it than through investments and good relationships. It seems like a win-win situation. However, NAFTA has cons. For example, the United States has lost many job opportunities for its residence because Mexico residence are less funds. Moreover, if the United States employees chose to keep their jobs they had to accept them at a lower wage. In the end, free trade is the most logical form of financial collaboration. It allows free flowing communication and make it easy to develop exchange strategies. In addition, it opens job opportunities for all nations. When we choose to release the barriers of work development, the joint financial can extend to job opportunities. In our text Peng writes “the three economic benefits of global integration are constructive dispute settlement, streamlined trade polices, and increase worldwide income through job creation and economic growth” (2016). The collaboration with NAFTA touches on all three economic benefits. It addition, by adding in Europe the word “peace” is able to expand through another nation. Moreover, create job opportunities for more residence in nations. Again, we stress that …show more content…
So why the addition of Europe? What it came down to was having quality parts for a quality project. Europe was able to provide high-tempered and high-pressure techniques. “The Learjet 85’s fuselage is a single composite section approximately one-inch thick without these structures” (Huber, 2011). In addition Bombardier had already done testing on the Learjet 85’s composite panels at European laboratories, while also working to formulate passive technology solutions for the fuselage (2011). Having this history, and being aware of Europe’s capabilities insured that they would be a great nation to collaborate with. Moreover, it also assisted in giving opportunity to Europe for future market opportunities, and suggest that relationships can be made between other nations. Moreover, Europe was more technologically advance. This gave them the opportunity to take advantage of those technological skills in the Learjet 85 project. Moreover, it is an opportunity for expanding. Being able to expand the market and the company into Europe. This would be a great advantage as it now has one less competitors. As I stated in question one, nations worry about nations. If everyone can gain a positive outcome from a collaboration amongst each other, any future collaborations will prove a success. For example,
It was a brilliant connection, as we want to get along with our neighboring nations. What better way to do it than through investments and good relationships. It seems like a win-win situation. However, NAFTA has cons. For example, the United States has lost many job opportunities for its residence because Mexico residence are less funds. Moreover, if the United States employees chose to keep their jobs they had to accept them at a lower wage. In the end, free trade is the most logical form of financial collaboration. It allows free flowing communication and make it easy to develop exchange strategies. In addition, it opens job opportunities for all nations. When we choose to release the barriers of work development, the joint financial can extend to job opportunities. In our text Peng writes “the three economic benefits of global integration are constructive dispute settlement, streamlined trade polices, and increase worldwide income through job creation and economic growth” (2016). The collaboration with NAFTA touches on all three economic benefits. It addition, by adding in Europe the word “peace” is able to expand through another nation. Moreover, create job opportunities for more residence in nations. Again, we stress that …show more content…
So why the addition of Europe? What it came down to was having quality parts for a quality project. Europe was able to provide high-tempered and high-pressure techniques. “The Learjet 85’s fuselage is a single composite section approximately one-inch thick without these structures” (Huber, 2011). In addition Bombardier had already done testing on the Learjet 85’s composite panels at European laboratories, while also working to formulate passive technology solutions for the fuselage (2011). Having this history, and being aware of Europe’s capabilities insured that they would be a great nation to collaborate with. Moreover, it also assisted in giving opportunity to Europe for future market opportunities, and suggest that relationships can be made between other nations. Moreover, Europe was more technologically advance. This gave them the opportunity to take advantage of those technological skills in the Learjet 85 project. Moreover, it is an opportunity for expanding. Being able to expand the market and the company into Europe. This would be a great advantage as it now has one less competitors. As I stated in question one, nations worry about nations. If everyone can gain a positive outcome from a collaboration amongst each other, any future collaborations will prove a success. For example,