Nafta 2.0 free trade or central planning?

[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

How did protectionist policy work for the Soviet Union?

 

[longknife]

NAFTA 2.0: The Best Trade Agreement Ever Negotiated (Except for All of the Others)

I have no idea what the credentials of the author are, but he seems to make a series of good points – with great deal of sarcasm.

The text of the new “United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement” was released last Sunday night, a few hours after I had spoken at an event in Birmingham, England about the virtues of “The Ideal U.S.-U.K. Free Trade Agreement.” To borrow from the late Sen. Lloyd Bentsen: I know the ideal free trade agreement; USCMA, you’re no ideal free trade agreement.

The ideal free trade agreement is one which accomplishes maximum market barrier reduction, enables maximum market integration, forecloses governments’ access to discriminatory protectionism, and obligates the parties to refrain from backsliding.

Here’s how the USMCA stacks up to the ideal free trade agreement, which:

Would provide for the elimination of tariffs as quickly as possible on as many goods as possible and to the lowest levels possible.

Would limit the use of so-called trade remedy or trade defense measures.

Would open all government procurement markets to goods and services providers from the other party.

Would open all sectors of the economy to investment from businesses and individuals in the other party.

Would open all services markets without exception to competition from providers of the other party.

Would ensure that the rules that determine whether products and services are originating (meaning that they come from one or more of the agreement’s parties) are not so restrictive that they limit the scope for supply chain innovations.

Would include rules that prohibit digital trade — data flows that are essential components in the provision of goods and services in the 21st century — from being taxed and unprotected from misuse and abuse.

Would prohibit governments from imposing localization requirements or any particular data architectures that reduce the efficacy of digital services.

Would require businesses to comply with only one of the Party’s regulations if the regulations are comparable in their objectives and outcomes — consumer safety, product reliability, worker safety, environmental friendliness — in order to reduce the costs of complying with two sets of regulations to sell in two different markets, and a regulatory cooperation mechanism to promote mutual recognition of regulatory compliance.

Would include an enforceable dispute settlement mechanism, to ensure that the agreement is followed.

And his conclusion is = none of the criterion has been met

All the details @ NAFTA 2.0: The Best Trade Agreement Ever Negotiated (Except for All of the Others)

 

[jc456]

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.

there is a justification to do that. one has to look at the bigger picture to get the correct understanding of the why they're doing this. One is tax revenues and the other is spending revenues.

I am amazed at how limited in knowledge many of you are on expenditures vs revenues.

 

[bendog]

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

LOL. The new deal affects little trade. It does set milk quotas with Canada, and price of cars made partly in Mexico will go up, because either some mftrign comes back here, or Mexicans get paid more.

Lighthizer got a deal done, to get Nafta off the table and to train all his guns in China. That's where the real trade war is going to happen.

New trade deal with Canada, Mexico borrows heavily from pact that Trump abandoned

Steel and alumuinum tariffs remain.
The countries set aside one stumbling block, steel and aluminum tariffs, leaving a resolution for later. The U.S. duties remain a major irritant, and both Mexico and Canada continue to impose retaliatory tariffs on the U.S.
How the U.S. and Canada Ended Their Feud and Clinched a Nafta Deal

Lighthizer reports progress on Nafta, says China to be long-term problem

If Trump really leaves a legacy as Potus, it could be a long term revamping of trade with China.

But if Xi and the Communist party fall as unintended casualties, there will be unknown and unintended consequences.

 

[Toronado3800]

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.

Doesn't mean they're right. Otherwise there is no Climate Change debate.

On point, let's say shoes made in Butamia have a tariff on them adjusting for slave labor conditions and lack of environmental regulations. Does that hurt our economy if I have to buy American Made shoes which cost me $75 instead of $20?

Now, we CAN argue it is better to build up the economy of Butamia on the backs of the American People. That was the theory after WWII to fight the commies and it largely worked.

 

[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.

Doesn't mean they're right. Otherwise there is no Climate Change debate.

On point, let's say shoes made in Butamia have a tariff on them adjusting for slave labor conditions and lack of environmental regulations. Does that hurt our economy if I have to buy American Made shoes which cost me $75 instead of $20?

Now, we CAN argue it is better to build up the economy of Butamia on the backs of the American People. That was the theory after WWII to fight the commies and it largely worked.

Yes it does hurt our economy. If you spend more on shoes you, will spend less for other goods.

 

[Toronado3800]

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.

Doesn't mean they're right. Otherwise there is no Climate Change debate.

On point, let's say shoes made in Butamia have a tariff on them adjusting for slave labor conditions and lack of environmental regulations. Does that hurt our economy if I have to buy American Made shoes which cost me $75 instead of $20?

Now, we CAN argue it is better to build up the economy of Butamia on the backs of the American People. That was the theory after WWII to fight the commies and it largely worked.

Yes it does hurt our economy. If you spend more on shoes you, will spend less for other goods.

No.

If I spent $20 on shoes from Butamia and $55 on domestic alcohol, $5 leaves our country and only $70 remains to build our military or whatever.

If I spent $75 on shoes from America then $75 stays in America.

Now I don't have the alcohol but America is better off.

As much as it would HELP our economy if I saved money reasonably, we don't either.

There is a breaking point to this line of reason, its when you can't afford shoes because the cost is to high. Any system breaks down at extremes, capitalism, communism, the West Coast Offense. We just aren't anywhere near that.

 

[bendog]

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.

Doesn't mean they're right. Otherwise there is no Climate Change debate.

On point, let's say shoes made in Butamia have a tariff on them adjusting for slave labor conditions and lack of environmental regulations. Does that hurt our economy if I have to buy American Made shoes which cost me $75 instead of $20?

Now, we CAN argue it is better to build up the economy of Butamia on the backs of the American People. That was the theory after WWII to fight the commies and it largely worked.

Yes it does hurt our economy. If you spend more on shoes you, will spend less for other goods.

No.

If I spent $20 on shoes from Butamia and $55 on domestic alcohol, $5 leaves our country and only $70 remains to build our military or whatever.

If I spent $75 on shoes from America then $75 stays in America.

Now I don't have the alcohol but America is better off.

As much as it would HELP our economy if I saved money reasonably, we don't either.

There is a breaking point to this line of reason, its when you can't afford shoes because the cost is to high. Any system breaks down at extremes, capitalism, communism, the West Coast Offense. We just aren't anywhere near that.

And the people who distilled the booze are just collateral damage

 

[Toronado3800]

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.

Doesn't mean they're right. Otherwise there is no Climate Change debate.

On point, let's say shoes made in Butamia have a tariff on them adjusting for slave labor conditions and lack of environmental regulations. Does that hurt our economy if I have to buy American Made shoes which cost me $75 instead of $20?

Now, we CAN argue it is better to build up the economy of Butamia on the backs of the American People. That was the theory after WWII to fight the commies and it largely worked.

Yes it does hurt our economy. If you spend more on shoes you, will spend less for other goods.

No.

If I spent $20 on shoes from Butamia and $55 on domestic alcohol, $5 leaves our country and only $70 remains to build our military or whatever.

If I spent $75 on shoes from America then $75 stays in America.

Now I don't have the alcohol but America is better off.

As much as it would HELP our economy if I saved money reasonably, we don't either.

There is a breaking point to this line of reason, its when you can't afford shoes because the cost is to high. Any system breaks down at extremes, capitalism, communism, the West Coast Offense. We just aren't anywhere near that.

And the people who distilled the booze are just collateral damage

Nope, if anything they can sell more booze. Remember, my $75 is still in America, not just $70 of it.

Ita just the guy selling the more expensive shoes, his employees, his wife and kids, his maid, whoever he pays money to buying the booze.

 

[bendog]

Funny that pretty much every economist disagrees with you.

Doesn't mean they're right. Otherwise there is no Climate Change debate.

On point, let's say shoes made in Butamia have a tariff on them adjusting for slave labor conditions and lack of environmental regulations. Does that hurt our economy if I have to buy American Made shoes which cost me $75 instead of $20?

Now, we CAN argue it is better to build up the economy of Butamia on the backs of the American People. That was the theory after WWII to fight the commies and it largely worked.

Yes it does hurt our economy. If you spend more on shoes you, will spend less for other goods.

No.

If I spent $20 on shoes from Butamia and $55 on domestic alcohol, $5 leaves our country and only $70 remains to build our military or whatever.

If I spent $75 on shoes from America then $75 stays in America.

Now I don't have the alcohol but America is better off.

As much as it would HELP our economy if I saved money reasonably, we don't either.

There is a breaking point to this line of reason, its when you can't afford shoes because the cost is to high. Any system breaks down at extremes, capitalism, communism, the West Coast Offense. We just aren't anywhere near that.

And the people who distilled the booze are just collateral damage

Nope, if anything they can sell more booze. Remember, my $75 is still in America, not just $70 of it.

Ita just the guy selling the more expensive shoes, his employees, his wife and kids, his maid, whoever he pays money to buying the booze.

But you spent all your money on those American shoes.

 

[Toronado3800]

Doesn't mean they're right. Otherwise there is no Climate Change debate.

On point, let's say shoes made in Butamia have a tariff on them adjusting for slave labor conditions and lack of environmental regulations. Does that hurt our economy if I have to buy American Made shoes which cost me $75 instead of $20?

Now, we CAN argue it is better to build up the economy of Butamia on the backs of the American People. That was the theory after WWII to fight the commies and it largely worked.

Yes it does hurt our economy. If you spend more on shoes you, will spend less for other goods.

No.

If I spent $20 on shoes from Butamia and $55 on domestic alcohol, $5 leaves our country and only $70 remains to build our military or whatever.

If I spent $75 on shoes from America then $75 stays in America.

Now I don't have the alcohol but America is better off.

As much as it would HELP our economy if I saved money reasonably, we don't either.

There is a breaking point to this line of reason, its when you can't afford shoes because the cost is to high. Any system breaks down at extremes, capitalism, communism, the West Coast Offense. We just aren't anywhere near that.

And the people who distilled the booze are just collateral damage

Nope, if anything they can sell more booze. Remember, my $75 is still in America, not just $70 of it.

Ita just the guy selling the more expensive shoes, his employees, his wife and kids, his maid, whoever he pays money to buying the booze.

But you spent all your money on those American shoes.

Yes, but all $75 of them bucks are still in America being spent, not just $70 of them.

 

[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.

Doesn't mean they're right. Otherwise there is no Climate Change debate.

On point, let's say shoes made in Butamia have a tariff on them adjusting for slave labor conditions and lack of environmental regulations. Does that hurt our economy if I have to buy American Made shoes which cost me $75 instead of $20?

Now, we CAN argue it is better to build up the economy of Butamia on the backs of the American People. That was the theory after WWII to fight the commies and it largely worked.

Yes it does hurt our economy. If you spend more on shoes you, will spend less for other goods.

No.

If I spent $20 on shoes from Butamia and $55 on domestic alcohol, $5 leaves our country and only $70 remains to build our military or whatever.

If I spent $75 on shoes from America then $75 stays in America.

Now I don't have the alcohol but America is better off.

As much as it would HELP our economy if I saved money reasonably, we don't either.

There is a breaking point to this line of reason, its when you can't afford shoes because the cost is to high. Any system breaks down at extremes, capitalism, communism, the West Coast Offense. We just aren't anywhere near that.

And the alcohol manufacturer goes out business costing jobs.

 

[Toronado3800]

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.

Doesn't mean they're right. Otherwise there is no Climate Change debate.

On point, let's say shoes made in Butamia have a tariff on them adjusting for slave labor conditions and lack of environmental regulations. Does that hurt our economy if I have to buy American Made shoes which cost me $75 instead of $20?

Now, we CAN argue it is better to build up the economy of Butamia on the backs of the American People. That was the theory after WWII to fight the commies and it largely worked.

Yes it does hurt our economy. If you spend more on shoes you, will spend less for other goods.

No.

If I spent $20 on shoes from Butamia and $55 on domestic alcohol, $5 leaves our country and only $70 remains to build our military or whatever.

If I spent $75 on shoes from America then $75 stays in America.

Now I don't have the alcohol but America is better off.

As much as it would HELP our economy if I saved money reasonably, we don't either.

There is a breaking point to this line of reason, its when you can't afford shoes because the cost is to high. Any system breaks down at extremes, capitalism, communism, the West Coast Offense. We just aren't anywhere near that.

And the alcohol manufacturer goes out business costing jobs.

Why? If I just spent $75 in America on American made shoes then there are $75 in America to be spent on alcohol.

If I bought shoes from overseas then $5 of that $75 is gone from our economy. Poof, only $70 is left for anyone in America to buy alcohol with.

 

[OKTexas]

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?

Note to the clueless, because of Mexico's trade deals with China they could buy parts for a car for about $3,000 less than the US per unit. The wage difference only accounts for about $200 per unit. Ron Paul needs to do more research.

.

 

[bendog]

Yes it does hurt our economy. If you spend more on shoes you, will spend less for other goods.

No.

If I spent $20 on shoes from Butamia and $55 on domestic alcohol, $5 leaves our country and only $70 remains to build our military or whatever.

If I spent $75 on shoes from America then $75 stays in America.

Now I don't have the alcohol but America is better off.

As much as it would HELP our economy if I saved money reasonably, we don't either.

There is a breaking point to this line of reason, its when you can't afford shoes because the cost is to high. Any system breaks down at extremes, capitalism, communism, the West Coast Offense. We just aren't anywhere near that.

And the people who distilled the booze are just collateral damage

Nope, if anything they can sell more booze. Remember, my $75 is still in America, not just $70 of it.

Ita just the guy selling the more expensive shoes, his employees, his wife and kids, his maid, whoever he pays money to buying the booze.

But you spent all your money on those American shoes.

Yes, but all $75 of them bucks are still in America being spent, not just $70 of them.

And the American distillers are just collateral damage.

 

[Brain357]

Funny that pretty much every economist disagrees with you.

Doesn't mean they're right. Otherwise there is no Climate Change debate.

On point, let's say shoes made in Butamia have a tariff on them adjusting for slave labor conditions and lack of environmental regulations. Does that hurt our economy if I have to buy American Made shoes which cost me $75 instead of $20?

Now, we CAN argue it is better to build up the economy of Butamia on the backs of the American People. That was the theory after WWII to fight the commies and it largely worked.

Yes it does hurt our economy. If you spend more on shoes you, will spend less for other goods.

No.

If I spent $20 on shoes from Butamia and $55 on domestic alcohol, $5 leaves our country and only $70 remains to build our military or whatever.

If I spent $75 on shoes from America then $75 stays in America.

Now I don't have the alcohol but America is better off.

As much as it would HELP our economy if I saved money reasonably, we don't either.

There is a breaking point to this line of reason, its when you can't afford shoes because the cost is to high. Any system breaks down at extremes, capitalism, communism, the West Coast Offense. We just aren't anywhere near that.

And the alcohol manufacturer goes out business costing jobs.

Why? If I just spent $75 in America on American made shoes then there are $75 in America to be spent on alcohol.

If I bought shoes from overseas then $5 of that $75 is gone from our economy. Poof, only $70 is left for anyone in America to buy alcohol with.

You cut out alcohol to spend more on shoes. Alcohol sales go down and they go out of business.

 

[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?

Note to the clueless, because of Mexico's trade deals with China they could buy parts for a car for about $3,000 less than the US per unit. The wage difference only accounts for about $200 per unit. Ron Paul needs to do more research.

.

So you think the government is good at central planning?

 

[Toronado3800]

Doesn't mean they're right. Otherwise there is no Climate Change debate.

On point, let's say shoes made in Butamia have a tariff on them adjusting for slave labor conditions and lack of environmental regulations. Does that hurt our economy if I have to buy American Made shoes which cost me $75 instead of $20?

Now, we CAN argue it is better to build up the economy of Butamia on the backs of the American People. That was the theory after WWII to fight the commies and it largely worked.

Yes it does hurt our economy. If you spend more on shoes you, will spend less for other goods.

No.

If I spent $20 on shoes from Butamia and $55 on domestic alcohol, $5 leaves our country and only $70 remains to build our military or whatever.

If I spent $75 on shoes from America then $75 stays in America.

Now I don't have the alcohol but America is better off.

As much as it would HELP our economy if I saved money reasonably, we don't either.

There is a breaking point to this line of reason, its when you can't afford shoes because the cost is to high. Any system breaks down at extremes, capitalism, communism, the West Coast Offense. We just aren't anywhere near that.

And the alcohol manufacturer goes out business costing jobs.

Why? If I just spent $75 in America on American made shoes then there are $75 in America to be spent on alcohol.

If I bought shoes from overseas then $5 of that $75 is gone from our economy. Poof, only $70 is left for anyone in America to buy alcohol with.

You cut out alcohol to spend more on shoes. Alcohol sales go down and they go out of business.

You are missing something.

My $75 isn't gone. Al Bundy at the shoe shop has it. All $75 of it. And that boy is going to spend whatever he made on alcohol!

If I bought imported shoes some of it goes to help the military of whatever country they were imported from. There is no longer as much money in America to spend on alcohol.

We're not talking just my pocket. We're talking all of America here.

 

[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?

Note to the clueless, because of Mexico's trade deals with China they could buy parts for a car for about $3,000 less than the US per unit. The wage difference only accounts for about $200 per unit. Ron Paul needs to do more research.

.

So you think the government is good at central planning?

Ey, what's up with the funny button love?

 

[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?

Note to the clueless, because of Mexico's trade deals with China they could buy parts for a car for about $3,000 less than the US per unit. The wage difference only accounts for about $200 per unit. Ron Paul needs to do more research.

.

So you think the government is good at central planning?

Ey, what's up with the funny button love?

Your lack of economic knowledge is funny.