For NAFTA's partners it's death would mean economic calamity. For NAFTA's partners it's death would mean economic calamity.

Why Trump will not keep NAFTA pledge

Killing the world's largest trade agreement would cause the US economy to implode

I’m writing this piece after having just watched the most sinister, darkest, weirdest, inaugural address, I think, ever spoken.

ADVERTISEMENT

I had to read the transcript for it to fully sink in: President Trump’s factual assertions were wholly disconnected from fact, including the line, “For many decades, we’ve enriched foreign industry at the expense of American industry[.]”

Apparently the president isn’t familiar with how well American industry has been doing for the past two centuries, and despite depressions, recessions and bursting bubbles, Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has been steadily increasing at about 2% per year on average. Stock prices are at record highs.

I think what he meant to say was that “we’ve enriched American industry at the expense of American workers with the full consent and encouragement of my party.” Much closer to the actual truth.

Economic growth as measured by GDP decoupled itself from real wage income growth beginning in the early 1980s. And it been a wild ride to the top for Wall Street and a depressing ride to the bottom for Main Street, ever since. Sorry Reaganites, but if you care anything about intellectual honesty, you kind of have to own that.

Trump also said, even more curiously, “We must protect our borders from the ravages of other countries making our products, stealing our companies and destroying our jobs.” There are so many errors in this single short sentence that it is rendered almost unintelligible.

First, what do borders have to do with other countries making our products? Second, other countries are in point of obvious fact, not making our products. Third, I am wholly unaware of any country in recent memory stealing our companies – the last time Mexico expropriated an American company was 1938.

ADVERTISEMENT

Fourth, what country has destroyed our jobs? American companies, to increase their profits, have voluntarily moved manufacturing (and many other business operations) overseas to increase profits through labor cost savings.

American companies have destroyed our jobs to increase shareholder value, not foreign countries, and although I get that jingoism sells politically, many of those companies shelter their profits overseas to avoid paying taxes in the U.S.

Perhaps I’m being too picky here. The speech was obviously meant for his base, and maybe they’re not capable of understanding anything that is not couched in the most simplistic, nationalistic, quotidian terms.

Is it not a sad commentary when people can be convinced that American legislators who passed American laws allowing for free trade agreements allowing for duty-free offshoring with foreign countries at the expense of American jobs, can then effectively shift the blame for the loss of those jobs to the foreign countries that accepted the investments?

But of course Trump isn’t a free trade Republican. He’s an apoplectic, isolationist, nativist and humorless populist, all rolled into one, and nothing at all like his party’s demi-god, Ronald Reagan, the happy conservative warrior. This is going to be an enormous problem for Trump within the GOP, especially on economic issues like free trade.

The fact is, despite Mexico’s recent diplomatic blunders that have helped Trump, there’s not much he can do about free trade or NAFTA, without imploding the U.S economy in the process.

NAFTA is the world’s largest trade agreement, and yes the U.S. has a trade deficit with its Mexican and Canadian partners. In fact the trade deficit with Canada is a not insignificant US $15.5 billion. Why has Trump focused on only one side of this trilateral agreement?

Why are we making bad trade deals only with Mexico but not Canada? After all, General Motors and Ford, among many other international corporations, have manufacturing operations in Canada, and export to the U.S., accounting for $302 billion in products sold there. But barely a peep about Canadian trade. Curious.

What would happen if Canada and Mexico simply said “no” to a NAFTA renegotiation? President Trump could, according to Article 2205, withdraw without the need of congressional approval upon six months’ written notice to Mexico and Canada, causing a catastrophic economic calamity for everybody involved, and many not involved.

Professor Robert Lawrence from Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government calls this scenario “[economic] suicide for both sides.” (After all, U.S. companies do export $250.6 billion to Mexico and Canada.)

This economic suicide would apply to Trump’s business empire as well, as it relies heavily on free trade, cheap labor and imports from Mexico, Canada, and yes, China too.

Don’t get me wrong, I’ve never been a fan of neoliberal economic dogma or globalization. But offshoring production is only one part of a problem that increasingly includes outsourcing, crowdsourcing and automation; in fact a 2013 Oxford study, widely reported in the press, concluded that automation and thinking machines will replace 47% of occupations in the United States within the next 20 years.

This is not a bell that can be un-rung. In sum, global supply chain interdependence and exponentially expanding technology are too complex and their tentacles wrap around too many levers that are too dangerous to pull.

If Trump’s gaggle of doting plutocrats, kleptocrats, kakistocrats and the odd neoconservative ideologue supporting and advising him do not know this, then they are dumber than I could ever have imagined, quite possibly mentally retarded.

A more cynical possibility could be that their plan is not to disrupt the world economy by starting trade wars and endless litigation, but rather to do just enough – a tariff here and a tax there – to say they’ve fulfilled their promises, and where their promises were not fulfilled say that they were blocked by Congress or courts.

Will Trump’s loyal ignorati believe him? Of course they will. If Trump convinced them that man-made global climate change is a hoax and Obama is a secret Muslim born in Kenya, he can convince them of anything.

One thing is certain, though, absent a biblical miracle, despite the seductive shibboleth of “make America great again,” manufacturing jobs are not coming back, no matter who’s president.

Glen Olives Thompson is a professor of North American Law at La Salle University in Chihuahua, a specialist in law and public policy and a frequent contributor to Mexico News Daily. Some of his other non-academic work can be viewed at glenolives.com

Stories from our archives that you might enjoy

  • Douglas MacDowell

    Glen, I think you are right on target. That, however, will not stop the Trump machine from trying to make it happen.

  • Tom Hammerton

    This article has been well thought out, unfortunately will go over the heads of him and his congregation.

  • Donald Blair Godier

    I think Glen has gone quite a bit off his collective noodle, much like last week’s article he seems just a bit far afield even for a liberal crazy guy, dial it back about 5 notches Glen!

  • cooncats

    The first sentence makes the rest of this clear it is a lot of hot air from another leftist fool. Ignore it.

    Fact is, Mexico has been getting away with both a lot of protectionism and thinking they have the right to dump all their problems over the U.S. border. There will be changes. Eighty percent of Mexican exports go to the U.S. Mexico’s best customer is not happy and they had better get focused on changing that.

    The customer is always right works on a lot of levels. Mexico can start about getting serious about policing their side of the border and stopping all the crap of stealing stuff at the border and hassling people about cars so Mexican car “dealers” can continue to sell at list with no serious competition.

    Here’s a really good example of their petty harassment at the border. We had a lady dying down here who wanted to be buried in her wedding dress. No shipper would handle it because Mexico blocks all imports of “used” clothing. Someone flying in had to be found to bring it to her. That’s pretty CS in my book.

    Look at how few people will ship to this country from the U.S. versus into Canada. They don’t because of the theft and fat taxes slapped on stuff. That’s a good place to start some real change.

    • pedrochapala

      the only sense of entitlement is coming from know nothings like you who moved here and expect mexicans to cow tow to the excited states. the author is correct that if your illustrious leader manages to get rid of NAFTA all 3 will suffer but the elephant in the middle will suffer the most. you’ll be able to move back to ABQ and buy back your old house real cheap so you won’t have to worry about all the mexicans around you constantly pissing you off, dumbass. -SNORK! and i don’t care if the rest of you think the author is a liberal crazy because i am a large C conservative from canada and now call mexico home, and agree with him.

      • Douglas MacDowell

        pedrochapala – From your comments, it gives me hope that conservatives and liberals can come together on certain issues. While I’ll admit that I lean more left than right, though I have voted R, D, and I in the past, starting trade wars is about as anti-R as you can get. It will be an anti-capitalist move that will come back to haunt the U.S. Trump is trying to make deals to meet his campaign pledges. At some point his followers will see they are false promises and are unrealistic. It is just a matter of time before we can undo whatever harm he do. Next week it will be something else that he screws up.

      • cooncats

        You’re about as conservative as Bernie Sanders, what a joke you are. Another Canadian know nothing. You better get used to it, they’ve shoved one too many Central Americans across that border and the U.S. has had enough.

        • pedrochapala

          you have been thrown off one of the stupid chapala local web boards for your jingoistic merkin bullshit eh danny boy and your constant disrespect for mexico and it’s people. the other one you can run rampant on because you’re the moderator. after being here for about 8 years you still have no concept of how things work around here in every respect you constantly blather about the same shit over and over hoping by doing so it will make it true. you are nothing but a teabagging nutbar -not a conservative either large or small C. i was given the chapala flag for services rendered to the people and 2 separate parties in power here. you are so ignorant that you don’t even know which party is which here of the 3 main parties. when i was asked to help the first government here do a certain thing between them and canada,and i told them that i was a member of the canadian conservative party they hesitated because they thought that was the same as the yanqui nutbar party but i explained to them the difference between the excited states alleged Conservatives and the real Conservatives in the rest of the free world. now go play your guitar by yourself since nobody wants to join you after having experienced your charming personality. must really upset you that you can’t control and censor discussions on here-jajajajaja! by the way do you still snap your fingers at the wait staff in restaurants you charmer?

          • cooncats

            Started drinking early today, eh?

            LOL

          • Jason Walker

            Ah yes, a Canadian Conservative. Crushed by libs in one house, not even besting independents in the other and taking penis from Justin Trudeau. A “Canadian Conservative” is one who keeps his Karl Marx books in a drawer rather than on a table.

          • pedrochapala

            you poorly educated merkin jason walker probably don’t even know who sir edmund burke is let alone how the government in canada works it ain’t no republic with only 2 parties that are practically the same like yours. what’s yer book in the drawer-alice in wonderland.

        • AM

          ….So says the the third-world fossil face honky. How’s that kool-aid??? Lmao

    • Francis Dryden

      Who are all these left wing reporters? And when you say something about their twisted ideas out come the expletives. Loud and mouthy does not show intelligence.

    • Patrick

      There are about 6-million jobs dependent of U.S. exports to Mexico —- From Apples from Oregon to corn from Iowa, machinery, motors, computers, software, medical equipment, and on and on —- so do doubt that Mexico will suffer the most, but the US will also get a bloody nose —- good luck creating jobs by losing them first…. I agree that Trump will act fierce, scream a lot, but will give Mexico another “chance” to be better and change the tactic….. his ego demands a win — they’ll give him one to appease his ego.

      • cooncats

        I don’t disagree. There’s a lot of posturing going on but that doesn’t change the fact that this situation was caused by Mexico abusing the border and setting one set of rules for itself and another for America. The backlash was predictable and Mexico can defuse it by giving up this idea they get to send anyone and everything up there they want while at the same time taxing or stealing at the border and shoving people across it.

        • Patrick

          Mexico’s constitution allows its citizens to freely travel throughout their country, this includes going right up to the US border. The citizen makes the choice of crossing, not pushed by its government. The guilt of the Mexican government is their mismanagement of the country’s assets that has left a large percentage of its people in near or complete poverty, few jobs and for those without a strong education, minimal work and pay. The US is not free of guilt, the agricultural industry would come to a serious fork on the road without Mexican labor. Stop this labor from crossing the border and the pinch will be severely felt in markets across the country. Farms by the hundreds would go broke. Already there are US serious farming operations working in Mexico to avoid the hit of not having sufficient workers. What will eventually happen (much faster than thought) is that the US will become dependent on much of its food from foreign sources. The situation has come to this because the US Congress has failed to address the issue of immigration reform under the excuse that “amnesty” would be granted and nothing else would change. Sadly gullible citizens have fallen for this fake excuse. The 1986 IRCA provided a.) prohibition from hiring undocumented workers (first time that it became a federal crime for such hiring), b.) provide temporary (5 years) residency to those who could prove they had been in the country for no less than 5 years, had not received welfare or other benefits, had no criminal record, were employed. After 5 years they could apply for permanent residency meeting the same requirements plus taking an exam in basic English – c.) make it easier for agricultural entities to obtain needed visas to contract workers as guest workers for specific periods during the year….. THAT IS THE LAW. But Congress interfered with the enforcement of the ban on hiring — over and over they stopped it. It was and remains easier to blame Mexico and those from there seeking work than to comply with the law — after all we are a nation of laws, not law abidders…. As for trade, Mexico buys more products from the US than England, France, Germany, Italy, China, Japan, Ireland, in fact more than all the European countries including Trumps favorite country Russia. So break Mexico and we will also pay the consequences —- I wonder what 4 to 5 million unemployed Americans will think then?

          • cooncats

            Thank you Patrick for your reasoned comment. Your first sentence being the case, then, no one should be surprised or upset if the U.S. decides to protect its side of the border, which is now has. There’s no question the U.S. brought this on themselves by previous “wink and nod” border policies. The ruling elite there is as tone deaf as they are in Mexico and finally the breaking point has been reached.

            However, no one is entitled to demand those policies continue if the U.S. decides they are no longer a good idea. I don’t think anyone is seriously planning to “break” Mexico. They are trying to impress upon Mexico that conditions are changing and the open door is ending. Mexico does engage in one sided border policies both with people and trade and they will either give that up or suffer the consequences and we along with them.

            People are going to have to get used to the idea all over the world they will have to start staying where they are at and dealing with their own problems instead of exporting them to someone else’s country.

          • Patrick

            In writing on immigration issues between the US and Mexico, several of my articles included this — Every country has to determine its immigration policy on what is good for the country, not for the immigrant — I also pointed out that Mexico has such a policy and that there was a time when the US also did, still does but to a smaller degree. The facts are that in the US we have always needed cheap labor, always. The further fact is that since WWII when our boys went off to war, when they returned those from farming regions, decided not to go back and work the farm – this in turn created a need for farm labor, which we already had since the agreement with Mexico during the war years they would send us the needed number of farm workers. After the war, they were still needed and the Bracero program continued. That was cancelled in 1963 BY MEXICO as their surveys indicated that there was wide mistreatment of their citizens and not paying them the stipulated amounts while overcharging for services such as food, dormitory, medicines, etc. The US responded by adapting the H-2 agricultural temporary guest worker visa. Farmers didn’t like this because the rules stipulated the workers had to be paid the same wage as though they were US citizens. Instead they invited the workers to come work for them directly — and they did — that is what started the massive illegal immigration — in 1947 President Truman asked Congress to pass laws prohibiting the hiring of undocumented foreign workers — Congress ignored the request. In 1954, President Eisenhower asked the same of Congress citing that there was a growing political corruption on this issue — Congress ignored the request. Ike then attempted to take the problem and ordered Operation Wetback, which was to gather as many undocumented workers as possible and deport them. On paper it seemed to work, but in reality it was a dismal failure as within a day or two of being deported the workers were back on their jobs. Throughout all this the idea that it was those uncivilized Mexicans who were responsible for the trouble, never those who hired them and of course, never the US Congress. The negative propaganda against Mexicans and Mexico were fair game and instilled within the conscience of US citizens a negative impression of Mexicans. Later what was added was that they were here to not only steal jobs, but to receive welfare, and all other benefits of US citizens and further claimed that they were costing US citizens over 50-billion dollars per year…. I can continue with the history on this subject, but suffice it to say that by and large US citizens have been suckered into believing that poor people searching for work are responsible for the economic ills of the US. — I would invite you to review the 1986 IRCA, Ronald Reagan’s immigration reform law – you will note that US citizens were duped into believing this was an solely and “amnesty” law – it wasn’t the very first clause clearly stipulated that it became illegal to hire undocumented workers, fines and even potential prison was included. This section HAD IT BEEN ENFORCED would have stopped 95% of illegal immigration coming from our Southern border.

          • Jackie Thomas

            Thank you for your clear analysis.

    • GOPerson

      Very well said! I can’t decide if Mexico is like the 25 year old that lives in his parents house and still gets an allowance from Dad or a well kept mistress that doesn’t worry about supporting yourself as she gets everything she needs from ‘Uncle Sugar.’

    • Güerito

      About the ban on used clothing. There’s a huge informal market employing thousands of Mexican who smuggle used US clothing into Mexico and then sell it mostly on the street. Of course, corrupt aduana and police officials get there cut from the smugglers, linked to the cartels, who bring the stuff in.

  • ex sea org member

    Let trump do the damage. The endless procession of economists on the left and right who have pointed out why this is idiocy can not get through to him or his followers.

    Watch and enjoy the show.

    • Jose Yates

      If The Economists knew what they were talking about every nations finances would be in wonderful shape.

  • Donnie W. Jennings

    I read the title of the article, when I saw who the author was I stopped! This man is incredibly stupid. He has been wishing for the down fall of the USA in everything I have read from him. He is a pendejo and a traitor to the USA!

  • K. Chris C.

    The whole thing is nothing but an extortion tool designed to keep Mexico, and their oil, from moving too close to China.

    An American citizen, not US subject.

  • Mike S

    The US has huge trade problems with China but not Mexico. Mexico is a democracy and not a rival military empire- just the opposite of China. Mexico loves and buys lots of US made products- just the opposite of China. If you remove oil, gas, and tourism, our trade with Mexico is balanced. Mexican manufactured goods contain 40% US made parts on average. Many goods go back and forth across the border many times before being finished. Mexican agriculture keeps US food prices lower. We provide software, engineering, design, and robotics to Mexican plants. Between 4 and 6 million high paid US jobs depend on that trade. Our huge trade imbalance with China and automation the last 20 years killed more US jobs than Mexico ever did. Those US workers required retraining and higher education skills that’s where government can help. Economic conditions change and workers need to be re-trained and sometimes move. It is hard on many of them. If Trump starts a trade war with Mexico, both countries will lose. Under Obama the last 8 years the number of undocumented residents went down 10% and most of them resided in California and Texas- 2 states that have bounced back very well from the GREAT GOP RECESSION of 2008. Trump is a vindictive, narcissistic, bigoted con man. He loves to scape goat Mexicans. He actually knows little about trade. He is a silver-spooned fake businessman who made his money selling a “brand” and suing everybody that got in his way. In 2016, the US had the biggest and strongest economy in the world with low unemployment and rising wages and he described it as a disaster?? We’ll see how well he does over the next 4 years as he pollutes and cooks the planet and enriches the billionaire class.

  • mikegre

    Leftists posting here prove the following point:

    Mexico News Daily | Tuesday, December 6, 2016
    The results of the latest international student tests are out, with Mexican students continuing to languish at the bottom of the list of member countries of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.

    They obtained an average score of 416 points in the Program for International Student Assessment, or PISA, while across the OECD the average is 492.

    In the three areas assessed — sciences, reading and mathematics — fewer than 1% of students in Mexico achieved a top-performing level 5 or 6, a percentage that has not changed significantly since 2006.

    Students scored 416 points in science, on average, with a mean performance below the OECD average of 496.

    In reading, the average national score was 423 points, below the OECD average of 493.

    In the third subject, mathematics, Mexican students earned the lowest score of all 34 OECD countries with 408 points. The OECD average is 490.

  • Señor Thompson, your mugshot accurately reflects your mood when you write about President Trump. It makes me chuckle.

    • Glen Olives

      Yes, you’re right, Felipe. I’m bearded, fat and happy now. I’ll update my pic pronto.

  • Three score and ten

    You’ve gone over the edge, Glen. When you launch such an attack, the one thing you can’t do is state anything that is completely and obviously wrong, because when you do, you lose your audience.
    “Second, other countries are in point of obvious fact, not making our products.” Of course they are.
    American companies making their product in China (think Apple) does not make their product American made.

    • Glen Olives

      No, sorry. Other countries are not making our products. Our (American) companies are making our products, in other countries. That’s my point. And it’s a significant one, but of course likes to obsfuscate rather than enlighten.

  • Güerito

    Glen, you need to take some deep breaths and just sit back and observe for a while.

    Trump has already pulled the US out of TPP. Union leaders and many Democrats are cheering!

    As for your *prediction* about Trump not altering or scrapping NAFTA, we need to look at your posts from 2015 and 2016.

    Throughout most of 2015, you were writing opinion pieces here about the “Mexican Moment” and the “booming” Mexican economy. I posted a lot of comments pointing out that high levels of public debt, corruption and increasing violence were anchors on Mexican economic growth, correctly predicting that MX economic growth would remain anemic.

    I believe there’s a movement afoot among Mexican leaders (and cheerleaders) to blame all of Mexico’s future economic problems on Trump. But I’ve been noting here for more than a year that poverty, inequality, labor informality, etc., were all on the increase in Mexico since 2012. Most recently I mentioned that most of the peso’s devaluation since 2014 occurred well before the Trump phenomenon. The big recent devaluation began in early 2015, even after the huge drop in world oil prices. It coincided with the Iguala Massacre and the Casa Blanca scandals (along with the bad economic data I cite above). These were all signs that things were not changing in Mexico – and in fact were probably getting worse.

    Then, in 2016, you assured the readers here there was no way Trump could win the presidency with a campaign against free trade deals and illegal immigration. I posted a lot of comments pointing out how illegal immigration rightfully remained a problem for many in the US, and that many Democrats, including most prominently Bernie Sanders, were saying the same thing as Trump against free trade deals.

    And now you start 2017 with this? Glen, there’s a lot more invective than analysis in your post above.

    • Glen Olives

      I think your reading of my op-eds is a bit selective. You’re right though that the peso’s decline was initially caused by the crash in world oil prices, then Trump’s nomination pushed it further down; I’m sure how much public political corruption has affected this trend though — I suspect not very much. (It certainly hasn’t affected direct foreign investment.) When has Mexico not had a corruption or narco-violence problem?

      The IMF recently downgraded Mexico’s 2017 to 1.9%. Given the circumstances, not too shabby. Why not more? Because even if NAFTA goes away, Mexico would still have MFN trading status with the US, and it seems extraordinarily unlikely that American companies would pull up stakes are slow investment significantly. Trump could, of course, start a tit for tat trade war with Mexico, but is there anyone on the planet, excluding the ignorant toothless hillbillies who voted for him, think that that would be good for creating American jobs? It might be politically popular but it would be an economic disaster.

      Sit back and observe? I don’t think so. Don’t get me wrong, I wish President Trump the best of luck, and would love to be wrong about the effect of his economic policies, but nobody who knows anything about economics or financial markets thinks that cancelling NAFTA is a good idea. It is clear that good manufacturing jobs are not coming back to the US and I think it’s silly to think that they are. You’re right about neoconservatives supporting Hillary, and they will be the ones in Congress with corporate constituents who benefit from offshoring jobs to Mexico, who will oppose Trump’s plans. But this may all be a moot point — I don’t think Trump will make it a year.

  • Commander Barkfeather

    Although one wins an election via the electoral college, one must govern by popular consent, which the new administration does not possess, despite the multitude of tweeted “alternative” facts. Secondly, the more the new administration involves itself in unproductive petty disputes (crowd size, disparaging journalists), the more difficult it will prove to accomplish any meaningful change to trade or immigration policy. Good government is the public application of reason over mass emotion. Lastly, Donald Trump is a good example of why some animals eat their babies.

    • Güerito

      Trump has a 57% approval rating, which is incredible when you realize that 95% of the media hates the guy and have vowed to give him hell in their reporting for the next four years:

      http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/prez_track_jan25

      • Cam Nante

        That sounds like another fake news alternative fact….if he had such a high approval rating he would have won more of the popular vote (BS about ‘illegal voters’ aside)

        • Güerito

          Wow. The denial is strong in this one.

          Trying to relate Trump’s approval rating on January 25th to the vote that took place on Nov. 8th… Think before you post next time.

      • Mike S

        Wrong, he has a 45% approval rating. The lowest in last 100 years for a new president in first week.

        • Ron Almstead

          No, it’s true. It was today’s latest Rasmussen survey.

        • Jackie Thomas

          just saw today on realclear: favorable: 42.1%, unfav: 49.3%. Didn’t take long, did it?

        • Güerito
          • Mike S

            According to the very conservative Rasmussen poll, Chump’s approval rating has jumped 14 points the last few days after he announced building the wall. I wonder how much of that is related to stopping Muslim immigration versus Mexican immigration. Americans are terrified of Muslims although there have been only 4 attacks the last 8 years by foreign born Muslims and none came across the Mexican border (there have been hundreds of mass shootings by non-Muslims during same time period). Time will tell on the polls:

            “However, the tendency is not very strong – a Republican lean of about 1.3 points.” … After the 2010 midterm elections, Silver concluded that Rasmussen’s polls were the least accurate of the major pollsters in 2010, having an average error of 5.8 points and a pro-Republican bias of 3.9 points according to Silver’s model.”

          • Güerito

            Rasmussen was one of only a few polls that had the presidential race close – with Trump having a chance of winning. Most other polls had Hillary with very large leads.

          • Mike S

            Actually the polls were not far off. Hillary won popular vote by 2.8 million and Trump took the electoral college by 50k votes in three states (Mich, Wis, Penn). There were 12 million votes cast in those 3 states. It was within the margin of error. The FBI director and Russian fake news stories at the end didn’t help’ The person most shocked by the Trump win was Trump himself.

          • Mike S

            President Trump is beginning his term with a 36 percent approval rating over his first five days in office, according to a new poll released Thursday.

            The Quinnipiac poll shows that 44 percent of American voters disapprove of Trump’s presidency so far, with another 19 percent who are undecided.

            The president’s ratings split sharply along party lines.

            The poll found 81 percent of Republicans approve of President Trump so far, while only 4 percent of Democrats approve. Trump has a 35 percent approval rating among independent voters.

            By comparison, the first Quinnipiac poll after President Obama was first inaugurated showed him at a 59 percent approval rating.
            The poll found 53 percent of Americans are optimistic about the next four years under Trump, and 44 percent said he would help rather than hurt the economy.

            Quinnipiac University conducted the poll during Trump’s first five days as president, from Jan. 20 to 25, surveying 1,190 voters nationwide. The poll has a margin of error of 2.8 percentage points.

  • alance

    More evidence of TDS – Trump Derangement Syndrome.
    Poor Glen is in an alt-universe.

  • Mike Hadinger

    I agree with cooncats, the speech was very good! The U.S. economy before NAFTA was strong, the pact was established to improve Mexico and Canada’s standing. If it is repealed, it will be replaced by another, updated version by another name…..

  • SMS

    The US has not done a good job of managing certain results of NAFTA. When production of certain goods shift to any other country, people in the US, in those applicable industries loose their jobs. However, the entire country benefits from
    lower prices on those goods within those applicable industries, all of us benefit … All the consumers in the US love the lower prices, but, the US has not taken care of those that were impacted by the shift. The corporations made lots of money, people bought lots of stuff, but those that lost their jobs were not able to recover. That is where the focus should have been and should be. Labor in impacted industries should be eligible for special support (training, reimbursements, education grants, etc.) What Trump (who was elected by those impacted) will do is bring the jobs back to the US, impose tariffs on less costly imports, and the price of those same goods will increase dramatically, for all of us. The shift will impact each of us less, but the impact will be greater because it will impact the entire country collectively. You cannot have both … certain items cannot be made in the US, at the low prices we currently enjoy. Just wait and see.

  • miabeach

    The breakup of NAFTA will be a wonderful opportunity for Haiti and Cuba. Both wonderful countries filled with wonderful people who will like to make their countries great again. The kidnap insurance and corruption payoffs in Mexico makes it unprofitable to do business there.

  • Güerito

    A few weeks ago I posted in a comment, “so now Trump is even making cabinet appointments in Mexico…”

    http://mexiconewsdaily.com/news/former-finance-chief-heads-foreign-affairs/

    “One of the first appointments made by Donald Trump was that of Luis Videgaray as Mexico’s secretary of foreign relations.

    It happened like this. Within two weeks of being declared U.S. president, Donald Trump called President Peña Nieto on the telephone and indicated that he wished Luis Videgaray to be the Mexican foreign minister.

    “I´ll do business with him, no one else,” he said harshly.

    In addition to Trump, his son-in-law, Jarred Kushner, was on a second phone, and Luis Videgaray, was next to Peña. Trump explicitly associated Videgaray with his son-in-law.

    “They’re friends,” he said a couple of times.

    And later, and in a friendly tone, he predicted that with Videgaray as secretary of foreign relations,
    “we will do business together.”

    To which Peña Nieto obsequiously acceded:
    “Very well, Mr. President-elect.”

    So, a few days later, Peña Nieto dismissed Claudia Ruiz de Massieu, the secretary at the time, and named in her place Trump’s favorite, Luis Videgaray.

    The story of the facts was leaked from Los Pinos to several Mexican businessmen by the same Videgaray, probably to give himself importance. And the story spread among the wealthiest businessmen in the country like a trail of gunpowder: a threat that awaits only a match to incite panic.

    Even more important, the report reveals very adverse conditions for Mexico. To begin with, we have a very weak president, surrounded by a disapproving majority of the people, discouraged and insecure, who, before sitting down at the negotiating table with Trump, accepts and gives in and gives in and gives in.

    http://mexicovoices.blogspot.com/2017/01/mexico-and-trump-appointment-of.html

    Original article in Spanish: http://www.proceso.com.mx/471664/videgaray-una-bomba-andando

FreeCurrencyRates.com
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT