# NAFTA talks



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/re...reat-to-canadian-auto-sector/article36593757/

US proposes cars sold in US have to have 50% US content, but cars sold in Canada and Mexico can have 100% US content. 

Nice try.


----------



## STech (Jun 7, 2016)

You need to be a subscriber for the link to work.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

^^

a prob, the article is behind a paywall

forum needs enlightened posts on NAFTA, esp since it looks like it will be canada-after-NAFTA-ends


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

If it was Harper we would have already told Donnie to go F himself. Bit of pain for long term gain.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

the usa is run by lobbyists and they will push back very hard via the us house especially if trump tries to exit nafta via some kind of executive authority 

which i doubt he is likely to do since he has clearly shown that he doesn’t have the guts to take a firm stand on anything ... everything is a half measure with this guy ...

i suspect that the talks will break down, everyone will go home and then everyone will come back to the table and give a little to show good will and make everyone look like a winner and life will go on

despite all the rhetoric about “life after nafta”, it is much too important to key parts of both countries to just walk away from

the usa, canada and mexico cooperate as much as they compete



> Texas, Illinois, Michigan, New York, Ohio, and Washington all import more than $15 billion in intermediate goods, together accounting for over half of the nation’s total


https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2017/03/30/how-u-s-states-rely-on-the-nafta-supply-chain/

look at the representation in the house from just these 5 states: i count 94 members all of whom represent states the reap rich rewards from nafta

i don’t see it going down ... trump is a weak president and congress will howl like a cut cat if he tries a go-it-alone exit from nafta


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

fatcat said:


> the usa is run by lobbyists and they will push back very hard via the us house especially if trump tries to exit nafta via some kind of executive authority
> 
> which i doubt he is likely to do since he has clearly shown that he doesn’t have the guts to take a firm stand on anything ... everything is a half measure with this guy ...
> 
> i suspect that the talks will break down, everyone will go home and then everyone will come back to the table and give a little to show good will and make everyone look like a winner and life will go on




good post

re your 3rd paragraph, Chrystia Freeland alluded to this last week when she said (words to this effect) that the 3 countries are still jockeying in place


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

humble_pie said:


> good post
> 
> re your 3rd paragraph, Chrystia Freeland alluded to this last week when she said (words to this effect) that the 3 countries are still jockeying in place


good to hear, i do like chrystia since i used to listen to her a lot on a favourite podcast, she is super smart ... to me, the best argument for not blowing up nafta is that it works ... well ... for all three countries even though different sectors in different nations have issues with parts of it

the states that really benefit from it, like the border states and the big supply chain states like texas, michigan, ohio lean mostly republican lately and that spells better news than if they were leaning democratic in my opinion


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

fatcat said:


> the states that really benefit from it, like the border states and the big supply chain states like texas, michigan, ohio lean mostly republican lately and that spells better news than if they were leaning democratic in my opinion



sorry i'm not quite getting this, why better if they are leaning republican? maybe because they won't support fearless leader so he'd lose those republican voters over this issue?

i think the NAFTA issue is the real dealbreaker for canada. Followed by air defence of north america. We're only spectators at trump's other issues like mexico wall & repeal obamacare.


----------



## nobleea (Oct 11, 2013)

humble_pie said:


> sorry i'm not quite getting this, why better if they are leaning republican? maybe because they won't support fearless leader so he'd lose those republican voters over this issue?


meaning it's less likely that significant negative changes will be made to nafta since it would P/O the republican border states and that wouldn't go over will with the republicans who voted for and/or support trump. If they were democrat states, no harm, no foul.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

nobleea said:


> meaning it's less likely that significant negative changes will be made to nafta since it would P/O the republican border states and that wouldn't go over will with the republicans who voted for and/or support trump. If they were democrat states, no harm, no foul.


exactly ... he will be less likely to take on a large portion of the house composed of republicans who really do not want to see nafta de-ratified

i think this is ultimately going be a battle over inches and feet not yards and miles ... all the posturing and grandstanding notwithstanding

if i am wrong, look out below for your canadian portfolio ... and vacations to florida are going to cost triple


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

Reportedly, UK is considering joining NAFTA now that they dumped EU. That can't be bad. As the EU blows apart piece by piece more could come on board.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Scrap NAFTA..........return to FTA...........add "Auto Pact"............done.


----------



## gardner (Feb 13, 2014)

sags said:


> add "Auto Pact".


The 1988 FTA contained, and was largely an expansion of the 1965 Auto Pact.

It is a question whether for either Canada or the US, simply quitting NAFTA would leave the 1988 FTA in operation. I suspect that the NAFTA implementation acts on both sides explicitly repealed the implementation of former agreements, so repealing NAFTA would leave us at square one. We'd probably have legislatively worse trade relations with the US than Afghanistan.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

fatcat said:


> exactly ... he will be less likely to take on a large portion of the house composed of republicans who really do not want to see nafta de-ratified




... that's what i said though

the problem is that donald trump blows with every mood that strikes him

already he must know in his heart of heart that he's not going to win 2020, so why not vent crazy impulses as soon as they arise

.


----------



## nobleea (Oct 11, 2013)

gardner said:


> The 1988 FTA contained, and was largely an expansion of the 1965 Auto Pact.
> 
> It is a question whether for either Canada or the US, simply quitting NAFTA would leave the 1988 FTA in operation. I suspect that the NAFTA implementation acts on both sides explicitly repealed the implementation of former agreements, so repealing NAFTA would leave us at square one. We'd probably have legislatively worse trade relations with the US than Afghanistan.


No, as I recall, the old acts were not scrapped. If NAFTA is scrapped, the old acts that you mention come back in to force. Nothing needs to be done. Aside from a massive effort on the part of business to change their supply chains and business models...


----------



## nobleea (Oct 11, 2013)

humble_pie said:


> the problem is that donald trump blows with every mood that strikes him


It would be nice if he could rank his 'worst deal ever' list in terms of worst deal ever to really worst deal ever. Has anyone kept track of which things Obama signed/created are 'the worst deals ever'? I think there's over 8 right now according to Trump.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

nobleea said:


> No, as I recall, the old acts were not scrapped.
> If NAFTA is scrapped, the old acts that you mention come back in to force. Nothing needs to be done ...


One wonders why the NAFTA text does not say this in the exit section.

The experts the LA Times talked to don't seem to be aware of this automatic switch over to the old acts either. The claim is that a separate US act put NAFTA into place. Leaving NAFTA kills some of the rules but key chapters are left in place.



> “It leaves you in an odd situation in which a lot of the rest of the rules remain in effect,” said Jennifer Hillman, a Georgetown University law professor who specializes in international trade.


http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-trump-nafta-withdraw-20170830-story.html



Cheers


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

i was wrongly under the impression that it was canada that wanted to scrap the business-can-sue-government provision of nafta but apparent it is the USA that wants to scrap that provision even though they have not yet lost a ruling of that type, this runs counter to the idea of American businesses that rape and pillage the landscape ... are canadian businesses the ones doing the pillaging ? is this a provision to benefit all of our miners ? ... why does our tree loving hippie pm want this provision to stand ?

https://mobile-nytimes-com.cdn.ampp.../politics/nafta-united-states-canada.amp.html


----------



## twa2w (Mar 5, 2016)

When NAFTA came into effect, the wording stated that the FTA was suspended while NAFTA was in effect. 
No mention in the text, that I can see, where it automatically comes back into effect if NAFTA cancelled. It may require an executive order to reinstate, or Trump may be able to withdraw from the FTA too. There may also be further minor amending agreements I am not aware of.
We have had NAFTA for about 20 years if memory serves. Going back to a 20 year old agreement may have some issues.

I see the US made a new series of demands today around supply managmnt - dairy, eggs etc.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

Latest word is that Bombardier is partnering with Airbus on their new airliner. Airbus is buying 50.1% of their C series program and will handle procurement, sales, marketing and customer support. That means they have the Canadian and European market sewn up. They have an assembly plant in Alabama to service their US customers. Trudeau has already said he is cancelling the government's purchase of Boeing planes. Delta, Spirit and Sun Country Airlines have all told regulators there is no basis for Boeing's complaint and to back them up would be a disservice to the airline industry and the public. So it looks like Trump and Boeing can piss up a rope.


----------



## lonewolf :) (Sep 13, 2016)

The Government does not seam to understand the more Canadian tax payers subsidize Canadian companies the higher the Tariff.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

We don't need free trade deals. We need very high import duties to create our own domestic industries.


----------



## lonewolf :) (Sep 13, 2016)

Refine our own oil. Without the pipeline to the coast & US being only trading partner for oil they have no competition from other buyers which results in discounted oil price.


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

I am very happy with the way that our team has handled itself so far. Negotiators are waiting for unreasonable opening demands from the Americans to give way to more reasonable offers.

Patience seems to be the order of the day.


----------



## lonewolf :) (Sep 13, 2016)

Would love to see US put huge Tariff on our oil so we would refine our own instead of piping to US to refine then sending back. We need to stop subsidizing electric power to the US also


----------



## scorown (Oct 17, 2017)

Was watching thee joint statement, looks like just new dates for next meetings.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

sags said:


> We don't need free trade deals. We need very high import duties to create our own domestic industries.


we aren't remotely big enough or dynamic enough to internally meet the demands for goods and services ... high tariffs would be ruinous for both us as citizens and our industries which badly need new markets for their goods

there is a reason that all the small countries in europe formed a common market, they needed to export and their people wanted access to higher quality goods and services than could ever be provided internally


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

lonewolf :) said:


> Would love to see US put huge Tariff on our oil so we would refine our own instead of piping to US to refine then sending back.


Not sure that would get the results you are thinking ... it has been consistently reported for years that Canada refines more than it uses domestically. The tariff would likely spawn a seach for other customers and possibly improving the distribution network. 

New refineries are capital intensive, where there would likely be opposition from environmental groups.


Cheers


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Small but wide markets.............

People forget there was a day when we built all of our own appliances, made our own textiles, shoes, drapes and everything else we needed.

More than enough employment to keep Canadians busy.


----------



## nobleea (Oct 11, 2013)

Eclectic12 said:


> Not sure that would get the results you are thinking ... it has been consistently reported for years that Canada refines more than it uses domestically. The tariff would likely spawn a seach for other customers and possibly improving the distribution network.
> 
> New refineries are capital intensive, where there would likely be opposition from environmental groups.
> 
> ...


Plus we are a huge net exporter of oil. Almost all to the US. To put a tariff on our oil would mean we'd produce far less and would have a massive negative impact on our GDP, even if we are currently forced to sell oil to them at a discount.


----------



## nobleea (Oct 11, 2013)

sags said:


> Small but wide markets.............
> 
> People forget there was a day when we built all of our own appliances, made our own textiles, shoes, drapes and everything else we needed.
> 
> More than enough employment to keep Canadians busy.


People also forget how expensive those items were. Some may have been higher quality. Some definitely not as there was only room in the market for one or two manufacturers. Or it wasn't a big enough market for massive research and development.


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

Tariffs don’t create jobs, they create inefficient markets and a lower standard of living.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

^
Yes. I'm shocked that the socalled businessman, Trump, doesn't seem to get that.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

sags said:


> Small but wide markets.............
> 
> People forget there was a day when we built all of our own appliances, made our own textiles, shoes, drapes and everything else we needed.
> 
> More than enough employment to keep Canadians busy.


yeah and most of it was crap compared to the rest of the world 

wide markets ? really, like 10 different brands of shoes or what ? .... 

you are thinking of the canada of the 1960’s ... 

people now want more than drapes, appliances and shoes ... they want iphones, gourmet coffee, teslas, australian wine and an entire world of other stuff which we can only get affordably through trade agreements

you gotta stop reading the canadian labour congress’ monthly magazine


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

We can just sit back and let the Chinese manufacture everything we need and our government pay for all our wants...........sounds good.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

sags said:


> We can just sit back and let the Chinese manufacture everything we *need* and our government pay for all our wants...........sounds good.


the word of the day is “want” not “need” ... 

clearly, manufacturing is low on the hierarchy of economies ... take tv’s, they have moved from being manufactured in the usa, to japan, then korea, now vietnam and china ... next they will go to india and bangladesh ... putting tv’s together is low skilled work

eventually tv’s will be made entirely by robots as indeed most things will be made by robots

knowing how to make the robots is where the money will be at, not the tv’s

the swiss don’t manufacture a damn thing as far as i know except watches and i think they aren’t doing much of that anymore

intellectual property, design and automation is the future not manufacturing


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

sags said:


> We don't need free trade deals. We need very high import duties to create our own domestic industries.



sags don't the history books teach that high tariffs lead to trade wars & trade wars usually lead to real wars ...

.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

fatcat said:


> the word of the day is “want” not “need” ...
> 
> clearly, manufacturing is low on the hierarchy of economies ... take tv’s, they have moved from being manufactured in the usa, to japan, then korea, now vietnam and china ... next they will go to india and bangladesh ... putting tv’s together is low skilled work
> 
> ...


All those "low skilled" jobs have turned China into an economic powerhouse while the US drowns in debt.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

humble_pie said:


> sags don't the history books teach that high tariffs lead to trade wars & trade wars usually lead to real wars ...
> 
> .


Yes, but free trade allowed China to rise to economic world domination without firing a bullet.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

sags said:


> Yes, but free trade allowed China to rise to economic world domination without firing a bullet.




? could you elaborate on your meaning please? is firing no bullets while advancing economically supposed to be a good thing or a bad thing?

EDIT one could say that china fired plenty of internal suppression bullets. Also they invaded tibet.


.


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

Is it just me, or was that NAFTA press conference a bit tense?

America’s demands are over the top. Thankfully there is a cooling off period.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

humble_pie said:


> ? could you elaborate on your meaning please? is firing no bullets while advancing economically supposed to be a good thing or a bad thing?
> 
> EDIT one could say that china fired plenty of internal suppression bullets. Also they invaded tibet.
> 
> ...


According to the IMF, China is now the largest economy in the world. They produce 17% of the world's GDP compared to the US 16%.

Free trade has not only moved production capacity to China, but more importantly the ability to manufacture.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

sags said:


> According to the IMF, China is now the largest economy in the world. They produce 17% of the world's GDP compared to the US 16%.
> 
> Free trade has not only moved production capacity to China, but more importantly the ability to manufacture.




but this is counter to your argument above that canada "needs very high import dutes" while saying that this country does not need free trade?

like, if free trade benefited china, does it not also benefit canada? why should we regress to an era of high import tariffs & possible trade wars?

.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

The real issue is how do you do a deal with a country led by a leader who is a habitual liar and who is known wide and far for not honouring his commitments or his contracts.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

sags said:


> According to the IMF, China is now the largest economy in the world. They produce 17% of the world's GDP compared to the US 16%.
> 
> Free trade has not only moved production capacity to China, but more importantly the ability to manufacture.


you are greatly overestimating the “powerhouse” aspect of china, they have huge wealth imbalances, a large portion of the population are still peasants, a demographic imbalance, a growing and perilous internal debt problem ... and ... the usa could cripple the economy with tariffs since they sell the usa close to 500 billion in products ... they have huge economic problems

but i agree they are rising ... because of free trade not high tariffs

ps. the usa is still the number one country innthe world in terms of nominal gdp


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

"Free trade is a wonderful thing", he said as his old workplace closed down and moved to Mexico or some other place that pays $6 a day wages.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

Yes. And Walmart is chock full of customers, who if asked, would tell you with a straight face that they prefer to buy products made in Canada and that they support local trade unions. They just don't do it with their wallets.


----------



## lonewolf :) (Sep 13, 2016)

fatcat said:


> the swiss don’t manufacture a damn thing as far as i know except watches and i think they aren’t doing much of that anymore


 Believe it or not the Swiss make skis made out of granite rock & carbon. Reviews say they ski awesome


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Generations built up our manufacturing base on blood, sweat and tears. Then some idiots came along and gave it all to China.


----------



## nobleea (Oct 11, 2013)

sags said:


> Generations built up our manufacturing base on blood, sweat and tears. Then some idiots came along and gave it all to China.


It's nice to have some evil capitalist dog to blame for it, but reality is, all consumers share some of the blame by not placing value on made locally, etc products.


----------



## nobleea (Oct 11, 2013)

fatcat said:


> the usa could cripple the economy with tariffs since they sell the usa close to 500 billion in products ... they have huge economic problems


could china not cripple the us govt by dumping all their US gov paper on the market, making their new paper that much more expensive?


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

China holds us debt as a mechanism to keep their yuan cheap relative to the US dollar so their goods are affordable on export, it’s unlikely China would dump us treasuries just like it’s unlikely that the USA would put high tariffs on Chinese goods its the threat that does the job


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

Fatcat is right. China cannot dump US treasuries without significant harm to their own economy. The US can’t impose tariffs without a similar hit to their own economy.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

http://www.bnn.ca/auto-industry-tells-trump-we-re-winning-with-nafta-1.894019

Auto compaines telling Trump NAFTA is working.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Sure.........GM sent 400 jobs to Mexico and would like to send the other 2500.

The Auto Pact worked well for decades. We should return to that.


----------

