- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Tom Donohue is livid. Re: NAFTA
Posted on 10/10/17 at 5:05 pm
Posted on 10/10/17 at 5:05 pm
quote:
MEXICO CITY/WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The most powerful U.S. business lobby accused the Trump administration of making “poison pill proposals” to sabotage NAFTA on Tuesday, as Mexico’s foreign minister said the demise of the regional trade pact would hurt bilateral cooperation.
Agreement has turned increasingly acrimonious. Mexico accuses U.S. President Donald Trump of spoiling for a “protectionist war” with proposals aimed at balancing trade.
Mexican Foreign Minister Luis Videgaray said on Tuesday that an end to NAFTA would mark a breaking point in U.S.-Mexican relations and affect bilateral cooperation in other areas.
Mexico is a key partner of the United States in fighting drug trafficking and stemming illegal immigration across the U.S. southern border.
Videgaray spoke after Trump warned again that he would like to scrap the treaty that created one of the world’s biggest trade blocs.
“I happen to think that NAFTA will have to be terminated if we’re going to make it good,” Trump said in an interview with Forbes published on Tuesday.
The Mexican peso weakened for the fifth straight session on Tuesday amid the increased tensions, and hit its weakest level against the dollar since early June.
A fourth round of negotiations starting in Washington on Wednesday to modernize NAFTA has been prolonged by two days to Oct. 17, two sources in Mexico said.
Trump’s hardline position did not appear to have wide support ahead of the talks, with many U.S. businesses and farmers lining up to back the existing agreement.
Speaking in Mexico City, Thomas Donohue, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s president and chief executive, listed several U.S. proposals that he said would undermine $1 trillion in annual trilateral trade, including a “sunset clause” to force regular negotiations.
His comments marked the second broadside the chamber has launched against the Trump administration’s stance on NAFTA in less than a week. It has argued repeatedly that the trade pact is critical to U.S. industries such as agriculture and manufacturing.
“There are several poison pill proposals still on the table that could doom the entire deal,” Donohue said at an event hosted by the American Chamber of Commerce of Mexico, where he said the “existential threat” to NAFTA threatened regional security.
U.S. officials have suggested incorporating a sunset clause in NAFTA that would kill it unless it was renegotiated every five years. The officials have also suggested eliminating a key dispute resolution mechanism, much to the dismay of Canada.
Donohue singled out plans to make automakers source more parts in North America, as well as proposed changes to the dispute resolution mechanism as obstacles to NAFTA’s renewal. He also cited plans to limit Canadian and Mexican access to U.S. government procurement rules.
Automakers in Mexico say excessive content requirements could do serious damage to the industry’s competitiveness.
“The impact would be the opposite of what’s intended: U.S. industry would source more inputs from Asia and less from the U.S. That’s right — this proposal would actually send business overseas,” Donohue said.
He also slammed the emphasis placed by the White House on reducing the U.S. trade deficit.
“It’s the wrong focus and is impossible to achieve without crippling the economy,” he said.
The chamber sent a letter to the White House on Tuesday signed by more than 300 local U.S. business groups in support of NAFTA.
The United States, Mexico and Canada began renegotiating NAFTA this summer.
Trump has repeatedly threatened to withdraw if he does not win concessions to reduce a U.S. trade deficit of around $64 billion with Mexico.
“The president has strongly criticized this agreement for years. We realize that as bad as it has been for us, it has been great for Mexico and Canada. Naturally they will defend this lopsided accord,” U.S. trade Representative Robert Lighthizer said on Tuesday.
“To rebalance will require substantial change and not mere tweaking. The president has vowed to bring jobs and investment back to America. We will do no less,” he added.
LINK
Say what you want about Trump but you cannot say he is inconstant on the issue of trade. He has had the same message for decades.
Trump fights for Americians.
Tom Donohue and his Uniparty lackeys (McConnell, Schumer, et al) fight for Mexico, Canada and China (yes China, b/c Mexico and Canada source a lot of their goods from China and they are sold backdoor though NAFTA violating the spirit of NAFTA).
Posted on 10/10/17 at 5:11 pm to GumboPot
quote:
Mexico is a key partner of the United States in fighting drug trafficking and stemming illegal immigration across the U.S. southern border.
They have done a horrible job.
Posted on 10/10/17 at 5:12 pm to GumboPot
quote:
Mexico is a key partner of the United States in fighting drug trafficking and stemming illegal immigration across the U.S. southern border
This has to be a joke.
Posted on 10/10/17 at 5:13 pm to Revelator
Yeah. This is not a bad thing for Trump.
Posted on 10/10/17 at 5:14 pm to Magician2
quote:quote:
Mexico is a key partner of the United States in fighting drug trafficking and stemming illegal immigration across the U.S. southern border
This has to be a joke.
That is pretty damn funny.
Posted on 10/10/17 at 5:15 pm to GumboPot
quote:
Mexico is a key partner of the United States in fighting drug trafficking and stemming illegal immigration across the U.S. southern border.
Posted on 10/10/17 at 5:16 pm to GumboPot
quote:Screw him!
Tom Donohue is livid
Posted on 10/10/17 at 5:16 pm to udtiger
Screw Pedro, Juan, Esteban, and Donohue. The Mexicans have been running roughshod over us for ages. Not any more.
They have NOTHING we need. NOTHING. Can they say the same? They best learn to behave and get to the table and talk while we still let them.
We could wall them off shut them out and that place would rot.
They have NOTHING we need. NOTHING. Can they say the same? They best learn to behave and get to the table and talk while we still let them.
We could wall them off shut them out and that place would rot.
This post was edited on 10/10/17 at 5:18 pm
Posted on 10/10/17 at 5:24 pm to GumboPot
quote:
Mexico is a key partner of the United States in fighting drug trafficking and stemming illegal immigration across the U.S. southern border
Who can say this with a straight face?
Posted on 10/10/17 at 5:28 pm to GumboPot
quote:This is true. But if someone points out one of the many issues where he has been completely inconsistent, with fundamentally opposite positions, even within the last few years, it's immediately dismissed.
Say what you want about Trump but you cannot say he is inconstant on the issue of trade. He has had the same message for decades.
So if inconsistency doesn't matter, and isn't a problem, then how can consistency be important and a positive? Or conversely how can consistency be a positive, and inconsistency not be a problem?
This is inconsistent.
This post was edited on 10/10/17 at 5:31 pm
Posted on 10/10/17 at 5:51 pm to GumboPot
A ton of folks my parents age still remember Ross Perot in 1992 railing against NAFTA on the campaign trail and warning that it would move jobs to Mexico and simultaneously lower the wages of many working class Americans. He has been proven correct and Trump is wise to keep that hard-line stance.
Posted on 10/10/17 at 6:01 pm to GumboPot
We really are moving closer to a parliamentarian system in that there are three parties who will have to cobble together a compromise to get legislation through to the executive. The ruling part won’t choose the President like a PM, but being President won’t guarantee your party gets through its legislation either. Very strange reshuffling going on that will likely lead to gridlock for awhile.
Problem is this schism is relatively new and the GOPe and the Freedon Caucus/Bannon/Trump group are still trying to feel each other out.
Problem is this schism is relatively new and the GOPe and the Freedon Caucus/Bannon/Trump group are still trying to feel each other out.
This post was edited on 10/10/17 at 6:03 pm
Posted on 10/10/17 at 6:01 pm to SCLibertarian
quote:And he would have been right about the jobs whether NAFTA happened or not, because many have been replaced, not just by outsourced but by more efficient, productive, and effective technologies. Again. While manufacturing jobs have deceased, manufacturing output, efficiency, and productivity had increased HERE.
A ton of folks my parents age still remember Ross Perot in 1992 railing against NAFTA on the campaign trail and warning that it would move jobs to Mexico and simultaneously lower the wages of many working class Americans
So cheap, outsourced labor likely exacerbated it, but then again, but there is no guarantee that those jobs wouldn't have been replaced by technology and that it would have further incentivized the technology need of those specific jobs.
Plus this ignores any benefits to the broader consumer. If consumers spend more on product A because of labor, then that's less consumers have to spend on everything else.
This post was edited on 10/10/17 at 6:05 pm
Posted on 10/10/17 at 6:13 pm to SCLibertarian
But even if Ross Perot was right in 1992, we're now 25 years later, and manufacturing jobs are even more replaceable and increasingly so. Plus our economy had evolved away from it anyways.
Policy that focuses on those who were right about the costs at the time and those subsequent costs, can make for untimely and ineffective policies, essentially a variation of the sunk-costs fallacy, but instead of keeping the policy in place, it's using the previous costs to justify a policy decades before. I'm sure there is a more appropriate name for this.
Policy that focuses on those who were right about the costs at the time and those subsequent costs, can make for untimely and ineffective policies, essentially a variation of the sunk-costs fallacy, but instead of keeping the policy in place, it's using the previous costs to justify a policy decades before. I'm sure there is a more appropriate name for this.
This post was edited on 10/10/17 at 6:18 pm
Posted on 10/10/17 at 6:13 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
And he would have been right about the jobs whether NAFTA happened or not, because many have been replaced, not just by outsourced but by more efficient, productive, and effective technologies. Again. While manufacturing jobs have deceased, manufacturing output, efficiency, and productivity had increased HERE. So cheap, outsourced labor likely exacerbated it, but then again, but there is no guarantee that those jobs wouldn't have been replaced by technology and that it would have further incentivized the technology need of those specific jobs. Plus this ignores any benefits to the broader consumer
I'll let my 3 brothers and 2 sisters that worked for Mead Paper Co until 2001, that their jobs were doomed regardless if NAFTA existed or not. They had the pleasure of training their Mexican replacements and then got to help tear down the production equipment, put it on pallets, load it on flat bed rail cars and wave goodbye to 3 generations of employment for our family. Mead cut their production costs over 50% but the price of their products didn't drop one penny.
Posted on 10/10/17 at 6:14 pm to GumboPot
quote:No they aren't.
Mexico is a key partner of the United States in fighting drug trafficking and stemming illegal immigration across the U.S. southern border.
Posted on 10/10/17 at 6:18 pm to GumboPot
quote:
The officials have also suggested eliminating a key dispute resolution mechanism
For all the complaining Trumpkins do about other countries cheating on these trade agreements, this is a very weird thing for them to be cheering. Why would the administration seek to make it more likely that someone shirks?
What they should be doing is strengthening the dispute resolution mechanism as much as possible- if they actually care about parties following the agreement. Weakening it is stupid, stupid, stupid if they actually value "fair trade"
Hmm. It's almost as if they want the reduction in international trade that would result from the deal falling apart to actually happen.
Posted on 10/10/17 at 6:23 pm to GumboPot
quote:
Mexico is a key partner of the United States in fighting drug trafficking and stemming illegal immigration across the U.S. southern border.
Oh no! How will we ever recover?!
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News