Quote from: AP
Mexico retaliates with tariffs on 90 US products
By MARK STEVENSON, The Associated Press
2:06 p.m. March 16, 2009
MEXICO CITY — Mexico said Monday it will increase tariffs on about 90 U.S. products in retaliation for last week's decision to end a pilot program that allowed some Mexican trucks to transport goods in the United States.
Economy Secretary Gerardo Ruiz Mateos said the U.S. decision violates a provision of the North American Free Trade Agreement that was supposed to have opened cross-border trucking by January 2000.
"We consider this U.S. action to be wrong, protectionist and a clear violation of the treaty," Ruiz Mateos told reporters. "By deciding to protect their trucking industry, they have decided to affect other countries and the region."
The measure will affect about $2.4 billion in trade involving approximately 90 agricultural and industrial products from 40 U.S. states. Ruiz Mateos said the department later this week will publish a list of the products, which he said were chosen to represent a large number of U.S. states and significant trade items.
He did not specify how much tariffs would be increased, but said "the retaliatory measures are the cost the United States is going to have to pay for failing to fulfill its obligations under NAFTA."
The action alarmed Rep. Kevin Brady of Texas, the ranking Republican on the trade subcommittee of the House Ways and Means Committee. Wheat and beef are two of his states top three exports.
"We've got a tough economy. We are going to lose sales, ag sales of exports that we are selling into Mexico and that may well go to other countries," he said. "If you raise (duties), our wheat or beef may not be competitive to Mexico consumers."
A pilot program begun in 2007 that had allowed a few Mexican trucks beyond a border buffer zone died last week when President Barack Obama signed a sweeping government bill that barred spending on it.
But the administration says Obama has asked the office of the U.S. Trade Representative to work with the Department of Transportation, State Department and Congress to create a new trucking program.
Rep. Sander Levin, a Michigan Democrat who chairs the Ways and Means trade subcommittee, said he was "disappointed that the Mexican government has decided to retaliate, given that the Obama Administration has publicly committed itself to working with the Congress and the Mexican government to address this and related issues."
Activists and industry associations in the United States had argued that Mexican trucks are unsafe.
"No trade agreement should obligate us to compromise our highway safety," said Sen. Byron Dorgon, a North Dakota Democrat.
But Ruiz Mateos said the Mexican trucks crossing the border are safe:
"The argument was that the trucks did not comply with their safety rules, despite the fact that during the pilot program there were more than 46,000 crossings without any significant incidents," Ruiz Mateos said. "The Mexican trucks even exceeded the U.S. safety standards in some cases."
Brady said that another 800 Mexican trucks have been shipping throughout the U.S. since the 1990s with safety records equivalent to U.S. trucks. The trucks were grandfathered in when NAFTA was signed.
Ruiz Mateos said Mexico remains open to resolving the dispute and is "confident that we will find a satisfactory solution on this issue."
The trucking program is one of the last and largest disputes between the U.S. and Mexico over the 1994 NAFTA accords.
In 2001, Mexico brought the case before a dispute-resolution panel, which recommended that the United States comply with the program and allow Mexican trucks within its borders.
–––
Associated Press Writer Suzanne Gamboa contributed to this report from Washington
So, now they have to stop and unload the shit at the border, put it on a completely different but identical truck, and then continue on to the destination. Where is the value for the consumer in this, exactly? What is the cost? Not counting the new Mexican tariffs, of course. :rolleyes:
Oh good. A trade war.
Another foreign policy victory for the incompetant boobs of the Obama Administration.
"The argument was that the trucks did not comply with their safety rules, despite the fact that during the pilot program there were more than 46,000 crossings without any significant incidents," Ruiz Mateos said. "The Mexican trucks even exceeded the U.S. safety standards in some cases."
I'd say if the Mexican trucks pass US safety standards, then they should be ok to ship here. I wonder why this action was really taken now? I'm thinking that Mexican trucking takes jobs from US truckers, union truckers especially, and that was probably the bigger gripe somewhere in this. I think the Obama admin will be a lot more sympathetic to union issues.
I believe this is change.
Quote from: KRonn on March 17, 2009, 03:12:00 PM
"The argument was that the trucks did not comply with their safety rules, despite the fact that during the pilot program there were more than 46,000 crossings without any significant incidents," Ruiz Mateos said. "The Mexican trucks even exceeded the U.S. safety standards in some cases."
I'd say if the Mexican trucks pass US safety standards, then they should be ok to ship here. I wonder why this action was really taken now? I'm thinking that Mexican trucking takes jobs from US truckers, union truckers especially, and that was probably the bigger gripe somewhere in this. I think the Obama admin will be a lot more sympathetic to union issues.
I think Obama made it clear during his campaign that he would be going after NAFTA at the behest of the US unions. I imagine this is merely the beginning.
Besides, why should Mexico be immune from having our relations "reset"? This is the change we all hoped for!
Yes, lets hurt the legitimate Mexican economy while the nation struggles with a massive Narco insurgency. I'm sure that'll turn out wonderfully for everyone on both sides of the border. ::)
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 17, 2009, 03:26:24 PM
Yes, lets hurt the legitimate Mexican economy while the nation struggles with a massive Narco insurgency. I'm sure that'll turn out wonderfully for everyone on both sides of the border. ::)
Fuck Mexico. Now is the time to finish what Polk started.
Quote from: Cindy Brady on March 17, 2009, 03:39:04 PM
Fuck Mexico. Now is the time to finish what Polk started.
Attack Canada and annex up to the 54th parallel?
Quote from: frunk on March 17, 2009, 03:42:54 PM
Quote from: Cindy Brady on March 17, 2009, 03:39:04 PM
Fuck Mexico. Now is the time to finish what Polk started.
Attack Canada and annex up to the 54th parallel?
The Fenian Brotherhood was RIGHT!
Oh
my
Bama. :(
Quote from: frunk on March 17, 2009, 03:42:54 PM
Quote from: Cindy Brady on March 17, 2009, 03:39:04 PM
Fuck Mexico. Now is the time to finish what Polk started.
Attack Canada and annex up to the 54th parallel?
The US doesn't really have the spirit for it anymore. The US Army was nearly routed by a pack of dune coons. A small group of whites could probably defeat the entire US military.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 17, 2009, 03:47:36 PM
Oh
my
Bama. :(
Maybe he is wanting everything to turn wretched, so that when he saves us, it'll be all that more miraculous.
Meh, economic prosperity is over-rated.
Quote from: The Brain on March 17, 2009, 03:16:36 PM
I believe this is change.
Can you believe in it though?
I guess this was tucked into one of the bills recently passed. Those rushed pieces of legislation, containing so many items, but which our Congress members so dutifully read over and spent some time to debate....
Wow could we really have picked a worse time to start weakening NAFTA?
Quote from: Valmy on March 24, 2009, 09:04:07 AM
Wow could we really have picked a worse time to start weakening NAFTA?
That's what you elected Obama to do, isn't it?
Quote from: Neil on March 24, 2009, 09:27:13 AM
Quote from: Valmy on March 24, 2009, 09:04:07 AM
Wow could we really have picked a worse time to start weakening NAFTA?
That's what you elected Obama to do, isn't it?
Indeed. he pretty much promised as much in the campaign.
Of course, more protectionism is pretty much the worst possible thing you can do in the face of a global recession. GoGo union pandering!