- Dec 29, 2008
- 19,806
- 4,823
- 280
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.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.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?
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?
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.