Mexico president cancels Trump summit as wall jibe deepens spat

a reply to: mzinga

We have a $65 Billion annual trade deficit with Mexico. That's $65 Billion US dollars leaving this country's economy annually. As for corporate taxes, you fix the tax code, eliminating the loopholes that encourage offshoring and outsourcing... these are things our president has discussed and will be doing, FWIW.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Again if we eliminate ethanol subsidies who pays for the wall? I'm not saying we shouldn't eliminate them, just not sure how this relates to the wall.

You take those away, again Americans pay for it. At least I found something I agree w/you about on corn/sugar subsidies.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

If Trump fixes the corporate tax codes I'll sing his praises! But in doing so, will eliminate many positions of financial analysts in corporate america.

a reply to: mzinga

The ethanol subsidies are in this discussion only because the "OMG, how will the US domestically grow food?" argument was introduced. That said, less subsidies = less federal outlays = money freed up for other things... like the wall.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Orwells Ghost
If "cheap" Mexican goods suddenly cost more to import then the USA simply buys domestically, creating jobs, boosting the local economy, and creating more tax revenue to fund infrastructure projects, including the wall; All of which helps Trump further his agenda and continue to make good on his campaign promises and has the side effect of helping Americans. C'mon guys, this is basic stuff.

It's not that easy.

It would take a lot of time and money for people in the US to build the factories and such to meet demand. Even then, there is no guarantee the cost would be lower than the inflated costs of the Mexicans goods.

Also, where we really need to be careful is the food industry. I think we import well over 60% of our vegetables from Mexico and 40% of our fruit. The US cannot keep up with demand if we dumped the imports from Mexico. Food costs would rocket.

Let's not begin to talk about the Auto industry. That's a monster on it's own.

Those are fair points. I would hope that 20% is not just an arbitrary figure and takes into account the actual disparity between the two nation's cost of production. Ideally, the tariff would place American goods on par price wise or slightly undercut Mexican products.

This infrastructure issue is a real one, but nothing that time and a bit of hard work won't take care of; a bit of short term discomfort for long term gain; American's would only benefit. As for food, I hear Canada and Brazil manage to export quite a bit to the rest of the world, I'm sure we could cut you guys in, for a fair price of course.

a reply to: odzeandennz
Yeah, popcorn !!!!!!!!!!!

We're what, four days in ?
... and... and ...and ... jébus )

Rollercoaster stuff

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Less subsidies hurts the american (and corporate) farmer too. Basic accounting, debits and credits. I think the subsidies are silly, but there is some simple math involved.

a reply to: VimanaExplorer

The wall is wasteful, instead spend that money towards manufacturing sector. It is 2017, there are better way to enforce existing immigration laws. NSA is keeping track of every citizen, banks are keeping track of every transaction of US citizens, and they are telling us Wall is the only way to prevent illegal immigration?

But what bread and circuses it provides!

a reply to: burdman30ott6

1. Invest in getting those US factories back up and running.

To do that you have to find investors willing to do that and in the meantime we pay the higher prices. Unless you are suggesting we nationalize this effort under the governments control.

There is no way the short term "losses" are going to exceed the money we spent for absolutely F-all nothing over the past 8 years.

No clue what that even means.

2. The guarantee comes in the form of import tariffs. If American products are still too pricey, increase theimport tariffs accordingly.

So no matter what, the prices go up and we pay for it.

3. Eliminate federal ethanol subsidies opening up massive swaths of arable farmland for the production of feed corn and domestic food production as it was for the first 200 years of this nation's existence.

I agree with that. Ethanol subsidies are crap.

4. Enjoy the restoration of a secure financial future for America.

You mean for the investors, right. For the average guy, prices still go up with no guarantee that these jobs will pay well enough to offset the costs. Considering the automation movement of most industries, there may not be as many jobs as you think.

a reply to: Byrd

He made a mistake. Not a very mature move politically on his part. So why did he do it? Because much of the world that has done very well by us are now going to have to face some music they don't want to hear and so will take a war posture. China and their copyright and patent violations......Mexico bank and economy flooded with money over the years do to out wide open boarder policy ect. Party is coming to an end.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: mzinga

The ethanol subsidies are in this discussion only because the "OMG, how will the US domestically grow food?" argument was introduced.

If you are referring to what I said, that is not how I framed the argument.

Until the US could cover demand, there would be a sizable increase in food costs on a large section of our needs.

a reply to: Orwells Ghost

I'm sure we could cut you guys in, for a fair price of course.

We have a fair price now. Why are we trying to shake things up, only for the sake of fitting a political agenda and propaganda-driven narratives?

a reply to: introvert

It's only a fair price if you buy the globalist narrative that two countries with vastly different standards of living and labour costs can engage in free and open trade with no negative effects to their economies. A fair price is based on fair trade, not free trade.

originally posted by: Orwells Ghost
a reply to: introvert

It's only a fair price if you buy the globalist narrative that two countries with vastly different standards of living and labour costs can engage in free and open trade with no negative effects to their economies. A fair price is based on fair trade, not free trade.

And in this case, it appears the potential negative effects are our burden to bear.

a reply to: introvert

Yep, that's true, but who likes taking their medicine?

I swear, burdman30ott6 & OrwellsGhost I don't know how you have been putting up with the ignorance in this thread.
Plus, NO, economics hasn't been taught in k-12 since the 70's.

If I could but also flag individual posts as well as star them I'd of blown them all on you two.

It's a new day and Trump really is putting American interests first. While this is absolutely so abnormal even I'm shocked it's long overdue and in the long run a good thing.

The poster who mentioned some distress over food costs is probably right in the short term, but equally the policy with ethanol has been a disaster for not only small engines everywhere but it's taken so much land out of a more productive use that everyone should be spanking pissed. Soy as well.

Right now looking at Trumps stance with Mexico I can only hope other countries take note and understand the man isn't blowing smoke up their posteriors. Trump was crystal clear that trade negations would be reopened and new deals will be held to a standard of equality.

I'm not sure the youngsters here fully understand just how much the US has traded off to be seen as the good guy but the monetary dues for this have been crippling our nation for years. Merkel is muttering that Germany will finally have to look at funding it's own defense as well as other countries. This applies to a lot of what the US currently funds overseas and it's time other places paid their own freight. Our deal under Nafta sucks for us and Mexico may not like it but they like others knew we'd smarten up eventually. The free ride is over.

Just like homeowners tightened their belts and made changes we as a country have to as well. It'll be different and maybe uncomfortable for a bit but face it folks, we're worth it.

a reply to: burdman30ott6
Apologies, but i really give credence to this : www.abovetopsecret.com...

From here, and 2014 figures, i get that the US export almost 1.5$ trilliion (2nd largest exporter in the world) being lead by refined petroleum at 7.11% the cars for 4.18%. Destinations ? Canada ($241B) Mexico ($194B) China ($134B) Japan ($67.5B) Germany ($61.6B). The US import 450 products, worth almost 2.2 trillion. the Us is the largest importer in the world with crude petroleum worth just over 10%, then cars worth 7.09%. From whom ? China ($432B) Canada ($331B) Mexico ($291B) Japan ($128B) Germany ($121B)

It's a hot call, tit for tat or whatever
but on the internional trade scene ..

not good
sorry

NOT GOOD
:p

originally posted by: Orwells Ghost
a reply to: introvert

It's only a fair price if you buy the globalist narrative that two countries with vastly different standards of living and labour costs can engage in free and open trade with no negative effects to their economies. A fair price is based on fair trade, not free trade.

Yes basically the US has allowed its self to be a host country, a tit country to Mexico. Mexico's labor force was allowed to come up here and work for years and dump millions of untaxed US $$$$ back into the home country. The folks here that hired them also got tax free, ss free, workers comp free ect, cheep labor saving billions.

According to the US Chamber of Commerce, there's an estimated 6 million US jobs that directly depend on the current trading partnership between Mexico and the US.

The largest portion of those jobs are in Texas, Florida, and California (the majority of which are either in the manufacturing or construction industries).

Link

Link


So what's going to happen to those 6 million jobs if trade relations between the two countries goes down the toilet ?

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: introvert

Buy American, issue resolved.

That's not very capitalist. Why should I support an American product if it's inferior?