Anyone who uses one day of the stock market to claim anything knows nothing about how the stock market works.

ROFL

Anyone who uses one day of the stock market to claim anything knows nothing about how the stock market works.

This coming from Keller who have repeatedly proven to be incapable of sourcing basic information.

You "one-day" quip ignores the fact that since the day Donald Trump was elected the stock market has soared to historic highs.

Admit it son, President Trump continues to rack up major wins for the U.S. and it's people.

Admit it son, President Trump continues to rack up major wins for the U.S. and it's people.

Who is Trump playing against in this game you've created?

Cool, so I guess Mexico is paying for the wall now?

Cool, so I guess Mexico is paying for the wall now?

It really upsets you lefties when President Trump scores yet another major win for the U.S.

Who is he playing against?

It really upsets you lefties when President Trump scores yet another major win for the U.S.

I think they just wish you would go enjoy your "wins" somewhere.

Cool, so I guess Mexico is paying for the wall now?

It really upsets you lefties when President Trump scores yet another major win for the U.S.

Quite the contrary. If something is good for the US, I'm all for it regardless of who gets credit. I just have my doubts that it is a major "win" for the US. From what I hear, there is very little change in the agreement other than the name, although it does require wages be raised for makers of car parts in Mexico and that an increase in percentage of car parts be made in North America. These are good things, but not exactly earth shattering. Also, this agreement means nothing unless congress approves it, which doesn't look like it will happen until next year.

Quite the contrary. If something is good for the US, I'm all for it regardless of who gets credit. I just have my doubts that it is a major "win" for the US. From what I hear, there is very little change in the agreement other than the name, although it does require wages be raised for makers of car parts in Mexico and that an increase in percentage of car parts be made in North America. These are good things, but not exactly earth shattering. Also, this agreement means nothing unless congress approves it, which doesn't look like it will happen until next year.

You've highlighted the two big things I picked up on as well.

First requiring wages to be raised in Mexico (or Canada) could, could give manufacturers some pause when deciding if they want to continue or invest in US facilities or move to Mexico, and maybe that means some jobs stay here if labor costs are more even. They move to Mexico not so they can be closer to that retail market, they do so for lower costs, which labor is one of them. From the union perspective, atleast their is organized labor and good wages and benefits at Canadian factories - so the incentive for manufacturers isn't so great to locate in Canada compared to Mexico. Increasing pay in Mexico could possibly keep some jobs here or create some new jobs here with new investment. That is good...potentially.

The other thing is really a big nothing, increasing the content of the autos to be higher North American. Notice, it says 'North America'. Simply increasing the content of a car built in Canada, Mexico or the US as a higher % of North America content does nothing to help content suppliers and laborers specifically in the US. All it really does is reduce the % of non North American suppliers and simply it means that the Mexican or Canadian content (or maybe US) will increase to satisfy this new requirement.

It isn't a necessarily bad change if one is trying to keep more parts and related jobs in North America...but if the intent is or was to help more US specific jobs, this provision doesn't demand that. I think it is more likely we see higher Mexican content in the autos rather than higher US content as a result of that provision. We would know if Mexican content increases, however it will be impossible to gauge the US and Canadian content since it is lumped together as one...so if Canadian content were to increase it would be buried in the combined US/CN figure and we wouldn't know if the US part went up or the CN part went up.

End of the day, the changes I read about in a NYT article aren't bad, generally they could be considered good. There were some other changes as well that aren't especially important to me about sunsetting and legal challenges against countries. So trade agreement revisions can and should happen and no doubt an incredible amount of work has gone into this from all sides. In the final analysis I fail to see any major or huge or big victory here and it certainly isn't any kind of ideal or model agreement I would've hoped for.

S&P, Nasdaq hit record highs as trade war fears recede

(Reuters) - U.S. stock indexes rose on Tuesday, with the benchmark S&P 500 and the Nasdaq indexes hitting fresh all-time highs, as a trade agreement between the United States and Mexico calmed fears of a global trade war.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-stocks/futures-edge-higher-as-u-s-mexico-deal-eases-trade-war-fears-idUSKCN1LD1AW

Next up, Canadian Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland comes begging to Washington, D.C., today for trade talks following the announcement of a new agreement between the U.S. and Mexico.

Trump's tactic is to threaten everything, pull the rug out. This is how he approaches pretty much everything even though that isn't really what he wants. And in the end the parties get together and he (the US) settles for much less than what the original objective was.

No surprise the markets are pleased. Everyone was just holding their breath that the bite isn't as bad as the bark on this trade stuff. Many CEOs, investors, movers-shakers, just took the wait and see approach with Trump because they thought that in the end, he really doesn't want to tariff all the stuff from Mexico, or pull out of NAFTA. Same with the China stuff, these people are giving him the benefit of the doubt because, Trump is one of them, a businessman and they think that he ultimately has their best interests at heart, even if he has a different, unique or even dangerous way to get there.

But when all the dust settles, what real substantial change is there? Wall Street doesn't want change in a nationalist vein. Just don't rock the boat right? The vast majority of corporate board rooms don't want change that puts their growth and profits at risk. Sometimes among certain groups, I think I am the only person who really wants change. Does Trump want change...or does he just want to be able to claim change and score fictitious victories to promote to the masses?

It is risky stuff to advocate and push for drastic change in how the US economy and global economic system functions. And maybe the path we are on, the one we have been on is better, it's safer for sure. I think there is a better way, but it requires alot of change and the people in charge of making those decisions don't want any of that change...so...yeah...we get minimal improvements at best.

At the very least updating and reopening trade deals with South Korea and Mexico and all of our trading partners is good and in that respect Trump deserves some credit. But, from my point of view, the actual changes we are getting are not matching the expectations. Frankly, if we were getting the changes that some had hoped for and that Trump himself had pushed for, the markets would not be soaring, quite the contrary. But we should not let 'markets' dictate how and what our country wants to do, with stuff like this the tail always wags the dog though.

Trump's tactic is to threaten everything, pull the rug out. This is how he approaches pretty much everything even though that isn't really what he wants. And in the end the parties get together and he (the US) settles for much less than what the original objective was.

No surprise the markets are pleased. Everyone was just holding their breath that the bite isn't as bad as the bark on this trade stuff. Many CEOs, investors, movers-shakers, just took the wait and see approach with Trump because they thought that in the end, he really doesn't want to tariff all the stuff from Mexico, or pull out of NAFTA. Same with the China stuff, these people are giving him the benefit of the doubt because, Trump is one of them, a businessman and they think that he ultimately has their best interests at heart, even if he has a different, unique or even dangerous way to get there.

But when all the dust settles, what real substantial change is there? Wall Street doesn't want change in a nationalist vein. Just don't rock the boat right? The vast majority of corporate board rooms don't want change that puts their growth and profits at risk. Sometimes among certain groups, I think I am the only person who really wants change. Does Trump want change...or does he just want to be able to claim change and score fictitious victories to promote to the masses?

It is risky stuff to advocate and push for drastic change in how the US economy and global economic system functions. And maybe the path we are on, the one we have been on is better, it's safer for sure. I think there is a better way, but it requires alot of change and the people in charge of making those decisions don't want any of that change...so...yeah...we get minimal improvements at best.

At the very least updating and reopening trade deals with South Korea and Mexico and all of our trading partners is good and in that respect Trump deserves some credit. But, from my point of view, the actual changes we are getting are not matching the expectations. Frankly, if we were getting the changes that some had hoped for and that Trump himself had pushed for, the markets would not be soaring, quite the contrary. But we should not let 'markets' dictate how and what our country wants to do, with stuff like this the tail always wags the dog though.

President Trump's tactics are producing great results for the U.S. after decades of bad trade deals.

No Hillary, No Obama, No corruption charges, No pursuit of justice for either by any Republican in Washington.

Trump's tactic is to threaten everything, pull the rug out. This is how he approaches pretty much everything even though that isn't really what he wants. And in the end the parties get together and he (the US) settles for much less than what the original objective was.

No surprise the markets are pleased. Everyone was just holding their breath that the bite isn't as bad as the bark on this trade stuff. Many CEOs, investors, movers-shakers, just took the wait and see approach with Trump because they thought that in the end, he really doesn't want to tariff all the stuff from Mexico, or pull out of NAFTA. Same with the China stuff, these people are giving him the benefit of the doubt because, Trump is one of them, a businessman and they think that he ultimately has their best interests at heart, even if he has a different, unique or even dangerous way to get there.

But when all the dust settles, what real substantial change is there? Wall Street doesn't want change in a nationalist vein. Just don't rock the boat right? The vast majority of corporate board rooms don't want change that puts their growth and profits at risk. Sometimes among certain groups, I think I am the only person who really wants change. Does Trump want change...or does he just want to be able to claim change and score fictitious victories to promote to the masses?

It is risky stuff to advocate and push for drastic change in how the US economy and global economic system functions. And maybe the path we are on, the one we have been on is better, it's safer for sure. I think there is a better way, but it requires alot of change and the people in charge of making those decisions don't want any of that change...so...yeah...we get minimal improvements at best.

At the very least updating and reopening trade deals with South Korea and Mexico and all of our trading partners is good and in that respect Trump deserves some credit. But, from my point of view, the actual changes we are getting are not matching the expectations. Frankly, if we were getting the changes that some had hoped for and that Trump himself had pushed for, the markets would not be soaring, quite the contrary. But we should not let 'markets' dictate how and what our country wants to do, with stuff like this the tail always wags the dog though.

President Trump's tactics are producing great results for the U.S. after decades of bad trade deals.

trump's " tactics" have hurt American businesses, cost American jobs. he is a clueless dotard, but he has the full support of the weak minded dummys like YOU.

Unemployment is at record low levels, the U.S. economy is stronger than it has been in decades and the stock market (people's retirement) has risen to record levels all due to President Trump's leadership and policies.

Anyone know how much land or properties that the Trump Organization will be receiving?

This is indeed great but it’s gotta last for 6 yrs and be debt free in order to claim success. Kudlow stated that growth would cover the increase in debt and all would be net positive. I take Kudlow with a grain of salt as I remember his “don’t sell, this is Bush bump 2.0” as it all tanked. I’m sure I’m not alone.

Republicans hatred of NAFTA is hypocritical since more Repubs supported it than Dems in both houses.

[Edited on 8/29/2018 by sckeys]

This is indeed great but it’s gotta last for 6 yrs and be debt free in order to claim success. Kudlow stated that growth would cover the increase in debt and all would be net positive. I take Kudlow with a grain of salt as I remember his “don’t sell, this is Bush bump 2.0” as it all tanked. I’m sure I’m not alone.

Republicans hatred of NAFTA is hypocritical since more Repubs supported it than Dems in both houses.

[Edited on 8/29/2018 by sckeys]

The mistakes of the past are being corrected by President Trump and the results prove him to be right.

This is indeed great but it’s gotta last for 6 yrs and be debt free in order to claim success. Kudlow stated that growth would cover the increase in debt and all would be net positive. I take Kudlow with a grain of salt as I remember his “don’t sell, this is Bush bump 2.0” as it all tanked. I’m sure I’m not alone.

Republicans hatred of NAFTA is hypocritical since more Repubs supported it than Dems in both houses.

[Edited on 8/29/2018 by sckeys]

The mistakes of the past are being corrected by President Trump and the results prove him to be right.

That’s funny. Stupid, but funny. Untrue, but funny.

[quote

The mistakes of the past are being corrected by President Trump and the results prove him to be right.

So Bush Sr now makes the hate list. NAFTA was his baby. A mistake of the past.

[quote

The mistakes of the past are being corrected by President Trump and the results prove him to be right.

So Bush Sr now makes the hate list. NAFTA was his baby. A mistake of the past.

Final negotiations for NAFTA were during the Clinton administration and the agreement came into force on January 1, 1994.

Did you go to the same School of The Stupid with Keller?

[quote

The mistakes of the past are being corrected by President Trump and the results prove him to be right.

So Bush Sr now makes the hate list. NAFTA was his baby. A mistake of the past.

Final negotiations for NAFTA were during the Clinton administration and the agreement came into force on January 1, 1994.

Did you go to the same School of The Stupid with Keller?

Clinton did sign it with opposition from his own party, unions, and environmental groups. This was all done after it was supported by more Repubs than Dems in both houses. It was started in 92 by then president Bush Sr.

Both Bush and Clinton wanted NAFTA. Wish Ross Perot had won.

For those keeping score at home, through July of this FY, looks like personal income tax with-holdings are up about 100 billion, but corporate tax receipts are down about 60 billion. Two more months to go in this FY. What would the numbers have been had the old tax rates stayed in effect? Who knows. I support the tax cuts, but would rather have seen them do only corporate reform. The bigger issue is not curtailing the spending...and that includes defense spending. I'm fine for people and corporations to keep more of the money they earn, but the government needs to be be responsible with the spending. It is funny how Republicans complain about inefficiencies and waste and fraud on every other government spending program, except defense. It's wrong. We need to spend alot on defense, and we do. But they must be held accountable to how they spend it. They think entitlements are a black hole, ha!

[quote

The mistakes of the past are being corrected by President Trump and the results prove him to be right.

So Bush Sr now makes the hate list. NAFTA was his baby. A mistake of the past.

Final negotiations for NAFTA were during the Clinton administration and the agreement came into force on January 1, 1994.

Did you go to the same School of The Stupid with Keller?

Clinton did sign it with opposition from his own party, unions, and environmental groups. This was all done after it was supported by more Repubs than Dems in both houses. It was started in 92 by then president Bush Sr.

Final negotiations for NAFTA were during the Clinton administration and the agreement came into force on January 1, 1994.

Your straining to blame NAFTA on Republicans just shows your bias and inability to place responsibility where it belongs.

What does it matter, trying to pin it on one side? Members of both parties, plenty of members of both parties screwed us. House; Republicans yea 132 - Democrats yea 102. Senate; Republicans yea 34 - Democrats yea 27.

Let's loose the party politics infighting. What is bad is bad regardless of party.

Only Ross Perot spoke the truth about NAFTA

What does it matter, trying to pin it on one side? Members of both parties, plenty of members of both parties screwed us. House; Republicans yea 132 - Democrats yea 102. Senate; Republicans yea 34 - Democrats yea 27.

Let's loose the party politics infighting. What is bad is bad regardless of party.

President Trump is fixing the failed NAFTA and our country is far better off.

What does it matter, trying to pin it on one side? Members of both parties, plenty of members of both parties screwed us. House; Republicans yea 132 - Democrats yea 102. Senate; Republicans yea 34 - Democrats yea 27.

Let's loose the party politics infighting. What is bad is bad regardless of party.

President Trump is fixing the failed NAFTA and our country is far better off.

Why is NAFTA considered a failure besides the president saying it is? No trade agreement is perfect but many of our nations citizens including those of Canada and Mexico have benefited from it.

Why is NAFTA considered a failure besides the president saying it is? No trade agreement is perfect but many of our nations citizens including those of Canada and Mexico have benefited from it.

I wouldn't use the word failed personally, doubt Muleman would take the time to offer any kind of sincere response.

I think NAFTA put this country on a very disturbing path that made it easier for US companies to outsource good paying jobs that often carried good benefits. And it made it so easy because it is Mexico and Canada just across the border, not some country separated by oceans. No doubt it was a huge boon for corporate profits, but that comes at an expense and that expense is the blue collar workers here left behind, the cost to those people personally, the cost to their communities and the cost of our state and federal government safety net programs.

Cases can and cases have been made touting the success of not only NAFTA, but all these trade deals over the last 30+ years. It all depends on where you sit I suppose. I haven't been negatively impacted by NAFTA personally, I could stop caring about all of this trade stuff right now and it won't change me in any way good or bad. None of my immediate family is effected either. It isn't personal, it is principle. For me, there is just something about our government making trade pacts with foreign countries that undermines our labor force that deeply disturbs me.

Republicans often give lip service "America can compete with any country on earth". No. When the playing field is not level, when there are significant cost advantages to be found in foreign countries with regulatory, tax, labor, energy, environmental costs America can never compete when the costs of operating here are much higher than operating there.

The genie probably can't be put back in the bottle at this point and trade talk on the campaign trail is often little more than a political football. It doesn't change how I feel, it doesn't change what I view is right and what is wrong. But trade deals that allow US companies to outsource jobs and then import the product they used to make here are wrong.