Britain may join USA, Canada and Mexico in new free trade area after Brexit

Trump should do this as a priority - give Merkel and the EU fascists the finger

"Chief of Staff much more likely for Newt"

My choice - his brain is needed right at the top - daily

“first proposed nearly 20 years ago by US senator Newt Gingrich”

Newt = senator? Bodes I’ll for credibility of rest of article.

The point is, we don’t want lopsided trade.

We want healthy trade, where the other nation will buy our goods too. That way we won’t have to slice jobs here for the trade.

I’m sure Bush x 3, McCain, Romney, the DC lobbyists, can give many reasons why this is not a great idea.

Therefore it probably IS a great idea.

We want healthy trade, where the other nation will buy our goods too...

Of course, but don't forget that although we have a $60B trade deficit with Mexico they still bought $240B of our goods last year.

That's a lot of jobs.

China has added over 40 million manufacturing jobs in the last 15 years while we’ve lost 6 million. Most of the lost jobs can, and will, come back. We barely export anything to China - most of what we do export is just raw product that is finished in China and shipped back to the US. Mexican trade is a bit trickier as our trade deficit with them isn’t nearly as bad in aggregate dollars or % of total trade.

What it means is that we have a lopsided trade with them.

Spin it any way you like, $60 billion dollars was sent to Mexico with no balance.

Could your town use $60 billion dollars more economic activity? Could it use the $300 billion dollars provided by the multiplier effect?

Every deficit like this contributes to libraries, schools, and infrastructure taking it in the shorts.

We wonder why we don’t have money for infrastructure, and gleefully send off around $500 to $600 billion dollars outside our borders.

Think of the multiplier effect in dollars that represents to our economy. That’s around $3 trillion dollars. YEARLY!

Spin it any way you like, $60 billion dollars was sent to Mexico with no balance.

Not accurate. We received $60B in goods for that money - we didn't just send it to them for no good reason.

Sure, my town could use $60B more economic activity but presumably we would also have to pay more for the goods that were produced than if we imported them.

We wonder why we don’t have money for infrastructure, and gleefully send off around $500 to $600 billion dollars outside our borders.

And we get TVs, cars, computers wine etc, in return. How does it help us if we have to spend more for those same goods produced here?

That's actually less money in every consumer's pocket that could be spent on other goods or services.

You don’t take the full economic picture into account.

You’re so focused on that cheaper television set, that you don’t see your jobless neighbors standing behind it.

Our nation is going into debt at a rate of several trillion dollars a year, and you think the cost of your television set is the priority.

We have 90 million able bodied people out of work. Is that worth you being able to buy a cheaper television set?

If those 90 million people were put to work here, it would generate trillions more in their income, the government’s income, and also reduce a massive amount of government programs to support them.

Somehow we survived buying things from other Americans up until the early 1990s, and we were the biggest economic superpower on the face of the earth.

Today China is fast becoming the biggest economic superpower on the face of planet earth.

China has modernized in ways the common man doesn’t fully grasp. They have been gifted with our patent database, because every time a business wants to manufacture in China, the government demands to have full access to their processes. PATENTS

We gifted China half a century’s research and development secrets. China didn’t have to lift a single finger to research and develop any of what we gave it. We just handed it over.

With the income from manufacturing, the standard of the Chinese rose significantly as our standards have leveled off and declined.

Their infrastructure was upgraded to 20th and now 21st century status. Their cities look fresh and new. They have super-trains, a space program, and the world’s fastest computer. We gifted them the major building blocks to do all this.

As this takes place, they are also upgrading their military while ours decays. Just as folks didn’t realize how fast their economic turn around would take place, the military turn around is going to rise up and shock people.

We are financing all this. R & D is transferring to China. We are becoming an also ran nation, based on your cheaper TV.

You really do need to think deeper on this issue.

The US represents 4.35% of the world’s potential consumers, and our population is growing at a slower rate.

Sure, we can trade with ourselves and watch our standard of living decline as we pay more for goods than necessary, but a more rational strategy is to produce goods and services that the rest of the world needs and out-compete the rest of the world. That would be making America great.

I’m not afraid of our ability to compete and I don’t want to hide behind government-imposed trade barriers.

We sell $2T in goods and services to the rest of the world each year. How many good US jobs do you think that represents?

What’s your plan for employing all of those people when you halt trade via tariffs or whatever protectionist mechanism you propose.

Your fundamental misunderstand seems to be that you think trade is a zero-sum game. It isn’t. It truly can be beneficial for both partners.

The US represents 4.35% of the world’s potential consumers, and our population is growing at a slower rate.

Irrelevant.

Sure, we can trade with ourselves and watch our standard of living decline as we pay more for goods than necessary,...

You have just described an outcome for buying from ourselves, that is clearly the result of our current failed trade policy. Hello!!!! Where did you come up with this slop?

...but a more rational strategy is to produce goods and services that the rest of the world needs and out-compete the rest of the world. That would be making America great.

We will never attain trade balance with nations whose populace have wages on an order of magnitude lower than our own. One wonders why you think we started buying everything from China. Was it because you think thier standard of living was higher than ours at the start?

I and others have never advocated stopping all foreign trade. We have advocated for maintaining trade with societies that have roughly the same standard of living, the same pay scales.

I’m not afraid of our ability to compete and I don’t want to hide behind government-imposed trade barriers.

So, how has that worked out for us? Ohhhhh, that's right, IT HASN'T!!! We have been devistated in the ability to employ our people, and your biggest fear is that the federal government might start doing it's job properly.

We sell $2T in goods and services to the rest of the world each year. How many good US jobs do you think that represents?

Irrelevant > What we are doing isn't working. We have 90 million people out of work, and the serious problems I mentioned earlier. I at not time suggested we should stop trade, and what's more you damn well know it.

Lopsided trade with nation's like China is not beneficial to us. PERIOD! What's more, on some level you know this. Quit trying to twist things so you can make a point. They fail every time you try it.

What’s your plan for employing all of those people when you halt trade via tariffs or whatever protectionist mechanism you propose.

I never said we had to halt all trade did I. This is a contrivance you had to invent on your own to try to have something to respond with. FAIL!

Your fundamental misunderstand seems to be that you think trade is a zero-sum game. It isn’t. It truly can be beneficial for both partners.

But it hasn't been in certain instances and that needs to stop, whether you like it or not. We have 90 million people out of work, and you're still waiting for the blessings to kick in.

Just how many trillion do you think is enough government debt, before we put people back to work, increase government receipts, and pay the damned thing off?.

..the danger of any globalist-like action is that at some point there is a sacrifice of sovereignty—JMO...

We have 90 million people out of work, and you're still waiting for the blessings to kick in.

You keep using that number but it consists mostly of retirees, students and other people who aren't looking for a job.

If we create a bunch of new jobs do you really think these retirees are going to go back to work.

You think it's irrelevant that we have millions of people producing goods for export. I guess that's because you have a unrealistic notion of what happens when we impose trade barriers.

You want to eliminate two of our three largest trade partners (China and Mexico) yet pretend it won't affect the US citizens producing those trade goods.

It must be nice to live in a world where actions don't have consequences.

We have 90 million people out of work, and you're still waiting for the blessings to kick in.

You keep using that number but it consists mostly of retirees, students and other people who aren't looking for a job.

Okay, then you come up with a number. I have. I pegged it at 90 million. I'm not the only one doing so. I have done studies using government statistics that reveal we were at least 42 million under where we should be as it relates to employable people today. I'll guarantee you that is irrefutable. Starting with George Bush, our creation of new jobs absoltutly stopped dead in it's tracks. Under his leaderhsip, there was barely 1% job growth in 8 years. In his first term there was 0.07% growth and in his second there was 0.95%. He had the first drop in actually employment numbers year to year since the Great Depression He wound up with 1.02% job growth in eight years. In the previous 40 years, job grown had averaged 19.79% in eight years. In eight it had averaged 9.54. In case you want to head in the direction of Clinton having started the decline, during Clinton's term in office, jobs grew by 20.86%. Trade which kicked into high gear near the end of the 20th century, devistated our job creation here.

In the twelve years ending in 2001 when Bush took over, there had been 23.3% job grown. In the next twelve years there was 1.93% job growth.

Jobs created in the twelve years ending in 2001, were 25,536. Jobs created in next 12 years, 2,561,000.

Using tradional growth patterns over the last 40 years, we find that by 2015 we should have had 182,718.000 jobs. We had 140,263,000. We were 42.45 million jobs under water even then.

If we create a bunch of new jobs do you really think these retirees are going to go back to work.

You are certainly desperate to come up with something worthy of reporting. What you didn't take into consideration is that many people were devistated in the 2008-12 time frame. Some of them are still trying to dig out. If you think no retiree aged folks are intested in working, you're even more clueless than I thought. That means that you can add hundreds of thousands if not into the millions of those folks who each year will be willing to work.

You think it's irrelevant that we have millions of people producing goods for export. I guess that's because you have a unrealistic notion of what happens when we impose trade barriers.

It's irrelevant because I never stated those jobs should be cast off. You made an idiotic assumption there was no basis for. We sell almost nothing in China. If we ask them to quit manipulating their currencey, how many jobs do we lose? Here's that figure for you. 0 That's zero. We level the playing field. We get our people back to work.

IRRELEVANT!

You want to eliminate two of our three largest trade partners (China and Mexico) yet pretend it won't affect the US citizens producing those trade goods.

Either you are simply not knowledgable on these matters, or you are here for purely propagandist goals. Either way it isn't fattering to you.

Manufacturinng overseas that desimates our industries is destructive. We continue to conduct trade where it doesn't kill our jobs. When it does, levey tariffs. I don't need to go into the history of tariffs, remind you that other nations charge them, and that it is the duty of our federal government to institute them as the circumstances merit. You either know all that, or it wouldn't help to tell you.

It must be nice to live in a world where actions don't have consequences.

Like enjoying your new big-screen while your neighbors can't find work to pay for food our housing?

Yes it must be.

Okay, then you come up with a number.

Instead of me, how about the BLS.

In October there were 94.6M civilian, non-institutionalized people over the age of 16 not in the workforce. This of course includes students and retirees. Of these, BLS says 7.8M are unemployed and actively looking for work.

In addition, there were 5.9M part timers who would have preferred to be full time, and 1.7M more who aren't actively looking for work but could work and have looked in the last 12 months.

That's 15.4M using a very generous accounting.

It's nowhere near 90M but feel free to use the data to come up with an argument.

We sell almost nothing in China.

We sold $161B in goods and services to China in 2015, and China has been the fastest growing export market for the US.

We also exported $236B to Mexico. That's $400B to two countries you want to shut off. That's US jobs and that's a reality you refuse to confront.

It's irrelevant because I never stated those jobs should be cast off.

True, you just think we can keep their goods out and that they will continue to buy ours.

Magical thinking.