NAFTA Dead?

[rangerx]

One of Trump's primary platforms is to abolish NAFTA. Renegotiate the deal.

 

Is reneging without it's penalties?

 

Is putting "America first" a good faith bargaining position?

 

Is being cutting off from oil, hydro power, wood and water negotiating from a position of strength?

 

Why should sovereign countries like Canada or Mexico be obligated to negotiate, no less litigate or agree to anything?

 

Trump wants to put a 35% tax on all goods imported from Mexico and Canada. Why wouldn't Canada and Mexico will reinstate pre-NAFTA counter-veil duties in response?

[Phi for All]

Let's hope the owners of the china shops don't decide that several smaller customers might be preferable to one bull.

[Ten oz]

Oddly, the majority of people I have spoken to who admittedly voted Trump have all expressed some variation of "he isn't really going to do any of the stuff he said he would". I have seen it applied to his position on trade, immigration, healthcare, and etc. It is frightening that people would vote for someone in the assumption thier (the candidate) is lying.

 

Trump has said he will make "great deals" the specifics have not followed. Or if they have I am not familiar with them. Hopefully the folks who voted for him are right and what Trump has said is serious and he didn't mean it.

[Phi for All]

Oddly, the majority of people I have spoken to who admittedly voted Trump have all expressed some variation of "he isn't really going to do any of the stuff he said he would". I have seen it applied to his position on trade, immigration, healthcare, and etc. It is frightening that people would vote for someone in the assumption thier (the candidate) is lying.

 

You're right, every Trump supporter I know has had to do a massive amount of cherry-picking to make the vote palatable. They wanted the tax breaks, and are convinced he won't punish women who get abortions. They wanted him to throw Hillary in jail, and can't imagine his secret dealings with Russia during a campaign where the Russians hacked the opposition party HQ were in any way illegal. They wanted him to stand up to Wall Street (?!), and don't believe he'll insult neighboring Mexico by insisting they pay for a wall between us.

[waitforufo]

Canada is ready to renegotiate.

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/canada-pm-trudeau-says-ready-renegotiate-nafta-trump-165713892.html

[Phi for All]

Canada is ready to renegotiate.

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/canada-pm-trudeau-says-ready-renegotiate-nafta-trump-165713892.html

 

In a deal that increases their market share by excluding Mexico? Why wouldn't they be?

 

What I don't get is why Trump, who uses low-cost labor from Mexico and China in his businesses, now thinks it's bad for America? And why does he favor Canada's higher labor costs? Does he think Trudeau is going to opt for a lower Canadian rate?

 

It looks more like Trump is trying to screw over Mexico as a country. The more he destabilizes their economy by shutting them out, the more he talks about his wall so investors pull out of deals, the more desperate the Mexicans become, the more ripe for corporate exploitation. He has a very extreme view of our neighbors to the south. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the color of their skin, nothing.

 

I think I understand why Trump doesn't like trade deals. He doesn't want fairness and equity, he wants to screw over his opponent, crush them in the deal so they get nothing and he gets everything. That's been his defining character for as long as I've followed him.

[rangerx]

Canada is ready to renegotiate.

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/canada-pm-trudeau-says-ready-renegotiate-nafta-trump-165713892.html

 

Yes. Trudeau is open to discussion, but don't hold your breath that any new deal will be struck, no less from an "America first" standpoint.

 

While I doubt Trump would attempt to remove the intellectual property rights, he might try to remove the environmental controls.

 

Whether America likes it or not, Canada is a member of the Paris Agreement and Trudeau was given the mandate in his election to office. Canada will never allow it to be tabled unless it comes from Canadians themselves, not foreign noise makers.

 

That brings us to agriculture.

 

From the outset, agriculture was (and still remains) a controversial topic within NAFTA. As little as Americans would like to admit, agriculture in the United States is highly socialized. The government subsidizes the industry broadly, by providing public lands to farming and ranching. Additionally, corn production is highly subsidized.

 

Agriculture is the only section that was not negotiated trilaterally; instead, three separate agreements were signed between each pair of parties. The Canada–U.S. agreement contains significant restrictions and tariff quotas on agricultural products (mainly sugar, dairy, and poultry products), whereas the Mexico–U.S. pact allows for a wider liberalization within a framework of phase-out periods.

 

It's not the only thing that's highly subsidized in the USA either. The National Hockey League, for example. Canadian governments have no involvement in the promotion of the product nor the provision of funds for stadiums. That's not the case in the USA, where local or state government are often it's greatest contributor.

 

Then there's softwood lumber. For Canadians, it's America's glowing double standard, guaranteed to rear it's ugly head and a will be a great peril for Trump from the outset. Up until 2012, the USA applied counter-veil duties on lumber imports.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada%E2%80%93United_States_softwood_lumber_dispute

 

Having endured this acrimony through the entire trade negotiation process and for years thereafter, it's unlikely Canada with sit down to negotiations with the same or similar "bad faith" policies from America on the table.

[MigL]

So D Trump wants to re-negotiate NAFTA.

NAFTA is approx. 25 yrs old.

Do you know how many times NAFTA has already been re-negotiated ?

[Phi for All]

So D Trump wants to re-negotiate NAFTA.

NAFTA is approx. 25 yrs old.

Do you know how many times NAFTA has already been re-negotiated ?

 

Has it ever been renegotiated by a man who is admired by his base as a ruthless, domineering, hardball businessman? The People who elected him don't care you're our neighbor, they care about winning, about not only making a good deal but also leaving you hurting because of our awesome, artful deal-making abilities.

 

Trump once purchased draperies for a hotel. The draper delivered part of the shipment, Trump refused to pay, so the draper told Trump he was holding back delivery of the remainder. Trump had the sheriff's department raid the draper's factory and seize the fabric. Trump forced the draper into a settlement that shorted the guy almost $400,000.

 

That's not business. That's thievery. He's a crook, worse than Nixon could have ever hoped to be.

[rangerx]

Do you know how many times NAFTA has already been re-negotiated ?

 

I think none.

 

The original agreement several took years.

 

MigL makes a good point. There's nothing in there to be renegotiated. It was a political talking point for Trump (the first words out of his mouth) to bilk workers from the mid-west into voting for him. And to slight Mexico.

 

It put Canada needlessly at risk, though the DOW bounced back. The credit goes to Obama for that. That's what a real leader does. Had Trump lost and contested, it would have caused serious damage.

 

A broken promise. They'll remember that in 2020.

Edited November 11, 2016 by rangerx

[MigL]

On the contrary, there are almost yearly amendments and regulatory changes to NAFTA.

All involve discussions/negotiations among the members.

( google NAFTA amendments )

[rangerx]

On the contrary, there are almost yearly amendments and regulatory changes to NAFTA.

All involve discussions/negotiations among the members.

( google NAFTA amendments )

 

I did that and yes, there are many. Most were a matter of course and others to reflect changing times.

 

That's a far cry from scrapping the deal then renegotiating it from an America first standpoint, which is what Trump proposed to do.

 

So at the end of the day, it's still a broken promise.

Trump called NAFTA "a disaster" in every stump speech.

 

"I intend to immediately renegotiate the terms of that agreement to get a better deal for our workers. And I don't mean just a little bit better, I mean a lot better," Trump said in Pennsylvania.

 

"If Canada and Mexico do not agree to renegotiate the pact, America intends to withdraw from the deal."

 

"They're so used to having their own way," Trump said of America's neighbors. "Not with Trump. They won't have their own way ... NAFTA was the worst trade deal in the history -- it's, like, the history -- of this country."

 

Trump deliberately tied this to Hillary, as though she were some svengali to the administration of her husband, President Bill Clinton, as he called NAFTA one of the "worst legacies" of the Clinton years.

 

 

It's dog whistle politics, a majority of Americans fell for it.

 

 

So for the sake of discussion, ... just exactly which clauses were a disaster for America? If they exist, were they inevitable and merely excuses after the fact? Do they truly rise to level of "disaster" or just grasping at straws?