You do realize he has gone full fascist in his speeches

[LV426]

it means using 75% NAFTA content increases NAFTA manufacturing parts jobs.

NO IT DOESN'T!

Because going up from 62.5% to 75% isn't a big enough change to materially affect anything. And by the way, 5 huge automakers already make over 80% of the car in North America: Tesla, GMC, Cadillac, Jeep, and Dodge. Between them, that's about 60% of total market share.

 

[Getin the ring]

He now openly calls himself a Nationalist.

His policies will soon catch up if he can maintain his one party rule. We now have no court protection basically forever.

We have, in fact, seen this movie and several remakes.

1930s Spain
1930s Italy
1930s Germany
1940s Argentina
1970s Chile

This shit's gettin' pretty fucking real

ohhhh noooo, what are we going to dooooo ?

NO IT DOESN'T!

Because going up from 62.5% to 75% isn't a big enough change to materially affect anything. And by the way, 5 huge automakers already make over 80% of the car in North America: Tesla, GMC, Cadillac, Jeep, and Dodge. Between them, that's about 60% of total market share.

I love how all the nut-bags are suddenly business statiticians, expert economists

 

[LV426]

I've gone all over this 50x with you. You are advocating not improving NAFTA now because of jobs in the future.

No I'm not. That's you constructing a straw man because you're a piece of shit garbage person who acts in bad faith.

What I'm saying is that this is a nominal improvement, but ultimately changes very little of NAFTA, won't create any new jobs in the US, and will increase costs to consumers.

 

[LV426]

NAFTA content rules mean more US/North American parts.
Higher wages for Mexican workers help build a Mexican middle class,and reduce US outsourcing to Mexico.

Sigh...

1. No, the content rules don't mean that, and more than half of cars and trucks in North America are already above the 75% threshold.

2. Raising Mexican wages to a level that is still much lower than US wages isn't going to reduce outsourcing. All it's going to do is raise the cost of the car. If you have one worker who gets $16/hr, and there's another worker who does the exact same job for $24/hr, which worker are you going to hire?

How does raising wages for less than 700,000 Mexican workers to a rate still below US wages do anything to reduce outsourcing? It's such a stupid piece of nonsense, it's no wonder you're fixating on it. Raising Mexican wages to a level that is still below US wages doesn't make US wages more competitive by magic. The wage is still lower, and a company isn't going to suddenly reconsider outsourcing when you're still making it attractive to outsource by offering wages still below that of US ones.

You get that, right? Or are you brain damaged?

 

[LV426]

I remind you NAFTA took 10 months of negotiations,and then direct talks with Mexico.
You seem to think this isn't important to the US and Mexico -and Canada too- but the intense negotiations belie that fallacy

These negotiations had already happened before, under Obama, during TPP.

So don't make believe like Trump or anyone did any actual, real work on this. All y'all did was steal from Obama, slap your name on it, and try to take credit for it.

Pathetic.

 

[kudzu]

Ha ha ha, says the Nazi bitch who wants to kill Syrians.

Who are you addressing? The main killer of Syrians is Assad.

 

[anatta]

"Why not the USA?"
UHM, because we aren't Chinese?
WTF

awesome. so we should sit back and let China dictate the terms of WTO rules they want to follow or not?
Or should we negotiate bilateral trade agreements with them that benefit the USA?

Have you noticed the "rise of China?" how did that happen without China being nationalistic in all matters?
Should we not be nationalist ourselves? you've seen what globalism has done to our economy.

 

[anatta]

These negotiations had already happened before, under Obama, during TPP.

So don't make believe like Trump or anyone did any actual, real work on this. All y'all did was steal from Obama, slap your name on it, and try to take credit for it.

Pathetic.

these are better terms then the TPP - not by a large margin but better is superior.
Plus once in the TPP the dispute resolutions are convoluted and involve international corporate lawyers who
can sue the USA -not just US corps -the sovereign USA itself.

Nobody wanted the TPP - it was bad NAFTA on steroids. By "nobody" I mean Trump/Bernie and Hillary-
the only thing they all agreed on.

NAFTA 2 has a sunset provision as well - I don't recall any such aspect to the TPP

How can you not support NAFTA 2 -but support a more complex and less favorable TPP?
Because you have Trump Derangement Syndrome.

 

[kudzu]

awesome. so we should sit back and let China dictate the terms of WTO rules they want to follow or not?
Or should we negotiate bilateral trade agreements with them that benefit the USA?

Have you noticed the "rise of China?" how did that happen without China being nationalistic in all matters?
Should we not be nationalist ourselves? you've seen what globalism has done to our economy.

Nationalism is negative.. It is usually aggressive, militaristic, divisive, racist. China is a communist state.

 

[kudzu]

these are better terms then the TPP - not by a large margin but better is superior.
Plus once in the TPP the dispute resolutions are convoluted and involve international corporate lawyers who
can sue the USA -not ksut US corps -the USA itself.

Nobody wanted the TPP - it was bad NAFTA on steroids. By "nobody" I mean Trump/Bernie and Hillary-
he only thing they all agreed on.

How can you not support NAFTA 2 -but support a more complex and less favorable TPP?
Because you have Trump Derangement Syndrome.

American farmers wanted TPP.. and Australian farmers are thrilled Trump screwed their American counterparts.

 

[Into the Night]

Nationalism is negative.. It is usually aggressive, militaristic, divisive, racist. China is a communist state.

Nationalism is not negative. It simply is. It is simply recognizing the benefits of your own nation, and why it should be preserved. This is another liberals like to try to redefine.

 

[evince]

these are better terms then the TPP - not by a large margin but better is superior.
Plus once in the TPP the dispute resolutions are convoluted and involve international corporate lawyers who
can sue the USA -not just US corps -the sovereign USA itself.

Nobody wanted the TPP - it was bad NAFTA on steroids. By "nobody" I mean Trump/Bernie and Hillary-
the only thing they all agreed on.

NAFTA 2 has a sunset provision as well - I don't recall any such aspect to the TPP

How can you not support NAFTA 2 -but support a more complex and less favorable TPP?
Because you have Trump Derangement Syndrome.

link to all these claims

 

[kudzu]

Ditching TPP Devastating for US FARMERS.

The withdrawal from the TPP won’t just leave the U.S. on the outside looking in, it will devastate American agriculture, a former U.S. Trade Representative said.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/23/for...ive-ditching-tpp-devastating-for-farmers.html

 

[LV426]

these are better terms then the TPP - not by a large margin but better is superior

No, they're the same terms.

And it's actually worse because a 11-nation trade pact is better for our economy than a 3-nation one.

And by pulling out of TPP, we've ceded the Pacific trade market to China. All those partners we had now don't have the backing of a larger trade bloc, so China can run roughshod over them on trade.

Conservatives are just the fucking worst at everything. Nothing they do ever works out. They always end up making us worse off. Always. No exceptions, ever.

 

[kudzu]

Nationalism is not negative. It simply is. It is simply recognizing the benefits of your own nation, and why it should be preserved. This is another liberals like to try to redefine.

You have invented a new definition of nationalism..

 

[LV426]

Plus once in the TPP the dispute resolutions are convoluted and involve international corporate lawyers who can sue the USA -not just US corps -the sovereign USA itself.

So that sounds like a free market problem, not a government one.

 

[LV426]

Nobody wanted the TPP - it was bad NAFTA on steroids. By "nobody" I mean Trump/Bernie and Hillary-the only thing they all agreed on.

Well, they were short-sighted and wrong about it.

Obama was 100% right.

The importance of TPP was that it put smaller economies into a trading bloc with larger ones.

By not being a part of that trade bloc, we remove any leverage the smaller nations had to negotiate better deals with major economic players like China.

These crocodile tears over corporations challenging the sovereignty of a government in court are laughable coming from Conservatives who support that very challenge to our nation's sovereignty domestically; particularly with the belief that corporations are people. So, if corporations are people, then they absolutely should have the right and ability to sue a sovereign government. That's your principles, buddy. Don't forget that you like that kind of thing.

 

[anatta]

Sigh...

1. No, the content rules don't mean that, and more than half of cars and trucks in North America are already above the 75% threshold.

2. Raising Mexican wages to a level that is still much lower than US wages isn't going to reduce outsourcing. All it's going to do is raise the cost of the car. If you have one worker who gets $16/hr, and there's another worker who does the exact same job for $24/hr, which worker are you going to hire?

How does raising wages for less than 700,000 Mexican workers to a rate still below US wages do anything to reduce outsourcing? It's such a stupid piece of nonsense, it's no wonder you're fixating on it. Raising Mexican wages to a level that is still below US wages doesn't make US wages more competitive by magic. The wage is still lower, and a company isn't going to suddenly reconsider outsourcing when you're still making it attractive to outsource by offering wages still below that of US ones.

You get that, right? Or are you brain damaged?

gone over this 50x as well.
by reducing the differences in the wage gap -simple outsourcing on "cheap Mexicans" is less of a factor.
The fact that manufacturing in the USA can mean tax breaks, or taking advantage of state deals to draw in manufactures becomes more viable. as the difference in wages narrows; other factors become more prominate

by increasing content rules it means more NAFTA auto parts - and less Chinese - again 75% is a significant improvement that 62.5%.

"more then 1/2" still means almost 50% are not. This should mean more NAFTA zone car parts -less Asian.

Then look at the other provisions of NAFTA 2 -not just autos. It's a big improvement all the way around

 

[LV426]

NAFTA 2 has a sunset provision as well - I don't recall any such aspect to the TP

Because the two deals are completely different, serve different functions, and advance different goals.

TPP was important because it gave smaller economies leverage to use against aggressive Chinese trade posturing. With the backing of the US as part of its trade bloc, a small economy like Chile could use its trade bloc to leverage better terms with China. But by not having the US in the trade bloc, Chile no longer has the leverage with China because China's economy is so much larger than Chile's. TPP were 11 nations, three of which have top-10 economies, collectively forming a trade bloc whose members could use that trade bloc's leverage when it comes to dealing with China.

By pulling out of TPP, you've disadvantaged smaller economies, as well as our own economy, because you fucking idiots don't know what the hell you're talking about.

That's a pattern, mostly among Conservatards; you spout shit you know nothing about.

 

[kudzu]

Ditching TPP Devastating for US FARMERS.

The withdrawal from the TPP won’t just leave the U.S. on the outside looking in, it will devastate American agriculture, a former U.S. Trade Representative said.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/23/for...ive-ditching-tpp-devastating-for-farmers.html