As the saying goes, the worm turns or else it burns. This little analogy illustrates the “ya gotta do what ya gotta” aspect of trade and commerce in the international arena which cannot be denied. This concept turns out to be the cornerstone of the NAFTA agreement reform that is, perhaps, one of the crown jewels in the first year of Donald Trump’s presidency. However, some industry insiders and socioeconomic experts fear that in this case the crown may turn out to be made of thorns so to speak. But on the other hand, there are several other professionals with just as many credentials and socio-political theories who champion this particular cause and hail Trump for this decision. Meanwhile, the reality is that like many high-level elected government officials the President is more of a mouthpiece or spokesperson for the appointed officials who pretty much handle the heavy-lifting dirty work of running government matters both foreign and domestic. Absolutely, the North American Free Trade Agreement qualifies as both.

Regarding the 2017 NAFTA negotiations, the man behind the scenes politically speaking is Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross. And to be honest, he has some particularly interesting theories when it comes to international trade between the United States, Canada and Mexico. The bottom line is that as far as Wilbur Ross knows about the subject of the trade deficit between the United States and other countries in North America, things simply do not add up correctly. His analysis based on a 70 billion figure states that between the years of 1995 through 2011 manufactured goods coming to the United States from its American neighbors declined. Moreover, Ross’ analysis states that of the manufactured goods coming to the United States the parts within them are not even from America. So in essence, the decline is twofold in its detriment to the Union, as also stated by suggestive.com.

And as the pendulum of politics business and social constructs swings back and forth, there are spectators who point to some apparent flaws in the Commerce Secretary’s analysis. Some of these onlookers even go so far as to say that the follow through and push back based on the information held within this analysis has repercussions that are detrimental themselves to the United States and may even hold dire consequences. These critics of Wilbur Ross say that his view of trade deficits as a necessarily negative thing is in is not entirely clear in its vision. To support their argument, they point the fact that even though there is disparity between the amount of exports and imports with regards to American manufactured goods, the US economy has the advantage when it comes to absolute terms. They say that it is this deceptive disparity that exactly allows for the United States abundant GDP (Gross Domestic Product).