I thought Trump reconsidered and now thinks NAFTA is tremendous?
Or was that NATO
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.
I don't think the president has the power to formally leave a trade agreement with a simple EO.
So, judicial branch blocking him yet again. Good.
Can he even do this without it being passed by congress? I feel like a lot of these E.O.'s will keep getting challenges in courts and a good number of them will be overturned.
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.
I don't think the president has the power to formally leave a trade agreement with a simple EO.
I think congress has the authority here.
Until they go to the Supreme Court where they now have the numbers.
He does have the power.
I don't think the president has the power to formally leave a trade agreement with a simple EO.
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.Until they go to the Supreme Court where they now have the numbers.
As usual, The Onion is amazing:oh no whereever will mexico and canada ever find other trade partners
trump is a fucking idiot
I don't think the president has the power to formally leave a trade agreement with a simple EO.
The Peso is apparently dropping like a brick now.
Until they go to the Supreme Court where they now have the numbers.
I don't think the president has the power to formally leave a trade agreement with a simple EO.
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.
Until they go to the Supreme Court where they now have the numbers.
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.
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?
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.
I don't think the president has the power to formally leave a trade agreement with a simple EO.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Out of curiosity, if he did that, how would it affect the US?
Out of curiosity, if he did that, how would it affect the US?
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.
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.