Good Story About Delphi, Mexico, Ohio and Trump
 

http://www.latimes.com/world/mexico-...htmlstory.html

Hurt Mexico and the jobs leave North America for Asia; here is a good quote from someone in the know at the end of the article:


"Speaking at Barclay's Global Automotive Conference in New York in December, Delphi’s chief financial officer Joe Massaro explained what he thought would happen to Delphi under several Trump trade scenarios.

If Trump were to close the border with Mexico outright, “in less than a week, all the people who voted for him in Michigan and Ohio would be out of work,” Massaro argued, underscoring the fact that many factories in the U.S., including car makers in Detroit, depend on parts made in Mexico.

If the United States were to withdraw from NAFTA and start taxing imports from Mexico again, Delphi would continue doing business in Mexico, he said. The company would pass on the extra cost to its suppliers or to consumers, or would find a way to reduce its production costs — which could mean layoffs or salary cuts in Mexico."

Nobody is cutting off Mexico. It is about adjustment and emphasis.

Note Massaro use of the term "outright".

Massaro is employing word tricks. He is dishonest.

Wouldn't Congress have to pass legislation to increase tariffs?

Usually but right now we are technically in a war against terrorism.
In time of war the President has the power to raise import duties.

I am sure there would be court battles.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/23/news...-tariff-power/

The man runs Delphi so he should know a bit more than you.

Pretty sure Mexico isn't a terrorist nation and technically Congress hasn't declared war.

Trump is just being Trump with his Mexico tariffs. It plays well to his base. One potentially good thing about Trump is that the power of the imperial Presidency will in all probability decline. Not a bad thing in and of itself.

In addition, Trump isn't going to close the border with Mexico for the very same reasons Massaro gave.

Pretty sure Chief Financial Officers don't run large corporations.

lol......

It is called Afghanistan.

Right. The CEO does it all himself. The Chief Financial Officer doesn't have any input on where to move factories. It's like a dictatorship.

When did Congress declare war on Afghanistan? Please provide link to said declaration.

Trump doesn't need a formal declaration of war according to the cited article.

The article is about tariffs and Mexico, not Afghanistan.

Quit trolling. There is legislation allowing Trump to raise tariffs even without a war. The Trade Act Of 1974. Plus The President has a lot of power in this area.
Is your next post going to deny current existing law?

OK, seems like Trump has the power.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/23/news...-tariff-power/

You should read the article.

Thanks for confirming Congress hasn't declared war on Afghanistan. Why did you bring Afghanistan up in post 9, which was your reply to post 6?

In post 3 I asked a question about Congress and tariffs with regard to Trump and Mexico and in post 4 you linked to a CNN article that answered my question.

I did when ice referenced it and pretty sure Afghanistan wasn't mentioned, but I'll revisit it and check.

CFOs are persuasive. As are the lawyers. That is where leadership types get stuck in thought spirals with their CEOs.

It's like learning the exposure triangle in photography.

You were implying that the article was not applicable since there was no formal declaration of war. There doesn't have to be. Now you will say you were not implying anything.

I don't think the War on Terror is over.

See Rajoo's response above. He gets it.

I did and most of his post was a quote of the article which I just reread and it mentions Mexico, China, Syria, Libya, Nicaragua, Panama, Sierra Leone and Somalia, but not Afghanistan. It also points out that US special forces in Syria and Libya would the conflicts that would give him tariff raising authority.

If you read all of post 4 and note that in post 3 ice said "I am sure there would be court battles" followed by the article, which is the post I was responding to, you may see that I was pointing out Mexico is very different the other countries past Presidents have used these laws as a basis to raise tariffs. I think this is why Trump will have a very difficult time implementing his punitive tariffs against Mexico and why I thought ice made the point quoted above.

Please see post 22.

I think the War on Terror may still be going on after you and I are dead unless leaders on all sides of the conflict can change paradigms that have been with us for quite sometime. Huntington's The Clash of Civilizations? addresses these paradigms.

The point is it does not matter what country we are at war with Trump can still use the Afghanistan war as excuse to raise tariffs on Mexico, as he can Syria or the war against ISIS.

If one ignores Post #9, then rest of the posts dovetail into one another.
So Trump can pick any country we are at war with to justify tariffs, Congress does not need to declare a war and then he can pick any nation to impose any amount of tariffs for five months. Am I correct?

But he won't because Mexico can shut down certain sectors of the US economy, so this will remain just a threat.

Post 9 is very important Rajoo.

I fully concur. Although I would say in conflict with. In addition, it seems Nixon using the long over Korean conflict was stretching it. Maybe the Trade Act of 1974 addressed this.

It does make the point that we are at war.

The article didn't mention Afghanistan.
I did.

And it applies to America being at war right now.
Which Trump can use as justification to increase tariffs.


You quoted my point that technically we are at war with what is clearly a counterpoint.

Quote:"Pretty sure Mexico isn't a terrorist nation and technically Congress hasn't declared war."

My response was "It is called Afghanistan." Which is a snarky way of saying "look we are at war right now."

Just because I don't use a conflict mentioned in the article does not make my point less valid.

You don't have to agree with my statements but you seem to either be extremely obtuse or have a comprehension problem.

I mean whether you believe we are a war or not is up to you. But it is clear that Trump can raise tariffs without Congress if he chooses to do so.

I think for my sanity I need to put you and TJ on the old ignore list. You just rub me the wrong way like sandpaper.

Forgive me everyone else.

This is real life.

Hey that is probably the smartest post you have ever made. It is a good warning for me.

I meant to edit that line out that will be why you will see a longer response with redundancy.

And my focus is on Mexico which is the subject of your thread. Who we are in conflict with is not the issue, but whether or not Trump could increase our tariffs if he tried. I think there is a better chance he won't attempt it.

Delphi is........was....big in Warren, Ohio where much of my family still resides. The loss of Delphi jobs there has been devastating to Warren. It's a very visible loss, coupled with the loss of one of GEs oldest plants that made florescent lamps since 1911 and a steel mill that's been demolished after operating for 70+ years.

Many in Warren have pinned their hopes on Trump. Their disappointment when that idiotic jackass fails, will be heartbreaking for me.

However, one must consider that Trump is the kind of shit slinging blowhard they go for. These are the people who supported Jim Trafficant for decades. Generally speaking, if these folks support a candidate as strongly as they supported Trump, be afraid. Be VERY afraid.

I'm just sayin'..............

http://money.cnn.com/2017/04/24/inve...-tariff-trump/

Trumps supporters seem to enjoy playing the victim......