Posted on 04/28/2016 4:57:07 AM PDT by expat_panama
Let me agree with Mr. Trump, and supporters, that it's a very bad idea for U.S. companies to move overseas and take those jobs elsewhere.
I have personally seen the consequences of these moves in Mexico.
You can see all of these companies in the industrial sectors of Monterrey, Queretaro, Tijuana, and other Mexican cities.
They are down there hiring Mexicans, from floor sweepers to engineers to lots of people with university degrees. They are hiring professionals from the top schools south of the border.
Again, I don't like it but what can a U.S. president really do about it? What legal authority does a U.S. president have...
...the reasons that US companies move to Mexico. This is the one that caught my attention:
Duty-free imports, tax credits & incentives: maquiladoras operate in free trade zones, enabling companies to import materials and equipment without paying taxes or duties, then re-exporting finished products.
The Mexican government also offers a variety of incentives, from capital equipment grants and help with infrastructure to real estate grants, the Aerospace Training Center in Querétaro and tax credits.
How does a U.S. president stop this? He can't unilaterally, no matter how much pressure he puts on the executives not to make the move.
Furthermore, renegotiating NAFTA would mean undoing the economic infrastructure that ties Mexico, Canada, and the U.S. It would likely mean that Congress...
...Trump is raising a lot of expectations rather than proposing solutions to fix the problem of jobs going overseas.
Again, I hate jobs going overseas as much as Trump. At the same, all I've heard so far are slogans rather than solutions. In other words, this is a lot more complicated than we've heard from Mr. Trump. d from Mr. Trump.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
When Trump slaps a tax on Ford Motor company for building their plant in Mexico..... the “good paying jobs” he might create here in this country are union jobs. They’ll be united auto worker jobs. That should help everybody don’t you know....
If you're more patriotic than most Americans --especially when it comes to money-- then you might consider sending gift donations to the U.S. Treasury. Every years millions are donated, in 2012 alone $7,749,618.27 was collected.
How you square that with any rational sense of an "Equal Protection" clause is a mystery.
Most on the thread are too busy arguing for a command economy to see the (obvious) answers you offer.
It's easier to tilt at windmills and demand more government solutions than it is to consider that government is the problem in the first place.
There you have it, in one easy lesson. For just about any "problem" or source of controversy we could name, government either is the cause or is preventing solutions.
IIRC, we fought a war over this very thing back in the 18th century, and the guys who got the ball rolling made an example out of tea. They called themselves the Sons of Liberty. We ignore them today at our own peril.
we fought a war over this very thing back in the 18th century
Indeed we did.
Funny that conservatives could be so far apart on this issue. It appears that establishing a controlling authority has become much more acceptable to a larger portion of the right than it has been in a long, long time. The left has been in lock step on this for a much longer time.
“Writing the doc is hard. Existing agreements are public record (NAFTA text here) so please tell us which section makes it one way in your view and please say what you want to be different.”
Doing so would require volumes of papers comparable to the paperwork you find in the court cases involving the trade disagreements. The NAFTA articles constitute what can be described as a target rich environment for trade inequities and lack of trade reciprocity due to the exceptions found in the agreement and the GATT and other trade agreements to which NAFTA refers and defers. Article 301.3 is only one of many such articles that set forth exceptions to the rules for Canada and Mexico.
.
There are many on FR who are here due to their social or religious conservatism, but who instinctively 'want the Government to do something'. They don't see why Government shouldn't be given all the power it wants, if it will only support their personal agendas.
The founding fathers knew better. Government must be restrained, or there is no freedom.
The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government — lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.
Patrick Henry
I believe Donald Trump represents the best chance of breaking the uniparty stranglehold on America. I'm under no illusions: he is at best a haphazard conservative. But his brand of big government would undoubtedly be smaller and cleaner than the profoundly alien kleptocracy that Obama and Shrillary have created.
But when he gets in, I hope you guys will be vigilant. I hope FR will not gleefully support a tyrannical increase in the reach and scope of Government just because Trump is in the White House.
Trump can win, and after eight years of losing we need a win. The thought of 4-8 years of Hillary is probably more than I, or the country for that matter, could survive.
Even so, your concern about the size and scope of government is warranted.
You make a good point: Big Government allows the Left to get their evil and perverse preoccupations ratified and supported by totalitarian force.
The left’s preoccupations are anti-human: they taint normal human discourse. All social conservatives will push back on them.
But not all social conservatives discern that Big Government is half the problem, as it empowers the left’s attacks on reason and humanity. They’re not all conservative in the default, political sense.
Trump is bringing a lot of people together: it’s a truism that a great many of them won’t have an instinct for restraining government. But their other instincts are profoundly right, and they will help save America.
Very late here, so goodnight to all.
Impressive posts by you Mase; glad to know you.
Enjoyed the conversation as well. Good night.
(NAFTA text here) so please tell us which section makes it one way
Article 301.3 is only one
Thanks for your response, it was fun checking it out to see how it said Mexico was exempt w/ "logs" but it had nothing about "denying access to their markets." No prob, I'm not trying to convince you of anything, I only wanted to see what you were accepting as proof.
When I joined FR in 2002, it seems like there were more “big government conservatives,” who believed that if something was a good idea ... public libraries, parental leave ... it should be mandated and/or funded by the Federal government. That was a surprise to me ... I’m from the 80s: Milton Friedman, Ronald Reagan, all that.
I think those people became fewer as the years wore on, and there was more of a small-government consensus. However, now it appears that there’s a lot of fear, at a personal level, among self-identified conservatives, and that translates into a desire to be rescued by government.
Ten years ago, that wouldn’t have been considered manly, but now, “real men” support the use of Federal government force, constitutional or not, so that they can feel safe and secure.
“it had nothing about “denying access to their markets.”
Then you failed to read and comprehend the agreement. The restrictions in access to the Mexican markets for one example are accomplished largely through the RoO (Rules of Origin) and RVC (Regional Value Content). These types of rules are responsible for limiting the ability to export Caterpillar products to Mexico at competitive pricing. You can paste the pages of the NAFTA agreement on the wall, throw darts, and hit restrictive language just about anywhere a dart lands.
That's a separate issue, though slightly connected. If collective bargaining is causing problems for your bottom line then that should be addressed by legislation. Hard to address that kind of problem when the jobs go foreign countries.
While I'm not a particular fan of unions, in a free society people can get together and negotiate their work contract. But I don't begrudge Americans trying to get the best wage they can.
“It worked wonders for the economy of Brazil. “
Shhh. Reality is to be ignored at all costs!
As the primaries stand today, I am viewing this as battle between electing a Venezuelan future (Bernie/Hillary) or a Brazilian future.
It is very sad.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.