4 ms·

> But unless there is some kind of consensus among different countries, including those that have free trade agreements with the US (e.g. NAFTA) to change the t

> But unless there is some kind of consensus among different countries, including those that have free trade agreements with the US (e.g. NAFTA) to change the terms, it seems rather unlikely to happen anytime soon. Yes, Trump is trying to renegotiate NAFTA. Not sure the details or what he's trying to do with it. It does show it can be done though. I'm fairly suspicious of all our trade agreements. I'm sure they have a lot of US industrial influence in them and not a lot of worker influence. >Besides, I wonder how much more expensive that alone would make manufacturing in other countries. AFAIK a significant reason for labor being cheap is COL being cheaper in other countries. That's a good question. I would assume the cost of putting environmental regulations in place would be substantial, but not sure about the labor rights. What I do know is you can buy a hunk of land for real cheap in the middle of nowhere in the US as long as you don't mind: 1. No water 2. No electric 3. No sewer 4. No road 5. No nearby hospitals 6. No nearby grocery stores In other words, I think our infrastructure has a lot to do with our COL.

dragonwriter 9y ago
> Yes, Trump is trying to renegotiate NAFTA. Not sure the details or what he's trying to do with it. It does show it can be done though. No, trying to do it doesn't show it can be done.
- Clubber 9y ago
  It can be done and he is doing it. Mexico and Canada don't have to accept it though. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/07/17/trump-administration-outlines-goals-for-nafta-rewrite/?utm_term=.41f0a8799618 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/07/17/trump... http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpometer/promise/1410/renegotiate-nafta/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpometer... And I'm certainly not saying the renegotiated deal will be any better for middle America. Trump seems to be moving towards a traditional GOP pro-business at all costs stance. I'm not sure how economists can say it didn't hurt or barely hurt American workers when we have so many plants in Mexico today. This is the Perot v Gore debate on NAFTA. I think Perot was right. http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/09/02/nafta-debate-1993-al-gore-ross-perot-entire-larry-king-live.cnn http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/09/02/nafta-debate-1...
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > It can be done and he is doing it. Mexico and Canada don't have to accept it though. If Mexico and Canada don't accept it, a renegotiation has not actually been done, only attempted and failed.
    - Clubber 9y ago
      I think you are trying to mince words. Renegotiating and finalizing aren't the same thing. Just because the renegotiation failed doesn't mean there wasn't any renegotiating going on. Just because I didn't accept an offer doesn't mean I didn't negotiate. Maybe you are right, but what's your point?
      - dragonwriter 9y ago
        My point is that it is incorrect to point to Trump's effort as demonstrating anything that minimizes the upthread comment about the need for consensus among trading partners (and implying such a consensus is unlikely) to achieve the kind of change that was being discussed when that comment was offered. Since Trump's efforts to date neither render moot the need for consensus nor demonstrate that such consensus is within reach.
        Clubber 9y ago
        Doesn't the term negotiate or renegotiate imply the consensus of more than one party? As far as "can be done," meaning it is legally possible to renegotiate, which it is.
        dragonwriter 9y ago
        > Doesn't the term negotiate or renegotiate imply the consensus of more than one party? No, it implies trying to reach such a consensus, not the existence of such a consensus. The practicality of attempting to find consensus is different than that of actually finding it. > As far as "can be done," meaning it is legally possible to renegotiate, which it is. Then that was a stupid and pointless response to the comment about the need for consensus, which raised an issue of pragmatics, not legal possibility.

dragonwriter 9y ago

> Yes, Trump is trying to renegotiate NAFTA. Not sure the details or what he's trying to do with it. It does show it can be done though. No, trying to do it doesn't show it can be done.

Clubber 9y ago
It can be done and he is doing it. Mexico and Canada don't have to accept it though. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/07/17/trump-administration-outlines-goals-for-nafta-rewrite/?utm_term=.41f0a8799618 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/07/17/trump... http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpometer/promise/1410/renegotiate-nafta/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpometer... And I'm certainly not saying the renegotiated deal will be any better for middle America. Trump seems to be moving towards a traditional GOP pro-business at all costs stance. I'm not sure how economists can say it didn't hurt or barely hurt American workers when we have so many plants in Mexico today. This is the Perot v Gore debate on NAFTA. I think Perot was right. http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/09/02/nafta-debate-1993-al-gore-ross-perot-entire-larry-king-live.cnn http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/09/02/nafta-debate-1...
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > It can be done and he is doing it. Mexico and Canada don't have to accept it though. If Mexico and Canada don't accept it, a renegotiation has not actually been done, only attempted and failed.
  - Clubber 9y ago
    I think you are trying to mince words. Renegotiating and finalizing aren't the same thing. Just because the renegotiation failed doesn't mean there wasn't any renegotiating going on. Just because I didn't accept an offer doesn't mean I didn't negotiate. Maybe you are right, but what's your point?
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      My point is that it is incorrect to point to Trump's effort as demonstrating anything that minimizes the upthread comment about the need for consensus among trading partners (and implying such a consensus is unlikely) to achieve the kind of change that was being discussed when that comment was offered. Since Trump's efforts to date neither render moot the need for consensus nor demonstrate that such consensus is within reach.
      - Clubber 9y ago
        Doesn't the term negotiate or renegotiate imply the consensus of more than one party? As far as "can be done," meaning it is legally possible to renegotiate, which it is.
        dragonwriter 9y ago
        > Doesn't the term negotiate or renegotiate imply the consensus of more than one party? No, it implies trying to reach such a consensus, not the existence of such a consensus. The practicality of attempting to find consensus is different than that of actually finding it. > As far as "can be done," meaning it is legally possible to renegotiate, which it is. Then that was a stupid and pointless response to the comment about the need for consensus, which raised an issue of pragmatics, not legal possibility.