Trumps USMCA

[BNB 100]

President Donald Trump valued the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Trade Agreement (USMCA) at $1.2 trillion on Monday, thereby replacing NAFTA as the biggest trade deal in U.S. history.

 

Is this a thing?

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/01/politics/nafta-usmca-differences/index.html

 

(CNN)The United States, Canada and Mexico came to a last minute agreement on a revised trade deal that could replace NAFTA. It's called the USMCA.

President Donald Trump and his Mexican and Canadian counterparts are expected to sign the deal by the end of November. It will then be up to Congress to approve the deal, which is likely to come up for a vote next year.

Negotiations between Canada and the United States pushed right up to a deadline imposed by the Trump administration Sunday night, and details of the agreement were starting to emerge..

Here are the biggest changes between the nearly 25-year-old NAFTA agreement and the new provisional USMCA.

 

 

Opening up Canada's dairy market

In a win for the United States, USMCA will open up some of Canada's dairy market to US farmers. The issue was a big sticking point between the two negotiating teams.

Under the original NAFTA, Canada limited how much milk, cheese and other dairy products could come in from the United States.

But under the updated agreement, Canada will set new quotas for the United States. It will increase market access for US dairy, poultry and eggs. In return, the United States will allow more Canadian dairy, peanuts and peanut products, and a limited amount of sugar to cross the border, according to a document from US Trade Representative's Office.

Canada has also agreed to end a system that had kept the price of some milk products, including milk protein, low. This change will also allow more US dairy products to enter the Canadian market.

The Dairy Farmers of Canada quickly came out to criticize the new trade agreement, claiming it puts the livelihood of Canadian dairy producers at risk.

Canada recently made concessions in the Trans-Pacific Partnership and a trade deal with the European Union that also opened up its dairy market.

Car manufacturing

The new deal will require more of a vehicle's parts to be made in North America in order for the car to be free from tariffs.

It requires that 75% of the parts must be made in Canada, Mexico or the United States, about 12 percentage points higher than under the original NAFTA.

The provision will help keep the production of car parts in the United States and bring back some production that moved abroad, the USTR said.

Ford Motor Company applauded the agreement because it will "support an integrated, globally competitive automotive business in North America

Sunset Clause

Renew it or lose it.

The United States had wanted to include in the new agreement a clause that would kill NAFTA after five years unless all three countries agreed to renew it.

Instead, negotiators stitched into the updated treaty new terms of the deal, agreeing to keep the trade pact for 16 years, unless all three countries agreed to extend it.

That means the deadline could be extended far out into the future, if all three countries agreed to either renew or renegotiate the trilateral trade pact.

The United States, Canada and Mexico will be required to meet every six years to decide whether to do so.

The Trump administration had been seeking a shorter time frame of five years in an effort to keep the pact up to date. But Mexico and Canada were less in favor of that proposal arguing it would stunt investment in their countries if the future of the agreement was in question.

Exchange rate curbs

Tucked in the agreement is a foreign-exchange provision to deter countries from manipulating their currencies.

The language isn't likely to impact all three NAFTA countries, which have a free floating exchange rate. Instead, it's intended as a signal to other countries outside of North America.

Countries frequently commit to avoiding unfair currency manipulations. But the tougher language in the accord could give the United States more leverage in trade negotiations with countries like China.

Dispute resolution

When countries are found to be in violation of the agreement, there are hard and fast rules how to hold nations accountable. Embedded in the old NAFTA agreement were three kinds.

Two of those dispute settlement systems will remain basically intact, but will be renamed.

The first is a system to resolve state-to-state disputes, formerly known as Chapter 20. The second mechanism is NAFTA's old Chapter 19, which resolves disputes between two countries on anti-dumping and countervailing duties cases. That will also remain untouched in the new agreement.

One difference is that another settlement process, formerly known as Chapter 11, will be phased out between the US and Canada. But will stick for certain key sectors like oil and gas, infrastructure and telecommunications between the US and Mexico.

Help for American workers

The new trade agreement aims to support American workers in several ways.

Most notably, it requires that 40% to 45% of car and truck parts be made by workers earning at least $16 an hour. The goal is to level the playing field between American and Mexican auto workers and to incentivize manufacturers to build more in the United States. One of the main criticisms of NAFTA is that it prompted American car makers to shift production south of the border, where workers earn much less than their US counterparts.

The deal also mandates that 75% of a vehicle's parts must be made in North America, up from the current 62.5% rule. The Trump administration argues that this will help incentivize billions in new auto sector production in the US.

Also, Mexico has committed to recognize workers' right to collectively bargain, and the three countries agreed to enforce rights recognized by the International Labor Organization.

President Trump said Monday that the agreement will transform North America back into a manufacturing powerhouse.

"Instead of jobs leaving for overseas, they will be returning back home," he said in a Rose Garden ceremony.

Experts, however, are still sifting through the documents to determine the actual impact of the agreement.

"The bottom line is that we simply do not have enough information at this time to know whether NAFTA 2018 is in the economic interests of the United States," AFL-CIO Trade Policy Specialist Celeste Drake wrote in a blog post. "On labor, despite progress, more work remains to be done."

Some trade experts are skeptical that the deal will boost auto sector employment. In fact, the new mandates may prompt American carmakers to shift production to Japan, Korea or other countries outside North America. They'll have to pay a 2.5% tariff, but they may find it more economical than adhering to the USMCA rules, said Robert Lawrence, a professor of international trade and investment at Harvard.

 

"The jobs aspect is uncertain at best," said Robert Scott, director of trade and manufacturing policy research at the Economic Policy Institute, a left-leaning organization.

 

One wildcard is whether the Trump administration will try to raise the 2.5% tariff on importing cars and auto parts. The president is considering levying a 25% tariff on imported vehicles, citing national security.

'Modernizing' NAFTA for the digital age

The new agreement addresses issues that have emerged over the past 25 years.

For example, it outlines criminal penalties for pirating movies online.

It prohibits duties on digital music, books, software and video games that are distributed electronically.

There are also stronger intellectual property protections, including patents for biotech and financial services.

Other tariffs

One big question is how the three countries will resolve disputes over US tariffs on steel and aluminum imports from Canada and Mexico.

For now, that part, along with retaliatory tariffs countries have imposed, were left out of the deal.

That piece will have to be negotiated separately, senior administration officials said.

[BNB 100]

 

Quote

 

thing else sounds good. It will be interesting to see how it works out. 

"The bottom line is that we simply do not have enough information at this time to know whether NAFTA 2018 is in the economic interests of the United States," AFL-CIO Trade Policy Specialist Celeste Drake wrote in a blog post. "On labor, despite progress, more work remains to be done."

Some trade experts are skeptical that the deal will boost auto sector employment. In fact, the new mandates may prompt American carmakers to shift production to Japan, Korea or other countries outside North America. They'll have to pay a 2.5% tariff, but they may find it more economical than adhering to the USMCA rules, said Robert Lawrence, a professor of international trade and investment at Harvard.

 

"The jobs aspect is uncertain at best," said Robert Scott, director of trade and manufacturing policy research at the Economic Policy Institute, a left-leaning organization.

 

One wildcard is whether the Trump administration will try to raise the 2.5% tariff on importing cars and auto parts. The president is considering levying a 25% tariff on imported vehicles, citing national security.

 

 

[David Dennison 18924]

It's NAFTA.

[BNB 100]

Except hopefully a better deal for the US?

[David Dennison 18924]

Sort of. Not so much for consumers. Some things will get more expensive, but hopefully more people have jobs to pay for the more expensive things.

[Gil Bang 25975]

I don't know shit about this "new" deal, but Schumer seems to think that it's a positive improvement from NAFTA, so good for Dotard. 

[BNB 100]

I'm all about the jobs, and building up the middle class.  Everyone doesn't need an iphone and a big screen tv.  You strive to get those things and be middle class.  

But  this hit me...

Most notably, it requires that 40% to 45% of car and truck parts be made by workers earning at least $16 an hour. The goal is to level the playing field between American and Mexican auto workers and to incentivize manufacturers to build more in the United States.

[David Dennison 18924]

2 minutes ago, BNB said:

I'm all about the jobs, and building up the middle class.  Everyone doesn't need an iphone and a big screen tv.  You strive to get those things and be middle class.  

But  this hit me...

Most notably, it requires that 40% to 45% of car and truck parts be made by workers earning at least $16 an hour. The goal is to level the playing field between American and Mexican auto workers and to incentivize manufacturers to build more in the United States.

That wage floor doesn't take effect unitl 2023 and isn't indexed to inflation.

[BNB 100]

It's a start?  I don't know.  I'm not going to go through every line, I am sure someone will and I would think that we made a better deal than Nafta.

Edited October 2, 2018 by BNB

[David Dennison 18924]

6 minutes ago, BNB said:

It's a start?  I don't know.  I'm not going to go through every line, I am sure someone will and I would think that we made a better deal than Nafta.

It's definitely the start of a long political process.

Here's a decidedly skeptical view from Fisher Investments.

Edited October 2, 2018 by David Dennison

[BNB 100]

4 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

It's definitely the start of a long political process.

Here's a decidedly skeptical view from Fisher Investments.

Fair enough.  I would like to see what it does to our economy.  

[GabrielsHorn 2186]

Seems pretty good for all parties. Huge that AMLO is supporting as that could have been a big barrier. 

Edited October 2, 2018 by GabrielsHorn

[NoRagrets 1125]

Credit where credit is due. He and Bernie were the only candidates with the guts to take on NAFTA.

[Bateshorn 9928]

It’s NAFTA with tweaks.  And worse diary language than we had in TPP.  The car language will likely drive our export auto manufacturing overseas while intensifying US automakers reliance on domestically produced larger vehicles. 

 

The Canadas won on the two things they really cared about: dispute resolution and longer time frames between renegotiations.  The Mexicans are just happy to be here.

Edited October 2, 2018 by Bateshorn

[Mojo Hand 4580]

I don't see any structural changes along the lines of what Trump promised.  He's just slapping his name on a standard update to trade terms and calling it a historic victory.   Which is pretty much his M.O. for everything he does. 

Well, at least he and the GOP own the NAFTA effects on workers now.   I suppose the rust belt will be back now, because this was Trump's big thing for them? 

[sheeeit 129]

1 hour ago, Bateshorn said:

It’s NAFTA with tweaks.  And worse diary language than we had in TPP.  The car language will likely drive our export auto manufacturing overseas while intensifying US automakers reliance on domestically produced larger vehicles. 

 

The Canadas won on the two things they really cared about: dispute resolution and longer time frames between renegotiations.  The Mexicans are just happy to be here.

It is really difficult to determine how successful a deal like this is until years down the road.  There are unintended consequences in any deal of this magnitude.  There will be "experts" on both sides that will have very different interpretations of the fine points.  People should take any comments from people not affiliated with the actual industries involved that are for or against the deal with a grain of salt.

On the dairy,  it is telling the American Dairy Assoc came out in strong support of the deal and the Canadian Dairy Assoc came out in strong opposition to the deal.  The US got much better terms than those negotiated with Canada as part of the TPP.

The American Auto Assoc came out strongly in favor of the deal.

The newer more stringent IP regulations are an absolute win for the US and, likely more important, set a precedent for IP regulations with China and others.

I fully expect the dems to downplay the deal and I fully expect Trump to grossly exaggerate the deal.  But, imo, I think it is a much better deal for the US going forward but time will tell.   

 

[Foosters 17858]

13 hours ago, BNB said:

I'm all about the jobs, and building up the middle class.  Everyone doesn't need an iphone and a big screen tv.  You strive to get those things and be middle class.  

But  this hit me...

Most notably, it requires that 40% to 45% of car and truck parts be made by workers earning at least $16 an hour. The goal is to level the playing field between American and Mexican auto workers and to incentivize manufacturers to build more in the United States.

God, I hate this argument.  TV's cost a few hundred bucks. Smart phones can be had for less than $100.  These items are not the territory of the middle class. Just for reference, a 17 inch TV cost $180 in 1955. That's about $1,600.00 today with inflation.

[F250 28784]

3 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

On the dairy,  it is telling the American Dairy Assoc came out in strong support of the deal and the Canadian Dairy Assoc came out in strong opposition to the deal.  The US got much better terms than those negotiated with Canada as part of the TPP.

Is it really telling that the American Dairy Association supports the American taxpayer subsidizing cheap milk prices in Canada? It's a win for the US dairy industry and Canadian consumer because the U.S. taxpayer is footing the bill.

 

 

[hayden_horn 11362]

10 minutes ago, F250 said:

Is it really telling that the American Dairy Association supports the American taxpayer subsidizing cheap milk prices in Canada? It's a win for the US dairy industry and Canadian consumer because the U.S. taxpayer is footing the bill.

 

 

which is why the canadians had the tariff in the first place, but whatever.

our subsidies for domestic agriculture drive me crazy.

[sheeeit 129]

20 minutes ago, F250 said:

Is it really telling that the American Dairy Association supports the American taxpayer subsidizing cheap milk prices in Canada? It's a win for the US dairy industry and Canadian consumer because the U.S. taxpayer is footing the bill.

 

 

Not sure of your point.  The new deal had absolutely no impact on the few current govt programs for the dairy industry.  People routinely misunderstand subsidies, but this deal made no changes to any existing programs.  But if US farmers can sell more product abroad, how is that, in any way, a downside to the US?  In fact, a number of the "subsidies" you speak of have to do with over supply domestically.  This will go down as more product is sold abroad.

Also, I am sure you know that US dairy farmers do not get to set the price for milk in Canada.  Why should I care what Canadians pay for milk as long as more revenue from Canadians flow to US businesses.

We can debate the few govt programs available to dairy farmers and I would probably agree that they could be abused in some cases.  However, this trade deal has no impact on them so using them as a criticism of the deal seems misplaced.

[F250 28784]

7 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

Not sure of your point.  The new deal had absolutely no impact on the few current govt programs for the dairy industry.  People routinely misunderstand subsidies, but this deal made no changes to any existing programs.  But if US farmers can sell more product abroad, how is that, in any way, a downside to the US?  In fact, a number of the "subsidies" you speak of have to do with over supply domestically.  This will go down as more product is sold abroad.

Also, I am sure you know that US dairy farmers do not get to set the price for milk in Canada.  Why should I care what Canadians pay for milk as long as more revenue from Canadians flow to US businesses.

We can debate the few govt programs available to dairy farmers and I would probably agree that they could be abused in some cases.  However, this trade deal has no impact on them so using them as a criticism of the deal seems misplaced.

The point is its obvious why an industry that benefits from a transfer of wealth would be happy that the U.S. government intervened on their behalf to open markets in Canada. Its also obvious that the Canadian consumer is happy to receive the benefits of the subsidized without having to pay for the subsidies.

The downside to the U.S. is the American Dairy Industry is benefiting from a transfer of wealth. Someone is footing the bill and it isn't the winners in this trade deal. This isn't a better deal for Americans, it's a better deal for those that benefit from cronyism.

 

 

[hayden_horn 11362]

Just now, F250 said:

The point is its obvious why an industry that benefits from a transfer of wealth would be happy that the U.S. government intervened on their behalf to open markets in Canada. Its also obvious that the Canadian consumer is happy to receive the benefits of the subsidized without having to pay for the subsidies.

The downside to the U.S. is the American Dairy Industry is benefiting from a transfer of wealth. Someone is footing the bill and it isn't the winners in this trade deal. This isn't a better deal for Americans, it's a better deal for those that benefit from cronyism.

 

 

exactly. 

and there's the rub. we all want an open, capitalistic economy. yet, if milk costs $6/gallon, we would FREAK OUT. it's one of those commodities where the price MUST REMAIN LOW, at all costs.

 

[sheeeit 129]

40 minutes ago, F250 said:

The point is its obvious why an industry that benefits from a transfer of wealth would be happy that the U.S. government intervened on their behalf to open markets in Canada. Its also obvious that the Canadian consumer is happy to receive the benefits of the subsidized without having to pay for the subsidies.

The downside to the U.S. is the American Dairy Industry is benefiting from a transfer of wealth. Someone is footing the bill and it isn't the winners in this trade deal. This isn't a better deal for Americans, it's a better deal for those that benefit from cronyism.

 

 

I get what you are saying.  You do not like the subsidies provided to dairy farmers.  In some ways I completely agree, although it is a complex issue.

Where you lose me is how this is a bad deal for Americans.  I do not really care if Canadians get less expensive dairy due to increased competition.  Bully for them.  It affects the US consumer exactly zero.

But the point you keep ignoring is that the current subsidies provided to dairy farmers does not go up a single dollar as a result of this deal.  In fact, it will go down as a portion of the subsidies involved are for excess supply which will now be purchased by Canadians which means less subsidy dollars from the US.  

So, again, how is this deal bad for the US?  It costs the US tax payer either zero or fewer dollars than they are currently paying in subsidies.  It increase employment and profits to US dairy farmers which increases the tax base.  

If this deal somehow made existing subsidies go up then you would have a point but it does not.  

With the new deal, now is probably a great time to look at the current govt programs that dairy farmers take advantage of.

[David Dennison 18924]

5 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

I get what you are saying.  You do not like the subsidies provided to dairy farmers.  In some ways I completely agree, although it is a complex issue.

Where you lose me is how this is a bad deal for Americans.  I do not really care if Canadians get less expensive dairy due to increased competition.  Bully for them.  It affects the US consumer exactly zero.

But the point you keep ignoring is that the current subsidies provided to dairy farmers does not go up a single dollar as a result of this deal.  In fact, it will go down as a portion of the subsidies involved are for excess supply which will now be purchased by Canadians which means less subsidy dollars from the US.  

So, again, how is this deal bad for the US?  It costs the US tax payer either zero or fewer dollars than they are currently paying in subsidies.  It increase employment and profits to US dairy farmers which increases the tax base.  

If this deal somehow made existing subsidies go up then you would have a point but it does not.  

With the new deal, now is probably a great time to look at the current govt programs that dairy farmers take advantage of.

It's not a bad deal, it's just not a good deal. It's meh.

[NoRagrets 1125]

1 hour ago, hayden_horn said:

which is why the canadians had the tariff in the first place, but whatever.

our subsidies for domestic agriculture drive me crazy.

If you read the Nunes article, apparently our dairy farms are dependent on illegal labor as well.

[NoRagrets 1125]

I’m happy with the deal. Didn’t blow up anything, updated some stuff, everyone’s happy.

[F250 28784]

11 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

It's not a bad deal, it's just not a good deal. It's meh.

This. It benefits a particular industry and not worthy of celebrating as if it's a win for Americans.

 

[DixonHur 11341]

6 minutes ago, F250 said:

This. It benefits a particular industry and not worthy of celebrating as if it's a win for Americans.

 

Agreed.  Aside from the dairy aspect, I'm not really sure what this does other than screw over China on car parts.  Perhaps I'm way off base, but the $16 minimum wage thing seems laughable.  If anything it would be a potential boon for Mexican workers.  I have a hard time believing that the vast majority of American autoworkers don't already make over $16/hour.

That said, I wonder how the Trumpkins ,who are excited about this deal, feel about raising the overall minimum wage to $16/hr.   I mean, while we're artificially setting wages for one industry, why not all of them?

[F250 28784]

9 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Agreed.  Aside from the dairy aspect, I'm not really sure what this does other than screw over China on car parts.  Perhaps I'm way off base, but the $16 minimum wage thing seems laughable.  If anything it would be a potential boon for Mexican workers.  I have a hard time believing that the vast majority of American autoworkers don't already make over $16/hour.

That said, I wonder how the Trumpkins ,who are excited about this deal, feel about raising the overall minimum wage to $16/hr.   I mean, while we're artificially setting wages for one industry, why not all of them? 

That's an interesting point. As I recall, Toyota line workers in San Antonio were around $14 an hour about 10 years ago. I believe they are around the $17-$20 range now. From what I understand, there are a number of part time contractors at Toyota making $12 an hour but these people aren't Toyota employees. I don't see the $16 minimum having a major effect, at least not with the San Antonio plant. I am not sure what its like in other locations.

If anything, the impact will just be an increase in costs picked up by the consumer. Which is why I've read about environmentalists supporting this part of the deal. It's a potential disincentive for car ownership.

 

 

 

[David Dennison 18924]

20 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Agreed.  Aside from the dairy aspect, I'm not really sure what this does other than screw over China on car parts.  Perhaps I'm way off base, but the $16 minimum wage thing seems laughable.  If anything it would be a potential boon for Mexican workers.  I have a hard time believing that the vast majority of American autoworkers don't already make over $16/hour.

That said, I wonder how the Trumpkins ,who are excited about this deal, feel about raising the overall minimum wage to $16/hr.   I mean, while we're artificially setting wages for one industry, why not all of them?

I was told a minimum wage was bad for the economy.

[DixonHur 11341]

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

I was told a minimum wage was bad for the economy.

Only when the person suggesting it has a D by their name.

[Bateshorn 9928]

We’re talking dairy?  Dairy?  Come on, man...

 

Seriously, we just engaged in massive renegotiations of a major trade agreement that nearly destroyed our relationship with our closet ally over *checks notes*....esoteric milk subsidies. 

 

It’s a meh deal.  For 95% of the public this will have literally no effect, other than possibly higher auto prices. 

 

 

[Dahobbs 17625]

13 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

We’re talking dairy?  Dairy?  Come on, man...

 

Seriously, we just engaged in massive renegotiations of a major trade agreement that nearly destroyed our relationship with our closet ally over *checks notes*....esoteric milk subsidies. 

 

It’s a meh deal.  For 95% of the public this will have literally no effect, other than possibly higher auto prices. 

 

 

Exactly. And it is more than a bit disingenuous to say that NAFTA was the worst trade deal ever, but then hold up USMCA as a great victory. It is the same damn thing, but with modestly updated terms. We could have entered into negotiations to get the exact same result without causing massive upheaval in the long-term relationships with our neighbors. But, dishonesty and bluster are the only tools of this administration, so this is what we get. 

[happyfunball 481]

Actually, it is a bad deal because if we had stayed in TPP then the rules would apply more broadly. 

[UTDD 362]

The $16/hour will likely help foreign workers some, but I wonder if for a lot of companies regulations and benefits are far more pressing issues that can be addressed easier outside of America.  It might be easier to raise all pay for foreign workers to $16/hour and minimize benefit costs versus working with American unions and the uncertainty of those kind of issues long-term.  I'm not in this industry so I have no clue of the realities of the numbers and I don't know a lot of Mexican labor laws/protections, but I've already seen some $15/hour minimum wage increases offset by some companies by going from 80/20 percent ratio of FT/PT to much more PT staff and way less FT to end up with a similar total labor cost even though the hourly has gone up more than 50% per hour.  This strategy might not work for certain work/industries but it's certainly viable for some others.

Edited October 2, 2018 by UTDD

[DixonHur 11341]

7 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

Trump not completely screwing the pooch on something is really bothering some folks. I'm reminded of how some people who are so down on the football team can't enjoy a W every now and again, must be tiring.

Not really.  What bothers us is that he blew up the US participation in the TPP, then attacked and bullied our closest allies just so we could sell a bit more milk in Canada.  Staying in the TPP would have accomplished way more than this "renegotiation".  This is 100% about Trump being able to claim a win before the midterms...even though it's not a win.

[sheeeit 129]

1 hour ago, DixonHur said:

Agreed.  Aside from the dairy aspect, I'm not really sure what this does other than screw over China on car parts.  Perhaps I'm way off base, but the $16 minimum wage thing seems laughable.  If anything it would be a potential boon for Mexican workers.  I have a hard time believing that the vast majority of American autoworkers don't already make over $16/hour.

That said, I wonder how the Trumpkins ,who are excited about this deal, feel about raising the overall minimum wage to $16/hr.   I mean, while we're artificially setting wages for one industry, why not all of them?

This is not so hard to understand.  Currently there are little or no US based auto parts manufacturers and auto manufacturers that pay less than $16/hr for line workers.  This will have little to no effect on wages in the US.  However, there are many US based auto parts manufacturers and auto manufacturers that have, since NAFTA, made significant investment in plants in Mexico, especially glass components.  Low wages in Mexico is certainly a factor in these US based companies moving operations to Mexico coupled with an extremely difficult ability for Mexican employees to collectively bargain.   So when these US based businesses open their next plants, they will have a much higher incentive to keep them in the US.  The wage differential will be closing, Mexican workers can now collectively bargain, the corporate tax rate in the US is now lower than Mexico, and the threshold for tariffs on the % of parts made in the US was increased.  Further, and this is a biggie, the US now has the ability to investigate conditions in Mexico independent of Mexico- they do not get to police their own and, of course, they get to do the same to the US.  

Since NAFTA there has been in excess of $200B in infrastructure investment in Mexico from US auto related companies.  Now no one thinks those current plants are going to be closed anytime soon because the costs are sunk but when it comes time for new investment or upgrades to existing facilities, the strong incentive will be for the US companies to do it within the US.  This deal evens the playing field tremendously.  The property taxes and jobs created from these investments will be massive over time.

And everyone keeps ignoring the new regulations regarding intellectual property rights.  This is a very big win for the film and music industry.  Especially since, as mentioned earlier, the US can go after Mexican and Canadian firms or people accused of violating the agreements.  This sets a precedent for new regulations relating to IP around the globe.  It will be much harder for asian countries to say the regulations the US wants to impose are not fair when our 2 closets trading partners already agreed to them.

There are also new regulations related to the pharm industry.  The deal provides extra years in protection from copying US developed drugs in Canada and Mexico and actually lowers it in the US.  This is a win for US pharma companies as well as US consumers as the generics can get into the US 2 years sooner now.  Again, it levels the playing field and the US wins in all cases.

I am not suggesting at all that this is some fantastical new deal that is a panacea for the US (I am quite certain that trump will say that) but it is undeniable that there are very real benefits in the billions of dollars to the US economy and Americans.  That is good and it should be acknowledged.

[happyfunball 481]

15 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

Trump not completely screwing the pooch on something is really bothering some folks. I'm reminded of how some people who are so down on the football team can't enjoy a W every now and again, must be tiring.

Not completely fucking up is now the bar for #winning?

[UTDD 362]

8 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

 

And everyone keeps ignoring the new regulations regarding intellectual property rights.  This is a very big win for the film and music industry.  Especially since, as mentioned earlier, the US can go after Mexican and Canadian firms or people accused of violating the agreements.  This sets a precedent for new regulations relating to IP around the globe.  It will be much harder for asian countries to say the regulations the US wants to impose are not fair when our 2 closets trading partners already agreed to them.

 

I haven't read this in detail but from what I am hearing very quickly on the fly, this is a good change.