understand what the united i think they want a better deal on their auto sector from mexico abdomen more on agriculture products. are you there? we are moving towards flexibility in those areas which i thought was very very promising. the united states wants a sunset clause in nafta. you don t sign a trade deal that automatically expires every five years. that s a nonstarter for you. you won t be at the table if that s on the table? no. you can think about investment. what company will want to invest if canada if five years later there might not be a deal with the united states. it is probably part of the whole thing. that s not the way trade works. quite frankly, having an auto sector that spans from south herb ontario into michigan has
you re wondering what s going to happen. this is a reorientation of the way the trade works with china and the u.s. in theory, it s a great idea. the issue is the practice. and you ve had a president who has been throughout his tenure in the white house, impatient with how things unfold. there hasn t been a trade negotiation like this. impatient but also ininfo uninformed. yes. the president s sensibility on this where you see soybean farers goes to china, and china has said we can get ours from south america. that s trump country it s going to get. i ve seen this described as a shell game. you have farmers who are going to look for other ways to get this done. a piece in the wall street journal looking how if the trade deficit is narrowed, u.s. farmers couldn t keep up. the realism you describe is real. well, we re anxious to see how this all works out. we have to remind you one way
and then they walk away. that s not the way you get to a deal. in business, certainly donald trump was successful by being a bully and pushing people into corners, things didn t work out, he would sue them. that s not how trade works. trade is based on predictability. people want incremental changes, they want to have some expectation that what comes out of this is going to be better for both sides, which is, you know, that s what you re trying to get to. and somehow people now are throwing up their hands and saying, we re so nervous about what he might do next that we ll just raise our tariffs and make sure we re safe. right. it s patently obvious when you watched the news conference yesterday, you watched the president talking about the trilateral relationship with the baltic re publpublicrepublics, a what he s talking about. it s the musings of an imbecile,
trade war as a good thing for the country. i think if you read what the president tweeted this morning. there is no polite way to put this. he doesn t understand how trade works. and he is talking about it as if it s an $800 billion loss on a ledger. that s not how trade works. we have got a long history of this. go back to adam smith. did you go back before. i think that the other problem is the white house doesn t really know what its own arguments are on trade. you just saw, you just played peter saying this was only $45 per car tax. if you look at the numbers that wilbur ross gave in a different interview talking about $175 per car tax. that s a big difference. the total, if you use the wilbur ross numbers, you are talking about 17 million vehicles sold and cato institute estimates that s about $3 billion tax. these are taxes, these taxes will be passed onto the american consumer.
with getting back on the trail, getting out there and, you know, doing rallies again, he tweeted just a few moments ago he s going to decide on paris, make america great again, ignoring the fact that an enormous part of our country believes that we should stay in paris. the president continuing to show he doesn t exactly know how trade works, he doesn t exactly know how currencies work. why is it that we continue to say reince is the problem? the president has shown no restraint or ability to hand over the reins to his chief of staff. freud would describe this as a classic case of displacement. that the problem is the problem of the staff as opposed to the head of the staff. until we understand it, everything follows from the head, no matter what he does downstream, we will still have the chaos. i think this is displacement, whether it s lewandowski, whether it s cohn, it s still going to be a white house that has to in some ways deal with the volatility of trump s personality. i d