Breaking News: U.S. & Canada Reach Trade Agreement

#151
#151
0nelilreb said:
It’s all so involved and interwoven that it’s really hard to find or be able to tell the true numbers either way . I think it’s almost impossible to do like an itemized tit for tat and come up with the truth . But the market either seems to not mind or they are waiting to see what’s next . I think he went about it wrong by taking on everyone at once instead of one or two at a time leaving China for last but who knows .
Click to expand...

What do you mean the market does not mind? The market took a big dip after the steel tariffs were announced. The market responded well to Canada accepting the USMCA, but that's because a trade agreement is better than no trade agreement. It's not an indication that it's better than NAFTA.
 
#152
#152
n_huffhines said:
What do you mean the market does not mind? The market took a big dip after the steel tariffs were announced. The market responded well to Canada accepting the USMCA, but that's because a trade agreement is better than no trade agreement. It's not an indication that it's better than NAFTA.
Click to expand...
At least it will be legal to sell American wine off the shelf in British Columbia now, in case you are up there and can't find drugs.
 
#153
#153
"It's a good thing that the 3 countries have reached a new NAFTA deal. Good, relative to the alternative of Trump just dropping out of NAFTA entirely, that is. But new NAFTA is still overall worse than the old, and undermines claims that Trump is just using tariffs to try to promote freer trade. Here's why:

1. By far the biggest change from the old agreement is increased "North American content" requirements for cars. This is a clear increase in protectionism, and will predictably make cars more expensive and the auto industry less efficient throughout North America.

2. The same goes for what is effectively a provision imposing a $16.00 minimum wage for many types of auto workers. That too will increase prices, reduce efficiency, and price out some workers from the market. However, Robots for a $15 Minimum Wage have excellent reason to cheer this part of the agreement!

3. The one good change in the new agreement is greater access for US dairy producers to the highly protected Canadian dairy market. However, Trump could have secured a more complete US exemption from "supply management" simply by signing TPP, which he of course rejected. Moreover, this provision is small potatoes compared to 1 and 2 above (dairy is a tiny fraction of US-Canada trade, while autos are far more important).

4. Trump's new steel/aluminum tariffs against Canada remain in place. That is both harmful in itself, and a refutation of claims that he only adopted them as leverage in the NAFTA negotiations.

5. I won't go through the other, more minor new provisions in the agreement. But, from a free trade/free market perspective, they too (mostly) make things worse rather than better.

6. The agreement would have been even worse if not for Canada's successful effort to preserve the Chapter 19 dispute-resolution mechanism, which makes it harder for protectionist politicians and interest groups to get away with violations. Trump fought hard to junk Chapter 19.

7. As an extra bonus, Trump's bullying tactics towards Canada have deeply alienated Canadian public and elite opinion from the US - to a greater extent than has ever been the case in my adult lifetime. That includes a lot of moderate and conservative Canadians, not just the historically anti-American Canadian left. Don't take my word for it. Check out Canadian media, and public opinion polling of Canadian attitudes towards the US. Alienating our closest ally for no good purpose isn't being "realistic" or "tough." It's just plain stupid." - Ilya Somin
 
#154
#154
Most companies producing in NA are almost 100% NA sourced to start with. Domestics are a given, Toyota and Honda get little to nothing from Japan anymore. VW gets its engines from Germany, maybe MB or BMW do as well. The increase to wage will spur automation, so that’s not going to raise prices either.
 
#155
#155
DancingOutlaw said:
Most companies producing in NA are almost 100% NA sourced to start with. Domestics are a given, Toyota and Honda get little to nothing from Japan anymore. VW gets its engines from Germany, maybe MB or BMW do as well. The increase to wage will spur automation, so that’s not going to raise prices either.
Click to expand...

Incorrect, but if it were correct, then why the new rules?
 
#157
#157
n_huffhines said:
"It's a good thing that the 3 countries have reached a new NAFTA deal. Good, relative to the alternative of Trump just dropping out of NAFTA entirely, that is. But new NAFTA is still overall worse than the old, and undermines claims that Trump is just using tariffs to try to promote freer trade. Here's why:

1. By far the biggest change from the old agreement is increased "North American content" requirements for cars. This is a clear increase in protectionism, and will predictably make cars more expensive and the auto industry less efficient throughout North America.

2. The same goes for what is effectively a provision imposing a $16.00 minimum wage for many types of auto workers. That too will increase prices, reduce efficiency, and price out some workers from the market. However, Robots for a $15 Minimum Wage have excellent reason to cheer this part of the agreement!

3. The one good change in the new agreement is greater access for US dairy producers to the highly protected Canadian dairy market. However, Trump could have secured a more complete US exemption from "supply management" simply by signing TPP, which he of course rejected. Moreover, this provision is small potatoes compared to 1 and 2 above (dairy is a tiny fraction of US-Canada trade, while autos are far more important).

4. Trump's new steel/aluminum tariffs against Canada remain in place. That is both harmful in itself, and a refutation of claims that he only adopted them as leverage in the NAFTA negotiations.

5. I won't go through the other, more minor new provisions in the agreement. But, from a free trade/free market perspective, they too (mostly) make things worse rather than better.

6. The agreement would have been even worse if not for Canada's successful effort to preserve the Chapter 19 dispute-resolution mechanism, which makes it harder for protectionist politicians and interest groups to get away with violations. Trump fought hard to junk Chapter 19.

7. As an extra bonus, Trump's bullying tactics towards Canada have deeply alienated Canadian public and elite opinion from the US - to a greater extent than has ever been the case in my adult lifetime. That includes a lot of moderate and conservative Canadians, not just the historically anti-American Canadian left. Don't take my word for it. Check out Canadian media, and public opinion polling of Canadian attitudes towards the US. Alienating our closest ally for no good purpose isn't being "realistic" or "tough." It's just plain stupid." - Ilya Somin
Click to expand...

Your 1 & 2 are the same point. at best its a 1a and 1b.

your 3 is small because Canada has kept it small, now that is more open that will change. not enough to replace steel or aluminum but it will get bigger.

four probably just takes some time. Trump probably banging some Russian hooker right now. and is easily fixed

five isn't even a point, might as well bring up the weather with how little you are supporting it as a reason to not like it. I would imagine a lot of the smaller things balance out.

six is granted. but since its there, its not really a negative. its was a negotiation. you can't way the final result on what MIGHT have happened.

seven is part of a pendulum. its not bad enough to drive them into the arms of Russia. not saying its good strategy but Trump's interest is America. not Canada. If they aren't happy it means they had to give up more than they had in the past. and I doubt they liked Trump to begin with, even before the NAFTA thing came up.

so at best 2/6 of your points are valid. 1 & 4. four can be easily fixed, so I put it in with seven on the it will easily blow over scale and therefore isn't something to worry about.
 
#158
#158
n_huffhines said:
"It's a good thing that the 3 countries have reached a new NAFTA deal. Good, relative to the alternative of Trump just dropping out of NAFTA entirely, that is. But new NAFTA is still overall worse than the old, and undermines claims that Trump is just using tariffs to try to promote freer trade. Here's why:

1. By far the biggest change from the old agreement is increased "North American content" requirements for cars. This is a clear increase in protectionism, and will predictably make cars more expensive and the auto industry less efficient throughout North America.

2. The same goes for what is effectively a provision imposing a $16.00 minimum wage for many types of auto workers. That too will increase prices, reduce efficiency, and price out some workers from the market. However, Robots for a $15 Minimum Wage have excellent reason to cheer this part of the agreement!

3. The one good change in the new agreement is greater access for US dairy producers to the highly protected Canadian dairy market. However, Trump could have secured a more complete US exemption from "supply management" simply by signing TPP, which he of course rejected. Moreover, this provision is small potatoes compared to 1 and 2 above (dairy is a tiny fraction of US-Canada trade, while autos are far more important).

4. Trump's new steel/aluminum tariffs against Canada remain in place. That is both harmful in itself, and a refutation of claims that he only adopted them as leverage in the NAFTA negotiations.

5. I won't go through the other, more minor new provisions in the agreement. But, from a free trade/free market perspective, they too (mostly) make things worse rather than better.

6. The agreement would have been even worse if not for Canada's successful effort to preserve the Chapter 19 dispute-resolution mechanism, which makes it harder for protectionist politicians and interest groups to get away with violations. Trump fought hard to junk Chapter 19.

7. As an extra bonus, Trump's bullying tactics towards Canada have deeply alienated Canadian public and elite opinion from the US - to a greater extent than has ever been the case in my adult lifetime. That includes a lot of moderate and conservative Canadians, not just the historically anti-American Canadian left. Don't take my word for it. Check out Canadian media, and public opinion polling of Canadian attitudes towards the US. Alienating our closest ally for no good purpose isn't being "realistic" or "tough." It's just plain stupid." - Ilya Somin
Click to expand...

#8. It's not NAFTA anymore.
 
#160
#160
DancingOutlaw said:
What’s incorrect?
Click to expand...

Switching more to automation and robotics is going to come at no increased cost? Wrong.

So much is already produced here that the rules won't protect anything? Wrong.

Your turn to answer...if they have no effect, why are there even new rules?
 
#163
#163
LouderVol said:
Your 1 & 2 are the same point. at best its a 1a and 1b.

your 3 is small because Canada has kept it small, now that is more open that will change. not enough to replace steel or aluminum but it will get bigger.

four probably just takes some time. Trump probably banging some Russian hooker right now. and is easily fixed

five isn't even a point, might as well bring up the weather with how little you are supporting it as a reason to not like it. I would imagine a lot of the smaller things balance out.

six is granted. but since its there, its not really a negative. its was a negotiation. you can't way the final result on what MIGHT have happened.

seven is part of a pendulum. its not bad enough to drive them into the arms of Russia. not saying its good strategy but Trump's interest is America. not Canada. If they aren't happy it means they had to give up more than they had in the past. and I doubt they liked Trump to begin with, even before the NAFTA thing came up.

so at best 2/6 of your points are valid. 1 & 4. four can be easily fixed, so I put it in with seven on the it will easily blow over scale and therefore isn't something to worry about.
Click to expand...

Jesus. They're not my points. Somin works for CATO and GMU. You wrote 7 paragraphs and said almost nothing, except 5 is a fair point. Prove him wrong. Nobody has said anything about what actually makes the USMCA better than NAFTA. So let's hear it?

Hoe does 1 = 2?

4 - hold your breath then

Seriously? 7 is invalid because Canada isn't running to Russia? GTFO

Please tell me how things got better.
 
#166
#166
n_huffhines said:
Remember when you didn't get all butthurt by retorts? I don't.
Click to expand...

jack-jpg.65416
 
  • Like
Reactions: BeecherVol, tumscalcium and Obsessed
#167
#167
n_huffhines said:
Jesus. They're not my points. Somin works for CATO and GMU. You wrote 7 paragraphs and said almost nothing, except 5 is a fair point. Prove him wrong. Nobody has said anything about what actually makes the USMCA better than NAFTA. So let's hear it?

Hoe does 1 = 2?

4 - hold your breath then

Seriously? 7 is invalid because Canada isn't running to Russia? GTFO

Please tell me how things got better.
Click to expand...
wasn't arguing that it is better. Like I said from the start, I want to see them side by side. All I was saying is the points you presented, whether yours or not, weren't that impressive/concerning as your post made them out to be.

1 & 2 are the same because they both deal with the auto industry. Seems odd to break that one industry apart while keeping all the others lumped together. they are valid concerns but breaking them apart serves no real purpose but to inflate the argument being presented, which is why I boiled them down to a single point, that again, I wasn't arguing.

7 is invalid because two countries PR of each other is never going to be constant when you have big political shifts at the top. yet I am willing to bet despite the changes at the top we won't lose any real world relationships because of it. sans Trump going full potato. Our geographic, and historical ties are going to out weigh pretty much any bungling by Trump.
 
#168
#168
LouderVol said:
wasn't arguing that it is better. Like I said from the start, I want to see them side by side. All I was saying is the points you presented, whether yours or not, weren't that impressive/concerning as your post made them out to be.

1 & 2 are the same because they both deal with the auto industry. Seems odd to break that one industry apart while keeping all the others lumped together. they are valid concerns but breaking them apart serves no real purpose but to inflate the argument being presented, which is why I boiled them down to a single point, that again, I wasn't arguing.

7 is invalid because two countries PR of each other is never going to be constant when you have big political shifts at the top. yet I am willing to bet despite the changes at the top we won't lose any real world relationships because of it. sans Trump going full potato. Our geographic, and historical ties are going to out weigh pretty much any bungling by Trump.
Click to expand...

1 and 2 both being the auto industry does not make them the same point. It's different points because it's two completely distinct protectionist measures. Does 4 get to be split into two bullet points because it's steel and aluminum? Combine the paragraphs into one, it's still all the same arguments about two different aspects of the USMCA...does it change anything when you take away the bullet point? No. There are increased quotas and a minimum wage now, and we're left with the same dogshit trade deal no matter how many bullet points we land on.

These arguments are terrible.
 
Last edited:
#175
#175
n_huffhines said:
1 and 2 both being the auto industry does not make them the same point. It's different points because it's two completely distinct protectionist measures. Does 4 get to be split into two bullet points because it's steel and aluminum? Combine the paragraphs into one, it's still all the same arguments about two different aspects of the USMCA...does it change anything when you take away the bullet point? No. There are increased quotas and a minimum wage now, and we're left with the same dogshit trade deal no matter how many bullet points we land on.

These arguments are terrible.
Click to expand...
I could see aluminum and steel being split into separate points.

the minimum wage is part of the quota. that's why I was saying its one point 60%, going off of memory, has to be produced in the US. of that 60% 40%, 2/3, has to make the minimum wage. but its still part of the same quota of 60%. its not an additional 40% on top of the 60%.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top