Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Trump in Mexico City
Donald Trump just wrapped up a joint appearance with Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto in which the two men delivered speeches and answered a handful of questions. Trump read his statement in a quiet, measured manner, striking a conciliatory tone. Referring to his private meeting with Peña Nieto, he said, “We recognize and respect the right of either country to build a physical barrier or wall.” However, he added that the two men “didn’t discuss payment of the wall.”
The GOP nominee shed his talk of leaving NAFTA and suggested instead that the two nations work to improve the trade agreement. “A strong, prosperous, and vibrant Mexico is in the best interest of the United States,” Trump said. “Both of our countries will work together for mutual good and most importantly for the mutual good of our people.” He also stressed the importance of keeping manufacturing jobs in the “Northern Hemisphere,” rather than in the US exclusively.
For his part, Peña Nieto said that the closed-door meeting was “open and constructive” and added, “even though we may not agree on everything, I trust that together we’ll be able to find better prosperity.” However, he asked his northern neighbor to stop the flow of guns and illicit money into Mexico, as it fuels the nation’s violent drug cartels.
Later on Wednesday, Trump will deliver his much anticipated immigration speech in Phoenix.
Published in Foreign Policy, Immigration
I went to a Ricochet comment board on Trump fight broke out:
Don’t worry, we’ll make it up on volume…
Cheap goods, low inflation, and financing of our debt- what could go wrong? I mean, it’s not like the dollar could ever lose value, leaving the people of the United States suddenly unable to afford the imported cheap goods the country is dependent upon, or interest rates could ever rise, immediately rendering the US government insolvent without Weimar-style inflation- so yeah, everything is awesome.
I agree. Trump should say a lot more about our trade issues with the EU. But he does talk quite a bit about another issue with the EU- the unwillingness of most NATO nations to spend as much as they are supposed to on their own defense, instead expecting Americans to fight, kill, and die on their behalf.
For free.
Since I expect none of the usual suspects of the gop would offer any sort of objection to all this, any objection at all– Trump is still vastly better than the alternatives, even if he hasn’t yet objected to German merchantilism.
The actual quote is “our hemisphere” which in this context would obviously mean Western Hemisphere. Stick to honest critiques.
So do you think our government policy should aim at having a trade surplus with each nation we trade with?
Of course.
Why?
Is money worth more than the things it can be exchanged for? The idea that somehow a country has “lost” if it has a trade deficit only makes sense if you believe that money has value and the things you buy with it do not.
And for the critics of NAFTA, please educate me. What specifically does NAFTA do to keep American products out of Mexico? I understand the complaints about how the Chinese and Japanese governments put up trade barriers, but I’ve never heard of anything that Mexico does – thanks to NAFTA – that can be called trade barriers. Obviously Mexico is doing something underhanded because most Americans know that NAFTA is bad, but I’m a little behind and don’t know just what it is they are doing.
I assumed the argument was that it was a mistake for us to lower our trade barriers to keep Mexican products out of America. If we had kept tariffs and other barriers in place, it would not have been profitable for U.S. companies to relocate factories to Mexico to take advantage of cheaper labor and lower environmental and safety standards. As a result, American consumers would be forced to buy more expensive American-made goods, which in turn would support more blue-collar American jobs.
Yeah, but we had few trade barriers to Mexico before NAFTA. We charged a very small import tariff on Mexican goods. Mexico charged a substantially higher rate on American imports. NAFTA eliminated tariffs in both directions. So it’s got to be something else that neither of us are aware of, but that most other people know about.
I think we’re both overthinking it. Before NAFTA we had a trade surplus with Mexico, now we have a trade deficit. Ergo, NAFTA is a bad deal for us.
I believe “post hoc ergo propter hoc” is a valid rule of logical inference, right?
How about property ownership? A foreigner cannot own property in Mexico. The typical transaction for land in Mexico is a 99 year lease from the government. I would bet a few bucks that there are taxes charged on many American items. Being as I only go there to vacation every year for 35 years, my product knowledge is limited. So my expertise is lies in the price of booze. It’s high, but then so are its effects
OK, I had to look up what that meant. In English, I believe your point is that correlation does not equal causation. You’re right, of course. My step-father is a Trump supporter and says that NAFTA is bad and unfair. I asked how it’s unfair since the tariff is zero going both ways. He points to the trade deficit for proof. It’s not surprising that Americans, who on average are wealthier than Mexicans, would have more money to spend on goods.
I just thought maybe there’s more to NAFTA than that, that I don’t know about. I don’t want to cast aspersions by suggesting that the scores of millions of Americans who are angry about NAFTA don’t know what they’re talking about. So I’m still open to the possibility that there is a rational objection to NAFTA that I just don’t know about.
I know nothing about property laws in Mexico, so I did a search online. According to this article, Mexico’s Foreign Investment Laws began in 1973, which is well before NAFTA. The law was amended in 1993 to comply with NAFTA provisions. Did the NAFTA amendment make it better or worse, though? And it looks like the restrictions on foreigners owning property are not for the whole of Mexico. It covers land within 50 km of the coasts and 100 km of the borders.
That sounds about right, but what about booze? Getting back to the lesser issue of property rights, isn’t coastline property the most sought after by foreign individuals? If the only property foreigners can own is industrial property to build plants and employ Mexicans, I would say they are operating as they should…in the interests of the Mexican people. It’s a lesson we could learn, doncha think?
I don’t know. Is there an exception for the zero tariff policy in NAFTA when it comes to alcohol? If there is, I’m opposed to that provision.
This isn’t really a NAFTA issue, but OK. I don’t necessarily think it would be in our interest to mirror Mexico’s policy. My bias is against government regulation. I don’t want something to be regulated unless there is a very good case for it, and I don’t see any concrete harm to the American people if coastal property is owned by foreigners.
But isn’t it an example of how individual countries have different needs and their governments are obliged to exact treaties that fulfill those needs?
Correct, it just sounds cooler in Latin.
As am I, I’m waiting patiently to hear one.
I guess so. Sometimes governments make policies that are perceived as being in the country’s best interest and the policies are really just protecting certain interests, though, at the expense of others.
Japan for instance, severely restricts rice imports (unless this has changed recently). That’s great for Japanese rice farmers, not so great for Japanese rice consumers who have to pay substantially more than the global price for rice. Same for sugar in the United States. The program is sweet for sugar beet farmers, not so sweet for soda, candy, ice cream, and other manufacturers.
Japanese rice is for much better quality wise that rice from anywhere else.
This one particularly annoys me, because soda made with real sugar tastes better than soda made with high fructose corn syrup. I’ve also read some theories that the body processes fructose in a way that is especially fattening — I mean drinking lots of sugary drinks is going to make you fat regardless, but high fructose corn syrup might be even worse than ordinary sugar for our health.
This was once true, but we can buy comparable, grown in California, at a much lower price.
I disagree I live in California and have been to Japan – there is no comparison.
I lived in Japan for nearly a decade, and I know many Japanese who share my opinion. In fact their evaluations are the basis of my opinion.
Likewise – except it was my wife that lived there.
Germans like american beer. Everything far off is always better for some people.
Aside from import restrictions, “rice culture” is at the core of various land use and tax policies — a case study in the adverse effects of an over-regulated market.
is precisely the defense that Japanese protectionists use when they lobby for trade restrictions.
I agree that its stupid to have restrictions on importing rice – especially when you produce a premium product. I don’t really disagree with you on the economics, just the quality of the available products.