Supposedly, “cartel” gunmen taking pot shots at USian officials.
So, turn the clock back to 1916. The Mexican government could not catch Pancho Villa, so the US invaded Mexico to handle the situation.
Steve
3 Likes
Will this make avocados more expensive?
DB2
3 Likes
I suppose they had Cartel tattoo’d on their forehead like all Cartel members do.
1 Like
The cartels have sown terror across Mexico and caused untold damage in the United States. But here in Culiacán, the state capital, the dynamic seems to be shifting, at least for now. Cartel operatives say they’ve had to move labs to other areas of the country or temporarily shut down production…“The most important thing now is to survive,” he added, his hands trembling…
Facing economic chaos, the Mexican government went on the offensive. President Claudia Sheinbaum dispatched 10,000 national guard troops to the border and hundreds more soldiers to Sinaloa state, a major hub of fentanyl trafficking where a cartel war has caused turmoil for months…
Then, last week, the Mexican government said it had begun sending to the United States more than two dozen cartel operatives wanted by the American authorities.
DB2
2 Likes
All a good thing, but, “not enough” to dissuade TIG from imposing the tariffs. Even the consideration of Mexico matching US tariffs on Chinese goods, which was posted about a couple days ago, was “not enough” to get rid of the tariffs.
And the tariffs were imposed on Canada as well, in spite of the amount of dope and people coming across that border being about 1% of what comes across the southern border.
So, the musical question is, what is “enough”? Or are the demands placed on Canada and Mexico a ruse? Is there, in fact, no such thing, as “enough”? Is the entire show about the US beating up on it’s neighbors?
Steve
5 Likes
The tariffs are made up in order to blame those outside the US for the economic collapse he is knowingly creating. A year or more is not unexpected by me. Be interesting to see how fast his public support starts to disappear. It has already started, but this is just Day 1. Give it 30-60-90 days and then look at the employment AND unemployment numbers, and so on. I am looking for a daily source for the price of eggs. As I don’t use eggs (I buy frozen omelettes), I just watch the price changes. Six months ago, I saw Costco was selling Eggland 8-packs (8 frozen omelettes in box). I stocked up. The same omelettes are now a 2-pack for $6+ at various stores. I see a big box of other brands are various prices, but I don’t really have a way to store maybe 100 frozen omelettes.
Eggs are a terrible example to use for “the” inflation illustration. That’s because egg prices were strongly influenced by a generic event and hundreds of millions of layers had to be slaughtered and destroyed. It takes 6 to 10 weeks to grow layers (they kill all the males by grinding them up and disposing of the residue), so in a month or two, egg prices will start to come down.
Uh, no.
“Chickens usually start laying eggs around 18–22 weeks old, or about six months of age. However, the exact age depends on the breed, nutrition, and housing.”
I worked in an egg-laying facility for a bit (not in the US). The chickens roamed inside a large barn (no cages). The fertilized eggs were for export–to create new egg-producing facilities elsewhere. We ate lots of eggs because the too-small and too-large eggs were sent to the kitchen.
3 Likes
Thing is, voters have demonstrated they have the memory of a gnat. What happens in 25 will be forgotten. What matters is how they feel in August-November of 26.
Steve
1 Like
Several layers…
- The fentanyl problem is serious.
- The drug problem is the legal raison d’être behind the declaration of emergency.
- This is largely a southern border problem, although there is some going on from Canada.
- Industrial policy – bringing factory production to the US – then comes into play.
DB2
Are you serious?!?
Look, I know you are smart guy and I often both agree with you and defend you but less than 1% of fentanyl comes from Canada. Trying to justify tariffs (something Conservatives used to oppose back when this was the party of Reagan), based on less than 1% is intellectually dishonest and beneath you.
You also know that is unlikely to happen except in those cases where it is very easy and cheap to do so. The very nature of this on again off again behavior makes it EXCEPTIONALLY unlikely for any corporation to spend significant dollars to relocate manufacturing because of the risk that tariffs are transitory.
5 Likes
Someone, recently, was crowing about Honda building a new factory in Indiana. Nope. Honda has been building Civics in Indiana for years. The announcement was that, apparently the Civic will stay in Indiana, instead of moving to Mexico, in 28.
Thing is, if production does move to the US, to duck the tariffs, that chokes off the tariff revenue source that is needed to allow repeal of the income tax. The Billionaires won’t like that.
Steve
2 Likes
You have documented the validity of Mexico imposing massive tariffs on goods imported from the US.
- Mexico has a gun problem,
- The guns are made in the US.
- The US refuses to act to prevent those guns from being taken to Mexico.
Thus, Mexico has the legitimate authority to impose tariffs on US goods until such time as the US stops the flow of guns to Mexico.
5 Likes
Yes, the quantity of drugs from Canada is small, but as I pointed out, the focus is on drugs because that is the basis for the emergency declaration (which I assume will face challenges in the courts).
The other focus is on industrial policy, the re-industrialization of the US. This was also a concern of the previous admin. The CHIPS act, for example, uses carrots (lots of subsidies) while tariffs are a stick approach.
DB2
1 Like
I suppose they could. I’m not sure they have the leverage to make it worthwhile, but I haven’t looked at the numbers.
By the way, there is a case before the US Supreme Court this week about Mexico’s ability to sue US gun manufacturers.
DB2
Not small, negligible. (so small or unimportant as to be not worth considering; insignificant.)
There comes a time where the juice is not worth the squeeze. When it comes down to less than 1 percent getting it to zero is probably cost prohibitive. Yes you want to stop it but nobody is going to stop it all.
2 Likes
LOL!
The tax cuts git extended and new tax cuts for wealthy will be attempted. That is baked into the mix.
1 Like
We agree on that. As I’ve mentioned several times already, the drugs are only the first layer (the legal one).
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq .) (IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq .) (NEA), section 604 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2483), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code…
DB2
Recall, Trump signed a new “NAFTA” (USMCA) during his first admin.
This is what he said about his own deal:
The USMCA is the fairest, most balanced, and beneficial trade agreement we have ever signed into law. It’s the best agreement we’ve ever made, and we have others coming.
So was Trump wrong in 2020 when he said that about his own deal? Did he screw up the first time?
Or is this just more MUS? It is one or the other. He can’t blame unfair trade with Canada on anyone other than himself and his “most balanced and beneficial trade agreement ever signed into law.”
3 Likes
It is like Bernard Marcus said. When I negotiate a contract with someone I expect them to stand by the contract. If they come back to renegotiate the contract, well I may negotiate again, but I will never trust that person.
Two bites of the same apple is not a sign of a good negotiator. Nobody can expect them not to come back for a third.
1 Like