NAFTA

Trump's Dumb Job-Killing Protectionism

If NAFTA dies, American jobs will too

|

Donald Trump, a proud America First protectionist, derided NAFTA as the "worst trade deal ever." But even as exercises in protectionism go, the poison pills that he injected in the latest round of

Trump Lies
DonkeyHoter via Foter.com

NAFTA negotiations are the dumbest ever, I note in my column at The Week.

Most people were afraid that when Trump threatened to drive a tough bargain to get a better deal with Mexico and Canada, he meant that he would try and use America's massive clout to get them to open their own remaining protected industries without opening America's. That would have been bad enough. But he has gone way beyond that.

He wants to impose tougher rules-of-origin requirements that would force manufacturers to source components from North America and America. In addition, he wants a sunset clause that would allow either country to reopen the treaty every five years if its trade deficit with the others gets too out of whack. Worst of all, in the name of "Hire American, Buy American," he wants to kill NAFTA's ban on giving preferential treatment to domestic companies for government contracts.

These demands are complete deal breakers for Mexico, Canada—and even the U.S. industry. It seems that Trump is not trying to get a "good" deal for America, he wants no deal. He wants to kill NAFTA.

But along with NAFTA will die an untold number of American jobs, the exact opposite of what he says he is trying to accomplish.

Go here to read the whole thing.

NEXT: Cops Claim Teen Consented to Sex in Their Custody, Point Prosecutors to Her 'Provocative' Selfies

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. NAFTA is not free trade so getting rid of it does not automatically make American employment go down.

    Americans might lose jobs and getting rid of a managed trade treaty might increase opportunities for American jobs.

    1. Uh, the default in absence of NAFTA is still managed trade.

      I get the complaint that NAFTA isn’t pure free trade, but it made trade across the borders far more free.

      1. It’s still more favorable to Canada and Mexico. I agree with Trump that the US should have a better deal than we do now.

        1. Even if it is more favirable to Canada and Mexico, it is still better for the US if it makes trade more free than it would be without it in place.

        2. How does one even define who it is more favorable to? Consumers benefit from lower priced imports. Domestic producers face more competition. In order to decide who it favors, one has to choose which group’s interests to weight more heavily. All we really know is that fewer trade restrictions provide a net benefit to both countries overall prosperity. Which nafta unquestionably did.

          1. America gets most of its imports from China which has zero impact from NAFTA.

            While I agree that fewer trade restrictions provides a net benefit, NAFTA did not necessarily provide a net loss in trade restrictions.

            When I read cheerleading articles about NAFTA, they often leave out the magnitude increase in trade with China and a more global economy since 1994. This has more to do with the internet than NAFTA.
            I can buy almost anything from almost anyone in the World in 2017 and its more because of Amazon, eBay, and other internet retail access than a bloated trade agreement.

            1. China is the country we get the largest amount of imports from, but it is not a majority of imports, it’s about 25% of imports. If you add Canada and Mexico together, they outweigh China.

            2. While I agree that fewer trade restrictions provides a net benefit, NAFTA did not necessarily provide a net loss in trade restrictions.

              Well, yes, actually it did.
              There were no NEW trade restrictions imposed by NAFTA. All it did was lower restrictions in certain sectors but not others.

              1. Hazel: Look at the link of the law I provided. It added MORE laws.

                Feel free to cite something besides your opinion on how NAFTA was a net reduction of trade laws.

                In 2016: The USA imported from China $482B, $283B from Canada, and $297B from Mexico.
                In 2000: $87B from China, $214B from Canada, $134B from Mexico.
                In 1995: $39B from China, $110B from Canada, $61B from Mexico.
                Imports
                See the trend? Imports from China have skyrocketed since 1995 compared to Canada and Mexico. Its almost like NAFTA has slower growth trade with Canada and Mexico.

                1. Adding laws which FORBID governments from imposing trade barriers does not increase trade barriers, you retard.

                  1. Aw, you poor lefty retard. There are plenty of rules in NAFTA that increase trade barriers.

                    The only way to decrease trade barriers is to move toward free trade and NAFTA is managed trade agreements.

                    Its fun when you refuse to read the actual NAFTA document that I linked and double down on failed lefty arguments over and over.

                    More laws = less laws (every lefty ever).
                    More trade restrictions = less trade restrictions (every lefty eva!)

                    1. Again, please point at a rule which increases trade barriers. You can’t. You linked to a rule which actually reduces trade barriers by requiring governments to treat licenses and accreditations from eachother countries equally. A law which *prevents* the government from restricting trade is a law which makes trade freer.

      2. Uh, the default is free trade unless governments step in and make trade less free.

        Keeping the status quo just does not work for most of these government bloated treaties.

        Ending NAFTA is the first step to having more free trade.

        1. Government already stepped in with pre-existing laws (still on the books) which imposed tariffs and various other restrictions on imports to the US. If NAFTA went away, the law would revert to those pre-existing laws, which would mean MORE trade restrictions on imports.

          1. Many laws are duplicative and/or conflicting as politicians tend to be morons.

            I would love for you to cite your position that there would be MORE trade restrictions if you get rid of a law encompassing a bunch of trade rules.

            The simple fact is that decades ago there were LESS laws that regulated trade. There were less laws in general. The number and/or severity of trade rules fluctuated over decades before that. At the founding of the USA, there was almost no trade restrictions compared to modern trade rules.

            1. Er
              What Would Happen if the U.S. Withdrew From Nafta

              Under Nafta, the three countries pay nothing on most goods that cross the border. After the United States exits the pact, the tariffs, or taxes, that Canada and Mexico put on its goods would rise. For some goods, tariffs could go as high as 150 percent. That would cause prices to spike and cut into company profits.

              All three countries are members of the World Trade Organization, so tariffs could revert to those levels. Currently, they are 0 percent for most goods under Nafta. After Nafta, the W.T.O. rules would apply to trade between the United States and Mexico. Tariffs on agricultural exports to Mexico are particularly costly, including a 15 percent tariff on wheat, a 25 percent on beef and a 75 percent tariff on chicken and potatoes. But goods like soap, fireworks, handbags and many articles of clothing face tariffs of 15 to 20 percent. Mexican goods would, in turn, face an average United States tariff of 3.5 percent.

              Trade experts are debating whether Canada and the United States would revert to a pre-existing free-trade agreement between the two countries that was superseded by Nafta. If not, United States exporters would face an average W.T.O. tariff in Canada of 4.2 percent, again with much higher rates on some goods, including 27 percent for beef and 18 percent for most apparel.

              1. Global trade would be discussed again and fees and duties might be reduced which would be a good thing.

                Your position is that leaving NAFTA would make trade more expensive.

                The reason that trade is more expensive is because of government and that is why NAFTA trade is more expensive than free trade.

                Leaving NAFTA just sends the message that the USA is not going to endure bad treaties that raise costs for trade.

                1. Your ability to ignore factual evidence is astonishing. You asked for a link which would explain how pulling out of NAFTA would raise trade barriers. I provided it. You proceed to ignore the link and insist that NAFTA raises trade barriers, when it demonstrably, provably, does NOT.

                  1. Your ability to keep saying nonsense is astonishing.

                    Leaving NAFTA which has hundreds of rules will magically result in more trade restrictions, according to you. Having the WTO and/or governments add more trade restrictions is an added step as they are not automatic.

                    Leaving NAFTA results in less trade restrictions.

                    1. Yeah, NAFTA has hundreds of rules which limit government’s ability to restrict trade, you fucking retard. So does the WTO. That’s the whole fucking point of it. It’s a treaty in which government agree to certain rules which limit their ability to impose trade restrictions.

  2. the poison pills that he injected in the latest round of Trump LiesTrump LiesDonkeyHoter via Foter.comNAFTA negotiations are the dumbest ever

    The dumbest ever in the history of the world times infinity.

    1. That’s a lot, right?

      1. You can only approach peak derp.

  3. Trump: We’re going to make the best, most magnificent trade deal you’ve ever seen. I’m telling ya, it will be a beautiful thing. It will something that’s never been seen before, ever. Wait, just wait till you see it.

  4. Go here to read the whole thing.

    Or I’ll just wait until the whole thing is repeated here in a couple days.

    1. I will probably ignore it then too.

  5. Funny how when a government imposes an embargo on the people of a foreign country it is an act of war, but when they do it to the people of their own country it is an act of benevolence.

    1. Yea libertarians always have had trouble with self government. So much easier to just let billionaires decide.

  6. Look, if you want to make an omelet you have to break a few eggs. And wouldn’t you know it, there’s a congressman’s buddy who just so happens to manufacture egg-breaking machinery…….

  7. Air India is ready when you are.

    1. We’d never be that lucky in a million years to have cuntface leave.

  8. He wants to impose tougher rules-of-origin requirements that would force manufacturers to source components from North America and America.

    I’m not sure how that’s bad for Mexico and Canada considering they’re part of North America.

    In addition, he wants a sunset clause that would allow either country to reopen the treaty every five years if its trade deficit with the others gets too out of whack.

    So once you make a deal that’s it forever?

    1. The problem isn’t that the deals can be reopened, it’s that they’d be reopened because of something as meaningless as trade deficits.

      1. Trade deficits are not meaningless per se.

        Trade deficit numbers showing that China exports far more than they import because of Communist protectionist policies is very informative.

        1. Actually, it’s the other way around: trade deficits are meaningless in and of themselves, which is what I was getting at. But you are right that they can be meaningful as an illuminator of something else.

  9. Also, you know who else altered a deal?

    1. Bowie Kuhn?

    2. I wouldn’t complain about that. Better you pray that a certain someone does not alter the deal further.

    3. Howie Mandel?

    4. ask the native americans or ask kadafi wait you can’t ask him anymore thanks to Hillary

      1. Alternate universe in which Qaddafi was killed under George W. Bush’s watch: “Murica fuck yeah!”

    5. Darth Vader in Robot Chicken?

  10. So if I understand correctly, what Trump’s promising is a return to the country being 80% white, but we have to work in shit factory jobs?

    1. My husband characterized the whole Trump thing the other days as “Revenge of the 1980s”.

      Which is pretty accurate, in a way.
      Hey everyone – let’s go back to a time when America was afraid of Japanese cars, flag-worship was de-rigeur, and it was still cool to tell racist jokes on television!

      1. That sounds about right for people who have zero clue why Trump is president.

        You and your husband keep guessing. Its fun to see what you lefties come up with.

        1. Perhaps we’re confused by the fact that all of his supporters do nothing but spew vile racist trash.

          Go on, read an article about the war widow he insulted on Breitbart.

          1. Perhaps we’re confused by the fact that all of his haters do nothing but spew vile racist trash.

            FTFY.

            Didn’t Hillary call all people voting for Trump deplorables? That is pretty insulting to the Trump voters.

            You won’t get much sympathy when you insult people and then try and feign outrage when they insult your team.

            1. They are deplorable. She was generous with the “half” part.

              And cry some more over being called a name, snowflake.

  11. I’m fine with the sunset clause , all laws should have sunset clauses, and as usual Shikka doesn’t understand negotiation practices

    1. That’s when you accept the last thing you heard as you float in and out of listening to negotiators talk because you’re tired and you just want to go watch TV, right?

    2. I’m fine with sunset clauses too. I’m not fine with the notion that deals have to reopened because of something as meaningless as trade deficits.

    3. Ok, then we should have sunset clauses on all the laws imposing tariffs on imports. Can we add that to NAFTA too?

      1. NAFTA is going to be gone, so no need to change anything about it.

        Its a failed pipe dream and true free trade is the goal we should be striving for. Less government intervention in trade-the better.

        1. Yes, like we can’t have an arm-reduction treaty unless it mandates zero nukes on both sides.
          Brilliant. Let’s withdraw from START. It’s not really arms reduction, it’s arms management.

          1. Just burn the whole thing down.

            However, there will be hell to pay if it inconveniences me in any tiny way.

            1. Because reducing government to bare bones is burning everything DOWN! Says every lefty eva!

              Founding Fathers knew that getting all entangled in foreign treaties was a mistake.

  12. The idea that Canada and Mexico are going to agree to a “free trade deal” which mandates that 50% of all automobile components of cars solds anywhere in North America, be produced in the US, is asinine. Why not have a trade deal that mandates that 50% of all lumber sold in North America must come from Canada? I’m sure US lumber producers would go for that. It’s only fair.

    1. Good. We’ll get rid of NAFTA then.

      1. I thought you were just arguing that NAFTA was “managed trade”. Now you’re arguing in FAVOR of a mandate that Mexicans and Canadians buy auto parts from America. How is THAT not managed trade?

        1. I am saying “good” to NAFTA falling apart because Trump demands something that Canada and Mexico will never agree to. Its a common business tactic when you want the deal to fall apart. Ask for something you know the other party will never agree to.

          I am for absolute free trade. When the other countries will not agree to free trade, then you do the best you can. Trump is publicly saying the USA is getting screwed and he gave 6 months notice to leave NAFTA. This is a great way to bring Canada and Mexico to the negotiating table. Mexico and Canada now are scared that Trump will follow through and have the USA leave NAFTA.

          Congress probably has to agree to leave NAFTA but the constitution does not specify what to do when leaving a treaty. The SCOTUS dismissed a case about this issue. Goldwater v. Carter, 444 U.S. 996 (1979).
          Since most treaties are followed by adding them to US federal law, it would make sense that leaving said treaty would require repealing pertinent federal law which is a duty of Congress.

          1. I am for absolute free trade. When the other countries will not agree to free trade, then you do the best you can.

            That’s what NAFTA is, you moron. It’s a negotiated reduction in trade barriers.
            Trump is demanding more trade restrictions be ADDED to the deal, not fewer. A mandate that 50% of all auto components be made in the USA is a restriction. It does not move us closer to free trade you fucking hypocrite.

            1. You are typical moron lefty who does not know that NAFTA reduced some trade rules and added more. “More rules” being the key words.

              Trump is publicly adding terms that Canada and Mexico will never agree to, so he can get NAFTA repealed by Congress. He can say they won’t negotiate.

              I know you just do what the left narrative is this week but use your head.

              NAFTA

              All you have to do to get free trade is eliminate trade laws.

              1. Exactly what trade restrictions did NAFTA add?
                Do eludicate.

                1. Come on. I gave you the link and presumably you can read. NAFTA has 8 parts of new rules.

                  This is your chance to really set yourself apart from other lefties by reading the Actual NAFTA agreement and then admitting that it created a bunch of new rules.

                  Remember new rules are each and everything that the agreement says to do.
                  Article 908: Conformity Assessment

                  2. Recognizing that it should be to the mutual advantage of the Parties concerned and except as set out in Annex 908.2, each Party shall accredit, approve, license or otherwise recognize conformity assessment bodies in the territory of another Party on terms no less favorable than those accorded to conformity assessment bodies in its territory.

                  1. A rule which says that each territory shall recognizes occupational licenses granted in each other’s territory is NOT a restriction on trade. It is a reduction of a trade barrier – it means people can go work in each other’s countries.

                    1. See, your lefty brain is so melted from all that socialism that you don’t even realize that you said “A rule which says that each territory shall recognizes occupational licenses granted in each other’s territory is NOT a restriction on trade. It is a reduction of a trade barrier – it means people can go work in each other’s countries.”
                      This means that people are being forced to recognize licenses that they might not otherwise recognize.

                      Rules force businesses to interpret the rules, implement the rules, and follow the rules which costs money and time. That is less money and time for trade.

                      Then you have government interventions to enforce said rules and you then have even less trade.

                      That is why what you advocate are restrictions on trade.

                      No rules on trade means there are no restrictions on trade. The more rules you have on trade, the more restrictions you have on trade.

                    2. This means that people are being forced to recognize licenses that they might not otherwise recognize.

                      Not “people”. Governments. Governments being forced (FORCED!) to allow people to work! I mean, MY GOD, that’s not something libertarians should ever support! What’s next, rules which force governments to allow people to buy and sell things????

                      The only way to freedom is to allow the government unrestricted power to decide who is allowed to work, buy and sell things!

    2. Fuck fair. America is asserting is bargining power and that makes you furious. I’m loving it.

      1. No. It’s fucking it’s own consumers over for the sake of narrow domestic interests.
        You seem to have forgotten that there are people other then auto-workers who live in the US.

        1. Loving it.

  13. What’s even more ridiculous is the arguments of Trump’s supports who claim that this would make trade somehow less managed. Everything Trump is demanding is to make it MORE managed. He’s not negotiating to make NAFTA more free trade, he’s asking for more special conditions be put in it to favor US automakers.

    1. Typical of lefties misstating Trump’s stated campaign goals.

      He campaigned on free trade that’s fair. The “fair” part is ridiculous but Americans get screwed on trade deals. Many countries use subsidies and socialist policies to skew trade. One example of this is China selling a bunch of products in the USA but when US companies want to sell in China, they must endure Communist rules that artificially limit the market.

      There are some who think low price is the final word on what makes free trade and that is not accurate. I often buy products that are more expensive because the product is higher quality and will last longer.

      1. Fair trade – I hope you realize that term was invented by left-wing anti-globalization protestors, later adopted in such forms as “Fair Trade Coffee”, which you can buy at Starbucks like a good progressive.

        He campaigned on free trade that’s fair. The “fair” part is ridiculous but Americans get screwed on trade deals. Many countries use subsidies and socialist policies to skew trade. One example of this is China selling a bunch of products in the USA but when US companies want to sell in China, they must endure Communist rules that artificially limit the market.

        Again, this is all about favoring producers over consumers. Regardless of what China does in it’s domestic markets, it always better for US consumers if they can buy the cheaper products China exports.
        This is a basic, fundamental error in understanding economics. China’s domestic subsidies and protections harm Chinese consumers more than they benefit Chinese producers. If China subsidizes it’s solar industry, we benefit by being able to purchase solar panels paid for with Chinese taxpayer dollars. Protecting US industries similarly harms US consumers. We pay more for stuff, which leaves less money left over for other things. Overall efficiency gains enabled by trade mean that there are more resources available to devote to other production – a net increase in prosperity.

        1. Sorry to burst your bubble but “fair trade” has been around for centuries. Like with most bad things, the left has tried to steal the term. (see stealing the term Liberal from Classic Liberals)

          “Fair trade” is a subjective term that has been used for centuries to ease people into trade that is not free trade. Fair trade means one thing to some and something else to others. That means its great for politicians to manipulate.

          1. “Fair trade” is a subjective term that has been used for centuries to ease people into trade that is not free trade.

            Ahh, so you *aren’t* really in favor of “free trade”, then. You’re in favor of “easing people” into not free trade. I mean, you literally just advocated “fair trade” and then described it as something that is not free trade.

            So I guess all your protestations that we have get rid of NAFTA because it’s not really “free trade” were horseshit, weren’t they?

            1. I am nobody sees that you refuse to acknowledge that I advocate for “free trade” as in no rules for trade differences.

              1. No, you’re not. You’re pretty much explicitly advocating in favor of governments being allowed to impose trade restrictions, all over this thread. You’re repeatedly conflating rules imposed upon governments with rules imposed on people.

                Here’s a hint, a law which limits the government’s power to restrict trade is not a trade restriction.

            2. I am *sure* that is….

            3. The very fact that YOU don’t want the USA to leave NAFTA immediately tells me that the USA should leave the agreement.

              Free trade! Free trade! No tariffs, subsidies, quotas, or other restrictions by governments.

  14. RE: Trump’s Dumb Job-Killing Protectionism
    If NAFTA dies, American jobs will too

    Ah, protectionism.
    One of the most important mainstays of the democrats.
    Oh, wait…

    1. We’ve always been at war with East Asia against free trade. Nothing to see here, move along.

      1. Well yea this nation was founded with a staunch commitment to protectionism. I guess I get a little bit tired of your appeal to blood and soil ideas like free trade rather than the founding principles of this nation.

        1. “Well yea this nation was founded with a staunch commitment to protectionism.”

          Really?
          I didn’t see the word “protectionism” is the US Constitution or the Federalist Papers.
          I must be getting old.

          1. And? You won’t find seperation of church and state or a right to privacy either. A lot of times what people do matters a lot more than what they say. And the founding fathers did nothing so much as impose tariffs.

            1. And as we know the founders were godlike beings who never did anything wrong.

        2. How the fuck is free trade a “blood and soil” idea? Is this part of the alt-right’s MO of deciding that everything anti-racist is actually racist? Hey everyone – everything anti-nationalist is actually nationalist!
          I’ll just say the words “blood and soil” detached from all meaning or context! LOL.
          Deregulation is an appeal to blood and soil!

          1. Blood and soil in that you are a foreigner loyal to foreign interests infuriated that we the people are flexing our muscles. Your corporatist fascism is a relic.

            1. Oh, I get it. It’s about blood and soil, because I’m profaning the sacred blood and soil that Americans should be loyal to – the solidarity of “the people” – meaning the working class.

              You see, scratch a facist and there’s a socialist underneath.

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksgemeinschaft

              1. I mean America is loyal to its people. That’s what a nation is that’s what the constitution codified. You are a foreigner and aren’t loyal to anything but other foreigners it’s why you are such a contemptible person. That and you are stupid and lazy.

                1. Which people? Producers or consumers?

  15. 50% built in USA or a 2.5% tariff. Most companies will pay the 2.5% and source even more parts from overseas resolving nothing.

    The only nafta trade deficit with Canada is if you include oil which is a natural resource. Without that the USA makes a small fortune off of Canada in trade.

    Instead of dropping nafta because of weak labor laws in Mexico why not draft in some labor standards into a revised nafta.

    Lastly a sunset clause is damning because investors can’t place money on an agreement that could be destroyed in 5 years.

    1. Investors place money on condition that can disappear in days much less five years. And how are you expected to revise NAFTA when foreign corporate fascist like Hazel Meade insist on abrogating popular soverignty on issue like free trade.

      You basically concede trumps point by arguing for new labor standards those standards will come from negotiation once the reactionary anti-American oligarchist like Hazel Meade are defeated.

      Protectionism is a founding American principle. We the people decide what gets traded not jack booted button men of foreign empires.

      1. We the people decide what gets traded not jack booted button men

        The dictatorship of the proletariat decides who gets to trade what!

        1. What the fuck was the Boston Tea Party to you. The committee of corresponden organized a what Hazel. You are so fucking stupid.

          You aren’t American and you are too stupid and lazy to learn out history.

          1. What the fuck was the Boston Tea Party to you.

            A protest against a tax on imports.

            1. It was in fact a property destroying boycott.

              1. A boycott to protest taxes and trade restrictions on tea.

                1. Trade restrictions. Bwahahahhah. You are so so dumb. The only trade restriction was the boycott.

                  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Tea_Party

                    As Europeans developed a taste for tea in the 17th century, rival companies were formed to import the product from China.[3] In England, Parliament gave the East India Company a monopoly on the importation of tea in 1698.[4] When tea became popular in the British colonies, Parliament sought to eliminate foreign competition by passing an act in 1721 that required colonists to import their tea only from Great Britain.[5]

                    False.

                    1. 1721 eh. So before Thomas Jefferson was even alive. Those founding fathers sure procrastinated. 50 years after the fact they finally got around to it.

                    2. Yeah, the trade restriction was around for a long time. You should try reading the Wikipedia link – it’s a vertiable litany of trade barriers and tariffs designed to force the colonists to purchase tea from the British East India Company at inflated prices.

  16. When referencing investments I’m talking about more long-term investments on infrastructure in all three countries allowing us to be more competitive world-wide, while creating jobs. I have no problem conceding labor standards, and believe that would go a long way in modernizing NAFTA.

    1. Trade agreement should be about trade, not about imposing laws on other countries. Mexico should be allowed to decide it’s own labor policy, and so should America.

      1. Cool let’s just put this trade agreement through the paper shredder. Sorry senor.

  17. “Canada and Mexico take much greater growth and employment hits from NAFTA’s termination than does America. But the differential effects on real growth rates are even greater ? and more threatening to Mexico and Canada. (The researchers assume that all three countries return their tariffs to pre-NAFTA levels.)

    Real GDP:

    U.S.: -0.09 percent

    Canada: -0.48 percent

    Mexico: -0.88 percent

    And keep in mind two other considerations: The Canadian and Mexican economies are much smaller than the U.S.’ So the jobs losses are much more important for them, relatively speaking. Moreover, Mexico is still a developing country with real political stability problems. Growth and employment shocks like this would spell big, and possibly fatal, trouble for its ruling classes.

    In fact, the damage to Canada and Mexico is so great that the (closely related) policy conclusions couldn’t be clearer (except to economics reporters). First, America’s NAFTA partners simply can’t afford to retaliate against the United States if the treaty is terminated; and second, as a result, a walk-out by them is wildly improbable unless Washington’s demands are positively draconian.”

    Bargining power Mexicans and Canadians better learn to like the taste of it. It won’t taste as good as poutine and churros but it’s coming so chomp chomp. The bear is done being poked.

    1. I’m looking forward to when America isn’t a whiny titty baby about everything again.

      1. Chomp chomp tony.

  18. Do people with aspergers not understand bargining power? This isn’t one of those things where you stomp your feed and hold your breath and your parents give in because they are embarrassed.

    1. No it’s one of those things where our closest allies are probably somewhat taken aback by a US president who treats mutually beneficial peacetime agreements as a venue for a dick measuring contest.

      Third-world shithole gets relatively more out of the deal! No fair! *Stomps* No fair!

      1. Chomp chomp.

        1. When Trump accomplishes absolutely nothing, you’re still going to be defending him, right?

          1. Chomp chomp. If i pretend its an airplane will that help.

            1. A political movement completely losing its goddamn mind is a very sad thing to witness.

              1. Sad? It is funny to watch the Democratic Party implode.

                1. Our last president made it 8 whole years without calling a war widow a liar. Can yours make it the next 24 hours without doing it for a second (or is it third?) time?

                  1. Dr. Dorothy Narvaez-Woods, the Gold Star widow of Tyrone Woods who was murdered in the 2012 attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi, Liby.
                    “I am here because of the way that Ty’s death was handled, the way it was narrated, the way it was ultimately handled with disrespect and negligence by both Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration,” said Dorothy Woods.

                    1. And Obama’s response?

          2. Trump will get the USA out of NAFTA or Canada and Mexico will negotiate better terms for the USA.

            Other good things Trump has done include: nominated Gorsuch, EO repeal 2 for 1, nominate Devos, push cabinet members to deregulate business, push tax reform, lessen effect of neo-cons pushing for more war, draining the swamp, withdrew from TPP, deporting as many illegals as possible, push immigration law enforcement, and much more.

            1. I can’t decide whether the delusion or the mean-spiritedness is the worst part of the horsecrap you believe.

              1. See for me it’s clearly you STD addled brain that I laugh hardest at. The shortness, baldness, pudginess and loneliness are just add ons laughs.

                Ps chomp chomp

                1. I haven’t checked the news in an hour or so, has your favorite president trashed the character of any more war widows yet?

                  1. Are the democrats still a flaming mess. Yep well then chomp chomp.

              2. Tony: Its funny that you call anything, that is not lefty nonsense, horsecrap.

                I just laugh and laugh how great Trump is doing even with RINOs trying to stall shrinking government and the left literally showing how mentally unstable they are.

    2. So you’re saying America should negotiate like a three year old.

      1. Hahahah so aspergery.

  19. Labor and trade go hand in hand. If companies are continueously allowed to shuttle jobs to where the cheapest labor is while utilising the benefits of tariff free trade things don’t look promising. A leveler playing field tends to create fairer trade. Change comes over time in small steps as we work together for common goals to everyone’s benefits.

    1. Different countries at different levels of development demand different labor standards. A 40-hour work week might make sense in relatively well off America, but not so much in Mexico or Bangladesh.

      1. In they case no more trade for you. The world you thought you knew- it’s gone. Your world view is deaer than Jim Crow at this point.

        1. I get it. You’re still made about Jim Crow being outlawed. You still want revenge for that.

          1. So weak. You are the person that wants to steal jobs from American blacks so that your beloved foreigners benefit. Your corporate fascism was built on the destruction of the black family.

            1. How the hell can someone “steal” a job? A job is a voluntary agreement between an employer and employee. The employee doesn’t “own” the job, and nobody is entitled to one. The employer as a right to hire whoever he wants. And black consumers benefit from trade as much as anyone else.

              1. Sometimes you wonder if nativist anti-trade conservatives might not be entirely on board with the free markets thing.

          2. You meant the Jim Crowe laws implemented by Democrats?

            1. ^ Reason’s resident genius right here.

            2. It does seem as if a lot of old school Democrats have switched parties lately, doesn’t it?

  20. I’m afraid that loveconstitution has discovered the secret truth …
    Trade agreements have rules and (SHOCKER) those rules restrict what the parties signing them are allowed to do.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.