It’s something both Republicans and Democrats tend to agree on: the North American Free Trade Agreement needs to be updated and modified for the 21st century. The first round of NAFTA renegotiation discussions ended this past Sunday, but not much progress was made by the United States, Canada and Mexico.
The Detroit News reports U.S. officials have taken a tough tone on the trade agreement and reportedly won’t settle for small tweaks. Instead, the Trump administration is pushing for big results.
“I want to be clear that [the president] is not interested in a mere tweaking of few provisions and a couple of updated chapters. We feel that NAFTA has fundamentally failed many, many Americans and needs major improvement,” U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer said.
However, analysts are unsure what to expect from the renegotiations talks since the talks themselves have never been carried out before.
“The basis for what our side is negotiating is to threaten them with the possibility of pulling out of NAFTA altogether,” Alan Deardorff, professor of public policy and economics at the University of Michigan, said. “They’re hoping that no matter how bad the deal we insist on is for Canada and Mexico, it will be better for them than it is to let it go completely. The gains from NAFTA are such that they can probably push them quite a ways.”
NAFTA has been blamed for detrimental losses in the U.S. manufacturing sector, especially in the automotive industry. The UAW supports NAFTA renegotiation talks.
Some have pushed the talks to include a larger made in America parts requirement. Currently, the threshold sits at 62.5 percent of parts to qualify for duty-free status. Critics want the number to be as high as 90 percent. However, analysts such as Deardorff believe such a change won’t guarantee more jobs.
“For imports that are coming from China, the cheapest place in North America to get them would probably be Mexico,” Deardorff said.
The next round of renegotiations talks is scheduled to take place September 1-5 in Mexico.
With four model years recommended for purchase.
This example is a former NCRS award winner.
Many automakers oppose right-to-repair laws citing cybersecurity concerns.
Breaking out the spec sheets for a comparison.
Plus, a nationwide lease on all-electric off-road Pickup and SUV.
View Comments
"Our trade partners send us only their criminal underclass, their citizens murder our citizens at will, they will be forced to pay for a wall to stop their own non-winners from making us into losers, our judges with cultural heritage from our trade partners are genetically biased against 'real' Americans, nobody would want to wake up and be them, and their food is sick on a plate...
"... and ALSO they are salivating and can't wait to buy everything from us with all of that money they must have taken from our cultures' overdosers!"
Mr. Trombone,
You apparently have not read the facts about crime and immigrants. You should. But if your mind is made up, then don't. But you will continue to sound ignorant about the issues you rant about, the border wall and the correlation between immigrants and crime. I do hope you research the matter a bit more and then come back to us.
You're correct, most crime in America is committed by people who came here (or whose ancestors came here) after Columbus.
Sorry Mr. Trombone. But I did not say that. Again, spend a bit of time reading the facts if you desire to speak from a factual basis about the issue. In theory, you may have something there, you know about most crime in America being committed by people who came here after Columbus. Unfortunately, what the uninformed are raising currently is the false premise that immigrants (legal or illegal) commit crimes at a much higher rate than citizens. In some cases the false inference they provide is that were it not for immigrants, there would be little or no crime. Problem solved. Under your premise, we better deport everyone in this country, citizens and immigrants. Leave the country back the way the first non-Indian immigrants arrived, filled with Native Americans, wildlife and a beautiful environment.
I'll be super clear now:
I was satirizing the premise held by our Negotiator-In-Chief that he can insult their motives at will and then do a positive trade deal with them. That's why I used the quotation marks.
Gosh, there for a minute I thought you were serious! Thanks for clarifying. And you are super clear now. "Bite the hand that feeds you and may not be fed anymore." Or something like that.
Cheers!
I want the agreement to benifit GM so negotiate what ever deal you want just make sure GM can be on the good side of it!