Trump is right about trade treaties

[toomuchtime_]

True and that's why Trump supports bilateral trade agreements that protect and promote both countries' interests and opposes multilateral trade agreements that always drain jobs from America and increase out trade deficit.

So if we sign two free trade agreements, one with Mexico, one with Canada, then all of a sudden jobs will come back? Why?

We won't sign free trade agreements with countries like Mexico because they are disadvantageous to Americans. We will sign trade agreements that protect and promote American interests.

Ahh so multilaterality has actually nothing to do with your complaints, Your complaints are about America having ANY free trade with lower wage countries like Mexico and what you actually favor are protectionist policies that rely heavily on tariffs.

Why didn't you just say so?

I did say so. And multilateral treaties treat all parties the same, so, for example, NAFTA forces the US to treat Mexico and Canada the same when the US has vastly different issues with these countries. As Trump recently mentioned, Ford is preparing to build factories in Mexico to make auto parts. If this happens, people in Michigan will lose their jobs and our trade deficit will increase, but a tariff on auto parts from Mexico would discourage this move and keep the jobs in Michigan; I fully support this.

How can you believe it is wrong for an American president to protect the livelihoods of American citizens?

You didn't say your problem was free trade with Mexico rather that muti/bilateral nature of agreements.

Although I don't have strong opinion on this issue I have always favored free trade, which traditionally was more of a republican/conservative position...until Clinton triangulated it that is.

There are real downsides to going down the tariff wars route, starting with increased prices, so I don't agree that protectionism is synonymous with "protecting livelihoods" as you try to frame it

Placing tariffs on some goods from countries like Mexico will save US jobs and it will likely raise prices a little, but it may also induce manufacturers to make their operations more efficient here to compete more successfully among themselves. Paying a little more for a car is not as great a hardship as a family not having a job or a community withering from high unemployment.

Of course it is against WTO rules to levy such tariffs, so we will have to reconsider if the WTO is in our best interests. What weighs against taking this harder position on trade is that it may limit or even reduce our influence around the world and I think this consideration was in the minds of Clinton, Obama and the free traders in the Republican party, but if free trade means some of our people at home have to suffer to relieve the suffering of people elsewhere, perhaps that influence comes at too high a price.

 

[AntonToo]

Placing tariffs on some goods from countries like Mexico will save US jobs and it will likely raise prices a little, but it may also induce manufacturers to make their operations more efficient here to compete more successfully among themselves. Paying a little more for a car is not as great a hardship as a family not having a job or a community withering from high unemployment.

Of course it is against WTO rules to levy such tariffs, so we will have to reconsider if the WTO is in our best interests. What weighs against taking this harder position on trade is that it may limit or even reduce our influence around the world and I think this consideration was in the minds of Clinton, Obama and the free traders in the Republican party, but if free trade means some of our people at home have to suffer to relieve the suffering of people elsewhere, perhaps that influence comes at too high a price.

Mexico imports $267 billion from US and exports 316 billion of goods and services to us. Mexico | United States Trade Representative

Once you start going down the tariff road in one sector, Mexico will aim to retaliate in another and before you know it you've disrupted much business, put at risk this whole ecosystem and strained relations with a country on our border. Over what? A 49 billion trade deficit?

Do we seriously have nothing more time-effective to concentrate our political efforts on in this country? I got one - how about we concentrate on filling the record number of jobs ALREADY open in America in search of someone qualified to fill them?

America has near record 5.8 million job openings

 

[toomuchtime_]

Placing tariffs on some goods from countries like Mexico will save US jobs and it will likely raise prices a little, but it may also induce manufacturers to make their operations more efficient here to compete more successfully among themselves. Paying a little more for a car is not as great a hardship as a family not having a job or a community withering from high unemployment.

Of course it is against WTO rules to levy such tariffs, so we will have to reconsider if the WTO is in our best interests. What weighs against taking this harder position on trade is that it may limit or even reduce our influence around the world and I think this consideration was in the minds of Clinton, Obama and the free traders in the Republican party, but if free trade means some of our people at home have to suffer to relieve the suffering of people elsewhere, perhaps that influence comes at too high a price.

Mexico imports $267 billion from US and exports 316 billion of goods and services to us. Mexico | United States Trade Representative

Once you start going down the tariff road in one sector, Mexico will aim to retaliate in another and before you know it you've disrupted much business, put at risk this whole ecosystem and strained relations with a country on our border. Over what? A 49 billion trade deficit?

Do we seriously have nothing more time-effective to concentrate our political efforts on in this country? I got one - how about we concentrate on filling the record number of jobs ALREADY open in America in search of someone qualified to fill them?

America has near record 5.8 million job openings

So you're suggesting factory workers who will lose their jobs in Michigan should take jobs as computer programmers in California when Ford moves its factories to Mexico?

 

[AntonToo]

So you're suggesting factory workers who will lose their jobs in Michigan should take jobs as computer programmers in California when Ford moves its factories to Mexico?

That's a strawman argument, but yes, steer people towards better career opportunity, educate our workforce, make it more flexible. All that is much preferable to dubiously beneficial and economically inorganic protectionism.

 

[toomuchtime_]

So you're suggesting factory workers who will lose their jobs in Michigan should take jobs as computer programmers in California when Ford moves its factories to Mexico?

That's a strawman argument, but yes, steer people towards better career opportunity, educate our workforce, make it more flexible. All that is much preferable to dubiously beneficial and economically inorganic protectionism.

Economically inorganic? Do you normally get away with such bullshit? You're talking about a massive reeducation and relocation program, breaking up communities and perhaps families just to avoid miffing the Mexicans? I have better, kinder cheaper idea, raise tariffs on certain products coming from Mexico to protect American jobs and raise immigration quotas for people who can fill jobs Americans can't. Your suggestion is Americans should suffer so that Mexicans don't have to.

 

[AntonToo]

So you're suggesting factory workers who will lose their jobs in Michigan should take jobs as computer programmers in California when Ford moves its factories to Mexico?

That's a strawman argument, but yes, steer people towards better career opportunity, educate our workforce, make it more flexible. All that is much preferable to dubiously beneficial and economically inorganic protectionism.

Economically inorganic? Do you normally get away with such bullshit? You're talking about a massive reeducation and relocation program, breaking up communities and perhaps families just to avoid miffing the Mexicans? I have better, kinder cheaper idea, raise tariffs on certain products coming from Mexico to protect American jobs and raise immigration quotas for people who can fill jobs Americans can't. Your suggestion is Americans should suffer so that Mexicans don't have to.

I'm talking about expansionary policies and COMPETING for best jobs with the best workforce.

You are talking about hiding behind artificial market manipulations and rigging the system in our favor behind hamfisted protectionism.

Fundamentally I see my position as optimistic and fair where yours is jaded and defeatist leading us not into growth, but long term decline. I rest my case there.

 

[toomuchtime_]

So you're suggesting factory workers who will lose their jobs in Michigan should take jobs as computer programmers in California when Ford moves its factories to Mexico?

That's a strawman argument, but yes, steer people towards better career opportunity, educate our workforce, make it more flexible. All that is much preferable to dubiously beneficial and economically inorganic protectionism.

Economically inorganic? Do you normally get away with such bullshit? You're talking about a massive reeducation and relocation program, breaking up communities and perhaps families just to avoid miffing the Mexicans? I have better, kinder cheaper idea, raise tariffs on certain products coming from Mexico to protect American jobs and raise immigration quotas for people who can fill jobs Americans can't. Your suggestion is Americans should suffer so that Mexicans don't have to.

I'm talking about expansionary policies and COMPETING for best jobs with the best workforce.

You are talking about hiding behind artificial market manipulations and rigging the system in our favor behind hamfisted protectionism.

Fundamentally I see my position as optimistic and fair where yours is jaded and defeatist leading us not into growth, but long term decline. I rest my case there.

You have no case. I am talking about protecting the interests of American people and in post after post you demonstrate that you couldn't care less about them.

 

[AntonToo]

You have no case. I am talking about protecting the interests of American people and in post after post you demonstrate that you couldn't care less about them.

Bull fucking sht. But good luck with that.

 

[indago]

Mark Gruenberg wrote for People's World 9 September 2016:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WASHINGTON - Local, state, and federal labor laws in the United States "are subject to being tossed out" by a secret trade court included in the controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership pact, a top law professor who opposes the TPP says.

In a Sept. 7 telephone press conference on the trade pact, Alan Morrison, Associate Dean for Public Interest Law at George Washington University, explained that the secret court, formally called the Investor-State Dispute System (ISDS), would have the power to kill any federal, state, or local labor laws - or even pro-worker presidential decisions - unilaterally.

Only investors and corporations can bring cases to the ISDS, challenging pro-worker laws and rulings, Morrison added. If they win, by showing harm to present or future profits, the measures are dead and affected governments cannot appeal. Other speakers at the press conference added that after such rulings, governments, i.e. taxpayers, could be on the hook for huge damages.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

article