It's interesting to see in these comments so many New York Times readers aligning themselves with corporate lobbyists who want to save NAFTA.
I understand the Canadians. They have been beneficiaries of NAFTA at the expense of American workers. They are understandably miffed that they might be kicked off their American gravy train.
But it's interesting to see so many comments supporting NAFTA--a trade treaty written to benefit multinational corporations but sold to us with promises of working class prosperity, promises never realized. Quite the opposite.
You'd think New York Times readers would be unified in their opposition to a treaty that economically gutted so many Blue States and caused a collapse in the fortunes of America's working class, both black and white.
If your job went to Mexico, forget it. It won't come back. Or it will, to be performed by a robot, not you Eventually, that job will leave Mexico too. No politician -certainly not a con-man like Mr. Trump- can bring it back to you the way it was. It's like trying to save the stagecoach from the railroad, or the passenger train from the plane. The only way left is to be competitive, not "protected". You'll have to produce something no Mexican, Chinese or Vietnamese can manufacture, lower wages not withstanding. In fact, that's what you do, actually. Under NAFTA, you manufacture several parts of a product that require high tech skills. Then you ship the article to Mexico and Canada, where they add some stuff they're competitive at. Then you sell the final item on those three countries, or overseas. That's the way to compete with Asia and Europe, which are doing the same thing among themselves. So don't fool yourself: what "buy American, hire American" means is not self sufficiency but economic consumption. An, isolated economy, also known as "autarchy", the economic model used by Castro, Maduro and Kim Jong-un. Dictator Francisco Franco tried it in Spain when his regime was deemed a world pariah. Spaniards remember those times as "The Years of Hunger". Bon apettit; put the tab on Donnie!
3
NAFTA is a red herring and Trump is taking care of his corporate buddies by bullying easy targets of Canada and Mexico rather than the real job killer, China. American, Canadian and Mexican jobs depend on trade between the three countries. Unlike China we are all neighbours and , we share the advantages and disadvantages of economic development including jobs, stablility and migration flows.
The giant sucking sound of jobs and production out of all 3 countries comes from China which entered the WTO under favourable tariff conditions as an "undeveloped economy" almost concurrently with NAFTA. Letting this trade Despite becoming the second largest economy in the world since then it maintains those preferable conditions to this day and not only jealously guards them, but is now using its "market pull" to extract technology transfer and production concessions from even the largest, wealthiest and technologically advanced companies in the US and around the world. All while maintaining punitive tariffs on imports and using state financed companies to buy companies, resources and even governments around the world.
If Trump wanted to protect American jobs he'd focus on the real problem. But the US treasury and corporations are now dependent on Chinese money, regardless of the slanted trading conditions. But he's no more likely to fix that problem than any other.
#MAGA=KillUSjobs
1
Without even mentioning Mexico, 38 states have Canada as a primary trade partner with all the export jobs that entails. That's a lot of senators to bring on board for Trump's job killing agenda. I suspect those senators won't pay much heed to Trump's uninformed voter base when they figure out their own gold plated jobs are on the line.
2
Interesting that not one lobbyist interviewed mentioned American workers or the 25% decrease in high-paying manufacturing jobs since NAFTA.
We’ve become a nation of doctors, lawyers and burger flippers since NAFTA, and it is time to bring manufacturing jobs back to the US where those industries were invented. Our lawmakers need to worry about creating a middle class in America, not Mexico or Canada.
2
It's about time!
Hay hay there are aluminum plants in Washington state shut down,start them up. Oh yeah the companies would have to compete with world slave wage levels but I’m sure Americans would gladly pay higher prices for everything! Surely corporations would accept losing a little “sugar”.
Isn’t a slave wage better than no wage?
The trump voters are coming after corporate America. The unions and dems couldn’t do it ......this is going to be FUN!
1
Our racist kleptocrat in chief wants Mexico out. He despises Spanish speakers. He is unchecked by our worthless congress, so he'll get his way. And if he doesn't get his way at first, he'll keep going back to it and ruminating on it again and again and again and again and again… Kind of like his destruction of the ACA and definitely like his destruction of our country.
1
NAFTA, did we hafta? Ross Perot was right. The "giant sucking sound" was high paying American industrial jobs moving to Mexico (leaving lower paying service jobs in their wake). Even a broken clock (President Trump) is right twice a day.
2
NAFTA is responsible for more jobs in the U.S. than in Canada or Mexico. The U.S. is no longer the only major trading partner for its neighbors as it was when NAFTA was first designed, given there is now the European Union and China as major economic blocks. U.S. protectionism under Trump may sound good to those that do not understand economics, but it is in fact making the country weaker both at home and abroad. Sadly the end result will be felt in the future when it will be too late to do much about it: there still won't be more jobs, but there will be higher prices to be paid for everything so American's will get poorer. In the end, the Russians have won the war: by helping to elect Trump they have weakened the greatest economic power who (certainly under Trump) will never be GREAT again. So sad.
2
I need to laugh when I see they say they'd rather pay duty than movie manufacturing to US. And who's going to be buying their products if no one has the money? Obviously it is a bluff, misinformation. Manufacturers are getting desperate to save their candy, NAFTA. The difference between between the cost of manufacturing in Mexico and US goes to the companies, not workers. Cars are already too expensive, as can be seen by the accumulation of used cars coming off leases. Automotive companies are unable to sell their new cars. People are not able to afford products made in low cost Mexico. What auto companies should be doing instead is concentrating on redesigning their products to make them less expensive. Instead they're going in the opposite direction. There's a limited market for the cars at their present selling prices.
2
As a Canadian and one-time NAFTA supporter, I would be very fine if it isn't renewed. While I am not always a supporter of Mr Trudeau and did not vote for the Liberals last time, nevertheless, I do applaud our Prime Minister's recent signing of our Canadian trade deal with the EU. I also support our efforts to do much more trading with the United Kingdom, whom we share a monarch with. Those are nation/states and peoples that Canada and Canadians/Canadiens actually do have something in common with.
I am old enough to remember when Canadians felt they had very much in common with Americans. Those years are gone and I do not feel they are coming back soon. On the island I live on we receive many friendly American tourists as guests. The horror stories they share of guns and shootings, distrust of government and sometimes their own neighbours, of always being told that the USA is number one, but of actually not feeling like global players anymore, is rather heartbreaking. Even when your Mr Trump leaves office, that anger, that hatred, those guns, are not going anywhere.
6
Ending NAFTA will needlessly harm American workers, communities and industries. It is an economically pointless decision based on a thoughtless campaign promise.
But in the long term, if NAFTA ends, Canada will prevail. It will be a painful adjustment. But Canada is well positioned to compete in the global economy. In addition to vast resources – including petrochemicals and pure water – we enjoy intrinsic competitive advantages due to our civil society. These include:
1) Universal government health care: vast benefit to employers and workers alike. And our public health system is not in a constant state of uncertainty.
2) Canada welcomes immigration ... and has the land mass and resources to grow our population and economy.
3) We are not burdened with decaying “3rd world” rust-belt communities, and accompanying opiate abuse and despair.
4) Due to sensible gun laws, we have a small fraction of US firearm deaths and disabilities.
5) While Canada is not utopia, we are far less fractured by racism and intolerance.
6) Post secondary education is accessible without a lifetime of debt.
7) We have banished pointless debates about gay rights and women’s control over reproduction to the dustbin of history. Same-sex marriage is legal, gay rights embedded in our human rights codes, and birth control and abortion are private medical matters.
6
I know Canada, and despite the unwavering false optimism of its citizens, it is no America, unless you want to compare it to 1980s America.
1
Maybe 1980s America wasn't so bad? Growth was gangbusters in comparison to today and got even better in the 1990s, education was relatively affordable, and despite the lack of universal health care even it was more affordable while defined benefit pensions kept a semblance of value for work and were the norm rather than the dying or dead breed today.
Besides, Canada will soon be benefiting from its openness while the US deals with its self inflicted chaos. I wouldn't be so sanguine about the US's tomorrow at this point...
3
Yes, Canada is "no America" – that's why I choose to live here instead of my hometown NYC (which I still enjoy visiting). Choosing Canada (and many Canadians came here by choice) was a thoughtful life decision for which I'm thankful daily. My family has lived, worked and prospered in Canada for 30+ years and our optimism is genuine, based upon experiences in business owner and every-day. We may not have the vast wealth of Silicon Valley – but we also don't have the epidemics of mass shootings, the despair of the rust belt, or the racial violence of Charlottesville. The 1980s were pretty good here as well!
2
It was easy to pull out of the TPP as it was not completed. Also corporate America didn't have the chance to influence Trump. NAFTA may be a different story. Trump even though promising everything to the middle class has instead been a corporate shill. I would look for Trump to say he has improved NAFTA to help the middle class, but instead tweak it to the liking of corporations instead. He knows his base will believe anything.
When the original NAFTA was signed China was a minor economy. Now it's huge and imports billions of dollars in products and services. When NAFTA was signed my country Canada needed the US. Now we don't. China wants our lumber, oil and minerals and a lot more. In a few short years China will be a bigger economy than the US. Meanwhile we are making tariff free deals with Europe and Asia (Trans Pacific Partnership). If the US wants to try and bully us we will not tolerate it. We can now buy and sell more to Europe, China and Asia than with the US. America is making a huge mistake if it thinks Canada will roll over, and if it thinks Canada has no options. We do have a choice now. If Americans don't wake up very soon they will find this out and it will be a disaster for the American economy. Frankly most Canadians want nothing more to do with a country that panders to this venal, crass, twittering twit.
4
Donald J. Trump can find time to denigrate NAFTA and TPP and can;t find the time to apologize to Mrs. Myeshia Johnson or release to the American public his 2016 tax returns. I hope he kills NAFTA and then single-handedly renegotiates a deal, just to show the American public how great a deal maker he is. So far, he hasn't even shown us his tax returns. He can't even negotiate a telephone call offering condolences. So sad.
I don't believe he's that wealthy. He's not in the top 100 Billionaires in the USA. He didn't make to cut and he is accepting money from donors who are making him dance.
1
The Chamber of Congress is for greedy businessmen soaking up all the country's wealth (and Canada's and Mexico's too). If they are this upset about ending NAFTA it must be a good thing. I'm assuming Trump is against it because he is being blackmailed by someone. Usually he is all about helping the greedy rich.
Nafta is one of the issues splitting the US apart.
People aren't crazy if they say the plant closed or their jobs was shipped overseas. They aren't crazy if they say it's hard to find something made in the US or that stores are full of cheap stuff made elsewhere.
Yet somehow hundreds of lobbyists and the Chamber of Commerce are being seen as the voices of prudent national interests.
Too many people are in the bag to Big Money. That's why rationality goes out the window.
5
Hopefully all the rubbish being talked by Trump and his flunkies will end now.
We just need Corker and Flake to announce that Republicans now only have 49 votes in the Senate and every initiative that can be traced back to Trump is dead until 2019.
That's what the world needs - the certainty that Trump cannot do anything that requires legislation to be changed.
That way everyone else can then focus on limiting the damage he can still do by other means.
3
The stock market I believe is a key which would sway Mr. Trump.
It has seen tremendous gains. Yes, the expected tax cuts have already been factored in and are a factor however the vehicle (or infrastructure) used to see these gains have been the NAFTA agreement. Tear it up and watch those stock markets plunge. How far I do not know but plunge they will.
2
Ha HA! You should not have voted for Senor Trump. Now you may need to live with the "disruption." Iowa's Senators and 3 GOP House members supported and campaigned for Trump. Now the corn and bean crops & hogs & cattle will need to find new markets. BUT, since there are no Democratic leaders in Iowa they will get off scott free. Sad.
6
Not a Trump voter, but glad he spiked the TPP and hope NAFTA , CAFTA and the rest go the way of the Dodo. If we are lucky he will pull out of the WTO.
Seriously, can't wait until all the traitor companies have to pay tariffs to import their "American" brands from Mexico.
8
The countries in the TPP have seen economic gains all round. He lost many partners. 35 states depend on NAFTA. It won't go away. Go ahead, leave NATO, Iran Deal, Paris Agreement, and WTO. And Lose the status as the greatest country in the world.
3
The rest of the world isn't tearing up their trade agreements so they'll replace US business and products with those of trade partners. Canada just signed CETA with Europe, so they'll have replacements for all the agricultural stuff that is imported from the US.
1
At the same time, I feel like humans don't change unless there is a reason. So I say let trump kill nafta. When GM and the others companies fail and ask for another bailout, then let trump voters enjoy their man and leadership. Ya can't un-shoot a bullet.
11
Senator Cornyn of Texas:
You had better pay attention!
Sen. Cruz of Texas: You, too!
Many more Texans than realize it, depend on NAFTA.
If NAFTA goes, so go thousands of jobs and many millions of Texas export dollars.
10
May God bless Canada
May God help Mexico
May God save America
13
Ross Perot had NAFTA right from the start, for US jobs it is a 'BIG sucking sound". Long past time it was done away with and a level field trading treaty put in its place. Sure there are lobbyists trooping up in the swamp to defend it. Their the one's who make $ from import/export, but they don't manufacture anything but their own plush offices, salaries, and titles.
8
Trump's opposition to NAFTA has nothing to do with any economic reality. It has everything to do with his sop to his bigot base. NAFTA for these reprobate Trump voters just means "little brown people stealing my job." Their blatant ignorance is only matched by Trump's.
I despair of having anyone in charge in Washington who actually knows anything about anything during the Trump administration.
24
Our nation is too obese to take on physically-intense jobs like fieldwork, housekeeping, and other menial jobs undocumented people typically work.
Too, the Times recently reported that many Americans can’t pass the same drug screen that undocumented workers can pass.
Face it: undocumented people are scapegoats, not problems, and it is entirely, laughably lazy to blame them for the nation’s ills.
We value capital over labor, no matter who is doing the laboring. It’s writtenninto our tax codes. We have decimated unions, haven’t indexed wages to inflation in however long, and find ourselves infested with a portion of the working class that believes guns, same-sex anything, abortion, and religion are the most important issues facing the nation.
Undocumented people are the problem. A hilarious notion if there ever was one.
10
NAFTA, not automation, destroyed manufacturing in this country. If it were otherwise, those same jobs would be done now by robots in Mexico, not by workers who make on average $2.43 per hour.
Repeal NAFTA now.
7
Except robots cost more than workers who average $2.43 per hour.
They ARE done by robots.
Could someone remind me, please, what Trump's qualifications as an economist are? Let's say apart from assorted bankruptcies and losing money on golf courses in Scotland, the home of golf?
17
Some of these reactions are a classic case of "cutting off your nose to spite your face."
7
The US has a trade SURPLUS with Canada for goodness sake.
8
I never in my life thought I'd say this but here goes... "Hurray for the Lobbyists!"
7
Who knew that sitting back and letting an unimaginative and incompetent man could result in such complications?
7
All well and good and true. The problem here is that wall street, and their enablers, the traditional republicans and centrist democrats ( aka Rockefeller Republicans, like the Clintons) implemented the system with nary a thought on what to do about the negative effects of the agreement on blue collar Americans. Their collective position on this issue is to acknowledge it, and say "tut, tut, tut, we must really do something about the loss of these jobs." When you look at the efforts of this group on this problem, there is nothing discernible other than sitting around and saying "tut, tut, tut."
3
NAFTA means bigger profits for big business. With reduced labor costs, companies make more money building in Mexico. Most VW's sold in the US are made in Mexico. The last Silverado I bought was made in Mexico. Whenever the government creates rules for trade, there will be winners and losers. With NAFTA, the companies won, and American workers got shafted. It doesn't effect the well-educated elites other than to fatten their stock portfolios.
8
Companies have to compete one global level and now employees do to. How does a Ford worker in Detroit justify $26/hour PLUS the employer costs of SS, Workers Comp, 401k matching, vacations, health insurance and a slate of gunfire raises while the same tasks south of the border earns $6 with nothing additional?
1
Should read "slate of FUTURE raises."
There are many of us in Canada who would be happy to see Nafta torn up despite the temporary hardship that would cause us.
Chapter 11, the investor state dispute settlement, ISDS allows corporations to challenge sovereign laws that protect our environment and health, and sue our government if they are deemed to restrict corporate profits. Say what?
We are bound to send our precious water south of the border no matter how much we might need it ourselves in the future. Excuse me? Whose country is this anyway?
And these are just some of the things we gave away to net some temporary economic benefits.
I say we walk away now with our head held high before that odious prenup gets replaced by something even worse. This is not a marriage of equals. Never was and now never will be, not while you have that man at your helm.
We can do better and if we may say so, you can't.
17
Trump and Lighthizer don't under economics, technology, or international trade. The changes pressed by the Trump administration are harmful to the United States and its main trading partners, Canada and Mexico. But Trump wants to be seen as sticking to his campaign rants against all previous trade agreements. He'll end up reducing U.S. jobs and making the country less competitive. What a losing combination for somebody who has kept boasting of his great skills as a negotiator!
5
U.S. International Trade Commission recommended a 219.63% tariff on Canadian Bombardier new jets. It's these kind of outlandish suggestions from the US that are making it impossible to negotiate. Trump has a plan to force everyone else walk away from NAFTA by throwing these insane proposals at the other countries and telling us take it or leave it. Then he can say look we talked and they turned us down. Some negotiator. NAFTA will fail and Trump doesn't care how many lobbyists get upset.
4
It's time for people who still support the 2 party system to accept the fact this country is controlled by bankers, corporations, and weapons manufacturers. The people who really run this country behind the shadows manipulating public perception so the public will argue over petty issues while the corporate class makes trillions. It's always been about profits over people and neither "side" is the answer. Wake up people I think it is time we clean the house from bottom to the top and get brand new govt. now before it is too late.
12
Would you prefer it be run by the typical American man in the street? Look around you before you answer. Would you prefer the 47% who pay no federal income taxes yet vote for candidates who vow to stick it to the rich? John Jay wrote that the country should be run by those who own it. He was right. The ability to tax is the ability to control.
1
This is one of those instances in which one hopes the lobbyists prevail in getting the message brought by Congress. The only people Trump is aiming to impress by this crazy position are a minority base that will suffer come what may.
4
How many of these "lobbyists" supported the President, financially or otherwise, and how many stood up to this palpably inept man who resides in the White House? It's a bit late to fight what everyone knew what would occur if Mr. Trump was elected. Money talks but only when directly threatened.
6
Trade agreements that do not address where and how profits are taxed makes no sense. After the whole point of trade is profits. Earlier this month, in a NYT article "US and Europe May Collide on Taxing Apple and Amazon" Patricia Cohen reported that "The complaint that the American tax code favors foreign multinationals over domestic ones did, however, arouse interest last week at Senate hearings on a tax overhaul." Arouse interest? Is that all?
Ms. Cohen also cited a Brookings report by Adam Looney that foreign multinationals avoid about $7.4 billion in United States taxes and that means that the United States is, in effect, paying foreign investors to take over our companies with our own tax dollars. On top of that, our federal government thru SelectUSA, spends millions to attract foreign corporations while state governors go on foreign trade missions to attract foreign corporations to move to their state sweetened by tax incentives.
Senseless. Per Law Professor Grinberg testifying at the Senate hearings about US tax laws "one of the most senseless features is the tax advantage that permits foreign-owned corporations to artificially strip out their earnings in the United States." Most states tax laws add to this senselessness by adoption of water's edge combined reporting - which excludes the profits of foreign subsidiaries from their tax base.
It is not the front-end of trade that matters most. What matters most are at the back-end - profits where and how taxed.
3
The conclusions in that article are more than outlandish, they are perfectly assinine and amount to blinkered views. The world does not revolve around the US, and in particular, on taxation. There are 2 countries in the world that tax individuals on world wide income, and the US is also the odd man out on corporate taxation. The perverse taxation effects of the US tax code is the result of US policy, not foreign multinationals.
The EU for example, is not targeting US corporations and avoiding EU multinationals. EU multinationals are compliant with territorial EU tax laws and where they aren't, they also face tax investigations and fines. It just so happens that US companies are the biggest tax evaders in the world and where they have cut illicit sweetheart deals with countries that have perpetuated tax haven status (Luxembourg), they will find the tax assessments will amount to billions of dollars. Think Amazon, Google, Apple. Even if the US won't deal with its own status as a tax haven for coporate profits, the EU won't let their companies get away with paying taxes in the jurisdictions they earn their revenue.
Regards.
Follow the money. Who profits from Trump & Co. throwing a wench into the works? Not the Walmat shoppers, not US farmers- that's for sure. Causing an overall loss of trade will not benefit American workers.
18
For sure wenches will not profit from being thrown into the works.
1
Great question. Who does benefit from the impoverishment of America? Trump and his acolytes. They will continue to reap the whirlwind of ever deeper hatred of America by his supporters, looking for easy and cheap failures. The corruption in politics is right in front of you. GW Bush, who brought us Iraq, 2008 financial catastrophe, and over a trillion in debt, has the moral courage to describe Trump as the threat to America that he is. I agree, Trump will do more damage than GW. McCain, Corker, Flake?? Attack their honesty?
Anyone with an IQ above his/her shoe size knows that ULTIMATELY free trade helps everybody participating in it. Countries with closed economic borders can NEVER gain its full potential. Economic history has taught us that.
And yet, there are imbeciles who blithely profess the opposite for short-term political expediency. Their champion is, of course, the current inhabitant in the WH.
The US is trying to strong-arm Canada and Mexico, even though and by all accounts NAFTA is working quite well. It needs some tweaking as new technologies emerge and business conditions change. But what the US is trying to do will backfire. Canada and Mexico may not walk away - at least not yet - but unreasonable expectations on the part of the US can NEVER be a standard for honest negotiations.
The business leaders know it. That is precisely why they are trying to sway the Congress. Besides, Republicans ALWAYS stood for open economic borders as a cornerstone of their economic policies. By adopting Trump doctrine, they are going back on that.
No wonder why Jeff Flake is leaving in disgust!!
30
No, free trade does NOT help everyone. Business leaders want to lower costs.
4
You happen to be half wrong. Free trade without controls benefits finance and investors, and hurts people because manufacturing always moves to cheaper labor. People who lives focus on having more cheap goods, cheap clothes, cheap TVs, cheap junk, all benefit. And of course people who get the low paying jobs usually get an upgrade from no job. So NO free trade does NOT help everybody by any sane measure of "help." Freer trade, when it it is carefully thought out, is a help. Just letting business trade freely as they like is like cancer to the American Middle Class.
6
These trade deals stink and wanting them terminated does not mean we do not want international trade, we just do not want these schemes negotiated in secret and passed by the invention of the Congressional-Executive Agreement and Fast Track to bypass the treaty provisions of our Constitution.
Next, the Investor-State Dispute provisions violate the sovereignty of the United States and the State and Commonwealth governments.
5
Lobbyists, billionaires, Big Oil, the Koch Bros, and Robert Mercer... who else matters to the likes of Trump?
9
More important than 'saving NAFTA' - we MUST save our Country that Trump is not prepared nor qualified to lead!
14
And the con on top of the con is that the president looks like he is fighting for the little guy while the owners know that any profits that come their way will go into their pockets. And he folds up his suitcase and zips around the corner before you even know that you've been had.
9
USA sells more to Canada than next few countries combined.
Canada is your largest customer for both goods and services.
Trump’s winner-take-all attitude will damage business and workers on both sides of the border.
Canadians will take their business and vacations elsewhere ... we don’t like being bullied.
40
Absolutely. The minute Trump kills NAFTA, I will look to replace everything American I consume with a non US product or service. Won't be easy, but we now have a free trade agreement with Europe that will make it possible to replace food and clothing with European alternatives. And no more US vacations.
3
Canada`s answer to Trump & the GOP is :
1/ Stay in the TPP and make it work.
2/ Get the new free trade agreement with the EU revved-up and generating jobs.
3/ Get a free trade deal with China that hopefully will include other Far East countries . FYI , Tesla is working on building a new car plant in China which currently is the largest market for electric vehicles & will become the global tech leader in electric cars.
4/ Sell hundreds of Bombardier`s C300 series airplanes thru Airbus , including to the USA , duty free of course.
5/ Develop separate ways to cooperate & do business with the USA Pacific coast esp. California. Progressives will win & conman/Trumpites will lose.
Hopefully America will bounce back quickly after Trump & the GOP are tossed into the dung heap but until then the rational world watches the US nightmare over their shoulders & moves forward.
Avocadoes have doubled in price since Trump took office. Soon there will be a lot more of that. Will Trumpkins ever care?
7
Nah. They don't eat fruits and veggies.
Outside of ketchup, onions, and pickles
2
Do you mean avocado toast doubled in price? Avocados were 5 for one dollar where grown in California this summer.
1
Run it like a reality TV show and have Trump suspend, change or leave it once a week or month by tweet.
1
Anything involving Nafta,the World Trade Organization the IMF, World bank or any multinational group is not good for the am r rican people. You can get a 6 pack of socks for 5 dollars though aren't we fortunate.
8
No one is going to go hungry while this is going on. No one on Capitol Hill, that is.
2
Funny... Democrats have always screamed about how evil giant corporations are but now join their side to oppose trump's idea of bringing back american jobs
10
This may come as a surprise to you, but it isn't the Democrats leading the charge to keep NAFTA. Democrats have always been the first party to question it. The Free Trade Agreement and later NAFTA were both conceived by Republican presidents and Conservative Prime Ministers.
3
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is mentioned multiple times.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is almost completely financed by large global corporations. It does not care about small businesses at all.
Small businesses are mostly not incorporated, and do not get sweet heart tax deals from the government or benefit as manufacturing is moved out of the country.
When Americans lose their jobs, the customers of small business loss their income.
Small businesses need to figure out that workers are their customers.
9
Let me see how this will work. First, Trump will kill Nafta, driving the cost of many consumer goods up, probably significantly. Second, it won't create much if any jobs because wages are still significantly less outside of the US. So instead of returning manufacturing to the US corporations will simply outsource the rest of what they have here. Then, Trump is going to effectively raise taxes on the middle class (except a small percentage at the top), at the same time cutting support for the elderly and poor (Social Security, Medicare and Medicare). Answer this - just who does he think is going to have the money to buy anything? What conceivable reason will there be to keep manufacturing or retail stores here with no US market? These actions seem very likely to destroy our economy. I think we are at significant danger of another depression when the effects of all these great lies come home to roost. Thanks Republicans.
18
President Trump, not the U.S. Senate, has the sole power to cancel NAFTA.
The pact was enacted as an Executive Agreement in 1993. Its final provision gives the President the authority to send a cancellation letter to Mexico and Canada and withdraw. The withdrawal takes places 6 months to the day from when the letter is sent to the leaders of those two nations.
The great irony, of course, is that these business leaders provided major financial and poltical support for Donald Trump's campaign for President and strongly opposed Hillary Clinton, who would have kept NAFTA intact.
9
It's been obvious from the beginning of the process that President Trump (and his representative Lighthizer) have had no real interest in renewing NAFTA, or even the free trade agreement with Canada, and thus have been negotiating in bad faith. The United States cancelled its last free trade (Reciprocity) agreement with Canada in 1866 and it took Canada a hundred years to trust the US again (the 1965 Auto Pact and then the 1987 Free Trade Agreement). (In 1911 Sir Robert Laird Borden's Conservatives defeated the free trade supporting Liberals of Sir Wilfrid Laurier with the slogan "No Truck Nor Trade with the Yankees") The nationalist right and left in Canada in 1965 and 1987 warned that economic integration with the United States was folly because America, with its history of populism, even if abated since FDR, couldn't be trusted. Mr Trump seems to be proving them right. The results will be very painful for Canada for a very long time, but eventually it will adjust, helped by its recently signed free trade agreement with the EU and perhaps an increased internal market of 100 million by 2100 ---the target advocated by some in recent discussions-- through massive immigration. And perhaps accepting China's offer of free trade, substituting guaranteed access for it to Canada's resources for the guaranteed access the US currently gets. Harry Truman might appreciate that irony if not the result.
9
President Trump has the right idea on trade deals, but the wrong priorities.
China is the problem, not so much Mexico. Not only is our trade deficit with China exponentially larger, but they are also recycling their surpluses into challenging the U.S. across the globe. In contrast, it’s in our direct best interests to have a prosperous, friendly Mexico.
Here is a solution. Apply differential tariffs to Chinese and Mexican imports, maybe 8% and 4%, respectively. This will move some Mexican manufacturing back to the U.S., but also move some Chinese manufacturing to Mexico.
9
Can someone in the White House at least read aloud the Coles notes version WTO charter to the non-reading President, for this is where trade between the three countries falls back to if NAFTA is summarily discarded through bad faith negotiating. NAFTA only attempted to right a lot of wrongs all parties disliked of WTO, its dissolution doesn't end trade, merely changes the rule book, and I am pretty sure many of the old rules won't be better any better for the US or Donald Trump. Constructively updating it through good faith bargaining made prudent sense, tearing it up will do more harm to all markets than good.
There are many sectors of the economy in Canada that would actually benefit at the US expense under the WTO that were given up to make NAFTA work. Tearing it up, gives those back, and there is no guarantee they would be returned if Mexico and Canada forged ahead with a bilateral agreement excluding the US. Canada may actually be pushed to even talk to the UK or EU if Trump pulls the pin on NAFTA.
7
Pushed to talk to the UK or EU? The Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) between Canada and the EU went into provisional effect last month, and only has a few more hurdles to clear until all jurisdictions fully ratify it.
3
There are signs already that Mexico is encouraging investment from China which is eager to strengthen ties with Latin America. And Mexico could easily end robust cooperation on drug enforcement and intelligence, which would make Americans less secure.
7
The "New World Order" at its best. Thank George Bush Sr for the mess that we've been in the last 25 years, also kudos to that two-faced crook- Bill Clinton. I noticed those Dems supporting NAFTA are doing so only because Trump is against it. I won't do that. I've always been against it but i still can't stand Trump, he's right only on this issue. Sorry you sell out Democrats.
4
The goal of NAFTA seems to have been only about companies' profits. Before the now decades-long "profit rules" mentality set in, management gurus like Peter Drucker wrote about social and environmental bottom lines, along with profit.
Trade pacts are structures created by people; they can be changed. Certainly we can do better than the current NAFTA, which saw Mexican corn farmers and U.S factory workers as collateral damage on the way to bigger profits for the big money players.
Change NAFTA. Write a trade pact that addresses Drucker's bottom lines of profitability along with addressing social and environmental needs.
(And don't make everything about Trump. He's a terrible messenger, but the message of re-negotiating NAFTA is a good one.)
4
The current changes to NAFTA being bandied about by US negotiators are totally unacceptable to Canada, and I presume, to Mexico. Since Trump has pulled US out of TPP, there is every reason to suspect his ego will also result in ending NAFTA. So far, the meetings about NAFTA seem like an exercise in futility.
Canada has been aware of Trump threats and has been busy establishing other trade avenues in the world. If Trump, in a fit of pique, does end NAFTA, I want to see the price of California wines exported to Canada double or triple and the price of Bourbon quadruple.
American farmers will be the big losers if NAFTA ends.
11
Hmm, I wonder why Nafta negotiations with Canada and Mexico have become rockier. Might it be that the US negotiators are being told to push completely unrealistic demands, and use "failure" of the negotiations as justification to pull out?
Wake up, people. This is not normal. Trump must go. This administration needs to be reigned in. This country can't survive much more winning.
12
Wow! Business defending Nafta!
I thought the USA got the short end of the stick!
7
THAT was actually a lie from a fraudulent real estate developer.
The name?
Donald J. Trump
3
Mexico has a presidential election in July, 2018 with the PRI, which controlled the presidency when Mexico signed NAFTA, currently in 3rd place in early polling. Given President Trump's current stance toward the country no candidate can afford to take a conciliatory position on NAFTA; indeed Mexican voters will expect candidates to stand up for national interests. There is some irony in the fact that taxpayer-subsidized corn produced in the Midwest displaced large numbers of Mexican farmers, many of whom emigrated to work in the US, and now American corn producers may find themselves frozen from the Mexican market in favor of Ukraine and Brazil. Mexico is already planning an advertising campaign in corn-producing districts in the Midwest blaming Republicans for a collapsing market. One may debate the wisdom of such a strategy but it reflects Mexican ire and the limits of flexibility on the Mexican side. They understand Trump expects to bully others in one-on-one negotiations but are not willing to retreat into a subservience to American pressure. As a Mexican economist said to me "Americans need to be careful the 'America first" posture does not become 'America last' as long-term trading interests realign, leaving Americans out". Of course that has negative short to medium term consequences for everyone but in the long run, long after Trump has left office, Americans will be paying for his short-sighted, arrogant posturing. "Repeal and replace" is as bad for NAFTA as ACA.
7
Nothing the Trump administration has proposed will bring back high paying jobs to workers in the U.S. That ship sailed. As is true of every issue the current president tweets about, trade policy is far more complicated than Mr. Trump or any of his advisers realizes; campaign sound bites do not describe the hard reality facing us; nor does it translate into effective policy.
8
The economists promised us that in the long run "free trade" would make everyone's lives better. Well this is the long run, and workers are worse off then when we had trade barriers.
Retaining doesn't mean anything if your over fifty. No one will hire you, no matter what your trained in.
Capitalism is all about machines (that is what capital is).Humans are an input to be minimized. The earth is a resource to be exploited.
Markets have their uses, but the idea that markets are magical and solve every problem automatically are pure fantasy. That's unicorns and poor in the sky.
Disruption and destruction may be good for corporate profits, but they are not good for humans. Families need stability to raise healthy children so they can grow up to be productive.
The global race to the bottom we have created is destroying us.
Wake Up!
6
Losing Nafta could cost this country about a million jobs.
it will drive the cost of government up; the cost of doing business up; and costs for consumers up. Those jobs of hammering on hubcaps for $20 an hour are just not coming back folks. Robots are taking those jobs. Trump could easily undo the economy with his massive ignorance and matching ego.
52
When artificial intelligence is doing the stock trading (most trades are already done by computers), and robots are taking more and more jobs, if we leave everything to "free markets," and weaken government (I.e democracy, according to the constitution), how long will it take before AI decides that humans are not worth feeding and kill us with our self driving cars?
Capital is machinery. Capitalism is all about machines. It doesn't need humans. Corporations don't need humans. (But they are now allowed to own our DNA.)
We are creating a world where humans are nothing but surplus labor.
Democracy is about humans, but more and more of us are being taught to hate government, and a large number seem ready to ditch the constitution.
Our republic is far from perfect, but the constitution has mechanisms for improving it from the inside. The problem is most people can't be bothered to participate, and many who do, only do it every two or four years.
If you do not want the human race dumped on the trash heap of history, you need to strengthen the ability of governments to protect humans and the environment from global corporations.
History is shifting.
4
A president is not responsible for an economy. Citizens should learn to organize/unionize and demand laws and practices that defend their interests.
3
It sounds a lot like repeal & replace. As with the ACA, the administration's position is based on falsehoods. Let's see who is tougher: American business or politicians.
10
tony, agree, I think it is time American Business exerts it's right to demand what has been keeping America competitive NAFTA
Any American workers in that blitz to save NAFTA?
10
Don't these firms employ a LOT of American workers?
11
For starters, the auto workers should want it. If NAFTA comes apart, the car companies move their factories to Asia.
5
Not just workers. Farmers are huge beneficiaries of NAFTA, too.
2
Both Democrats and Republicans should unite in opposition to NAFTA. These corporate lobbyists have bought off too many of our politicians who support agreements like NAFTA so CEOs and shareholders can rid themselves of American labor and replace us with cheaper workers overseas.
NAFTA has been a disaster for American labor and small business while further enriching the 1 percent. It's time to ditch NAFTA and all these other trade agreements that favor the rich at the expense of the nation at large.
17
Just more rhetoric from an isolationist, what century are you living in.
I agree the 1% are raking in money but if you don't have global trade they will have no problem taking a lot more from you.
8
That's nothing but sloganeering, divorced from facts. The effect of NAFTA has been complex. What will happen to the $412 billion in exports to Mexico and Canada if the US withdraws from NAFTA today? Do you think the $500+ billion in imports do not generate jobs? What will happen to those? What makes you think blowing up NAFTA will bring back jobs? What's stopping a business from shifting its supply lines to some place like China, Sri Lanka, Cambodia, or Vietnam?
Unless you have definitive answers to those questions (Trump has none,) I will continue to tell my representatives in Congress to oppose withdraw from NAFTA as irresponsible, knee-jerk foolishness.
4
What is the evidence that anything you say is true? Do you realize that the bubble for American workers was mainly about access to minerals, cheap coal and electricity, and a world struggling to recover from WWII?
Today, what are the equivalents of those HUGE factors? Not so many. Global transport of raw minerals, rising demand in huge (billions) populations. Pretending that this is all about corruption isn't going to alter the stagnant middle class. Republicans have defeated better education by debasing our teachers, wanting the tax money for themselves. We are not incentivizing technology, but sending people to private colleges until their government benefits run out, and they end with no particularly advantageous skills. But we have a handy, untrue, and useless explanation.
1
Hey President Trump, here's the art of the deal: trade a 10% corporate tax rate for a constitutional amendment prohibiting corporations from participating in any way in our political process. No lobbying. No campaign donations. No advertising in campaigns. No model legislation. Chamber of Commerce disbanded because there is nothing for them to do. Etc. Art of the Deal!
5
the Republican party is not interested in going back to the good old days of merely paying idol homage to the US Constitution. they're in unapologetic, open revolt against it these days.
5
It is widely believed in Canada that the entire renegotiation exercise is a sham. Several American demands, the proposed 5 year sunset clause and an end to the current dispute settlement process for example, are total non starters for both Canada and Mexico. The USA is clearly not negotiating in good faith but is acting like a school yard bully. Trump wants and needs a win on something and tearing up NAFTA would be one for his base. The end of NAFTA would be a loss for all three countries and will be painful in the short run. But as the old song goes "got along without you before I met you, gonna get along without you now"
39
People who have been whining about losing their jobs to Mexico seem to have no problem buying very inexpensive car parts and food among many other things from Mexico. What a lot of people don't know is that NAFTA is responsible for the big influx of Mexican labor in the late 90s into the early 2000s. Our agricultural surplus was dumped in Mexico at below cost of production prices which drove millions of Mexican farmers off their land to seek employment elsewhere. I used to work with a lot of them. They handed flyers in Mexico City that told them to come to the US as there was lots of work there. This was all part of the consolidation of what used to be small farms in the West and Midwest into giant agribusiness operations growing wheat, corn and dairy products. Where there used to be hundreds of individual farms there are now these huge consolidated holdings that employ cheap Mexican labor. It is sad, but how do you go back? Once those small farms and the people who ran them were gone, there is no one to take their place.
34
I suggest you carefully look into what you propose caused the demise of Mexican Agriculture. Maybe you need to accept the fact that Mexico's government terrible agricultural policies, lack of financing and most of all inefficiencies inherent to Mexican agriculture made buying from the US a better option. That is what trade is about, concentrate on what you have inherent efficiency. Also, no there were no adds or no concerted marketing efforts to promote immigration to the US. It was supply and demand , your need for people to do jobs most American's don't accept.
3
NAFTA created disruptions to the Mexican agrarian community which migrated across the border. American Corporate Agri-Business was the beneficiary of this; local US farmers saw crop prices on vegetables and fruits driven down and US Agra-business was able to establish a low-cost supplier lever to keep cost suppressed. Let's not forget impact on American poultry, pork, & beef; immigrants, many from Mexico, Central America, and 3rd world - filled jobs Americans shunned. Net impact was stable to lower food prices in the US over time, but at a social cost abroad.
Automotive parts production in Monterrey (MX) accounts for the reason American vehicles cost is lower over time. Manufacture of labor-intensive electrical harness and semiconductor device assembly (huge labor pool of Mexican women), especially as vehicles with 50% electronics content, and the trend on a major US industry resulted in a sea change shift. Economic cost curve will not reverse, especially when US consumers want lower car prices or no-cost automotive financing options for 5 years.
NAFTA (including Canadian production) is here to stay.
Trump supporters shopping at K-Mart, Wal-Mart, Costco, are angry about jobs being transferred overseas or to Mexico. If you ask whether they invested in more education and skill development, the answer is (pathetically) no.
My point: These people are whiners and complainers. Trump's nativism stirs and assuages the rabid throngs of his base. They have sat on the sidelines.
5
If your family have be decimated by job losses to Mexico, I presume you would not be whining about folks whining about losing their jobs. Good jobs allow Americans to buy better products made in America. When we are left with minimum wage jobs of course we have to buy on the cheap. I can see you still can't see us.
2
Without a significant wage cut, American old-school manufacturing will not be competitive on the world market. We could automate everything, but that won't result in large numbers of high wage jobs. There's a balancing act here that reasonable trade agreements help to create and maintain. There is sense in having ways to monitor agreements and to keep them in balance overall, but scrapping them makes no sense. We, like it or not, live in a world economy. If we want other countries to buy our stuff, we need to buy theirs. Given our standard of living, we need to figure out ways to sell expensive stuff that requires an intelligent/trainined/educated workforce, allowing the low paid work to be completed elsewhere. Trumps' plan and thinking could make us an island; while we are much richer in resources a self contained US would not be a step forward.
8
The US is already on the road to becoming an island as it alienates the rest of the world. The idea of becoming self-sustaining and independent of outside forces is believable to people who are manipulated into believing they are the only ones suffering while everyone else is playing them for fools. The US may be the last country in the world believing it can have everything it wants by some kind of divine right and WILL be left on its own by its own foolishness.
6
The army of lobbyists that will hit Capitol Hill will be led by the millions of workers in US export industries whose jobs are now in serious trouble. The states most threatened by the demise of NAFTA trading with Canada are the swing states like Wisconsin, Michigan and Ohio. Already, Trump's bluster has caused CEOs on both sides of the border to hesitate on investing to create new jobs until NAFTA is made more certain. This is already costing jobs, directly contrary to the Trump talk about creating millions of new jobs.
Moreover, ending or reducing free trade costs jobs immediately while it will take much longer for new job creation to take up the slack. If Canada retaliates, export sales to Canada end right away and US exporters have to lay off workers soon thereafter. Given that 35 states have Canada as their number one export market, the Congress and governors see the threat. The threat not just from the ending of NAFTA but from Donald Trump. One of the first jobs to end will be President Trump's.
17
Trump has already handed most of Asian trade control over to China. Now he wants to end NAFTA which has successfully managed trade policies here in North America. I suppose he will give Western Europe over for Russia to manage. Why not? America will finally be for Americans.
3
Have people forgotten that before the so-called 'Free' Trade fantasy was propagandized upon us, we were already trading with the rest of the world and protecting American manufacturing and jobs at the same time.
American historical perspective is very short sided if not outright politically slanted.
The press and those for Nafta and the TPP paint the opposition as being against trade which is utterly ridiculous.
But what these deals have done is give corporations the power to control our government, our labor laws and labor, patents, wages, permission to outsource and permission to overrule environmental, labor and other protections We the People want - like the right to know where our food comes from and what is in it.
Corporations are the tools of the oligarchs and the establishment, and what the establishment wants, the establishment gets.
Sometimes it takes a while, but mostly it happens continuously.
Two examples:
Wall Street should have been broken up, and the major securities fraudsters prosecuted and incarcerated. The elite made sure this didn’t happen.
The Republican architects of the torture program should have been prosecuted and incarcerated. The elite made sure this didn’t happen.
The oligarchic elite doesn't want any disruption to their money train.
They don't want Nafta to end.
"Free trade” is about one thing: wages. That is, lowering wages.
That's why nothing will happen to Nafta and illegal immigration will continue.
It's the American Way.
Bank on it.
16
Chris be speaking the gospel.
2
@ DC
Darn right. People need to be reminded how they are being played. Day in, day out. Right in your face.
2
The elite that prevented proper anti-monopolistic regulation of our financial institutes were primarily Republicans. Killing labor unions was a political act done by politicians voted in on the right wing fraud of unleashing free enterprise. Now the same electorate wants to blame liberals who were fighting against all of this. Absolute fools.
1
Must be some serious money there for the vultures. Don't waste any worry on health care or good paying jobs for the working poor.
15
We have not resolved a fundamental issue. Whom do we want to benefit by these trade agreements? Do we want a relatively small number of industrial workers to obtain significantly higher wages from these trade agreements - which even if reasonable - may be difficult to achieve? Or, should the trade system be set up to benefit the more numerous consumers, even if the benefit to each consumer is appreciably less than it is to each worker whose job returns due to the elimination of NAFTA? While both objectives are laudatory, in the end I just think that given that all other things being equal most Americans will go for the lower price and corporations will have a strong incentive (or necessity) to provide product at that lower price. Thus, in the end, bringing back the types of jobs that have left for Mexico will be too difficult to achieve significant results.
7
Although not a factory worker, I come down on the side of these agreements benefiting workers. Why? Because higher labor costs will drive manufacturers to use higher quality materials so the buyers of the goods get something more valuable for the higher price. Using higher quality thread so buttons stay on won't affect the manufactured cost of a garment much, but it will affect the utility greatly. Fewer higher quality goods shipped a shorter distance means a much much lower impact on the environment. Less trash, less shipping, smaller stores with smaller parking lots, etc.
Ultimately, everyone works, and having better working conditions benefits everyone too.
9
The choice is between Wal-Mart prices or having an industrial base and a middle class.
We're giving up our industrial base for cheap consumer goods, kinda like how the Indians sold Manhattan to the Dutch for trinkets.
It's not really about cheap prices, anyway. Cars aren't cheaper because they're built in Mexico. But profits are higher because Mexicans are paid $6 an hour versus $25 for an American worker. Prices stay the same while shareholders and CEOs replace American workers with Mexicans and pocket the difference.
34
Yeah, but how much more expensive will US cars be when built in the States at $25/hr. Tariffs will be placed on foreign cars to make them even more expensive. $125,000 Ford F-150 anyone....
2
There are not business interests with differing outcomes under Nafta and the proposed changed Nafta, as there are with some income tax issues for example. The "problems" with Nafta were invented to suggest Trump's firebrand call for vast change had some viable evidence behind it. Americans in old-school manufacturing have figured things out and are finding work in other areas of the economy.
5
This would be a good time for the Democrats to exchange their support for funding through NAFTA of significant education, training, relocation for displaced workers. Democrats could stand up for workers and get the businesses that will profit from NAFTA to pay for displacing workers.
6
is that the vision for the "new public sector"?
stinks
1
Excellent idea. Too bad today's Democrats are mostly pro-business liberals who, despite HRC's devastating loss, still think they can win with center-right economic policy in a veneer of social issue liberalism.
For the policies you want, you'll have to work for a viable third party.
8
It's not a vision, it's a tactic applicable to one legislative issue
It's important to help workers with a transition when they are displaced by trade deals that increase the revenues of businesses that profit from replacing them
"The president has long threatened to ditch Nafta, but businesses largely discounted that as more bluster than reality."
Now the business world may finally understand why women, minorities, immigrants, people who want solid health care, a healthy environment, strong public education, a respect for the truth and facts, and a civil society have been complaining about for months.
24
Trump's policies, including NAFTA, are why business avoids unstable regimes that may change at a moments notice and alter international commerce. We're in for a rocky ride until Americans wake up and understand Trump works for his interest not ours.
18
So what. Let them avoid them. Businesses are the cause of our grief. Hogging profits , depressing wages, busting unions, anti-health care anti-clean enviroment. All in the name of that extra dime or two in the quarterly dividend report.
4
China imposes a 25% tariff and then a 17% tax on imported autos. The US charges a 2.5% tariff. How can we ever sell our cars in China? NAFTA allows Mexico to undercut our manufacturing with duty-free cheap labor. The free lunch should have never been given and since it has for 25 years, its difficult to rescind it. But modify NAFTA and rescind parts of it, if needed, to save American jobs. The US must enact smarter trade agreements that help all parties but not devastate American jobs. Do we need another 25 years of good jobs going south?
8
Actually what the U.S., Canada and Mexico should is come up with a trade agreement that helps all three countries be competitive on the global market and out perform China. Do that and watch the economies of all three countries soar.
2
trump is the only president in a long time who will not be visiting Canada and mexico.if nafta is history trump has no idea what the backlash will be in Canada.visitors to the states will be way down.canada was going to spend 6 billion on boeing jets but that is history.trump says humans have nothing to do with climate change but today in Ottawa it is 70 degrees.
28
Until something is done about lobbyists being able to "influence" our elected officials, nothing will change in this country. Seems money trumps everything.
5
We can be certain of one thing. Trump will never do the right thing for America as long as his ego is involved.
25
Every time Trump attacked Nafta and the Clintons during the debates, Hillary stood there stone-faced and made no attempt to refute him. Probably because this trade deal stuff is complicated, and trying to have a nuanced debate about it would have been futile. He railed about lost jobs, and his supporters, including plenty in border states that are now fighting a Nafta pullout, loved his anger and scorched-earth populism.
No doubt Nafta needed adjustment. But no one in the business community thought a wholesale pull-out made sense. However, they and their GOP buddies let Trump use it as a dog whistle for working-class anger, propelling him into the White House.
So now they are shocked, shocked, that he still wants to pull out of Nafta? Cry me a river. Maybe the Rio Grande?
29
"‘Army’ of Lobbyists Hits Capitol Hill to Defend Nafta"
That alone should be reason enough to oppose Nafta.
15
Childish, knee-jerk reactions like this on both sides of the aisle are precisely the reason we're in the situation we're in now. Learn to compromise.
4
"...the administration’s current strategy involves rolling back some of the advantages enjoyed by businesses under the pact, with the aim of redistributing those benefits elsewhere."
NAFTA covers $1.1 TRILLION in trade, which has increased from $290 billion prior to NAFTA. In 2016, the US had a $12 billion trade surplus with Canada and a $55 billion deficit with Mexico, which nets out to a trade deficit of about 4% of total trade.
So Lighthizer suggests that we put the whole $1.1 trillion trade agreement at risk (he calls that "candy") because of a relatively tiny deficit that actually benefits US consumers, auto and ag employment.
Pretty soon, Trump will be tweeting "who knew trade could be so complicated?"
Of course, he has already blown away the TPP, which would have benefited US exporters in a region that accounts for the fastest growing economies and 40% of global trade. So blowing up NAFTA just be the chocolate cake dessert for Trump's Dinner of Destruction.
63
Great jobs program for uber-rich lawyers and something to fill Senator's time! Both people who produce nothing of value!
11
Corporations love the cheap Mexician labor pool. Canadians currency advantage suits their exports across some bridges just fine. To believe any of this political bluster is about jobs, would equate to, believing in the tooth fairy or Easter Bunny.
22
both Ms. Fairy and Mr. Bunny enjoy great popular appeal ans support in dying rustbelt districts.
reality? not so much.
pass the opioids.
3
To believe this will not have an effect on the lives of average Americans is believing in the tooth fairy or Easter Bunny. These businesses do not exist in a vacuum.
3
So most of these businesses and Donohue and the Chamber all supported the Trump Campaign.
Fine with the destruction of the environment, no worker rights in America, a renewed racism in America.
Hearing them squirm kind of makes me want to see the agreement torn up. Let them live with the problem they created.
69
Don't you realize "them" is "us"? the number of ordinary folks whose lives and finances could be displaced by Trump's economic disruption is VERY large.
5
Neil I do understand and do not wish the FTA to go down, but the damage these people are doing to America is unreal. They work to undermine voting rights. Conservative judges are designed to help corporations at the expense of citizens They are working on a tax bill that will make the rich richer, and lead to massive debt for ever. Having them get a taste of reality and potential suffering is well deserved.
The farm lobby which was the biggest winner from NAFTA were all Red states.
3
Keep in mind - there is no interest like self interest.
Sad what it going on here. The voters in the rust belt states, especially Mich., Ohio and Pa. had a legit interest in their good paying blue collar jobs going to slave labor countries like China, India, Mexico etc.
Instead of dealing with this in a fair way, i.e. a non onerous tax on these countries and tax incentives to keep jobs in America and unions working with mgt. on efficiency, the demagogue Trump exhales fire and brimstone to make these countries pay while he has no intentions of doing anything since his and Ivanka's products are made there.
The establishment republicans and democrats are owned lock, stock and barrel by these lobbyists and will do nothing about it either.
26
American workers are their own worst enemies.
Right to Work laws and states have stripped workers wages and benefits to the bare bones for everyone, blue and white collar alike.
Without collective bargaining, no matter how corrupt the union'a are, workers can never the compensation battle with corporations, big or small.
1
Thank you for your reply bloom dog. You are technically correct. Extremes usually do one or the other side in.
Pre 1940, the work place was a slave labor camp and it gave rise to unions. Post 1945 unions perverted the system with waste and corruption and anti union leg. started. Now it is starting to go back in the other direction with the work force heading back to slave labor conditions.
1
This is a piece written with no reality. "Slave labor countries"? You think most people in this world have single family homes, running drinking water, sewer systems that work, electricity, two cars, a lawn, and weekends taking the kids to softball, soccer, movies, etc.? There are in fact only a handful of countries, by definition off scale in consumption and income. The problem isn't "slave labor countries", it is how arrogant, self-centered, and ignorant this rhetoric is. What percent of Americans live below our own poverty thresholds? 25-30%. Kill any treaty you want, withdraw the US from political and moral leadership, and we will be even the poorer. The excuse for irresponsible politics is that our professional politicians, many honorable people, are corrupt. Else you'd be making $300,000/year. Amazing that this view of politicians didn't exist until 15-20 years ago. Easy excuse for personal failure.
So why is this news? This happens every single day on the Hill. Highly paid lobbyists, many former Hill workers and Congressmen and women, ask for special favors, helping to craft legislation to suit their special interests after sending millions of dollars in donations to "buy" whomever they need. The American way.
42
Because there are consequences.
2
Just curious, why don't you clever Americans come up with some like an on-line deck of cards with facial pictures for your top 52 bought and paid for lobbyists? Your people may be curious just who these top 52 humans are.
2
Money never wins in the end because those who have it seldom agree and it seems that they continually try to destroy each other. Keep fighting with each other, boys and girls.
Meantime, Progressives, democrats and independents are working to take back OUR country from your Robber Baron bosses.
26
Regardless of anything else, the ISDS (Investor State Dispute Settlement) provisions must be modified so that we don't lose our rights of redress and defense thereof to international arbitrators/courts and jurisdiction.
Otherwise, another country can sue us, and we taxpayers would be liable for any judgment taken against the US.
An example of this is the Keystone pipeline. When the Obama administration refused to approve same, Canada sued the US. Had Trump not changed our position, and allowed this to continue, we in the US would have had to pay with our taxes, for any damages assessed against the US.
Further, since Keystone was not a US firm, it would not be liable for any oil spills in the US, for which US companies would have had to contribute, and Canada would have been held harmless for any spill.
13
To clarify, the country of Canada didn't sue; the company TransCanada did. And the majority of Canadians are equally eager to get rid of the ISDS provisions. Canada is the most-sued country under this clause (70 per cent of suits have been against Canada), and the disputes are mostly over investors challenging the country’s environmental laws. Given the growing disparity between Canada's approach to environmental protection and the Trump administration's, it will likely only get worse.
53
TransCanada sued, not the Canadian government!
8
Let me understand you. If the Keystone pipeline was refused by local, state, and federal governments, we could be sued for damages?
Where did you get that silly idea? Could the Russians sue us for not letting their ballistic missile tests land in the Dakotas?