Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

ThinkProgress: Trump confidant dumped millions in steel-related stock last week (Also the Trade War thread)


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Anyone smart enough to know if this is a good deal or not?

I seriously doubt it does all that Trump says it will. 

 

My guess on the margins some things might be better but overall there probably won't be a big difference. Probably, just adjusting some flaws with NAFTA.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Anyone smart enough to know if this is a good deal or not?

 

Way too early to know the impacts cause we don't know actual details. We know that two areas changed to some degree from NAFTA but not much more than that. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Anyone smart enough to know if this is a good deal or not?

 

I think trade agreements are like NFL draft picks.  You need a few years to get a good feel for it's impact.

 

Wapo article has a good overview on what's changing compared to NAFTA

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/10/01/us-canada-mexico-just-reached-sweeping-new-nafta-deal-heres-whats-it/?utm_term=.b9c25b7b99ad

 

Hot take would be nothing earth shattering for any country.  US got dairy concession.  Auto seems like a reasonable tradeoff among the three countries (no tariff for Canada and Mexico parts, but must provide higher wages), but you wonder about competitiveness of NA manufacturered cars overseas.  Then again, you probably have those cars locally made near those markets anyway.

 

Concessions on dispute resolution could have long term consequences.  US corporations have typically used those procedures to their advantage in trade agreements.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

That actually sounds like a pretty good deal.  And lots of things that I would never have expected a Republican administration to sign off on.  (Environmental regulations?  Easier unionization?)  

 

At least based on that one article, I wouldn't have a problem voting to ratify it.  (Meaning I could see the R's opposing it in large numbers.)  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

That actually sounds like a pretty good deal.  And lots of things that I would never have expected a Republican administration to sign off on.  (Environmental regulations?  Easier unionization?)  

 

At least based on that one article, I wouldn't have a problem voting to ratify it.  (Meaning I could see the R's opposing it in large numbers.)  

 

 

I think there's at least two reasons for it.  One is to increase the cost of production in Mexico to decrease Mexican competitiveness compared to US and Canada.  The other is to make it politically palatable to US Labor.  I don't think GOP would object to more strigent conditions overseas.

 

All in all, I think it's a reasonable deal.  No major winners, no major losers.  On paper at least.  How a trade agreement should be, imo.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, bearrock said:

I think there's at least two reasons for it.  One is to increase the cost of production in Mexico to decrease Mexican competitiveness compared to US and Canada.  The other is to make it politically palatable to US Labor.  I don't think GOP would object to more strigent conditions overseas.

 

I actually proposed something similar, back when NAFTA was rolled out, although for a different reason.  

 

My motivation was to see to it that NAFTA improved the economy of Mexico.  I wanted to make sure that the factories which I foresaw moving there, actually "trickled down" to Mexican workers.  

 

My suggestion was that I thought Mexico should immediately impose a minimum wage.  Nothing high.  I proposed a dollar an hour.  Something low enough to make it desirable for businesses to move there, but high enough to see to it that the workers got something out of it.  

 

And I will assert that it's to the US advantage for Mexican workers to make more money.  For one thing, it reduces the incentive to become illegal immigrants in the US.  And it can help make Mexicans into better consumers.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bearrock said:

 

I think trade agreements are like NFL draft picks.  You need a few years to get a good feel for it's impact.

 

Wapo article has a good overview on what's changing compared to NAFTA

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/10/01/us-canada-mexico-just-reached-sweeping-new-nafta-deal-heres-whats-it/?utm_term=.b9c25b7b99ad

 

Hot take would be nothing earth shattering for any country.  US got dairy concession.  Auto seems like a reasonable tradeoff among the three countries (no tariff for Canada and Mexico parts, but must provide higher wages), but you wonder about competitiveness of NA manufacturered cars overseas.  Then again, you probably have those cars locally made near those markets anyway.

 

Concessions on dispute resolution could have long term consequences.  US corporations have typically used those procedures to their advantage in trade agreements.

Based on that article, nothing earth shattering.  Actually, Mexican auto workers benefit; since they will get paid more.   I don't get the feeling this is going to create alot of American jobs; which is one of the main reasons Trump is engaging in his trade wars.

 

If it passes though, it will be a win for Trump..  Thing is, that's a big if.  3 countries and their legislatures have to pass it and there's no guarantee they do.

Whatever the impact of this new deal; won't be felt until after 2020. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I've read, I think everything is generally ok. I doubt it has any major ramifications in anyone's life, except possibly dairy farmers. I wonder if there's a chance that the cost of milk goes up if we're suddenly in a much bigger market.

 

I do think these agreements generally reflect Trump's total 18th century view of trade. He just doesn't understand it on a fundamental level, because he only sees it from the employment. I mean, everything in manufacturing is driven by production costs. To me, it's pretty easy to get to that $16 an hour number. If you have three employees making $11, you fire one, give the other two a raise to $16, and implement automation that allows you fire one of the two remaining.

 

Trump really thinks that steel mills which employee 15,000 people can come back if he just wills it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Larry said:

That actually sounds like a pretty good deal.  And lots of things that I would never have expected a Republican administration to sign off on.  (Environmental regulations?  Easier unionization?)  

 

Its not surprising to me. It’s been the discussion for years in the conservative circles I’ve followed. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...