Let the trade wars begin!
posted at 2:35 pm on March 17, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Color me completely unsurprised by this development. The Obama administration, under pressure from the protectionist wing of the Democratic Party, reneged on a key NAFTA component regarding international trucking. In response, Mexico has slapped tariffs on American exports, and ag producers are steamed:
Mexico said Monday it will increase tariffs on about 90 U.S. products in retaliation for last week’s decision to end a pilot program that allowed some Mexican trucks to transport goods in the United States.
Economy Secretary Gerardo Ruiz Mateos said the U.S. decision violates a provision of the North American Free Trade Agreement that was supposed to have opened cross-border trucking by January 2000.
“We consider this U.S. action to be wrong, protectionist and a clear violation of the treaty,” Ruiz Mateos told reporters. “By deciding to protect their trucking industry, they have decided to affect other countries and the region.”
The measure will affect about $2.4 billion in trade involving approximately 90 agricultural and industrial products from 40 U.S. states. Ruiz Mateos said the department later this week will publish a list of the products, which he said were chosen to represent a large number of U.S. states and significant trade items.
The US has claimed that Mexican trucks lack safety equipment required for American truckers, giving them an unfair advantage. Mexico says that safety concerns are nonsense, pointing to the comparable safety records of Mexican and American truckers during the pilot program. Now, trucks will have to stop at the border and workers will have to transfer loads from Mexican to American trucks.
Why did Obama end the pilot program? For a politician as friendly to open borders as Obama and his allies are, it doesn’t make much sense — until one considers the unions. The Teamsters pressed hard to end this program to protect themselves and their union jobs. Obama’s NAFTA Dance on the campaign trail ended with Austan Goolsbee insisting that Obama remained committed to the trade pacts, but hoped to negotiate on open issues of safety and outsourcing. It looks more like Obama intended to begin abrograting key pieces of the agreement as soon as practical.
What does this mean for American jobs? The trucking jobs may be safe in the short run, but the tariffs threaten to curtail the reason for them. Kevin Brady, the ranking Republican on the trade subcommittee of the House Ways and Means Committee, says that wheat and beef exports will start drying up. In this economy, that could put some farms on the edge of bankruptcy, precipitating another land crisis on top of the burst housing bubble in the cities and suburbs. This time, few people will have the means to help through Farm Aid telethons.
Obama now says he’ll work something out with the Mexican government, but perhaps he should have done that first.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
I refer you to the broken window fallacy.
Count to 10 on March 17, 2009 at 3:33 PM
Actually the program, in practice, violates at least one other requirement for a commercial license that is valid in most states, and that is the requirement to understand english. The consideration of wages shouldn’t be over looked as well though. Truck drivers make an acceptable living, and most aren’t teamsters, but I guess were going to do to them what we did to meat packers.
What industry is safe? Tech industries are attacked by H-1B visas, manufacturing is off shored, and low skilled service work is assaulted by illegal immigration. I’m not against free trade, but I don’t believe that humans are a commodity. Cheap labor is a wage negotiation tool, and not free trade.
DFCtomm on March 17, 2009 at 3:33 PM
BTW-the only ag producers who are concerned about this are the Big Agribusiness companies & the others who use illegals for employment etc.
Us little ag guys would like a LEVEL PLAYING FIELD please.
That is all we ask for.
I dearly wish our govt would stop undercutting us home food producers, etc in favor of foreign govts.
Would be nice to be able to play a fair game for once.
I truly wish they’d start just enforcing the trade laws already on the books for once.
Sheez.
Badger40 on March 17, 2009 at 3:34 PM
By your reasoning this change to NAFTA is free to our society. The wealth of nations and societies are based on productivity and capital formation (not jobs). This change is obviously less efficient means to deliver goods; thus, productivity will decrease.
If you owned a business, by your posts I would be shocked if you do, would your try to make business the most productive it could be or produce the most jobs?
WashJeff on March 17, 2009 at 3:36 PM
That’s the solution. We should strive to have everything made abroad then we can all be patroons. That should work.
MB4 on March 17, 2009 at 3:37 PM
“DURING THE PILOT PROGRAM” it’s simple to put your best foot forward. Then once the floodgates open, all care for safety goes with the wind. If Mexican standards were considered high quality, their people would not be suffering as they are. And the same goes for the USA; don’t go with the flow of corruption.
BTW, NAFTA switched one can of worms for a case of worms. I was never a fan of NAFTA since it unfairly put American industry and workers at a disadvantage. It belonged within the progressive socialist “bipartisan”-as-RINO element that enabled the global New World Order. A conservative would not enable that. Profits were made of blood money. Old history already: union corruption does not benefit the laborers. The “labor movement” has been hijacked by the very unions claiming to protect workers rights that unions deny–ex. vote by public show, no secret ballot.
maverick muse on March 17, 2009 at 3:38 PM
I think every process to move goods to market should have an extra step or two. Maybe pass a law saying any individual company can only move goods 500 miles before it needs to be offloaded to a different one.
Maybe, on the way, those truckers can break a few windows in the towns they pass by.
Twice the stimulus!
lorien1973 on March 17, 2009 at 3:39 PM
So out of fear of future failure; you are willing to risk it?
That’s just awesome.
lorien1973 on March 17, 2009 at 3:40 PM
How about this: The reason they call them taxes is because they are taxing!
Conservatives see centralized government as a necessary evil; a limitation on freedom which should be strong, but very strictly limited to protecting our national interests and our property rights.
Liberals see the centralized government as the exact opposite. They honest-to-God believe that Washington CARES more about them than their own neighbors do — and they are convinced that ceding ever more control to a monolithic central government will protect them from those same (presumably evil) neighbors. They ask, “What is the maximum taxation our economy can possibly stand?” and then they intentionally try to exceed it — all in the name of “fairness.”
logis on March 17, 2009 at 3:40 PM
It’s amazing how quickly “fiscal cons” run right into them, isn’t it?
lorien1973 on March 17, 2009 at 3:42 PM
Thanks for the info! But, I’ve tried using logic and facts here before and it doesn’t work. And few seem to understand that we already have unregulated Mexican truckers crossing the border with potential for nefarious business that now will only increase due to Obama pulling the plug on this program. Nothing stops them from breeching the 20 mile limit and I used to see them all the time on the highway, not so much since the pilot program began.
Texas Gal on March 17, 2009 at 3:43 PM
Comment of the day.
thecountofincognito on March 17, 2009 at 3:45 PM
?
You should be weary of extrapolating marginal considerations into the non-linear regime.
Of course we can’t just sit around making nothing–but we will be best off making the things we have a comparative advantage in making.
Count to 10 on March 17, 2009 at 3:46 PM
The unions are, by definition, protectionist.
Given our own challenges, it makes sense that this is going to be a tight-walk.
AnninCA on March 17, 2009 at 3:46 PM
I understand that Canadians drive here & we drive into Canada, too.
But if Canada didn’t want us driving our goods in there, they’d have every right to stop us & say no you can’t.
We have a right to secure our border.
I’ve never thought it right that Canadians can truck here, either. In ND I see it a lot.
Bottom line, I’m not worried about Canadians, but I am worried about Mexicans. That govt is corrupt & they can’t control their own industries, people etc.
All products coming into this country should be inspected to some degree & they are often NOT.
All this ‘free trade’ nonsense is a lie.
This ‘free trade’ doesn’t much benefit us other than flooding the markets in both countries with goods that have unfair advantages/disadvantages.
Get rid of ALL the regs & then let’s see what happens.
Badger40 on March 17, 2009 at 3:46 PM
Who? What? Where?
Hey, I thought I was the fiscal con in this argument.
Count to 10 on March 17, 2009 at 3:47 PM
Bastiat gets you nowhere here.
+100
sethstorm on March 17, 2009 at 3:49 PM
That’s why the quotes. Many people like to claim they are “fiscal cons” but when it comes down to it; they are not. And that is what is frustrating here so often.
lorien1973 on March 17, 2009 at 3:49 PM
In my opinion this isn’t a free trade issue. Are we wishing to restrict any goods other than cheap labor, and potentially dangerous trucks?
DFCtomm on March 17, 2009 at 3:49 PM
I say we should start a frickin’ major round up of illegals and start deporting them by the hot truck load.
TheSitRep on March 17, 2009 at 3:50 PM
Except to the point of getting rid of every regulation, you had a good point.
We’d return to conditions not seen in centuries or seen in China today. That is, a third world country with slave labor.
sethstorm on March 17, 2009 at 3:50 PM
The very fact that they are “raising” tariffs and not instituting them makes me question how “free” this “free trade” agreement is. So they already have existing tariffs on our goods and this is considered “free trade?” Sounds more like we’re being played big time.
thecountofincognito on March 17, 2009 at 3:51 PM
I think I get it: Criminals from Mexico, okay. Truckers, not so much.
Whatever our thoughts on protectionism vs. free trade, unilateral treaty renegotiation is bad diplomacy.
jazz_piano on March 17, 2009 at 3:52 PM
And what would that be? What industry is going to allow us to keep our standard of living in the face of cheap labor pressures?
DFCtomm on March 17, 2009 at 3:53 PM
Well, okay. I get tripped up by the liberal-conservative terminology all the time, given that the true liberals of the country got stuck with the label of conservative because a) the socialist stole “Liberal”, and b) the country is traditionally liberal.
No, not socialist-liberal, conservative-liberal. (you see how hard this is?)
Count to 10 on March 17, 2009 at 3:54 PM
What ever it is.
If that question was answerable in advance, we wouldn’t need this whole free market thing and we could have everything centrally planed, couldn’t we?
Count to 10 on March 17, 2009 at 3:56 PM
You people ringing the “safety” and “trucks full of illegals” arguments aren’t paying attention to Texas Gal.
Mexican trucks cross the border all the time, and will continue to do so after this agreement is abrogated. They aren’t supposed to go more than 20 miles from the border… but unless a police officer catches them there’s no reason why they can’t go where they want. That isn’t going to change, nor should it, especially since it’s reciprocal — our trucks can go partway into Mexico to deliver loads. To repeat: abrogating the agreement doesn’t change that in any way.
Those of you who have seen trucks not meeting safety standards have probably seen the ones taking advantage of the 20-mile rule. The Mexican trucks going beyond that under the pilot program have to meet the same standards as American trucks, and (as somebody else pointed out) there’s a nice-sized business for people bringing them up to standard — not to mention actual sales of American-standard trucks to Mexico. There is, in fact, one truck manufacturer whose plant is in Mexico, but which makes trucks that meet US standards for export to the US, and there’s no reason Mexican truckers can’t buy them, too. And if you own a Dodge pickup, it was made in Mexico but meets US standards, so it isn’t impossible.
As for truckloads of illegal aliens — there are plenty of American trucking companies ready and willing to load ‘em up and move ‘em out. The name on the tags is no reason not to prosecute them.
This is a payoff to the Teamsters, neither more nor less, and those of you who have been sucked into (especially) the safety argument have been gulled by propaganda.
Regards,
Ric
warlocketx on March 17, 2009 at 3:56 PM
Good. I’m glad this was done. Why we would have trucks carrying foreign products from foreign lands into this country with no regulations or restrictions is absolutely ridiculous. We owe Mexico………..Nothing. They have done nothing for us, yet we have very likely helped keep their economy going for a lot longer than it should have thanks to all the illegals and their shipping of money back there. If there is a TRUE need to have their POS vehicles enter the states, I’m sure we could find some way to have a program where WE (not MEXICO) inspect each truck individually and give it a windhield sticker and papers saying it passes our approval and not some third world s@#$holes inspection. Of course, there would be a charge for this to help offset the cost of this inspection as well as any type of “wear and tear” on our roads. And several of you have touted the whole “free trade” concept. When we start demanding that other countries have minimum wages, OSHA, environment controls etc. that all our country’s companies must abide by, then you can call it free trade. Until then, it’s not free. Can someone here tell me why we have “trade” with a country like China, and not Cuba? I can not for the life of me see the logic behind that decision. As for Mexico, I’d love to see the restrictions they have on their manufacturing companies. I was against allowing these vehicles in when the original legislation was passed, I’m not too keen on how the messiah “pulled the rug out from under” their feet as one as already said, but I am glad it was done. And screw the unions. I think with the automobile collapse, their significance in this country is about to diminish exponentially.
rayvet on March 17, 2009 at 3:58 PM
You did what to whom?
Given this-that-and-the-other-thing that seems to be an ever dwindling number of things, too dwindling.
MB4 on March 17, 2009 at 3:58 PM
…and, as always, you have it completely backward.
Count to 10 on March 17, 2009 at 3:58 PM
Unfortunate.
Bastiat asserted that the only purpose of government is to defend the right of an individual to life, liberty, and property. From this definition, Bastiat concluded that the law cannot defend life, liberty and property if it promotes socialist policies inherently opposed to these very things. In this way, he says, the law is perverted and turned against the thing it is supposed to defend.
lorien1973 on March 17, 2009 at 4:00 PM
So that’s why our Dear Leader contemplates sending the Nat’l. Guard to the border.
locomotivebreath1901 on March 17, 2009 at 4:01 PM
Trade wars always end well just ask Hoover.
Fuquay Steve on March 17, 2009 at 4:02 PM
He has no authority. Posse Comitatus.
lorien1973 on March 17, 2009 at 4:04 PM
As you would expect, baring an concurrent expansion in the number of possible products, when the effective marketplace expands and larger populations and geographical areas are brought into the network.
Considerations on the margin, small enough to have little back reaction, will not remain accurate when extrapolated to majority considerations. Thus, the effectiveness of importing a cheap good in no way implies that it would be even more effective (or even possible) to produce nothing and import everything. As the perturbation approaches unity, the theory fails.
Count to 10 on March 17, 2009 at 4:05 PM
You don’t know but you’re sure we’ll come up with something. How about we pursue comparative advantage in finance. We will come up with new an innovative financial products, we will call them derivatives, and they will be adopted around the world. Our systems will become so advanced we will be able to increase leverage to new exciting levels of 40 to 1 or even higher. We will be able to do away with outdated regulations leftover from the 30s. We will all be bankers, and corporate lawyers, and have a helot labor force of illegal immigrants to take care of our lawns and children.
DFCtomm on March 17, 2009 at 4:08 PM
Non sequiter [sic?].
Count to 10 on March 17, 2009 at 4:11 PM
There are lots of fires brewing for the Obama team.
He will answer every problem with a speech that ends with “we inherited this problem from the previous administration”; which is Obama code talk for “we are not responsible for doing the right thing or fixing the problem correctly”
albill on March 17, 2009 at 4:13 PM
Except we’re not talking about goods. The article is about cheap people.
DFCtomm on March 17, 2009 at 4:15 PM
Except FDR fixed that problem.
sethstorm on March 17, 2009 at 4:16 PM
+1000
sethstorm on March 17, 2009 at 4:17 PM
This piece of crap is NOT a TREATY! What it is would be a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Read the damned thing.
It is an ‘agreement’ therefore does not trump our Constitution as would a’treaty.’ {oh did they try!} Our Founders are rolling in their graves with this mess. It certainly is not smart, fair, free trade. It is a tangled web of hemispheric handcuffs.
However, it is one of the main causes for such a massive migration of illegal aliens. It has helped to drain our manufacturing and ag base. It has put Americans at a disadvantage, especially with it’s provisions for a flow of ‘migration,’ among other negative provisions.
Most importantly, it destroys our Sovereignty.
Hmmmm, wonder why those RINOS worked their collective asses off helping Klinton reap this particular accomplishment?
lilspitfire on March 17, 2009 at 4:17 PM
You’re a comedian right? You have to be. You try to dazzle with jargon, and show just how smart you are and then misspell one of the terms your using to dazzle. It’s got to be satire.
DFCtomm on March 17, 2009 at 4:19 PM
How far can Obama sink?
All the way to the bottom if he’s not stopped.
originalpechanga on March 17, 2009 at 4:19 PM
I was amazed the Democrats kept up the “Bush is the cause of all evil in the world” platform all the way through the last election.
I was a tiny bit more amazed that it actually WORKED, even though Bush wasn’t involved in the race.
But, seriously, how much longer can this go on? Two more years; four more…? I just don’t see it.
But then, I’ve been wrong before.
logis on March 17, 2009 at 4:20 PM
Labor is a good.
Count to 10 on March 17, 2009 at 4:26 PM
No, I’m a terrible speller with an automatic spell checker. Firefox said the word was misspelled, and I couldn’t get it to suggest the right word.
As for the big words–well, that was a bit tongue in cheek, but I was really just applying physics terms to economics (seriously, it could use it).
Count to 10 on March 17, 2009 at 4:29 PM
Except FDR fixed that problem.
sethstorm on March 17, 2009 at 4:16 PM
You are not serious are you? FDRs policies made the depression great in order to change forever the make-up of the economy and society (hello big brother). The dems today are living examples of the offspring – dependent, finger pointing, equal outcomes for thee but not me elitists. Class warfare lives forever.
Fuquay Steve on March 17, 2009 at 4:31 PM
No, I don’t believe he did.
Hint: the depression didn’t end until well after FDR, um, left office.
Count to 10 on March 17, 2009 at 4:31 PM
…and Reagan helped kill our nation. That was done by his administration helping to sell our nation away from our citizens part and parcel.
Never mind that he also signed an amnesty bill in 1986.
sethstorm on March 17, 2009 at 4:34 PM
Mexican trucks are already killing Americans, on Mexican roads.
I say send Mexico the bill for all the medical, food assistance, rent assistance that their citizens, known as illegal aliens in our country, cost the American Taxpayer.
HornetSting on March 17, 2009 at 4:43 PM
…
You need help.
Count to 10 on March 17, 2009 at 4:44 PM
Seconded.
thecountofincognito on March 17, 2009 at 4:46 PM
Interesting, Mexican illegals to become Democrat voters by the million that change the core dynamics of America at nearly every level?
Oh hell yes come on in!
Mexican trucks?
Oh hell no!
Both should be severely limited.
Speakup on March 17, 2009 at 4:49 PM
Both should be chased back across the border, with millions of angry American taxpayers behind them with pitchforks. Next stop, Washington, D.C.
Let it begin.
HornetSting on March 17, 2009 at 4:52 PM
Speakup on March 17, 2009 at 4:49 PM
Democrat Politician: Welcome to the country. Vote for us and the government will pay for all of your bills.
Republican Politician: Welcome to the country. Vote for us and the government will pay for some of your bills.
Republican Politician Number 2: Hey, technically that guy isn’t allowed to vote…
GOP Meeting: Damnit Number 2! You’re costing us the illegal immigrant vote with that hateful rhetoric!
thecountofincognito on March 17, 2009 at 4:54 PM
Mexican trucks, as stated in the NAFTA provisions, are not required to pass the same safety requirements as U.S. truckers.
Johan Klaus on March 17, 2009 at 4:55 PM
Just like your man Obama is doing.
Johan Klaus on March 17, 2009 at 4:59 PM
I thought that issue was settled in the Civil War. Snarking aside I can’t agree with viewing people as a commodity, so I guess we’re done, and I have to go put on something green and consume mass quantities of beer.
DFCtomm on March 17, 2009 at 5:02 PM
Honestly, Mexicans aren’t known for being peaceful in matters of protest.
There had not been a vacation my wife and I had taken to Mexico where Mexicans weren’t protesting or striking against something. And I’m going back to our vacations beginning in 1996.
As for the violence… I expect to see anger taken out at the border, my Texas border.
But don’t worry. We’ll handle it. Oh, yes. We’ll handle it.
madmonkphotog on March 17, 2009 at 5:06 PM
I actually like the mexican people
but they have to clean up their own house first..
So they can go ahead and do a blockade..
PLEASE
Close the damn border
Keep all of the mexicans at home
PLEASE..?
jcila on March 17, 2009 at 5:07 PM
I live near El Paso, Texas, aka: Mexico North, and I see the trucks coming over from Juarez, Mexico. They are from the 70’s, shaky, scary, and you have to wonder what is in the back of them as they barrel down I-10 for destination unknown.
I really don’t want the rest of America to have to wonder the same thing. We have enough problems already with their illegal citizens.
IE: Minnesota bus crash, hit by illegal alien, kills 4 children.
HornetSting on March 17, 2009 at 5:09 PM
Maybe once the trucks are empty here, we can fill them with troops and invade Mexico. The problem is, I’m not sure how sarcastic I’m being right now. Mexico is not a good neighbor to the US, and until they get their act together, why should we give them favorable treatment over the rest of the world.
TimothyJ on March 17, 2009 at 5:16 PM
That is where I agree completely.
sethstorm on March 17, 2009 at 5:20 PM
I have no problem with that.
sethstorm on March 17, 2009 at 5:21 PM
and Reagan helped kill our nation. That was done by his administration helping to sell our nation away from our citizens part and parcel.
Never mind that he also signed an amnesty bill in 1986.
sethstorm on March 17, 2009 at 4:34 PM
your right when Reagan signed NAFTA oh wait a minute it was Clinton that signed Nafta nevermind
unseen on March 17, 2009 at 5:34 PM
This is egregious, this is insidious, don’t these Mexicans know that opposing Obama is Racist! I swear these people don’t know who they are messing with. Obama is from the mean steets of Hawaii and they might force him to start talking tough!
Why can’t all you people out there including Mexico, Russia, Cuba, and China, just stop the Racism and love Obama. After all I think that man has been beaten enough, I have a theory of how Michelle Obama’s arms have become so toned. This is unproven, but I think she beats her husband, remember the argument over the dog on television!
Think about it!
Africanus on March 17, 2009 at 5:36 PM
At the force of a Republican-leaning Congress about to take a Contract On America.
sethstorm on March 17, 2009 at 5:37 PM
BTW, anyone check Michelle’s blog….Hispanic Democrats will have dear leader’s ear tomorrow morning to talk immigration reform. Sounds like we need to crash the system before it even starts.
HornetSting on March 17, 2009 at 5:43 PM
sethstorm on March 17, 2009 at 5:37 PM
Clinton campaigned on supporting NAFTA, with a Democrat majority in congress at the time and for over two years after. The only one opposing it was Perot.
thecountofincognito on March 17, 2009 at 6:12 PM
At least Perot can’t be said to be Anti-American for making his stand.
sethstorm on March 17, 2009 at 6:27 PM
Well our Commerce Secretary will jump in to fix this problem. Oh wait, President Obama still does not have that position filled. :-)
JeffinSac on March 17, 2009 at 6:31 PM
That’s ok, folks. Obambi has much bigger fish to fry: he wants to screw our trade relationship with China and really tank the world economy.
From today’s Sydney Morning Herald comes this headline: US may penalise imports from carbon free-riders
MMM, I love the smell of Smoot-Hawley in the morning!!!
/SIGH
Wanderlust on March 17, 2009 at 6:35 PM
At the force of a Republican-leaning Congress about to take a Contract On America.
sethstorm on March 17, 2009 at 5:37 PM
LOL….Nafta was Clinton all Clinton all the way. Face it the democrat burned you. Now 9/10 a rep would have signed it also but the fact that a dem like Clinton signed Nfata just gives me a warm fuzzy feeling. at least the reps say they support free trade but a dem pres signing the most sweeping free trade pact ever? that is just rich beyond words..
unseen on March 17, 2009 at 6:44 PM
I have no idea what you are talking about and I don’t think you do either.
Cheshire Cat on March 17, 2009 at 6:53 PM
“Count to 10″ is an admirer of Sid Caesar, me thinks.
In “The Professor”, Caesar was the daffy expert, a Germanic expert scientist in everything and nothing, who bluffed his way through his interviews with earnest roving reporter Carl Reiner. In its various incarnations, “The Professor” could be Gut von Fraidykat (mountain-climbing expert), Ludwig von Spacebrain (space expert), or Ludwig von Henpecked (marriage expert).
Cheshire Cat on March 17, 2009 at 7:17 PM
Allow the program and carefully inspect the trucks and I’m happy.
Anyways, just how many trucks are we talking about here?
Zetterson on March 17, 2009 at 7:21 PM
I have absolutely no idea what count to 10 was talking about at 4:05pm
Zetterson on March 17, 2009 at 7:24 PM
When this was all brewing and Bush allowed the trucks in, the true Conservatives said NO! I still say NO, don’t let the free loaders in! This is a conservative issue that everyone in the Republican primary was against except Juan McCain. This is the correct decision. Unfortunatley, I think Obama will back down.
livermush on March 17, 2009 at 8:04 PM
where’s VINNY FOX???
I want to join the winning side!!
VIVA LA RAZA!!
right4life on March 17, 2009 at 10:15 PM
No problem. It just means that there will be more motive to manufacture here with domestic businesses instead of over there.
sethstorm on March 17, 2009 at 10:27 PM
Mexico can fuck themselves
all this bs over trade issues while we absorb 100s of thousand illegals with absolutely nothing but mexican gov guide books for the invaders to increase their odds of surviving the journey and instructions to the nearest commie lawyer.
Its hard for me to consider civil issues as our country is being pilfered.
Sonosam on March 18, 2009 at 12:46 AM
This whole thing came up during the Bush administration. I think it may have even come up during the Clinton administration. It’s that “Free Trade” part of the North American Free Trade Agreement. Once you stop allowing free trade, your trading partners stop allowing free trade.
There’s always some special interest group out there who wants to throw out the part of free trade that costs them money. They can’t be given the veto.
Free trade works. Restricted trade provokes reactions from the nations you restrict trade with, and shoots everybody in the foot just to protect some small group with political clout.
ThereGoesTheNeighborhood on March 18, 2009 at 1:03 AM
What products does ending this program restrict? What tariffs have been increased? What exactly is being restricted except the access of foreign nationals.
DFCtomm on March 18, 2009 at 11:25 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2