In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On September 03 2016 11:35 Toadesstern wrote: Am I late on this?
Mexican senator to propose anti-Trump expropriation law
A Mexican senator is proposing legislation to empower the government to retaliate if a U.S. administration led by Donald Trump inflicts expropriations or economic losses on his country to make it pay for a border wall.
Republican presidential nominee Trump has vowed to have Mexico fund the planned wall to keep out illegal immigrants if he is elected, and threatened to fund it by blocking remittances sent home by Mexicans living in the United States.
Armando Rios Piter, an opposition senator for the center-left Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD), will next week present the initiative he hopes will protect Mexicans, and highlight the risks of targeting them economically.
The plan offers a taste of the kind of tit-for-tat measures that could gain traction between the two heavily-integrated economies if Trump wins the presidency at the Nov. 8 election.
In a preliminary summary of the proposal, which also foresees giving the Senate the power to disavow international treaties when the interests of Mexico or its companies are threatened by other signatories, it states:
"In cases where the property/assets of (our) fellow citizens or companies are affected by a foreign government, as Donald Trump has threatened, the Mexican government should proportionally expropriate assets and properties of foreigners from that country on our territory."
Total remittances to Mexico from abroad - most of which come from the United States - were worth nearly $25 billion last year, according to the central bank. Bilateral trade between the two nations is worth about half a trillion dollars a year.
Trump has also threatened to tear up a trade deal with Mexico if it is not recast in the United States' favor. He met President Enrique Pena Nieto in Mexico City this week, sparking fierce criticism in Mexico of the government for hosting him.
Afterwards, Trump repeated his pledge to make Mexico foot the bill for the wall. Mexico says it will not pay.
It is yet to be established how such expropriations could work, nor is it clear what chance the bill could have of passing. The PRD and other leftist parties hold less than a quarter of the 128 seats in Mexico's Senate.
Rios Piter said his aim was to counter threats by Trump to target Mexicans in the United States and to stress that the economic welfare of both nations is at stake.
"At a time like this, it's vital for us to understand why this relationship benefits both. We're neighbors, we're friends, we're partners," he said. "He's putting (that) at risk."
The initiative also seeks to protect Mexico against unilateral changes to the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which Trump has threatened to ditch.
It's okay, it would hurt Mexico 10x as badly as the US. The bargaining chip is on the US, and Mexico can try their silly antics, but its just a bluff or an extremely stupid economic decision for them.
I really can't think of any other recent scenarios in which a country decided to do something that was considered to be economically stupid but did it anyways for emotional reasons.... oh wait Brexit
"Foreign nations are fucking with your economy to influence you politically" is a damn good reason to take an economic hit on principle to prove a point. And often the plebs understand that better than those in power.
It's a quote I very much I agree with.
It's actually a big reason of why I support Trump - the people who claim oh look Brexit was such a failure, look how the the pound dropped, etc... And only looking after the short term effects. I think everyone, Trump supporters included should understand that there will be short term costs to such hostile policy, particularly on immigration, it's long term where these benefits can be realized.
So from my viewpoint, the US can wave its power and say how it's going to get Mexico to build a wall, because the benefit of having Mexico as a trading ally is a lot smaller to the US and to Mexico. Understand that around 25% of the GDP of mexico comes from US trade, and around 1-2% of GDP of the US comes from Mexico. Not only that, but the US has other markets that could easily replace Mexico in sight, not to mention bring jobs back to US from that lost 1-2% to supply them to the economy instead.
Meanwhile, Mexico has absolute no wealthy market to drop its goods off to, and are completely fucked if the US stops trading with them. US trade is the main driving factor in the recent prosperity in Mexico. When Trump mentions this bargaining power difference, it's a serious thing, the US doesn't have good deals.
This is exactly what the US needs to do, it's like playing poker, either you're playing with a stupid opponent who's going to play emotionally and lose everything, or they'll cut their losses and run - i.e. renegotiate a new contract with the US, which includes paying tariffs, and other things that will make it more favorable to do business from within the US. Mexico will gladly pay these tariffs (or help pay for building a wall), because trade with the US makes sense for them. Trump doesn't have to say it in such a harsh way, because it will alienate Mexico a bit, and they might vote emotionally, which will be good for neither party. At the same time, he's telling the US citizens that we are the shit, so maybe that makes up for it, as it's a thing of national pride and strength.
^ Maybe people don't like the idea of the US bullying weak countries in trade. The super powers have thrown their weight around and fucked enough economies through their exploitative methods of extracting wealth and leaving shit behind.
On September 03 2016 11:35 Toadesstern wrote: Am I late on this?
Mexican senator to propose anti-Trump expropriation law
A Mexican senator is proposing legislation to empower the government to retaliate if a U.S. administration led by Donald Trump inflicts expropriations or economic losses on his country to make it pay for a border wall.
Republican presidential nominee Trump has vowed to have Mexico fund the planned wall to keep out illegal immigrants if he is elected, and threatened to fund it by blocking remittances sent home by Mexicans living in the United States.
Armando Rios Piter, an opposition senator for the center-left Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD), will next week present the initiative he hopes will protect Mexicans, and highlight the risks of targeting them economically.
The plan offers a taste of the kind of tit-for-tat measures that could gain traction between the two heavily-integrated economies if Trump wins the presidency at the Nov. 8 election.
In a preliminary summary of the proposal, which also foresees giving the Senate the power to disavow international treaties when the interests of Mexico or its companies are threatened by other signatories, it states:
"In cases where the property/assets of (our) fellow citizens or companies are affected by a foreign government, as Donald Trump has threatened, the Mexican government should proportionally expropriate assets and properties of foreigners from that country on our territory."
Total remittances to Mexico from abroad - most of which come from the United States - were worth nearly $25 billion last year, according to the central bank. Bilateral trade between the two nations is worth about half a trillion dollars a year.
Trump has also threatened to tear up a trade deal with Mexico if it is not recast in the United States' favor. He met President Enrique Pena Nieto in Mexico City this week, sparking fierce criticism in Mexico of the government for hosting him.
Afterwards, Trump repeated his pledge to make Mexico foot the bill for the wall. Mexico says it will not pay.
It is yet to be established how such expropriations could work, nor is it clear what chance the bill could have of passing. The PRD and other leftist parties hold less than a quarter of the 128 seats in Mexico's Senate.
Rios Piter said his aim was to counter threats by Trump to target Mexicans in the United States and to stress that the economic welfare of both nations is at stake.
"At a time like this, it's vital for us to understand why this relationship benefits both. We're neighbors, we're friends, we're partners," he said. "He's putting (that) at risk."
The initiative also seeks to protect Mexico against unilateral changes to the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which Trump has threatened to ditch.
It's okay, it would hurt Mexico 10x as badly as the US. The bargaining chip is on the US, and Mexico can try their silly antics, but its just a bluff or an extremely stupid economic decision for them.
I really can't think of any other recent scenarios in which a country decided to do something that was considered to be economically stupid but did it anyways for emotional reasons.... oh wait Brexit
"Foreign nations are fucking with your economy to influence you politically" is a damn good reason to take an economic hit on principle to prove a point. And often the plebs understand that better than those in power.
It's a quote I very much I agree with.
It's actually a big reason of why I support Trump - the people who claim oh look Brexit was such a failure, look how the the pound dropped, etc... And only looking after the short term effects. I think everyone, Trump supporters included should understand that there will be short term costs to such hostile policy, particularly on immigration, it's long term where these benefits can be realized.
So from my viewpoint, the US can wave its power and say how it's going to get Mexico to build a wall, because the benefit of having Mexico as a trading ally is a lot smaller to the US and to Mexico. Understand that around 25% of the GDP of mexico comes from US trade, and around 1-2% of GDP of the US comes from Mexico. Not only that, but the US has other markets that could easily replace Mexico in sight, not to mention bring jobs back to US from that lost 1-2% to supply them to the economy instead.
Meanwhile, Mexico has absolute no wealthy market to drop its goods off to, and are completely fucked if the US stops trading with them. US trade is the main driving factor in the recent prosperity in Mexico. When Trump mentions this bargaining power difference, it's a serious thing, the US doesn't have good deals.
This is exactly what the US needs to do, it's like playing poker, either you're playing with a stupid opponent who's going to play emotionally and lose everything, or they'll cut their losses and run - i.e. renegotiate a new contract with the US, which includes paying tariffs, and other things that will make it more favorable to do business from within the US. Mexico will gladly pay these tariffs (or help pay for building a wall), because trade with the US makes sense for them. Trump doesn't have to say it in such a harsh way, because it will alienate Mexico a bit, and they might vote emotionally, which will be good for neither party. At the same time, he's telling the US citizens that we are the shit, so maybe that makes up for it, as it's a thing of national pride and strength.
and here I thought him saying "people fucking with your economy" was about Trump saying he'll make mexico pay through tariffs and whatnot and thus Mexico would take a stand even if that means an economical hit.
On September 03 2016 14:49 Slaughter wrote: ^ Maybe people don't like the idea of the US bullying weak countries in trade. The super powers have thrown their weight around and fucked enough economies through their exploitative methods of extracting wealth and leaving shit behind.
A country like China tries to squeeze out every little bit it can. Call it bullying if you will, but I think it's just normal foreign policy, or good business.
This is the difference between the social movement politics, and conservative politics discussed above. Just like how we like cheap goods from China (well moving to other Asian countries now, China is getting wealthy) are nice, and most of us turn a blind eye to it, even though people like Steve Jobs made a fortunate exploiting children.
Ignorance is bliss.
Reality is, we will either help them grow into big healthy nations where they'll take advantage of us, or we do it now, in a way that is still within our ethical compass, but still favorable to us (shouldn't use us, I'm Canadian). It's the same way that in most companies, your boss wont treat you as his equal who he will tell everything to, because he doesn't want to lose power or be replaced by you. This is the real world.
On September 03 2016 11:35 Toadesstern wrote: Am I late on this?
Mexican senator to propose anti-Trump expropriation law
A Mexican senator is proposing legislation to empower the government to retaliate if a U.S. administration led by Donald Trump inflicts expropriations or economic losses on his country to make it pay for a border wall.
Republican presidential nominee Trump has vowed to have Mexico fund the planned wall to keep out illegal immigrants if he is elected, and threatened to fund it by blocking remittances sent home by Mexicans living in the United States.
Armando Rios Piter, an opposition senator for the center-left Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD), will next week present the initiative he hopes will protect Mexicans, and highlight the risks of targeting them economically.
The plan offers a taste of the kind of tit-for-tat measures that could gain traction between the two heavily-integrated economies if Trump wins the presidency at the Nov. 8 election.
In a preliminary summary of the proposal, which also foresees giving the Senate the power to disavow international treaties when the interests of Mexico or its companies are threatened by other signatories, it states:
"In cases where the property/assets of (our) fellow citizens or companies are affected by a foreign government, as Donald Trump has threatened, the Mexican government should proportionally expropriate assets and properties of foreigners from that country on our territory."
Total remittances to Mexico from abroad - most of which come from the United States - were worth nearly $25 billion last year, according to the central bank. Bilateral trade between the two nations is worth about half a trillion dollars a year.
Trump has also threatened to tear up a trade deal with Mexico if it is not recast in the United States' favor. He met President Enrique Pena Nieto in Mexico City this week, sparking fierce criticism in Mexico of the government for hosting him.
Afterwards, Trump repeated his pledge to make Mexico foot the bill for the wall. Mexico says it will not pay.
It is yet to be established how such expropriations could work, nor is it clear what chance the bill could have of passing. The PRD and other leftist parties hold less than a quarter of the 128 seats in Mexico's Senate.
Rios Piter said his aim was to counter threats by Trump to target Mexicans in the United States and to stress that the economic welfare of both nations is at stake.
"At a time like this, it's vital for us to understand why this relationship benefits both. We're neighbors, we're friends, we're partners," he said. "He's putting (that) at risk."
The initiative also seeks to protect Mexico against unilateral changes to the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which Trump has threatened to ditch.
It's okay, it would hurt Mexico 10x as badly as the US. The bargaining chip is on the US, and Mexico can try their silly antics, but its just a bluff or an extremely stupid economic decision for them.
I really can't think of any other recent scenarios in which a country decided to do something that was considered to be economically stupid but did it anyways for emotional reasons.... oh wait Brexit
"Foreign nations are fucking with your economy to influence you politically" is a damn good reason to take an economic hit on principle to prove a point. And often the plebs understand that better than those in power.
It's a quote I very much I agree with.
It's actually a big reason of why I support Trump - the people who claim oh look Brexit was such a failure, look how the the pound dropped, etc... And only looking after the short term effects. I think everyone, Trump supporters included should understand that there will be short term costs to such hostile policy, particularly on immigration, it's long term where these benefits can be realized.
So from my viewpoint, the US can wave its power and say how it's going to get Mexico to build a wall, because the benefit of having Mexico as a trading ally is a lot smaller to the US and to Mexico. Understand that around 25% of the GDP of mexico comes from US trade, and around 1-2% of GDP of the US comes from Mexico. Not only that, but the US has other markets that could easily replace Mexico in sight, not to mention bring jobs back to US from that lost 1-2% to supply them to the economy instead.
Meanwhile, Mexico has absolute no wealthy market to drop its goods off to, and are completely fucked if the US stops trading with them. US trade is the main driving factor in the recent prosperity in Mexico. When Trump mentions this bargaining power difference, it's a serious thing, the US doesn't have good deals.
This is exactly what the US needs to do, it's like playing poker, either you're playing with a stupid opponent who's going to play emotionally and lose everything, or they'll cut their losses and run - i.e. renegotiate a new contract with the US, which includes paying tariffs, and other things that will make it more favorable to do business from within the US. Mexico will gladly pay these tariffs (or help pay for building a wall), because trade with the US makes sense for them. Trump doesn't have to say it in such a harsh way, because it will alienate Mexico a bit, and they might vote emotionally, which will be good for neither party. At the same time, he's telling the US citizens that we are the shit, so maybe that makes up for it, as it's a thing of national pride and strength.
and here I thought him saying "people fucking with your economy" was about Trump saying he'll make mexico pay through tariffs and whatnot and thus Mexico would take a stand even if that means an economical hit.
I think tariffs funding the wall, versus the Mexican government building the wall, or making a transfer payment to the US to do it, while achieving the same thing, will have very different sentimental (can't think of the right word to use here, this doesn't sound right though) value with the public. I think the tariff logic will yield a far less emotional response.
On September 03 2016 11:35 Toadesstern wrote: Am I late on this?
Mexican senator to propose anti-Trump expropriation law
A Mexican senator is proposing legislation to empower the government to retaliate if a U.S. administration led by Donald Trump inflicts expropriations or economic losses on his country to make it pay for a border wall.
Republican presidential nominee Trump has vowed to have Mexico fund the planned wall to keep out illegal immigrants if he is elected, and threatened to fund it by blocking remittances sent home by Mexicans living in the United States.
Armando Rios Piter, an opposition senator for the center-left Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD), will next week present the initiative he hopes will protect Mexicans, and highlight the risks of targeting them economically.
The plan offers a taste of the kind of tit-for-tat measures that could gain traction between the two heavily-integrated economies if Trump wins the presidency at the Nov. 8 election.
In a preliminary summary of the proposal, which also foresees giving the Senate the power to disavow international treaties when the interests of Mexico or its companies are threatened by other signatories, it states:
"In cases where the property/assets of (our) fellow citizens or companies are affected by a foreign government, as Donald Trump has threatened, the Mexican government should proportionally expropriate assets and properties of foreigners from that country on our territory."
Total remittances to Mexico from abroad - most of which come from the United States - were worth nearly $25 billion last year, according to the central bank. Bilateral trade between the two nations is worth about half a trillion dollars a year.
Trump has also threatened to tear up a trade deal with Mexico if it is not recast in the United States' favor. He met President Enrique Pena Nieto in Mexico City this week, sparking fierce criticism in Mexico of the government for hosting him.
Afterwards, Trump repeated his pledge to make Mexico foot the bill for the wall. Mexico says it will not pay.
It is yet to be established how such expropriations could work, nor is it clear what chance the bill could have of passing. The PRD and other leftist parties hold less than a quarter of the 128 seats in Mexico's Senate.
Rios Piter said his aim was to counter threats by Trump to target Mexicans in the United States and to stress that the economic welfare of both nations is at stake.
"At a time like this, it's vital for us to understand why this relationship benefits both. We're neighbors, we're friends, we're partners," he said. "He's putting (that) at risk."
The initiative also seeks to protect Mexico against unilateral changes to the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which Trump has threatened to ditch.
It's okay, it would hurt Mexico 10x as badly as the US. The bargaining chip is on the US, and Mexico can try their silly antics, but its just a bluff or an extremely stupid economic decision for them.
I really can't think of any other recent scenarios in which a country decided to do something that was considered to be economically stupid but did it anyways for emotional reasons.... oh wait Brexit
"Foreign nations are fucking with your economy to influence you politically" is a damn good reason to take an economic hit on principle to prove a point. And often the plebs understand that better than those in power.
It's a quote I very much I agree with.
It's actually a big reason of why I support Trump - the people who claim oh look Brexit was such a failure, look how the the pound dropped, etc... And only looking after the short term effects. I think everyone, Trump supporters included should understand that there will be short term costs to such hostile policy, particularly on immigration, it's long term where these benefits can be realized.
So from my viewpoint, the US can wave its power and say how it's going to get Mexico to build a wall, because the benefit of having Mexico as a trading ally is a lot smaller to the US and to Mexico. Understand that around 25% of the GDP of mexico comes from US trade, and around 1-2% of GDP of the US comes from Mexico. Not only that, but the US has other markets that could easily replace Mexico in sight, not to mention bring jobs back to US from that lost 1-2% to supply them to the economy instead.
Meanwhile, Mexico has absolute no wealthy market to drop its goods off to, and are completely fucked if the US stops trading with them. US trade is the main driving factor in the recent prosperity in Mexico. When Trump mentions this bargaining power difference, it's a serious thing, the US doesn't have good deals.
This is exactly what the US needs to do, it's like playing poker, either you're playing with a stupid opponent who's going to play emotionally and lose everything, or they'll cut their losses and run - i.e. renegotiate a new contract with the US, which includes paying tariffs, and other things that will make it more favorable to do business from within the US. Mexico will gladly pay these tariffs (or help pay for building a wall), because trade with the US makes sense for them. Trump doesn't have to say it in such a harsh way, because it will alienate Mexico a bit, and they might vote emotionally, which will be good for neither party. At the same time, he's telling the US citizens that we are the shit, so maybe that makes up for it, as it's a thing of national pride and strength.
and here I thought him saying "people fucking with your economy" was about Trump saying he'll make mexico pay through tariffs and whatnot and thus Mexico would take a stand even if that means an economical hit.
I think tariffs funding the wall, versus the Mexican government building the wall, or making a transfer payment to the US to do it, while achieving the same thing, will have very different sentimental (can't think of the right word to use here, this doesn't sound right though) value with the public. I think the tariff logic will yield a far less emotional response.
I'm pretty sure it won't lol Especially the way it's such a big topic. They know all about it.
On September 03 2016 14:49 Slaughter wrote: ^ Maybe people don't like the idea of the US bullying weak countries in trade. The super powers have thrown their weight around and fucked enough economies through their exploitative methods of extracting wealth and leaving shit behind.
A country like China tries to squeeze out every little bit it can. Call it bullying if you will, but I think it's just normal foreign policy, or good business.
This is the difference between the social movement politics, and conservative politics discussed above. Just like how we like cheap goods from China (well moving to other Asian countries now, China is getting wealthy) are nice, and most of us turn a blind eye to it, even though people like Steve Jobs made a fortunate exploiting children.
Ignorance is bliss.
Reality is, we will either help them grow into big healthy nations where they'll take advantage of us, or we do it now, in a way that is still within our ethical compass, but still favorable to us (shouldn't use us, I'm Canadian). It's the same way that in most companies, your boss wont treat you as his equal who he will tell everything to, because he doesn't want to lose power or be replaced by you. This is the real world.
What you call "good business and foreign policy" others would call exploitation and keeping third world countries "in their place" as third world.
On September 03 2016 11:35 Toadesstern wrote: Am I late on this?
Mexican senator to propose anti-Trump expropriation law
A Mexican senator is proposing legislation to empower the government to retaliate if a U.S. administration led by Donald Trump inflicts expropriations or economic losses on his country to make it pay for a border wall.
Republican presidential nominee Trump has vowed to have Mexico fund the planned wall to keep out illegal immigrants if he is elected, and threatened to fund it by blocking remittances sent home by Mexicans living in the United States.
Armando Rios Piter, an opposition senator for the center-left Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD), will next week present the initiative he hopes will protect Mexicans, and highlight the risks of targeting them economically.
The plan offers a taste of the kind of tit-for-tat measures that could gain traction between the two heavily-integrated economies if Trump wins the presidency at the Nov. 8 election.
In a preliminary summary of the proposal, which also foresees giving the Senate the power to disavow international treaties when the interests of Mexico or its companies are threatened by other signatories, it states:
"In cases where the property/assets of (our) fellow citizens or companies are affected by a foreign government, as Donald Trump has threatened, the Mexican government should proportionally expropriate assets and properties of foreigners from that country on our territory."
Total remittances to Mexico from abroad - most of which come from the United States - were worth nearly $25 billion last year, according to the central bank. Bilateral trade between the two nations is worth about half a trillion dollars a year.
Trump has also threatened to tear up a trade deal with Mexico if it is not recast in the United States' favor. He met President Enrique Pena Nieto in Mexico City this week, sparking fierce criticism in Mexico of the government for hosting him.
Afterwards, Trump repeated his pledge to make Mexico foot the bill for the wall. Mexico says it will not pay.
It is yet to be established how such expropriations could work, nor is it clear what chance the bill could have of passing. The PRD and other leftist parties hold less than a quarter of the 128 seats in Mexico's Senate.
Rios Piter said his aim was to counter threats by Trump to target Mexicans in the United States and to stress that the economic welfare of both nations is at stake.
"At a time like this, it's vital for us to understand why this relationship benefits both. We're neighbors, we're friends, we're partners," he said. "He's putting (that) at risk."
The initiative also seeks to protect Mexico against unilateral changes to the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which Trump has threatened to ditch.
It's okay, it would hurt Mexico 10x as badly as the US. The bargaining chip is on the US, and Mexico can try their silly antics, but its just a bluff or an extremely stupid economic decision for them.
I really can't think of any other recent scenarios in which a country decided to do something that was considered to be economically stupid but did it anyways for emotional reasons.... oh wait Brexit
"Foreign nations are fucking with your economy to influence you politically" is a damn good reason to take an economic hit on principle to prove a point. And often the plebs understand that better than those in power.
It's a quote I very much I agree with.
It's actually a big reason of why I support Trump - the people who claim oh look Brexit was such a failure, look how the the pound dropped, etc... And only looking after the short term effects. I think everyone, Trump supporters included should understand that there will be short term costs to such hostile policy, particularly on immigration, it's long term where these benefits can be realized.
So from my viewpoint, the US can wave its power and say how it's going to get Mexico to build a wall, because the benefit of having Mexico as a trading ally is a lot smaller to the US and to Mexico. Understand that around 25% of the GDP of mexico comes from US trade, and around 1-2% of GDP of the US comes from Mexico. Not only that, but the US has other markets that could easily replace Mexico in sight, not to mention bring jobs back to US from that lost 1-2% to supply them to the economy instead.
Meanwhile, Mexico has absolute no wealthy market to drop its goods off to, and are completely fucked if the US stops trading with them. US trade is the main driving factor in the recent prosperity in Mexico. When Trump mentions this bargaining power difference, it's a serious thing, the US doesn't have good deals.
This is exactly what the US needs to do, it's like playing poker, either you're playing with a stupid opponent who's going to play emotionally and lose everything, or they'll cut their losses and run - i.e. renegotiate a new contract with the US, which includes paying tariffs, and other things that will make it more favorable to do business from within the US. Mexico will gladly pay these tariffs (or help pay for building a wall), because trade with the US makes sense for them. Trump doesn't have to say it in such a harsh way, because it will alienate Mexico a bit, and they might vote emotionally, which will be good for neither party. At the same time, he's telling the US citizens that we are the shit, so maybe that makes up for it, as it's a thing of national pride and strength.
and here I thought him saying "people fucking with your economy" was about Trump saying he'll make mexico pay through tariffs and whatnot and thus Mexico would take a stand even if that means an economical hit.
I think tariffs funding the wall, versus the Mexican government building the wall, or making a transfer payment to the US to do it, while achieving the same thing, will have very different sentimental (can't think of the right word to use here, this doesn't sound right though) value with the public. I think the tariff logic will yield a far less emotional response.
I'm pretty sure it won't lol
Mexico would rather have its unemployment rate spike to 15%, have massive capital flight and a huge recession in favor of not paying a 10-20% tariff?
You think if the Canadian government got away with signing the TPP, and almost the same with the US, a trade deal bigger than no other, even though it has such fierce opposition here, and only 30%~ of people in Canada support it?... That the Mexico government wouldn't sign a a simple trade deal like this? I'd gladly make a wager with you that if Trump becomes president, Mexico and US trade will remain as strong as ever.
On September 03 2016 14:49 Slaughter wrote: ^ Maybe people don't like the idea of the US bullying weak countries in trade. The super powers have thrown their weight around and fucked enough economies through their exploitative methods of extracting wealth and leaving shit behind.
A country like China tries to squeeze out every little bit it can. Call it bullying if you will, but I think it's just normal foreign policy, or good business.
This is the difference between the social movement politics, and conservative politics discussed above. Just like how we like cheap goods from China (well moving to other Asian countries now, China is getting wealthy) are nice, and most of us turn a blind eye to it, even though people like Steve Jobs made a fortunate exploiting children.
Ignorance is bliss.
Reality is, we will either help them grow into big healthy nations where they'll take advantage of us, or we do it now, in a way that is still within our ethical compass, but still favorable to us (shouldn't use us, I'm Canadian). It's the same way that in most companies, your boss wont treat you as his equal who he will tell everything to, because he doesn't want to lose power or be replaced by you. This is the real world.
What you call "good business and foreign policy" others would call exploitation and keeping third world countries "in their place" as third world.
And I'd call those people overly sensitive.
We ensure the companies that we trade with (or at least attempt to), don't exploit children, follow some basic health and safety standards, etc. These countries would be far worse off if we weren't there. Think about how long it took Europe to get to where it is now, and look at the transformations the first world countries were able to create in others? Reality is, the US is helping these nations a lot.
Think about the world as a labour force, and the US as an employer. We could easily go to the person who'd work for the least, give them a couple bucks a day, and be well off. On the other hand, the US imposes a minimum wage on itself, even though it has no obligation to do so, simply because they believe ethically it's right.
People interpret this as exploitation because we aren't treating them the same way we'd treat another America. Please tell me one situation where one party has all the bargaining power, and the other has no bargaining power... When does the altruistic nature kick in? If it did, we wouldn't be wary of every large company, about what it's hiding, about having monopolies, price fixing, so on and so forth.
Take a look at the Ultimatum Game in game theory in economics and how it plays out. These past few responses have in my eyes been very naive, disillusioned, and utopian.
On September 03 2016 15:15 Toadesstern wrote: try selling that to your people as a mexican politician without people going crazy with how much they hate the man
Tariffs have always existed, they have always been the norm. I can't simply go the US to buy a car, buy it cheaper and come back. They exists in NAFTA today... Convincing people of paying tariffs, or having quotas is really not a big ask. The government will do what is best for its people, it will be throwing itself into a great depression and be faced with thousands of lawsuits if it simply tries to cut ties with the US with regards to trade, it'll never happen (or it's very very unlikely).
You do realize that Mexico is not an insignificant trade partner for the US as well, right? While heavily weighted in the US' favour, Mexico can apply enough trade pressure to enough American industries that it will be felt, especially considering the US is still on a narrow economic edge.
They don't have to counter the tariffs completely. They just have to cause enough damage that US citizens will start questioning why their bread and butter is being sacrificed to build a giant useless wall.
On September 03 2016 15:55 Incognoto wrote: What is the TPP and why is it such a big deal? having a hard time wrapping my head around this one.
It's a giant trade agreement between countries in the Pacific ocean. Biggest thing is that it would lesson some reliance on China (and in general would increase reliance on the US).
It's a rather monolithic thing, so it can't be summed up very easily, but gist of it is that there's a lot of good things in it, and a lot of bad things, and which parts are good and bad depend on who you are and where you are.
On September 03 2016 15:52 WolfintheSheep wrote: You do realize that Mexico is not an insignificant trade partner for the US as well, right? While heavily weighted in the US' favour, Mexico can apply enough trade pressure to enough American industries that it will be felt, especially considering the US is still on a narrow economic edge.
They don't have to counter the tariffs completely. They just have to cause enough damage that US citizens will start questioning why their bread and butter is being sacrificed to build a giant useless wall.
Just be clear, I hope you aren't imaging a Great Wall of China here. It would be some large fences, more outposts, more surveillance, and so on. This isn't going to be some massive stone structure or the wall in Westeros.
The saying is mostly symbolic, and I think it won't be overly hard to convince people that heightened security in this form will be difficult, given than around 50% of people support the wall depending on which poll you look at (in y/n polls). If Trump wins, more money will be spent on this issue, that is what he's saying, the exact execution, I don't know, and probably, neither does he.
I agree, Mexico has power, and that's why it wont just be Mexico pays for a wall, and boom, everything is happy now. There will be negotiations, the US likely won't get as much as it hoped, as there will be backlash by some people, so they'll start with a more extreme position, and scale it back and come to some agreement, where the US comes out better than before economically.
On September 03 2016 15:15 Toadesstern wrote: try selling that to your people as a mexican politician without people going crazy with how much they hate the man
Tariffs have always existed, they have always been the norm. I can't simply go the US to buy a car, buy it cheaper and come back. They exists in NAFTA today... Convincing people of paying tariffs, or having quotas is really not a big ask. The government will do what is best for its people, it will be throwing itself into a great depression and be faced with thousands of lawsuits if it simply tries to cut ties with the US with regards to trade, it'll never happen (or it's very very unlikely).
I would just think that at some point the US doesn't even have the advantage when we look at the bigger picture and what he wants to make much better for the US. It's not just Mexico. There's also the EU that he wants to force to pay more for NATO. I've heard some talk about tariffs on german cars (which would be tariffs on all EU cars because single market). He wants money (I'd assume) from Japan for them to get US protection. And that's just what I can think of off the top of my head right now.
I don't think that Mexico's politicians are willing to destroy their own country either but if he goes through with all that and gets some potshots back from all of these in one way or the other while they don't piss off each other that could easily turn out to be the US having the worst outcome.
All comes down to wether or not he really means all that or if that's just talk but who really knows
On September 03 2016 15:52 WolfintheSheep wrote: You do realize that Mexico is not an insignificant trade partner for the US as well, right? While heavily weighted in the US' favour, Mexico can apply enough trade pressure to enough American industries that it will be felt, especially considering the US is still on a narrow economic edge.
They don't have to counter the tariffs completely. They just have to cause enough damage that US citizens will start questioning why their bread and butter is being sacrificed to build a giant useless wall.
Just be clear, I hope you aren't imaging a Great Wall of China here. It would be some large fences, more outposts, more surveillance, and so on. This isn't going to be some massive stone structure or the wall in Westeros.
The saying is mostly symbolic, and I think it won't be overly hard to convince people that heightened security in this form will be difficult, given than around 50% of people support the wall depending on which poll you look at (in y/n polls). If Trump wins, more money will be spent on this issue, that is what he's saying, the exact execution, I don't know, and probably, neither does he.
I agree, Mexico has power, and that's why it wont just be Mexico pays for a wall, and boom, everything is happy now. There will be negotiations, the US likely won't get as much as it hoped, as there will be backlash by some people, so they'll start with a more extreme position, and scale it back and come to some agreement, where the US comes out better than before economically.
The conflicting problems here are...
1) That Trump is remotely sensible about any of the things he wants to implement.
2) Trying to secure the entire US/Mexico border is an entirely non-sensible plan.
Even if we were to assume that Trump, or people that Trump chooses, actually have the political acumen to negotiate significantly better trade deals than his predecessors, the sum of his plans still amount to getting America more money, then wasting it all on vanity projects. Doesn't have to be a giant concrete fortification, even just tripling security and facilities is a giant money pit that goes no where.
On September 03 2016 15:55 Incognoto wrote: What is the TPP and why is it such a big deal? having a hard time wrapping my head around this one.
It's a giant trade agreement between countries in the Pacific ocean. Biggest thing is that it would lesson some reliance on China (and in general would increase reliance on the US).
It's a rather monolithic thing, so it can't be summed up very easily, but gist of it is that there's a lot of good things in it, and a lot of bad things, and which parts are good and bad depend on who you are and where you are.
I thought it was relatively easy to describe the TPP as simply the updated NAFTA trade deal pyramid scheme that is designed to get cheap labour from China's Asian neighbors such as Malaysia and Vietnam etc now that China's workers are starting to get more expensive.
EPT
