Are Tariffs The Right Way To Force Mexico To Help?

[3rdnlng]

On the one hand it would seem that putting tariffs on Mexican goods in order to get them to cooperate in stopping illegals is silly, but on the other hand what choice has congress left Trump? I look at it this way:

 

I'm stranded on a deserted island with a boat that needs repair. Luckily I have the boards and nails to repair it but I don't have a hammer, which would be the proper tool to use to repair the damage. All my tools have been lost with the exception of a pipe wrench. Do I bother to attempt to fix the boat using the pipe wrench as a hammer, or do I just give up saving myself?

Edited June 6, 2019 by 3rdnlng

[row_33]

Depends on the situation at hand, "beggar your neighbour" can be an effective policy sometimes, not so much for other times.

 

 

[Buffalo_Gal]

President Trump has sanctions and tariff cards to play. Until our do-nothing Congress (for the last 50 years) gets their act together and starts legislating for things that help US citizens (hahahahahhahahahaha), Trump will play the hand he has. 

[KRC]

Between that and sanctions, I would go with the tariff route. Discussions have not worked and as has been pointed out, Congress refuses to do their job, so Trump does not have any other option.

[Nanker]

Nothing has worked so far. The Mexicans could give two pesos about the hundreds of thousands of illegitimate asylum seekers flooding into our country. They see it as the gringo's problem - not theirs. So, Trump's making it their problem.

 

Why hasn't the US petitioned the United Nations to establish refugee camps in Honduras, Guatemala, and Mexico to house the refugees from Nicaragua, Honduras, and Guatemala? That's what's supposed to happen - the refugees have to seek asylum in the next country to the one they're fleeing from. Instead we get chains of people and when they get to Mexico, they're put on trucks, trains, and busses and brought hastily to the US border. Ándale! Ándale! Ándale!

[Keukasmallies]

8 minutes ago, Nanker said:

Nothing has worked so far. The Mexicans could give two pesos about the hundreds of thousands of illegitimate asylum seekers flooding into our country. They see it as the gringo's problem - not theirs. So, Trump's making it their problem.

 

Why hasn't the US petitioned the United Nations to establish refugee camps in Honduras, Guatemala, and Mexico to house the refugees from Nicaragua, Honduras, and Guatemala? That's what's supposed to happen - the refugees have to seek asylum in the next country to the one they're fleeing from. Instead we get chains of people and when they get to Mexico, they're put on trucks, trains, and busses and brought hastily to the US border. Ándale! Ándale! Ándale!

 

In all likelihood the US hasn't petitioned the UN because the UN hasn't successfully addressed a problem, particlarly a concern raised by the US, since Christ was a midshipman.  Our role in the UN is solely to pay the bills, not propose actual actions.

[Nanker]

7 minutes ago, Keukasmallies said:

 

In all likelihood the US hasn't petitioned the UN because the UN hasn't successfully addressed a problem, particlarly a concern raised by the US, since Christ was a midshipman.  Our role in the UN is solely to pay the bills, not propose actual actions.

Sure, I get that. But if anyone would go to 42nd Street and FDR Drive and turn over some tables it would be Trump. He's an iconoclast who's not afraid of talking tough when it comes to the US getting screwed over.

[3rdnlng]

1 minute ago, Nanker said:

Sure, I get that. But if anyone would go to 42nd Street and FDR Drive and turn over some tables it would be Trump. He's an iconoclast who's not afraid of talking tough when it comes to the US getting screwed over.

Hell, it wouldn't surprise me if the blue helmets were directing traffic along the way from Central America to the U.S. border.

[Chef Jim]

I'm going with the trade option. 

 

We'll trade you 100,000 hard working Mexicans for 100,000 lazy homeless *****.  

[Koko78]

It's the best card Trump has to play in a bad hand. Make Mexico feel the economic pain until they grow a pair and stop this foolishness. These "spontaneous" caravans are quite obviously being sponsored and organized, and the Mexicans do nothing but let them walk on by.

 

Nanker is right, I'm sure they see it as "gringo's problem" to deal with.

 

We're up to, what, 130,000 per month coming across the border? Someone is intentionally trying to overwhelm and break the system. The Mexicans are aiding them, either actively or through inaction.

 

If this doesn't work, I'm fine with Trump closing the entire southern border. *****'em if they don't like it. ***** the Democrats in Congress if they don't like it. They should have just coughed up the chump change for border security.

[GG]

The short answer is, no.

 

The explanation is because it's not as simple as trying to harm the Mexican economy to bend them to our will.   

 

The perverse outcome for the US is that if you inflict more economic pain you inflict on Mexico, then you will add thousands of Mexicans who will try to jump the border, in addition to the Guatemalans, Hondurans and Salvadorans.   Mexico was already recently downgraded because of concerns about what AMLO is going to do with industry and regulations, and there's plenty of reasons to think that he will look to reverse course in liberalizing the economy.  Trump's tariffs may box him into a bad corner.  The good news is that AMLO didn't lash out at Trump like Vicente Fox did and is willing to see if Mexico can provide more.    

 

I also find it odd that Trump blames Mexico, but has never attacked the cartels who are running the smuggling rings.  Even a semi-competent oompa can figure that one out, and I'm trying to understand how he thinks that the Mexican government can handle the cartels.  If the this is a gambit to force AMLO to invite US troops in (as Tasker suggested), how does that square with Trump's non-interventionist views?  This would be launching an all out war, since the cartels number tens of thousands.  On what grounds would the troop deployments be approved, and how would America react to a military option, when there could still be other solutions? 

 

The biggest trouble is that NOBODY knows what the ***** Trump wants, and he's one or two tweets away from some in the GOP defecting to the other side to consider him insane. 

 

Just look at how this recent tweet storm unfolded.  If this was his opening position, then there wouldn't be much concern.  But he went nutso on the eve of the new trade deal being introduced to Congress.  This is a trade deal that he personally lauded as a "very good deal" and he was looking forward to working with Mexico.  He overruled the biggest trade hardliner on his staff, who was against the new tariffs.  He back-stabbed his son in law who only two months prior had worked out a framework for a deal with AMLO to establish better rules for US investment in Mexico.  Now, everybody knows that the bad Trump, who bankrupted 2 casinos is back, because the blueprint is the same.

 

Finally, he is really screwing US companies who were already on edge from his proclamations to blow up NAFTA.   He's moving closer to adopt Obama's policy towards business by talking big, but knee capping them with added costs.   

 

This situation is far different than with China, where the costly economic battle is worth the pain to slow China's imperial aspirations and to reshape the global supply chain that's been built up over the last 20 years.  Even on that front, Trump would have been in a far better shape had he renegotiated TPP, instead of just walking away.

 

 

[Paulus]

I accidentally saw part of a clip where the cartel was filleting a man. 

 

Rich people love exploiting the illegals. I'm honestly surprised the wealthy have not had Trump assassinated yet.  

 

Stopping illegal aliens is Kennedy level crossing the line. 

[keepthefaith]

1 hour ago, GG said:

 

The biggest trouble is that NOBODY knows what the ***** Trump wants, and he's one or two tweets away from some in the GOP defecting to the other side to consider him insane. 

 

 

 

 

Trump has communicated clearly what he wants.  From Mexico he wants them to stop facilitating the passage of Central American migrants to our border.  From Congress he wants law changes that will hasten the deportation of illegal immigrants/faux asylum seekers and the legal means to turn people around at the border. 

[3rdnlng]

We must ask ourselves what our priorities are. Surely having illegal immigrants flood our borders needs to be an important priority to stop.

[snafu]

2 hours ago, GG said:

The short answer is, no.

 

The explanation is because it's not as simple as trying to harm the Mexican economy to bend them to our will.   

 

The perverse outcome for the US is that if you inflict more economic pain you inflict on Mexico, then you will add thousands of Mexicans who will try to jump the border, in addition to the Guatemalans, Hondurans and Salvadorans.   Mexico was already recently downgraded because of concerns about what AMLO is going to do with industry and regulations, and there's plenty of reasons to think that he will look to reverse course in liberalizing the economy.  Trump's tariffs may box him into a bad corner.  The good news is that AMLO didn't lash out at Trump like Vicente Fox did and is willing to see if Mexico can provide more.    

 

I also find it odd that Trump blames Mexico, but has never attacked the cartels who are running the smuggling rings.  Even a semi-competent oompa can figure that one out, and I'm trying to understand how he thinks that the Mexican government can handle the cartels.  If the this is a gambit to force AMLO to invite US troops in (as Tasker suggested), how does that square with Trump's non-interventionist views?  This would be launching an all out war, since the cartels number tens of thousands.  On what grounds would the troop deployments be approved, and how would America react to a military option, when there could still be other solutions? 

 

The biggest trouble is that NOBODY knows what the ***** Trump wants, and he's one or two tweets away from some in the GOP defecting to the other side to consider him insane. 

 

Just look at how this recent tweet storm unfolded.  If this was his opening position, then there wouldn't be much concern.  But he went nutso on the eve of the new trade deal being introduced to Congress.  This is a trade deal that he personally lauded as a "very good deal" and he was looking forward to working with Mexico.  He overruled the biggest trade hardliner on his staff, who was against the new tariffs.  He back-stabbed his son in law who only two months prior had worked out a framework for a deal with AMLO to establish better rules for US investment in Mexico.  Now, everybody knows that the bad Trump, who bankrupted 2 casinos is back, because the blueprint is the same.

 

Finally, he is really screwing US companies who were already on edge from his proclamations to blow up NAFTA.   He's moving closer to adopt Obama's policy towards business by talking big, but knee capping them with added costs.   

 

This situation is far different than with China, where the costly economic battle is worth the pain to slow China's imperial aspirations and to reshape the global supply chain that's been built up over the last 20 years.  Even on that front, Trump would have been in a far better shape had he renegotiated TPP, instead of just walking away.

 

 

 

The only thing I’d add to this is that there were rumblings that one reason China backed out of its trade agreement with the US  at the last minute (prompting the latest round of tariff escalation) is because China may think our economy is weakening, and maybe they can wait us out. Whether that’s true or not, more/new tariffs with Mexico will only add to that thought. 

 

Also, it is better to unify our economy with our existing trading partners against China rather than push current partners away and force  other options upon countries like Mexico to do business. Truthfully, though, it is too early to tell whether re-organizing supply chains will be permanent and beneficial or harmful to us or any other country in the long run.

 

 

 

[keepthefaith]

55 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

The only thing I’d add to this is that there were rumblings that one reason China backed out of its trade agreement with the US  at the last minute (prompting the latest round of tariff escalation) is because China may think our economy is weakening, and maybe they can wait us out. Whether that’s true or not, more/new tariffs with Mexico will only add to that thought. 

 

Also, it is better to unify our economy with our existing trading partners against China rather than push current partners away and force  other options upon countries like Mexico to do business. Truthfully, though, it is too early to tell whether re-organizing supply chains will be permanent and beneficial or harmful to us or any other country in the long run.

 

 

 

 

I think China may view Trump as vulnerable in the next election and perceive that none of the Dem candidates care at all about our trade relationships.  For now China may give Trump just enough communication to keep him hopeful that a deal will get done but will simply run out the clock until election time.  After that if Trump is re-elected maybe they re-engage.  They probably see it as a 50-50 chance he's gone.   Same for Kim in NK. 

[Doc Brown]

Hell no.  I'm not paying 5% more on Mexican goods.  Build a damn wall you along the border you can see from outer space.

[GG]

9 hours ago, 3rdnlng said:

We must ask ourselves what our priorities are. Surely having illegal immigrants flood our borders needs to be an important priority to stop.

 

But that's not the question you asked in starting this thread.

[Tiberius]

 

The American Casualties of Trump's Trade War - The New York Times

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/28/magazine/trade-war-tariffs-small-business.html

Nov 28, 2018 - Sam Cobb was surprised to see so many people lined up for a hearing at the International Trade Commission in Washington on the morning of ...

 

 

 They are paying for Trump's idiotic trade war. 

 

Just let the people in, or send aid to the countries theses poor people are fleeing from. It's cheaper, more human and smarter, so of course Republicans and Trump are against that. 

Edited June 7, 2019 by Tiberius

[Gary M]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/video/downtime/mexico-sends-troops-to-its-southern-border/vp-AACx6d9

 

"Thousands of troops will be sent to Mexico's border in hopes of stemming the flow of migrants heading for the US. ABC News' Serena Marshall reports. "

 

Hmm

[TPS]

3 minutes ago, Gary M said:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/video/downtime/mexico-sends-troops-to-its-southern-border/vp-AACx6d9

 

"Thousands of troops will be sent to Mexico's border in hopes of stemming the flow of migrants heading for the US. ABC News' Serena Marshall reports. "

 

Hmm

And this...

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mexico-immigration-finmin-idUSKCN1T72LC

 

[SoCal Deek]

The answer is they’re essentially the ONLY tool the President has left in his tool box. He’s tried everything else and has faced opposition from both sides of the swamp. Unless you want him to throw in the towel like every one of his predecessors...you got a better idea?

[BullBuchanan]

Hey Mexico, for every person you allow to cross into this country, we're going to destroy our economy a little more. It's amazing that so many people don't know what tariffs do or how they work. If I were Mexico, I'd send every person I had.

11 hours ago, 3rdnlng said:

We must ask ourselves what our priorities are. Surely having illegal immigrants flood our borders needs to be an important priority to stop.

 

Is it though? How do you determine "important" In the realm of "must have" "should have" "nice to have", I think it belongs in the "Should have" category. We have plenty of our own major problems to deal with. Folks aren't coming here to be homeless, they're coming here to work for people like Trump.

[Buffalo_Gal]

 

 

[KD in CA]

28 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

 

Is it though? How do you determine "important" In the realm of "must have" "should have" "nice to have", I think it belongs in the "Should have" category. We have plenty of our own major problems to deal with. Folks aren't coming here to be homeless, they're coming here to work for people like Trump.

 

Well in the good old days, Mexican guys used to border jump to get a job, crank out some cash and mail it home to the family in Mexico.  One guy who cost society little or nothing and created productivity with his labor.

 

Now, they just bring the whole family.  So one to work but six to feed, cloth, educate, etc.  Result is a whole lot of cost to society for the same productivity.   And that math doesn't work.

 

[BullBuchanan]

Just now, KD in CA said:

 

Well in the good old days, Mexican guys used to border jump to get a job, crank out some cash and mail it home to the family in Mexico.  One guy who cost society little or nothing and created productivity with his labor.

 

Now, they just bring the whole family.  So one to work but six to feed, cloth, educate, etc.  Result is a whole lot of cost to society for the same productivity.   And that math doesn't work.

 

Do you have the numbers?

[B-Man]

.....................

 

 

 

 

.

 

 

.

[3rdnlng]

2 hours ago, BullBuchanan said:

Hey Mexico, for every person you allow to cross into this country, we're going to destroy our economy a little more. It's amazing that so many people don't know what tariffs do or how they work. If I were Mexico, I'd send every person I had.

 

Is it though? How do you determine "important" In the realm of "must have" "should have" "nice to have", I think it belongs in the "Should have" category. We have plenty of our own major problems to deal with. Folks aren't coming here to be homeless, they're coming here to work for people like Trump.

So, in other words you are for open borders and no respect for our sovereignty? If so, that is idiotic.

[3rdnlng]

4 hours ago, GG said:

 

But that's not the question you asked in starting this thread.

Ah, but you didn't read my whole OP then. If I had a hammer I'd use that to repair my boat, but since I have no hammer I'm going to substitute for the hammer with a pipe wrench. I might bend some nails along the way but I need to fix the boat. It's that important.

[McGee Return TD]

11 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

So, in other words you are for open borders and no respect for our sovereignty? If so, that is idiotic.

 

You sound like you read DRs opinion on the matter and spit out your own regurgitated version.

[3rdnlng]

3 minutes ago, McGee Return TD said:

 

You sound like you read DRs opinion on the matter and spit out your own regurgitated version.

I'll debate/discuss with anyone here who has something to actually say. You've got nothing. ***** off.

[njbuff]

Mexico to deploy 6,000 troops to their southern border.

 

I guess they are taking this tariff thing seriously.

[Gary M]

3 hours ago, BullBuchanan said:

Do you have the numbers?

 

https://cis.org/Report/Costs-Immigration

 

FTA:

 

GOIRA estimated there were 550,000 illegal aliens in Texas in 1992. They paid $290 million in state and local taxes and generated state and local service and assistance costs of $456 million, for a deficit of $166 million. Applying the lower estimate of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) of 350,000 illegal aliens in Texas, GOlRA estimated total costs and revenues at $313 million and $183 million respectively, for a deficit of $130 million.

Edited June 7, 2019 by Gary M

[BullBuchanan]

14 minutes ago, Gary M said:

 

https://cis.org/Report/Costs-Immigration

 

FTA:

 

GOIRA estimated there were 550,000 illegal aliens in Texas in 1992. They paid $290 million in state and local taxes and generated state and local service and assistance costs of $456 million, for a deficit of $166 million. Applying the lower estimate of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) of 350,000 illegal aliens in Texas, GOlRA estimated total costs and revenues at $313 million and $183 million respectively, for a deficit of $130 million.

You should read the rest of the article. It's interesting. Especially when compared against data that's 25 years more recent.

[Tiberius]

52 minutes ago, njbuff said:

Mexico to deploy 6,000 troops to their southern border.

 

I guess they are taking this tariff thing seriously.

So are American employers 

 

 

Quote

 

Hiring cooled in May, the Labor Department reported Friday, as firms appeared more hesitant to bring on new employees amid uncertainty over President Trump escalating the trade war.

The U.S. economy added 75,000 jobs in May, a significant pullback from 224,000 jobs added in April that is likely to heighten fears the trade war is taking a greater toll. 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/06/07/us-economy-added-only-jobs-may-amid-bite-trumps-trade-war/?utm_term=.cff8a58394eb

32 minutes ago, Gary M said:

 

https://cis.org/Report/Costs-Immigration

 

FTA:

 

GOIRA estimated there were 550,000 illegal aliens in Texas in 1992. They paid $290 million in state and local taxes and generated state and local service and assistance costs of $456 million, for a deficit of $166 million. Applying the lower estimate of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) of 350,000 illegal aliens in Texas, GOlRA estimated total costs and revenues at $313 million and $183 million respectively, for a deficit of $130 million.

And what about the work they did? How much did it help the economy to have them here producing goods and services? That's part of the equation, too. Everyone can't be a lazy bum sitting around complaining about the government 

[Gary M]

6 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

So are American employers 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/05/03/us-economy-added-jobs-april-unemployment-fell-percent-lowest-since/?utm_term=.2ea557fde12b

 

"The U.S. economy added 263,000 jobs in April, notching a record 103 straight months of job gains and signaling the current economic expansion shows little sign of stalling."

 

I think we can handle a pause in the hiring while we secure our boarder and end the illegal immigration crisis.

[Foxx]

17 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

... And what about the work they did? How much did it help the economy to have them here producing goods and services? That's part of the equation, too. Everyone can't be a lazy bum sitting around complaining about the government 

wha??

[Tiberius]

31 minutes ago, Gary M said:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/05/03/us-economy-added-jobs-april-unemployment-fell-percent-lowest-since/?utm_term=.2ea557fde12b

 

"The U.S. economy added 263,000 jobs in April, notching a record 103 straight months of job gains and signaling the current economic expansion shows little sign of stalling."

 

I think we can handle a pause in the hiring while we secure our boarder and end the illegal immigration crisis.

Sure, it's ok for the idiot to start screwing with the economy? 

23 minutes ago, Foxx said:

wha??

?

[Chef Jim]

53 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Sure, it's ok for the idiot to start screwing with the economy? 

 

 

Good point. Why mess with the good work he's done for the economy so far.  It's up nearly 5% this week alone.  

[3rdnlng]

1 hour ago, Tiberius said:

So are American employers 

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/06/07/us-economy-added-only-jobs-may-amid-bite-trumps-trade-war/?utm_term=.cff8a58394eb

And what about the work they did? How much did it help the economy to have them here producing goods and services? That's part of the equation, too. Everyone can't be a lazy bum sitting around complaining about the government 

So, a week ago Trump threatens tariffs if Mexico doesn't control the armies of migrants coming to our southern border and job numbers were down in May because of it? Do Have you ever,  just once in your life thought things through before posting something here?