Nafta 2.0 free trade or central planning?

[Brain357]

Republicans have again shown they are all for big government control. Ron Paul again has it right:

Last week the United States, Mexico, and Canada agreed to replace the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with a new United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). Sadly, instead of replacing NAFTA’s managed trade with true free trade, the new USMCA expands government’s control over trade.


For example, under the USMCA’s “rules of origin,” at least 75 percent of a car’s parts must be from the US, Canada, or Mexico in order to avoid tariffs. This is protectionism designed to raise prices of cars using materials from outside North America.

The USMCA also requires that 40 to 45 percent of an automobile’s content be made by workers earning at least 16 dollars per hour. Like all government-set wages, this requirement will increase prices and decrease employment.


NAFTA 2.0: Free Trade or Central Planning?

 

[BluesLegend]

Trump put a dent in Mexico and Canada ripping off America's working class, long overdue.

 

[DJT for Life]

Republicans have again shown they are all for big government control. Ron Paul again has it right:

Last week the United States, Mexico, and Canada agreed to replace the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with a new United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). Sadly, instead of replacing NAFTA’s managed trade with true free trade, the new USMCA expands government’s control over trade.


For example, under the USMCA’s “rules of origin,” at least 75 percent of a car’s parts must be from the US, Canada, or Mexico in order to avoid tariffs. This is protectionism designed to raise prices of cars using materials from outside North America.

The USMCA also requires that 40 to 45 percent of an automobile’s content be made by workers earning at least 16 dollars per hour. Like all government-set wages, this requirement will increase prices and decrease employment.


NAFTA 2.0: Free Trade or Central Planning?

Hey dummy...Your last paragraph invited this response.

What it means is that American companies will think twice
before moving to Mexico or Canada. (More Mexico that Canada)
American auto workers, all make 25 bucks an hour or much more.
Mexico pays hardly anything.

Now for Mexico to avoid tariff's they have to pay a minimum of 16
bucks an hour. Auto's made in Mexico have a transportation cost
much higher than in America. It's a great deal farther to drive those
vehicles from plant to dealership, when the plant maybe 5,000 miles
away.

There's no incentive to leave the country...plus, if Mexico ups their
pay, it may keep the Beaners living in their own fucking country
instead of coming here.

Cost of cars isn't going to go up because of 16 and hour. You don't
honestly believe that an American made car is going to retail higher
than one made in Mexico...do you?

The automaker is going to get the going rate. No different than gasoline
or retail or food. The automaker is concerned with his profit. They
put plants in different countries to give them something to offset costs
made in our country.

It's like restaurants. Go to a nice Italian Restaurant. To get 50% profit
on a good steak dinner, they would have to break the 20 dollar barrier.
They avoid that by upping the spaghetti and meatball dinner. I could
make spaghetti and meatball dinners, all day long and get65% profit
selling it for 7 bucks. The bigboys sellit for 14...because they're offsetting
the price of steak and seafood.

Please update your knowledge intake

 

[Brain357]

Trump put a dent in Mexico and Canada ripping off America's working class, long overdue.

So you think more central planning is good for the working class?

 

[Brain357]

Republicans have again shown they are all for big government control. Ron Paul again has it right:

Last week the United States, Mexico, and Canada agreed to replace the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with a new United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). Sadly, instead of replacing NAFTA’s managed trade with true free trade, the new USMCA expands government’s control over trade.


For example, under the USMCA’s “rules of origin,” at least 75 percent of a car’s parts must be from the US, Canada, or Mexico in order to avoid tariffs. This is protectionism designed to raise prices of cars using materials from outside North America.

The USMCA also requires that 40 to 45 percent of an automobile’s content be made by workers earning at least 16 dollars per hour. Like all government-set wages, this requirement will increase prices and decrease employment.


NAFTA 2.0: Free Trade or Central Planning?

Hey dummy...Your last paragraph invited this response.

What it means is that American companies will think twice
before moving to Mexico or Canada. (More Mexico that Canada)
American auto workers, all make 25 bucks an hour or much more.
Mexico pays hardly anything.

Now for Mexico to avoid tariff's they have to pay a minimum of 16
bucks an hour. Auto's made in Mexico have a transportation cost
much higher than in America. It's a great deal farther to drive those
vehicles from plant to dealership, when the plant maybe 5,000 miles
away.

There's no incentive to leave the country...plus, if Mexico ups their
pay, it may keep the Beaners living in their own fucking country
instead of coming here.

Cost of cars isn't going to go up because of 16 and hour. You don't
honestly believe that an American made car is going to retail higher
than one made in Mexico...do you?

The automaker is going to get the going rate. No different than gasoline
or retail or food. The automaker is concerned with his profit. They
put plants in different countries to give them something to offset costs
made in our country.

It's like restaurants. Go to a nice Italian Restaurant. To get 50% profit
on a good steak dinner, they would have to break the 20 dollar barrier.
They avoid that by upping the spaghetti and meatball dinner. I could
make spaghetti and meatball dinners, all day long and get65% profit
selling it for 7 bucks. The bigboys sellit for 14...because they're offsetting
the price of steak and seafood.

Please update your knowledge intake

And how will we be sure Mexico follows that rule? They are known for being quite corrupt.

 

[Doc1]

I've been screaming this since Kissinger visited Rump. Meet the new boss some as the old boss

 

[Oddball]

The cognitive dissonance amongst the Trumpsters isn't shocking.

This is one of the ways how we got the RINO infested GOP of today.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Republicans have again shown they are all for big government control. Ron Paul again has it right:

Last week the United States, Mexico, and Canada agreed to replace the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with a new United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). Sadly, instead of replacing NAFTA’s managed trade with true free trade, the new USMCA expands government’s control over trade.


For example, under the USMCA’s “rules of origin,” at least 75 percent of a car’s parts must be from the US, Canada, or Mexico in order to avoid tariffs. This is protectionism designed to raise prices of cars using materials from outside North America.

The USMCA also requires that 40 to 45 percent of an automobile’s content be made by workers earning at least 16 dollars per hour. Like all government-set wages, this requirement will increase prices and decrease employment.


NAFTA 2.0: Free Trade or Central Planning?

This is where their compartmentalization tactics come into play. They'll argue one thing, then argue the complete opposite for another issue.

 

[Toronado3800]

Republicans have again shown they are all for big government control. Ron Paul again has it right:

Last week the United States, Mexico, and Canada agreed to replace the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with a new United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). Sadly, instead of replacing NAFTA’s managed trade with true free trade, the new USMCA expands government’s control over trade.


For example, under the USMCA’s “rules of origin,” at least 75 percent of a car’s parts must be from the US, Canada, or Mexico in order to avoid tariffs. This is protectionism designed to raise prices of cars using materials from outside North America.

The USMCA also requires that 40 to 45 percent of an automobile’s content be made by workers earning at least 16 dollars per hour. Like all government-set wages, this requirement will increase prices and decrease employment.


NAFTA 2.0: Free Trade or Central Planning?

I'm not sure if I really support New NAFTA yet but it SEEMS better than old NAFTA at first glance.

I am fine with raising the cost of cars from outside North America. It is protectionism. The same type of thing we allowed or encouraged Japan to use to build their auto industry.

Personally I like tariffs to adjust for wages and environmental standards or lack there of. I do recognize though that by shipping our dollars overseas we have a "Marshall Plan" like effect of teaching the Vietnamese capitalism.

Will it raise the price of cars or something? Yup. Great. Maybe we'll spend less on fast food or quit throwing away things soo rapidly instead of learning how to fix things.

 

[Thinker101]

Republicans have again shown they are all for big government control. Ron Paul again has it right:

Last week the United States, Mexico, and Canada agreed to replace the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with a new United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). Sadly, instead of replacing NAFTA’s managed trade with true free trade, the new USMCA expands government’s control over trade.


For example, under the USMCA’s “rules of origin,” at least 75 percent of a car’s parts must be from the US, Canada, or Mexico in order to avoid tariffs. This is protectionism designed to raise prices of cars using materials from outside North America.

The USMCA also requires that 40 to 45 percent of an automobile’s content be made by workers earning at least 16 dollars per hour. Like all government-set wages, this requirement will increase prices and decrease employment.


NAFTA 2.0: Free Trade or Central Planning?

Slow down, aren't you from the same group of folks that want a $15/hour minimum wage? So now you want to whine about prices going up due to a possible wage increase?

 

[Brain357]

Republicans have again shown they are all for big government control. Ron Paul again has it right:

Last week the United States, Mexico, and Canada agreed to replace the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with a new United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). Sadly, instead of replacing NAFTA’s managed trade with true free trade, the new USMCA expands government’s control over trade.


For example, under the USMCA’s “rules of origin,” at least 75 percent of a car’s parts must be from the US, Canada, or Mexico in order to avoid tariffs. This is protectionism designed to raise prices of cars using materials from outside North America.

The USMCA also requires that 40 to 45 percent of an automobile’s content be made by workers earning at least 16 dollars per hour. Like all government-set wages, this requirement will increase prices and decrease employment.


NAFTA 2.0: Free Trade or Central Planning?

Slow down, aren't you from the same group of folks that want a $15/hour minimum wage? So now you want to whine about prices going up due to a possible wage increase?

No I’m not. I’m mostly for free market.

 

[Oddball]

I'm not sure if I really support New NAFTA yet but it SEEMS better than old NAFTA at first glance.

I am fine with raising the cost of cars from outside North America. It is protectionism. The same type of thing we allowed or encouraged Japan to use to build their auto industry.

Personally I like tariffs to adjust for wages and environmental standards or lack there of. I do recognize though that by shipping our dollars overseas we have a "Marshall Plan" like effect of teaching the Vietnamese capitalism.

Will it raise the price of cars or something? Yup. Great. Maybe we'll spend less on fast food or quit throwing away things soo rapidly instead of learning how to fix things.

Japan rebuilt their auto industry by their nation being bombed back to per-industrial revolution days, then being rebuilt with Murican taxpayer money.

 

[Brain357]

Republicans have again shown they are all for big government control. Ron Paul again has it right:

Last week the United States, Mexico, and Canada agreed to replace the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with a new United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). Sadly, instead of replacing NAFTA’s managed trade with true free trade, the new USMCA expands government’s control over trade.


For example, under the USMCA’s “rules of origin,” at least 75 percent of a car’s parts must be from the US, Canada, or Mexico in order to avoid tariffs. This is protectionism designed to raise prices of cars using materials from outside North America.

The USMCA also requires that 40 to 45 percent of an automobile’s content be made by workers earning at least 16 dollars per hour. Like all government-set wages, this requirement will increase prices and decrease employment.


NAFTA 2.0: Free Trade or Central Planning?

Slow down, aren't you from the same group of folks that want a $15/hour minimum wage? So now you want to whine about prices going up due to a possible wage increase?

Don’t you claim to be from the side against government set wages? Except when repubs set them right?

 

[Toronado3800]

I'm not sure if I really support New NAFTA yet but it SEEMS better than old NAFTA at first glance.

I am fine with raising the cost of cars from outside North America. It is protectionism. The same type of thing we allowed or encouraged Japan to use to build their auto industry.

Personally I like tariffs to adjust for wages and environmental standards or lack there of. I do recognize though that by shipping our dollars overseas we have a "Marshall Plan" like effect of teaching the Vietnamese capitalism.

Will it raise the price of cars or something? Yup. Great. Maybe we'll spend less on fast food or quit throwing away things soo rapidly instead of learning how to fix things.

Japan rebuilt their auto industry by their nation being bombed back to per-industrial revolution days, then being rebuilt with Murican taxpayer money.

Our words may be different but I don't totally disagree. The Marshall Plan did them wonders. Couldn't have communist revolutions popping up all over the world could we.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Sorry, but America flourished and became an industrial giant behind the fiercely protectionist trade policy begun by Abraham Lincoln and continued through every Republican president until Eisenhower.

What free traders can't seem to grasp is that you gain much more than you lose when you engage in protectionism. Yeah, that's right: You're gonna pay a bit more for a shirt if it's made in America than if it's made in some Third World dirt-wage sweat shop. Yup, you are. But, when you buy that Made in America shirt, that money stays in the U.S., and the workers who made that shirt can afford to buy a modest house, own a car or two, and live a decent middle-income life. And when they buy a house, they help fuel the housing industry. When they buy a car, they help our car industry. When they themselves go buy clothes and buy American-made clothes, they're helping their own cause and help the stores that sell those clothes.

http://miketgriffith.com/files/caseforhightariffs.pdf

 

[Thinker101]

Republicans have again shown they are all for big government control. Ron Paul again has it right:

Last week the United States, Mexico, and Canada agreed to replace the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with a new United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). Sadly, instead of replacing NAFTA’s managed trade with true free trade, the new USMCA expands government’s control over trade.


For example, under the USMCA’s “rules of origin,” at least 75 percent of a car’s parts must be from the US, Canada, or Mexico in order to avoid tariffs. This is protectionism designed to raise prices of cars using materials from outside North America.

The USMCA also requires that 40 to 45 percent of an automobile’s content be made by workers earning at least 16 dollars per hour. Like all government-set wages, this requirement will increase prices and decrease employment.


NAFTA 2.0: Free Trade or Central Planning?

Slow down, aren't you from the same group of folks that want a $15/hour minimum wage? So now you want to whine about prices going up due to a possible wage increase?

Don’t you claim to be from the side against government set wages? Except when repubs set them right?

Yeah, sure don't recall making that claim. But you're free to find a post where I said that.

 

[Brain357]

Sorry, but America flourished and became an industrial giant behind the fiercely protectionist trade policy begun by Abraham Lincoln and continued through every Republican president until Eisenhower.

What free traders can't seem to grasp is that you gain much more than you lose when you engage in protectionism. Yeah, that's right: You're gonna pay a bit more for a shirt if it's made in America than if it's made in some Third World dirt-wage sweat shop. Yup, you are. But, when you buy that Made in America shirt, that money stays in the U.S., and the workers who made that shirt can afford to buy a modest house, own a car or two, and live a decent middle-income life. And when they buy a house, they help fuel the housing industry. When they buy a car, they help our car industry. When they themselves go buy clothes and buy American-made clothes, they're helping their own cause and help the stores that sell those clothes.

http://miketgriffith.com/files/caseforhightariffs.pdf

Funny that pretty much every economist disagrees with you.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Republicans have again shown they are all for big government control. Ron Paul again has it right:

Last week the United States, Mexico, and Canada agreed to replace the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with a new United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). Sadly, instead of replacing NAFTA’s managed trade with true free trade, the new USMCA expands government’s control over trade.


For example, under the USMCA’s “rules of origin,” at least 75 percent of a car’s parts must be from the US, Canada, or Mexico in order to avoid tariffs. This is protectionism designed to raise prices of cars using materials from outside North America.

The USMCA also requires that 40 to 45 percent of an automobile’s content be made by workers earning at least 16 dollars per hour. Like all government-set wages, this requirement will increase prices and decrease employment.


NAFTA 2.0: Free Trade or Central Planning?

Hey dummy...Your last paragraph invited this response.

What it means is that American companies will think twice
before moving to Mexico or Canada. (More Mexico that Canada)
American auto workers, all make 25 bucks an hour or much more.
Mexico pays hardly anything.

Now for Mexico to avoid tariff's they have to pay a minimum of 16
bucks an hour. Auto's made in Mexico have a transportation cost
much higher than in America. It's a great deal farther to drive those
vehicles from plant to dealership, when the plant maybe 5,000 miles
away.

There's no incentive to leave the country...plus, if Mexico ups their
pay, it may keep the Beaners living in their own fucking country
instead of coming here.

Cost of cars isn't going to go up because of 16 and hour. You don't
honestly believe that an American made car is going to retail higher
than one made in Mexico...do you?

The automaker is going to get the going rate. No different than gasoline
or retail or food. The automaker is concerned with his profit. They
put plants in different countries to give them something to offset costs
made in our country.

It's like restaurants. Go to a nice Italian Restaurant. To get 50% profit
on a good steak dinner, they would have to break the 20 dollar barrier.
They avoid that by upping the spaghetti and meatball dinner. I could
make spaghetti and meatball dinners, all day long and get65% profit
selling it for 7 bucks. The bigboys sellit for 14...because they're offsetting
the price of steak and seafood.

Please update your knowledge intake

It is not a minimum of 16 dollars an hour, it is an average of 16 dollars an hour, and it is only 40% of the car.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Trump put a dent in Mexico and Canada ripping off America's working class, long overdue.

There is no dent, there was a couple minor tweaks and a new coat of paint.

 

[Aldo Raine]

Republicans have again shown they are all for big government control. Ron Paul again has it right:

Last week the United States, Mexico, and Canada agreed to replace the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with a new United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). Sadly, instead of replacing NAFTA’s managed trade with true free trade, the new USMCA expands government’s control over trade.


For example, under the USMCA’s “rules of origin,” at least 75 percent of a car’s parts must be from the US, Canada, or Mexico in order to avoid tariffs. This is protectionism designed to raise prices of cars using materials from outside North America.

The USMCA also requires that 40 to 45 percent of an automobile’s content be made by workers earning at least 16 dollars per hour. Like all government-set wages, this requirement will increase prices and decrease employment.


NAFTA 2.0: Free Trade or Central Planning?

Hey dummy...Your last paragraph invited this response.

What it means is that American companies will think twice
before moving to Mexico or Canada. (More Mexico that Canada)
American auto workers, all make 25 bucks an hour or much more.
Mexico pays hardly anything.

Now for Mexico to avoid tariff's they have to pay a minimum of 16
bucks an hour. Auto's made in Mexico have a transportation cost
much higher than in America. It's a great deal farther to drive those
vehicles from plant to dealership, when the plant maybe 5,000 miles
away.

There's no incentive to leave the country...plus, if Mexico ups their
pay, it may keep the Beaners living in their own fucking country
instead of coming here.

Cost of cars isn't going to go up because of 16 and hour. You don't
honestly believe that an American made car is going to retail higher
than one made in Mexico...do you?

The automaker is going to get the going rate. No different than gasoline
or retail or food. The automaker is concerned with his profit. They
put plants in different countries to give them something to offset costs
made in our country.

It's like restaurants. Go to a nice Italian Restaurant. To get 50% profit
on a good steak dinner, they would have to break the 20 dollar barrier.
They avoid that by upping the spaghetti and meatball dinner. I could
make spaghetti and meatball dinners, all day long and get65% profit
selling it for 7 bucks. The bigboys sellit for 14...because they're offsetting
the price of steak and seafood.

Please update your knowledge intake

Cool but isn't this a lot like a national minimum wage the cons are so dead set against. Hypocrisy knows no borders I guess.