It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Mexico warns Trump on tariffs: We'll respond 'immediately'

page: 8
25
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2017 @ 07:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

ill dig out the stuff going back tot he 50's...but if you don't want to wait for some info, Fast and Furious links to the CIA and DEA creating and arming the Sinaloa Cartel, subsequent to Operation Mayan Jaguars very public loss of a CIA coc aine plane in the Gulf.




posted on Jan, 15 2017 @ 07:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99



We need to stop looking for world approval on internal affairs. The US could EASILY be a net exporter globally if taxes and tariffs were set.


The US is a member of the WTO, you have agreed to fair trade policies worldwide. Are you now going to renege on those fair trade policies ?





The common go to, "they will sell to someone else". If there was someone else they would already be selling to them. US imports and exports make up a large portion of global trade, and definitely influence it overall.


Yup.

Now just think of all that bonus tariff money said foreign countries will get from all their US imports... now that the US is implementing new tariff policies on world trade. Tit for tat and all that.





I think if US consumers knew they could get the same pair of shoes made from the same company for pennies on the dollar they might be a bit miffed, the prices in the US are already extremely inflated.


And just think of how miffed they're going to be when a pair of (already extremely inflated) sneakers bumps up another $10 because of artificial tariff inflation.





Meh, that's a controversial point but i'm not going to ignore it. That would be taxed too. It would also have to be written up in a staging manner, but yea, cheap imports would also have to pay that tax.


So you have no problem nailing your fellow countrymen with higher taxes for shopping online... while the rest of the free world easily spends their monies wherever they please, however they please, purchasing from whomever they please ?

You're basically telling US citizens that if they want to shop online, big brother is going to punish them for it.



posted on Jan, 15 2017 @ 10:17 AM
link   
Raising tariffs is the wrong way to do it that just makes things more expensive for us. the way to do it is add a "build the wall surcharge" to everything that is exported to Mexico so that they pay more for everything imported from the U.S. and they end up paying for the wall.
edit on 15-1-2017 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2017 @ 11:04 AM
link   
Maybe they need an "oil for wall" program.




posted on Jan, 15 2017 @ 11:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Vector99




trump is big time on keeping jobs in America.

I've heard his rap.


When jobs and income are outsourced we create a deficit.
When the government spends more that it collects there is a deficit. Tariffs are, in effect, a tax increase on consumers.


Maybe I just don't get this, but I thought this was meant to be a tax on importing goods manufactured in Mexico, in order to convince those companies to move manufacturing back to the US. If that isn't the case, could you please explain it?



posted on Jan, 15 2017 @ 11:53 AM
link   
Watch the movie Sicario with Benicio del Toro.A lot of truth in that movie



posted on Jan, 15 2017 @ 01:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

Vector, hyperbole aside, Guardo could well be correct.

I think you are forgetting that practically none of consumer products sold in the US are made in the US. If Trump could put a 35% import tax on all that, two things would surely happen. Global recession and runaway inflation in the US accompanied by shortages of everything from toilet paper to blue jeans, auto parts to missle parts. The US economy would flounder and the debt bomb might well be triggered forcing the US into default.



posted on Jan, 15 2017 @ 02:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: Vector99

Vector, hyperbole aside, Guardo could well be correct.

I think you are forgetting that practically none of consumer products sold in the US are made in the US. If Trump could put a 35% import tax on all that, two things would surely happen. Global recession and runaway inflation in the US accompanied by shortages of everything from toilet paper to blue jeans, auto parts to missle parts. The US economy would flounder and the debt bomb might well be triggered forcing the US into default.


Myself, and phage have both tried to explain this to him, he doesnt get it...instead he takes off on a two page runaway tirade because he doesnt believe im a business owner and accuses me of not knowing business or economy....

Yet somehow hes an authority on it , but miraculously doesnt know what the effects of a tariff are............

Weird......

Some idiots you just cant educate no matter the facts



posted on Jan, 15 2017 @ 02:54 PM
link   
Mexico is definitely scared, as they should be. They literally leech of the U.S. As a man from southern Arizona this makes me happy. I'm tired of my city being poor because half of our economy is going back across the border to help the illegals families. I understand that these people are in a #ty situation but this is America, America comes first, not Mexico



posted on Jan, 15 2017 @ 03:37 PM
link   
Jesus, if you want a wall pay for it yourselves.



posted on Jan, 15 2017 @ 04:30 PM
link   
a reply to: CranialSponge



The US is a member of the WTO, you have agreed to fair trade policies worldwide. Are you now going to renege on those fair trade policies ?

Renege how? It's allowed.

Binding tariffs, and applying them equally to all trading partners (most-favoured-nation treatment, or MFN) are key to the smooth flow of trade in goods. The WTO agreements uphold the principles, but they also allow exceptions — in some circumstances. Three of these issues are:
*actions taken against dumping (selling at an unfairly low price)
*subsidies and special “countervailing” duties to offset the subsidies
*emergency measures to limit imports temporarily, designed to “safeguard” domestic industries.

source



Now just think of all that bonus tariff money said foreign countries will get from all their US imports... now that the US is implementing new tariff policies on world trade. Tit for tat and all that.

It's a possibility, but not very likely. A lot of the things we export are pretty vital to commerce, travel, and infrastructure of nations.


And just think of how miffed they're going to be when a pair of (already extremely inflated) sneakers bumps up another $10 because of artificial tariff inflation.

Depends on the percentage of increase. If $10 shoes suddenly become $20, people will notice. If $150 shoes become $160 shoes, not many will notice, and most people I know would gladly pay a little more to ensure Americans are working. Ask around.



So you have no problem nailing your fellow countrymen with higher taxes for shopping online... while the rest of the free world easily spends their monies wherever they please, however they please, purchasing from whomever they please ? You're basically telling US citizens that if they want to shop online, big brother is going to punish them for it.

Bit of a stretch there. As I said it would have to be staged. I'm not saying throw a 35% tax on all online purchases, but nice try with that spin.



posted on Jan, 15 2017 @ 04:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: Vector99

Vector, hyperbole aside, Guardo could well be correct.

I think you are forgetting that practically none of consumer products sold in the US are made in the US. If Trump could put a 35% import tax on all that, two things would surely happen. Global recession and runaway inflation in the US accompanied by shortages of everything from toilet paper to blue jeans, auto parts to missle parts. The US economy would flounder and the debt bomb might well be triggered forcing the US into default.

Please explain how a 35% tariff on Mexican imports will cause a global recession leading to a US default? Global imports were not mentioned, only Mexican ones.

Guajardo also predicted that Trump's threat of a 35% tariff against Mexico, if carried out, would result in a "global recession"



posted on Jan, 15 2017 @ 05:02 PM
link   
Some of you seem to be missing the point with Mexico...in this example. If (for example) Ford builds cars in the USA, pays rent, pays taxes, pays for employees, their healthcare, buys components from other American companies, etc...they contribute to the country's economy and sell their products to Americans for a nice profit.

If Chevy decided to build their cars in Mexico, pay rent, pay taxes, pay employees, their healthcare and buy from other Mexican companies, etc...they DON'T contribute to the economy of the USA and likely pay quite a bit less...while selling their products to Americans for a nicer profit.

To put the two companies on equal footing, we want them here...paying our taxes, employees, etc. If Chevy doesn't want to do so, we can impose a tax to force an even playing field.

That benefits our country and our people and if the companies wish to have access from outside our country, to our marketplace...that is the cost of doing business with America.

I see no problem with this...and I see no problem with the wall. Mexico is not stopping their citizens from entering our country illegally. Like a neighbor whose dog comes into your yard to crap. The neighbor (eg. Mexico) is responsible for their dog and THEY need to put up a fence. If not...we will build a wall and charge (via taxes, etc.) to Mexico because IT IS THEIR FAULT WE NEED IT in the first place.
edit on 1/15/2017 by WeAreAWAKE because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2017 @ 05:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: WilsonWilson
Jesus, if you want a wall pay for it yourselves.

Nope! It is Mexico's fault that their people are entering our country illegally. And just like a neighbor with a dog that craps in your yard, they are responsible to keep their dog contained. If not...they can be made to pay for a fence/wall to keep their dog out of our yard.



posted on Jan, 15 2017 @ 05:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Vector99




trump is big time on keeping jobs in America.

I've heard his rap.


When jobs and income are outsourced we create a deficit.
When the government spends more that it collects there is a deficit. Tariffs are, in effect, a tax increase on consumers.


Maybe I just don't get this, but I thought this was meant to be a tax on importing goods manufactured in Mexico, in order to convince those companies to move manufacturing back to the US. If that isn't the case, could you please explain it?


You are correct. It is a tax on importing the products NOT created in the USA to even the playing field. The talk of tariffs is people just playing games. You are correct that Trump is talking about taxing the products. So...for example...the American sneakers that cost $50 will remain at $50 while the Mexican sneakers that cost $40 will go up to $50...for example.

It is perfectly fair, safe and the right thing to do.



posted on Jan, 15 2017 @ 06:04 PM
link   
a reply to: CranialSponge



The US cannot mine, grow, and/or produce absolutely everything it needs for various manufacturing industries.





British Columbia and Alberta could do it.

Easily.

More nonsense.
edit on 15-1-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-1-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2017 @ 06:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arizonaguy
Personally, I think that Trump should push Congress to tariff the hell out of Mexico until a 40' above ground, 20' below ground 4' thick concrete wall with machine gun turrets every 100 yards, radar, and seismographs is built and paid for, and all illegals are back in their countries of origin.


Machine gun turrets?

Do you honestly believe people trying to cross into the US should be mowed down with machine guns?

(They can turn those machine guns around, too.)



posted on Jan, 15 2017 @ 06:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: WilsonWilson
Jesus, if you want a wall pay for it yourselves.


Being done. Pay attention to the CSPAN and news.

For goodness sake it is in production already...phase one


Should have been done a very very long time ago

mg



posted on Jan, 15 2017 @ 08:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I'm not too familiar with recent Mexico history, care to send me a source for this claim?


To start, a fairly brief history of the Mexican economy:

en.wikipedia.org...

Of note is the period post 1970, when you see surge/bust cycles take over. Economic growth happens in fits and starts through the mid to late 70's...then disaster.

The oil crisis in the early 70's created a boom/bust cycle, but in 76 the bottom fell out on them. They began to recover thanks to another oil crisis in 1979, and in 82, it happened again (for what its worth, same thing in West Texas at the same times).

All of the above was due to OPEC enacting an embargo in response to western activity in the middle east (i.e., US support of Israel's forward military action). My opinion on this is we worked with OPEC nations, or manipulated them, to remove funding for potential communist growth in Latin America. Because that is what happened....sent the region into a tailspin.

So now fast forward to the late 90's. There was an enormous vacuum opened up in the economy after the collapse of the oil markets int he late 70's and early 80's, not to mention a displacement of the prior structure of marijuana growers using Agent Orange, and we see a Mexican drug market that seems to be, if not outright controlled by, at least heavily influenced by US agencies. Whether on purpose or unwittingly, the US created the Cartels as an unofficial corporate structure within the Mexican agricultural economy. Its not independant farmers selling thier crops. Its farmers in cartel territories either being reimbursed pennies on the dollar or paying enormous taxes on their yields for "protection". I can link to how cartels operate, but you can find this easily and its not germane to the assertion of US interdiction in Mexico.

In 1996 a series called "Dark Alliance" outlined how the CIA controlled the coc aine traffic out of Latin America, using it to fund the Contra's. This is the same scandal with Reagan and Ollie North...but was the gun trade side of the deal in the middle east.


In 1996, the San Jose Mercury News published Dark Alliance, a series of investigative reports linking CIA missions in Nicaragua with the explosion of crack coc aine consumption in America's ghettos.

In order to fund Contra rebels fighting Nicaragua's socialist government, the CIA partnered with Colombian cartels to move drugs into Los Angeles, sending profits back to Central America, the series alleged.

"There is no question in my mind that people affiliated with, or on the payroll of, the CIA were involved in drug trafficking," US Senator John Kerry said at the time, in response to the series.


www.aljazeera.com...

You can find similar information elsewhere, so don't fret the Al Jazeera link..its just the one I pulled from the top, having read the article before.

But the article does go on:


"Under that agreement, the Sinaloa Cartel under the leadership of [Jesus Zambada's] father, Ismael Zambada and 'Chapo' Guzmán were given carte blanche to continue to smuggle tonnes of illicit drugs... into... the United States, and were protected by the United States government from arrest and prosecution in return for providing information against rival cartels," Zambada's lawyers wrote as part of his defence. "Indeed, the Unites States government agents aided the leaders of the Sinaloa Cartel."

The Sinaloa cartel is Mexico's oldest and most powerful trafficking organisation, and some analysts believe security forces in the US and Mexico favour the group over its rivals.

Joaquin "El Chapo", the cartel's billionaire leader and one of the world's most wanted men, escaped from a Mexican prison in 2001 by sneaking into a laundry truck - likely with collaboration from guards - further stoking rumours that leading traffickers have complicit friends in high places.

"It would be easy for the Mexican army to capture El Chapo," Mireles said. "But this is not the objective." He thinks the authorities on both sides of the border are happy to have El Chapo on the loose, as his cartel is easier to manage and his drug money is recycled back into the broader economy. Other analysts consider this viewpoint a conspiracy theory and blame ineptitude and low level corruption for El Chapo's escape, rather than a broader plan from government agencies.


If you'd like a second source for any of the above, ill throw up the following link. The site can corroborate the above...but this links has a few excerpts for you as well:

narcosphere.narconews.com...


The ongoing investigation into the Gulfstream II jet that crashed in Mexico in the fall of 2007 with a cargo of 3.7 tons of coc aine onboard appears to be an example of a case that points to a deeper corruption problem within the US bureaucracy.

That jet was part of a long-running US covert operation, called Mayan Jaguar, that involved the sale of dozens of aircraft to Latin American narco-trafficking organizations, court records recently revealed.

It now appears, based on a Narco News investigation, that a number of the jets sold through Mayan Jaguar or related parties may have been used to move tons of coc aine into the European market, via Africa, despite the fact that some of these aircraft were supposedly being monitored and tracked by the US law enforcers and/or intelligence agents overseeing Mayan Jaguar.

Media reports as well European investigators have connected the Gulfstream II jet, via its tail number, N987SA, to past use by the CIA, including alleged flights from 2001 to 2005 between the United States, Europe and Guantanamo Bay, home to the infamous prison camp for targets of the so-called War on Terror.


So you have a CIA jet loaded with coke go down in the gulf. Bad, bad press, for sure. How do they respond? Create the sinaloa cartel (mentioned above) to fully control the land routes for the Columbian Gold. No more jets going down in the gulf, clean and easy.

We created the Sinaloa from a group of Mexican commando's who had worked with the CIA before:

www.businessinsider.com...


An investigation by El Universal found that between the years 2000 and 2012, the U.S. government had an arrangement with Mexico's Sinaloa drug cartel that allowed the organization to smuggle billions of dollars of drugs while Sinaloa provided information on rival cartels.

Sinaloa, led by Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman, supplies 80% of the drugs entering the Chicago area and has a presence in cities across the U.S.


Im out of space, and don't want to do 2 posts...but look at the above links. We built the Sinaloa in a long bloody battle to control the central corridor from Central America up into the US. Piles of headless bodies in the war to control the border in their battle against Los Zetas. We created the vacuum, then filled it with the worst of the worst. One more link, relating to the CIA's crack involvement: www.huffingtonpost.com...



posted on Jan, 15 2017 @ 08:55 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Thanks! That's a ton of info I'm going to start reading up on. I'm aware of the coke plane, as well as recent activities under Obama and Bush. The forming of the cartels themselves is what's interesting to me. It would make sense that their power and influence in Mexico would be US derived. I don't know about Mexico being any better either way though. Their government has seemed to always be corrupt in one sense or another.

Cheers for the follow up though, now I have something to read after the game!



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join