(08-28-2018 12:28 PM)shere khan Wrote:  https://www.reuters.com/article/us-trade...SKCN1LD1T4

Ottawa is under pressure to accept new terms on auto trade and dispute settlement rules after the United States and Mexico agreed on Monday to overhaul the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

Canadian Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland rejoins the year-long talks following a hiatus of several weeks as the United States and Mexico ironed out outstanding bilateral disagreements in the renegotiation of the 24-year-old accord.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin told CNBC on Tuesday that he believed the United States could also reach a trade deal with Canada this week.
-----------

Bwahahahaha

Connect the dot time. Why would Steele an UK spy be linked to the dossier against Donald Trump? Fear that Trump would upset the trade advantages of the UK and it's siblings like Canada. It's the same crowd in London that we would tag as the deep state here. The anti Trump folks at the upper echelon, not the screaming ninnies in the street, were all about continuing to sap the U.S. Taxpayer for the Global Welfare that was our HW Bush era, Clinton era, and W Bush era, and Obama era policies which all favored the same corporations in their business as usual policies.

Trump's fight is with a well established group of leaches which are not only part of the swamp, but the very critter that sucks the life blood out of every creature that enters the swamp.

But then these connections predate WWII. It's what happens when corporate interests supersede the the well being of nations.

(08-28-2018 03:48 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(08-28-2018 03:46 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-28-2018 02:50 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(08-28-2018 02:26 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Take much of this with a grain of salt as it's from a DK writer, but it makes some good points that perhaps you guys can expand upon.

What exactly is different from NAFTA here and is this just really more akin to the TPP? Both things you probably professed not to like.

Trump's 'New Trade Deal' with Mexico Isn't New at All — It's NAFTA Wedded to the TPP

http://www.alternet.org/news-am-politics

Blind link

Lol

Dissemination to the hive mind.

No, just no.

STFU. I clearly mentioned it was from a Daily Kos writer. In case you haven't quite figured out this internet thing, if you hover over a link, it will tell you at the bottom of the screen where it is going.

Finally an original thought. Well not exactly original because this is a common approach for you but at least you aren't parroting leftist propaganda.

Kudos sport

#snicker

Quote:The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board on Tuesday criticized President Trump over the trade deal he announced Monday with Mexico, calling it “notably worse in many ways” than the North American Free Trade Agreement.

The editorial board pointed to the exclusion of Canada from the deal as one of its shortcomings. The U.S. and Canada are still in negotiations.

To break up the current three-country trade agreement, Trump would need approval from Congress, something he is unlikely to get.

Wall Street Journal: New Trump-Mexico trade deal ‘worse in many ways’ than NAFTA

(08-29-2018 12:28 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

Quote:The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board on Tuesday criticized President Trump over the trade deal he announced Monday with Mexico, calling it “notably worse in many ways” than the North American Free Trade Agreement.

The editorial board pointed to the exclusion of Canada from the deal as one of its shortcomings. The U.S. and Canada are still in negotiations.

To break up the current three-country trade agreement, Trump would need approval from Congress, something he is unlikely to get.

Wall Street Journal: New Trump-Mexico trade deal ‘worse in many ways’ than NAFTA

blind link tom. fake news.

Going into the NAFTA negotiations, Canada faces all sorts of troubles. The Mexico-U.S. deal puts its representatives at a distinct disadvantage. Perhaps even worse for Ottawa, the country's economy faces fundamental economic problems.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/miltonezrat...9ce5462958

not a blind link, not fake news.

(08-29-2018 12:28 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

Quote:The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board on Tuesday criticized President Trump over the trade deal he announced Monday with Mexico, calling it “notably worse in many ways” than the North American Free Trade Agreement.

The editorial board pointed to the exclusion of Canada from the deal as one of its shortcomings. The U.S. and Canada are still in negotiations.

To break up the current three-country trade agreement, Trump would need approval from Congress, something he is unlikely to get.

Wall Street Journal: New Trump-Mexico trade deal ‘worse in many ways’ than NAFTA

Now I agree with the general sentiment here. But I cannot help but be blown away by you quoting anything out of the WSJ. I think this is purely a case of anybody crapping on Trump is a political friend. You realize the WSJ would have far nastier things to say about the policies of any Democrat you wish to lob out there right?

(08-29-2018 02:49 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(08-29-2018 12:28 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

Quote:The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board on Tuesday criticized President Trump over the trade deal he announced Monday with Mexico, calling it “notably worse in many ways” than the North American Free Trade Agreement.

The editorial board pointed to the exclusion of Canada from the deal as one of its shortcomings. The U.S. and Canada are still in negotiations.

To break up the current three-country trade agreement, Trump would need approval from Congress, something he is unlikely to get.

Wall Street Journal: New Trump-Mexico trade deal ‘worse in many ways’ than NAFTA

Now I agree with the general sentiment here. But I cannot help but be blown away by you quoting anything out of the WSJ. I think this is purely a case of anybody crapping on Trump is a political friend. You realize the WSJ would have far nastier things to say about the policies of any Democrat you wish to lob out there right?

So you pretty much agree that this is not a deal yet and it isn't much, if anything, different from NAFTA, and that trump just can't cancel NAFTA on his own, as do I and the WSJ, so WTF difference does it make what newspapers editorial board reached that conclusion?

If trump actually gets a deal that improves NAFTA, I'll give him all the credit in the world. I'm just not holding my breathe...and I wager you're not either.

(08-29-2018 02:59 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  So you pretty much agree that this is not a deal yet and it isn't much, if anything, different from NAFTA, and that trump just can't cancel NAFTA on his own, as do I and the WSJ, so WTF difference does it make what newspapers editorial board reached that conclusion?

If trump actually gets a deal that improves NAFTA, I'll give him all the credit in the world. I'm just not holding my breathe...and I wager you're not either.

Don't Cathy Newman me.

First ... it is at best disingenuous to parade around the WSJ if the same publication you're parading around would have even worse things to say about those you politically choose to affiliate with.

Second ... as I said before, I agree with the general sentiment that this isn't as good a deal as NAFTA use to be. Some big caveats come with that, including:
- NAFTA wasn't free trade ... it was managed trade. Better than no trade deal? Yes. Better than a true reciprocal zero tariff free trade deal? Absolutely not.
- Whether or not the Mexican deal is good depends upon what your goals are. Canada freeloads off the United States on defense and healthcare innovation in particular. This is made more galling by the maple leaf government propping up its national industries like Bombardier. This led ultimately to Boeing buying a large stake in Bombardier or we would have banned the sale of Bombardier aircraft. I think this involves the plant they have in Mobile, AL off the top of my head? Anyway ... to continue ... Canada is barely holding itself together as a country. If I were POTUS I could effectively dissolve Canada with a televised address extending statehood to Oilberta. "So BC won't let you have a pipeline huh Calgary? Would you like a pipeline all the way to Houston? Would you like Calgary and Houston to become the energy axis upon which the entire rest of the planet circulates? Would you like to stop paying over $6,000 a year that you never get back in taxes? Would you like to stop paying the Quebecois to stay in the country when they vote against your interests anyway? Let's talk." And that would be the beginning of the end of Canada as a country. The US always should have claimed what is today Canada but they were French and Protestant so we kicked 'em out. If your goal is to make Canada pay its own way in the world ... Trump is playing his hand well. If your goal is free trade and we'll show Canada in the marketplace .... Trump is playing his hand poorly. But then if that's your position anyway you have nobody in a leadership position in either party sympathetic to your views. If your goal is to dissolve and assimilate the parts of Canada you'd like ... then Trump is showing either heroic restraint or staggering ignorance. So ... how to view what has unfolded depends upon what your goals are out of NAFTA.


Back to the issue at hand with you poo-pooing the Mexican deal via the WSJ: It's important to remember that when it comes to these managed trade deals ... Donald Trump is marching in near lock step agreement with Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. Let me say that again ... Trump is in virtual total agreement with the establishment left when it comes to being anti free trade. So pick one Tom ... either Trump is wrong and so is the Democratic Party writ large or the WSJ is wrong.

U.S., Canada Says Nafta Talks on Track- Wall Street Journal

Canada's Trudeau says NAFTA deal possible by Friday- MSNBC

(08-29-2018 03:22 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(08-29-2018 02:59 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  So you pretty much agree that this is not a deal yet and it isn't much, if anything, different from NAFTA, and that trump just can't cancel NAFTA on his own, as do I and the WSJ, so WTF difference does it make what newspapers editorial board reached that conclusion?

If trump actually gets a deal that improves NAFTA, I'll give him all the credit in the world. I'm just not holding my breathe...and I wager you're not either.

Don't Cathy Newman me.

First ... it is at best disingenuous to parade around the WSJ if the same publication you're parading around would have even worse things to say about those you politically choose to affiliate with.

Second ... as I said before, I agree with the general sentiment that this isn't as good a deal as NAFTA use to be. Some big caveats come with that, including:
- NAFTA wasn't free trade ... it was managed trade. Better than no trade deal? Yes. Better than a true reciprocal zero tariff free trade deal? Absolutely not.
- Whether or not the Mexican deal is good depends upon what your goals are. Canada freeloads off the United States on defense and healthcare innovation in particular. This is made more galling by the maple leaf government propping up its national industries like Bombardier. This led ultimately to Boeing buying a large stake in Bombardier or we would have banned the sale of Bombardier aircraft. I think this involves the plant they have in Mobile, AL off the top of my head? Anyway ... to continue ... Canada is barely holding itself together as a country. If I were POTUS I could effectively dissolve Canada with a televised address extending statehood to Oilberta. "So BC won't let you have a pipeline huh Calgary? Would you like a pipeline all the way to Houston? Would you like Calgary and Houston to become the energy axis upon which the entire rest of the planet circulates? Would you like to stop paying over $6,000 a year that you never get back in taxes? Would you like to stop paying the Quebecois to stay in the country when they vote against your interests anyway? Let's talk." And that would be the beginning of the end of Canada as a country. The US always should have claimed what is today Canada but they were French and Protestant so we kicked 'em out. If your goal is to make Canada pay its own way in the world ... Trump is playing his hand well. If your goal is free trade and we'll show Canada in the marketplace .... Trump is playing his hand poorly. But then if that's your position anyway you have nobody in a leadership position in either party sympathetic to your views. If your goal is to dissolve and assimilate the parts of Canada you'd like ... then Trump is showing either heroic restraint or staggering ignorance. So ... how to view what has unfolded depends upon what your goals are out of NAFTA.


Back to the issue at hand with you poo-pooing the Mexican deal via the WSJ: It's important to remember that when it comes to these managed trade deals ... Donald Trump is marching in near lock step agreement with Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. Let me say that again ... Trump is in virtual total agreement with the establishment left when it comes to being anti free trade. So pick one Tom ... either Trump is wrong and so is the Democratic Party writ large or the WSJ is wrong.

No clue who Cathy Newman is, and in case you were not aware, I'm not a democrat and have zero love for the party or their leadership.

And FWIW, there is NO deal yet.

So let's look at what the article actually says rather than to simply sum it up in a headline and take that as gospel... especially since the article isn't from the Journal itself, but from an article quoting the Journal.

Here are the negatives it lists
1) Nafta is a 3 country agreement. This is a deal only with Mexico and Canada is pending. To break up the deal, the editorial board believes he'll need, but not get Congressional approval... in part because they believe Democrats may gain strength in COngress

Is there really anything 'bad' in there? It doesn't say that the deal is bad... it merely says that Congress needs to go along

2) It strips protections from most US investors in Mexico... Pretty non-specific so I can't really say much about the specifics, but I understand why US investors in Mexico may not like that, but I don't understand how that is necessarily bad for Americans. He's the President of the US, not US investors in Mexico.

3) It imposes new red tape on the auto industry... 75% of content or face tariffs.... but previously it was already 62.5%... so while the threshold is higher, it's not an additional threshold. Sort of like arguing that a reason not to move tax rates from 15 to 18% on gains is because of the red tape of capital gains. Not a great argument... especially in that red tape on exports from Mexico to the US makes US products more attractive, thus is good for us.

On the advantages, it lists an extension on biologic drugs from 5 to 10 years... this is a HUGE issue in healthcare for the country, which is vastly more important than 'US investors in Mexico'... AND it steps back from a 5 year sunset which dampened cross-border investment... which arguably is a trade-off for 'US investors in Mexico' it says were hurt, but again, would be a positive for Mexican investors in the US, who are his constituents.

Point of clarification. I would have linked to the actual WSJ story, but it's behind a pay wall most don't likely subscribe to.

(08-30-2018 12:27 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Point of clarification. I would have linked to the actual WSJ story, but it's behind a pay wall most don't likely subscribe to.

That's a fair point Tom. And because this is a growing problem with citing sources, why don't we accept quotes from the article, but go ahead and provide the link. Those who doubt the quotes and want to go behind the paywall will be free to do so. But in the interest of the many the quotes will suffice.

(08-30-2018 02:05 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-30-2018 12:27 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Point of clarification. I would have linked to the actual WSJ story, but it's behind a pay wall most don't likely subscribe to.

That's a fair point Tom. And because this is a growing problem with citing sources, why don't we accept quotes from the article, but go ahead and provide the link. Those who doubt the quotes and want to go behind the paywall will be free to do so. But in the interest of the many the quotes will suffice.

Feel free to quote excerpts though. Or, typically, it's easy to find a third source writing about the same article. For instance the other day I linked to the FT coverage of a NYT piece instead of the NYT. Not because of a pay wall, but because I didn't want to send traffic to a "news" publication that employs an openly anti-white racist on their editorial board.

(08-29-2018 03:36 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  No clue who Cathy Newman is, and in case you were not aware, I'm not a democrat and have zero love for the party or their leadership.

And FWIW, there is NO deal yet.

Google her. She has been meme'ed well in her interview of Jordan Peterson.

However, you do seem to have affinity with the left. Who do you find politically affable? Because my point almost certainly still applies if they have a "D" after their name and aren't named Jared Polis or Jim Webb.