Posts Tagged ‘NAFTA’

BidenWatch for September 14, 2020

Monday, September 14th, 2020

Biden loses Hispanic voters to Trump in Florida (and elsewhere), prompting Bloomberg to promise to airdrop money into the state on his behalf, how Biden has screwed up everything he’s ever tried, and proof positive Slow Joe needs a teleprompter for even the most friendly basement interviews. It’s this week’s BidenWatch!

  • Biden loses his phony baloney poll lead in Florida:

    The sun may be setting on Democrats’ hopes of picking up Florida.

    Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden has seemingly lost his advantage over President Trump in the crucial swing state of Florida, an NBC News/Marist poll released Tuesday found. A lot of that shift seemingly stems from Florida’s Latino voters, who have gone from resoundingly supporting Hillary Clinton in 2016 to actually tipping in Trump’s favor this time around, the poll showed.

    Less than two months before election day, Biden and Trump are tied in Florida with 48 percent support among likely Florida voters. Biden had previously pulled as much as a 13-point lead over Trump in Florida. That dip comes as a majority of Latino respondents say they’re voting for Trump over Biden, 50-46 percent; Latino voters went for Clinton 62-35 in 2016.

    A poll from the Miami Herald and Bendixen & Amandi International backed up NBC News’ findings, at least in Miami-Dade County. Biden still has a strong advantage, 55-38 percent, in the heavily Democratic part of the state, the Tuesday poll found. But it’s not the best news considering Clinton won that county by 30 points in 2016 and still lost the state by 1.2 points. In addition, the Miami Herald poll found Trump and Biden are splitting Hispanic voters, 47-46.

  • Maybe that’s why Mike Bloomberg say he’s going to spend $100 million to boost Biden in Florida:

    Former New York mayor Mike Bloomberg plans to spend at least $100 million in Florida to help elect Democrat Joe Biden, a massive late-stage infusion of cash that could reshape the presidential contest in a costly toss-up state central to President Trump’s reelection hopes.

    Bloomberg made the decision to focus his final election spending on Florida last week, after news reports that Trump had considered spending as much as $100 million of his own money in the final weeks of the campaign, Bloomberg’s advisers said. Presented with several options on how to make good on an earlier promise to help elect Biden, Bloomberg decided that a narrow focus on Florida was the best use of his money.

    The president’s campaign has long treated the state, which Trump now calls home, as a top priority, and his advisers remain confident in his chances given strong turnout in 2016 and 2018 that gave Republicans narrow winning margins in statewide contests.

    “Voting starts on Sept. 24 in Florida so the need to inject real capital in that state quickly is an urgent need,” said Bloomberg adviser Kevin Sheekey. “Mike believes that by investing in Florida it will allow campaign resources and other Democratic resources to be used in other states, in particular the state of Pennsylvania.”

    Further down: “The spending will focus mostly on television and digital ads, in both English and Spanish.”

    I question whether you can even spend $100 million in Florida between now and election day. There’s only X amount of TV ad time available between now and the election, and much of it is already paid for. Also, Bloomberg’s spending on his own Presidential campaign was hardly an unqualified success, unless the real goal was to stop Bernie and boost Biden all along. (Hat tip: Ann Althouse.)

  • Biden is incompetent at everything:

    The portrait of Joe Biden that emerges from What It Takes (1992), Richard Ben Cramer’s thousand-page New Journalism–style report on the 1988 presidential race, in which Biden ran for a few steps until he stumbled over his own shoelaces, is a familiar one. Biden is the grinning, overconfident oaf, a strutting salesman who keeps selling himself loads of bull manure even as everyone around him becomes alarmed by his obliviousness to facts. Or to cite another figure for comparison: He’s the lord of Swamp Castle in Monty Python and the Holy Grail: “Everyone said I was daft to build a castle on a swamp. But I built it all the same, just to show them. It sank into the swamp. So I built a second one. And that one sank into the swamp. So I built a third. That burned down, fell over, then sank into the swamp . . .” The story of Joe Biden is where staggering incompetence meets irrepressible self-confidence. The more he fails, the more convinced he becomes that he’s right.

    Ladies and gentlemen, Joe Biden, managerial visionary. We turn to page 248 of Cramer’s tombstone-sized book. A couple of years into his Senate career, Biden has a dream of living grandly by buying on the cheap a former du Pont manse, together with a huge chunk of land, for $200,000. The house was boarded up and soon, probably, to be torn down. But Biden saw something in it. Sure, it needed some fixing up. Never fear, Joe is here! Joe is a can-do fellow. The first winter he and Jill spent in the house, it used up 3,000 gallons of fuel oil. It turned out the third floor was wide open, to the stars. Squirrels were living up there. Oops. The judgment on display here is not great.

    Next year, Biden starting selling off bits of the land for development to pay for improvements such as storm windows. Small problem here: One of the lots he sold off was his own driveway, and the new owner blocked it off so he couldn’t pass through it. So Joe built a second driveway, which turned into a swamp in winter. He sold off another piece of property that, it turned out, included the front of that second driveway, so he couldn’t use that one anymore either. So I built a third. He hated that one for being a dumpy little thing. Eight years went by, and he made a deal to buy back the original driveway, the one he sold off when he first bought the house. Which cost him a fortune in landscaping to reshape.

    Meanwhile Biden was struggling with the upkeep of the grounds; he’d let the grass get three feet high, then attack it with a riding mower. Mysteriously, year after year, the mowers kept breaking down. He’d go buy a new one, and wreck that one too. “These damn things aren’t built right,” he’d mutter. The mower was always the problem, you see. And the next one. And the next one.

    To pare down costs, Biden figured he’d rearrange the floor plan a bit. At one point he decided to have the entire third story removed; at another he figured he’d have the ballroom and a bunch of other rooms, plus the carved staircase, taken apart and reassembled on a smaller footprint. It turned out this idea was kind of expensive, so he didn’t follow through. Then he got to work on the trees. Privacy was what Joe wanted, a screen of hemlocks and rhododendron bushes to form a green wall around the property. Joe even drove a 40-foot flatbed full of trees an hour and a half from Wilmington, dug himself a 45-foot trench three feet deep. He was out there in hiking boots and shorts doing the work himself. Then he started in with the yews. Glorious. He ringed the swimming pool with them. Finally, he had his privacy!

    So how’d all this end? “Two years, of course, they’re all dead.”

  • Why Trump’s Hispanic support is growing.

    In 2016, then-candidate Trump won 28 percent of the Hispanic vote, according to exit polls. Now, recent surveys by Pew and Emerson College show the president nationally at 35 percent and 37 percent, respectively, among Hispanics. Either one would be the highest Hispanic vote total for a Republican presidential candidate since 2004.

    A similar pattern has emerged in states with large Hispanic populations. In Florida, a survey by Democratic polling firm Equis Research found Biden running 11 points behind Hillary Clinton’s Hispanic vote margin over Trump in a state that she lost. According to a new NBC/Marist poll released this week, among Latino voters, Trump is leading in the Sunshine State with 50 percent compared to Biden’s 46.

    A recent Rice University and Texas Hispanic Policy Foundation poll found Biden trailing Clinton’s Hispanic vote margin over Trump by a whopping 18 points. Meanwhile, a new Bendixen & Amandi poll found Trump crushing Biden by 38 points among Cuban Americans, which had been previously trending Democratic.

    GOP presidential candidates have averaged 31 percent of the Hispanic vote since 1980, placing Trump’s current public polling levels right above the historical mean. The president’s performance is even more noteworthy in the context of Democrats and Spanish-language media routinely using immigration policy as a cudgel against conservatives.

  • Even Biden’s campaign realizes they suck here.
  • Biden: Obama-Trump voters are racist.
  • Different campaigns:

  • More on that theme:

  • “Joe Biden continues to lose notes, mind“:

    Only 16 days to the first presidential debate, and Dementia Joe Biden is resting up this weekend after a hard week of hitting the road, Jack.

    Only one problem for Joe: Whenever he ventures outside his basement, he often loses stuff — his mind, his train of thought or at least his notes.

    All dialogue guaranteed verbatim:

    “I carry with me — I don’t have it. I gave it, I gave it to my staff. I carry it with me in my pocket a — do I have that around anyone? Where’s my staff? I gave it away anyway …”

    He must have found something, because soon he began reading — or trying to read — some statistics. Numbers are not Dementia Joe’s forte, to put it mildly.

    This day, he kept repeating the word “military.” But the actual virus numbers were for Michigan, the state he was in, in addition to his perpetual state of confusion.

    Perhaps his handlers wrote “MI,” assuming that even someone as simple as Joe Biden could put two and two together. If so, they were misinformed.

  • Stop me if you’ve heard this one before: Black voters are not excited about Slow Joe. “Do you remember how viral Obama was as a candidate in 2008, particularly among black voters? He was treated like a celebrity everywhere he went, every video of him had hundreds of thousands of views, if not millions. The excitement was electric. There is none of that for Biden.”
  • Maybe we should call him Teleprompter Joe:

    For months now, people have been wondering whether all of Biden’s appearances, including the easy ones, are scripted. Now we know the truth.

    For the Biden campaign, the Wuhan virus has been a benefit. It’s allowed Biden to conduct his interviews from the safety of his own home. Because there are no public appearances, his campaign can keep secret whether Biden relies on a teleprompter for even friendly, casual interviews. Videos of Biden’s slip-ups suggested that he was using a teleprompter, but the campaign wasn’t talking. Now, though, a sharp-eyed viewer looking at footage of Biden talking to James Corden believes he’s exposed Biden’s secret: Even for friendly, inconsequential interviews, Biden and his interlocutors have a script.

    (Hat tip: Director Blue.)

  • Trump holds a lead in Michigan.
  • “Antifa for Biden“:

    Hey folks, it’s me, your friendly neighborhood antifa ringleader. You may recognize me from such news clips as ‘Small group of troublemakers seen smashing windows’ and ‘ANTIFA dude on fire in Portland’. That’s me in the black hoodie.

    I’m enjoying a bit of downtime ahead of another largely peaceful weekend (weather permitting!). Right now I’m changing flights — who knew there were flight changes in business class? — but I figured I’d take a break from my busy schedule of scheming to give you all an important message: vote for Joe Biden and Kamala Harris on November 3.

    I know what you’re thinking: isn’t antifa a series of anarchist groups with little to do with center-left mainstream politics? What does a radical collective like that want with a career politician like Joe Biden? And doesn’t Kamala Harris love cracking down on crime?

    Questions like those are missing the point. As you know, young people are big policy wonks. And really that’s what all the summer of unrest has been about: policy, particularly those agreed on by Joe, Kamala and the DNC.

    When I spark up my joint on the way down to the organized mayhem, I’m dreaming of a day when it’s decriminalized but not fully legalized. When I light a Molotov cocktail and fling it through the window of an AutoZone, that’s my way of saying ‘I want a slightly expanded version of the insubstantial existing Medicare coverage.’ And when I roll my commemorative edition of the 1619 Project up into an improvised club with which to strike a passing policeman, it’s a cheeky gesture that tells the officer: ‘hello old friend — like my chosen candidate Joe Biden, I want to add $300 million to your budget.’ I always make a point to wink knowingly before screaming ‘ACAB’ in their faces — just so they’re in on the bit.

    (Hat tip: Ed Driscoll at Instapundit.)

  • “More than 300,000 veterans died while waiting for care from Obama and Biden’s Department of Veterans Affairs, according to an Inspector General report released in September 2015.” (Hat tip: Stephen Green at Instapundit.)
  • Joe admitted that President Trump’s USMCA trade pact is better than NAFTA. Plus Ann Althouse thinks he’s still sharp in at least one area: “He can evade. He’s very evasive. You’ve got to give him that. He’s old and often seems confused, but when cornered, he’s quick to evade.”
  • “Biden Says We Need a President Who Tells the Truth? Then Here Are 8 Big Whoppers That Disqualify Him.” The Fine People Hoax doesn’t make the list, but the plagiarism and college lies do.
  • Debunking revisionist history: “No, Biden Didn’t Support Trump’s China Travel Ban.”
  • Dispatches from Planet Cognitive Dissonance: “Joe Biden: Trump ‘Accidentally’ Making Peace Between Israel and Arab States.” It must have been by accident, because tazpayers aren;t paying billions of dollars for Democrats to rake off in graft for the plan to fail…
  • “And now we’ll just pass the microphone back to Kamala to answers some questions from the pres-” Staffer: “Nowe’regoodseeya!”
  • “Kamala Harris’s husband’s firm, DLA Piper, consults on behalf of a bevy of Chinese Communist Party-owned companies and employs former Chinese Communist Party officials.”

    DLA Piper, a multinational law firm, boasts nearly 30 years of experience in China and over 140 lawyers dedicated to its “China Investment Services” branch.

    Harris’s links to the company are found with her husband, Douglas Emhoff, who has served as a Partner in the firm’s Intellectual Property and Technology practice and its Media, Sport, and Entertainment sector since 2017.

    DLA Piper boasts of having “long-established and embedded “China Desks” in both the U.S. and Europe” to assist their China-focused consulting, prompting questions about the firm’s potential proximity to the White House could be leveraged by DLA Piper, exploited by the Chinese Communist Party, or represent a financial conflict of interest for the Vice Presidential candidate.

    To facilitate DLA Piper’s China practice – which has received countless prestigious awards from the China Business Law Journal and China Law and Practice – the company employs a host of former Chinese Communist Party officials.

    Ernest Yang, who serves as the firm’s Head of Litigation & Regulatory department and Co-Head of International Arbitration, was appointed to the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC) in 2013. The CPPCC serves as the top advisory board for the Chinese Communist Party, and Yang was promoted to the body’s Standing Committee in 2019.

    Jessica Zhao, a Senior Advisor, served as the Deputy Secretary General of the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC), a government-owned body established by the Chinese Communist Party in 1956. It was developed under the auspices of the China Council for the Promotion of International Trade, “a governmental body for the furtherance of Chinese trade promotion.”

    Other high-level employees, such as Gloria Liu who serves as Partner, have “represented lead investors” in deals with Bytedance, the parent company of TikTok, a controversial app is set to be banned by President Trump for its compromising links to the Chinese Communist Party.

  • A look at the competing spending by state for the two campaigns reveals some curious choices by Team Biden:

    I’d like to look at the source these were pulled from. But the big money Team Trump is spending in Minnesota is a smart play. I know the Trump campaign is spending at least money in Texas, as I’ve seen billboards. And I would think Colorado isn’t yet so deep blue it isn’t worth fighting for.

  • “Inside Joe’s bubble: How Biden’s campaign is trying to avoid the virus. The former vice president’s team goes to extraordinary lengths to keep him safe.” I assume this is a campaign-planted story and that the “extraordinary lengths” will eventually include not allowing him to debate. “Sure, Joe really wants to debate,” they’ll say, “but the extraordinary lengths we’re going to to protect his health just won’t permit it,” and everyone will nod their head and pretend like it’s not a cowardly cop-out.
  • All the celebrities supporting Biden. Yawn. I’m sure Lily Tomlin and Shia LaBeouf will put him over the top…
  • Have some more squirm, Scarecrow:

  • There’s someone in my head, but it’s not me:

  • Joe Biden supporters winning friends and influencing people:

  • Heh:

  • Heh 2:

  • “To Combat Falling Poll Numbers, Biden Moved Down To Sub-Basement.”
  • “Biden Finally Takes A Question From The Press, Calling On New Reporter Mr. Hamala Karris.”

    • Like BidenWatch? Consider hitting the tip jar:





    Tags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
    Posted in Communism, Democrats, Elections, Foreign Policy | 1 Comment »

    [INSERT SNAPPY TITLE TO SOMEHOW ACTUALLY MAKE PEOPLE WANT TO READ ABOUT A TRADE PACT HERE]

    Tuesday, October 2nd, 2018

    Late Sunday, President Donald Trump announced that the Canadian government had given in and was joining the United States and Mexico in a revision of the NAFTA trade agreement, one of Trump’s key 2016 campaign promises.

    Here are some highlights of the agreement:

    1. Canada agreed to ease protections on its dairy market, among them, it will now provide US access to about 3.5% of the market (Canada is likely to compensate dairy farmers);
    2. The US relented on its demand to eliminate the dispute settlement system on Chapter 19, a big win for Canada;
    3. Canada agreed to the terms of the US-Mexico deal, among them a de minimis of US$100 (the amount of imports without duties, which in NAFTA is US$20), stricter rules of origin for autos, a 10 year sunset clause with a 6 year revision and an update on several topics from labor to commerce to intellectual property; and
    4. The US and Canada reached an agreement to protect Canada’s autos from high auto tariffs if the US imposes them under law 232 with a quota of 2.6 million vehicles exported. The latter is similar to the “side-letter” that Mexico agreed with the US that protects 2.4 million vehicles. So far there are no exemptions from steel and aluminum tariffs.

    Here’s the text of the deal itself.

    What strikes me is that the most contentious ongoing U.S. Canada trade dispute issue, softwood lumber, does not seem to have been addressed. (I say “seem” because a search of the document on the ustr.gov site just brought up an error.)

    The Last Refuge was quite happy about the pact:

    I’m still going through the USMCA text (even speed reading, it will likely take a while); here’s the link to the AGREEMENT DETAILS. However, many people have asked about how the NAFTA loophole was being closed.

    Well, the answer is exactly what it had to be – there was really no option. The U.S. now has veto authority over any trade deal made by Canada and/or Mexico with third parties. This is what Ambassador Lighthizer described as the “Third pillar”.

    Last year, despite the inevitability of it, we didn’t think Canada and Mexico would agree to it. The NAFTA loophole was/is a zero-sum issue: Either Can/Mex agree to give veto authority to the U.S. –OR– President Trump had no option to exit NAFTA completely.

    Well, Canada and Mexico have agreed to the former, so there’s no need for the latter.

    Then they print the text of Article 32.10.

    Both Canada and Mexico structured key parts of their independent trade agreements to take advantage of their unique access to the U.S. market. Mexico and Canada generate billions in economic activity through exploiting the NAFTA loophole. China, Asia (writ large), and the EU enter into trade agreements with Mexico and Canada as back-doors into the U.S. market. So long as corporations can avoid U.S. tariffs by going through Canada and Mexico they would continue to exploit this approach.

    By shipping parts to Mexico and/or Canada; and by deploying satellite manufacturing and assembly facilities in Canada and/or Mexico; China, Asia and to a lesser extent EU corporations exploited a loophole. Through a process of building, assembling or manufacturing their products in Mexico/Canada those foreign corporations can skirt U.S. trade tariffs and direct U.S. trade agreements. The finished foreign products entered the U.S. under NAFTA rules.

    Why deal with the U.S. when you can just deal with Mexico, and use NAFTA rules to ship your product directly into the U.S. market?

    This exploitative approach, a backdoor to the U.S. market, was the primary reason for massive foreign investment in Canada and Mexico; it was also the primary reason why candidate Donald Trump, now President Donald Trump, wanted to shut down that loophole and renegotiate NAFTA.

    This loophole was the primary reason for U.S. manufacturers to relocate operations to Mexico. Corporations within the U.S. Auto-Sector could enhance profits by building in Mexico or Canada using parts imported from Asia/China. The labor factor was not as big a part of the overall cost consideration as cheaper parts and imported raw materials.

    If the U.S. applies the same tariffs to Canada and Mexico we apply to all trade nations, then the benefit of using Canada and Mexico -by those trade nations- is lost. Corporations will no longer have any advantage, and many are likely to just deal directly with the U.S. This is the reason for retaining the Steel and Aluminum tariffs on Canada and Mexico.

    I reached out to Vance Ginn of the Texas Public Policy Foundation, who is much more of a fan of the original NAFTA than President Trump, and asked him a few questions about the new agreement:

    1. How big a win for President Trump is this, if it is indeed a win?

    I’m cautiously optimistic about the USMCA because even though certain industries, like producers of autos and dairy products, will likely benefit, the provisions related to the auto sector will cost Americans more for autos along with potentially reducing profitability of the auto sector as higher priced cars reduce the number consumed. People prosper from trade so the focus should be on reducing trade barriers, which the USMCA may have done but we won’t know until all details are available. Based on what we do know, it appears that there is reason to believe the original NAFTA should have remained intact.

    2. What do you see as the most important provision for increasing free trade?

    Most important is that there aren’t many changes to the original, beneficial NAFTA. However, the USMCA provision to ban tariffs on digital trade appears to be the most important. In addition, removing trade uncertainty is a big plus, though there is now a 60 day waiting period before it can be voted on by Congress.

    3. The summaries I’ve seen don’t cover the longest-running and thorniest US/Canadian trade dispute, namely softwood lumber subsidies and tariffs. What, if anything, does the agreement do to address that dispute?

    I haven’t seen anything. Mostly covers the trade dispute of dairy products. One of the things to look for when the details are revealed.

    4. How applicable will the 2018 NAFTA precedent be for President Trump’s other trade disputes?

    The USMCA could provide a framework to get marginal gains while protecting specific sectors, like manufacturing, comes at a cost. The takeaway shouldn’t be that tariffs are a good bargaining chip because taxes aren’t a reasonable tool to use for that purpose. Taxes should be used to only collect revenue to fund limited government spending. Instead of looking at trade deficits and fair trade rhetoric, there should be a focus on making the U.S. and states as competitive as possible in the global market by instituting sound policies while working to eliminate barriers to trade.

    My own impression is that President Trump scored a solid single here thanks to his unorthodox negotiating style, and probably increased his trade negotiating leverage somewhat with other countries.

    Tags:, , , , ,
    Posted in Economics | 2 Comments »

    President Trump Announces New Trade Deal With Mexico

    Tuesday, August 28th, 2018

    President Donald Trump announced a new trade deal with Mexico:

    President Donald Trump said Monday the U.S. and Mexico have reached a new trade deal, paving the way for the possible revision of the North American Free Trade Agreement.

    In an Oval Office announcement, Trump said the new agreement would be called the United States Mexico trade agreement and would replace NAFTA, which he said had “bad connotations” for the United States.

    “It’s a big day for trade,” he said. “It’s a big day for our country.”

    Trump said he intends to terminate NAFTA and that the U.S. would immediately begin negotiations with Canada, the third party in the trilateral trade pact that he has called the “worst deal ever.”

    “If they would like to negotiate fairly, we will do that,” Trump said. He said it’s possible that a separate deal could be reached with Canada.

    The announcement of a deal between the U.S. and Mexico comes after five consecutive weeks of talks between the two nations to revise key parts of the NAFTA.

    In a phone call with Trump, Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto called the deal “something very positive for the United States and Mexico.”

    The U.S. and Mexico are hoping to get a final deal signed before Peña Nieto leaves office on Dec. 1. But before the U.S. can sign the deal, Congress must be given 90 days’ notice. A formal notice will be sent to Congress on Friday.

    Pena Nieto repeatedly expressed interest for Canada to be incorporated into the agreement. Trump said the U.S. would have a deal with Canada “one way or another.”

    “It’ll either be a tariff on cars or it’ll be a negotiated deal,” he said. “Frankly, a tariff on cars is a much easier way to go. Perhaps, the other would be much better for Canada.”

    In Mexico City, Marcelo Ebrard, Mexico’s incoming foreign minister under President-elect Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, said Monday he was pleased to see the U.S and Mexico craft a new trade deal, according to Reuters.

    “We see the agreement announced today as positive progress … in the coming days we will continue in trilateral negotiations with Canada, which is vital to be able to renew the (trade) pact,” said Marcelo Ebrard, the future foreign minister.

    Douglas George, the Detroit-based consul general of Canada responsible for Michigan, Ohio, Indiana and Kentucky, sounded upbeat on Monday.

    “We’re encouraged by the optimism shown by our negotiating partners,” George told the Detroit Free Press on Monday. “Progress between Mexico and the U.S. is a necessary requirement for any renewed NAFTA agreement. While they’ve been negotiating, we’ve been in regular contact with them over the last weeks. We’ll continue to work toward a modernized NAFTA. We have a three-way negotiation that’s been ongoing.”​

    How can we analyze the costs and benefits of this agreement compared to NAFTA?

    Well, we can’t yet. The text of the agreement isn’t available. Ace of Spades zeroes in on this:

    According to a fact sheet from the United States Trade Representative, the agreement includes new rules of origin to incentivize manufacturers to source goods and materials in North America — including requiring 75 percent of auto content be made in the United States and Mexico.

    I’m going to guess that the point of this is to require Mexico to buy the bulk of the steel used in making cars from US/Mexican steel-makers, which probably means “US steel makers” in practice. Rather than, say, Chinese or Canadian or other makers.

    I’m not a fan of the trade warrior fetishization of steel over other industries, but as previously noted, President Trump’s unorthodox negotiating style seems to be lowering trade barriers for American products. The success with Mexico will likely increase pressure on Canada and Mexico to do the same.

    Tags:, , , ,
    Posted in Economics, Foreign Policy | No Comments »