TPP Dead. NAFTA being renegotiated...

Seemingly until this past election, the notion that breaking down barriers to trade is a positive has been supported by both parties.

What has changed?

How can NAFTA be renegotiated?

Where is the net benefit to adding tariffs and other barriers?

Specifics please, from anyone in the know. Not bromides.


Come on Bernie supporters!

Explain.


Nothing has changed. Just don't expect DJT to make much sense on any subject.


I don't expect Trump to make sense, but I hope to hear specifics from the many Bernie supporters here.

Bernie lauded Trump for yesterday's actions and pledged to work with him.

What, exactly, does he expect to accomplish that will be a net benefit to the United States?


You know I'm not in the know, but this article, from The Week, struck me as informative in answering your second question:

What Can Trump Actually Do About NAFTA?



jimmurphy said:

I don't expect Trump to make sense, but I hope to hear specifics from the many Bernie supporters here.

Bernie lauded Trump for yesterday's actions and pledged to work with him.

What, exactly, does he expect to accomplish that will be a net benefit to the United States?

I supported Bernie, but I also supported Barack and from what little I know Barack was right about TPP and Bernie was wrong.


Don't assume the NAFTA renegotiation will benefit the American worker.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2017/01/13/trump-will-renegotiate-our-trade-deals-will-it-really-be-on-behalf-of-workers/

Depending on how it’s done, the outcome could end up benefiting big corporations. Indeed, business groups are already gearing up
to try to influence the renegotiation of trade deals in their own
favor. There is no reason to assume Trump’s renegotiation will benefit
the former and not the latter.



I have no doubt that a Trump could have bad motivations, but I want to better understand Bernie's position, unless it is just politics.

This op-ed has some ideas that make sense to me:

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/01/24/opinion/ditching-tpp-wont-solve-the-trade-deficit.html?referer=https://www.google.com/



jimmurphy said:

I have no doubt that a Trump could have bad motivations, but I want to better understand Bernie's position, unless it is just politics.

This op-ed has some ideas that make sense to me:

https://www.google.com/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow"> https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/01/24/opinion/ditching-tpp-wont-solve-the-trade-deficit.html?referer=https://www.google.com/

Why the obsession with Bernie? He lost, the party's over, and now we need to deal with the mindless.


There are problems with these trade agreements , but taking away significant numbers of American jobs doesn't appear to be one of them. There have been a fair number of studies that examined NAFTA's effects and job loss was never really found to be significant.

I supported Bernie, but I think his criticism of trade agreements was never very clear. My own problem with these agreements is that they tend to give too much power to corporations at the expense of national sovereignty and they also strengthen patent protections and intellectual property rights at the expense of the consumer.

Also, I don't think Bernie ever called for renegotiating NAFTA - not that I recall anyway.


Also despite many headlines, Sanders did not come close to "lauding" or otherwise praising Trump for this action. He was pretty careful about that in his statement.

https://www.bustle.com/p/no-bernie-sanders-trans-pacific-partnership-statement-doesnt-praise-trump-32566




Dennis_Seelbach
Why the obsession with Bernie? He lost, the party's over, and now we need to deal with the mindless.

I am not obsessed with Bernie. I was a Hillary supporter. That said, I don't think Bernie is mindless, nor do I think he is evil.

I bring Bernie up and challenge his supporters because I am trying to understand. That's all.


Getting out of TPP and 'renegotiating' NAFTA will not be net positives for the US over the long run.

It really is too bad that the populist fever was so strong in the election cycle that all three of the most likely candidates in the end (Bernie, Donald and Hillary) all ran against TPP. That just makes it so easy, with so much political cover, for Trump to kill it.

I wasn't surprised by Bernie or Donald's positions, but I was taken back a bit by Hillary, who had strongly praised the agreement previously and who, frankly, should have known better.



No, seriously, Jim. What's your endgame?

My guess: fear that the cross-border Dickey-Syndergaard exchange will be reversed.


I was against the TPP because of the clauses ( I paraphrase) that say the US could not sue corporations that pollute our land and water and that should the US determine that the product sold was causing harm to its citizens, the corporation could not be sued.

I'm all for fair trade agreements, but I'm not for corporate amnesty.




hoops said:

I was against the TPP because of the clauses ( I paraphrase) that say the US could not sue corporations that pollute our land and water and that should the US determine that the product sold was causing harm to its citizens, the corporation could not be sued.

I'm all for fair trade agreements, but I'm not for corporate amnesty.

I heard that claim that corporation cannot be sued is false. Its supposedly part of the anti-TPP propaganda.

Do you have a cite to the actual clauses?



DaveSchmidt said:

No, seriously, Jim. What's your endgame?

My guess: fear that the cross-border Dickey-Syndergaard exchange will be reversed.

You see right through me.


My theory is that both Trump and Bernie saw a political opportunity to appeal to the disaffected, regardless of whether it makes economic sense.


Trade agreements are bogeymen. TPP wasn't perfect- no trade agreement is but imagine negotiations with 12 countries? The big winner in the demise of TPP is China.

Btw - we already have tariffs - that men's polyester t shirt you bought from XYZ brand includes a 32% tariff. And it's still cheaper to make it elsewhere. So let's add another 10% - do you really think that's going to bring that back to the US? Nope. Instead it makes the t shirt more expensive for the consumer, reduces the quality, and reduces the bottom line for the company either because they sell less or they absorb some of the cost into their margin. It also takes way less labor to make that shirt (from raw material to final product) than it did 25 years ago


Know someone who makes and sells highend ties. He had to move production to China because it cost $3.00 there to make it, and $12 in the US. He simply could not compete.


But is the answer to that to just make ties more expensive by either applying a tariff or hiring a higher-priced American worker?

Shouldn't the focus be on training American workers to do things that add more value?

Not one of the candidates talked about this in any meaningful way.


Ties have almost no labor - it's the cost of the raw materials. So yes, we should be concentrating here on higher value items and newer industries - things like renewable energy. Unfortunately, this group is likely to roll back advances we have made in these industries and send people into coal mines while at the same time taking away the pre-existing condition mandate of the ACA so when they get black lung they can't get insurance!

It's also rich that Trump wants to bring jobs back to America but this lot barely believes in a minimum wage and hates unions. It's not a lot help if we develop jobs that are basically the equivalent of fast food service. We know it's a lie to say that if companies are successful they'll provide more and better jobs. Corporate profits are soaring and yet companies fire people, freeze wages and benefits anytime it looks like Wall Street isn't happy with quarterly growth.

jimmurphy said:

But is the answer to that to just make ties more expensive by either applying a tariff or hiring a higher-priced American worker?

Shouldn't the focus be on training American workers to do things that add more value?

Not one of the candidates talked about this in any meaningful way.



krugle said:

Know someone who makes and sells highend ties. He had to move production to China because it cost $3.00 there to make it, and $12 in the US. He simply could not compete.

He's overpaying in China.



dave said:
krugle said:

Know someone who makes and sells highend ties. He had to move production to China because it cost $3.00 there to make it, and $12 in the US. He simply could not compete.
He's overpaying in China.

He should talk to our President. He probably knows how to get a good deal on making ties in China, since that's where he makes his.



South_Mountaineer said:



dave said:
krugle said:

Know someone who makes and sells highend ties. He had to move production to China because it cost $3.00 there to make it, and $12 in the US. He simply could not compete.
He's overpaying in China.

He should talk to our President. He probably knows how to get a good deal on making ties in China, since that's where he makes his.

He's smart for making in China, but would be smarter for moving that out to Vietnam or Bangladesh. Keep in mind for every tie made in China, the Chinese manufacturer is making a few pennies, while the brand owners and retailers in the US are making dollars.

That Trump is able to demagogue free trade while profiting on the same is fascinating and highlights how stupid voters are.


The entire topic is misguided. We should be educating people better. What people need to understand is:

  • Factory jobs have been leaving the US for 50 years We lost 7 million factory jobs from 2000 - 2010, but then added 1.5 million factory jobs since 2010 as our economy improved
  • In 20 years, factory workers in India could easily earn more than in the US.
  • Many jobs move to India because of the availability of talent, not just the cost
  • Even more manufacturing jobs were replaced by technology. The average manufacturing plant in the US requires many less humans (who are more capable)
  • well above manufacturing operator jobs in the US, we struggle to fill higher skilled IT, Engineering and Scientist roles with qualified talent. I'd rather work harder to educate our students for these roles, which will add much more to our economy.

This push to add factory workers is not grounded in data or common sense. And the anti trade movement (or our president and his un-knowledgeable followers) is buster which would only cause trade limits and possibly a recession.



Sweetsnuggles said:

Here is a good article that explains the losses to agriculture from overturning TPP:




m.theindependent.com/news/ag_news/nebraska-farm-bureau-expresses-disappointment-in-trump-dumping-tpp/article_7eecc9a8-e1df-11e6-8386-0ba93bcbf370.html?mode=jqm" target="_blank" rel="nofollow"> http://m.theindependent.com/news/ag_news/nebraska-farm-bureau-expresses-disappointment-in-trump-dumping-tpp/article_7eecc9a8-e1df-11e6-8386-0ba93bcbf370.html?mode=jqm

Hillary should have maintained her support of TPP and courted these types of groups to promote and explain their support. Instead, she weakly flip-flopped on it and reminded us all of what we are tired of.


In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.

Sponsored Business

Find Business

Rentals

Advertise here!