Dog Brothers Public Forum
January 22, 2017, 02:08:22 AM
Login with username, password and session length
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
Dog Brothers Public Forum
Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
Politics & Religion
Topic: Trade Issues: (Read 2640 times)
Re: Trade Issues, Greg Mankiw, trade 'deficits' pro and con
Reply #50 on:
December 15, 2016, 08:58:12 AM »
DDF, Thanks for your view on that.
My opinion, BOTH imports and exports are good. It is the uneven playing field that isn't. We don't have control over their playing field, but we do have considerable influence over it and that is where the tough talk and action by Trump could be very helpful.
To increase exports by making it less punitive to produce here in terms of taxes and regulations is great policy and great for income and wealth creation. But to have government curtail our right and freedom to buy anything we want from anywhere around the world (with legitimate exceptions like national security interests) is leftist, anti-freedom policy IMHO, and even our own recent leftists didn't do much of that.
A trade deficit is a symptom of things, not a central problem in itself. Imports and exports are two different phenomena that grow at different rates at different times. There is no reason they should be exactly the same. Yet when they are way out of whack, other problems arise like currency rate changes and capital flows.
Besides anti-productive policies at home, the other factor limiting our exports is that the economy sucks nearly everywhere else in the world even worse than here. We don't have any US-sized, prosperous, high growth countries to sell to. When Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan turned Britain and the US around, the rest of the world was forced to reform some of their own problems too in order to compete. Watch for that effect with Trump if our policies really do get turned around and our economy really does start moving again. We don't want IMHO to bring imports down to the size of lethargic exports; we want to grow business on all fronts for all our people who want to produce.
To put a special incentive or economic penalty on some businesses and not others in similar circumstances is a violation of equal protection under the law. Reagan did it a couple of times in temporary and emergency situations, but those were the exceptions or violations of his principles, not the engine of the growth he brought.
If Trump focuses on doubling the growth rate of the whole economy rather than micromanaging the sectors of where and how that happens, we will be far better off.
Re: Trade Issues: (TPP Trans Pacific Partnership and more)
Reply #51 on:
December 15, 2016, 05:09:20 PM »
I agree with your analysis 100%.
There is no way to compete with the 156 dollars a month they make in Vietnam, or the daily wage here in Mexico, without finding a way to stimulate their economies too, because if it comes down to dollars versus dong or pesos in terms of manufacturing, we lose. I've seen it. Key focus is getting other corrupt governments to play ball. I've seen that personally as well.
It's all a matter of perspective.
WaPo on Ford's decision to build in US
Reply #52 on:
January 04, 2017, 11:17:55 AM »
Stratfor's analysis of prospects for NAFTA
Reply #53 on:
January 04, 2017, 11:19:48 AM »
Trade Stays Intact
The North American Free Trade Agreement will remain largely intact in 2017 despite U.S. campaign promises made to the contrary in 2016. The fact of the matter is that the trade ties and supply chains of North America are so tightly bound that a sudden and dramatic reversal to an agreement such as NAFTA would contravene the interests of all its members. The United States will nonetheless renegotiate the deal, albeit gradually, to honor the campaign promises made by president-elect Donald Trump. Those talks will likely extend beyond 2017.
That is not to say the United States is without options for improving the terms of the contract. The Trump administration could increase regional content requirements for products to qualify for tariff-free export to the United States and use non-tariff barriers more selectively. Mexico will have much more at stake in the negotiations, but its imperative is far simpler. It means to leverage its low labor costs and its high number of free trade agreements to maintain as much of the status quo as possible on trade and to maintain foreign direct investment flows into domestic manufacturing. And so Mexico will have a few tools to use against the United States. Mexico could influence the Trump administration by allying with businesses and states that would be hurt by more expensive labor and goods. (As a matter of fact, it has already begun to do so.) It could, moreover, leverage intelligence cooperation on counternarcotics operations to try and shape the dialogue.
Lower investment flows that could result from the uncertainty surrounding the NAFTA negotiations could hurt Mexico in the meantime. But even this will be tempered by Mexico's proximity to the United States and its multitude of free trade agreements. Canada, with its advanced economy and high labor costs, will receive much less scrutiny. The Canadian government has indicated its willingness to take part in the NAFTA talks and will be seeking measures to protect its own manufacturing sector.
Canada could also renegotiate NAFTA's investor-state dispute settlement, which allows an investor to sue a foreign government in international arbitration without going through domestic courts. Having been challenged under the ISDS procedure, Canada will certainly want to revisit its terms, even if a business-friendly Trump Cabinet were to resist measures that undermine foreign corporate protection abroad.
The negotiations will be slow going, no matter how they play out. Many of the points up for discussion would still center on concentrating economic production in North America, where supply chain interdependencies are developing organically.
A Tighter Energy Bloc
The Trump administration will loosen regulations on domestic energy, enabling North America to more easily integrate as an energy bloc. It plans to streamline the process for federal permits on energy projects and to pull back from climate change initiatives, measures that could also provide a relative boost to the coal and nuclear power industries. They could also enable the beleaguered U.S. energy sector to rebound after a prolonged depression in the price of oil. A gradual recovery in North American production will, in turn, allow for a modest increase in global oil prices since it will take time for increased North American oil output to offset coordinated production cuts by the world's oil producers.
Canada and Mexico will meanwhile continue to make measured progress in energy integration with the United States. In Canada's case, this will include increased cross-border pipeline construction and supply integration. In Mexico's case, it will entail implementing broader energy reforms, including further liberalizing domestic energy prices and loosening Pemex's dominance in refining and distribution.
The Pinch of Low Prices
Latin American commodities exporters will continue to feel the pinch of low commodities prices in 2017. The economies of Brazil, Argentina, Chile and Colombia will begin to recover somewhat, but slow demand growth from China, low oil prices and an oversupply of agricultural commodities such as soybeans will otherwise keep exports largely depressed.
Further stunting economic growth and fiscal health is the strength of the U.S. dollar. Colombia, Brazil, and Chile have substantial dollar-denominated debt, which will become harder to repay or rollover. For Venezuela, which is already on the edge of default, heavier debt payments will increase the risk of default. For Brazil, Chile, Mexico and Argentina, more expensive debt payments amid the general commodity downturn will limit the amount governments can spend on domestic priorities.
A modest increase in global oil prices could meanwhile bring temporary relief for oil producing nations in Latin America. Even a temporary hike would be a welcome reprieve for central governments, which would then have a little more leeway in managing public finances. For Venezuela, a country already in an extreme state of economic deterioration, even a slight rise in oil prices could lower the odds that it will default on its foreign debt.
And so, faced as they are with relatively low export growth, certain Latin American countries will seek increased access to markets abroad by advancing trade agreements with nations outside the region. In light of the demise of the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the rise of new if limited NAFTA negotiations, Mexico will tentatively try to enter discussions on trade deals with Asian states, particularly with China. The countries that comprise Mercosur, or the Common Market of the South, will also continue to negotiate with the European Union on a future trade agreement, though political constraints on both sides of that dialogue could drag things out.
China Trade Shock
Reply #54 on:
January 20, 2017, 12:55:50 AM »
Please select a destination:
DBMA Martial Arts Forum
=> Martial Arts Topics
Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
=> Politics & Religion
=> Science, Culture, & Humanities
=> Espanol Discussion
Powered by SMF 1.1.21
SMF © 2015, Simple Machines