Mexican senator aims to hit U.S. for Trump's 'big lie' on NAFTA

[JHan]

The #MAGA Chronicles

A prominent Mexican senator wants to remind President Trump of the benefits of free trade -- by taking a big one away from the U.S.

Senator Armando Rios introduced a bill that would drastically cut down Mexico's purchases of U.S. corn.

Mexico bought nearly 25% of all U.S. corn last year, totaling $2.6 billion. It's the second biggest market in the world for U.S. corn only behind Japan.

Trump says NAFTA, the free trade deal with Mexico and Canada, has been a "one-sided deal" in which Mexico has won and America has lost.
Rios disagrees.

"The position of Donald Trump is a mistaken one and it's a lying one," Rios told CNNMoney Wednesday. "They have been insisting that Mexico takes advantage of the U.S. regarding NAFTA and that's totally false... It's a big lie, so there is a good way to show that this is not true."

*SNIP*

Rios' bill also reflects a broader push in Mexico to diversify its economy away from the U.S. and sign new or revised trade deals with nations in Latin America and Asia as well as the European Union.

"Right now we have hostile position from the U.S. and we have all our eggs in the same basket, so we should probably start diversifying in the short term," Rios said.

[Xipe Totec]

1. Mexico is the cradle of Maize. Embarrassing to have to import its staple food

And this is a direct consequence of NAFTA.

Not only that, it has shut down corn production in Mexico forcing Mexicans to move north in search of jobs in agriculture.

It will be interesting to see what happens going forward.

[Motown_Johnny]

2. We grow too much corn anyways.

One of the many reasons I am against corn based ethanol is the negative impact the expansion of corn production has on our environment.

We should be reducing the amount of corn produced and if Mexico wants to help us with that then more power to them.

Fuck NAFTA and fuck big agro-business.

[JHan]

6. You must realise this is simply not about corn right?

The point is our trade agreements and partnerships are disintegrating.

If the U.S. wishes to renegotiate with a trade partner, we must do so responsibly and with respect.

That is not what Trump has done.

The answer is not " FUCK NAFTA".

Mexico is one of our largest trading partners since NAFTA partly because her middle class expanded while under the deal. They buy our products, we buy theirs. Any aggression from Mexico to retaliate against the U.S re trade will affect states like the Dakotas and *ESPECIALLY* Texas. If the U.S attempts to hurt Mexico economically, we will feel the effects twice over. Depending on how acrimonious the relationship gets, any product that utilizes parts made in Mexico may become more expensive - in other words the consumer ends up on the losing end.

[Motown_Johnny]

12. You understand that I want the trade agreements and partnerships to disintegrate.. right?

I am all for bilateral trade agreements, NAFTA is not one of those. No, we can't just renegotiate trade with a partner because other partners are involved in the agreement.


Yes, FUCK NAFTA!

[JHan]

13. Oh.. that foolishness. Carry on then.

[Motown_Johnny]

15. US economy is 18 times the size of Mexico's.

You really think that they will somehow win out if there is a trade war? Do you think they are willing to participate in one?


Free trade is a conservative economic policy that people have simply become accustomed to. To find posts supporting it on what should be a progressive site is very discouraging.

To have a liberal approach to trade dismissed as foolishness is even worse.

[JHan]

16. Free trade is not a conservative policy ..

It was originally a liberal policy - born from FDR democratic policy. Conservatives co-opted it and it has now become "conservative".

If you want the true conservative approach to trade, feel free to read any backward Pat Buchanan piece on economics.

And we benefit from FTA's. Any one claiming otherwise is being disingenuous.

Are FTA's perfect? no. But they should seek to improve with time.

Could more be done to mitigate *the harmful effects of fTA's on the losers in any market model ? - sure.

But Protectionism and Isolationism are not the answer.

And you still don't get it - this is not just about corn, this is about fostering good relationships with our trade partners by not antagonizing them unfairly.

[Motown_Johnny]

18. We have a trade deficit of over $500 billion a year

Clearly, this is not just about corn.


Nobody is talking about protectionism or isolationism and the very fact that you need to misrepresent my point of view is proof of how wrong you are.


As I stated earlier, I am in favor of bilateral trade agreements. I am against multilateral trade agreements. Arguing that bilateral trade agreements are somehow protectionist or isolationist is pure nonsense.


The idea that trying to reduce our trade deficit, not completely eliminate it but simply reduce it, would unfairly antagonize our trade partners is also nonsense.


You just don't make any sense on this issue at all.

[JHan]

19. I'm not the one confused...

Last edited Thu Feb 23, 2017, 05:14 PM - Edit history (1)

My disagreement with you is not confusion on my part.

Antagonizing China and Mexico is not going to reduce what you have described. You're sounding like a defender of Trump's ridiculous approach with our trade partners.

The EU has moved from a trade deficit to a surplus and is still losing manufacturing jobs.
China has a massive trade surplus and losing manufacturing jobs.

And I've said this before: Since our manufacturing output is high, and job availability in the manufacturing sector is shrinking, the trade deficit has very little to do with it - yes we have experienced outsourcing but manufacturing jobs world wide- regardless of the presence of a deficit or surplus - are shrinking. The shrinkage is at a lesser pace in places where Unions are strong -. Lost in the debate is that we actually have a large service trade surplus - in excess of 200 billion a year - but we only talk about our trade deficit re goods which skews the debate and is misleading.

And why did I mention jobs? because trade deficits are usually mentioned in connection with them - similarly, to be anti-FTA is to be protectionist and isolationist, the arguments go hand in hand. If you want added provisions which include environment and wage standards, that's fine, it doesn't make you anti-fta necessarily. Smarter negotiating is a good thing, and Mexico failed in some respects w.r.t corn at the start of the agreement.

But unless you are fine with Trump bullying Mexico and making threats to a trade partner, you should be very worried about Mexico punishing the U.S or leaving Nafta.

EDIT* And it just occurred to me why discussions like this are frustrating - the purpose of socialist* democratic principles is to improve on what is there, to make it fairer or work better where possible. What we DON"T do is ruin or damage what already exists but improve on it.

If Trump wanted to update NAFTA, that would be fine with me but that is not what he is doing. He listens to Steve Bannon who believes in a destructive form of economic nationalism which will wreck us and leave us isolated.

[DetlefK]

7. Corn is a bad produce.

Corn is a very thirsty plant that will badly suck on your groundwater. I once saw a documentary about poor farmers in China. The soil was bone-dry. And what grain were they cultivating? Corn!!! They are cultivating it, because it sellls for a good price, but they aren't getting good harvests because the plant needs a moist climate!

And it's certainly not sustainable in the long term: California and the Mid-West are running out of ground-water in the long term. In 30-50 years, farms will die off en masse in the Mid-West because there will be not enough groundwater left to irrigate the fields.

[JHan]

11. That's true, but mostly when grown as a mono-crop.

Mixed farming yields better results and better for the environment but you're right about the sustainability of corn.

Some of the varieties of corn that disappeared when NAFTA first arrived are making a come back in rural mexico where some farmers are returning to sustainable traditional methods like the Triqui farming method. There's a lot of debate about farming techniques but, on the plus side, at least there's now an awareness of how to lessen the impact of extensive agriculture on the environment.

[angrychair]

3. This is going to suck

Canada and Mexico are our biggest trading partners....hey Iowa farmers, how do you like him now?

[JHan]

14. lol, I was thinking that as I read it.

[TheDebbieDee]

4. One of the benefits of NAFTA was to encourage

businesses to move some of their production facilities to Mexico, providing a boost to the Mexican economy and jobs for the Mexican people, thereby giving them a reason to STAY IN MEXICO! Trumpers complain about every company's move to place facilities in Mexico, then CAN'T seem to understand why people south of the border sneak into this country to find work!

The stupid hurts! I realize my post has nothing to do with corn but I needed to vent about NAFTA!

[Wounded Bear]

8. I've been saying this for years....

the only real way to stem immigration is to make conditions in their home countries better.

[Phoenix61]

17. And with Mexican people making more money

they would buy more goods from the US.

[Buckeyeblue]

5. I'm mixed about ethanol

Because the energy to make it is so high. But you have to imagine the technology will improve over time. Cheaper corn could boost that effort.

Corn is a big product where I live. But I find the farmers around us to be dicks. They want all the breaks but refuse to support school initiatives. And they all seem to love 45.

[world wide wally]

9. American GMO corn has devastated Mexican farmers.

Good for them! Go back to growing your own.

[JHan]

10. Again, this is not just about corn.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028696718