Thursday, December 1, 2016

Does Trump Really Want to Roll This Back?

NAFTA is a crony trade deal. It is not free market economics. Still, it is better than no trade.

Donald Trump has stated he wants to end NAFTA and negotiate a "better" deal, implying a more protectionist anti-trade deal.

Here is Stratfor outlining what has been the result of NAFTA:



  1. While I agree that the NAFTA deal is better than no trade, I'm not so sure you want to be using Stratfor as a source for objectively quantifying anything:

    Also, from Trump's perspective and those that his protectionist policies resonate with, they could generally care less about the implications. They have no real understanding of a concept of what a comparative advantage is, nor the implications on the overall consumer. They just want high-paying jobs regardless of the efficiency or impact on the cost of the good or service.

    To me, this is the same side of the pro-minimum-wage coin. Protectionism is just another wage floor.

  2. --- Still, it is better than no trade. ---

    Trumpistas like to argue that because NAFTA does not represent pure and perfect trade, then we should not have trade at all except trade that 'protects the American worker(TM)'.

    Translation: they want Mercantilism.

    1. I don't buy that. NAFTA is a crony trade deal, we all agree. Is it possible that Trumps crony trade deal version could be better for the US than the current deal? Yes, obviously, that is possible. Could it be worse? Yup.
      Attacking a change in a trade deal from one crony deal to the next seems to me to be a big waste of time.
      This whole, "everything Trump does will be worse than what we have or what we would have had with Hillary" is really getting old. The current setup sucks, at least we have someone who MAY shake up something instead of the alternative, continue down the same path of destruction. If my train is heading for a cliff, and I have the option to take another route which MAY also lead to a cliff, or maybe a wall, I would probably take the chance with the MAY. America made the same choice.
      Can we get back to evaluating instead of these short, non-informal posts linking whatever crony establishment that can find that confirms your bias.

    2. There would be more trade if there were no "trade deals." You don't federal government documents for trade. These are bailouts and TARPS dressed in different language that have more to do with creating inter-regional institutions of governance and patent/IP cartels than "trade." PotHead-tarians need to actually research something for more than one Wenzle article before they start labeling everybody who has a different viewpoint then themselves as "trumpistas." You sound like the Marxist Cucks who say "Rapist" all day.

      NAFTA is Mercantilism. So, that would be you.

    3. Look, another idiot who thinks libertarians all sit around smoking dope and regurgitating everything RW says. If you responded to FTorres, then it's a bit odd that you both appear to be pro-free trade and yet you respond so negatively. Of course, it's hard to tell, because you appear to be struggling to put a coherent sentence together.

      The real question concerns what Trump will actually do, which neither you, FTorres or RW knows. So maybe you should calm down and wait and see....

    4. "bit odd that you...respond so negatively,"

      "Look, another idiot..."

      Lay off the Bong, then you and your pothead bro Gary Johnson can work on figuring out what Aleppo is.

      Libertarianism is NAP. No more no less. Being rude, being for gay "rights," being a nazi sympathizer for that matter, is irrelevant to the concept. Learn something.

  3. NAFTA or no trade? Brilliant false dichotomy, Robert. Yes of course, there was no trade with Mexico or Canada before NAFTA. Trade only occurs once cronyist trade agreements are made between governments.

    PS your ass is showing

  4. Renegotiating NAFTA now, after it's all been implemented, can only mean new tariffs.

    "The implementation of NAFTA on January 1, 1994 brought the immediate elimination of tariffs on more than one-half of Mexico's exports to the U.S. and more than one-third of U.S. exports to Mexico. Within 10 years of the implementation of the agreement, all U.S.-Mexico tariffs would be eliminated except for some U.S. agricultural exports to Mexico that were to be phased out within 15 years.[12]"

  5. With Trump in charge it's apparently a choice between NAFTA and greater tariffs/protectionism. So yeah I'll take NAFTA as the lesser of 2 evils.

    Maybe if Trump showed the first sign of being able to appreciate the importance of free trade and comparative advantage and the international division of labor, then I would listen to him on NAFTA, but his criticisms are always just a bunch of xenophobic nonsense like "the Mexicans/Chinese are stealing our jobs."

    1. Humor me here.
      Lets say the reason companies are moving is because of the heavy burden of regulation in the United States. Lets say Trump is able to lessen that burden and keep the companies in the United States. Did the companies in the other country actually have a REAL comparative advantage or was it artificial because of the heavily regulated market?
      I keep seeing "Trump doesn't understand comparative advantage" which very well may be true, but companies leaving due to taxes, artificially high wage floors, extremely high healthcare costs etc. can be enticed to stay by lessening the burden and lowering the opportunity cost to produce the goods. If this was the route he went to fix the American economy, wouldn't that be good for everyone, at least in the U.S.?