US Companies Likely to Be Hit Hard as Trump Pushes Mexico Tariffs

12 thoughts on “US Companies Likely to Be Hit Hard as Trump Pushes Mexico Tariffs”

1. Washington DC, listen up!!!! Pass new immigration laws to stop the border crisis, simple as that, do your duty D.C. GHOULS!!! Long live the 2nd.

   1. Ah, finally we agree on something.

      Proposed new immigration law:

      “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of immigration.”

      Not that they pay attention to the Constitution anyway (including its EXISTING ban on federal regulation of immigration), but perhaps a new amendment would put enough attention on the subject to force them to.

      1. How about passing an amendment that says: “Congress shall pass no law that requires any person or business, resident to the United States to pay taxes, fees or other financial devices that support, subsidize any individual, family, group or business concern” first?

         Yeah. I know. Racism……

      2. Why stop there? No borders, no countries, no laws. Nobody to pass them or enforce. May the strongest survive, and impoise the order on us feeble, order imposed by the all knowing Trotskyite Internatiinal, where being born is a privilege not a right, and being born means a lifelong loan to pay back the benefactors that allowed your birth. And may we return to the good old days of paganism, negotiate with our God, bring sacrifices. And thinking independently calls for death sentence, as nobody will tolerate your questioning the ultimate goodness of commissars, minding the dirty work for the exceptional few, living in forbidden regions of the globe reserved just for them. No state, no kaws, no pesky democracy. Tell me, woukd any part of this planet survive the zealotism of Trotsky International? May be time to migrate there.

         1. There will always be “countries” and there will always be “laws.”

            On the other hand, the Westphalian model nation-state and its versions of “borders” and “sovereignty,” are a short-term (less than 400 years) experiment with the primary result of hundreds of millions of dead at its hands.

            Back to the drawing board.

            1. I coukd never put my finger on what really scares me about this “no borders” political theiry. Now I do. Back to the deawing board. Aren’t we by now scared enough of human zealotism, the one that assumes the knowledge of the best ways to organize countries, run societies?

               The evolution of human organising models is a long one. Each step along the way brought distinct improvements, and the new perils. Roman Empire expired with a whimp in 476, to leave behind the exaustion, medieval patches of humanity in Europe and the Roman influenced world. And the endless misery of feuding lords, combined with therapeutic post-Roman stagnation, worked its way to enlarged and combined parts and pieces, leading up to Westphalian order. It gave population more protection and opportunities then systems before. But there was no cure to elites and their insatiable quest for power and riches. The feudalism of elites never left, just had now more means at its disposal to wage wars. And created new versions of empires, European colonial expansion — all new means of reordering globe to its liking. What did Trotsky achieve by burning churches and killing priests, and destroying independent farmers? In his vision, a better managed society with benefits to all. But ge could nit bend history to his will, and Germany was not ready fir Communist revolution. And the reactionary rule of Stalun was barely enough to mobilize the already destroyed country from the inside, to defend itself from the outside. So, what was learned from Napoleon’s quest to improve Europe, from WWI and the collapse of large monarchies, revolutions, and the butchery of WWII? The first serious attempt at globalizing the issue if security through UN and security council veto. But with three out of five being NATO countries, it logicallly led to temptation to remake global order under NATO auspices. And it took collapse of Soviet Union to show the delusional thinking behind that. But now, the trans-Atlantic workd order is confronted by different civilizations, and their seeking place under the sun. And is not coping at all. At this time in history, how can open borders be if any help? Granted, the tide of human misery from Africa, Asia and South America is the consequence of the global economic order established by IMF and World Bank, and the results are coming back to us with dividends. But the solution is not throwing up hands. Now if US and Europe want to believe that absorbing and moving on is best, whio am I to tell them what to do. But I see results globally, with shambolic performance by US and EU puppets. There is no vision, no leadership if any kind. Just old attempts at pitting one part of globe against another, ine group if people against another. No ability to mind one’s own home is not a good recommendation for telling others what to do. There is an opposite trend taking root in the principles of Shanghai Cooperation Organization. The trend against globalization pushed by NATO and neoliberal economies, reaffirming sovereignty but refusing temptation of creating new blocks. The working principle is do no harm. Having friendly relations, commerce and cooperation with every one — but never with the goal of harming others. Thus is why building alliances in Middle East and Asia has not really worked since Afghanistan and Iraq. Now, Trump is liosing patience — with us or against us has become operational with each and every sanction being announced. I do not see his instincts likung this, but he is surrounded by the establishment figures that do not like not getting fheir way. Countries of any size or importance are now triangulating. China-Russia on one side, US another.
               There is no reason for US to take over the banner of European colonialism. There is no need fir dominatiion, but leadership and partnership with others to advance global peace and stability. US has much to ioffer. But our ossified elites are stuck in time warp, and fixing their faces with botox will not infuse them with youth nor vision.
               It is clear that the world today, with very few exceptions, us in the business of containing us. We are pushing back against it, by generating crisis points, the mire the merrier. But there is a point of exaustion, and we are reaching it. Fircing exausted Europe into giving us miney for the development of new weapons is almost sad. Economic decline, painfully visible in France and UK, is forcing leadership there to face domestic troubles. Fermany is absorbing over one million of migrants.
               And wirkd iver, people are buting our weapons, but will not do our fighting for us.
               But how will desintegration of America or Europe help its population? It will not. Getting new blood will not create a new imperial worrior divisions to replace the current populace unwilling to fight.
               It is not a Westphalian state that is a problem, it is the elites that make decisions that are problematic. And the rise of populism as a visceral reaction to elitism, that is a wake up call. So far not heard. If the elites think they can yse #me too mivement to recreate Trotsky’s success in shutting down discourse and offering us phoney media diversity — they will learn, eventually.

            2. “It is not a Westphalian state that is a problem, it is the elites that make decisions that are problematic.”

               The rule of those elites is baked into the Westphalian model. If you have one, you have the other.

            3. I wish I could be as sure as you are. History, however, does not encourage me. Is a territory controlled by a government such an allien concept? Befire and after Westphalian model? Is the democracy as we know it the only organizing principle? Ir monarchies as we know them? What is baked in the cake? The elites that cling to power for the purposes of wealth extraction? How is the system today, clearly set up by the oligarchy and for the oligarchy change the fundamental principle that human race is a social creature, and needs sicial structure that constitutes their extended home? The state, however you imagine it, iand however shape and form it took over millenia, will be recreated and will evolve. The inly difference is —,will it break down under pressure of realities, or will it reform and adjust.

               History, if anything, teaches us that violent changes and disintegration hurts people, and it takes ling time for the treamirs of revolution or disintegration for a new system to emerge. And thise are not kind to powerless. And I am even less in favor of shadowy financial capital pulling strings behind the globalised, borderless nirvana.
               Everything we do has a price. And we the powerless are the victims with the hardest burden to shoulder.

               I see state and oeople as the case of dumping the baby with a bathwater. I prefer to get rud of stinky bathwater, replace it gradually, and replace by fresh and warm kne to protect the baby. I do not see the benefit of tossing baby out into the cruel world, in order to punish the putrid contents if the state vessel we all inhabit.
               We can hooe for the change to avoid catastrophies.
               The simplistic notion of the state today is the constraint. And these constraints in managing complexity of society resulted in turning power over to corporations. Quite the opposite is true in the East, where State is a complex corporation, and private commercial interests are nit in control. Whatever I may say about Trotsky and his visionary zealotism, he foresaw the complexities of societal nanagement in technologically changed world.
               We are all in this evolutionry stew, and must rise to the occassion, or changed circumstances will whip us around like a driftwood in a storm.

               My faith in people may be unfounded. And, if I am wrong, the disintegration of our state you envision as the only possible reality — may well come true.
               But this will not becessarily be the fate of all states. Westphalian they may not be, but will evolve with demands. Others will collapse, break up, dissapear from history, hopefully before they push people into desparate wars. But it will not be the end of all stares, but only those that face dead end, and see no way out. Quite the contrary, piwer of states can grow, but only that do not micro -manage, but devolve powers and allow for diversity of cultures, traitions and embrace all humanity. Time of supremacism of European world is over.

            4. You seem to be conflating the disintegration of one specific type of social organization (the Westphalian model nation-state) with the disintegration of societies and cultures. They’re not the same thing, and there are some respects in which the Westphalian nation-state model itself lends itself to social/cultural disintegration.

               Just as an example, entire larger family and ethnic groups are often split when Westphalian nation-states declare or re-negotiate their “borders.” Laredo, Texas and Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas were originally one city. Then a couple of Westphalian nation-states ran a “border” claim down the middle of it and all of a sudden half the people there were “Americans” and the other half were “Mexicans,” and if one brother lived on the other side of the “border” from another, he was magically a different “nationality” because some politicians said so.

            5. I am not conflating anything. Borders, be that jn feudal soan-if-control reality, or demarcation if states, were never based on principles. And while a Wesrphalian state may have councided with a nation, or at least majority of a nation — it from the start meant state, sovereignty and non-interference in internal affairs. By far the majority of Westlhalian-based states of that time were multi-national, multi-ethnic. And at that time also multi-lingual, as there was no mass communications nor public education. All that happened was the transformation of feudal elites intto a broader, state elites, with varying results. It is inly in 19th century, and mostly after Napoleon ideas of nationality, and promoting up until that time mythical nationalities, that it came into ficus as an organising principle. United Germany amd Italy were new elements to European already complex situation, with waning Ottoman Empire, and the renewed Imperial Britain interest in continental power balance, that tipped the scale. To start with, the post-Napoleonic eorld order of three monarchies not over-voting each other (Austro-Hungary, Germany and Russia), after Disraeli charmed Geemany with goodies if it backstabbed Russia at the Congres of Berlin.
               It worked, and started the pricess of weakening monarchies, various nations within fighting for independence. That is when Hungary, for example, started forcing Hungarian on its still majority Slavic population. Everebidy got what they nedded the least — WWI. Four empires disapeared, and British for the first time in its recent history greatly diminished. Industrialization finally caught up with Austro-Hungarian lands and Russia. Neither capable of coping and containing the disruptive forces.
               Knowing Austro-Hungarian region first hand, the history if its rapidly growing industrial and financial class — was the most vulnerable. The ownership of their seven major papers in Vienna was in the hands if this vibrant class, and they were hrging war, day and nigh inventing the barbaritues haopening in nearby Serbia, pushing for war relentlesly. They engaged Vatican in the endeavor. The presumed peace Pope yelled at the old Emperiir, who cried. The idea was — Serbia was fighting Ottomans for 20 tears and was exausted. It was a “sure bet” and opportunity to expand Monarchy to the south. Well, the plans of muce and men..,
               Westlhalian territorial concept and sovereignity have nothing to do with nation-state, although it may coincide. UK was very much a beneficiary of Westphalian order, while sorting out its problem with Scotland. Westphalian principles of borders, control of territory — not based on feudal span of control, became foudation of legal system based on territory, and the elimination of private claims of territory in the basis of hereditary titles. The system very much stands today — regardless of the ethnic make up or form if government. Russian Federation just as much believes jn sovereignty— even though amongst its over eighty entities it has 26 republics. Republics gave higher autonomy because of their uniqueness in language, ethicity or culture. Official religions in some of them include shamanusm, Budhism, and there a many Moslem majority republics. The nation state may make sense in smaller, culturaly closer knit countries, but Westohalian state if sovereignty is just as applicable to large, diverse countries.
               It is time to stop conflating Westphalian state concept with nation-states, and mire perjoratively, nationalism or racism.
               Sovereignty over territory and the soan of legal authority us the key to Westphalian concept. How people choose to organise their internal affairs is the matter of history, traditions, and needs.
               This is where todays zealots get it wrong — insistence that there are universal rules for human rights, and political and economic system.

               More acceptance of diversity, political, economic or cultural would make planet a better place.
               We are not there, as we seem to have to manage the problem of three oil trucks crossing from Iraq to Syria.

               We have plenty of money for that.

2. This has nothing to do with immigration. This is just a way of raising taxes, supposedly targeting non-Americans. But how far will a dollar go? You can do less and less with it, so that’s inflation.

   Trump should stop all this stupid posturing and just say BUY AMERICAN, OR ELSE. “Free trade” was a stupid idea, basically meaning feel free to enslave people and poison the environment without limit.

3. What I do not understand is this belief in our having upper hand in tarrif/economy/political war? Are we sure that one trade has bedn disrupted, it will come back undiminished and be efitting our economy? I see plenty of examples where some countries just hoped for an excuse to stop buying our products. It is mostly seen in agriculture, not just US but Europe, Canada and Australia. After Canada and US punished Egypt’s Morsi by stopping delivery of wheat, and the stores ran out of bread — Egypt is now buying grains from Russia. Saudis took advantage of a rsther routine trashing if Kingdom fir human rights, to bring its students home, and stop buying Canadian wheat. Buying now from Russia. Same as Turkey, Vietnam. For years, Amur region in Russia in Chinese border has developed huge areas under soy. New roads and new bridge now link Rusian and Chinese towns. Now that China stopped buying US soy, what do we thjnk will happen? Now that iit is top expkrter of wheat, grains production alliwed Russia to ramp up speedily its neat and dairy productiion, as well as fisheries. US, Canada and Australia will be affected most. Europe paid dearly for Russian sanctions — as Russia banned import of European food. None of it will return, as now Russia has produced substitutes fkr all, even most exotic aEurolean brands. And being cheaper, and it is selling them competatively on global scale. These examlles just show how careful one must be in negotiating trade deals.
   I am all for negotiating and incentivising our companues to produce at home. In fact, tarifs will hit American companies importing home. Good. They take jobs, technoligy and other benefits to somebody else’s country, and expect to make huge profits selling in US. These companies will have go eat the tariffs as they cannot squeeze consumer much. But then there are areas where ine has to thread carefully. One is electronics and network technology, and another food. Stopping Huawei will nit autmatically produce our own 5G technology. Our top producer CISCO cannot just snap fingers and bring production home from — guess where, China, Romania, etc. Our components being built into Huawei products were meant as a concession to us, as a means of sharing profits in their future sales. We have — who knows why — assumed that China dies nit have its own products. But removing our products, we will lose big market, and chip makers are already paying for it on stock market. Huawei will replace ours with their products, and we automatically lise Chinese markets. As for competing globally -/ the theory goes that Huawei without well known American components will be slowed down in sales. That may be so, as their priducts need to be assessed. But here is the catch. Huawei has some chips that are better for handsets then our brands. They will iffer these upgrades and everything still many times cheaper. And if we also lag substantially in time table for rolling out 5G infrastructure, Huawei will come ahead. We could have avoided ban that will not work, sold China our products, made profits in China proper and their exports — while ramlung up our own rollout. We cannot maintain our technological lead by force. And stealing technology rings holliw when somebody is better then you. When factories are placed in a foreign country, their children have opportunities to study and work in technologies, robotics, and plant management — not our kids. We beed to reform ourselves, and in the process we may have to suffer some damage. But with hope that in the future our kids will dream of new technologies in factories they will have a chance to work.

Comments are closed.