My comment #86 was a narrow one to the effect that the below table taken in isolation (first referenced in your comment #80) didn't show the complete story:
Motor vehicle parts, not including engines | $6,813 |
Automobiles | $2,999 |
Motor vehicle engines | $1,773 |
Trucks | $1,304 |
Unshaped plastics | $436 |
Motor vehicle engine parts | $403 |
Plate, sheet & strip, steel | $300 |
Air conditioning & refrigeration equipment | $287 |
Bolts, nuts & screws | $188 |
Furniture & fixtures | $176 |
By itself, the table shows tangible, desirable results of $15 billion in exports from Michigan to Canada; however, taking into account the countervailing table from the same page showing $39 billion worth of imports from Canada to Michigan:
Automobiles | $22,587 |
Trucks | $7,968 |
Motor vehicle parts, not including engines | $4,187 |
Motor vehicle engines & parts | $1,310 |
Synthetic rubber & plastics | $782 |
Crude petroleum | $763 |
Natural gas | $633 |
Basic metal products | $375 |
Aluminum, including alloys | $329 |
Plate, sheet & strip, steel | $326 |
We see that there is a large trade deficit over $20 billion by Michigan with Canada (assuming that all other "non-leading" items are in aggregate insignificant).
But to address the wider point about NAFTA that you quite rightly bring the focus back to in #113, to wit: "Unless you are arguing that, if NAFTA is repealed, Michigan will produce all of the displaced categories by itself, that argument is virtually impossible to make" it seems very clear to me that if Michigan merely produced the first item in the second list, automobiles, -- and, yes, Michigan certainly can produce automobiles as well as Canada can -- merely producing this $22 billion item would almost correct Michigan's entire trade balance with Canada.
And by just producing the next item on the second list, trucks, and shifting this $8 billion back to our side of the border -- and, yes, Michigan can produce trucks just as well as Canada -- that would entirely eliminate Michigan's trade deficit with Canada.