The Economist: Miffed with NAFTA

Fearandloathing said:

What "tariffs" does Canada place on which US goods?

An expert like you should be able to make a list off the top of your head.

And what "teeth" do you propose Trump bring to the "negotiations"?

And I hope you also realize, that both the Prime Minister of Canada and the President of Mexico have said they are "eager" to talk about amending NAFTA. You're little boy though hasn't been clear, one day he 'tears it up" altogether, the next he wants changes.

And I guess you miss the point that in order to 'get' in negotiations, you have to 'give"

Fill us in on which products are no longer going to be made in Canada and Mexico and will be entirely made in the US

Click to expand...

I was wondering that myself.

Ontologuy said:

Massive blanket tariffs are, of course, for reasons already stated in this thread, not the answer.

But Trump's campaign rhetoric of this nature probably helped him get votes.

And he got those additional votes from people who were tired of having their jobs off-shored, out-sourced, and in-sourced away.

For those people, it doesn't matter how much (25%, 50%, ?%) they're saving over American-made, especially on items that would cost $5.00, 10.00, or $15.00, as their miserable part-time minimum-wage or unemployment they now live on can't even afford them the ability to buy many of these "cheap" foreign-made products.

So .. what is the answer?

How do we bring back American jobs without the mistake of a blanket across-the-board tariff.

That's the gut question voters asked .. and though Trump answered as he did, we know he can't really do that (and I hope he knows it, too).

But the underlying problem that created the rhetorical answer Trump gave is a very large and very real problem.

We must do something.

If not the blanket tariff, then what?

Click to expand...

I think that is why he said it as well.

I don't think he has a clue what tariffs really do...he just wanted 'cheap' votes with 'cheap' words.

Fearandloathing said:

What "tariffs" does Canada place on which US goods?

An expert like you should be able to make a list off the top of your head.

And what "teeth" do you propose Trump bring to the "negotiations"?

And I hope you also realize, that both the Prime Minister of Canada and the President of Mexico have said they are "eager" to talk about amending NAFTA. You're little boy though hasn't been clear, one day he 'tears it up" altogether, the next he wants changes.

And I guess you miss the point that in order to 'get' in negotiations, you have to 'give"

Fill us in on which products are no longer going to be made in Canada and Mexico and will be entirely made in the US

Click to expand...

Mexico essentially has 10% tariffs across the board on all agricultural goods when that is the vast majority of our exports to them other than parts to make finished goods.

The idea of moving US tariff rates unless Mexican tariff rates move is a negotiating position. Both you and DA are convinced he's going to go for 40% tariffs, I'm skeptical of that. Somehow you are skeptical of everything else he's going to do but dead set convinced that's the one thing he has a lock on. Its kind of absurd.

DA60 said:

I was wondering that myself.

Click to expand...

Mostly it is a matter of regulation. Maple Syrup really trips alarms [I am NOT kidding] as Canadian Maple syrup is cannot legally be labeled Maple syrup unless it is 99.9% pure. The US can have 35% corn syrup and/or "maple flavoring" which sells at the same price. So, there is not only a tariff, but a cap on how much 100% pure Maple syrup Americans can eat. Similar rules in regard honey.

If you build a Peterborough style cedar Canoe, you have to pay a "royalty" to the people who used to own Peterborough Canoe Company, and if you want to import a weapon into Canada you will age, have a nervous breakdown, be divorced and unemployed from the red tape.

Other than that, some 'made in China product that comes off your docks gets nailed, you do the same.

But cars? Nope! Americans don't realize that very few whole, complete automobiles cross the US-Canada border. To build a small Ford, parts will be made in Blasdel, NY, outside Detroit, tires from Akron, Ohio and shipped to St Thomas Ont, where it all gets made into a car, along with some internal electrical etc. and other Canadian made poarts.

The complete models then ship out to the US, Mexico, often Europe. Because of that, there are no duties coming or going and never have been since the 1960's when Canada signed the best mutually beneficial trade agreement, the Canada-US Auto Trade Pact, which served our counties for 4 decades

OpportunityCost said:

Mexico essentially has 10% tariffs across the board on all agricultural goods when that is the vast majority of our exports to them other than parts to make finished goods.

The idea of moving US tariff rates unless Mexican tariff rates move is a negotiating position. Both you and DA are convinced he's going to go for 40% tariffs, I'm skeptical of that. Somehow you are skeptical of everything else he's going to do but dead set convinced that's the one thing he has a lock on. Its kind of absurd.

Click to expand...

Show me, don't give me opinions. In ANYTHING dealing with ANYONE who even appears to represent the Trump view forget words are insufficient, we don't believe you.

Everything must be verified by at least one trustworthy source

Fearandloathing said:

Mostly it is a matter of regulation. Maple Syrup really trips alarms [I am NOT kidding] as Canadian Maple syrup is cannot legally be labeled Maple syrup unless it is 99.9% pure. The US can have 35% corn syrup and/or "maple flavoring" which sells at the same price. So, there is not only a tariff, but a cap on how much 100% pure Maple syrup Americans can eat. Similar rules in regard honey.

If you build a Peterborough style cedar Canoe, you have to pay a "royalty" to the people who used to own Peterborough Canoe Company, and if you want to import a weapon into Canada you will age, have a nervous breakdown, be divorced and unemployed from the red tape.

Other than that, some 'made in China product that comes off your docks gets nailed, you do the same.

But cars? Nope! Americans don't realize that very few whole, complete automobiles cross the US-Canada border. To build a small Ford, parts will be made in Blasdel, NY, outside Detroit, tires from Akron, Ohio and shipped to St Thomas Ont, where it all gets made into a car, along with some internal electrical etc. and other Canadian made poarts.

The complete models then ship out to the US, Mexico, often Europe. Because of that, there are no duties coming or going and never have been since the 1960's when Canada signed the best mutually beneficial trade agreement, the Canada-US Auto Trade Pact, which served our counties for 4 decades

Click to expand...

Impressive data.

Yup...the Auto-Pact seemed a great deal for both sides...for every car you sell in Canada, you have to build one in Canada. When that died, a lot of Ontario auto manufacturing jobs in Windsor and Oshawa died with it.

DA60 said:

Impressive data.

Yup...the Auto-Pact seemed a great deal for both sides...for every car you sell in Canada, you have to build one in Canada. When that died, a lot of Ontario auto manufacturing jobs in Windsor and Oshawa died with it.

Click to expand...

Once again, the newsman in me says look deeper. Our NDP/big union group are very good at collecting and advancing information, often exaggerating it. The, at least many of jobs that went away in Canada were on the way out anyway, with the exception I think of the GM plant in Quebec. What we did gain in and out of the Auto industry is to have become a world leader in technology industries, Bombardier gets rapped for its Aerospace program, but they can compete, and people forget the kind of world-wide penetration Bombardier.
A small outfit in Kelowna has the world rights to 'DRL's, automatic day running light based on available AV a Canadian invention. Actually reduced how much we bought from the US, and increased how much we bought elsewhere and sold elsewhere.
One last little item. It was Brian Mulroney who signed the first deal, much to the opposition of the Liberals. Reagan, then Bush the elder never noticed the wording which allowed Canada an exemption from the embargo against Cuba, a point the Clinton administration successfully hid. Some say GWB was so hard nosed on the softwood lumber agreement was his dad having been tricked and Canada shipping car parts etc., and importing Rum

Fearandloathing said:

Once again, the newsman in me says look deeper. Our NDP/big union group are very good at collecting and advancing information, often exaggerating it. The, at least many of jobs that went away in Canada were on the way out anyway, with the exception I think of the GM plant in Quebec. What we did gain in and out of the Auto industry is to have become a world leader in technology industries, Bombardier gets rapped for its Aerospace program, but they can compete, and people forget the kind of world-wide penetration Bombardier.
A small outfit in Kelowna has the world rights to 'DRL's, automatic day running light based on available AV a Canadian invention. Actually reduced how much we bought from the US, and increased how much we bought elsewhere and sold elsewhere.
One last little item. It was Brian Mulroney who signed the first deal, much to the opposition of the Liberals. Reagan, then Bush the elder never noticed the wording which allowed Canada an exemption from the embargo against Cuba, a point the Clinton administration successfully hid. Some say GWB was so hard nosed on the softwood lumber agreement was his dad having been tricked and Canada shipping car parts etc., and importing Rum

Click to expand...

A lot of jobs at GM's head office/factories in Oshawa did leave thanks to the end of the Auto Pact...even GM Canada heads agree with that. There is just no need for the jobs to stay there without the Auto Pact...though I agree Ontario was going to lose lots of other manufacturing jobs eventually.

But, I gotta disagree with you about Bombardier. They receive MASSIVE government grants/low interest loans from both Quebec City AND Ottawa...and I am 100% against governments propping up corporations (except during declared wars for national defense). And much of that is because of ass-kissing Quebec voters - who Ottawa are perpetually scared of offending too much.
Apparently, the new C Series airliner could not exist without government support. It's a great plane. But if Bombardier cannot make it on it's own...then it should not make it.
Yes, I realize Brazil, America and Europe give huge help to their airline industries. That is their problem. I am against ALL government help for private industry (again, outside of war).

MAKING AMERICAN GREAT AGAIN! (BUT WHEN?)

Fearandloathing said:

... and companies have to import workers as there are not enough educated in those areas.

Click to expand...

The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) states clearly the post-secondary achievement rates for students graduating with a high-school degree. Some 28% go on to obtain a 2-year degree, and 60% obtain a 4-year degree. Do the maths, 75% of all high-school graduate obtain either a 2- or 4-year degree.[/QUOTE]

Now, that aint bad - but will it be good enough ... ?

Fearandloathing said:

The big problem is that whatever Trump does it could be five to ten years before the damage hit full force.

Click to expand...

Those who voted for Trump actually believed the BS about "Making American Great Again". They deserve the rude awakening that is about to happen: It will come, but not as quick as we think. Whyzat?

Unemployment has been abating for two years now (it is very close to it's 2008 level, just before Toxic-Waste Mess), and the Employment-to-Population Ratio is again on the rise since 2010. It is the latter, I suggest, that the lesser skilled Americans are awaiting most.

With increased income from dual-earner families, the economic situation of American families should better.

But the rise in the E-to-P Ratio was on the upswing as of two years ago. So, why did nobody notice on election day? Because it was insufficient. So, it is quite likely - as unsavy as are most American about "economics" they do care about the "economy" - collectively they did not notice the change in inflexion two years ago, from 2010 to 2014 (see here).

And they voted accordingly. The economy had not been mending itself since the Replicants refused Obama all Stimulus-Spending to jump-start it in 2010. But, by 2014 it triggered itself into creating jobs. Trump will obviously take the credit for the "Great Rebound!"

Nonetheless, anyone who bothers to project that E-to-P Ratio line out straight, as I have on paper, will see that we get back to the E-to-P Ratio of 2008 in midyear of 2024 (some 16 years later).

Which, of course, will not prevent the Dork from nonetheless taking credit for the "great rebound".

(Miracles could happen, and the rebound could come sooner if that E-to-P Ratio arched upwards rather than in a straight-line. I'm not counting upon it, because I see nothing magic in the American economy that could provoke such an accelerated recovery.)

MY POINT?

No, I don't believe that the Internet Balloon has all that much more to expand (as well as, "no, it is not about to burst either"). Though it will continue to promote profound changes in the economic structure of the nation and as much for the worst as for the better - that is, fewer low-skilled jobs and more better-paid higher-skilled jobs

Furthermore, American voters shot their kids in the foot when they refused Hillary and thus refused as well her offer to provide free-scholarships for the children of all families earning $100K per year or less ...

DA60 said:

Anyone who thinks that tariffs are the answer a) have not learned from history (Smoot-Hawley); and b) do not understand macroeconomics.

All huge tariffs do is raise prices hugely - which hurts those that can least afford the rises the most...i.e. the poor/lower middle class.

And those you target with tariffs will just go to their trading partners and force them to put huge tariffs on American exports...which costs U.S. jobs. And since America tends to export high tech items and import lower tech ones/commodities...the net result will be more low tech jobs in America at the cost of less high tech jobs - and prices for almost everything much higher.

There is a reason no POTUS in decades has been for massive tariffs...because they all knew it was self-defeating.

If Trump thinks huge tariffs will help America...he is dreaming.

Click to expand...

It would be rather a surprise, if the US used tariffs to correct the imbalances. Possible, but a surprise.

More probably that would be done by enforcing trade rules and defense against currency manipulation or non tariff barriers. The US has been quite sloppy in this respect and often prioritised other things.

Fearandloathing said:

Mostly it is a matter of regulation. Maple Syrup really trips alarms [I am NOT kidding] as Canadian Maple syrup is cannot legally be labeled Maple syrup unless it is 99.9% pure. The US can have 35% corn syrup and/or "maple flavoring" which sells at the same price. So, there is not only a tariff, but a cap on how much 100% pure Maple syrup Americans can eat. Similar rules in regard honey.

If you build a Peterborough style cedar Canoe, you have to pay a "royalty" to the people who used to own Peterborough Canoe Company, and if you want to import a weapon into Canada you will age, have a nervous breakdown, be divorced and unemployed from the red tape.

Other than that, some 'made in China product that comes off your docks gets nailed, you do the same.

But cars? Nope! Americans don't realize that very few whole, complete automobiles cross the US-Canada border. To build a small Ford, parts will be made in Blasdel, NY, outside Detroit, tires from Akron, Ohio and shipped to St Thomas Ont, where it all gets made into a car, along with some internal electrical etc. and other Canadian made poarts.

The complete models then ship out to the US, Mexico, often Europe. Because of that, there are no duties coming or going and never have been since the 1960's when Canada signed the best mutually beneficial trade agreement, the Canada-US Auto Trade Pact, which served our counties for 4 decades

Click to expand...

Actually, I don't think there is that much difference between the maple sap content in maple syrup sold in the States and Canada.

DA60 said:

A lot of jobs at GM's head office/factories in Oshawa did leave thanks to the end of the Auto Pact...even GM Canada heads agree with that. There is just no need for the jobs to stay there without the Auto Pact...though I agree Ontario was going to lose lots of other manufacturing jobs eventually.

But, I gotta disagree with you about Bombardier. They receive MASSIVE government grants/low interest loans from both Quebec City AND Ottawa...and I am 100% against governments propping up corporations (except during declared wars for national defense). And much of that is because of ass-kissing Quebec voters - who Ottawa are perpetually scared of offending too much.
Apparently, the new C Series airliner could not exist without government support. It's a great plane. But if Bombardier cannot make it on it's own...then it should not make it.
Yes, I realize Brazil, America and Europe give huge help to their airline industries. That is their problem. I am against ALL government help for private industry (again, outside of war).

Click to expand...

I was referring to their trains. That division is making money.

Corporate welfare is like tax breaks, if they're offered and taken by the competition any businessman would be nuts not to ask

Lafayette said:

MAKING AMERICAN GREAT AGAIN! (BUT WHEN?)



The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) states clearly the post-secondary achievement rates for students graduating with a high-school degree. Some 28% go on to obtain a 2-year degree, and 60% obtain a 4-year degree. Do the maths, 75% of all high-school graduate obtain either a 2- or 4-year degree.

Click to expand...

Now, that aint bad - but will it be good enough ... ?

Actually there are too many points, all I know is Microsoft, Texas Instruments, Dell, Boeing etc. all heavily recruit grads from Canada with the same language, and then Asia.





Those who voted for Trump actually believed the BS about "Making American Great Again". They deserve the rude awakening that is about to happen: It will come, but not as quick as we think. Whyzat?

Unemployment has been abating for two years now (it is very close to it's 2008 level, just before Toxic-Waste Mess), and the Employment-to-Population Ratio is again on the rise since 2010. It is the latter, I suggest, that the lesser skilled Americans are awaiting most.

With increased income from dual-earner families, the economic situation of American families should better.

But the rise in the E-to-P Ratio was on the upswing as of two years ago. So, why did nobody notice on election day? Because it was insufficient. So, it is quite likely - as unsavy as are most American about "economics" they do care about the "economy" - collectively they did not notice the change in inflexion two years ago, from 2010 to 2014 (see here).

And they voted accordingly. The economy had not been mending itself since the Replicants refused Obama all Stimulus-Spending to jump-start it in 2010. But, by 2014 it triggered itself into creating jobs. Trump will obviously take the credit for the "Great Rebound!"

Nonetheless, anyone who bothers to project that E-to-P Ratio line out straight, as I have on paper, will see that we get back to the E-to-P Ratio of 2008 in midyear of 2024 (some 16 years later).

Which, of course, will not prevent the Dork from nonetheless taking credit for the "great rebound".

(Miracles could happen, and the rebound could come sooner if that E-to-P Ratio arched upwards rather than in a straight-line. I'm not counting upon it, because I see nothing magic in the American economy that could provoke such an accelerated recovery.)

MY POINT?

No, I don't believe that the Internet Balloon has all that much more to expand (as well as, "no, it is not about to burst either"). Though it will continue to promote profound changes in the economic structure of the nation and as much for the worst as for the better - that is, fewer low-skilled jobs and more better-paid higher-skilled jobs

Furthermore, American voters shot their kids in the foot when they refused Hillary and thus refused as well her offer to provide free-scholarships for the children of all families earning $100K per year or less ...[/QUOTE]

Fearandloathing said:

I was referring to their trains. That division is making money.

Corporate welfare is like tax breaks, if they're offered and taken by the competition any businessman would be nuts not to ask

Click to expand...

Oh, I don't fault Bombardier for taking them...not at all.

I just fault the Feds for giving it to them.

DA60 said:

Oh, I don't fault Bombardier for taking them...not at all.

I just fault the Feds for giving it to them.

Click to expand...

I fault the other countries for starting it. If we are to compete with emerging nations who do it, then we have to.

BTW, I would not have a clue, but have been told the Challenger Series is a superb aircraft!


One wonders what would have happened had the Avro Arrow not been demolished

Fearandloathing said:

I fault the other countries for starting it. If we are to compete with emerging nations who do it, then we have to.

BTW, I would not have a clue, but have been told the Challenger Series is a superb aircraft!

Click to expand...

I think the thing about the Challenger was it was the first luxo jet to offer near-normal interior airline width/height. Most private jets are REALLY skinny and low...not the Challenger. That is why the Challenger was so easy to convert to passenger planes...they just made them longer.

One wonders what would have happened had the Avro Arrow not been demolished

Click to expand...

Actually, I think the Arrow was a bit overrated ( I know - never say that to a Canadian...lol). It was good for the time. But if you compare it to the F-4 Phantom II (which was designed at about the same time) it was MUCH bigger and heavier, had about the same speed and range and probably would have been less maneuverable. And it probably would have cost a LOT more.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Canada_CF-105_Arrow#Specifications_.28Arrow_Mk_1.29

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F-4_Phantom_II#Specifications_.28F-4E.29

I still wish they had not have killed it and then tried to wipe it from existence. But Canada was never going to be able to compete with America for fighter aircraft.

But it would have been nice if they had tried.

Fearandloathing said:

The big problem is that whatever Trump does it could be five to ten years before the damage hit full force.

Click to expand...

Aside from the patent braggadocio, the Dolt promised "big things".

Let's see how he comes across over the next four years.

As for the American people, I give up. They have been blind not to see through and past the mindless manipulation of the political process to keep in place an Upper-income Taxation System that is a patent rip-off of Income that churns up into Wealth, and from there to Net Worth:


Heaven help you (plural). I'm just fine here in France, with a National Health System that pays for costly HC, and Post-secondary education because its France's forebears had the good sense to do what was necessary after the dramatic economic collapse of WW2:

Fearandloathing said:

The big problem is that whatever Trump does it could be five to ten years before the damage hit full force.

Click to expand...

Aside from the patent braggadocio, the Donald promised "big things".

Let's see how he comes across over the next four years.

As for the American people, I give up. They have been blind not to see through and past the mindless manipulation of the political process to keep in place an Upper-income Taxation System that is a patent rip-off of Income that churns up into Wealth, and from Wealth to Net Worth (Weath minus Debt): Who Rules America?



Heaven help you (plural) stateside. I'm just fine here in France, with a National HealthCare System that pays for costly HC, and a Post-secondary education for all and any who want one. Because its forebears had the good sense to do what was necessary after the dramatic economic collapse of WW2 to rebuild the intellectual capacity of the nation:

OpportunityCost said:

Mexico essentially has 10% tariffs across the board on all agricultural goods when that is the vast majority of our exports to them other than parts to make finished goods.

The idea of moving US tariff rates unless Mexican tariff rates move is a negotiating position. Both you and DA are convinced he's going to go for 40% tariffs, I'm skeptical of that. Somehow you are skeptical of everything else he's going to do but dead set convinced that's the one thing he has a lock on. Its kind of absurd.

Click to expand...

Please do not speak for me or put words in my mouth.

Where did I say I was convinced he was going to do it? The answer is - I did not because I am not.

But there is no point in debating what you think he might do...he might do anything.

And where is your link to unbiased facts that prove your top statistics? I am not saying you are wrong...but I am not taking anyone's word on a chat forum for anything.

DA60 said:

Please do not speak for me or put words in my mouth.

Where did I say I was convinced he was going to do it? The answer is - I did not because I am not.

But there is no point in debating what you think he might do...he might do anything.

And where is your link to unbiased facts that prove your top statistics? I am not saying you are wrong...but I am not taking anyone's word on a chat forum for anything.

Click to expand...

Oh, I'm sorry you keep basing your conclusions on 35% to 45% tariffs and refuse to consider alternatives, like 3 times. You based your argument on those numbers not the possibility those numbers are the beginning of a negotiating point. You somehow are convinced he's going to do that but refuse to consider he's going to do everything else. As I said, its absurd and you based your argument on it, not me.

OpportunityCost said:

Oh, I'm sorry you keep basing your conclusions on 35% to 45% tariffs and refuse to consider alternatives, like 3 times. You based your argument on those numbers not the possibility those numbers are the beginning of a negotiating point. You somehow are convinced he's going to do that but refuse to consider he's going to do everything else. As I said, its absurd and you based your argument on it, not me.

Click to expand...

How many times do I have to tell you...I am not convinced he will do that.

Why is this not getting through to you? How many times do I have to say it? 5 more? Ten? A thousand?

I am discussing his proposal...I said NOTHING of whether I believe he will actually do it or not.

Got it yet?

DA60 said:

How many times do I have to tell you...I am not convinced he will do that.

Why is not getting through to you? How many times do I have to say it? 5 more? Ten? A thousand?

I am discussing his proposal...I said NOTHING of whether I believe he will actually do it or not.

Got it yet?

Click to expand...

Then quit basing your arguments and your supporting evidence on those numbers...derp.

OpportunityCost said:

Then quit basing your arguments and your supporting evidence on those numbers...derp.

Click to expand...

I will discuss his proposal as much as I wish. I am neither convinced he will or will not do what he proposes...I have no idea what goes through that weirdo's mind.

Are you suggesting that people should never discuss a politician's proposals until they are made official?

Then forget political campaigns because that is about all they are...proposals (especially if the candidate is not currently in the office they are running for).

DA60 said:

I will discuss his proposal as much as I wish. I am neither convinced he will or will not do what he proposes...I have no idea what goes through that weirdo's mind.

Are you suggesting that people should never discuss a politician's proposals until they are made official?

Then forget political campaigns because that is about all they are...proposals (especially if the candidate is not currently in the office they are running for).

Click to expand...

Hypotheticals aren't of any use in negotiating. You know that, or should. No, I'm suggesting you be just as skeptical of it as I am, which is odd, you are skeptical of everything else he says.

OpportunityCost said:

Hypotheticals aren't of any use in negotiating. You know that, or should. No, I'm suggesting you be just as skeptical of it as I am, which is odd, you are skeptical of everything else he says.

Click to expand...

Look...the guy made a proposal and I am discussing the proposal.

THAT IS IT. It's called free speech.

If you want to stop everyone discussing political proposals, then you are going to have to erase about 1/4 of the posts on this board.


This is going nowhere...we are done here.


Good day.