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.

 

Mexican President postures, cancels Tuesday meeting with Trump

page: 11
26
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 10:08 PM
link   
a reply to: xstealth

Bottom Line .............Mexico Needs American Trade More than the U.S. does . They will come around Sooner or Later because they have No other Option , President Trump knows this Well .




posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 10:19 PM
link   


Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump 14h14 hours ago

of jobs and companies lost. If Mexico is unwilling to pay for the badly needed wall, then it would be better to cancel the upcoming meeting.

twitter.com...

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

it's my understanding that this is the tweet that our president tweeted, mexico just shrugged their shoulders and said, okay, we cancel....
why some are getting so ticked off acting like mexico insulted us or whatever, I have no idea...



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 10:45 PM
link   
a reply to: redmage

It sounds like you are advocating not fixing it.

If you Institute a CEO:employee maximum ratio, the CEOs will just have more reason to move their jobs out of the country. That kind of thinking is exactly why we are in the shape we're in. A stick with no carrot just makes the mule run away.

What we need, and what I have been advocating for years now, is similar to what Trump is doing: stop illegal immigration. Enforce the laws, all the laws, across the board. Reduce regulation to let businesses profit. Work with small-to-mid size businesses to help them grow and compete. Reduce personal taxes to encourage investment. Reduce corporate taxes to businesses that contribute to the US only; multinationals don't need help. Build up the infrastructure to jump-start the economy. Ensure fair trade... fair in both directions.

Do those things and the associated problems will go away. Companies will grow and hire more people. Companies that moved to take advantage of lax regulation will not profit from the move and will move back, bringing more jobs. As jobs grow and people have disposable income again, charitable contributions will rise as well. Ecological concerns will become affordable and will become the norm instead of just a law people try to break. The tax base will rise and the entitlements will fall, leading to a surplus again. People will be able to afford health care themselves. Students will be able to afford college themselves. Technology will improve and make our lives better, easier, longer.

There's your utopia... no unicorns or rainbows required. Just common sense.

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 11:13 PM
link   
a reply to: burgerbuddy

Yah but people overstay their visas, and that goes for people from all over the world.



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 11:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: redmage

It sounds like you are advocating not fixing it.

If you Institute a CEO:employee maximum ratio, the CEOs will just have more reason to move their jobs out of the country. That kind of thinking is exactly why we are in the shape we're in. A stick with no carrot just makes the mule run away.

What we need, and what I have been advocating for years now, is similar to what Trump is doing: stop illegal immigration. Enforce the laws, all the laws, across the board. Reduce regulation to let businesses profit. Work with small-to-mid size businesses to help them grow and compete. Reduce personal taxes to encourage investment. Reduce corporate taxes to businesses that contribute to the US only; multinationals don't need help. Build up the infrastructure to jump-start the economy. Ensure fair trade... fair in both directions.

Do those things and the associated problems will go away. Companies will grow and hire more people. Companies that moved to take advantage of lax regulation will not profit from the move and will move back, bringing more jobs. As jobs grow and people have disposable income again, charitable contributions will rise as well. Ecological concerns will become affordable and will become the norm instead of just a law people try to break. The tax base will rise and the entitlements will fall, leading to a surplus again. People will be able to afford health care themselves. Students will be able to afford college themselves. Technology will improve and make our lives better, easier, longer.

There's your utopia... no unicorns or rainbows required. Just common sense.

TheRedneck


Here here!!!! Wanna be Prez... Id vote for ya



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 11:23 PM
link   
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

No way in Hades I'd want that job! Thanks for the support, though.

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 04:01 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Nah, the utopia you describe will never be realized due to greed (the root of capitalism). The corporate world is not altruistic, and the past 30 years of class warfare against the middle-class have proven such "trickle down" dreams to be just that... dreams.

If you Institute a CEO:employee maximum ratio, the CEOs will not have more reason to move their jobs out of the country. Like you said, "Companies that moved to take advantage of lax regulation will not profit from the move and will move back" if we're ensuring fair trade. The ratio cap has many carrots. The more you compensate your employees, the more you're free to take home, and if those employees are American, then you won't have to worry about border taxes/tariffs.

Not only that, but once average wages increase, you will have happier, healthier, and more productive employees who take pride in their work and feel loyalty towards their employers once again.

There's little reason to reduce most regulations when corporations are already recording record profits. Small to midsize business would largely be unaffected by a ratio cap. In 1918 the average salary ratio of 'CEO:Avg. Employee' was 7:1. In 2010 it reached 319:1. Small to midsize business owners/CEOs are nowhere near that absurd (and middle-class killing) 319:1 ratio. You could drastically cap it at 150:1 and you'd be hard pressed to find any small to midsize companies that would even be effected at all.

Reducing personal taxes does almost nothing for investment when most Americans already make less than a "living wage", and certainly wouldn't bump them up to having "disposable income". They simply might be able to afford a few more basic necessities they're skipping out on while living paycheck-to-paycheck. Certainly a good thing, but not "investment" spurring.

The problem isn't corporations needing to grow and hiring more people. Obama had a record breaking 75 month streak of job growth, and it didn't do squat for re-establishing the dying middle-class. Quantity does not equal quality. We need quality jobs, not simply "more jobs". Doesn't matter if you have 10,000,000, or 100,000,000 jobs if corporations are not incentivized to pay a fair "living wage".
edit on 1/27/17 by redmage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 08:07 AM
link   
If we isolate, pull out of trade deals, and import massive tariffs on Mexico, they very well might just say to hell with us and start making trade deals with Russia, or China etc... we are not the only economy in the world, and as much that was wrong with TPP, it would have helped solidify trade with other countries around the pacific. In reality, it opens the door for China to make massive deals. It'll be yuge if there's a Chinese military base and factories across from that shiny wall that us taxpayers paid for.



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 08:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: underwerks

Trump should consider the Netherlands approach to the Mexican problem . Imagine a waterway or sea from the Atlantic to the Pacific . Imagine all the new beachfront property . a win win solution .


Now that you mention it. The Netherlands had been coping with illegal polish workers working for a lot less for years while they send a lot of money back to their poor country. They actively stopped that in corporation withe neighboring countries and no SJW in the world batted a eye or shouted "Bigots!" over it.



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 08:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar



Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump 14h14 hours ago

of jobs and companies lost. If Mexico is unwilling to pay for the badly needed wall, then it would be better to cancel the upcoming meeting.

twitter.com...

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

it's my understanding that this is the tweet that our president tweeted, mexico just shrugged their shoulders and said, okay, we cancel....
why some are getting so ticked off acting like mexico insulted us or whatever, I have no idea...




I'm not ticked off at all. But thanks for posting the tweet. Was his tweet before or after Mexico cancelled ?



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 09:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: redempsh
This is Trump doing his Trump thing, also known as "The Art of the Deal."

You make an initial outrageous demand, and expect your adversary to be outraged and refuse it.

Then you can get down to negotiations without the egos. If you look at all of Trump's previous deals, his ego and thin skin are all an act. It is a mask he puts on when it will give him the advantage in negotiations.

The truth is, Mexico doesn't have a lot of options here. With world oil prices plummeting, the US is the only really interested importer of PEMEX oil. America's thirst for mexican oil was already waning before the election, anyway. So the relationship between US and MEX was already in decline. Trump is just pointing out how irrelevant our existing agreements with Mexico really are.

And the Chinese and Russians have zero incentive for developing mexico. China won't do anything that would compete with it's port access to San Diego, and MFN status with Uncle Sam. Russia cannot afford oil under $50 as it is. GAZPROM is taking a beating and the Russian GDP is in a steep downward slide. Propping up mexico would cost them everything and piss off Trump, who holds the key to Putin's project of a Syrian port....

NAFTA is fundamentally tilted in favor of Mexico, because it ignores the V.A.T. tax in mexico, which American vendors have to pay there; yet Americans cannot tax Mexican vendors in the US with an income tax, so Mexican-produced goods are "artificially cheap" in the states.

It was wrong in 1993, and it hasn't gotten better in 24 years.

And NAFTA prevents the US from putting a tax on mexican goods coming into the USA, even to pay for a wall or for immigration controls. In fact, you cannot keep mexican nationals from driving Mexican trucks into the US, with no CDL, (their government issues them their own "international drivers license", but the US isn't allowed to question it, and it doesn't have the requirements of a US CDL). which an American citizen is required to have, to drive a truck here.

That's what this fight is REALLY about.

If NEITO will willingly scrap NAFTA, it makes trump's job faster, and he doesn't have to go through congress to undo Nafta.

Obviously, the way to pay for the wall is a $15 fee on Mexican visas to the US, and a $25 fee on all Western Union Transfers of dollars into Mexico (how 95% of illegals send money home.). Of course, NAFTA doesn't allow for either of those....



All very well pointed out and laid out.



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 09:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: peck420

originally posted by: UKTruth
IF that is true then your country is in serious trouble.

It's not an American specific issue. Many countries, for whatever reason, struggle to find enough employees, even at above minimum wage.

There is a surprisingly large number of people that would rather not work at all, than work a hard labour job.


They would if it meant they would be homeless with no food or internet and xbox. But you know,welfare allows them to stay at home.



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 09:41 AM
link   
a reply to: redmage

You've thought this through; I'll give you that. But you're still missing reality in your thought process.

If instituting a CEO:employee ratio cap was beneficial for CEOs, the CEOs would already be doing it voluntarily. There's no reason to require people to do things they want to do. You may be right that such would benefit everyone else while not harming the CEOs drastically after time, but not harming is not helping. Everyone is after maximum profit, not just CEOs. Employees will always look for higher paying jobs. Your proposal expects employees to act one way and CEOs to act another.

Not to mention, there is one more regulation that has to be complied with. One more form that has to be submitted. One more variable that has to be taken into account when figuring the bottom line. And that affects everyone, not just multinationals.

Now look at the details... what if I am running a small business myself? Suppose I am CEO, worker, and head bottle-washer all? That happens, you know. And let's say I pay a local boy to cut the grass outside my business, say $20 a week during the summer. He makes $240 that year, and he's my only employee. So now, under a 150:1 cap, my income cannot exceed $36k/yr.

Maybe a CEO of a big company has an average employee pay of $20k/yr. That limits him to $3M/yr. He can move the business to Botswana and make the $30M/yr. the company promised him. Sure, it means a tariff for the company, but by them paying 20% he gains 10 times his salary and just pays the local workers $16k/yr.

That's why these plans don't work. Every business is different. An engineering firm might easily average $100k/yr. for their employees, while Walmart or Target uses unskilled labor and struggles to average $20k/yr., while bringing in 100 times the profit of the engineering firm. Guess which CEO makes more? The one with more stores, more employees, more headaches, and lower average pay. Guess which one is going to start thinking about leaving the country? The one with the most employees.

Labor is a commodity, just like anything else. The price of any commodity is set by supply and demand. We have increased supply by allowing illegal immigrants to enter unquestioned. At the same time we have decreased demand by using over-regulation to convince companies to leave the US. Lower demand + higher supply = lower prices. That equation cannot be undone by all the regulations in the world. If you fix price and increase supply, demand drops. It has worked that way for a decade. When will you realize that it always works that way? When our homes are built of mud and we're resorting to cannibalism to survive?

It's not rocket science. Decrease supply by securing the border, increase demand by backing off on regulations and instituting tariffs, and price will rise... people will have better jobs and more income. Go after the loopholes, and it'll happen quickly.

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 11:44 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Trump team walks back plan to fund wall with import tax


The House proposal, key to their tax-reform plans, is vehemently opposed by retailers such as Walmart and Target, oil refiners, apparel companies and other major importers that fear it will mean huge tax increases — and who warn they’ll pass those costs onto American consumers in the form of higher prices. It could also allow some exporting companies to never pay taxes, and some experts warn it would violate World Trade Organization agreements.

www.politico.com...

or this


U.S. Chamber of Commerce estimates six million U.S. jobs depend on trade with Mexico.

wqad.com...

Honestly?...my larger concern is that this is amateur hour X1000.

If I can figure out (and admittedly I am no genius) that a 20% tariff on Mexico hurts US consumers more than it does Mexico a day before the Trump Administration...we are in trouble boys.

As for the argument that the USA is so large an economy compared to Mexico and we can push them around and they will cave?

That fails on two points..
Mexico's trade hole left by the USA will get filled quickly, by less geographically convenient players, but it will happen and then it will be very hard to roll back and US consumers will face long term price increases.

Mexico already has a crappy economy for 90% of the population.

We might have more weight, but we have a much higher quality of life, Americans have more to lose (farther to fall) in a trade war.

Trump supporters can "feel" better with a trade war with Mexico, but in a few months time you go to buy a new car/truck, shop at Wall-mart, Target or the grocery store and your bill is 40% higher and you ask WTF? Meanwhile the unemployment rate turns sharply upwards and that oh-# moments starts to sink into the collective conscientiousness..

Frankly...It's a drunk at the wheel in the WH..and I put the odds of recession around 80% in the 12 months. Hope I am wrong, but god help us, it doesn't look good.

We WERE at roughly 50-50 odds of a recession two months ago...With most economists thinking Trump would temper his policy once in office...But that is not happening.

From Dec. 1st...


"Policy missteps over trade and immigration policy would tip the U.S. into recession," says IHS Markit chief economist Nariman Behravesh, who puts the recession probability at 80 percent.

www.bankrate.com...




edit on 27-1-2017 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 12:28 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck



Longtime trading partners — not just Mexico — could retaliate, making American consumers pay more for everything from food to electronics and putting U.S. companies out of business. The so-called border adjustment tax could trigger cases before the World Trade Organization, spur other countries to slap levies on American products and put some U.S. companies at a disadvantage with international competitors.

www.politico.com...



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 12:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: rickymouse
Trump will just put a thirty five percent tax on Mexican imports instead of a ten percent tax, which will cut their sales to the US considerably and the factories will come back if they don't pay for the wall.

I think maybe it would be beneficial for us if they were to refuse.



geez, just put a 100% tax on imported goods...only Americans will be paying that when they buy the product....doesn't anyone here know how economic trade works?.....and how about boycotting American products?....you don't think there are plenty of countries that will provide Mexico with all they need?...I guess all those American jobs lost to other countries, that will happily boost their own economy when they sell products to Mexico, hasn't entered the teenie tiny brains of the trumpsters....



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 12:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: TheRedneck



Longtime trading partners — not just Mexico — could retaliate, making American consumers pay more for everything from food to electronics and putting U.S. companies out of business. The so-called border adjustment tax could trigger cases before the World Trade Organization, spur other countries to slap levies on American products and put some U.S. companies at a disadvantage with international competitors.

www.politico.com...



Of course there would be retaliation, but given the US's huge global trade deficits, the biggest losers would be those other countries.

As for the price of imported goods, the argument that prices would just rise by 20% (or whatever the tax is) is a lazy one.



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 12:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee
Good. Hope he sticks with it.

Hope more stand up to Trump and refuse to play his game.


You'll be pleased to hear quite a lot of countries are currently trying to ban him from entry due to his hate speech and kinderegarten politics - no one takes him seriously apart from those who think he'll help them. There's been severall attempts to ban him from entering the UK due to his repeated breaches of the law and democracy.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Bobaganoosh
I think we should send troops down there. We should arm the decent common folk. Help them wipe out the cartels and put their criminally collusive government in check.

It would make Mexico great again. We could help the good ones get control of their nation and destiny back.

It would be great.

We could build it together!

You want us to invade Mexico to wipe out the cartels? Isn't that the same as invading a country to wipe out terrorism? How is that going for us in Afghanistan and Iraq?


Preet much, however the Cartels are far more organised and dangerous than either of those countries so itd be an even more catastrophica faliure and loss of many thousand more US lives.
edit on 27-1-2017 by bastion because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 12:52 PM
link   
a reply to: bastion

That will hurt us as a nation first before its realized that Don has no credibility to be our president



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 12:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: bastion

originally posted by: Annee
Good. Hope he sticks with it.

Hope more stand up to Trump and refuse to play his game.


You'll be pleased to hear quite a lot of countries are currently trying to ban him from entry due to his hate speech and kinderegarten politics - no one takes him seriously apart from those who think he'll help them. There's been severall attempts to ban him from entering the UK due to his repeated breaches of the law and democracy.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Bobaganoosh
I think we should send troops down there. We should arm the decent common folk. Help them wipe out the cartels and put their criminally collusive government in check.

It would make Mexico great again. We could help the good ones get control of their nation and destiny back.

It would be great.

We could build it together!

You want us to invade Mexico to wipe out the cartels? Isn't that the same as invading a country to wipe out terrorism? How is that going for us in Afghanistan and Iraq?


Preet much, however the Cartels are far more organised and dangerous than either of those countries so itd be an even more catastrophica faliure and loss of many thousand more US lives.


There has been no attempt to ban him from the UK.
There was a petition that got enough signatures to be discussed in Parliament and was quickly forgotten.
As it stands, the Prime Minister of the UK is currently in Washington trying to forge a relationship.



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join