The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is one of the most influential and extensive treaties in the

world and is the expansion of the legacy Canada-US Free Trade Agreement of 1988 (Private Rights, 2001, Mayer, 1998). The agreement governs the whole spectrum of North American trade and it history extends from hemispheric cooperation on the largest scale ever seen (Private Rights, 2001). NATFA is a treaty between Canada, Mexico and the United States and was intended to cultivate greater trade between these three countries (Private Rights, 2001). NAFTA was put into effect in January of 1994 and has since been updated to include two significant additions, the North American Agreement for Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC) and the North American Agreement for Labor Cooperation (NAALC) (NAAEC, n.d., NAALC, n.d.). The NAAEC was an addition in response to environmentalist concerns that the United States would begin to lower its environmental standards if all three countries did not come to an agreement related to environmental regulation (NAAEC, n.d.). The NAALC augments NAFTA and attempts to create the groundwork for cooperation between the three countries for the resolution of labor issues and to promote increased cooperation between trade unions and social organizations working for improved labor conditions (NAALC, n.d.). Most recently the integration of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America has worked to encourage cooperation related to issues of national security (Security and Prosperity, n.d.). One of the most significant aspects of NAFTA is its elimination of tariffs on goods shipped between Canada, Mexico and the United States (Private Rights, 2001). United States goods were mostly sold to Canada and Mexico were accompanied with high tariffs (tax placed on imported goods) (Private Rights, 2001). As you can imagine, Mexico and Canada did not wish to incur these tariffs, as such these goods were not sold in North America. Restrictions related to motor vehicles, computers, textiles and agriculture were eventually lifted (Private Rights, 2001). The treaty protects intellectual property rights, including patents, copyrights and trademarks and outlines the removal of investment restrictions among the three countries (Private Rights, 2001). NAFTA is trilateral in its nature in that the majority of its terms apply uniformly to Canada, Mexico and the United States (XXXX). Exceptions to the trilateral nature of the agreement include exceptions in the area of agriculture where stipulations, tariff reduction phase out periods and protection of selected industries were negotiated on a bilateral basis (XXXX). Provisions related to environmental and worker protections were added later as a result of supplemental agreements (NAAEC, n.d., NAALC, n.d.).

The effects of NAFTA have been viewed as both positive and negative for the economies and cultures of the United States, Canada and Mexico.

Positive Impacts • Comparative Advantage: Conceptually everyone benefits when countries produce and sell freely what they do most efficiently. Everyone should specialize in what they do best and governments should intervene as little as possible in the process (Pros & Cons, n.d., Friedman, 2000).

d.. Friedman. • Competition: Competition encourages lower prices. 2000).. 2000). pressing social problems. • Introduction of capital and technology: For less developed countries. • Interdependence: Free trade leads to interconnections that make conflict too costly (Pros & Cons. 2000). 2001). n. n. • Infant Industries: Less developed countries have argued that they needed to protect “infant industries” so they may get them off the ground (Pros & Cons.d. 2000. like the European Union. n. environmental deterioration. immigration problems.. n.. • Defense against protectionism elsewhere: Regional free trade agreements help offset the danger of protectionism elsewhere and secure markets for exporters (Pros & Cons. etc. n. Dependency reduces the likelihood of war. Friedman. Friedman.d. • Democratization: Free Trade is thought to promote democracy because it promotes discipline and transparency (Pros & Cons.d. can be more directly addressed (Pros & Cons..)....d. but argue that it then becomes hard to take the protections off (Pros & Cons.. 2003). Friedman.d. • Functionalism: Cooperation in one area (such as trade) promotes cooperation in other areas. Free Trade agreements however have the potential to cause dislocations and attendant ripple effects in an economy. efficiency in production. stating that free trade also creates jobs and growth and that labor unions and domestic industries use this argument to push protectionism (Pros & Cons. Hufbauer & Schott. such as unemployment. the drug problem. 2000). 2000). and innovation (Pros & Cons. or illegal immigration can be alleviated by being brought into the forefront for discussion (Pros & Cons. Barrier costs are passed on to consumers and consumers are forced to buy more expensive domestically produced goods (Pros & Cons.d. Private Rights.d. 2001.. 2001). NAFTA has leverage against other large economic entities.d. Many economists see this as a valid argument. Friedman. Private Rights.• Protectionism is expensive: Tariff and non-tariff barriers (NTBs) result in higher prices for consumers. Negative Impacts • Threats to domestic industries/jobs: Many mainstream economists choose to dismiss the threat of job and industry losses. even if they create a bigger economic pie (Pros & Cons. free trade can promote the introduction of capital and technology into their economies (Pros & Cons. n. Private Rights. Freidman. n. 2005). In theory. 2000). n. Friedman. n. n.d.d. 2000). Friedman. n. n. Cox.d. . • Economic Growth: Through free trade’s promotion of economic growth..

• Too much dependency on a few products: Specialization through comparative advantage could make an economy (especially a smaller economy) too dependent on a few resources or products (Pros & Cons.7% in the 1950s. of all the countries associated..S. while Mexican GDP growth rates have averaged 2. The US allowed discriminatory practices from others after WWII.. inequality has grown and job quality has deteriorated for most workers (Scott.d. Freidman.).d. n. n. Private Rights. 2001).d. heavily subsidize their producers. but fights them now that it no longer represents the majority of the world economy (Pros & Cons. n.d. 2001). removing trade barriers with over 40 countries. This is disconcerting because developing countries should grow faster than wealthy developed countries. more than 80% of Mexican trade continues to be with the U. Mexico’s gross domestic product (GDP) however has not grown accordingly. 2006). or erect NTBs which limit trade. should not let its shipbuilding industry die simply because ships can be built cheaper in other places. 2001). and Canada has tripled since the inception of NAFTA (CIA. • Cultural Imperialism: Similarly. and post the inception of NAFTA.8% in growth since the inception of NAFTA. 2001. Media & Culture infiltration) and the loss of historic industries and values (Pros & Cons. • Harmonization downward: Free trade has the potential to force countries to lower their environmental. 2001). The Penn World Tables estimates that Mexican real per-capita GDP has averaged 1. n. economy..S. steel production is yet another example of a potential concern (Pros & Cons. Mexico appears to have been the most financially and socially impacted overall. Similarly. Private Rights. Private Rights. • Security is endangered: Protectionists argue that a country should not become so dependent that it cannot defend itself (Pros & Cons. Salas & Campbell.S. 2001). For example. They shouldn’t be able to claim our laws are unfair barriers to trade (Private Rights. 2001). labor. 2001). While there have been major benefits and disadvantages associated with NAFTA.).5% in the 1960s and 3. NAFTA has resulted in Mexico’s increased dependence on the U.. Private Rights.d). Private Rights. • Nice free traders can finish last: Governments often control exports and imports. economic catastrophe could ensue. 2001.S. 2001). 2000. Went. countries in Latin America and elsewhere worry about cultural imperialism (i.d.d. n. nice free traders can finish last. 2006).. Additionally. the U. Louie.d. 2000.e. such standards could be declared unfair trade practices by regional or international bodies (Pros & Cons. The 1980’s were the only decade where Mexican GDP did not .d. Mexican trade with the U. While Mexico has implemented numerous trade agreements. In this world. n. we should not give up our sovereignty over trade matters to regional or international bodies. 3.2% in the 1970s (n. n. If demand in those areas falls. n. Mexican wages and incomes dropped between 1991 and 1998. or other standards in order to compete (Pros & Cons. Large trade surpluses with the United States have not been enough to overcome even larger trade deficits between Mexico and the rest of its partners (Scott. Private Rights. Salas & Campbell. • Trade is a powerful policy tool: When dealing with other countries trade leverage should not be given up because of a belief in economic rationalism (Pros & Cons.. (CIA.

2001). to invest in Mexico. North American countries need to revisit the agreement and develop a model of economic integration which takes into consideration the quality of life of those most impacted. and Mexico. as well as differences in the level of health care facilities. The removal of Mexican limits on foreign investment and tariffs has made it more profitable for the U. 2001). 2003). Salas & Campbell. due mostly to maquiladora factories built near the border for the purposes of manufacturing exports to the U.S. If NAFTA is to truly bring about the benefits it has touted. resulting in decreased incomes.S. exploitive treatment of workers. 2001). health care for the citizens of Mexico has improved due to the importation of U. (Congress of the United States Congressional Budget Office.).S. 2001). 2001). health services and technology (n.grow.S. Salas & Campbell. wages and workplace safety requirements.3% growth rate (Penn Tables. manufacturing exports improved quickly. While these factories and plants have thrived under NAFTA. Wages. Increased investment has been particularly significant in the area of plants for the final assembly of products destined for the U. Any widening of the trade agreement without increased consideration for labor and social development will have far reaching and potentially irreversible negative consequences. 2001). Mexico’s inability to create higher quality jobs is reflected in the growing number of urban workers holding low productivity. remaining largely unaffected by the recession of the mid 1990 due to their limited dependence on the Mexican economy (Scott. According to several speakers at a NAFTA conference. The benefits and consequences associated with the implementation of NAFTA have been varied and broad and will most likely continue to be debated for as long as it is in place in its present state. Mexico has little to no social safety provisions and deteriorating labor conditions have been reflected primarily in lower quality jobs.d. Salas & Campbell. benefits and worker rights are consciously suppressed within maquiladoras (Scott.). low paying jobs (Scott.5 decades. availability and delivery of quality health care to all Mexican citizens is affected (Bushman. due to broad and differing income levels. Although official unemployment rates are lower in Mexico.d. here and abroad are sure to manifest (Louie.S. averaging a negative 0. after the implementation of NAFTA there has been an increase in underemployment and low paying/low productivity jobs. n. This results in atrocious working conditions due to a lack of state oversight to make the factories improve them. (Scott. 2007). 2001). NAFTA has resulted in improvements to Mexican quality of life. When big corporations are free to locate & re-locate their manufacturing plants in developing countries where labor is inexpensive. Salas & Campbell. Developing countries have to compete for the patronage of these corporations by lowering their labor standards. Salas & Campbell. and where there are no environmental and employment standards. at a rate of 16%. Between 1995 & 1999. However. Sweatshops are one of the unfortunate realities of globalization. Salas & Campbell. NAFTA has resulted in an increase in International investment between the U. they have contributed little to Mexico’s development and internal markets (Scott. rather than in the unemployment rate (Scott. . Maquiladora employment rates grew rapidly over the last 2. the nations’ citizens.

Associated Content. 10 years ago.associatedcontent. C. C.usatoday. & Schott. New York: Anchor Books Hufbauer. J. Mass: South End Press. J.S. (2006). 2008 from http://www. L. The Lexus and the Olive Tree. 2008 from USA Today website: http://www.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index. Washington. New York: Columbia University Press . F.gov/ftpdocs/42xx/doc4247/Report. (2000). Retrieved March 4. 2008 from https://www.cbo. Retrieved March 4. Louie. Retrieved March 8. The World Fact book: Mexico. T. Sweatshop warriors: immigrant women workers take on the global factory.pdf Cox.References Bushman.htm Friedman. Cambridge. (2003. DC: Institute for International Economics. J.. How NAFTA Has Affected Mexico.com/article/117131/how_nafta_has_affected_mexico. Private rights. M. January 15). Y. (2001). NAFTA revisited: achievements and challenges. G.cia. Public problems a guide to NAFTA's controversial chapter on investor rights. (2001). (2005). 2008 from Congressional Budget Office website: http://www.html?page=2&cat =3 Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). (2003). The Effects of NAFTA on U. W. Retrieved March 2. Interpreting NAFTA: The Science and Art of Political Analysis. (1998).com/money/economy/trade/2003-12-31-nafta_x. December 30). Winnipeg: International Institute for Sustainable Development.Mexican Trade and GDP. M. NAFTA was born.html Congress of the United States Congressional Budget Office. Mayer. (2007.

).naalc. 2008 from the COMMISSION FOR LABOR COOPERATION website: http://www.) Retrieved March 3. R. April 10).southerncenter.php Security and Prosperity Partnership Of North America (n.).htm Penn World Tables (n.gov/ Southern Center for International Studies (SCIS) (n. The Pros and Cons of Free Trade. 2008 from http://pwt. B. Retrieved March 14. Radical Responses. R.d. New Report Shows NAFTA Has Harmed Workers In all Three Countries.) Retrieved March 3.org/naalc.The North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC) (n. 2008 from http://www.d. DC Went.edu/php_site/pwt62/pwt62_form. Salas.org/ Scott. 2008 from http://www. (2000).aspx The North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation (NAALC) (n. WASHINGTON.econ.upenn.d. Retrieved March 3. C.spp.d. 2008 from http://www.d. (2001.. & Campbell.) Retrieved March 3. London: Pluto Press .org/dec/onlinemanual/Enforcement/InternationalCooperation/ConsistencyinLawsReg ulations/Resource/tabid/1151/Default.unep. Globalization: Neoliberal Challenge. Economic Policy Institute.

%%-.

° -.

° % @ -.

f¾f°f °° ¾½°¾  °°¯ °f¾ n°n °¾f D° f ¾  –° ¾ °°¯ °f¾f° f ¾€f n° ¾  °n¯ f°f– ¯ ° f  °°¯ °f –f°%-.

° % @ -.

f–¯ °¾ -@f° f ¯½¾n f  –° €n½ f°  °  n° ¾€   ¾°€f ¾¾ ¾f° ½¯ °n f¾ n½ f°  °f °°¾f° ¾nf –f°f°¾°–€¯½ f n° °¾%-.

° % .¾ n ° ° –f°€   nf° 9¾½ 9f° ¾½€-¯ nff¾  °nf– n½ f° f  ¾¾ ¾€°f°f¾ n% nf° 9¾½  ° % ° € ¯¾¾–°€nf°f¾½ n¾€-@ ¾¾ ¯°f°€f€€¾°– ¾¾½½   °.

nf°  D° f ¾%9f  –¾ % D° f ¾– ¾  ¯¾¾ .f°f f .

nf° .f°f ff° . n  fnn¯½f° – f€€¾%f½fn °¯½ – ¾%%9f –¾ % ¾nf°¯f–° .

f°f f  °¾°n ¾ f€€¾ f¾¾n ¾ – ¾  °¾ °-¯ nf  ¾n°¾  f ¯ n ¾ n¯½ ¾   ¾f° f–n     °f€ %9f –¾  % @  f½ n¾°  nf½½ –¾ °n °–½f °¾ n½–¾f° f ¯f¾f°  ° ¾  ¯f€° ¾¯ ° ¾n°¾f¯°–  n° ¾%9f –¾ % -@ ¾f f°¾°f °f ¯f©€¾ ¯¾f½½°€¯.

f°f f . nf°   D° f ¾%OOOO% n ½°¾ f f°f € f– ¯ °°n  n ½°¾° f f €f–n   ¾½f°¾ f€€ n°½f¾ ½  ¾f° ½ n°€¾  n  ° ¾ ¾  ° –f °f f f f¾¾%OOOO% 9¾°¾ f  °°¯ °ff°   ½ n°¾  f f f¾f ¾€¾½½ ¯ °ff– ¯ °¾%-.

° -.

° %   @  €€ n¾€-@f  °  f¾ ½¾ f° ° –f €  n°¯ ¾f° n ¾€  D° f ¾ .

f°f ff° . n   9¾ ¯½fn¾ % .

¯½ff  f°f– .

°n ½f  °  ° €¾ °n° ¾½ n f° ¾  € f  ¯¾ €€n °  ° ¾ ¾½ nf °f   ¾f° – °¯ °¾ ¾ °  ° f¾ f¾½¾¾  ° ½n ¾¾%9¾ .

°¾ °  ¯f° %  .

% 9 n°¾¯¾ ½ °¾ @f€€f° °° f€€ f ¾%-@ ¾% ¾°– ½n ¾€ n°¾¯ ¾  f n¾¾f ½f¾¾ °n°¾¯ ¾f° n°¾¯ ¾f €n  ¯  ½ °¾  ¯ ¾nf½ n – ¾%9¾ .

°¾ °  ¯f° %  % .

¯½ ° .

¯½ ° °nf– ¾ ½n ¾  €€n °n°½ n° f° °°f° %9¾ .

°¾ °  ¯f° %  % °n°f¾¯ .

½ f°°° f f%¾nf¾f %½¯ ¾n½ f°° f f¾ °     –½  ¯ ¯¯–f°½  ¯¾  n nf° ¯   nf  ¾¾ %9¾ .

°¾ °   ¯f° %  % °  ½ ° °n  f  f ¾° n°° n°¾f¯f n°€nn¾%9¾  .

°¾ °  ¯f°  € f  n %  ½ ° °n n ¾   €f  % n°¯n @–€ f #¾½¯°€ n°¯n– ½ ¾¾°–¾nf ½  ¯¾ ¾nf¾° ¯½¯ °  °°¯ °f  f°  –f¯¯–f°nf° f f   °– –° € €°€ ¾n¾¾°%9¾ .

°¾ °  ¯f° %  %  € °¾ f–f°¾½ n°¾¯ ¾     –°f€ f f– ¯ °¾ ½€€¾   f°– €½ n°¾¯ ¾   f° ¾ n ¯f ¾€ ½ ¾%9¾ .

°¾ ° % -@f¾   f– f–f°¾ f–  n°¯n ° ¾   ½ f°D°°  % ° n°€nf½ff°  n°–  ¾¾  ½ n° ¾ € f nf°½¯   ° n°€nf½ff°  n°–°  n°¯ ¾%9¾ .

°¾ °  ¯f° %  %  ¯nff°   @f ¾–½¯  ¯nfn nf¾ ½¯ ¾ ¾n½° f° f°¾½f °n%9¾ .

f°¯f°¾ f¯ n°¯¾¾n¾  ¾¯¾¾   f€© f° ° ¾¾¾ ¾ ¾f°–f€ f f¾n f ¾© ¾f° –f° ff  °°¾f°  ¯ ¾n° ¾ ¾¾ ¾f–¯ °½¾½ n°¾¯%9¾ .°¾ °  ¯f° %   - –f ¯½fn¾ % @ f¾ ¯ ¾n° ¾ ¾$© ¾  .

°¾ °   ¯f°  %  @f f– ¯ °¾  f  ½ °fnf¾  ¾nf°¾f° f ° f°½½  €€ n¾°f° n°¯   °€ n f f ––  n°¯n½ %9¾ .

°¾ ° 9f –¾   .

 %   % °€f°° ¾ ¾   ¾¾  ½ n° ¾f f– f ° ½ n #°€f°° ¾ ¾#¾ ¯f–  ¯€€ –° %9¾ .

f° n°¯¾¾¾ ¾f¾ff f–¯ °  f– f ° n¯ ¾f f  ½ n°¾€€ %9¾ .°¾ ° 9f –¾ % .

°¾ ° 9f –¾ %  .

% @¯n ½ ° °n°f€ ½ n¾  ½ nff°–n¯½ff f f°f–  n ¯f f° n°¯% ¾½ nff¾¯f  n°¯% ½ ° °°f€  ¾n ¾½ n¾ %9¾ .

°¾ ° % € ¯f° °¾ f f¾€f¾  n°¯nnff¾½ n  °¾  % -n € f ¾nf°€°¾f¾  °¯ °¾€ °n° ½¾f° ¯½¾  f ¾ ¾   ½ n ¾   n-@ ¾n¯f °¾ °n € f ¾nf°€°¾f¾  @ Df  ¾n¯°f½fnn ¾€¯ ¾f€ JJ  €–¾ ¯°f°°–   ½ ¾ °¾ ¯f©€   n°¯%9¾ .

°¾ ° %  %  n¾ ° f°–  9 n°¾¾f– ffn°¾ ° n¯ ¾ ½ ° ° fnf°° € ° ¾ €%9¾ .

°¾ ° 9f –¾ %  f¯½  D  ¾ °  ¾¾½  °–° ¾  ¾¯½ nf¾ ¾½¾nf°  n f½ ° ½fn ¾ ¾ ½ n° ¾ f°  f¯½ €f½ °fn°n °%9¾ .

°¾ ° 9f –¾ %  % .

f¯½ f¾¯ ¯f n° ¾°f°¯ nff°  ¾   f nf ¯½ f¾¯% . f .

 °€f°%f°  ¾¾€¾n° ¾ ¾f° f ¾%9¾ .

°¾  ° 9f –¾ %  % @f ¾f½ €½n  J ° f°– n° ¾f   f– ¾ ° – °½ nf¾ €f  €° n°¯nf°f¾¯%9¾ .

°¾ ° 9f –¾ %  ¯f  ¾ °– ½¾  –° f ¯f ¾ –°f° °f°f   ¾  @ ¾ °# f  nf¯f¾f °€f f ¾f %9f –¾   % f¯°f° °f  f f¾ ½ °f€n n° ¾   °°¯ °f f   ¾f° f ¾° n¯½  %9¾ .

°¾ ° 9f –¾     ¯f°  J °   %  °f ¾n¾f° f ¾n   nf °€ff  ½fnn ¾  –°f° °f°f   ¾%9¾ .

°¾ ° 9f –¾ %   J   f  °¯f© ° €¾f°  ¾f f°f– ¾f¾¾nf -@ €f n° ¾ f¾¾nf . nf°   ¾€¾½f° ¾%n ff¾ . nf½½ f¾f  ° ¯¾€°f°nff° ¾nf¯½fn  f f– f  ¾½¾ ¾ D° f ¾f ° ° °– n¯   °f– f  €n¾  ° .

f¯½  % . nf°f– ¾f° °n¯ ¾ ½½   °f°  f° ½¾ °n ½°€-@ ° ff¾–°f° © f f¾  f €¯¾ ¾%n ff¾ .

nf¾¯½ ¯ ° °¯ ¾f  f– ¯ °¾  ¯°–f  f ¾ n° ¾ ¯ f° €. n#¾ °n f¾  ½ ° °n ° D   n°¯ J . nf°f n°° ¾   D  %.f¯½  % -@f¾ ¾ °.

nf°f  D  f° . % .

f°f ff¾½ ¾°n  °n ½° €-@%.

 % . nf° f½  nf½f9f¾f f–   °–¾°n   °n ½°€-@  . n#¾–¾¾ ¯ ¾n½ n%9%  f¾°–°fnn °– @  9 °°J @f  ¾ ¾¯f ¾f. nf°9  ° . nf°9–f ¾f f f–   ° ¾   °  ¾f°   ° ¾%° % @¾¾ ¾n°n °– nf¾   ½°–n° ¾¾ – €f¾ f° f  ½ n° ¾ @ #¾   ° nf   .

n @  ¯f€. nf°¯¾°€ –° ° ¾¯ °f° f€€¾f¾¯f ¯ ½€f  € D  ° ¾°.– f f–°–f° –f   –f %9 °°@f  ¾ ° % -@f¾ ¾ °f°°n f¾ ° ° °f°f° ¾¯ °  ° D  f° . n °n f¾  ° ¾¯ °f¾ °½fnf¾–°€nf°° f f€½f°¾€ €°ff¾¾ ¯ €½ n¾ ¾° € D  %.

°– ¾¾€ D° f ¾.

°– ¾¾°f  – €€n %   °  ¯f°€fn°– ½¾¯½ n fff €   ¯¾¯ff f€fn ¾ ° f   € ½½¾ ¾€¯f°€fn°– ½¾ D  %n ff¾ .

f¯½   % .ff f ¯½¯ °f ¾– f½   f¾  nf ¾  ¯f°°–f–  °f€€ n    n ¾¾°€ ¯    ¯  ½ ° °n ° . nf° n°¯ %n ff¾ .

n#¾  ½¯ °f° ° °f¯f ¾%n ff¾ .f¯½  % J  ¾ €fn ¾f° ½f°¾f  ° -@  f  n°   .

f¯½  %  Jf– ¾  ° €¾f°  –¾f n°¾n¾¾½½ ¾¾ °¯ff f¾%n ff¾  .

f¯½  % . nf¾ °¾nf¾f€ ½¾°¾f°   f°–f n° °¾f  ° € n ½¯f° f© ¾ f f°° ° ¯½¯ °f %n ff¾  .

f¯½  % . n#¾°f n f – f© ¾¾ € n ° –°–°¯ €  f° ¾ °–½ n ½f°–© ¾%n ff¾ .

nf¾¯½    ¯½f°€D    f¾ n ¾f°  n°–%° %       f f°  €€ °–°n¯   ¾ f¾ f¾ €€  °n ¾°   € fnf €fn ¾ fff f°   €f fnf f .f¯½  % – €€nf° ¯½¯ °f ¾f  °. nf°n °¾¾f€€ n % ¾¯f° %   @  ° €¾f° n°¾  °n ¾f¾¾nf  ¯½ ¯ °f°€-@f  °f f°  f f° ¯¾ n°°   f €f¾°–f¾¾°½fn °¾½ ¾ °¾f °  °°–€ f f– ¯ °°n f¾ n°¾ f°€f f° ¾nf  ½¯ ° f €f fn°–f° ½ °f  ¾  ° –f n°¾  °n ¾ €-@¾ °–f    ° €¾f¾ -¯ nf°n° ¾°  ¾ f– ¯ °f°   ½f¯  € n°¯n° –f°nf ¾°n°¾ f° f€€ €¾ ¯¾¯½fn   °f°¾#n °¾    . n f€  ¯½ ¯ °f°€-@  f¾ °f° °n f¾ °°  ¯½¯ °f° ½f°–$½ n© ¾  ¾°–° n f¾ °n¯ ¾   f¾½¾f ° € °€°f  f ¾€– ff° J ° –n½f°¾f €  nf   nf  ¯f°€fn°–½f°¾°  ½°–n° ¾  f ¾° ½ °¾ f°      f ° °°¯ °ff°  ¯½¯ °¾f° f ¾  ½  f¯ °€ ¾    f° f f f ¾ ¯f°€ ¾% %   ½°–n° ¾f n¯½  € ½f°f–  € ¾ n½f°¾  °– f ¾f° f ¾ f– ¾f° ½fn ¾f€   ¯ °¾ @¾  ¾¾°fn¾°–n° °¾  ffn€¾f  ¾–¯f  €fn ¾¯½   ¯ -@f¾ ¾ °¯½ ¯ °¾. nf°f€€ nn °–¾  f¾½ f ¾ff -@n°€  °n  fnf € n °¾€.

% f°f% -@f¾€€ n . €  °n ¾  ¾¯f° . n ¾¾nf .

fn €¯ ½ $$ f¾¾nf n° ° n¯$fn $$%°f€f%f¾%f€€ n %¯ n ¯"½f–  nf   .° °     .

°f° – °n – °n%.

n    .fn €¯ ½¾ $$ nf –$ f$½ nf°¾$  €fn $°  ¯  .% %% @ J fn  .

°– ¾¾€ D° f ¾.

nf°@f f° 9    .fn €¯.°– ¾¾°f  – €€n %% @ €€ n¾€-@°D  .

°– ¾¾°f  – €€n  ¾  ½ $$ n  –$€½ n¾$$ n$ ½ ½ €  .

  %  n ¯ %  f¾f– -@f¾ °    .fn €¯D@ f  ¾ ½ $$ ¾f f n¯$¯° $ n°¯$f $   °f€f% ¯   ¯f° @  %% @  ¾f°   @ -  °n ¾  € f   .

 n   %% -@ ¾ fn  ¯ °¾f° nf °– ¾ Jf¾°–° .

 °¾ €° °f°fn°¯n¾   9f –¾ 9 n½  ¯¾f– -@ ¾n° ¾fnf½ °° ¾–¾ %%  J°°½ – ° °f°f°¾ €¾f°f    ½¯ °    . .

 %%  f¾½f¾ ¯¯–f°¯ ° ¾f ° – f€fn  .

f   J %% ° ½ °–-@ @ n °n f° €9nf°f¾¾ -  .f¾¾ ° 9 ¾¾   .f¯  – .

¯ f D° ¾9 ¾¾ .

 @ -¯ nf°– ¯ °°°°¯ °f.

½ f°%-.

fn  €¯ ½ $$ ° ½ –$ n$°° ¯f°f$°€n ¯ °$° °f°f.%%° %   .

½ f°$.

°¾¾ °n°f¾ – f°¾$ ¾n $f  $$ €f f¾½  @ -¯ nf°– ¯ °°f .

½ f°%-.

fn €¯  .%%° %    .

.- ..

fn €¯ ½ $$ ¾½½ –$   °.fn €¯ ½ $$½ n° ½ °° $½½%¾ $½$½%€¯ ½½   nf° 9¾½ 9f° ¾½€-¯ nf%° %   .9@- ¾ ½ $$ °ffn –$°ffn ¯  9 °°J @f  ¾%° %   .

° €° °f°f  ¾%.

%%° % @ 9¾f° .

°¾€ @f     .fn €¯½ $$ ¾ °n °  –$  n  ff¾ .

 .

f¯½   % ½% -  ½¾-@f¾f¯ J ¾°f @ .

° ¾ n°¯n9n°¾ J-@..

  J °  %%  ff° -  f.

f °– f nf ¾½°¾ ¾ ° ° 99 ¾¾ .