By on February 27, 2017

U.S. Mexico Border

Ildefonso Guajardo, Mexico’s senior trade negotiator, reaffirmed his position to break off talks to reconfigure NAFTA, saying his country will completely abandon talks if the United States continues threatening levies and caps on products coming in from its southern border. He said Mexico will refuse to even consider the kind of tariffs President Trump has discussed and revert back to World Trade Organization rules. Under those guidelines, the most the U.S. could impose on a Mexican product would average 3 percent.

“The moment that they say, ‘We’re going to put a 20 percent tariff on cars,’ I get up from the table,” Guajardo said in an interview. “Bye-bye.”

Official talks are to expected to begin in June, despite both sides having already publicly expressed their positions. Trump has repeatedly faulted NAFTA for creating an imbalance that favors Mexico while Guajardo suggested it is a necessary to maintain a healthy trading relationship between the two countries. If talks do break down, the Mexican economy minister was quoted by Bloomberg as saying “it wouldn’t be an absolute crisis.”

At that point trade between Mexico and the U.S. would be regulated by the WTO. While not ideal, Guajardo says it would be preferable to high tariffs from the north. Of course, that is only if the United States doesn’t also back out of the WTO — unlikely as that may be.

“Economic logic tells us that it would really be the nuclear option for the U.S. to abandon the multilateral trading system,” he explained. “But I can’t rule out something that would be a decision of a different government.”

[Image: Jrsnchzhrs/Flickr (CC BY-ND 2.0)]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

79 Comments on “Mexican Economy Minister Will Say ‘Bye-Bye’ to NAFTA Talks if Tariffs are Imposed...”


  • avatar
    brandloyalty

    Interesting that Canada, which has not been a target of Trump’s abuse, responded: “Sure, we can renegotiate NAFTA. Doesn’t mean we have to agree to anything that is to our disadvantage.”

    • 0 avatar
      agent534

      It is GDP per capita. [email protected]$47k is close to the USA’s $59k. Mexico’s GDP per capita is $19k. Mexicans don’t have the money to buy goods from the USA, while Canadians do. Mexico is only a source of cheap labor to send product to the USA with only the top capitalists gaining.

      • 0 avatar
        Yurpean

        Except billions in corn, soy, and beef. Texan ranchers who have spent years increasing their herds are already panicking they are about to lose Mexico after they just lost Asia after TPP was canned.

        Our exports to Mexico are more than $200bn per year, buddy.

        • 0 avatar
          DevilsRotary86

          This. I don’t think many on here quite comprehend this fact. The southwest has benefited enormously from NAFTA trade with Mexico, in particular California and Texas. I will admit, if NAFTA has had one major fault, it’s that the benefits of free trade could be better distributed throughout the country. Where Texas thrived under NAFTA, the rust belt was left to, well, rust away.

          Personally, I confess that I am quaking in my boots. More than any other state Texas’s economy is based on Exports. My job is based on exports. I am currently testing a machine destined for Australia. President Trump’s “America first” policy might benefit the midwest and north, but it’s going to hit Texas like a ton of bricks. It’s a shame that 52% of my fellow voting Texans can’t see that.

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al from Oz

        Agent,
        Do you think all trade is just consumer goods?

        Mexico should tax US corn, since the US government controls much of this market.

        Your point indicates to me that all workers should recieve the same income. Is it fair that some have more than others.

        Employment should be given first tl those on the lowest wages.

        Your statement shows how little you know.

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      It’s a lot easier to say, “sure, we’ll rethink our agreement” when the “rethinking” doesn’t involve stuff that would put a wrench into your economy. Nothing is being proposed that would hurt Canada economically. That’s not the case vis a vis Mexico, is it?

  • avatar
    Vulpine

    Tells me that if Trump even tries, the WTO could put us under such sanctions that we could neither import nor export product even if it’s made by an American company in that other country.

    Hmmm… Maybe that’s just what it would take for him to realize he’s not King of the World.

    • 0 avatar
      Lorenzo

      You might be under the impression international organizations like the WTO have super powers. They don’t. Too many countries NEED to import their goods to us for a boycott/freeze to work. We also have a negotiating ace in the hole that many people don’t realize: the US has a stranglehold on the world’s banking system. Other countries talk tough for domestic consumption, but once negotiations are underway, cooler heads prevail. This is pre-game trash talk.

      • 0 avatar
        RobertRyan

        @Lorenzo,
        Banking systems are interalated as well, no ” stranglehold ” on anything

        • 0 avatar
          agent534

          @RobertRyan you do realize it was the USA that bailed out the entire world from the Great Recession, right? No other country could have done that, no other banking system, it was the US of A.

          • 0 avatar
            ect

            agent534, it was the decision of the Treasury (at a time when the US was already in recession) to let Lehman Brothers fail, without managing its obligations the way ity did with Bear sterns, that introduced huge counterparty risk into the financial markets, which in turn triggered the freezing of the credit markets in particular and created the Great Recession.

            This also had the effect of highlighting the dire situation of some European banks, such as RBS and Societe Generale. Not to mention institutions like Merrill Lynch and a large number of US banks.

            It took the concerted action of central banks in all the G7 countries to avoid turning the Great recession into the Megagreat Depression. US action was the trigger that created the immediate crisis, but once unleashed the US could not have solved the problem on its own.

          • 0 avatar
            agent534

            @ect

            Beranke bailed out the world with $600 billion in swaps to other banks.
            Lets not try to minimize that.
            The USA truly bailed out the world, something no other banking system could have done.

            WSJ agrees
            _https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970204464404577118682763082876

            Alan Greyson agrees
            _http://www.zerohedge.com/article/how-federal-reserve-bailed-out-world

      • 0 avatar
        Superdessucke

        We’re loaded with consumers. No way a boycott against us works. Keep going full steam ahead Mr. Trump.

    • 0 avatar
      Whatnext

      It wasn’t the Chinese or Mexicans who made the decision to close those factories and take advantage of cheap labour. It was the good ol’ American factory owners, who generally tend to be GOP supporters.

      • 0 avatar
        Vulpine

        … Which means Trump will be lobbied by his “peers” to allow Mexican-made “American” products to cross the border tariff-free. Remember, his complaint so far has been about American companies moving manufacturing to Mexico, so this trade agreement thing is a two-edged sword on him.

    • 0 avatar

      You mean the same WTO that issued a hilarious ruling against Boeing for accepting government subsidies, a ruling that is effectively meaningless?

  • avatar
    vovencius

    Textiles are imported from China into Mexico, then transported regulation-free into the US under NAFTA. Does this constitute Free Trade? Is it a “good deal”? I have seen first-hand the amount of damage it caused to local communities. This decimated the entire textile industry in North Carolina. A select few made out like bandits.

    I have yet to see comprehensive analysis of “loopholes” and corporate shenanigans with respect to NAFTA. All the talks about NAFTA seem to reverberate around all aspects emotional. Ildefonso Guajardo tears mean nothing to me.

    • 0 avatar
      NN

      NAFTA rules of origin indicate that the majority value of originating materials in a manufactured good must come from within a NAFTA territory in order to qualify for preferential tariff treatment. In other words, you can’t legally import textiles from China into Mexico and then ship them into the USA tariff free under NAFTA. There are always people who break the law and are probably trying to do as you suggest, but the fines if they get caught are hefty, so the big boys & girls don’t play that game. I am a Customs Broker and just finished handling a Canadian Customs inquiry regarding a product we manufacture in the USA and export to Canada under NAFTA. Canadian customs required us to provide all invoices from suppliers to prove the $$ value of our product’s makeup was sufficiently “domestic”. Yes, they then even go to our suppliers and make them prove their origins. They are very thorough.

      Also, FWIW, I’m currently wearing a pair of Raleigh jeans, hand made in NC. They cost $200. I am lucky that I can afford them, but I might be considered stupid, because you can purchase Mexican made Levis/Wranglers/etc. for $30. In Mexico, that’s a decent job and an opportunity for people who don’t need to migrate here illegally. North Carolina’s unemployment rate is 5.5%. I know people who run businesses in NC who have a hard time finding good workers to staff them. Consider me a fan of NAFTA.

    • 0 avatar
      runs_on_h8raide

      vovenicius…only the most informed know this. I foresaw this when I was in college and NAFTA was just an idea. Sadly, the real (((power))) doesn’t care about America. Oi vey goyim. Oi vey!

  • avatar
    manu06

    Just another reason not to enter Free Trade agreements. Doing so ties your hands when you
    need to change course. Let him run not walk away from the table and while we are at it, stop
    the remittance payments to Mexico.

  • avatar
    28-Cars-Later

    How cute, Guajardo thinks he has leverage.

    “At that point trade between Mexico and the U.S. would be regulated by the WTO.”

    Paraphrasing a certain Assistant Secretary of State, F*** the WTO.

    You need this market more than it needs you.

    “Trade unions” are not gov’ts, abolish them.

    • 0 avatar
      TwoBelugas

      Haha yes.

      “If you speak any more of balancing trade deficits, I will remove my country from an arrangement that benefits us 6 to 1.”

    • 0 avatar
      orenwolf

      The US currently has a half-trillion dollars in bidirectional trade with the US. While I’m sure concentrated effort can remove quite a bit of that (though what the US will do for winter veggies is beyond me, Cali can’t feed everyone). in the short term a disruption there could make lives really frustrating for americans who are used to having access to the goods Mexico provides.

      I’m personally excited for what will undoubtedly be closer trading ties between Canada and Mexico – Having some competition for US produce in the winter on price would be wonderful for those of us with short growing seasons!

      • 0 avatar
        OldManPants

        “what the US will do for winter veggies is beyond me”

        French fries, just like the rest of the year.

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        Well if winter veggies are what passes for leverage it is amazing the Mexican people didn’t reject the stupid, rise up, and install El Chapo as President. Whole hemisphere south of Yucatan who can provide “winter veggies” if need be. This man has little to no leverage so he resorts to tough talk. ***The bigger issue for both sides is the steep decline of the Peso***

        Behind the scenes…

        Guajardo: Lord Trump, sir, we can’t accept such a large tariff. We must both find a way to save face and address the huge decline of the Peso.
        Trump: [watch this space]

        • 0 avatar
          OldManPants

          Just don’t do anything that effs with my supply of guacamole.

          Diabetics… want a healthy power lunch? Cook half a dozen turkey meatballs and slap a big dollop of guac on ’em.

          Nom

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            Sir, we’ve got 10 kilos inbound for you on a Cessna. Please pick up at Mena Intermountain Municipal Airport tomorrow night.

        • 0 avatar
          DeadWeight

          US Government has been selectively protecting/assisting drug cartels, including Sinaloa, including giving them intelligence, arms and helping them evade capture by Mexican Military.

          Sound crazy?

          http://world.time.com/2014/01/14/dea-boosted-mexican-drug-cartel/

          U.S. Government Helped Rise of Mexican Drug Cartel: Report
          Mexican newspaper reveals secret arrangement between DEA and Sinaloa cartel

          And:

          CONFIRMED: The DEA Struck A Deal With Mexico’s Most Notorious Drug Cartel

          “There have long been allegations that Guzman, considered to be “the world’s most powerful drug trafficker,” coordinates with American authorities.
          But the El Universal investigation is the first to publish court documents that include corroborating testimony from a DEA agent and a Justice Department official.”

          http://www.businessinsider.com/the-us-government-and-the-sinaloa-cartel-2014-1#ixzz2qOHOp0HI

          And:

          “According to the motion, the deal was part of a ‘divide and conquer’ strategy, where the U.S. helped finance and arm the Sinaloa cartel, through Operation Fast and Furious, in exchange for information that allowed the D.E.A. and FBI to destroy and dismantle rival Mexican cartels.
           
          ***
           
          “Under that agreement, the Sinaloa Cartel, through Loya, was to provide information accumulated by Mayo, Chapo, and others, against rival Mexican Drug Trafficking Organizations to the United States government. In return, the United States government agreed to dismiss the prosecution of the pending case against Loya, not to interfere with his drug trafficking activities and those of the Sinaloa Cartel, to not actively prosecute him, Chapo, Mayo, and the leadership of the Sinaloa Cartel, and to not apprehend them.”
           
          ***
           
          The motion claims Mayo, Chapo and Zambada- Niebla routinely passed information through Loya to the D.E.A. that allowed it to make drug busts. In return, the U.S. helped the leaders evade Mexican police.

          America’s Third War: The U.S. Cut a Deal With the Sinaloa Cartel, Say Court Documents

          **Go see Sicario if you haven’t yet. Truth is stranger than fiction.

        • 0 avatar
          Charliej

          At this point Mexico buys twenty five per cent of the US’s corn crop. Mexico is in the process of negotiating to buy corn from Argentina and Brazil. Let the farmers starve in Iowa and Nebraska. Mexico buys 239 billion worth of product from the US. Mexico sells 290 billion worth of product to the US. No trade with Mexico will hurt both countries, but Mexico has a better position than the US. Mexico has free trade agreements with many countries. The US does not. Mexican products can be exported to many countries. Mexico is exploring tighter ties to China. Mexico has many avenues to explore. Mexico will not need any trade with the US in a few years.

          • 0 avatar
            DeadWeight

            Mexico would be devastated to the point of an economic depression if they were in active trade war with U.S., or if U.S. imposed border adjustment tax on anything close to measure as being discussed.

            They have almost no leverage because they have such a massive trade surplus with U.S. (prob 30% of Mexico’s economic activity relies solely on exports to U.S.).

            I’m not saying I support a trade war (I don’t), but claims that Mexico would not be massively crushed by U.S. in one are just foolish and naive.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            I’d prefer corn from Argentina and Brazil as well. Iowa and Nebraska et al. lost my sympathy with their ethanol at pump-point scam. Big Agro will just have to peddle it’s GMO poison elsewhere.

            “Mexico will not need any trade with the US in a few years.”

            The veneer of Mexico is going to come right off if the Peso crisis is not stabilized soon.

          • 0 avatar
            DeadWeight

            I’m not so sure about that given total lack of pesticides/fungicide/herbicide regulation vis-a-vis food crops (or anything else) in those nations.

            Also I’m not sure GMO is boogeyman many claim it is (data thus far suggests not, but I’m willing to wait more time before expressing higher degree of confidence), and GMO is already generations deep in “pure” food crop seed even it’s never been manipulated by a human in a white coat, in a lab).

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            Not as if we don’t have those here.

            http://web.mit.edu/demoscience/Monsanto/impact.html

            https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/weed-whacking-herbicide-p/

            https://www.wired.com/2016/05/monsantos-roundup-herbicide-cause-cancer-not-controversy-explained/

          • 0 avatar
            Drzhivago138

            I’m disenheartened that someone with your level of education would hop on the GMO-bashing bandwagon.

            “No reports of ill effects have been documented in the human population from genetically modified food. There is a scientific consensus that currently available food derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food.”

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            By chance are these the same people who said:

            Oswald killed Kennedy alone.
            The Gulf of Tonkin incident happened.
            Iraqis threw babies from incubators.
            I did not have sexual relations with that woman.
            Vast right wing conspiracy.
            9/11 was just 19 guys with boxcutters.
            Weapons of mass destruction.
            Mission accomplished.
            Shovel ready jobs.
            We have to pass the bill to see what’s in it.
            If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor.
            Fukushima is contained.
            Hillary is qualified/innocent/human.

            I had a conversations in ***Prague*** with Czechs on GMOs, this is an international issue. I’d much rather not eat some Frankensteined bit of food on my own dime thanks much.

            Oh and if that’s a link it is not showing (trying taking out the “https”).

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            Looks like corn futures are about to hit the floor. There will be more corn grown than can be turned into “corn sugar” (aka. High Fructose Corn Syrup), Ethanol and cattle feed combined.

    • 0 avatar
      RobertRyan

      @28-Cars-Later
      People in Glass Houses should not throw stones, US could become a Rogue state from the point of trade and be treated like North Korea or Iran. Not a good outcome

  • avatar
    LS1Fan

    Mexicos actual “Trade Negotiators” don’t want any disruption of the nations ACTUAL top export good.

    While the police haven’t a chance in hell of stopping the drug trade,American LE can make it a pain in the rear to do business. Police crackdowns can gun up the works of illicit commerce both on the buying and selling side.
    This is why Mexico will not oppose the Norteamercianos, and if they do it will be a short lived fight before the Cartels force the Mexican government (as if they’re distinct entities) to play ball.

  • avatar
    Hummer

    Hah, I would love to see them go crying to the WTO. They have no power to make those decisions, they rely on the US economy to survive.

  • avatar

    Mexico (the GOVERNMENT, not the PEOPLE or CULTURE) is worthless and fails as a state. Cute to see them try to push anyone around when they can’t keep their own house in order.

    • 0 avatar
      Charliej

      The US under Trump is already a failing state. Look at NAZI Germany to see what price a country pays for electing a want to be dictator.

      • 0 avatar
        SuperCarEnthusiast

        I see you know nothing about European history and the aftermath of WWI with the signing of the Treaty of Versailles that forced Germany to disarm, make substantial territorial concessions, and pay reparations to certain countries that had formed the Entente powers. In 1921 the total cost of these reparations made Germany extremely poor like current day Greece is now but more so, leading to Hitler’s Socialist to rise to power(Nazi).

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        The long fall began in 1995 and was complete by about 2005.

      • 0 avatar

        I like how Trump is a dictator by some weird measure of once saying he’d grab a woman in the vaginal area, but the guy before him who embarked in endless wars throughout his presidency is sorely missed.

        • 0 avatar
          FreedMike

          I don’t think that makes him a dictator. I think it makes him a pitiful excuse for a man. If someone did that with *my* daughters, he’d be missing his teeth in short order.

          What worries me is his chief strategist, who seems to buy into the whole “burn down the house to save it” idea. Problem is, when the house burns down, chaos is the usual result. And guess who thrives in chaos? Dictators do.

        • 0 avatar
          Louis XVI

          That’s not what makes him a dictator; it makes him an asshole who brags about sexually assaulting women. What makes him a threat to become a dictator is, among other things:

          * Disrespect for democratic norms (e.g., ‘I’ll accept the results of the election if I win.’
          * Attempting to undermine the judiciary by personally attacking judges who rule against him.
          * Attempting to undermine the free press by, e.g., excluding news organizations from press briefings.
          * Expressing disdain for the First Amendment.
          * Fetishizing the military and appointing many former generals to his cabinet.
          * Demonizing and scapegoating various minority groups.

  • avatar
    ect

    So, everyone is in full posturing mode. And the zealots are being set up for profound disappointment.

    The reality is the the NAFTA economies are highly integrated (especially manufacturing) and that’s been good for all 3 countries. In the US, business groups will strongly oppose anything that would weaken NAFTA, and GOP reps in Congress will be listening to them.

    Ending NAFTA ill reduce US gdp and reduce US employment – both of which have benefited from NAFTA.

    At the end of the day, there will be a few tweaks so that Trump can claim “victory”, along with Trudeau and Pena Nieto, and everybody’s face is saved. Too much is at stake for it to be otherwise.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      Agree. Supply chains are extremely interwoven. You hurt Mexico and you hurt the USA and other countries . Remember “Too big to fail” and the auto industry bailout? NAFTA is almost to big to kill without mortally wounding oneself.

    • 0 avatar
      agent534

      US GDP goes up a small bit as the Walmarts of the world make bigger profits, and further concentrate the wealth into the top 1% while the people of the country faces wage stagnation and unemployment which are seen as acceptable losses due to that minor blip in gdp.
      In Mexico workers have fared no better. Wages never even tried to rise to match US wages, they are just a cheap labor pool. The Mexican economy has lagged behind others in Latin America. It has been a bad deal all around except for the Walmarts that gain that minor gdp bump.

      • 0 avatar
        ect

        agent534, BLS data tells us that the value of US manufacturing output, in constant dollars, has virtually doubled since NAFTA was signed. The data also shows that direct manufacturing employment has fallen by about 1/3 during the same period.

        Technology has been busy killing industrial jobs in the late 29th-early 21st century the same way it killed agricultural jobs a century prior to that. As before, it has created many more jobs than it destroyed, but these are different jobs (primarily in IT and other services) that require different/greater skills.

        • 0 avatar
          agent534

          @ect

          Yes, it is true. Now go back and look at the relationship between productivity and wages, and try and determine where and why they decoupled. Productivity increases used to mean more valuable employees and higher wages. Now you have open borders that oversupply labor eroding labor’s leverage, and Free Trade outright moving moving jobs to areas where workers have no leverage.

          The greater skill jobs created with advancing technology should help to stem the offshoring as the developing world lacks the skilled labor required, but the practices that undermine worker leverage need to be curtailed as well.

          • 0 avatar
            ect

            agent534, I’m not sure what you mean by “the practices that undermine worker leverage”, but I know that the unskilled and lowskilled jobs (and in a number of cases, high-skilled jobs) that technology is busy destroying are not coming back.

            Just as NAFTA and other free trade agreements have increased overall prosperity and incomes, it is also undeniable that dismantling free trade will cost jobs and make us poorer, overall. Last time I looked, the Law of Comparative Advantage had not been repealed.

            Technology and free trade both create more jobs than they destroy, albeit different jobs that require different (and usually higher) skills. Part of the problem is that the benefits are spread broadly across the economy, while the losses tend to be sector- and location-specific.

            Those who dream that killing NAFTA will bring millions of “good” jobs back to North America are simply delusional. And they will just be made more bitter when NAFTA is not killed, while the GOP continues to deny the need for retaining programs for those who have been displaced.

  • avatar
    SuperCarEnthusiast

    Mexico does not have a powerful enough economic power to do negotiations with the U.S. Trump will get everything he wants from Mexico in the long run. Their economic is in rocks and their politics system is shaky. The drug cartels control a lot of the political system already. Politicians go to the highest price. Corruption in Mexico is rampant! Battles take place between police and the cartels; between rival cartels and between the Mexican military and the cartels. Mexico is still a third world country! China and EU also imposes import tariffs too! It is either U.S. or China as major trade partner for Mexico! Both are around the same percentage!

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      Mexico by definition, is not a 3rd world country. Most of the GOP is in favour of FTA’s. We are just seeing more raw meat being thrown to the populist core of the party.

    • 0 avatar
      luismx5

      Relax.

      Mexico is the 11nth economy in the world. There are problems in some border towns with the cartels. But here in Monterrey life goes on, business is going new investments are being made. The economy is not on the “rocks”. We have places of wealth and places of poverty, just the same as the US.

      I think you should travel more, and see other cities instead of everything you see on TV.

  • avatar
    healthy skeptic

    * First, screw up the Mexican economy with a needless trade war.
    * Then, watch the number of illegal immigrants (which has been declining since 2009) promptly skyrocket.
    * Next, claim that now more than ever, a wall is needed, and it’s the only thing that can stop illegal immigration.
    * Spend at least $20 billion of U.S. taxpayer money on said wall, which is never completed and only marginally effective.
    * Hold some photo ops and rallies near the wall. Declare victory.

  • avatar
    April S

    I’m sure Trump will respond with more bellowing tough talk via Twitter. I mean he is on a roll after showing those Trans school kids who’s boss.

    • 0 avatar
      psarhjinian

      I mean, if anyone knows a thing or two about barging into other people’s changerooms, it’s Mr. Trump.

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      The funny thing is, April, I don’t think Trump’s personally into the whole gay bashing thing. On social issues, the guy’s a moderate who’s flip flopped any number of times. I wonder how much of this anti-trans stuff is really him, and how much of it is a sop to his party.

      And then there’s this: given his track record of personal behavior, who is he to lecture anyone else on “immorality”? I mean, we can disagree with someone like Mike Pence on social issues, but all evidence suggests the guy lives the values he pushes.

      But in order to get the GOP to acquiesce to his candidacy, Trump clearly cut a deal with the party establishment. Thus, we got Pence, and Priebus, and the whole passel of old-guard moral-majority types, and those folks are VERY MUCH into making the LGBT folks ride the back of the bus again.

      • 0 avatar
        April S

        That’s the issue. Pence (and Attorney General Jefferson Beauregard Sessions the Third) the wannabe theocrat can implement their anti-LGBT agenda mostly behind the scenes while Trump is too busy with his petty Twitter wars. It still blows my mind how the Fundamentalist Christian types voted for such an amoral candidate (Trump). I guess it’s OK as long as the pussy grabber (and admitted adulterer) talks big about defending “family values”.

  • avatar
    agent534

    This really is a bizarre position from Mexico. Mexican wages have not improved. They should be putting a tariff on goods headed to the USA and use the proceeds for programs to lift their poor.

  • avatar
    FreedMike

    So, to translate: the president of the United States can’t tell other countries what to do.

    Seems I was making this point long before the election happened…but what do I know?

    Am I in favor of getting a better trade agreement? Absolutely. But we’d be foolish to screw Mexico over economically. If we do, then all the problems that send so many Mexicans over our border will just become more severe. And the idea of an economically de-stabilized country that shares thousands of miles of lightly defended border territory should be scary to any thinking person. Instability causes power vacuums. In Mexico, who would fill that vacuum? It’d be people like El Chapo…or perhaps even a Hugo Chavez type. Trump needs to tread carefully, which he is incapable of doing.

Read all comments

Recent Comments

  • Matt Posky: Buy the Honda Fit. It was one of the least offensive small cars in history. Not the best on a long...
  • DenverMike: Imports were still way overpriced especially anything sporty. The MR2 was slightly more, but at least you...
  • MRF 95 T-Bird: The BRZ/86 as well as the Mustang and Camaro would be fine candidates for T-tops or a targa. The targa...
  • Lou_BC: I’d probably buy a Scion if for no reason other than the fact that Toyota doesn’t make it...
  • Russycle: Funky little car, too bad it ended up in the yard. Friend of mine had one, a part dropped off as she was...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber