• 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!

Why do Trump and his supporters think NAFTA unfairly favors Canada and Mexico?

Yes_Minister said:
The US has made the same claim and brought this to the WTO 4 times already and every time it has lost, why is this time different? Because Canada doesn't think it does subsidize its lumber industry:

Reality check: Does Canada subsidize softwood lumber? | Globalnews.ca

Also, do you have a problem with the US government subsidizing its corn industry and dumping corn on Mexico?


Also, are you going to let one or two issues ruin trade relations between Canada and the US? What about all the other Canadian and American sectors that work well together?
Click to expand...

This is correct. The WTO is not a body that decides if trade practices are fair, they decide if they are legal given the way in which the trade agreement is written. Trade agreements are often political, and often politicians who influence trade agreements do so in favor of industries or corporations who make generous campaign contributions in exchange for preferential treatment.
As is always the case in politics, preferential treatment for some, always comes at some costs or expense to others.

What you have to understand is that what is happening now with the frictions between countries on trade issues is a symptom of a much more serious issue. The economies of the world are built on a non sustainable foundation of Central Banking. Central Banking requires that governments borrow money from Central Bankers at interest meaning every dollar created is loaned into existence at interest. This means every government and every individual constantly suffers from the drain of inflation and debt as the Central Banks siphon off the prosperity of the countries.

This economic model is one which eventually bankrupts the countries in which it is practiced. As the economic problems mount, countries become more desperate to create growth within their own borders. Once all the easy things have been done to promote growth, and it is not enough, they must begin to try to extract more profit and growth from trade with others. The problem is that when this begins to happen, all countries worldwide are under pressure to do the same. When disagreements occur between negotiators, politicians use the opportunity to make other countries seem to be the cause of their domestic economic problems.

At this point, bilateral relations begin to deteriorate and the path is set to increasing problems leading to trade wars. Trade wars cause the world economy to deteriorate even faster and within a few years, the politicians who are being ostracized in their own countries begin to blame other countries which in time leads to war.

It is an endless cycle. One that most people never realize even exists.
 
Yes_Minister said:
One, I have seen a lot of conservatives argue companies should do everything they can to maximize profits, so under that logic shipping jobs to Mexico is fine. Blame the worship of the free market that the right wing has promoted for decades, NAFTA was Reagan's baby.

Two, sometimes its in a country's best interests to get along with its neighbors and treat them with a little respect, instead of pointlessly antagonizing them. With trade there will always be give and take, but insisting the other side "lose" at all costs, will gain you nothing, but a pyrrhic victory.
Click to expand...

Well the people who advocate maximizing profits at any cost are not conservatives. Conservatism is the belief first and foremost that everyone should be free to do as they wish so long as they do not harm others in the process. The people behind NAFTA are world bankers and corporatists. These people do not subscribe to any political party and use both parties to achieve their goals.
The use of a trade agreement to maximize profits for certain specific groups at the expense of jobs and prosperity of millions of others is not something a conservative can condone.
 
jdog said:
Well the people who advocate maximizing profits at any cost are not conservatives. Conservatism is the belief first and foremost that everyone should be free to do as they wish so long as they do not harm others in the process. The people behind NAFTA are world bankers and corporatists. These people do not subscribe to any political party and use both parties to achieve their goals.
The use of a trade agreement to maximize profits for certain specific groups at the expense of jobs and prosperity of millions of others is not something a conservative can condone.
Click to expand...

I'm confused then. I thought Conservatives believed in a "free market". There is nothing about "harming others" in free market ideology.
 
iguanaman said:
Tariffs are stupid, you got that right. You think that Mexico won't retaliate?
Click to expand...

Do you really think that tariffs are stupid? Do you know that Mexico has a tariff on goods produced in the US sold in Mexico? NAFTA got that reduced not eliminated. Why shouldn't tariffs be used to keep jobs in this country? It is obvious that the US labor force cannot compete with the cheap labor of Mexico. Tariffs are one way to level the playing field.
 
Southern Dad said:
Do you really think that tariffs are stupid? Do you know that Mexico has a tariff on goods produced in the US sold in Mexico? NAFTA got that reduced not eliminated. Why shouldn't tariffs be used to keep jobs in this country? It is obvious that the US labor force cannot compete with the cheap labor of Mexico. Tariffs are one way to level the playing field.
Click to expand...

And raising tariffs would cause Mexico to retaliate by increasing their tariffs.
 
iguanaman said:
I'm confused then. I thought Conservatives believed in a "free market". There is nothing about "harming others" in free market ideology.
Click to expand...

First of all do you understand what a real conservative is? Republicans are NOT conservatives. Conservatism is the belief that every person should be free to do as they wish so long as they do interfere with anyone else's right to do the same. It is a Libertarian principal.

Now a truly free market, would be a wonderful thing, but we do not have that and I doubt we ever will. In all of the industrialized world we have government controlled markets. Hell is most places in this screwed up country they harass little kids with lemonade stands for not having business license's. When corporatists start talking about free markets it is "newspeak" for a monopolized market in which they are "free" to make obscene profits using government force.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
And raising tariffs would cause Mexico to retaliate by increasing their tariffs.
Click to expand...

Okay, great. Now considering the trade deficit that we already have with Mexico what is the down side to that? Do you have a better solution? I know, we can allow all our manufacturing jobs to continue to flock to Mexico. Then we can allow illegals to flow across our borders into this country to take the service industry jobs that can't be exported. That's the ticket. Isn't that what the Democrats want?
 
jdog said:
First of all do you understand what a real conservative is? Republicans are NOT conservatives. Conservatism is the belief that every person should be free to do as they wish so long as they do interfere with anyone else's right to do the same. It is a Libertarian principal.

Now a truly free market, would be a wonderful thing, but we do not have that and I doubt we ever will. In all of the industrialized world we have government controlled markets. Hell is most places in this screwed up country they harass little kids with lemonade stands for not having business license's. When corporatists start talking about free markets it is "newspeak" for a monopolized market in which they are "free" to make obscene profits using government force.
Click to expand...

So there is no representation for Conservatives and never has been? You make it sound like a fringe group.
 
Southern Dad said:
Okay, great. Now considering the trade deficit that we already have with Mexico what is the down side to that? Do you have a better solution? I know, we can allow all our manufacturing jobs to continue to flock to Mexico. Then we can allow illegals to flow across our borders into this country to take the service industry jobs that can't be exported. That's the ticket. Isn't that what the Democrats want?
Click to expand...

Do you look forward to having the prices of farm products to soar?
 
trouble13 said:
Imo here's the issue with free trade agreements. Consumers enjoy lower costs at the expense of American workers. American workers enjoy a higher standard of living and a higher standard of work conditions than most countries. American currency is also stronger than most of our neighbors. So if Mexico can make a widget that Americans pay $20 for here and it only costs them a few pass to make there they can sell that widget here for $15 and still make a better profit than manufactor ing that'd widget here.

Now the idea behind it was that if we sent money to a poor economy like Mexico it would improve the standard of living there by creating jobs. This would fix the illegal immigration problem and the drug trafficking. It just has not worked out that way.

I am an advocate of basing our tariff rates on the living standards of the country we are doing business with. So for instance I would place a relativity liw tariff on a place like Canada because our standard of living and current values are close to equal but I would use high tariffs on places like jexico to pressure them into improving their standard of living. Invest in your people and America will invest in your country type of mentality.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

The issue that it didn't work is that the government is about as corrupt a they get along with most government in south america.
they are all corrupt for the most part. none of the money actually made it to the workers. it went straight to government officials who paid
off drug lords etc ...
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Do you look forward to having the prices of farm products to soar?
Click to expand...

That is a teeny, tiny portion of illegal labor usage but it sounds good as justification for keeping labor costs down in many other occupations. Do you want home (and related repair) costs to soar? Do you want motel 6 to cost as much as the Hilton? Do you want to clean your own house, watch your own kids, cook your own meals and mow your own yard? Do you want fries with that? ;)
 
trouble13 said:
Imo here's the issue with free trade agreements. Consumers enjoy lower costs at the expense of American workers. American workers enjoy a higher standard of living and a higher standard of work conditions than most countries. American currency is also stronger than most of our neighbors. So if Mexico can make a widget that Americans pay $20 for here and it only costs them a few pass to make there they can sell that widget here for $15 and still make a better profit than manufactor ing that'd widget here.

Now the idea behind it was that if we sent money to a poor economy like Mexico it would improve the standard of living there by creating jobs. This would fix the illegal immigration problem and the drug trafficking. It just has not worked out that way.

I am an advocate of basing our tariff rates on the living standards of the country we are doing business with. So for instance I would place a relativity liw tariff on a place like Canada because our standard of living and current values are close to equal but I would use high tariffs on places like jexico to pressure them into improving their standard of living. Invest in your people and America will invest in your country type of mentality.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

This is only one aspect of a very complicared problem. Your points are good ones, but consider the effects that the World Bank and the International Monetary fund has on poorer countries. That is what natural resorce they are forced to barter in exchange for loans from those sorces.
We don't have to go far for examples. G.M.O. seeds are forced upon people right here in our own hemisphere. Clear cutting rain forest is another example exerted by these entities. A nations true wealth is in it's natural resorces. When that's gone, poverty on a grand scale is what's left. So to your point, punishing a country via higher tariffs because the poverty there results in lower production cost ultimately hurts the impovershed. Glad that we are discussing this sad story. Maybe we can pressure those who hold those levers so that economic justice for all can result.
 
Rich123 said:
This is only one aspect of a very complicared problem. Your points are good ones, but consider the effects that the World Bank and the International Monetary fund has on poorer countries. That is what natural resorce they are forced to barter in exchange for loans from those sorces.
We don't have to go far for examples. G.M.O. seeds are forced upon people right here in our own hemisphere. Clear cutting rain forest is another example exerted by these entities. A nations true wealth is in it's natural resorces. When that's gone, poverty on a grand scale is what's left. So to your point, punishing a country via higher tariffs because the poverty there results in lower production cost ultimately hurts the impovershed. Glad that we are discussing this sad story. Maybe we can pressure those who hold those levers so that economic justice for all can result.
Click to expand...
Well if your unwilling to demand that our trading partners raise what they invest in their workers and the conditions they work in than you have to either lower those conditions domestically so they can compete with their competors or accept the loss of a manfactoring sector in America.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
Now the idea behind it was that if we sent money to a poor economy like Mexico it would improve the standard of living there by creating jobs. This would fix the illegal immigration problem and the drug trafficking. It just has not worked out that way.
Click to expand...
I don't follow.
You're saying the purpose of NAFTA was to reduce illegal immigration? I think that's a potential side-effect, but I don't see how that was the purpose, in any serious way.
Such trade agreements are designed to be win/win, and economists largely agree net benefits all around.

The biggest immediate downsides are loss of U.S. jobs and having to shift to new industries.
For the small slice of people that are caught in that job loss and are maybe too old to retrain, we should help provide support, since it's us, the nation, that benefited from shipping their jobs overseas.
But traditionally Republicans fight any such legislation designed to help victims of aggressive economic policy that enriches many in the U.S., but leaves some out in the cold.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement

What I did read was that some (most?) believe Trump's notions regarding NAFTA are misguided:

Impact of withdrawing from NAFTA
Following Donald Trump's election to the presidency, a range of trade experts have said that pulling out of NAFTA as Trump proposed would have a range of unintended consequences for the U.S., including reduced access to the U.S.'s biggest export markets, a reduction in economic growth, and increased prices for gasoline, cars, fruits, and vegetables.[12] The worst affected sectors would be textiles, agriculture and automobiles.[105][13]

According to Tufts University political scientist Daniel W. Drezner, the Trump administration's desire to return relations with Mexico to the pre-NAFTA era are misguided. Drezner argues that NAFTA made it easier for Mexico to transform to a real democracy and become a country that views itself as North American. If Trump acts on many of the threats that he has made against Mexico, it is not inconceivable that Mexicans would turn to left-wing populist strongmen, as several South-American countries have. At the very least, US-Mexico relations would worsen, with adverse implications for cooperation on border security, counterterrorism, drug-war cooperation, deportations and managing Central American migration.[43]

According to Chad P. Bown (senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics), "a renegotiated NAFTA that would reestablish trade barriers is unlikely to help workers who lost their jobs — regardless of the cause — take advantage of new employment opportunities."[106] According to Harvard economist Marc Melitz, "recent research estimates that the repeal of NAFTA would not increase car production in the United States."[11] Melitz notes that this would cost manufacturing jobs.[11
Click to expand...
 
trouble13 said:
Well if your unwilling to demand that our trading partners raise what they invest in their workers and the conditions they work in than you have to either lower those conditions domestically so they can compete with their competors or accept the loss of a manfactoring sector in America.
Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Looks like the invested quote a lot, their middle class soared:
NAFTA has also been credited with the rise of the Mexican middle class. A Tufts University study found that NAFTA lowered the average cost of basic necessities in Mexico by up to 50%.[40] This price reduction has increased cash-on-hand for many Mexican families, allowing Mexico to graduate more engineers than Germany each year.[41]
Click to expand...

Tufts University political scientist Daniel W. Drezner has argued that NAFTA made it easier for Mexico to transform to a real democracy and become a country that views itself as North American. This has boosted cooperation between the United States and Mexico.[43]
Click to expand...
Sounds like a fairly tale scenario. Why would we want to derail that?
 
Mach said:
I don't follow.
You're saying the purpose of NAFTA was to reduce illegal immigration? I think that's a potential side-effect, but I don't see how that was the purpose, in any serious way.
Such trade agreements are designed to be win/win, and economists largely agree net benefits all around.

The biggest immediate downsides are loss of U.S. jobs and having to shift to new industries.
For the small slice of people that are caught in that job loss and are maybe too old to retrain, we should help provide support, since it's us, the nation, that benefited from shipping their jobs overseas.
But traditionally Republicans fight any such legislation designed to help victims of aggressive economic policy that enriches many in the U.S., but leaves some out in the cold.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement

What I did read was that some (most?) believe Trump's notions regarding NAFTA are misguided:
Click to expand...
yes I am saying that one of the selling points of nafta was that it would lead to less illeagal immigration from mexico.

I cant say what kind of effect this will have on our relations with Mexico. This is part of what Trump ran on "America first"

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
Mach said:
Looks like the invested quote a lot, their middle class soared:



Sounds like a fairly tale scenario. Why would we want to derail that?
Click to expand...
I dont want to derail mexicos economy from improving. As I have said Mexicos improving economy is a positive for both our countrys. There is a balance that we must find that allows them to improve without making the american manufactoring sector extinct.

I think it was you that spoke about retooling the American worker for new tasks. I agree with that sentiment but it needs to be done pragmatically. You need to keep enough manfucturing here to sustain people as the retooling process takes place. The problem is also compounded by the pace of automation taking place. Theres a bunch of game changers that are right around the corner thats going to eliminate so many jobs. Think about the impact automated shipping lanes and trucking lanes will have and I dont think they are more than 25yrs away.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
iguanaman said:
So there is no representation for Conservatives and never has been? You make it sound like a fringe group.
Click to expand...

No, conservative is one extreme of the political spectrum. It is defined by the belief in the sovereignty of the individual, and that the State is subservient to the people. The other end of the spectrum is socialism in which the State is believed to be the sovereign, and the people are subservient to it.
True conservatives are definitely the minority, as to be truly a truly sovereign and free citizen, you must be willing to take full responsibility for your life. There are few people today with enough courage to do that, the vast majority want something handed to them that they have not earned for themselves.
 
jdog said:
No, conservative is one extreme of the political spectrum. It is defined by the belief in the sovereignty of the individual, and that the State is subservient to the people. The other end of the spectrum is socialism in which the State is believed to be the sovereign, and the people are subservient to it.
True conservatives are definitely the minority, as to be truly a truly sovereign and free citizen, you must be willing to take full responsibility for your life. There are few people today with enough courage to do that, the vast majority want something handed to them that they have not earned for themselves.
Click to expand...

So you are saying yes? "True" Conservatism is a fringe group? I am having a hard time seeing a difference between wacko libertarians and what you described. But by saying the State is "subservient" you mean basically non-existent don't you? What good is "subservience" if there is nothing to command? I believe in a strong Govt. that is subservient to the needs of the people. You know....that old fashioned "by the people, for the people" thing. A Govt. that does not protect the weak from the strong has no reason to exist at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom