Wednesday, May 03, 2017

Renegotiating NAFTA

President Trump announced last week that NAFTA was going to be renegotiated. The blackpill brigade on Twitter went into "Oh no, he he promised he he said NAFTA would go away, what a betrayal" mode. Regular people recall his campaign rhetoric and Trump went from let's leave NAFTA to let's negotiate a better deal to simply complaining about NAFTA. This is a great step that offers opportunities for American workers with some distant clouds of danger.

NAFTA was a bipartisan effort to benefit capital over the average worker. Sold as a way for American goods to be sold cheaper in Canada and Mexico, it really was a way for American capital to invest in Canada and Mexico to skirt American environmental regulations and standards of living. It was another example of former President Clinton pulling the Democrats under the FIRE economy's thumb and away from its old labor ties. The only public figure at the time against it seemed to be Ross Perot with his patriotic sense of noblesse oblige.

It took nearly 25 years and another version of Perot to win the presidency in order to even consider renegotiating NAFTA. Former president Obama flirted with it on the campaign trail in 2008. The current system said, "Sorry kid, can't mess with the good sheep shearing business we have going". The opportunity here is that America can renegotiate for more favorable terms for the people that came out for Trump in the upper Midwest on the hopes that some decent jobs that do not require thousands in college debt would return.

This is prime time to hold Mexico over the barrel. Is Mexico a straight up failed state, a narco-state or a muddling state of great potential? It is hard to tell but failed state looks more appropriate. It is bad enough when the leadership in Mexico openly threatens to unleash the cartels if President Trump were to push forward with all his border promises. Note that even Playa Del Carmen is seeing cartel massacres and violence now, and that was the final vacation hot spot that was free of cartel violence. Safety and security is that bad in Mexico even in those lush spots.

The danger is that the Kushnerites and Goldman crowd renegotiates NAFTA and inserts a bunch of TPP style provisions and screws American workers over. It would be a renegotiation that shifts the terms even more in capital's favor. There is a chance the Kushner wing is this incredibly stupid, but if re-election depends on the Big 10 Sailer strategy, then they will feed the manufacturing spots of the Midwest with red meat. All of Trump's meetings with union heads since the election have probably focused on this. If labor unions have been screwed by the Democrats since the Clinton admin, they may be far more open to a nominal Republican's promises.

The media should be asking why it took this long for any president to consider renegotiating NAFTA. Why did not W renegotiate it after a decade of seeing the adverse effects and why did Obama fail to address it after a decade of supposedly fighting for the working class? We know why. The entire pundit class was supportive of free flow of capital and labor, which means capital since labor has a harder time moving. Academia churned out reports stating free trade helped by 1% or added 100,000 jobs. Academics could not be pinned down by inquiring journalists (on the same ideological team) where the jobs were gained and where they were lost. Lost in this were the detrimental effects not just in employment but in entire communities as plants closed.

For the blackpillers out there, to consider America ending NAFTA entirely was a pipe dream. Trade agreements between the three nations existed prior to NAFTA. NAFTA was a consolidation of them as well as an acceleration. Mexico had to realize this was coming someday unless America formally annexed Mexico. At the rate of Mexicanization of America, this might have been 2025 had Clinton won.

Trump threatening to pull out of NAFTA is so fear inducing because he was such a wild card that Mexico will consider any renegotiations as a best alternative to America leaving. This negotiation tactic is jumping so far outside the window of normal to drag the other partner closer to your intended landing point. A classic example is a man continuously hinting at eloping, and then when proposing says 'let's elope', forcing the woman to then negotiate up from 0 for guests as a compromise. Had the man said "100 guest wedding" when the woman wanted 200, the negotiations start from 100 on up.

Pull the blackpill IV out for one moment and wait to see the results of negotiations. If NAFTA becomes worse, then chug the blackpill nectar. Until then, keep fighting the culture war online and in your communities. You will not be in the NAFTA renegotiations room, but you can be the lighthouse for normies and regular people to slowly push back on the prog dominated culture we live in.

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

I favor the old school approach. Trade is fine but forget big agreements, just set our own tariffs at a point where they level the playing field between american wages and foreign wages. On goods we don't produce, like coffee, open trade completely.

Its simple, but wealth can't be skimmed by global capital and special interests when legislation is simple. So we need 10000 page trade agreements.

NAFTA helps big farms but hurts manufacturing. A quick look at the McKinley vs Bryant election of 1896 shows what protection vs. free trade coalitions look like (Byrant the was the Democrat free trader). There's been some structural changes since then but the point is clear: Much of the GOP's current national strength is in farm country, where free trade rules and has always ruled.

We'll get nibbling around the edges and thats it. There can be no other way. Trump won't approve a big new Gary Cohn trade agreement, and he is paralyzed by the GOP coalition into doing anything strong enough to help manufacturing in a big way.

Portlander said...

You want black pill? Open borders are part of Agenda 21. The Rubicon is already crossed. Even if borders are closed in the next year or two, Agenda 21 is still on track and on schedule.

Whites had reduced their TFR to below replacement. It was a normal under-shoot and would have corrected to even replacement easily and soon enough. As such, it was a problem for The Elite in two ways:

1) wage-slaves won't show up to work once their economic wants and needs are reasonably satisfied (see UAW circa 64-72) -- unlimited wants and needs is a lie promulgated by (((economists))), most healthy people don't think or act that way -- it's takes financial duress and threat of ill-outcome for their children to keep them motivated.

2) multi-cultural, balkanized societies are a pre-requisite for civil war. Civil war is pre-requisite for depopulation. As Heariste says diversity + proximity = war. The corollary is, high-IQ mono-culture + financial security = peace.

Once technology has progressed to a point that you don't need a large white working class driving the engine of production -- vast swaths of production can be handled through automation now -- whites just get in the way. There are far better races for constituting a servant class than whites.

MacD said...

Good piece. Playa del Carmen is not the last safe destination in Mexico. Los Cabos is quite safe and has alot lower crime rates than most US cities.


http://traveltips.usatoday.com/safe-citizens-travel-cabo-san-lucas-11273.html

paworldandtimes said...

There is a White Genocide but the reasoning here is wrong:

-- Civil war is pre-requisite for depopulation.

Wars create spikes in birth rates for a number of reasons. The wives are less beholden to sterile pursuits. Women run to their men for security and at younger ages and put out more.

-- There are far better races for constituting a servant class than whites.

Would you trust a mud to do any job right unsupervised? For a pleasant experience, would you rather go into a convenience store run by White teens or browns? Non-Whites are less honest, less competent, obsequious when not surly, and ugly.

PA

Anonymous said...

It's a little disheartening to see Trump supporters buy into the media narrative of the 100 days. If everything promised isn't accomplished 100 days in then we may as well have elected Hillary or some such. The big issue with Trump was always illegal immigration. Everything else was gravy, and even 100 days in we have gravy to celebrate. As far as the totality of issues (wall, trade, less interventionist FP) I'll judge him at the end of the term. Even at the end of term the judgement will be on progress made on these goals, not necessarily the completion of these goals. If there is no completed wall but construction has begun, great! If NAFTA is still around but changes have been made that ameliorate the situation, great! Politics as they say is the art of compromise. If at the end of the day we mostly get what we want then we are winning. This would be in stark contrast to the usual bipartisanship which is one step forward two steps back.

peterike said...

For a pleasant experience, would you rather go into a convenience store run by White teens or browns? Non-Whites are less honest, less competent, obsequious when not surly, and ugly. .

That is very true. But the Hermes store in Manhattan or San Francisco is always going to be staffed by whites or the very high end of the Asian/NAM nexus. And that's all our Overlords care about. Nobody that matters ever goes into a convenience store.

Portlander said...

Wars create spikes in birth rates for a number of reasons.

Only the small ones.