Ildefonso Guajardo Villarreal Quotes

As someone who's built business, I take tariffs and their effects very seriously and would only employ such negotiation tools when absolutely necessary.

Average tariffs between rich countries are only 3 per cent. But developing countries face tariffs of more than 300 per cent in the EU for meat and more than 200 per cent in the US for fruit and nuts. These need to come down dramatically.

As the Bank of England has noted, Brexit is a unique experiment in the reimposition of protectionist barriers to trade.

Trade has suddenly become massively unpopular. I think that's massively unjust. I think free trade has been wonderful for America on balance.

Tariffs are in the end taxes. And somebody has to pay that tax. I think one thing people are forgetting is that trade disputes are two-sided. When the United States imposes tariffs on a partner like Canada, there is always a possibility that Canada will say that's not fair and retaliate. And at that point, you have to ask the question, - which U.S. industry will suffer because the Canadians retaliated against it?

The United States has means to wound Latin American countries deeply, chiefly by altering trade policies to cut imports in ways that would throw thousands out of work.

Internal protectionism in Europe would be deadly, really a disaster for European economies.

In China, export lobbies have fought for policies that favor their interests and limit foreign competition.

Evidence points out that if you raise tariffs too much it will increase smuggling.

A trade war is a conflict in which each side uses most of its ammunition to shoot itself in the foot.

Tariffs! There are the politics of the future. Study them closely and make yourselves masters of them.

Demanding reciprocity from our trade partners, and retaliating if we don't get it, doesn't undermine free trade, it defends free trade.

Perhaps the globalization potion is too strong for us today; it should be watered down with some measure of economic nationalism.

Tough trade policies make good political fodder back home.

One of the strongest arguments against a protective tariff is the impossibility of estimating what the indirect effects of it may be. No one--not even those in whose interest it in passed--can predict the result. Modern commercial relations are so intricate and multifarious, there are so many hidden and yet important connections between different occupations, that the wisest protectionist cannot foresee how a tax laid upon one import which he wishes to exclude from the domestic market may affect the production or consumption of some other which he has not the least desire to touch.

Whenever Canada moves to protect its own industries and people, it is subjected to violent attacks in the U.S. Congress and to threats of economic retaliation.

A lot of people believe, and I do at times, that some of our trade agreements are lopsided, and we've got to look at them. But that doesn't mean that we're going to put a tariff on everything.

Enforcing trade deals is spot on. Acting in the interest of American workers is correct. But large-scale tariffs are a terrible idea.

Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama all used temporarily targeted tariffs on specific industries.

Protectionism is something that will hurt everybody, but especially the United States.

Let's not pretend we're in a global free market when it comes to agriculture. Every country protects, for good reason, its agricultural industries.

If what is on the table is something that is not good for Mexico, Mexico will step away from NAFTA.

The USMCA is a good deal for American agriculture.

If NAFTA goes away, it's not the end of the world. It certainly is not the end of trade between Mexico and the United States.

People say free trade causes dislocation. In actual fact, it's the lowering of trade barriers that causes the dislocation.