I have done my research and everyone agrees only Mexico will suffer. Mexico will cave and pay for the wall. Also they will still have a tariff put on there goods coming here. It's a great time to be an American. ;)
I have done my research and everyone agrees only Mexico will suffer. Mexico will cave and pay for the wall. Also they will still have a tariff put on there goods coming here. It's a great time to be an American. ;)
Sigh... 'everyone agrees'. Can you point me too this 'everyone'.
U.S. goods equate to 40% of Mexico's imports. That's jobs here in the U.S. If you don't think Mexico can do damage in return your fooling yourself. 1.1 Million jobs are supported by our trade with Mexico. Mexico is 2nd in buying American Exports. They are our 3rd largest trade partner.
If you like watching a train wreck you could be right.
...
Last edited by brandonc204; 11-10-2018 at 07:11.
Handofthrawn, even if you were right that the manufacturer could and would somehow magically absorb the extra cost - for the most part, you're not - the reality is that we're not generally talking about locally-owned businesses. Companies manufacturing in Mexico include GM, IBM, HP, 3M, Nestle, GSK, Bayer, P&G...the list goes on and on.
These companies are generally publicly traded, but owned and operated primarily out of the US. Meaning...even if the manufacturer absorbs the extra costs, it's *still* the American consumer paying for it. And the reason countries don't like tariffs is because it undermines the viability of certain competitive products - so maybe companies will move their manufacturing to other countries, or even State-side, to avoid the tariffs...but the manufacturing in Mexico in the first place is because it's cheaper. If a company shuts down a Mexican manufacturing plant and moves it elsewhere, then the price for consumers in the US will go up, regardless, and...guess what, that still doesn't pay for the wall. (Now, if the plant is moved State-side, that creates jobs...but it would also result in tariffs going the other way, eliminating jobs for exports going into Mexico...so yeah, trade war = bad.)
Brandon: Most of these free trade deals expressly require certain rules to be followed to ensure a level playing field. For instances, consider the softwood lumber dispute between Canada and the US: In Canada, most timber land is government owned; the cost to harvest lumber is set by the government. In the US, it's mostly privately owned. So the US landowners get upset because they don't think that Canadian Provincial governments charge enough for the harvest of lumber, and they lobbied the Department of Commerce to impose duties. There are adjudicative mechanisms in place, and additional agreements to be reached, to resolve disputes of that nature - so when the Department of Commerce levied duties on Canadian lumber, the NAFTA appeal panel (and the WTO) held that while there was some legitimacy to the perception of a subsidy, but that the duties were calculated too high, based on inflated prices on the US market instead of with reference to Canadian market conditions (i.e. lots of lumber, not so much demand).
There's some thought that, when Trump seeks to renegotiate NAFTA, he's going to put a lot of pressure on the softwood lumber front. But here's the thing: Canada's export economy is heavily rooted in natural resources, and a 'fair' deal for natural resources is REALLY important to Canadians. Canadians weren't thrilled about NAFTA in the first place - we had to rejig our entire consumer goods taxation system at the start (in the past, we had a framework of manufacture taxes and duties...but 'free trade' precluded such duties, so we had to merge both into a consumer-end VAT), and it damaged certain domestic industries. The political party that brought it in was literally destroyed by the fallout. And when the US went ahead and levied duties against our natural resources ANYWAYS, it deprived Canadians of much of the benefit they thought they'd get from NAFTA. NAFTA remains widely unpopular in Canada, and while most Canadians are okay leaving it in place because removing it would disrupt various markets again, the simple truth is that Canadians are *not* going to be okay making significant concessions - it would be political suicide for any Canadian leader to allow modifications to NAFTA that don't ultimately position us at least as well as the status quo.
I have had to explain tariffs to alot of people last few days. Main thing each person can't understand is this simple fact. The company has to pay the tariff up front at the border. So if I ship 8 cars in i have to pay a 20% tariff on those 8 cars as it crosses the border. Sure they can pass that 20% cost to the customer but would anyone actually pay that 20% increase? Probably not honestly so companies would have to either eat the tariff cost or move the factory back home. This will fulfill two of his promises, pay for the wall and bring factories back to the USA. It's a win, win for Trump.
Thats because your completely WRONG. The company bringing in the product pays the tariff. The purchaser. Not the Mexican company delivering it across the border.
Just google tariff laws and stop spouting out complete B.S.
If you don't think that 20% isn't going to be passed on to the consumer your nuts.
1.1 million jobs directly supported by our trade with Mexico. Your losing jobs.
His promise wasn't just to pay for the wall. It was for Mexico to pay for the wall. Promised it wouldn't cost taxpayers a dime. He repeated it over and over again and made it very clear.
Last edited by Swirvin'Birds; 03-02-2017 at 18:37.
Like I said they can pass cost onto the consumer but consumer can say I won't pay that price and buy goods made in the USA. Either way Mexico will bend or they will break. Either is fine with me, the USA is in a win, win situation. So regardless it doesn't matter to me one way or the other.Originally Posted by Swirvin'Birds
Either way Mexico didn't pay for the wall.
That's the thing you're missing lol
Are you sure? Even Republicans on the Hill are saying no to the wall without the spending cuts to pay for it. Like I said before. He totally botched negotiations with Mexico and we are picking up the tab for his foolishness. Some negotiator...
A broken Mexico is not what we need. That will send millions more flooding our borders and your puny, massively expensive to build and maintain wall won"t keep them out.
Last edited by Swirvin'Birds; 04-02-2017 at 02:15.
They will pay for the wall or bankrupt themselves. There choice honestly, this entire thing isn't complicated. The corrupt media makes it a big deal. In the end Trump has already done great things for small business owners. Even Bernie Sanders agreed his trade deals are great. You have to break eggs to make omelets. If Mexico wants to be the first country to test him, I suggest go for it. Only they can lose in a trade war. My guess they pay for the wall and then pay to ship back all illegal immigrants while kissing Trump's a**. Just my guess. ;)
Can people please stop trying to argue with handofthrawn as if he was a rational person? It's getting embarassing, k thx.
I am a very rational person and so is every other American that voted for Trump. You just don't like our position, which is America first.I could care less what people like you think. K
No they aren't. The ACA had a higher approval rating than Obamacare.
I'm not saying all Republican voters are irrational, or only Republican voters are irrational, but to say that every single person who voted for Trump is rational is ...well...irrational
...
Last edited by brandonc204; 11-10-2018 at 07:12.
One way, American consumers pay for the wall.
The other way, American consumers pay more for local products (which doesn't pay for the wall) and one of their biggest trade partners runs into major economic problems.
That's not so much a 'win-win' as it is a 'lose-lose' - especially when the stated goal is for Mexico to pay for the wall, because in either event, it's not actually happening.
Using a tariff as a club to extort money out of other countries is not only very poor foreign policy, but it's also self-defeating. The logic behind free trade, as most Republicans understand, is that while a tariff might ostensibly create 'jobs at home', it also increases prices, and typically drives other jobs out of the country. Ultimately, trade wars drive up consumer prices, and don't really help domestic employment. In effect, what you're suggesting is an ultimatum to Mexico: "Give us money, or we'll stop buying your cheap stuff." It's cutting off your nose to spite your face.
(Not the first time Trump has done that, incidentally. When he felt snubbed by Univision, he told Univision that their people were no longer welcome on his golf course. To which I'm pretty sure Univision's response would have been something like, "No problem, this is south Florida, you can't throw a rock without it bouncing in five different golf courses." Very much a "I'll take my ball and go home" kind of action by Trump, and very much one that's more harmful to Trump's interests than to Univision.)
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote