Trump speaks to President of Taiwan -- liberal media shits a brick

[Correll]

Like I said, non of those countries have the consumer market with the kind of average income that the US has. The entire world wants a piece of the action in the US. Many of the factories in countries like China, Canada and Mexico are set up by American entrepreneurs and companies who have laid off their own employees in return for lower wages,maxes, and regulations offered abroad. So this cooperation with the US has also helped build industries in these countries, who then turn around and compete with the US, by offering these same products and services to other countries. These idiotic one way trade deals are literally allowing countries to rape America.

Thanks to Trump, millions of American have become convinced that America's problems are caused by stupid trade negotiations with China. However, the fact is the United States does not have a trade agreement with China, neither a bilateral or a multilateral deal, much less a good one or a bad one. The two countries trade on simple baseline terms set by the WTO. When Trump says he wants to renegotiate our trade deal with China, he's talking about negotiating something that does not exist.

The US government and Chinese goverment don't do trade deals. Trade deals are done between US importers with Chinese exporters, sometimes producers, sometimes middle men exporters, and sometimes US subsidiaries operating in China. US importers pay a tax of a maximum of 17% depending on the goods. Since the Chinese do have distribution networks in the US, taxes on US imports from China are paid by US companies, not the Chinese producer or the Chinese government.

So what happens when we decide to punish US companies importing from China with a 35% tax? Do they start to buy from the US manufacturers? Only it those manufactures are the cheapest supplier. In most cases they will simply buy from another low cost producer abroad with no or low import tariffs. Large multinational companies with plants around the world with do an inventory swaps and avoid the tariffs completely. The net result is no new jobs produced in the US, just slightly higher prices.

Come on, you can't tell us that the arrangement the US has in these trade deals, is working for its companies or its workers. Our problems don't begin or end with disastrous trade deals, but they are indeed part of what has to be fixed, and a failed ideology.

Which trade deals? We don't have any trade agreements with China.

It was a one two combination...we had Bill and Hillary's NAFTA, and then they pushed for allowing China into the WTO. And now we have Obama pushing for the passing of the TPP, another Democratic Frankenstein trade deal that would have been the final nail for whatever was left of the US manufacturing industry.

Trump ran on having individual trade deals that could be negotiated to have more favorable terms for the US, and that's what he's planning on carrying out.

NAFTA was certainly not Bill and Hillary's. It was negotiated under both Reagan and H.W.Bush and signed by H.W. Bush at end of his term in 1992. It was ratified with the support of both Republicans and Democrats in 1993 and signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1993. It was widely accepted by Republicans in 1990's but given only lukewarm support by Democrats.

Throughout the Bush and most of the Obama administration, Republicans continued to support NAFTA. It wasn't till Trump, that NAFTA became a dirty word. However disregarding all the rhetoric, NAFTA did create more jobs than loses and was responsible for much of the growth in the 1990s.

Where job growth and economic growth in the economy due to NAFTA is hard to measure because it's spread over so many sectors, job loss is easy to measure because it occurred mostly in the manufacturing sector. As far as TPP goes, you might actually read a bit of it instead of just listening to political hacks like Trump who have obviously never even looked at it. The fact that Trump supports the idea of single nation negotiations just shows how far out of touch Trump is. World trade today is biased against single nation agreements.

World Trade is about to change.

 

[Flopper]

Thanks to Trump, millions of American have become convinced that America's problems are caused by stupid trade negotiations with China. However, the fact is the United States does not have a trade agreement with China, neither a bilateral or a multilateral deal, much less a good one or a bad one. The two countries trade on simple baseline terms set by the WTO. When Trump says he wants to renegotiate our trade deal with China, he's talking about negotiating something that does not exist.

The US government and Chinese goverment don't do trade deals. Trade deals are done between US importers with Chinese exporters, sometimes producers, sometimes middle men exporters, and sometimes US subsidiaries operating in China. US importers pay a tax of a maximum of 17% depending on the goods. Since the Chinese do have distribution networks in the US, taxes on US imports from China are paid by US companies, not the Chinese producer or the Chinese government.

So what happens when we decide to punish US companies importing from China with a 35% tax? Do they start to buy from the US manufacturers? Only it those manufactures are the cheapest supplier. In most cases they will simply buy from another low cost producer abroad with no or low import tariffs. Large multinational companies with plants around the world with do an inventory swaps and avoid the tariffs completely. The net result is no new jobs produced in the US, just slightly higher prices.

Come on, you can't tell us that the arrangement the US has in these trade deals, is working for its companies or its workers. Our problems don't begin or end with disastrous trade deals, but they are indeed part of what has to be fixed, and a failed ideology.

Which trade deals? We don't have any trade agreements with China.

It was a one two combination...we had Bill and Hillary's NAFTA, and then they pushed for allowing China into the WTO. And now we have Obama pushing for the passing of the TPP, another Democratic Frankenstein trade deal that would have been the final nail for whatever was left of the US manufacturing industry.

Trump ran on having individual trade deals that could be negotiated to have more favorable terms for the US, and that's what he's planning on carrying out.

NAFTA was certainly not Bill and Hillary's. It was negotiated under both Reagan and H.W.Bush and signed by H.W. Bush at end of his term in 1992. It was ratified with the support of both Republicans and Democrats in 1993 and signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1993. It was widely accepted by Republicans in 1990's but given only lukewarm support by Democrats.

Throughout the Bush and most of the Obama administration, Republicans continued to support NAFTA. It wasn't till Trump, that NAFTA became a dirty word. However disregarding all the rhetoric, NAFTA did create more jobs than loses and was responsible for much of the growth in the 1990s.

Where job growth and economic growth in the economy due to NAFTA is hard to measure because it's spread over so many sectors, job loss is easy to measure because it occurred mostly in the manufacturing sector. As far as TPP goes, you might actually read a bit of it instead of just listening to political hacks like Trump who have obviously never even looked at it. The fact that Trump supports the idea of single nation negotiations just shows how far out of touch Trump is. World trade today is biased against single nation agreements.

World Trade is about to change.

Yeah sure it is. Just ask Trump.

 

[Correll]

Come on, you can't tell us that the arrangement the US has in these trade deals, is working for its companies or its workers. Our problems don't begin or end with disastrous trade deals, but they are indeed part of what has to be fixed, and a failed ideology.

Which trade deals? We don't have any trade agreements with China.

It was a one two combination...we had Bill and Hillary's NAFTA, and then they pushed for allowing China into the WTO. And now we have Obama pushing for the passing of the TPP, another Democratic Frankenstein trade deal that would have been the final nail for whatever was left of the US manufacturing industry.

Trump ran on having individual trade deals that could be negotiated to have more favorable terms for the US, and that's what he's planning on carrying out.

NAFTA was certainly not Bill and Hillary's. It was negotiated under both Reagan and H.W.Bush and signed by H.W. Bush at end of his term in 1992. It was ratified with the support of both Republicans and Democrats in 1993 and signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1993. It was widely accepted by Republicans in 1990's but given only lukewarm support by Democrats.

Throughout the Bush and most of the Obama administration, Republicans continued to support NAFTA. It wasn't till Trump, that NAFTA became a dirty word. However disregarding all the rhetoric, NAFTA did create more jobs than loses and was responsible for much of the growth in the 1990s.

Where job growth and economic growth in the economy due to NAFTA is hard to measure because it's spread over so many sectors, job loss is easy to measure because it occurred mostly in the manufacturing sector. As far as TPP goes, you might actually read a bit of it instead of just listening to political hacks like Trump who have obviously never even looked at it. The fact that Trump supports the idea of single nation negotiations just shows how far out of touch Trump is. World trade today is biased against single nation agreements.

World Trade is about to change.

Yeah sure it is. Just ask Trump.

We are the world's largest market and we are not going to play the world's bitch anymore.


This is change, coming right at you.

 

[JoeB131]

The system got it right. Illegals in NY and CA don't get to pick the president. Popular vote doesn't win the game nor does who shot the most free throws.

Uh, guy, most of the time, the person who wins the electoral college wins the popular vote. When they don't, we have awful presidents who act contrary to the will of the people, and it's usually a shit sandwich - George W. Bush, Rutherford B. Hayes, etc.

A list of "Worst Presidents" and "Guys who won the electoral college, but not the popular vote" are usually mutually inclusive.

Trump is going to be in a category all of his own, though. I don't think he's going to get through one term without being impeached.

 

[JoeB131]

We are the world's largest market and we are not going to play the world's bitch anymore.


This is change, coming right at you.

The world's largest market doesn't mean much. We are 300 million people in a world of 7 billion.

And we just elected a Nazi most of the world hates. We've done ourselves no favors.

 

[Correll]

We are the world's largest market and we are not going to play the world's bitch anymore.


This is change, coming right at you.

The world's largest market doesn't mean much. We are 300 million people in a world of 7 billion.

And we just elected a Nazi most of the world hates. We've done ourselves no favors.

The World's largest market means a lot.

We define to a great extent how world trade is conducted.

And we have changed our mind.


Also, your Godwin in noted. Your post is invalid and you are a moron.

 

[JimBowie1958]

 

[Roudy]

The system got it right. Illegals in NY and CA don't get to pick the president. Popular vote doesn't win the game nor does who shot the most free throws.

Uh, guy, most of the time, the person who wins the electoral college wins the popular vote. When they don't, we have awful presidents who act contrary to the will of the people, and it's usually a shit sandwich - George W. Bush, Rutherford B. Hayes, etc.

A list of "Worst Presidents" and "Guys who won the electoral college, but not the popular vote" are usually mutually inclusive.

Trump is going to be in a category all of his own, though. I don't think he's going to get through one term without being impeached.

Most of the time the team who shoots more three pointers wins, most of the time the team who runs more yards wins, most of the time the team who registers more attacks on the goal wins, but that isn't how you win those games is it? The shit sandwich is what happened the last eight years under Obama, and then the people took their govt. back last Nov. 8. Deal with it.

 

[Roudy]

We are the world's largest market and we are not going to play the world's bitch anymore.


This is change, coming right at you.

The world's largest market doesn't mean much. We are 300 million people in a world of 7 billion.

And we just elected a Nazi most of the world hates. We've done ourselves no favors.

A world where most people live under poverty, are undereducated, and can't afford to put food the table?

 

[jasonnfree]

The system got it right. Illegals in NY and CA don't get to pick the president. Popular vote doesn't win the game nor does who shot the most free throws.

Uh, guy, most of the time, the person who wins the electoral college wins the popular vote. When they don't, we have awful presidents who act contrary to the will of the people, and it's usually a shit sandwich - George W. Bush, Rutherford B. Hayes, etc.

A list of "Worst Presidents" and "Guys who won the electoral college, but not the popular vote" are usually mutually inclusive.

Trump is going to be in a category all of his own, though. I don't think he's going to get through one term without being impeached.

Most of the time the team who shoots more three pointers wins, most of the time the team who runs more yards wins, most of the time the team who registers more attacks on the goal wins, but that isn't how you win those games is it? The shit sandwich is what happened the last eight years under Obama, and then the people took their govt. back last Nov. 8. Deal with it.

Like eight years of obama was a success joe thinks. unaffordable health care act; he starts an invasion of muslims from the middle east via the refugee program; twenty + trillion in debt; the sewer rat al sharpton as a white house advisor; an out of control secretary of state too stupid to understand how to protect national security system using her emails, the country more divided than ever since the civil war, etc and so on and on and on.

 

[Roudy]

Like I said, non of those countries have the consumer market with the kind of average income that the US has. The entire world wants a piece of the action in the US. Many of the factories in countries like China, Canada and Mexico are set up by American entrepreneurs and companies who have laid off their own employees in return for lower wages,maxes, and regulations offered abroad. So this cooperation with the US has also helped build industries in these countries, who then turn around and compete with the US, by offering these same products and services to other countries. These idiotic one way trade deals are literally allowing countries to rape America.

Thanks to Trump, millions of American have become convinced that America's problems are caused by stupid trade negotiations with China. However, the fact is the United States does not have a trade agreement with China, neither a bilateral or a multilateral deal, much less a good one or a bad one. The two countries trade on simple baseline terms set by the WTO. When Trump says he wants to renegotiate our trade deal with China, he's talking about negotiating something that does not exist.

The US government and Chinese goverment don't do trade deals. Trade deals are done between US importers with Chinese exporters, sometimes producers, sometimes middle men exporters, and sometimes US subsidiaries operating in China. US importers pay a tax of a maximum of 17% depending on the goods. Since the Chinese do have distribution networks in the US, taxes on US imports from China are paid by US companies, not the Chinese producer or the Chinese government.

So what happens when we decide to punish US companies importing from China with a 35% tax? Do they start to buy from the US manufacturers? Only it those manufactures are the cheapest supplier. In most cases they will simply buy from another low cost producer abroad with no or low import tariffs. Large multinational companies with plants around the world with do an inventory swaps and avoid the tariffs completely. The net result is no new jobs produced in the US, just slightly higher prices.

Come on, you can't tell us that the arrangement the US has in these trade deals, is working for its companies or its workers. Our problems don't begin or end with disastrous trade deals, but they are indeed part of what has to be fixed, and a failed ideology.

Which trade deals? We don't have any trade agreements with China.

It was a one two combination...we had Bill and Hillary's NAFTA, and then they pushed for allowing China into the WTO. And now we have Obama pushing for the passing of the TPP, another Democratic Frankenstein trade deal that would have been the final nail for whatever was left of the US manufacturing industry.

Trump ran on having individual trade deals that could be negotiated to have more favorable terms for the US, and that's what he's planning on carrying out.

NAFTA was certainly not Bill and Hillary's. It was negotiated under both Reagan and H.W.Bush and signed by H.W. Bush at end of his term in 1992. It was ratified with the support of both Republicans and Democrats in 1993 and signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1993. It was widely accepted by Republicans in 1990's but given only lukewarm support by Democrats.

Throughout the Bush and most of the Obama administration, Republicans continued to support NAFTA. It wasn't till Trump, that NAFTA became a dirty word. However disregarding all the rhetoric, NAFTA did create more jobs than loses and was responsible for much of the growth in the 1990s.

Where job growth and economic growth in the economy due to NAFTA is hard to measure because it's spread over so many sectors, job loss is easy to measure because it occurred mostly in the manufacturing sector. As far as TPP goes, you might actually read a bit of it instead of just listening to political hacks like Trump who have obviously never even looked at it. The fact that Trump supports the idea of single nation negotiations just shows how far out of touch Trump is. World trade today is biased against single nation agreements. Trump must have taken a world trade course back in the 60's and is just now reading his text because that's where he's at.

It doesn't matter who initiated or promoted a bad trade deal that was eventually signed by Bill Clinton in 1993, a democratic president. You are forgetting that Trump also ran against the establishment, and criticized many of the so called leaders in the GOP as well. In fact the GOP establishment was anti Trump and wanted Hillary elected just as much as the Democrats did. In my opinion these one size fits all trade deals that are promoted by special interest groups have been disastrous. How we trade with an individual country should based on which country we are dealing with, what is best for the US, and other relevant factors such as diplomatic relations, immigration, etc.

 

[Roudy]

The system got it right. Illegals in NY and CA don't get to pick the president. Popular vote doesn't win the game nor does who shot the most free throws.

Uh, guy, most of the time, the person who wins the electoral college wins the popular vote. When they don't, we have awful presidents who act contrary to the will of the people, and it's usually a shit sandwich - George W. Bush, Rutherford B. Hayes, etc.

A list of "Worst Presidents" and "Guys who won the electoral college, but not the popular vote" are usually mutually inclusive.

Trump is going to be in a category all of his own, though. I don't think he's going to get through one term without being impeached.

Most of the time the team who shoots more three pointers wins, most of the time the team who runs more yards wins, most of the time the team who registers more attacks on the goal wins, but that isn't how you win those games is it? The shit sandwich is what happened the last eight years under Obama, and then the people took their govt. back last Nov. 8. Deal with it.

Like eight years of obama was a success joe thinks. unaffordable health care act; he starts an invasion of muslims from the middle east via the refugee program; twenty + trillion in debt; the sewer rat al sharpton as a white house advisor; an out of control secretary of state too stupid to understand how to protect national security system using her emails, the country more divided than ever since the civil war, etc and so on and on and on.

But because he's black, the media will not, and cannot tell the truth, which is he's one of the worst presidents we've had, on every level.

 

[Flopper]

Which trade deals? We don't have any trade agreements with China.

It was a one two combination...we had Bill and Hillary's NAFTA, and then they pushed for allowing China into the WTO. And now we have Obama pushing for the passing of the TPP, another Democratic Frankenstein trade deal that would have been the final nail for whatever was left of the US manufacturing industry.

Trump ran on having individual trade deals that could be negotiated to have more favorable terms for the US, and that's what he's planning on carrying out.

NAFTA was certainly not Bill and Hillary's. It was negotiated under both Reagan and H.W.Bush and signed by H.W. Bush at end of his term in 1992. It was ratified with the support of both Republicans and Democrats in 1993 and signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1993. It was widely accepted by Republicans in 1990's but given only lukewarm support by Democrats.

Throughout the Bush and most of the Obama administration, Republicans continued to support NAFTA. It wasn't till Trump, that NAFTA became a dirty word. However disregarding all the rhetoric, NAFTA did create more jobs than loses and was responsible for much of the growth in the 1990s.

Where job growth and economic growth in the economy due to NAFTA is hard to measure because it's spread over so many sectors, job loss is easy to measure because it occurred mostly in the manufacturing sector. As far as TPP goes, you might actually read a bit of it instead of just listening to political hacks like Trump who have obviously never even looked at it. The fact that Trump supports the idea of single nation negotiations just shows how far out of touch Trump is. World trade today is biased against single nation agreements.

World Trade is about to change.

Yeah sure it is. Just ask Trump.

We are the world's largest market and we are not going to play the world's bitch anymore.


This is change, coming right at you.

And specifically what might those changes be?

 

[Roudy]

It's very simple, if a country enagages in unfair competition, state sponsored subsidies targeted to attack certain American industries, currency devaluation, taxes American goods more than we tax theirs, abuses its workers, etc. then it has to be dealt with accordingly, not given more reason to continue this bad behavior.

 

[Flopper]

Thanks to Trump, millions of American have become convinced that America's problems are caused by stupid trade negotiations with China. However, the fact is the United States does not have a trade agreement with China, neither a bilateral or a multilateral deal, much less a good one or a bad one. The two countries trade on simple baseline terms set by the WTO. When Trump says he wants to renegotiate our trade deal with China, he's talking about negotiating something that does not exist.

The US government and Chinese goverment don't do trade deals. Trade deals are done between US importers with Chinese exporters, sometimes producers, sometimes middle men exporters, and sometimes US subsidiaries operating in China. US importers pay a tax of a maximum of 17% depending on the goods. Since the Chinese do have distribution networks in the US, taxes on US imports from China are paid by US companies, not the Chinese producer or the Chinese government.

So what happens when we decide to punish US companies importing from China with a 35% tax? Do they start to buy from the US manufacturers? Only it those manufactures are the cheapest supplier. In most cases they will simply buy from another low cost producer abroad with no or low import tariffs. Large multinational companies with plants around the world with do an inventory swaps and avoid the tariffs completely. The net result is no new jobs produced in the US, just slightly higher prices.

Come on, you can't tell us that the arrangement the US has in these trade deals, is working for its companies or its workers. Our problems don't begin or end with disastrous trade deals, but they are indeed part of what has to be fixed, and a failed ideology.

Which trade deals? We don't have any trade agreements with China.

It was a one two combination...we had Bill and Hillary's NAFTA, and then they pushed for allowing China into the WTO. And now we have Obama pushing for the passing of the TPP, another Democratic Frankenstein trade deal that would have been the final nail for whatever was left of the US manufacturing industry.

Trump ran on having individual trade deals that could be negotiated to have more favorable terms for the US, and that's what he's planning on carrying out.

NAFTA was certainly not Bill and Hillary's. It was negotiated under both Reagan and H.W.Bush and signed by H.W. Bush at end of his term in 1992. It was ratified with the support of both Republicans and Democrats in 1993 and signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1993. It was widely accepted by Republicans in 1990's but given only lukewarm support by Democrats.

Throughout the Bush and most of the Obama administration, Republicans continued to support NAFTA. It wasn't till Trump, that NAFTA became a dirty word. However disregarding all the rhetoric, NAFTA did create more jobs than loses and was responsible for much of the growth in the 1990s.

Where job growth and economic growth in the economy due to NAFTA is hard to measure because it's spread over so many sectors, job loss is easy to measure because it occurred mostly in the manufacturing sector. As far as TPP goes, you might actually read a bit of it instead of just listening to political hacks like Trump who have obviously never even looked at it. The fact that Trump supports the idea of single nation negotiations just shows how far out of touch Trump is. World trade today is biased against single nation agreements. Trump must have taken a world trade course back in the 60's and is just now reading his text because that's where he's at.

It doesn't matter who initiated or promoted a bad trade deal that was eventually signed by Bill Clinton in 1993, a democratic president. You are forgetting that Trump also ran against the establishment, and criticized many of the so called leaders in the GOP as well. In fact the GOP establishment was anti Trump and wanted Hillary elected just as much as the Democrats did. In my opinion these one size fits all trade deals that are promoted by special interest groups have been disastrous. How we trade with an individual country should based on which country we are dealing with, what is best for the US, and other relevant factors such as diplomatic relations, immigration, etc.

Have you ever actually seen a regional free trade agreement? They are certainly not one size fits all. For example the US tariff schedule in the TPP specifies tariff rates and takes exceptions by country.

If you're not into international trade, you might well think bilateral trade agreements are the best route for the US. They are relatively easy to negotiation and are better tailored to the country. However, there are serious drawback.

The US needs trade agreement with the developing nations because that's where the fastest economic growth will occur in the 21st century. Developing nations like India, Indonesia, Pakistan, South Africa, etc.. do not want to enter into bilateral agreements for a number reasons. First being, bilateral agreements favor large multinational corporations which they don't have. They almost always become protectionist in nature which is mostly harmful for smaller developing nations. Also, bilateral agreements put small producers in both countries at a disadvantage. Imagine how hard it would be for smaller businesses trying to export to many countries and having to deal with dozens of trade agreements all with different rules, procedures, exclusions, and tariffs.

Multilateral free agreements have become the most favored agreements for smaller nations but the complexity in negotiating them and arbitration of disagreements have caused major problems.

Regional free trade agreements such as the TPP has become the sweet spot in foreign trade. China is competing against the US as a major exporter to tie up the pacific rim countries in regional agreements.

Few people seem to realize just how big a deal the TPP is. The deal covers almost 40 percent of the world’s economy as the 12 countries have a collective population of almost 800 million. This number is almost double that of the EU’s market. If the US steps out of this deal the TPP will likely collapse. This will be devastating for the future of US exports in the regions and possibility the US economy. For China, it would be manna from heaven. No wonder Xi Jinping offered such kinds words of congratulation to Donald Trump.

 

[Flopper]

It's very simple, if a country enagages in unfair competition, state sponsored subsidies targeted to attack certain American industries, currency devaluation, taxes American goods more than we tax theirs, abuses its workers, etc. then it has to be dealt with accordingly, not given more reason to continue this bad behavior.

Although I completely disagree with Trump on the TPP, because it is exactly the type of agreement we need to stop China, I certainly agree with his policy to take all of China's violations to the WTO. The US has been very effective at winning these cases when they pursued them. China is vulnerable to condemnation by the WTO and other international organization because they are seeking more trade and trade agreements in Asia and elsewhere with small developing nations. Trump said that we should pursue all legal avenues possible to stop China's illegal practices. I agree completely.

China is a problem not just for US but Canada, Mexico, the EU, and almost every developed nation. Almost everyone is having at least some problem with China's actions. A multilateral approach to the problem is our best bet.

We are in this mess with China because we jumped in with both feet at the dawn of century. Instead of developing a trade agreement with China we jointed the WTO thinking it would provide the safeguards we needed. Then the EU, not to be out done by the US, followed suit. Today, none of the major economic powers can act unilaterally against China without suffering major economic problems. Together we can stop China if we work together. This is a chance for Trump to prove he actually does have great negotiating skills and not just a big mouth.

 

[Correll]

It was a one two combination...we had Bill and Hillary's NAFTA, and then they pushed for allowing China into the WTO. And now we have Obama pushing for the passing of the TPP, another Democratic Frankenstein trade deal that would have been the final nail for whatever was left of the US manufacturing industry.

Trump ran on having individual trade deals that could be negotiated to have more favorable terms for the US, and that's what he's planning on carrying out.

NAFTA was certainly not Bill and Hillary's. It was negotiated under both Reagan and H.W.Bush and signed by H.W. Bush at end of his term in 1992. It was ratified with the support of both Republicans and Democrats in 1993 and signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1993. It was widely accepted by Republicans in 1990's but given only lukewarm support by Democrats.

Throughout the Bush and most of the Obama administration, Republicans continued to support NAFTA. It wasn't till Trump, that NAFTA became a dirty word. However disregarding all the rhetoric, NAFTA did create more jobs than loses and was responsible for much of the growth in the 1990s.

Where job growth and economic growth in the economy due to NAFTA is hard to measure because it's spread over so many sectors, job loss is easy to measure because it occurred mostly in the manufacturing sector. As far as TPP goes, you might actually read a bit of it instead of just listening to political hacks like Trump who have obviously never even looked at it. The fact that Trump supports the idea of single nation negotiations just shows how far out of touch Trump is. World trade today is biased against single nation agreements.

World Trade is about to change.

Yeah sure it is. Just ask Trump.

We are the world's largest market and we are not going to play the world's bitch anymore.


This is change, coming right at you.

And specifically what might those changes be?

Depends on the back and forth between Trump and Jinping.


Obviously.

 

[Flopper]

NAFTA was certainly not Bill and Hillary's. It was negotiated under both Reagan and H.W.Bush and signed by H.W. Bush at end of his term in 1992. It was ratified with the support of both Republicans and Democrats in 1993 and signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1993. It was widely accepted by Republicans in 1990's but given only lukewarm support by Democrats.

Throughout the Bush and most of the Obama administration, Republicans continued to support NAFTA. It wasn't till Trump, that NAFTA became a dirty word. However disregarding all the rhetoric, NAFTA did create more jobs than loses and was responsible for much of the growth in the 1990s.

Where job growth and economic growth in the economy due to NAFTA is hard to measure because it's spread over so many sectors, job loss is easy to measure because it occurred mostly in the manufacturing sector. As far as TPP goes, you might actually read a bit of it instead of just listening to political hacks like Trump who have obviously never even looked at it. The fact that Trump supports the idea of single nation negotiations just shows how far out of touch Trump is. World trade today is biased against single nation agreements.

World Trade is about to change.

Yeah sure it is. Just ask Trump.

We are the world's largest market and we are not going to play the world's bitch anymore.


This is change, coming right at you.

And specifically what might those changes be?

Depends on the back and forth between Trump and Jinping.


Obviously.

I don't think Jinping tweets.

 

[Roudy]

It's very simple, if a country enagages in unfair competition, state sponsored subsidies targeted to attack certain American industries, currency devaluation, taxes American goods more than we tax theirs, abuses its workers, etc. then it has to be dealt with accordingly, not given more reason to continue this bad behavior.

Although I completely disagree with Trump on the TPP, because it is exactly the type of agreement we need to stop China, I certainly agree with his policy to take all of China's violations to the WTO. The US has been very effective at winning these cases when they pursued them. China is vulnerable to condemnation by the WTO and other international organization because they are seeking more trade and trade agreements in Asia and elsewhere with small developing nations. Trump said that we should pursue all legal avenues possible to stop China's illegal practices. I agree completely.

China is a problem not just for US but Canada, Mexico, the EU, and almost every developed nation. Almost everyone is having at least some problem with China's actions. A multilateral approach to the problem is our best bet.

We are in this mess with China because we jumped in with both feet at the dawn of century. Instead of developing a trade agreement with China we jointed the WTO thinking it would provide the safeguards we needed. Then the EU, not to be out done by the US, followed suit. Today, none of the major economic powers can act unilaterally against China without suffering major economic problems. Together we can stop China if we work together. This is a chance for Trump to prove he actually does have great negotiating skills and not just a big mouth.

With China, we are in this mess because decades ago, China had become a considerable military threat, and our leaders rightly or wrongly, decided to jeopardize our economic well being by giving China "special" treatment, in order to entice China to open its doors and become more capitalistic and have friendly relations with the West. It worked partially. However, little did we realize the Chinese shifted their strategy from competing militarily to going on an economic war footing with us. At this point, there needs to be a nuanced way (without destroying the relationship) of making not only the Chinese, but all countries that do business with the US know that the days of taking advantage of America is over. That's why in China's case Trump has picked an Ambassador that knows them well and has had a personal relationship with their leaders.

 

[JoeB131]

The World's largest market means a lot.

We define to a great extent how world trade is conducted.

And we have changed our mind.

Also, your Godwin in noted. Your post is invalid and you are a moron.

well, then the rest of the world might just decide to stop putting up with our nonsense.

Your Trumpenfuhrer doesn't have the power you think he has. the fact he has to BRIBE Carrier in order to not eliminate as many jobs as they planned shows his weak spot.