• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Economist: Miffed with NAFTA

Lafayette

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 13, 2015
Messages
9,594
Reaction score
2,072
Location
France
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Why did an insufficient people vote for Hillary. That's the question. Why did the Dems stay-home and spectate?

Because they felt this election was not a "super-bowl event".

Have they got another "think" coming ... from what can be told by interviewing his so-called "advisors" this is what's coming. From here, the Economist: "Miffed with NAFTA"

Speaking before the election, Mr Trump’s senior trade adviser, Dan DiMicco, the former boss of Nucor, a big steelmaker, set out several actions the president will take in his first 100 days. These include starting to renegotiate trade pacts such as the NAFTA accord with Mexico and Canada (and threatening to pull out if they won’t play ball). Every future trade agreement, among them the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) between America and 11 other Asia-Pacific countries, and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) with the European Union (EU), will be put on hold. “Whether they go forward depends on whether we can return to balanced trade, and whether they add to GDP growth,” Mr DiMicco said. “The era of trade deficits is over. It will be: let’s talk, but otherwise we put tariffs on.”

Mr DiMicco cited the decision by Ronald Reagan (a favourite of Trump supporters) to impose a 45% tariff on Japanese motorcycles in the 1980s: “That brought people to the negotiating table.” Yet it seems implausible that trading partners will stand idly by should America raise tariffs. A trade war would come as protectionism is already on the rise. The World Trade Organisation predicts that global trade this year will grow less quickly than the world’s GDP for the first time in 15 years.

The Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE), a think-tank, has estimated the impact of Mr Trump’s trade policies under three scenarios, ranging from “aborted trade war”, in which Mr Trump is forced to lower tariffs within a year of imposing them, to a “full trade war” with Mexico and China. In the former case, global supply chains are disrupted and 1.3m private-sector American jobs are lost; in the latter, the damage includes the loss of 4.8m American jobs and would spill over into the services sector, too. Adam Posen of the PIIE says Mr Trump’s trade policies would be “horribly destructive”.

Ouch ...
 
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.
 
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.

I agree with everything in this post.
The highlighted part is the key thing here.
Those unemployed low tech workers whose jobs have been off-shored, automated are the reason Trump won this election.
They see a $360 billion trade deficit with China and wondered why some percentage of those Chinese goods aren't made in the USA.
They see a $60 billion trade deficit with Mexico and wondered why some percentage of those Mexican goods aren't made in the USA.
Trump addressed these workers' anger and carried the day.
We'll see how these workers feel about Trumponomics in 4 years.
 
I agree with everything in this post.
The highlighted part is the key thing here.
Those unemployed low tech workers whose jobs have been off-shored, automated are the reason Trump won this election.
They see a $360 billion trade deficit with China and wondered why some percentage of those Chinese goods aren't made in the USA.
They see a $60 billion trade deficit with Mexico and wondered why some percentage of those Mexican goods aren't made in the USA.
Trump addressed these workers' anger and carried the day.
We'll see how these workers feel about Trumponomics in 4 years.

And I agree with everything in this post.
 
Last edited:
With Clinton's coronation a foregone conclusion, some on the left felt safer going to third parties or didn't feel like they should stand in line for hours. As for NAFTA, it suffers from the same problem as most legislation. It gets passed with big headlines and then put on the political shelf for chips to fall where they may as there is no headline in fine-tuning it at that point. While I think many things need to be done to improve our country, I really would rather we not do anything than pass legislation and then refuse to monitor and follow up on adverse consequences.
 
Massive consumption is bad for the planet, and the way we have been doing it lead to massive income inequality and thus social strife. We have already passed peak international trade Trump or no Trump.

If you own shipping stock consider selling.
 
Massive consumption is bad for the planet, and the way we have been doing it lead to massive income inequality and thus social strife. We have already passed peak international trade Trump or no Trump.

If you own shipping stock consider selling.

Wow, the sum total of all our misery in just three sentences. And, here I pour out mountains of statistics to show that "nothing in life is ever simple".

I feel humbled ... :3oops:
 
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.
We have huge tariffs on Chinese tires, solar panels, and iron right now as we speak. So does Europe. Europeans and Chinese have had tariffs on our products for decades. There is no apocalypse, the rivers are not running red with blood, locusts have not descended upon us, and it is not raining frogs. Your establishment paranoia is bollocks.
 
We have huge tariffs on Chinese tires, solar panels, and iron right now as we speak. So does Europe. Europeans and Chinese have had tariffs on our products for decades. There is no apocalypse, the rivers are not running red with blood, locusts have not descended upon us, and it is not raining frogs. Your establishment paranoia is bollocks.

Wow...you clearly do not understand macroeconomics or even history (Smoot-Hawley). A couple of tariffs means nothing...that goes on all of the time. But blanket tariffs against EVERYTHING a country imports to America...that is ENTIRELY a different animal. And you honestly cannot see that? Okaaaaaaay.

And if I am 'paranoid'...than so is Reuters, Time, Forbes, CNBC and just about every economist with a working brain.

Instead of guessing, why don't you show me unbiased, factual proof of how I am wrong? And for every idiot economist you can find who agrees with you...I can find 2 respected economists who don't.

It is virtually IMPOSSIBLE that a 45% tariff on all Chinese imports and a 35% tariff on all Mexican imports would not significantly raise prices in America.

A little, friendly advice...stick to what you know and don't guess when you do not - because clearly you do not understand international trade and it's effects on America.
 
Last edited:
Wow...you clearly do not understand macroeconomics or even history (Smoot-Hawley). A couple of tariffs means nothing...that goes on all of the time. But blanket tariffs against EVERYTHING a country imports to America...that is ENTIRELY a different animal. And you honestly cannot see that? Okaaaaaaay.

And if I am 'paranoid'...than so is Reuters, Time, Forbes, CNBC and just about every economist with a working brain.

Instead of guessing, why don't you show me unbiased, factual proof of how I am wrong? And for every idiot economist you can find who agrees with you...I can find 2 respected economists who don't.

It is virtually IMPOSSIBLE that a 45% tariff on all Chinese imports and a 35% tariff on all Mexican imports would not significantly raise prices in America.

A little, friendly advice...stick to what you know and don't guess when you do not - because clearly you do not understand international trade and it's effects on America.

You do understand there are significant tariffs on US products in China, Mexico, Canada, and Europe, right? The way you negotiate those down is by putting teeth into threats of the same treatment of their products.

American policy has been to accept unfair trade practices and trade deficits, maybe its time to rethink that.
 
You do understand there are significant tariffs on US products in China, Mexico, Canada, and Europe, right? The way you negotiate those down is by putting teeth into threats of the same treatment of their products.

American policy has been to accept unfair trade practices and trade deficits, maybe its time to rethink that.

I will say it again...tariffs on individual items are ALWAYS out there. It is SOP. But targeting a few items and targeting EVERY, SINGLE thing that a country imports to America are night and day.

Don't want to believe me? Fine.

Look up Smoot-Hawley and then Google/Bing 'Trump tariff plan' and you will find almost every, major economist (lib and con) stating what a lousy idea it is.

I will do it for you:

Trump's tariff plan could boomerang, spark trade wars with China, Mexico | Reuters

Everything Trump Says About Trade With China Is Wrong

Forbes Welcome

How Donald Trump's 25% tariff on China could start trade war - Apr. 18, 2011

Forbes Welcome


But if you want almost everything in America to cost more (in some cases - MUCH more) and if you want American high tech exporter jobs to wither...fine, back Trump's plan. If a few hundred thousand more, low tech jobs is worth it to you..fine. But then be sure to face the millions of poor/fixed income Americans whose precious dollars would then not stretch as far as they used to thanks to Trump's plan.

As I stated...it is virtually impossible to have a 35% tariff on ALL Mexican imports and a 45% tariff on ALL Chinese imports not result in large price increases in America.

And I challenge anyone to prove me (and virtually every respected economist) wrong.
 
Last edited:
I will say it again...tariffs on individual items are ALWAYS out there. It is SOP. But targeting a few items and targeting EVERY, SINGLE thing that a country imports to America are night and day.

Don't want to believe me? Fine.

Look up Smoot-Hawley and then Google/Bing 'Trump tariff plan' and you will find almost every, major economist (lib and con) stating what a lousy idea it is.

I will do it for you:

Trump's tariff plan could boomerang, spark trade wars with China, Mexico | Reuters

Everything Trump Says About Trade With China Is Wrong

Forbes Welcome

How Donald Trump's 25% tariff on China could start trade war - Apr. 18, 2011

Forbes Welcome


But if you want almost everything in America to cost more (in some cases - MUCH more) and if you want American high tech exporter jobs to wither...fine, back Trump's plan. If a few hundred thousand more, low tech jobs is worth it to you..fine. But then be sure to face the millions of poor/fixed income Americans whose precious dollars would then not stretch as far as they used to thanks to Trump's plan.

As I stated...it is virtually impossible to have a 35% tariff on ALL Mexican imports and a 45% tariff on ALL Chinese imports not result in large price increases in America.

And I challenge anyone to prove me (and virtually every respected economist) wrong.

Sure, if you assume he's going to go that far. I'm assuming he's going to renegotiate the deals. Any of the economists opine on what we should do about the 10% to 40% tariffs that exist on American goods?
 
Sure, if you assume he's going to go that far. I'm assuming he's going to renegotiate the deals. Any of the economists opine on what we should do about the 10% to 40% tariffs that exist on American goods?

Simple...put the exact same tariff on the same good that they export to America. No more, no less. But first you have to prove the tariff.

But that is not the problem. U.S. exports to China are a tiny part of her GDP. The problem is that a HUGE array of goods can be produced in China at far less expense than in America. And, of course, raising the minimum wage will just make America that much less competitive. THAT is the problem...not a few tariffs on a couple of U.S. exports.

But taking an atomic bomb to a problem when a sniper rifle is required is a recipe for disaster.
 
Last edited:
Simple...put the exact same tariff on the same good that they export to America. No more, no less.

But first you have to prove the tariff.

But taking an atomic bomb to a problem when a sniper rifle is required is a recipe for disaster.

Bringing a pea shooter is a recipe for disaster as well and its what we have been using since Obama took office and hell, Bush and Clinton had the same sort of soft policy.
 
Bringing a pea shooter is a recipe for disaster as well and its what we have been using since Obama took office and hell, Bush and Clinton had the same sort of soft policy.

I will ask again...where is your evidence that a 45% tariff on ALL Chinese imports and a 35% tariff on ALL Mexican imports will not a) raise prices in America significantly and b) cost many U.S. high tech jobs for exported goods?

Because I have already provided 5 articles that say it will. And I can find plenty more from respected sources. Plus, history STRONGLY suggests that it would be a terrible policy.


No offense, but you seem to be listening to Trump's rhetoric and not researching the problem from an unbiased perspective. If you do, you will find that the VAST majority of those in the know agree with me and not with Trump.

NOBODY wins a trade war except the rich. That is Economics 101.
 
I will ask again...where is your evidence that a 45% tariff on ALL Chinese imports and a 35% tariff on ALL Mexican imports will not a) raise prices in America significantly and b) cost many U.S. high tech jobs for exported goods?

Because I have already provided 5 articles that say otherwise. And I can find plenty more from respected sources. Plus, history STRONGLY suggests that it would be a terrible policy.


No offense, but you seem to be listening to Trump's rhetoric and not researching the problem from an unbiased perspective. If you do, you will find that the VAST majority of those in the know agree with me and not with Trump.

NOBODY wins a trade war except the rich. That is Economics 101.

I see you aren't listening. I'm not saying he will do that. I'm saying he will threaten it. Your inflexibility and inability to consider alternatives is just making your argument look weak.
 
Why did an insufficient people vote for Hillary. That's the question. Why did the Dems stay-home and spectate?

Because they felt this election was not a "super-bowl event".

Have they got another "think" coming ... from what can be told by interviewing his so-called "advisors" this is what's coming. From here, the Economist: "Miffed with NAFTA"



Ouch ...



Thanks. Had not seen the numbers, but the theme is the same from most economists. One commented that the US has actually benefited by NAFTA to the tune of 9 million jobs, however, they are high tech for the most port, and companies have to import workers as there are not enough educated in those areas.

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


Best round up of this file
 
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?
 
We have huge tariffs on Chinese tires, solar panels, and iron right now as we speak. So does Europe. Europeans and Chinese have had tariffs on our products for decades.

The EU and US trade have some of the lowest tariff barriers existing, in both-way trade. The EU is slightly higher, percentage-wise, than the US. Ditto US trade with Canada.

See here: International Trade and Market Access Data.

It always helps to see the stats rather than flinging sarcasm at one another - this is, after all, an economics forum ...
 
I agree with everything in this post.
The highlighted part is the key thing here.
Those unemployed low tech workers whose jobs have been off-shored, automated are the reason Trump won this election.
They see a $360 billion trade deficit with China and wondered why some percentage of those Chinese goods aren't made in the USA.
They see a $60 billion trade deficit with Mexico and wondered why some percentage of those Mexican goods aren't made in the USA.
Trump addressed these workers' anger and carried the day.
We'll see how these workers feel about Trumponomics in 4 years.


Oh, you're going to be paying for this long before Trump finishes his first year. He will most certainly have to clamp down on what is called "bright collar" workers, IT etc., who are for the most part imported from China, Japan, Korea and Canada. That will lead to a severe shortage of technical workers, and the products they make will only be able to compete on price.
 
You do understand there are significant tariffs on US products in China, Mexico, Canada, and Europe, right? The way you negotiate those down is by putting teeth into threats of the same treatment of their products.

American policy has been to accept unfair trade practices and trade deficits, maybe its time to rethink that.


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
 
I see you aren't listening. I'm not saying he will do that. I'm saying he will threaten it. Your inflexibility and inability to consider alternatives is just making your argument look weak.

No offense, but I don't care - in this context - what you (or almost anyone else) thinks he might do...I care what he actually said.

And that is what I have been talking about.

You quoted my post originally...not the other way around. It is you who are not listening to me.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom