Mexico wants U.S. tariffs scrapped before ratifying trade deal: minister

Mycroft said:

Oh. I've already addressed that...way back in my first post in this thread. It's nothing more than the current, lame duck Mexican government posturing before their own people.

Click to expand...

You are allowed you opinion. I think it's obvious they either don't trust Trump (who would trust such a low life sleazy conman?), or they're playing Trump, just like Putin, Macron, Kim Jung Un, and seemingly every other world leader has done.

This lame duck government is in no position to make any demands or delays.

Click to expand...

Yes they are. As I mentioned, Trump has been exposed as having the intellectual and emotional capacity of a ten year old by one of the great investigative journalists of our time, and it has been confirmed by a senior WH official, as well as by Trump himself, of course. Now his SCOTUS choice is in serious trouble. 10 year olds panic, and from all WH leaks, Trump is throwing Temper Tantrums right and left.

And clearly Mexican leadership knows this, it's been all over the press for weeks, and it's not difficult to figure out if you have any kind of critical thinking skills. It's the perfect time to take advantage of an ignorant child, and I'm sure Mexico is doing just that.

JustHanging said:

Yes they are.

Click to expand...

After snipping all the anti-Trump nonsense...I mean, seriously, do you think Mexico's trade negotiators care about a book of rumors?...this is what I'm left with.

Can you provide any facts that support your contention?

JustHanging said:

As I mentioned, Trump has been exposed as having the intellectual and emotional capacity of a ten year old ...

Click to expand...

I think that you ought to apologize to the 10 year-olds.

Nap said:

I said Democrats because in the modern era they are typically the ones calling for more and more taxes. Cigarettes in New York are like $10 per pack which. I looked it up and was actually shocked to see that they aren't heavily taxed in California.

I work in car manufacturing for a global company. Whether or not you get to keep a car/truck line or new lines added to your plant is largely determined by price per unit. Trump's tax cuts and the possibility of tariffs on foriegn made vehicles are a major bump in job security for me.

Edit: I'm curious as to where you get your numbers from on the US being #6 as business friendly. I rarely ever see them ranked that highly.

Click to expand...

“I said Democrats because in the modern era they are typically the ones calling for more and more taxes.”

You didn’t give any proof to support the claims you made in your prior post and this one is no different. Another “big lie” perpetuation that goes no further in studying the subject than the end of one’s nose, designed for low-information readers. The fact is, Red states get more money back from the Feds than they put in compared to Blue states. Hence, Red states don’t have to have higher state taxes because of the “welfare” they get from the Feds. Furthermore, tariffs are a tax and a Trump/Republican idea.

“Trump's tax cuts and the possibility of tariffs on foriegn made vehicles are a major bump in job security for me.”

No doubt.

“I'm curious as to where you get your numbers from on the US being #6 as business friendly. I rarely ever see them ranked that highly.”

Though I’ve made exceptions, it is a rule of mine to not give out such information when the requestor had previously made claims without having done the research work necessary to provide evidence to support the initial claims to begin with. Otherwise, it would be my debate obligation to provide you the evidence you request or be refuted by default.

TU Curmudgeon said:

From Global News

Mexico wants U.S. tariffs scrapped before ratifying trade deal: minister
​

Mexico wants to end to a tariff dispute over steel and aluminum with the United States prior to signing off on a reworked trade agreement with its northern neighbor, Mexican Economy Minister Ildefonso Guajardo said on Thursday.

“Now, what are we going to do here? A deal before we get to signing, to clearly get rid of all these … tariff-related aggressions,” Guajardo said on Mexican television after referring to the steel and aluminum dispute.

Mexico and the United States last week said they had reached a deal after more than a year’s negotiations to revamp the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

Canada, the other NAFTA signatory, is still locked in discussions with Washington to see if it can join the accord.

COMMENT:-

And Mr. Trump wants a deal before he will agree to remove the tariffs (without promising not to reimpose them whenever he feels like it).

Someone (everyone?) wants the pianos delivered before they pay for them.
​

Click to expand...

Not to worry, trump will cave he has to or look foolish claiming it is a done deal. A master negotiator, trump is not.

TU Curmudgeon said:

One result of the tax cuts for businesses was

1. to allow large businesses to buy back large blocks of their own stocks;
2. this resulted in a decrease in supply;
3. this decrease in supply resulted in an increase in price;
   • (That's the way that 'The Law of Supply and Demand' works.)
4. this increase in price resulted in an increase in the DJIA;
5. this increase in the DJIA "proved" that the US economy was improving;
6. thus, the tax cuts on businesses resulted in the US economy improving.

Can you see the logical error in the above?

Click to expand...

Well, that is the way it works to the extent it did in the same tax plans under Reagan and Bush2, which both resulted in greater debt and recession, until Clinton and Obama came in to clean things up.

Buybacks do increase share prices and the DJIA. This is good for shareholders and gives them a return instead of using dividends. When unemployment is low, consumers gain confidence as business and the DJIA improves (artificially, not by performance) and thus they tend to spend more. Theoretically. Hence, an improved economy. However, the buyback money is not being put to work by way of business expansion, hiring (as Trump and the large corps promised), R&D or increased worker wages (which would be spent, further improving the economy). Buybacks actually result in lower rates of business investment and does not provide capital to the corporate sector but instead extracts it, resulting in a net negative cash flow.

The whole thing continues the long-established trend in ever worsening wealth inequality. Labor’s steadily falling share of GDP depresses consumer demand, resulting in slower economic growth. As long as fewer dollars are put into the hands of most consumers to spend and increase demand to require business investment/expansion to meet demand (supply), then real GDP growth will be sluggish unless high consumer confidence turns into irrational exuberance and an economic bubble of some kind is created.

bluesmoke said:

“I said Democrats because in the modern era they are typically the ones calling for more and more taxes.”

You didn’t give any proof to support the claims you made in your prior post and this one is no different. Another “big lie” perpetuation that goes no further in studying the subject than the end of one’s nose, designed for low-information readers. The fact is, Red states get more money back from the Feds than they put in compared to Blue states. Hence, Red states don’t have to have higher state taxes because of the “welfare” they get from the Feds. Furthermore, tariffs are a tax and a Trump/Republican idea.

“Trump's tax cuts and the possibility of tariffs on foriegn made vehicles are a major bump in job security for me.”

No doubt.

“I'm curious as to where you get your numbers from on the US being #6 as business friendly. I rarely ever see them ranked that highly.”

Though I’ve made exceptions, it is a rule of mine to not give out such information when the requestor had previously made claims without having done the research work necessary to provide evidence to support the initial claims to begin with. Otherwise, it would be my debate obligation to provide you the evidence you request or be refuted by default.

Click to expand...

Red states receive more in federal assistance because they have disproportionately low income-poor people than blue states. Red states aren't the ones pushing the policies that cause these disparities so if people from blue states are wanting to stop this transfer you will see many Republicans in complete agreement. Here is a good article explaining it in more detail:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...ARAB&usg=AOvVaw1qZFAR78TtPqj0S9jiPxlc&ampcf=1

As far as tariffs being a Trump/Republican idea, you are correct on pointing out Trump but tariffs are traditionally pro-labor union idea and left wing.

TU Curmudgeon said:

"There is a clear maxim of government, if you want less of something, tax it, if you want more of something, subsidize it."
Sen Brownback, Congressional Record 05 AUG 99, page 19796, Col 3.

Click to expand...

I don’t doubt Brownback said what you cited. However, it was Reagan, sans the “maxim” part, that coined the term.

Taxes are usually applied to what is a need or a want that is in demand whereas subsidies are to afford others, both individuals and business, those needs and wants that otherwise could not be had. Interestingly enough, what is taxed does not result in the less of and what is subsidized (in all it’s forms) does not result in the more of.

Nap said:

Red states receive more in federal assistance because they have disproportionately low income-poor people than blue states. Red states aren't the ones pushing the policies that cause these disparities so if people from blue states are wanting to stop this transfer you will see many Republicans in complete agreement. Here is a good article explaining it in more detail:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...gQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw1qZFAR78TtPqj0S9jiPxlc&cf=1

As far as tariffs being a Trump/Republican idea, you are correct on pointing out Trump but tariffs are traditionally pro-labor union idea and left wing.

Click to expand...

"...tariffs are traditionally pro-labor union idea and left wing."

Both labor unions and industry have historically favored tariffs. I’m not sure what you mean by “left-wing” as respects tariffs. Historically, Republicans have favored tariffs and Democrats have not. During the “Republican Era” of 1861 – 1913, tariffs were very high. Only one Dem was president then, Grover Cleveland, and he opposed tariffs. Tariffs went way down under Wilson, then way up under the following Reps, then way down under FDR and gradually even lower until today.

bluesmoke said:

"...tariffs are traditionally pro-labor union idea and left wing."

Both labor unions and industry have historically favored tariffs. I’m not sure what you mean by “left-wing” as respects tariffs. Historically, Republicans have favored tariffs and Democrats have not. During the “Republican Era” of 1861 – 1913, tariffs were very high. Only one Dem was president then, Grover Cleveland, and he opposed tariffs. Tariffs went way down under Wilson, then way up under the following Reps, then way down under FDR and gradually even lower until today.

Click to expand...

You seem to be confusing Republican and Democratic with Right/Left. There are several people here that would likely be aghast that you would insinuate Republicans of that period were Right wing.

Nap said:

You seem to be confusing Republican and Democratic with Right/Left. There are several people here that would likely be aghast that you would insinuate Republicans of that period were Right wing.

Click to expand...

AT one time the "Republicans" were the LESS reactionary of the two parties and the "Democrats" were the MORE reactionary one.

That changed and, today, the "Republicans" are the MORE reactionary of the two parties and the "Democrats" are the LESS reactionary one.

However, at no time could EITHER the "Republicans" or the "Democrats" have been considered "Left-Wing" on the global political scale.

“Red states receive more in federal assistance because they have disproportionately low income-poor people than blue states. Red states aren't the ones pushing the policies that cause these disparities so if people from blue states are wanting to stop this transfer you will see many Republicans in complete agreement. Here is a good article explaining it in more detail”

I didn’t say that the poorer red states receiving proportionately more return on fed tax than the richer blue states is wrong. Your reply still did not provide support to your prior claim “I said Democrats because in the modern era they are typically the ones calling for more and more taxes.” You did not refute what I said and your prior claim in question remains unfounded.

“As far as tariffs being a Trump/Republican idea, you are correct on pointing out Trump but tariffs are traditionally pro-labor union idea and left wing.”

Thanks for agreeing that the imposition of tariffs are Trump’s idea.

I don’t know what your definition is of “modern era” or “traditional”. The tariffs in debate are current and of Trump/Republican making, not necessarily traditional, but surely in the modern era. Again, what I said stands without refute. You provide no evidence to support your “pro-labor union idea and left wing” claim which is thus unfounded.

TU Curmudgeon said:

From Global News

Mexico wants U.S. tariffs scrapped before ratifying trade deal: minister
​

Mexico wants to end to a tariff dispute over steel and aluminum with the United States prior to signing off on a reworked trade agreement with its northern neighbor, Mexican Economy Minister Ildefonso Guajardo said on Thursday.

“Now, what are we going to do here? A deal before we get to signing, to clearly get rid of all these … tariff-related aggressions,” Guajardo said on Mexican television after referring to the steel and aluminum dispute.

Mexico and the United States last week said they had reached a deal after more than a year’s negotiations to revamp the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

Canada, the other NAFTA signatory, is still locked in discussions with Washington to see if it can join the accord.

COMMENT:-

And Mr. Trump wants a deal before he will agree to remove the tariffs (without promising not to reimpose them whenever he feels like it).

Someone (everyone?) wants the pianos delivered before they pay for them.
​

Click to expand...

LOL....Who has the power here...? Clearly us...They can put in one hand, and want in the other, and mash their hands together, then tell us what they have....

j-mac said:

LOL....Who has the power here...? Clearly us...They can put in one hand, and want in the other, and mash their hands together, then tell us what they have....

Click to expand...

You might not have noticed it, but the tariffs WERE scrapped BEFORE the Mexican government ratified NAFTA 2.0.

Whether or not the Mexican government had "the power" to get the tariffs taken off before ratifying NAFTA 2.0, the fact remains that the Mexican government succeeded in getting what they wanted and "paid the price" of doing something that they wanted to do in any event AFTER they had been "actually received the pianos" (rather than "paying for the pianos" and hoping that Mr. Trump would "deliver the pianos at some time in the future").

You might even want to note that the Mexican government didn't have to go as far as ratifying NAFTA 2.0 but inserting a "This ratification shall have neither force nor effect unless the US government removes the tariffs." type clause. Mr. Trump "delivered the pianos", and the Mexicans paid for them.

-----

-----

Originally Posted by Nap
"You seem to be confusing Republican and Democratic with Right/Left. There are several people here that would likely be aghast that you would insinuate Republicans of that period were Right wing."


Perhaps you should work on your reading comprehension. I am the one qualifying my use of the terms “Republicans” and “Democrats” as respects left/right wing by first pointing out that “I’m not sure what you mean by “left-wing” as respects tariffs.”

Actually, the original “Lincoln” Republicans, of the northeastern US, were liberals in the modern sense compared to the more conservative Democrats of the southern states. A point I’ve made time and again. Nonetheless, Cleveland was a “classical liberal”, much like a Buckley conservative (something hardly existent in practice today). Future Dem and Rep presidents were more respectively liberal and conservative as in our traditional sense.

Maybe you could try to back up your tariff position with facts instead of unsupported claim. Otherwise, your tariff claim stands refuted.

bluesmoke said:

Originally Posted by Nap
"You seem to be confusing Republican and Democratic with Right/Left. There are several people here that would likely be aghast that you would insinuate Republicans of that period were Right wing."


Perhaps you should work on your reading comprehension. I am the one qualifying my use of the terms “Republicans” and “Democrats” as respects left/right wing by first pointing out that “I’m not sure what you mean by “left-wing” as respects tariffs.”

Actually, the original “Lincoln” Republicans, of the northeastern US, were liberals in the modern sense compared to the more conservative Democrats of the southern states. A point I’ve made time and again. Nonetheless, Cleveland was a “classical liberal”, much like a Buckley conservative (something hardly existent in practice today). Future Dem and Rep presidents were more respectively liberal and conservative as in our traditional sense.

Maybe you could try to back up your tariff position with facts instead of unsupported claim. Otherwise, your tariff claim stands refuted.

Click to expand...

Part of the problem is that "The MORE Reactionary Wing of the American Oligarchic Capitalist Party" and "The LESS Reactionary Wing of the American Oligarchic Capitalist Party" have swapped names since the 1960s.

"The MORE Reactionary Wing of the American Oligarchic Capitalist Party" is STILL "The MORE Reactionary Wing of the American Oligarchic Capitalist Party" even though it is now "The Republicans" rather than "The Democrats" and "The LESS Reactionary Wing of the American Oligarchic Capitalist Party" is STILL
"The LESS Reactionary Wing of the American Oligarchic Capitalist Party" even though it is not "The Democrats" rather than "The Republicans.

The confusion is very similar to the confusion that would occur if "The Christians" were to adopt the name "Muslims" and "The Muslims" were to adopt the name "Christians" AND if everyone were to then treat "Christianity" as if "Islam" was (and always had been) "Christianity" while there treated "Islam" as if "Christianity" was (and always had been) "Islam". [Assuming that my caffeine and nicotine deprived brain got that straight.]