President Trump's Fake Trade Talks

[Zippyjuan]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/phillev.../#7e9f58782749

The Trump administration is under pressure to show results with its trade policy. To date, that policy has largely consisted of attacking trade partners while issuing nebulous demands for “better” trade deals. So far, the administration has been unable to deliver a single such improved outcome.

You can tell the pressure has been mounting by the increased Republican calls for the President to “get a win” on trade. Or by trips such as that of Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross to North Dakota or Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue to New York to reassure anxious farmers who are suffering from tariff retaliation. Concerned that discontent with the damage to the farm sector could hurt Republicans in the midterms, the President’s team is promising that better times are ahead in trade.


Yet a year and a half into this presidency, with increasing levels of protection and retaliation afflicting the American economy, the promises of impending success seem ever less plausible. This is particularly true when there are no negotiations taking place.

Thus, to maintain support for the President’s approach, it was important to give the illusion of progress. This week that was done through two sets of negotiations, one with the Chinese and one with the Mexicans. Neither succeeded, but success was never likely and was never really the point.

The Chinese negotiation was with a delegation led by the vice-minister for commerce, Wang Shouwen. This was a substantially lower-ranking visit than the one by Vice Premier Liu He in May. Liu was appearing as the personal representative of Chinese President Xi Jinping and held his talks directly with Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin. The agreement they ultimately reached was subsequently discarded by the White House. It would be unusual if, on such a charged issue, sub-ministerial talks were to succeed where ministerial talks had failed. That was even more true given the broader context, in which President Trump declared at the outset that he did not anticipate much from the talks, and in which the United States applied new tariffs on $16 billion of Chinese goods in the midst of the discussions. Sure enough, the talks concluded, according to the White House, only with “exchanged views on how to achieve fairness, balance and reciprocity in the economic relationship.” In other words, nothing serious was achieved.

The Mexican talks were even more odd. They were part of a grand push to complete the year-long renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). While that agreement involves three countries, the talks are proceeding without Canada, with the promise that Canada will be brought in when it was appropriate. The talks have moved into high gear because we are coming up against a combined Mexican-American deadline. The U.S. side must, by law, give the U.S. Congress 90 days notice before it signs an agreement; Mexico’s new president takes over December 1st. That means an agreement must be concluded by the end of next week if Mexico’s outgoing President Peña Nieto is to sign it.

At one point, there were noises about a “handshake agreement” between Mexico and the United States on bilateral issues that was to be announced on August 23. Presumably Canada was to be brought in right after. Even that bilateral handshake agreement has not yet been reached and Canada remains sidelined. Talks are ongoing.

The oddity is that even had a handshake deal been reached, this would have been nowhere close to a successfully-concluded NAFTA. Beyond the difficulty of solving long-standing issues with Canada in a single week, the deadline for any NAFTA agreement to be considered before the current U.S. congress was back in May. It came and went. That means that any new NAFTA will have to be considered by the U.S. congress elected this coming November and taking office in January 2019. Not only do we do not know what provisions the next congress will demand, it is clear that powerful Democratic and Republican trade voices in the current congress – as well as key business groups– have serious objections to the administration’s NAFTA approach.

To summarize: there is no partial deal; even if there were, it would be very difficult to get to a full deal; even if there were a full deal, it could not be voted on until next year; and even if it were voted on next year, there is no indication it has the support to pass.

The Chinese and Mexican trade talks were not fake because they failed. That happens. They were fake because they never had a chance to succeed. The United States did not put forth clear or workable demands and negotiators were not empowered to strike viable deals. The Trump administration has shown great ability to stoke trade conflicts, but no ability to resolve those conflicts in any way that helps the American economy. The talks this week helped the administration continue to pretend it has a plan to set things right. And now back to our regularly scheduled tariffs.

Back in April a NAFTA deal was "due soon". https://www.porkbusiness.com/article...sees-deal-soon

President Donald Trump said talks on a revised NAFTA are “doing very nicely” as ministers from the U.S., Mexico and Canada meet in Washington to try to push for an agreement by early May.

“Nafta as you know is moving along,” Trump said in a meeting with French President Emmanuel Macron on Tuesday in Washington. “I could make a deal very quickly but I’m not sure that’s in the best interest of the United States. We’ll see what happens, but we’re doing very well.”

It was also "close" in July. https://business.financialpost.com/n...al-with-mexico

Today he yet again claims a deal is "close". https://www.reuters.com/article/us-t...-idUSKCN1LA0H0

Trump tweeted on Saturday morning that the United States’ “relationship with Mexico is getting closer by the hour. Some really good people within both the new and old government, and all working closely together....A big Trade Agreement with Mexico could be happening soon!”

NAFTA talks were originally supposed to be done by the end of 2017. They aren't even talking with Canada right now.

[Swordsmyth]

Our trade partners parasites are determined to keep robbing us blind and they have been encouraged to think that Trump will be gone soon, eventually they will realize that the free ride is over and that their best choice is to make a fair deal.

[Zippyjuan]

Our trade partners parasites are determined to keep robbing us blind and they have been encouraged to think that Trump will be gone soon, eventually they will realize that the free ride is over and that their best choice is to make a fair deal.

With trade only one side can win. If I need apples and only have oranges, I lose if I trade you an orange for an apple. You are robbing me blind.

Making threats is not a good way to try to make a deal.

[timosman]

With trade only one side can win. If I need apples and only have oranges, I lose if I trade you an orange for an apple. You are robbing me blind.

Making threats is not a good way to try to make a deal.

..he, who would negotiate deals, kind of with the skills of a community organizer maybe organizing a neighborhood tea

Can liberals make deals? https://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...als-make-deals

[Swordsmyth]

With trade only one side can win. If I need apples and only have oranges, I lose if I trade you an orange for an apple. You are robbing me blind.

That is not what Trump is saying, China is cheating us in ways that are not as simple as your mind.

Making threats is not a good way to try to make a deal.

It can be an excellent way to make a deal with thieves, if it doesn't work we will still be better off not trading with them at all.

[timosman]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018...th-mexico.html

President Trump on Monday said he plans to terminate the existing North American Free Trade Agreement, as he announced a new tentative agreement between the United States and Mexico that he described as "one of the largest trade deals ever made."

"I'll be terminating the existing deal and going into this deal," the president said in the Oval Office, calling it a "big day for trade."

But the president said Monday “we’ll see” if Canada can still be part of the trade pact, leaving open the possibility of separate agreements.

"We are starting negotiations with Canada pretty much immediately," Trump said.

Trump, sitting at the Resolute Desk, put Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto on his speaker phone as the press watched in the Oval Office. The Mexican president, speaking through a translator, congratulated the negotiators on both sides and expressed hope the United States and Canada would come to an agreement.

On Monday, Trump said he wanted to get rid of the name “NAFTA” because it has bad connotations. He said he planned to call the deal the "United States-Mexico Trade Agreement" instead.

Our relationship with Mexico is getting closer by the hour. Some really good people within both the new and old government, and all working closely together....A big Trade Agreement with Mexico could be happening soon!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 25, 2018
The United States Trade Representative called the U.S.-Mexico deal a “preliminary agreement in principle, subject to finalization and implementation.”

“They used to call it NAFTA, we are going to call it the United States-Mexico Trade Agreement, and we will get rid of the name NAFTA,” Trump said. “It has a bad connotation because the United States was hurt very badly by NAFTA.”

Trump on Monday called it "one of the largest trade deals ever made." The U.S. and Mexico have been working to resolve key differences on issues ranging from automobiles to energy.

President announces he's 'terminating' NAFTA and entering a new agreement with Mexico in 'one of the largest deals ever made'; the 'Outnumbered' panel breaks down the impact on Capitol Hill.

According to a fact sheet from the United States Trade Representative, the agreement includes new rules of origin to incentivize manufacturers to source goods and materials in North America – including requiring 75 percent of auto content be made in the United States and Mexico.

Officials in Canada, though, on Monday still expressed optimism over a deal.

“Canada is encouraged by the continued optimism shown by our negotiating partners,” a spokesman for Canada's minister of foreign affair, Chrystia Freeland, said Monday. “Progress between Mexico and the United States is a necessary requirement for any renewed NAFTA agreement.”

During the 2016 presidential campaign, Trump often railed against the trade pact as “the worst trade deal maybe ever signed anywhere.”

Trump and Peña Nieto have been working for the past five weeks to iron out their bilateral differences so Canada can rejoin the talks to update NAFTA. The U.S. and Mexico wanted to finalize an agreement this month so that it can be signed ahead of Mexican President-elect Andrés Manuel López Obrador’s inauguration in December.

One of the biggest issues on the negotiating table deals with car manufacturing jobs, as the Trump administration pushes for a deal that would boost factory employment in the U.S.

U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer and Mexican Secretary of Economy Idelfonso Guajardo were seen walked together Monday into the White House without talking to reporters. The delegation also included Jesus Seade, a World Trade Organization veteran tapped by Lopez Obrador as his future chief trade negotiator.

The U.S. on Thursday agreed to keep the 2.5 percent tariff currently applied under World Trade Organization rules if the cars are made at factories that already exist, which leaves open the possibility that automobiles that are built at new plants could face tariffs of 20 percent to 25 percent.

Trump has also signaled that he is open to negotiating trade deals with Mexico and Canada separately, while both countries have said they want to keep the three-nation trade deal that dates back to 1994.

Earlier in August, Trump threatened Canada with auto tariffs if the U.S. and Canada can't forge a deal.

"Canada must wait," Trump tweeted. "Their Tariffs and Trade Barriers are far too high. Will tax cars if we can't make a deal!"

Canada responded with a statement Friday night, saying: "Our focus is unchanged. We'll keep standing up for Canadian interests as we work toward a modernized trilateral NAFTA agreement."

Adam Austen, a spokesman for Canada's foreign minister, added: "We're glad Mexico and the U.S. continue to work out their bilateral issues. It's the only way we'll get to a deal."

[Zippyjuan]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018...th-mexico.html

Like most Trump proclamations, this one is not what it may seem. It is an "understanding" of things they want to work towards. The details remain to be worked out. They are negotiating (the only country the US is currently negotiating with) but there is no treaty yet. All that is really changed is what they are calling it.

On Monday, Trump said he wanted to get rid of the name “NAFTA” because it has bad connotations. He said he planned to call the deal the "United States-Mexico Trade Agreement" instead.

The U.S. and Mexico wanted to finalize an agreement this month so that it can be signed ahead of Mexican President-elect Andrés Manuel López Obrador’s inauguration in December.

They also wanted to finalize a deal in 2017 but still haven't done so. The major disputes at this point are automobiles and that Trump wants an "expiration date" on the agreement of five years. Nieto says Canada needs to be involved in any final treaty (which would also require the approval of Congress) and Canada is not being talked with. This is still a long ways from being a "treaty".

Take a picture. Declare victory. Worry about the details later. Just like with China, the EU and North Korea.

[Anti Federalist]

With trade only one side can win. If I need apples and only have oranges, I lose if I trade you an orange for an apple. You are robbing me blind.

Making threats is not a good way to try to make a deal.

Whoa whoa whoa what?

Show me any form of free market economist or philosopher or theory that says "only one side wins with trade".

That's just pure Marxism you spouted off there.

[Anti Federalist]

And I say good, another feather in Trump's cap.

[euphemia]

With trade only one side can win. If I need apples and only have oranges, I lose if I trade you an orange for an apple. You are robbing me blind.

Not if you need an orange and I need an apple.

[AZJoe]

[Jamesiv1]

With trade only one side can win. If I need apples and only have oranges, I lose if I trade you an orange for an apple. You are robbing me blind.

Making threats is not a good way to try to make a deal.

You might want to re-read your post. You either mis-typed or had a few too many bong hits this morning.

There are no losers in a fair trade deal. I need oranges, you need apples. I give you an apple, you give me an orange. Everybody wins so much you will get tired of winning.

[Zippyjuan]

You might want to re-read your post. You either mis-typed or had a few too many bong hits this morning.

There are no losers in a fair trade deal. I need oranges, you need apples. I give you an apple, you give me an orange. Everybody wins so much you will get tired of winning.

I was being sarcastic with the remark. Trump sees trade as a zero sum game-only one person can benefit: if I am buying more from you than you are buying from me I must be losing out on the deal. But both see a benefit or they would not trade. It might be as simple as I have more money to buy imports than you do.

[Jamesiv1]

Trump sees trade as a zero sum game-only one person can benefit.

What is your basis for that? Trump is no dummy.... He knows what fair trade is. That is what he's been saying all along, that the deals in place now are unfair and have been for a long time. Scrapping an unfair deal and signing a fair deal is a win.

[Zippyjuan]

What is your basis for that? Trump is no dummy.... He knows what fair trade is. That is what he's been saying all along, that the deals in place now are unfair and have been for a long time. Scrapping an unfair deal and signing a fair deal is a win.

Like NAFTA? Allow a few more gallons of milk to go to Canada and make Mexico pay autoworkers $16 an hour and declare victory over "the worst trade deal in history!" Any changes were very minor- the old NAFTA is still 90% or more in place. But now it is the "Greatest Deal Ever!" Declare victory, take a photo and go home. Even when little if anything is actually accomplished. It is all show.

[Jamesiv1]

Like NAFTA? Allow a few more gallons of milk to go to Canada and declare victory over "the worst trade deal in history!" Any changes were very minor- the old NAFTA is still 90% or more in place. But now it is the "Greatest Deal Ever!" Declare victory, take a photo and go home. Even when little if anything is actually accomplished. It is all show.

If it has Trump's signature on it you can bet that it is fantastic and luxurious.

It's only been 2 years. I'm going to give him time. As long as CNN, the Swamp and the leftwing libs continue hating him that's good enough for me.