Nafta

Ox · Dec 2, 2018

Just saw this writ in The Fabricator Magazine.
Not sure that I have ever seen anyone mention what the plus side was ever s'posed to have been with NAFTA - even back when it was in process.
(I don't take WSJ)

I have only sat back and watched the negatives unfold that were sure to come, but now it seems moot as SE Asia has more than trumped anything that could have been lost to NAFTA, so ...

Sorry for the poor copy. I was unable to find a digi copy that I could link to, and photobucket oly hosts so big'a files.

Also - I was not able to crop it like I ust'a.

I bought Microsoft Office for this new (differn't) tower, and I ust'a use an editor in Office before, but I cannot find it now. Maybe it's not in the new Office?
Anyone know?
Maybe it can be loaded on it's own?
I found that to be very usefull and very easy to use.

--------------------------

Think Snow Eh!
Ox

dalmatiangirl61 · Dec 2, 2018

Only reason we were importing so much oil at that point in time was because it was cheaper than we could produce. IIRC it was late 80's when price of oil dropped, the weekly semi loads of oil field equipment needing repair disappeared overnight, many producing wells in Tx were capped.

ewlsey · Dec 2, 2018

You can crop it with paint. Should be free on any Gates licensed 'puter.

Can't answer on NAFTA. I've never not know a NAFTA world. My first pickup was a Ferd stamped out in Mexico. But that vehicle predated NAFTA by almost 10 years. We didn't need an agreement to outsource America's most popular vehicle.

guest · Dec 2, 2018

Ox said:
...Not sure that I have ever seen anyone mention what the plus side was ever s'posed to have been with NAFTA - even back when it was in process.

The main sales pitch then was the same as today. Expand markets for US companies.

The comparison was the European Common Market. US companies needed a "free trade" zone equivalent in size to the EU, the US alone was too small to be competitive. NAFTA was going to make foreign companies relocate to the US to get tariff-free trade in the new North American common market.

Access to Canadian and Mexican oil may have been a reason, but it was not ever said in public. Companies that support oil exploration (like Halliburton et al) were all in, I am sure- but behind closed doors.

Cheap Mexican labor was never mentioned. Car companies relocating plants to Mexico was never mentioned (they were already there, but obviously not to the same extent as today). The unions opposed it, so I guess they saw it coming, but I'm not a big union guy, so I didn't give much credence to their objections.

It was ALL about expanding the market and boosting US exports.

US aero companies would be selling more stuff to Bombardier.

It was "free trade". What good capitalist can possibly object to that?

I have to admit I was naive, I drank that kool-aid happily.

The place I worked at made tools for construction and mining. We had to pay "consultants" (bribes) to sell our products in Mexico and points south. NAFTA would fix that, because Mexico was going to reform their business practices, Lol.

We all know how it really worked out...

DDoug · Dec 2, 2018

What part of "Giant sucking sound" did any of you not understand ?

Ox · Dec 2, 2018

guest said:
The main sales pitch then was the same as today. Expand markets for US companies.

The comparison was the European Common Market. US companies needed a "free trade" zone equivalent in size to the EU, the US alone was too small to be competitive. NAFTA was going to make foreign companies relocate to the US to get tariff-free trade in the new North American common market.

Access to Canadian and Mexican oil may have been a reason, but it was not ever said in public. Companies that support oil exploration (like Halliburton et al) were all in, I am sure- but behind closed doors.

Cheap Mexican labor was never mentioned. Car companies relocating plants to Mexico was never mentioned (they were already there, but obviously not to the same extent as today). The unions opposed it, so I guess they saw it coming, but I'm not a big union guy, so I didn't give much credence to their objections.

It was ALL about expanding the market and boosting US exports.

US aero companies would be selling more stuff to Bombardier.

It was "free trade". What good capitalist can possibly object to that?

I have to admit I was naive, I drank that kool-aid happily.

The place I worked at made tools for construction and mining. We had to pay "consultants" (bribes) to sell our products in Mexico and points south. NAFTA would fix that, because Mexico was going to reform their business practices, Lol.

We all know how it really worked out...

I agree with most of that - 'cept the part about the cool-aid.
(BTW - the "cool-aid" ref just hit it's 40 year anniversary a cpl weeks ago)

-----------------

Think Snow Eh!
Ox

Ox · Dec 2, 2018

FWIW - I found that the program that I wanted was dropped in 2013, but was available as a free download.
(Like I didn't pay enough for OFFICE?)

I got it werking now.

-----------------

Think Snow Eh!
Ox

Gordon B. Clarke · Dec 2, 2018

NAFTA was probably started (as is so many other things) for a number of reasons that were good at the time. The problem always seems to be that it's easier to start up than wind down or disperse.

Off hand I can't think of anything similar (UN, NATO, EU) ending up what was originally intended. If any of those did turn out as expected then a handful of people certainly fooled the vast majority.

Miguels244 · Dec 2, 2018

Ox said:
I agree with most of that - 'cept the part about the cool-aid.
(BTW - the "cool-aid" ref just hit it's 40 year anniversary a cpl weeks ago)

-----------------

Think Snow Eh!
Ox

Shit your trap Gordon.

Ox, it’s Flavor Aid.
Flavor Aid - Wikipedia

Free trade is a good thing over all.
The problem is how to keep the gains spread out.

PeteM · Dec 2, 2018

Here's one pro / con review: NAFTA Pros and Cons: 6 Advantages and Disadvantages

The US consumer probably got cheaper goods and oil, at the cost of some jobs. The jobs might have gone anyway, given how we made financial decisions during this period. As an example, IBM was a client around the time the Thinkpad came to market. The assembly went from the US (with IBM Japan engineering) to Mexico and then from Mexico to China. Eventually IBM sold the whole franchise to a Chinese company. Neither US nor Mexican workers ultimately benefited.

Another view -- suggesting jobs that didn't go to Mexico would have ended in China:

NAFTA, 20 Years Later: Do the Benefits Outweigh the Costs? - Knowledge@Wharton

I kind of miss Ross Perot and his flip charts as a campaign pitch. The elder Bush even more. Whether you agreed with them or not, they were a stark contrast to the present. Seemed they tried to tell mostly the truth, didn't think it was all about themselves.

My view is that you want decent neighbors next door, whether it's across the street or across the border.

thermite · Dec 3, 2018

PeteM said:
Here's one pro / con review: NAFTA Pros and Cons: 6 Advantages and Disadvantages

The US consumer probably got cheaper goods and oil, at the cost of some jobs. The jobs might have gone anyway, given how we made financial decisions during this period. As an example, IBM was a client around the time the Thinkpad came to market. The assembly went from the US (with IBM Japan engineering) to Mexico and then from Mexico to China. Eventually IBM sold the whole franchise to a Chinese company. Neither US nor Mexican workers ultimately benefited.

Another view -- suggesting jobs that didn't go to Mexico would have ended in China:

NAFTA, 20 Years Later: Do the Benefits Outweigh the Costs? - Knowledge@Wharton

I kind of miss Ross Perot and his flip charts as a campaign pitch. The elder Bush even more. Whether you agreed with them or not, they were a stark contrast to the present. Seemed they tried to tell mostly the truth, didn't think it was all about themselves.

My view is that you want decent neighbors next door, whether it's across the street or across the border.

I'd say you called it fair.

Where it is headed is an open question, yet.

The replacement still has to pass all three of US, Canadian, and Mexican Congress/Parliament approvals, not just Heads-of-State agreements. Just as the original did. Not assured in either of Canada nor Mexico.

Safe bet that Pelosi will succeed at spiking it here. Won't be hard. The Ripofflickens are not 100% on-side in any case.

POTUS may have the authority to suspend it, but count on Court challenges to contest his right to abrogate it, entire. One prediction that he succeeds, we are back to status quo ante-NAFTA. Hardly a disaster, actually, but not very likely.

"OEM" NAFTA being left in place while the replacement goes into the hurt locker off the back of Congressional gridlock is probably more realistic.

"Interesting times" ensue. As usual.

Perot I never met. Interviewed with his #2 as I was leaving active duty. Wasn't impressed, went to Northrop instead.

HW I liked and respected. Hallmark of a straighter-shooting era. I miss both.
Pleased to have put an SE grin on his face one tough day. That will just have to do me.

PeteM · Dec 3, 2018

Bill -- Not sure the "new NAFTA" will get spiked. It did need updating.

What pisses some people off is Trump's style in this sort of thing. He finds some grievance needing a tweak, then blows it up into a huge mess and media circus. Finds people willing to clean up some of the mess; and declares himself the smartest, greatest, best deal-making President of all time. Lots of collateral damage for something that could and should have been handled fairly directly.

In the trade case, we've given our neighbors cause for long-held grievances and made them think twice about relying upon the US (as opposed to, say, China) as trade partners. In addition, neither the US, nor Mexico or Canada stand to gain much in the way of jobs with the current circus.

We're pretty much on course to make allies think Xi is a good guy, Putin and Trump as best bro bad guys, the US as an unreliable trade and defense partner, the dollar the currency to run away from, our treaty obligations and contracts not worth crap, the US without a moral compass with respect to the Saudis or anything else, our government unconcerned about having our finance sector living high off US debt, the country too bitterly divided to have sensible health care, the US a bad place to visit or deal with if you're not Christian fundamentalist/nationalist, the truth in anything optional, and so on.

thermite · Dec 3, 2018

PeteM said:
Bill -- Not sure the "new NAFTA" will get spiked. It did need updating.

What pisses some people off is Trump's style in this sort of thing. He finds some grievance needing a tweak, then blows it up into a huge mess. Finds people willing to clean up some of the mess; and declares himself the smartest, greatest, best deal-making President of all time. Lots of collateral damage for something that could and should have been handled fairly directly.

Yes to all that. That is why it will be spiked. To spite Trump if for no other reason. It's what the Democrats DO.

In the trade case, we've given our neighbors cause for long-held grievances and made them think twice about relying upon the US (as opposed to, say, China) as trade partners.

We're pretty much on course to make allies think Xi is a good guy, Putin and Trump as best bro bad guys, the US as an unreliable trade and defense partner, the dollar the currency to run away from, our treaty obligations not worth crap, the US without a moral compass with respect to the Saudis, unconcerned about having our finance sector living high off US debt, too partisan to have sensible health care and on and on.

That IS the reality on the ground is it not?

And Xi was already positioned as "the good guy".

Simple enough. His job is caring for China. He actually DOES his job.
No childish histrionics about it, not even a lot of waste motion nor any other resources squandered - not even good will.

Of course he comes off as the "adult in the room".

Whether one likes what it is he is being adult ABOUT is another matter altogether.
Yet he gets respect, even from staunch opponents with no love at all.

Not a bad way for ANY head of State to operate, is it? Just doing his actual JOB?

Gerald Ford go off on tangents? I don't recall any.

EmGo · Dec 3, 2018

thermite said:
Gerald Ford go off on tangents? I don't recall any.

He was too busy trying to walk and chew gum ....

thermite · Dec 3, 2018

EmanuelGoldstein said:
He was too busy trying to walk and chew gum ....

Yah think? He was right swift to lay air assets onto the Mayaquez when pirated. Didn't f**k around as that useless peanut-farmer was to prove prone to do.

So... just find out what brand of gum Ford chewed, we should fund a case of it for the current "mouth". Crazy-glue coating a fair enhancement, yah?

Greg White · Dec 3, 2018

perhaps you should chew a stick or 20 there termite?
Gw

Mcgyver · Dec 3, 2018

Ox said:
Just saw this writ in The Fabricator Magazine.
Not sure that I have ever seen anyone mention what the plus side was ever s'posed to have been with NAFTA - even back when it was in process.

it facilitates trade, an idea that is economically tried and true and goes back hundreds of years. A side bar is opening new markets, however the real benefit is taking advantage of the low cost producer which will lead to lower prices which equals a high standard of living. A simplistic example illustrating the basic principal: your country is more efficient than anyone else at say growing strawberries while someone else is the best at raising sheep. Let each do what they do best, trade strawberries for sheep, and the outcome for both is better than if each tried to raise sheep and strawberries.

You're better at both things you say? Like say the Dr who is better seeing patients than his clerk but is also faster at doing the filling? Even being faster, he still shouldn't do the filling - his economic output is higher if he spends 100% of his time with patients and has a clerk do the filing, even though he might better at both.

The only person with any economics who would not support this is the Presidents econ advisor, and he vehemently did support it until he got touched :nutter:

Mcgyver · Dec 3, 2018

PeteM said:
What pisses some people off is Trump's style in this sort of thing.

Style? He doesn't have any style!!

Reminds me of a friend of mine ended his marriage with almost the same line. "I don't think its my style". Style? STYLE?! YOU DON"T HAVE ANY STYLE"

Who says stuff like that? Well, Nick did, he was one character, man the stories.....

Ox · Dec 3, 2018

Mcgyver said:
it facilitates trade, an idea that is economically tried and true and goes back hundreds of years. A side bar is opening new markets, however the real benefit is taking advantage of the low cost producer which will lead to lower prices which equals a high standard of living. A simplistic example illustrating the basic principal: your country is more efficient than anyone else at say growing strawberries while someone else is the best at raising sheep. Let each do what they do best, trade strawberries for sheep, and the outcome for both is better than if each tried to raise sheep and strawberries.

You're better at both things you say? Like say the Dr who is better seeing patients than his clerk but is also faster at doing the filling? Even being faster, he still shouldn't do the filling - his economic output is higher if he spends 100% of his time with patients and has a clerk do the filing, even though he might better at both.

The only person with any economics who would not support this is the Presidents econ advisor, and he vehemently did support it until he got touched

Well, it seems that it was a one-way street for the most part.

[as I'm sure that you are aware] If we ship north of 48 via UPS you (we) git dinged "Duties".
But go figger, if we ship truck or US/Canada Post - none. (???)

Currently our milk is at around $12/100, while yonder I hear that it fetches about 2wice that.

Tobacco? Last I knew - quite a bit of it grew on Lakeshore Drive on the N shore of Lake Erie, but in all honesty, when I seen that was about the time that NAFTA was signed. I can't say if it's still that way, but I'd bet on it...

???

-------------------

Think Snow Eh!
Ox

Mcgyver · Dec 3, 2018

Ox said:
Well, it seems that it was a one-way street for the most part.

[as I'm sure that you are aware] If we ship north of 48 via UPS you (we) git dinged "Duties".
But go figger, if we ship truck or US/Canada Post - none. (???)

there shouldn't be any duties (pre ruckus anyway). There is sales tax (HST), that might be what you thinking. Its not duty as it applies everything we buy, here or import. (sucks right? AND we have to endure that twat trudeau)

Nafta

Diamond

Diamond

Diamond

guest

Guest

Diamond

Diamond

Diamond

Banned

Diamond

Diamond

Diamond

Diamond

Diamond

Diamond

Diamond

Titanium

Diamond

Diamond

Diamond

Diamond

Similar threads