Washington Examiner: Goldman Sachs: Steel tariffs a likely prelude to NAFTA exit
Investment firm Goldman Sachs said Friday that President Trump's decision to impose tariffs on steel and aluminum imports likely signals that the administration will eventually pull the U.S. out of the North American Free Trade Agreement.
Trump announced tariffs of 25 percent on steel imports and 10 percent on aluminum imports on Thursday, and justified them as a way to protect U.S. national security.
"Unlike routine antidumping and countervailing duty cases or less common safeguard cases, the Section 232 authority the President will apparently use is rarely used and more controversial," wrote Jan Hatzius, chief economist at Goldman Sachs, according to CNBC. "There is a good chance that this could eventually lead the President to announce he intends to withdraw from NAFTA, but such an announcement does not appear likely in the near term."
Read more ....
WNU Editor: A few weeks ago I gave a presentation to some businessmen outlining my views on the current international situation and my take on economic trends. On the issue of NAFTA I explained to them that I initially thought that an agreement would be found within a year or two, but with Canada now joining the TPP it would mean the end of NAFTA as we know. Reason .... with the U.S. no longer interested in TPP these Asian countries would then be able to use Canada as an entry point to export their products to the U.S., while side-stepping their tariffs and custom duties. I call this the NAFTA loop-hole. It is a loophole that has been around since Day One, and it is a loophole that I have explained more than once over the years to Canadian, Chinese and South Korean businessmen. It is also a loophole that President Trump and his trade negotiators are well aware .... and this is one of the reasons why they wanted to renegotiate this entire agreement in the first place. As to why am I talking about this now? I keep this type of intel/news away from WNU .... this is a blog about wars and conflicts .... not international trade. But I am making an exception in this case because one of the attendees who attended my presentation and who is also an old friend sent me this link .... from "The Last Refuge" of all places .... that summarized what I had said a few weeks ago. It is an excellent and easy to understand article that summarizes some of the points that I made .... and yes .... for those who live in Mexico/Canada/and the U.S. .... the end of NAFTA will impact all of us. The link is here ..... Understanding Why NAFTA Exit is a Forgone Conclusion… (Last Refuge).
1 comment:
Bad trade deals start wars.
Singapore does not have land and is the ultimate example that you do not need natural resources to thrive. You need security, good trade, productivity and good business law.
In other words you do not need colonies, a huge land mass, or lebensraum.
But if people are getting fat (eventually) over dumping and then creating a monopoly, other unfair business practice or just labor price differential due to history, well that can pauperize nations and such nation are ripe for unscrupulous politicians.
The Chinese are like the Arabs. They have long memories. They are still angry or upset over 'unequal treaties'. Upset enough that they have a term for it.
It might behoove them to remember that unequal treaties, which are for drawing national boundaries or for trade, are not something to be sought or exploited.
You can wage all sorts of wars. They can be espionage, trade, cyber, cultural or kinetic. Just because a treaty was negotiated and it flawed, saying it is legal is not an excuse to continue aggression and not redress legitimate or moral grievances. To say something legal is not say much at all. The devil certainly has laws in Hell. That is to say legality without good morality is not good at all. And people therefore will not respect the law or its proponents. They might smile, when you are within sight.
If you beggar your neighbor with bad trade sooner or later you will have a war.
Post a Comment