Trudeau Sees High Chance Of NAFTA Deal With US, Mexico

[edpc]

Ottawa (AFP) - Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau signalled Thursday he saw a strong chance of reaching a deal with the US and Mexico to revamp the North American Free Trade Agreement.

"We have a high chance of reaching a win-win-win deal for Canada, the United States and Mexico," Trudeau told reporters.

"With the pressures of the elections in Mexico, and the US elections, if we could announce something at the Summit of the Americas, that would be great," he added, in reference to the April 13-14 gathering of regional leaders in Peru.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trudeau-sees-high-chance-nafta-deal-us-mexico-144446247.html

[Hoodat]

"We have a high chance of reaching a win-win-win deal for Canada, the United States and Mexico," Trudeau told reporters.

We already have a win-win-win deal.  So what do they plan on doing?  Replace the fair no-tariff rules we currently have and replace them with the protectionist trade-inhibiting rules we had before? 

Good grief, I am sick of this crap.  I ask, and I ask, and I ask again for anyone to show me what is 'unfair' about NAFTA.  And all I get back is silence.

[edpc]

I ask, and I ask, and I ask again for anyone to show me what is 'unfair' about NAFTA.  And all I get back is silence.

Cheap labor is the general argument people present.  That’s why they’re addressing it in the negotiations.

Mexico, meanwhile, is reportedly holding out against a US demand that would require automakers to source auto parts from factories that pay workers at least $15 per hour -- in line with US and Canadian wages, versus Mexico's current average wage of $3 per hour.

[Hoodat]

Cheap labor is the general argument people present.

So what?  Labor is but one cost of production.  Energy is another.  Energy prices here in the US are cheaper than they are in Canada and Mexico.  Do the whiners ever mention that?  Over time, Mexico's labor costs will continue to rise while the overall labor costs of US production will continue to fall.  That's what fair competition creates.  Should Mexico be entitled to put tariffs on US manufactured goods because our lower energy costs are 'unfair'?

Mexico, meanwhile, is reportedly holding out against a US demand that would require automakers to source auto parts from factories that pay workers at least $15 per hour -- in line with US and Canadian wages, versus Mexico's current average wage of $3 per hour.

Better yet, remove the US government-imposed artificial wage floor.  The wage manipulations of our own governments are not Mexico's fault.  Nor is it Mexico's fault that they get taxed to death like Canadians. 

You want 'fair'?   Here are the rules.  Make what you want.  Buy what you want.  Sell what you want.  And no national government can stand in the way of that.

[edpc]

So what?  Labor is but one cost of production.

I presented that as an alternative to silence, not as advocacy.  On the one hand, I can see how that may raise the standard of living and keep people from leaving Mexico.  However, I don’t agree with an arbitrary number imposed on a trading partner, in the name of ‘fairness.’  Mexico could just as easily request the US and Canada lower their wages.  The market is what it is.

[Hoodat]

I presented that as an alternative to silence, not as advocacy.

I was hoping that to be the case.  It is pretty darn difficult arguing against a golden retriever.

The market is what it is.

Correctamundo.

[libertybele]

We already have a win-win-win deal.  So what do they plan on doing?  Replace the fair no-tariff rules we currently have and replace them with the protectionist trade-inhibiting rules we had before? 

Good grief, I am sick of this crap.  I ask, and I ask, and I ask again for anyone to show me what is 'unfair' about NAFTA.  And all I get back is silence.

Ok ... I'll make an attempt.

NAFTA is/was responsible for lost jobs, and suppressed wages.  Those two issues are perhaps the largest felt negative affect and result from NAFTA in the U.S.  In additional the rate of illegal immigration to the U.S. accelerated after NAFTA was put into effect.

...."Despite the rhetoric, the central goal of NAFTA was not “expanding trade.” After all, the U.S., Mexico, and Canada had been trading goods and services with each other for three centuries. NAFTA’s central purpose was to free American corporations from U.S. laws protecting workers and the environment. Moreover, it paved the way for the rest of the neoliberal agenda in the US—the privatization of public services, the regulation of finance, and the destruction of the independent trade union movement.

The inevitable result was to undercut workers’ living standards all across North America. Wages and benefits have fallen behind worker productivity in all three countries. Moreover, despite declining wages in the United States, the gap between the typical American and typical Mexican worker in manufacturing remains the same. Even after adjusting for differences in living costs, Mexican workers continue to make about 30% of the wages of workers in the United States. Thus, NAFTA is both symbol and substance of the global “race to the bottom.”.........

https://www.epi.org/blog/naftas-impact-workers/

https://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/18/weekinreview/18uchitelle.html

https://www.npr.org/2013/12/26/257255787/wave-of-illegal-immigrants-gains-speed-after-nafta

[Hoodat]

Ok ... I'll make an attempt.

NAFTA is/was responsible for lost jobs, and suppressed wages.  Those two issues are perhaps the largest felt negative affect and result from NAFTA in the U.S.  In additional the rate of illegal immigration to the U.S. accelerated after NAFTA was put into effect.

NAFTA resulted in a net increase in jobs, not a decrease.  Wages weren't suppressed.  They just became more competitive.  High wage union jobs that were lost would have been lost anyway without NAFTA.  But other jobs were saved because of modernization which lowered overall labor costs per unit of production.

NAFTA forces us to be competitive, but also opens new opportunities.  Yes, the status quo took a hit.  But overall, the benefits outweighed the costs.

As for illegal immigration, it has nothing at all to do with NAFTA.

[To-Whose-Benefit?]

NAFTA is/was responsible for lost jobs, and suppressed wages.  Those two issues are perhaps the largest felt negative affect and result from NAFTA in the U.S.  In additional the rate of illegal immigration to the U.S. accelerated after NAFTA was put into effect.

https://www.epi.org/blog/naftas-impact-workers/

https://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/18/weekinreview/18uchitelle.html

https://www.npr.org/2013/12/26/257255787/wave-of-illegal-immigrants-gains-speed-after-nafta

Canada, whatever the negatives of NATFA are, is not trying to shove us out of the Pacific Sphere of Influence.

Canada is not using a worse than medieval despot (North Korea) as its proxy/flunky.

Canada is not (through proxies like NK, Iran, Pakistan) in bed with global terrorism.

Canada is not running massive amounts of Illegal Aliens into the US. (though I have seen reports of Chinese sneaking in through our northern border from there and we can't very well build a wall between us and them. We need greater co-operation with local Law Enforcement to stop that.)

Canada has been sending troops and support along with the other English Speaking nations to war to defeat murderous despots for at least the last 100 years.

Whatever economic negatives are in the US/Canada NAFTA pipeline are for the WTO/bargaining table to resolve, unlike China and Mexico.

[Chosen Daughter]

Disaster for people making their living in Manufacturing.  Cost of living up, wages down.