Nafta Talks Left Reeling After Aggressive U.S. Proposals Land

[Hobb]

Literally not. Trade between Canada and the USA surpasses trade will all your other trading partners combined and by a lot. There is literally no way you can repurpose your trade to beat that.. Also, the idea of threatening to walk away works if:

a) You are making a new deal.
b) You are not excessively dependent of trade with your trading partner.

Neither of which is the case of Canada. Lynarii is right that Canada would rather not do anything that leave NAFTA.

Double edge sword actually, because the same is true for America, Canada is the US's second largest trade partner and Mexico it's 3rd. They can easily apply counter tariffs which would hurt the US's economy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._United_States

[Mittens]

Yeah. There is. There's a ton of trade with the USA for lumber, for instance, but China's let us know they have a demand for lumber too. And transoceanic shipping is peanuts. Same reason China's a bigger trading partner with the USA than Canada is, basically.

I'm not saying that the USA isn't an important trading partner for Canada, I'm saying if push comes to shove, we have options. They wouldn't be painless, but neither is accepting a shit deal from the USA that doesn't work for Canada.



NAFTA's still in effect. Walking away, in this case, allows the existing agreement to stand. If you want to negotiate a new agreement, then you need to provide incentive to the other parties to that agreement; if a renegotiation is good for the USA but not good for Canada and Mexico, they won't sign off. You have to make things better than the current trade agreement.

The comments about "other options" have to do with if these talks break down and the Americans decide to break NAFTA anyway, without a new, better deal to replace it.

http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/can/

That is a list of your exports. Wood is rather insignificant when compared to the rest, especially cars a sector that you lot entirely rely on the US. There kinda is no alternative for Canada that is not the US.

- - - Updated - - -

Not so much. Again, to actually make changes to the trade relationship between the US, Canada, and Mexico, the Implementation Act must be changed. That can't be done on a whim, it actually needs a degree of consensus in congress that it is unlikely to get. Too many states and lobby groups are very firmly against it being killed for 'any changes it pleases' to be easily pushed through into a bill that makes it through to become law. Obviously Canada and Mexico /want/ to try and negotiate with the US, but when the terms being put on the table are objectively worse than no deal at all, they'll deal with congress instead. Already on the Canadian side you have Trudeau and Freeland talking directly to congressmen about NAFTA, they're openly laying the groundwork for "what happens next" if the negotiations fail.

And now we are talking about very hypothetical scenarios, kinda the point I'm making. You are right in saying that these conditions are not going to stay the same, but a version of them will because certainty is preferred over the alternative scenario.

- - - Updated - - -

Double edge sword actually, because the same is true for America, Canada is the US's second largest trade partner and Mexico it's 3rd. They can easily apply counter tariffs which would hurt the US's economy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._United_States

76% of Canadas total exports are directed to the USA, compare that to the US with 19%. There is a clear imbalance in who has the upper hand here.

For Canada: http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/can/

For USA: http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/usa/

[ati87]

And as the article noted, Freeland, on Canada's end of things, has already demonstrated that she's perfectly willing to do just that, with the EU. And it worked out just fine, for Canada. The reality for Canada is that if the USA won't come to the table, we could easily refocus our trade with the EU, the UK, and China. We have other options.

Any trade deal like this has to work for BOTH parties. NAFTA did. You aren't going to get a "better deal" for Americans, because the only way to do so would be by somehow forcing Canada and Mexico to comply with American demands, against their own self-interest, when both countries could refocus trade elsewhere when confronted by a belligerent and economically hostile USA.

Just so we are clear on the whole better deal nonsense because wanting a better deal is really vague.

What does the Trump and his rabbit fanbase even think a better deal is? Because he keeps on talking about trade deficits is mostly caused by the fact that other countries around the world just have better products (german and japanse cars, korean and chinese electronics etc.)

To me it looks like the US aims for more manufacturing jobs which hardly seems like a good prospect for jobs in the future.

[Vyuvarax]

http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/can/

That is a list of your exports. Wood is rather insignificant when compared to the rest, especially cars a sector that you lot entirely rely on the US. There kinda is no alternative for Canada that is not the US.

- - - Updated - - -



And now we are talking about very hypothetical scenarios, kinda the point I'm making. You are right in saying that these conditions are not going to stay the same, but a version of them will because certainty is preferred over the alternative scenario.

- - - Updated - - -



76% of Canadas total exports are directed to the USA, compare that to the US with 19%. There is a clear imbalance in who has the upper hand here.

For Canada: http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/can/

For USA: http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/usa/

You're operating under the false assumption that, without NAFTA, Canada cannot trade with the US. That's flatly not true. Trade simply gets worse, but "worse" is not determined by trade deficits with any current country. Many foreign corporations, for example, use the US as a way to send products to Canada because of NAFTA. Without that agreement, the US loses out on a lot of foreign business.

- - - Updated - - -

Just so we are clear on the whole better deal nonsense because wanting a better deal is really vague.

What does the Trump and his rabbit fanbase even think a better deal is? Because he keeps on talking about trade deficits is mostly caused by the fact that other countries around the world just have better products (german and japanse cars, korean and chinese electronics etc.)

To me it looks like the US aims for more manufacturing jobs which hardly seems like a good prospect for jobs in the future.

They don't know what better looks like. That's partly why this is so ridiculous.

[Lynarii]

And now we are talking about very hypothetical scenarios, kinda the point I'm making. You are right in saying that these conditions are not going to stay the same, but a version of them will because certainty is preferred over the alternative scenario.

The problem is that we are not talking about a very hypothetical scenario. You even seem to acknowledge that the US stance is that it's powerful enough that it can outright harm it's allies and they should be forced to accept that without complaint. It won't happen. Yes, it would be a very big blow to the Canadian economy if NAFTA fails. It would still be /better/ than what would happen to Canada if they accepted the current US proposals.

[Mittens]

Just so we are clear on the whole better deal nonsense because wanting a better deal is really vague.

What does the Trump and his rabbit fanbase even think a better deal is? Because he keeps on talking about trade deficits is mostly caused by the fact that other countries around the world just have better products (german and japanse cars, korean and chinese electronics etc.)

To me it looks like the US aims for more manufacturing jobs which hardly seems like a good prospect for jobs in the future.

Robert Lightizer and Wilbur Ross have said multiple times that their goal is to reduce the deficit, open some trade barriers and update relevant stuff (software and tech).

More details here: https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files...Objectives.pdf

[Kiri]

And once again, we see that 'the art of the deal' is really just bullying. I mean I can see the appeal. Many Americans revel in the strength of their nation and want it on display by bullying others. But sadly, that doesn't always work in international politics. Trump will likely just end up kicking it to congress, so it can take the blame when things do not work out, just like he did with the Iran deal.

[Kujako]

They don't know what better looks like. That's partly why this is so ridiculous.

Better looks like it did after WWII, when every other country had their manufacturing infrastructure destroyed so the US was the only country producing finished goods. Too bad there's only one way to get back to that, but perhaps Trump can push NK and Iran to the tipping point.

[Hobb]

*snip*

Your assuming that things will remain the same after NAFTA is gone, which is doubtful.

Because of NAFTA, imports into Canada has increased by 165% from the US. Remove NAFTA and they could drop as they move back to their old trade partners.

U.S. goods exports to Canada in 2016 were $266.0 billion, down 5.2% ($14.6 billion) from 2015 but up 15.3% from 2006. U.S. exports to Canada are up 165% from 1993 (pre-NAFTA). U.S. exports to Canada account for 18.3% of overall U.S. exports in 2015.

https://ustr.gov/countries-regions/americas/canada

[Vyuvarax]

Your assuming that things will remain the same after NAFTA is gone, which is doubtful.

Because of NAFTA, imports into Canada has increased by 165% from the US. Remove NAFTA and they could drop as they move back to their old trade partners.



https://ustr.gov/countries-regions/americas/canada

Correct. Another false assumption is that Canada loses access to these goods at a cheap cost which is also grossly overstated.

Being the larger economy does not mean you have the best bargaining position. The US can lose a lot of foreign investment from scrapping NAFTA that trade does not reflect.

[Mittens]

Your assuming that things will remain the same after NAFTA is gone, which is doubtful.

Because of NAFTA, imports into Canada has increased by 165% from the US. Remove NAFTA and they could drop as they move back to their old trade partners.



https://ustr.gov/countries-regions/americas/canada

They kinda won't. Even pre-NAFTA the % was roughly the same.

http://wits.worldbank.org/CountryPro...ner/by-country

- - - Updated - - -

And once again, we see that 'the art of the deal' is really just bullying. I mean I can see the appeal. Many Americans revel in the strength of their nation and want it on display by bullying others. But sadly, that doesn't always work in international politics. Trump will likely just end up kicking it to congress, so it can take the blame when things do not work out, just like he did with the Iran deal.

Pusing your weight around is a common strategy that almost all nations that are able to do it do it. Its just a good strategy. The EU uses it a lot when it comes to negotiating its trade deals and making rules regarding trade .

[Edge-]

If both countries walk away from the treaty, NAFTA just ceases to exist regardless of US congress which is kinda what Trump wants anyway.

Cool, so he wants to demand unreasonable shit and then take his toys home when nobody wants to play along? And then fuck all the thousands of American businesses that will be left completely fucked when NAFTA falls apart as a result?

I must be missing the part of this were this is supposed to be good for anyone who doesn't consider success "liberal tears".

[ati87]

Robert Lightizer and Wilbur Ross have said multiple times that their goal is to reduce the deficit, open some trade barriers and update relevant stuff (software and tech).

More details here: https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files...Objectives.pdf

well clearly reducing debt is really specific!!!! Again what a joke.

Again the idea if to reduce the difference between export and import which frankly has less to do with trade deals then with shitty US export. Made in the USA was never really a selling point for most of us you know.

[jdbond592]

It's kinda funny though.. All the NAFTA haters are the ones who once made it a reality.

Unfortunately for them, automation is the real killer.

Who am I kidding, I don't care what happens to Trump voters

[Lynarii]

Pusing your weight around is a common strategy that almost all nations that are able to do it do it. Its just a good strategy. The EU uses it a lot when it comes to negotiating its trade deals and making rules regarding trade .

If one throws ones weight around for no reason other than to hurt your friends, don't be surprised when you lack friends after a while. Seriously look at some of the things the US is asking for. They want all NAFTA-eligible vehicles built in Mexico or Canada to have 50% US parts (so equal or more than their own home country), but they ALSO want to except US car companies from following that rule. They aren't even pretending that this is anything other than an attempt to levy economic sanctions against their allies. They're treating Canada and Mexico like they're Russia and North Korea.

[ati87]

Better looks like it did after WWII, when every other country had their manufacturing infrastructure destroyed so the US was the only country producing finished goods. Too bad there's only one way to get back to that, but perhaps Trump can push NK and Iran to the tipping point.

This is often forget that after WW2 the European countries in essence stopped being a world power. The Marshall Plan for example had some recruitments like ''buy from american'' so any money the US gave to Europe went directly back to the US.

Western- Europe moved away from production decades ago and now Eastern Europe as well, it's the US mostly struggling and bitching about brining back industries that are slowly dying (coal and manufacturing).

[jdbond592]

So what happens if we kill NAFTA?

[Endus]

It's kinda funny though.. All the NAFTA haters are the ones who once made it a reality.

Unfortunately for them, automation is the real killer.

Who am I kidding, I don't care what happens to Trump voters

Do you hate the loss of manufacturing jobs?

The culprit isn't NAFTA. It's automation. And those jobs are never coming back, because robots are faster and more productive and efficient than you, cost less, and won't ever quit or cause a labor dispute.

It's like coal jobs; coal stopped being affordable, even before you consider the environmental damage. That's not changing.

The solution to these issues is to 1> fund retraining/relocation programs to get these folks into new, better jobs, and 2> find new revenue streams for struggling townships. Not to try and shoehorn in legacy employment options that won't ever be affordable and aren't good for the employees anyway.

[Vyuvarax]

So what happens if we kill NAFTA?

We start at WTO trade rules and create an agreement from there I believe.

[Kujako]

So what happens if we kill NAFTA?

We can't, there are more parties involved than just us. Best we can do is drop out of it, which means everyone else keeps trading and we stop.