79
Reuters: Trump says he might not renew USMCA (www.reuters.com)
submitted 5 months ago by to c/canada@lemmy.ca
62 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

June 10, 202612:07 PM EDT:

WASHINGTON, June 10 (Reuters) - U.S. President ​Donald Trump ‌said on Wednesday ​that he ​might not renew ⁠the ​USMCA free ​trade deal with Canada and ​Mexico. Speaking ​at the White House, ‌the ⁠president said he was ​discussing ​the ⁠matter with Mexican ​and ​Canadian ⁠leaders.

Reporting by Bo Erickson ⁠and ​Gram ​Slattery; Editing by ​Doina Chiacu

archive.org archive link: https://web.archive.org/save/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.reuters.com%2Fworld%2Ftrump-says-he-might-not-renew-usmca-2026-06-10%2F

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 5 months ago (13 children)

While this would be pretty awful in the short term, both Canada and the US would greatly benefit long term from bringing heavy manufacturing back to each respective country from Mexico. Mexico would be pretty fucked though, since they've been the primary beneficiary of both NAFTA and USMCA (comparatively, excluding us companies.)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago (12 children)

    So basically, you agree with Trump. When you buy stuff from a foreign country you're losing.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago (11 children)

    In this instance, I agree with the affectation he has decided to cosplay for entirely different reasons against the advice of all of his corporate masters.

    When you buy from a foreign country what can be made in your country, you are directly causing the loss of well-paid jobs in your country, and aiding the exploitation of a developing country (statistically.)

    There's a reason China has done so well while the entirety of the western world has become worse for the average inhabitant. Every time a job is outsourced, every time you buy that foreign thing that could've been made at home, you are directly enriching another country and that money will never be seen in your country ever again. You do that enough times and hey, you have stretches of countryside full of small ghost towns that decayed after the employer had to shut down, and no social mobility.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (10 children)

    One could argue, but it'd basically be repeating all the same free trade debates that have happened in the past. Anyone unfamiliar with the usual counterargument can search "balance of payments" or "comparative advantage". TL;DR, it has to do with how those Canadian dollars you spent on whatever exporter eventually come back to the mint.

    What might be news to people, since you mentioned it, is that China's had a more severe K-shaped economy since about 2000. Sure, they have manufacturing jobs... that you'll never, ever work your way out of. And then a few million people out of 1.5 billion who have the connections, and can afford a Western-ish style of living.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago (9 children)

    Except the purpose isn't social mobility for most Chinese people. Remember the '躺平' 'lie flat' propaganda movement the west loved talking about a few years ago? Yeah that wasn't new, or temporary, nor did it ever go away (and no it's not illegal). That's just how most Chinese people have been seeing life after getting up to 'western' standards (I would argue a roof, consistent meals, cheap electronics, and free healthcare is closer to the western standard than not, and that covers ~900 million people.) Yes there is a rising upper middle and upper class, but also the living standards of the bottom 50% are better than more than 150 countries and that's rising just about as quickly.

    These facts skew the traditional western reporting of economic health, because western economists assume everyone wants to grow infinitely, and that's just not the case.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (8 children)

    Suuure. Chinese people enjoy the fact that all the money is going to their rich. /s

    and [lower income Chinese standards are] rising just about as quickly.

    No, they're not, that's what K-shaped means.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago (4 children)

    would either of you care to share unbiased evidence supporting your statements?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (2 children)

    The World Inequality Database. I'd do a TL;DR, but I'd be reinventing the wheel.

    It's important to know this is about wealth, while @avidamoeba@lemmy.ca is going by income. If you're out to defend China, you could say sure, they own less and less but the government will look after them, and make sure wages stay high. If that's a good bet in light of history is another question.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    Thank you. This is interesting information.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

    No problem! Glad to hear someone else appreciates it the same way.

    One explanation would basically be cronyism in a country where there's endemic corruption and the government intervenes a lot, and however it wants. It's a pretty classic story from economies all over.

    The funny thing about that is that the CCP actually tends to leave certain sectors alone, more than the West even would. It's like a hybrid Confucian/Maoist thing where they don't want to concern themselves with the merchant class. (All I have for evidence on that one is hearsay, sorry)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago* (1 child)

    K-shaped means the bottom half (or some large threshold) is getting poorer. China's bottom half appears to have rapidly growing real wages, while the top is growing faster. Most western bottom halves were fine with this arrangement, until their real wages stopped growing in the 70-80s.

    I'm not super happy with either scenario but there's a reason the majority was okay with it for decades. That was the whole deal in the New Deal.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

    You're right actually, now that I check it looks like the proportional drop is big but not faster than their historical growth. That big growth means until recently it's more ramp shaped in absolute terms.

    IIRC the wealth of the bottom half actually went up proportionally during the New Deal/post-WWII, although that's about the only peacetime period it's ever happened in. Not sure about income, although I'd guess the same.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago

    Suuure. Chinese people enjoy the fact that all the money is going to their rich. /s

    Not what I said, I did say they enjoy owning their own home, basically ensuring they will never be homeless since there's no property taxes after the property is purchased, and they do enjoy the welfare system that allows them to eat and enjoy their free time regardless of their current employment status.

    No, they’re not, that’s what K-shaped means.

    Then whatever propaganda rag you got your information from is outdated as of 2023, but I think you kinda know that.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent