Trump’s “modern…new trade agreement” isn’t even NAFTA 2.0

Reuters/Leah Mills — edited

❝ Two months after signing the United States–Mexico–Canada Trade Agreement (USMCA) to replace the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the Trump administration has submitted to Congress a list of the changes in US law that are needed to comply with its terms. As expected, the January 29 notification reinforced the perception that what President Trump called “the largest, most significant modern and balanced trade agreement in history” requires very few changes in US law because much of the new accord replicates or closely parallels NAFTA and other recent US trade pacts…

❝ The US Trade Representative (USTR) notification, due 60 days after the pact was signed on November 30, 2018, is one of the requirements set by Congress to expedite implementing legislation for US trade agreements. The most important changes in the submission involve increased restrictions on US auto imports and decreased US barriers to farm goods shipped from Canada.

That’s it, folks. I’d suggest reading the article. There are six topics out of a meager six pages covering this “new, significant” report to Congress – as required by law. Nothing that wouldn’t have been covered by a normal update to a treaty like NAFTA. Most of which was already laid out in the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement that went into force recently – signed by Mexico and Canada and ignored by our fake president.

I’d call it NAFTA 1.1…

One thought on “Trump’s “modern…new trade agreement” isn’t even NAFTA 2.0

  1. Captain of industry says:

    “How free trade drives GM’s engines, and how the USMCA will impact it” (Fox News)
    General Motors, along with Ford Motor Co and Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV have used the 25-year-old North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) to shift work to lower-cost facilities across the continent, cutting expenses and boosting returns from the region that represents the bulk of their global profits.
    U.S. President Donald Trump now seeks to replace NAFTA with the new United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), signed by the countries’ leaders last November, which he says will boost American jobs.
    U.S. automakers have lobbied hard for the new treaty to preserve NAFTA’s effective lack of borders, and say they can work with it because it does just that.
    However, if Trump follows through on his repeated threats to pull the United States out of NAFTA if the U.S. Congress does not ratify USMCA, automakers would be forced to pay a patchwork of tariffs under World Trade Organization rules.
    That would destroy the cost advantages of their cross-border supply chains – which include U.S. companies employing American workers – and would likely force automakers to redesign their manufacturing models and find cheaper alternatives elsewhere, industry experts say.
    The uncertainty means automakers and manufacturers are holding off on key investments.
    U.S. business investments fell 3% in the third quarter and 1% in the second quarter, due to concerns over mounting trade tensions, including the issue of NAFTA and tariffs worldwide.
    “Businesses are already becoming more cautious about investments,” said Michael Gregory, head of U.S. economics at BMO Capital Markets. “If we get to the point where the administration is actively talking about tearing up NAFTA, I think that would trump any concern about China.”

    Re: “What’s good for General Motors is good for the country” See Charles Erwin Wilson

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.