• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

White House readies order on withdrawing from NAFTA

Status
Not open for further replies.
I thought Trump reconsidered and now thinks NAFTA is tremendous?

Or was that NATO

He will need an enemy to convince him of NAFTA's worth, unfortunately, as he does not listen to friends.

On the plus side, it would apparently only take about five minutes of Assad's time to get him to swing 100% in favor of NAFTA.
 
That's a surefire way to piss of border states and companies that do a ton of importing, i.e. a lot of the same people that voted for Trump in the first place.
 

djkimothy

Member
Again, it won't effect Canada. The old Trade Agreement between the two countries from 1988 is still in effect. NAFTA was designed after it but just added Mexico. If NAFTA goes, things between Canada and the United States will continue as normal. It's Mexico that gets its ass handed to them as their economy craters which will play to his base.

There would still be provisions in Nafta not covered in ten FTA. Same with TPP being an updated version of Nafta. Economic disruption will still be felt.

does the FTA cover bidding for government contracts? How about the service sector. Can our banks do business in the US?
 

Xe4

Banned
No way he goes through with this. America's economy would be fucked 5 ways to Sunday. The last 20 years of our economics and trade with Mexico and Canada have been based off NAFTA, there's no way this won't have horrible implications.

Texas in particular is so fucked if NAFTA ends. And republicans really need Texas. Even my state of NM, probably the least important of the "border states" is going to be hit hard though.
 

Kifimbo

Member
War went nuclear quickly.

Ironically, the Pesos and Canadian dollar droppping only means a larger commercial deficit for the USA.
 

mavo

Banned
Remember when Ross Perot called NAFTA the "great sucking sound" as jobs and wages flowed south to Mexico?

NAFTA has been a net good, like most free trade agreements: it's been great for Mexico, it was good for most of the U.S., but unfortunately it accelerated the loss of decent-paying U.S. manufacturing jobs and likely contributed to stagnant working class wages. Exactly the groups Trump is appealing to. (The jobs won't come back, however.)

We always judge trade agreements on the wrong metrics: currency fluctuations and stock market performance, rather than working class wages and number of decent jobs.

Mexico wont dissapear if you take away Nafta though, like many people have said the US and China dont have a trade agreement.
 

Xe4

Banned
Until they go to the Supreme Court where they now have the numbers.
They've had the numbers for awhile. But I can't see any of the Supreme Court letting this slide. I feel like everyone from RBG to Gorush is going to strike it down. Seriously, it may be a 9-0 decision.
 

studyguy

Member
I don't think the president has the power to formally leave a trade agreement with a simple EO.

This is an instance that the executive branch actually can pull us out of NAFTA unilaterally. Technically all he has to do is provide a 6mo notice. It probably opens the administration to a slew of litigation as no one has ever tried it, but he can do it.
 

CazTGG

Member
I don't think the president has the power to formally leave a trade agreement with a simple EO.

Trump: "Well, i'm out, Peace!"

Trudeau: "You can't just leave, you need to wait six months according to Article 2205 before withdr-

Trump: "Tremendous, now I can work on getting Mexico to pay for the wall. Super deal!"
 

Bluenoser

Member
Again, it won't effect Canada. The old Trade Agreement between the two countries from 1988 is still in effect. NAFTA was designed after it but just added Mexico. If NAFTA goes, things between Canada and the United States will continue as normal. It's Mexico that gets its ass handed to them as their economy craters which will play to his base.

Does Trump know about this other agreement? I'm guessing no, based on .... well, many things.
 
I'm a former free trade analyst for a large industrial manufacturing company. This is only going to hurt the US jobs left over. So so dumb.

NAFTA allows Mexico and Canada to purchase the goods we still actually make. Here's an idea, "let's make it more expensive for our neighbors to buy our shit". Dumb.
 

guek

Banned
giphy.gif


The Trump presidency in a nutshell. Eventually, he's going to actually deliver on one of his batshit crazy campaign promises and we're going to have to deal with the consequences.
 

wildfire

Banned
Mexico and Canada would have little trouble finding other trade partners and the convenience of the US being next door isn't as big a deal as it used to be. Like all of Trump's actions this could well hurt the US a lot more than it could benefit it.


<reads thread replies>


Or it could be the tradepocalypse. You know, either or.



Seriously this assumption is idiotic. Practically every country in the world best trade partner is their neighbor. If not their best they take up #2 and #3 while China and US take the top slot.
 

Dr.Acula

Banned
As a Canadian, dealing with a dysfunctional US govt. that's mired in infighting and has many key positions still vacant, and that is focused on factory jobs and petrochemicals in the 21st century has me feeling pretty good about the kinds of "deals" Trump wants to make.
 

numble

Member
I don't think the President can unilaterally absolve trade agreements with an EO.

This would more than likely be an EO telling Congress to get us out, which would be followed by Congress not getting us out.

They don't have a SC majority.



Really? This doesn't fall under a treaty?

He needs a Senate to consent to a treaty, but not to leave it. It is similar to firing Cabinet members.

George W. Bush withdrew from the ABM Treaty without any Congressional consent.

Jimmy Carter withdrew from a treaty with Taiwan without Congressional consent.
 

Xe4

Banned
giphy.gif


The Trump presidency in a nutshell. Eventually, he's going to actually deliver on one of his batshit crazy campaign promises and we're going to have to deal with the consequences.

And business groups supported him because they didn't think he'd actually go through with it. All I can do is shake my head.
 

Maxim726X

Member
I don't think the president has the power to formally leave a trade agreement with a simple EO.

No, but I would assume he has some authority to alter it to the point of complete uselessness?

giphy.gif


The Trump presidency in a nutshell. Eventually, he's going to actually deliver on one of his batshit crazy campaign promises and we're going to have to deal with the consequences.

Good. Let the stupid fucking people of this country learn that they made a mistake the hard way... It seems to be the only way they'll realize.
 
Trump Negotiations Step One: Give away all leverage.

Trump Negotiations Step Two: Beg them to return your leverage.

Trump Negotiations Step Three: Pretend like you always wanted whatever they're willing to offer you as a pittance to save face, if anything.
 
Remember when Ross Perot called NAFTA the "great sucking sound" as jobs and wages flowed south to Mexico?

NAFTA has been a net good, like most free trade agreements: it's been great for Mexico, it was good for most of the U.S., but unfortunately it accelerated the loss of decent-paying U.S. manufacturing jobs and likely contributed to stagnant working class wages. Exactly the groups Trump is appealing to. (The jobs won't come back, however.)

We always judge trade agreements on the wrong metrics: currency fluctuations and stock market performance, rather than working class wages and number of decent jobs.

Who is the "most" of the US that it helped?

If it helped big corporations save money in international trade at the expense of the middle/lower class, I'm of the opinion we should've never done NAFTA. But I'm not educated enough about it to have a strong opinion either way.
 
Why more than comment makes it sounds like SCOTUS plays politics and doesn't enforce the law? Seen this sentiment in few different threads.

I agree. The SCOTUS isn't completely outside politics, but to act like they are as "vote party line" as congress is a gross misrepresentation of the judicial body.
 

bionic77

Member
Is there anything positive you can say about the current US government?

It seems that we are just a bad country now.

How do foreign countries feel about us now?
 

RPGCrazied

Member
These fuckers are going to start a major war and put us in a recession. Trump voters have to be the dumbest people I've ever seen in my entire life.
 
There would still be provisions in Nafta not covered in ten FTA. Same with TPP being an updated version of Nafta. Economic disruption will still be felt.

does the FTA cover bidding for government contracts? How about the service sector. Can our banks do business in the US?


It's been awhile since I looked at the old FTA but I believe it does cover both of those provisions. It would certainly need some updates and there would be some headaches and disruptions but overall because that deal will shield us from the more devastating effects of this. Mexico has no such protection.
 

Bluenoser

Member
The SC while def conservative, don't vote party line at the drop of a hat. This is also the same SC that upheld the ACA provisions, and LGBTQ rights.

Ah ok, based on what a commotion everyone made about Gorsuch, it seemed like it was a major win for the right, presumably, to get their way.
 
Ah ok, based on what a commotion everyone made about Gorsuch, it seemed like it was a major win for the right, presumably, to get their way.

No. Hell it doesn't even remake the court that heavily anyway, it just goes back to the same balance it had before Scalia died anyway.
 

Arkeband

Banned
The craziest thing about this is he has referred to upstate NY over and over to blast Nafta, but like a fifth of all business up there only exists because of Nafta.

If people thought there wasn't much in the way of jobs before, imagine how much it's going to suck when all companies based in Canada leave.
 
Who is the "most" of the US that it helped?

If it helped big corporations save money in international trade at the expense of the middle/lower class, I'm of the opinion we should've never done NAFTA. But I'm not educated enough about it to have a strong opinion either way.

NAFTA works by eliminating trade barriers by removing duty for the importer of goods produced in a country within the agreement.

Essentially the us goods that are still manufactured in the United States become attractive purchases for Canadians and Mexicans because US companies are able to compete with businesses in those countries by allowing those countries to not pay duties when importing your goods.

By removing NAFTA Canada and Mexico will be much less likely to purchase American goods. Or if they do it will be in smaller amounts or at highly adjusted costs. This will negatively affect the Americans working in manufacturing and shipping.

It goes both ways but I only see this as a potentially bad thing, especially if there is not a rework or replacement.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom