turningrite

Corporations around the world are sitting on cash reserves amounting to trillions of dollars. The U.S. corporate capital surplus in estimated to be in the range of approximately 2 trillion dollars and Canada's stands in the hundreds of billions, which on a proportional basis dwarfs the U.S. surplus. The problem with Trump's corporate tax strategy is that it simply adds to the surplus. Were corporations willing to invest they were already sitting on huge wads of cash so cutting their taxes will likely have little positive impact. Canada's trade deal strategy is not actually aimed at increasing exports, at least of manufactured goods, but is focused on gaining protections for investors in foreign markets. So, why is there so much cash and so little will to invest domestically? The answer to this question is complex but corporate globalization has served to undermine previously wealthy Western consumer markets while skewed trade rules, particularly the WTO regime, have permitted growing economies in the developing world to close their markets to Western competition. As prosperity in open Western markets stagnates or dwindles, corporations try to squeeze costs, which leads to more investment in low-wage jurisdictions and the spiral spins downward. While Trump's tax policies, which are probably a payoff to his and his party's wealthy backers, contribute to the capital glut his analysis of the trade problem is largely accurate. It's not a consistent approach. Ultimately, we'll have to examine the corporate-political strategy of promoting a low or stagnant wage but high cost economy in this country which has seen real living standards decline since the 1970s. At some point, people may simply see the model for what it is and rebel, as appears to be happening in France in the wake of increasing carbon taxation on fuel, which for many seems to be a last straw. It is difficult to imagine that there won't be a reaction, even in fragmented, stolid Canada, as historically such reactions are overwhelming the rule rather than the exception when wrenching economic change undermines stability and individual security. Call the reaction populism or whatever else some might term it, but it's being driven by conditions not created by the "deplorables" but by the very economic and political elites that reflexively denounce it.

He never was serious to begin with but his lack of substance has taken him far. I think the guy loves to look at and listen to himself. He's enamored of his own persona.

Yes, you have to wonder how many of these young people will actually vote in 2019? That being said, the CPC and NDP leaders seem quite weak at this point and we haven't heard much from Bernier lately. Young people apparently like shiny baubles and entertainment value with their politics - if they think seriously about politics between elections, which many likely don't. Trudeau has mastered the superficiality of the social media age. Just don't ask him to say much that's intelligible about anything that really matters because unless some has written his lines for him he comes across as inarticulate, which in all probability reflects his actual lack of substance. But those socks sure are cute, right?

1.) English is overwhelmingly the preferred choice for second language instruction throughout multilingual Europe (and much of the rest of the world), a trend that's increased substantially over the past couple decades according to a Pew Research study. The dominant role of English in international affairs and popular culture is the reality that most suppresses the inclination and need in primarily English-language societies to learn or use foreign languages. It's just a fact of life. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/10/08/more-than-any-other-foreign-language-european-youths-learn-english/ 2.) Well, the Constitution is pretty clear that English and French are the primary languages in this country. Most of us who attended school here, at least in decades past, were made aware that the Canadian Confederation of 1867 was explicitly intended as a political arrangement between the two primary linguistic groups then dominant in Canada, the French and the English. In my opinion, it's one of the great myths of Canadian multiculturalism that Canada somehow exists as a cultural blank slate of sorts. The risible young Mr. Trudeau, who promotes a "post-national" vision for Canada, might believe in this nonsense but it's sustainable only if one simply erases the country's past. Most multi-generational Canadians are of mixed (mainly) European ethnicity. This doesn't detract from the fact that English and French form the basic framework of the country's dual linguistic heritage and current reality. 3.) You shouldn't get too upset about the notion of 'two founding races' as this had a different connotation in generations past than is the case today. The term 'race' was simply a substitute for what we now describe as ethnicity. For instance, my long-form Ontario birth registration form lists my 'race' as French and Irish. (The other less prominent bits, Portuguese and English, were simply ignored.) Those who object to the old-fashioned terminology should simply substitute 'societies' for 'races' in order to more accurately understand the meaning of the term and in order to avoid becoming sidelined by arcane debates focused on semantics.

Apparently, you don't know and/or understand Canadian history? Where are you from? Informally various immigrant languages may well have persisted in schools in locations where a critical mass of speakers were present. I doubt, however, that Ontario ever explicitly funded German-language schools nor would any aspect of Canada's constitution or its history have compelled it to. As for the Finns and Swedes, there has long been interaction between the Scandinavian countries and respect for each others' languages has a historical component. It's my understanding, however, that by far the most commonly taught second language in Scandinavia and throughout continental Europe for that matter, is English. This has nothing to do with unofficial language rights and instead is grounded in economic factors related to the status of English as the world's modern 'lingua franca'.

1.) NO 2.) NO 3.) NO - If some people want access to such programs they can and should pay for their children to attend private schools. 4.) Maybe this might be a good idea if it were possible but would be very difficult to implement in anything less than a few decades due to the lack of qualified teachers. It's difficult as it is to get qualified teachers to staff French-language immersion programs in many places across Canada. Also, people in places like Europe can move about and practice and maintain their language skills. I have friends who were raised speaking French or other languages who admit they've lost their fluency due to living for years or decades in mainly English-speaking North America.

The problem with language diversity is critical mass. It simply wouldn't be practical to educate Canadians in vast numbers of languages. And why would Germans living in Canada ever have expected to send their children to German-language schools? For better or worse, Canada has always functioned as a somewhat brittle political pact between its primarily English-language and French-language populations. That's a historical fact that's now a historical legacy. We're increasingly receptive to the notion that Indigenous Canadians, whose history in this country long predates European contact, have a right to maintain their languages even if for practical purposes these languages will likely never be widely used. We also make efforts where possible to address the practical needs of deaf Canadians. Multiple immigrant groups are also for practical purposes provided services in some locations but it would be outrageously unwieldy and expensive to elevate these efforts to "rights" that would compel accommodation. Where else in the world does such a situation exist? If it does anywhere, it would surely fall under the category of an exception that proves a rule.

It's true that Ontario is not officially bilingual. But there are vast swaths of Quebec outside of the Montreal region and Eastern Townships where there are very few Anglophones. Quebec, however, still funds extensive English-language services, including three mainly English-language universities, despite the fact that it's official language is explicitly French. Many English-speaking Canadians point to Quebec's French-language laws and the status of French as its sole official language to justify their antipathy. My guess is that many Franco-Ontarians would be quite happy were Ontario to fund French-language services to the same extent English-language services are funded in Quebec.

I find it odd that many people outside of Quebec react so strongly against French language institutions and rights. We uncontroversially fund multilingual services and heritage language programs and yet French language services somehow generate vitriol and angst. Sure, English-speaking Canadians can point to Quebec's often antagonistic language laws and policies, including Bill 101, as justification for their antipathy. But, unlike the precarious situation of the French language outside of Europe, English is not a threatened language in North America or in the rest of the world for that matter. Despite its irritating laws, Quebec funds three mainly English-language universities while, as I understand it, Ontario funds no primarily French-language university. I wonder how many Ontarians realize that Ontario once tried to essentially ban the use of French in the province's education system? Those who don't should research Regulation 17. My Franco-Ontarian paternal grandfather was a young man when the infamous regulation became law. Based on his own experience, including suffering economic discrimination, he believed that French-Canadians living outside of Quebec were doomed to assimilate and he didn't even try to raise his own children to speak French. He used to say that 'English is the language of money' and more or less left it at that. I doubt that Doug Ford has read much history nor I believe has he studied at any university. Perhaps if he were more aware of Ontario's sometimes ignominious treatment of its Franophone population he might refrain from rubbing salt in a not fully healed wound.

The Trudeau government in the lead-up to next year's election is reportedly embarking on a propaganda campaign, presumably funded by taxpayers, to promote its immigration policies. And, even more disturbingly, it's reportedly backing a UN effort to declare immigration a human right (wow!), thus undermining national borders. I think we should all be concerned about these efforts by a government that's increasingly radical. https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2018/11/30/federal-government-launches-campaign-to-boost-support-for-immigration.html https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/malcolm-the-un-migration-compact-spells-radical-change-for-canada

The main problem with your analysis is that North Americans remain stubbornly addicted to big gas-guzzling cars and trucks. The Oshawa GM factory could easily be retooled to produce other models, something that's done all the time in the auto industry. As Thomas Walkom points out in his column in today's Toronto Star ('Trump fights GM closure as Trudeau, Ford roll over'), "...consumers are buying gas-guzzling SUVs and pickup trucks - including the Silverado and Sierra models assembled in Oshawa." GM won't stop producing such vehicles, as Walkom notes, but "...its preference is to produce them in low-wage countries like Mexico." In other words, the closure of plants in Oshawa and in the U.S. is purely and simply a matter of wage arbitrage. Nothing the workers could have offered would have prevented this. Workers in Canada simply can't survive on Mexican-level or Chinese-level wages. They couldn't afford housing, clothing, or food (i.e. the basic necessities of life) were they to try to do so. Our leaders have encouraged a high-cost economy in conjunction with low-wage corporate globalism. At some point the illogical rationale underlying this system was bound to be exposed. Our naive PM is fascinated by dreams of an economy of the future. Unfortunately, most of us have to live in the present. Trudeau and his globalist pals seem to have no plan to bridge the gap.

I like the not paying taxes part. But your suggestion makes me laugh. If ordinary working Canadians stopped paying taxes the entire subsidy system would grind to a halt. Working Canadians start paying income taxes at surprising low income levels and consumption taxes of varying kinds further eat into ordinary middle-class incomes. Hong Kong actually subsidizes much of its working and lower middle classes where housing is concerned. Although a very wealthy place with little unemployment, one-third of its population lives in social housing and an additional 15 percent of the population benefits from other forms of direct and indirect housing assistance. Apparently, Hong Kong recognizes that a globalized free market system that's tolerant of property speculation simply can't adequately house ordinary working people in large urban regions, including many who might otherwise be considered "middle class" - whatever that means in Hong Kong. I think the best solution might be to cease all means-tested subsidy programs and move to an eligibility system based on residency and contribution requirements. (Long-term residents and taxpayers would be accorded deemed contribution credits.) It would be fascinating to see how outcomes would change were people actually required to contribute in order to qualify for benefits.

My guess is that neither Hong Kong nor Singapore offers generous social benefits to new immigrants, who no doubt are expected to work and pay their own way. As noted previously, an open immigration policy cannot co-exist with a broadly available and comprehensive welfare program. If we are to maintain a large-scale immigration program I think we'll have to move to the American model where eligibility for most social programs (i.e. Social Security) is tied to residency and contributions, similar in some aspects to Canada's current pension (OAS) system. The American Social Security disability system is actually more generous than is our equivalent CPP-D system. Interestingly, unlike in Canada, the most recent generation of immigrants in the U.S. are net contributors to the tax system. Despite our nonsensically vaunted immigration selection system, if we're looking for a successful economic integration model we need look no further than south of our own border. Handouts to newcomers neither encourage integration nor do they help to counteract a growing sense among many that immigration is anything more than a redistributive game where taxpayers pay to provide benefits to too many who don't contribute. Our current system serves up a recipe for backlash.

Retraining older workers hasn't had a great track record as a solution to economic dislocation resulting from globalization and technological change. Most workers who lose a middle-income level job when they're older than 50 will never land another job with a similar income, if they're able to find employment at all. Hong Kong houses much of its working class and not merely its poor in subsidized housing and that may have to become to model in the West for those who are dispossessed by government-promoted restructuring and globalization. Creating a population and workforce that's resilient and adaptable entails ensuring that basic needs will always be met. Otherwise, people will simply try to hold onto whatever economic resources, including jobs, they're accustomed to having and will resist and rebel if their needs are ignored. But other big changes will be required as well, including massively reducing immigration. As the economist Milton Friedman noted, a comprehensive social support system is not sustainable or practical alongside a policy of open borders and large-scale immigration. Don't get me wrong here because I'm not actually a fan of the subsidy model but corporate globalization may be setting it up as the only alternative to chaos. I shudder to think what our progressive social engineers will do if expanding the subsidy model becomes the only viable option. We're seeing some of it under JT and I can only imagine the mess we'll face if his party or any other promoting similar policies maintains power over the short to medium term.

And this is the crux of the issue. Trump is correct when he notes that adherence to global climate change strategies like the one hatched in Paris in 2015 has differential and often unfair economic impacts depending on whether other countries are required to or agree to comply. These differential impacts shouldn't be dismissed, particularly given that developing economies are more likely to use coal as their primary source of electrical energy, thus rendering the goods they produce more environmentally harmful. I think this aspect of the current global climate strategy has been afforded far too little attention. Also, even within countries environmental policies can have differential and unfair impacts. It was interesting to see the protests in Paris last week organized by mainly rural French residents who complained about new fuel taxes in that country negatively impacting their lives and livelihoods and exacerbating inequality. Climate change policy is often portrayed as warm and cuddly and progressive but in the cold light of day this isn't always the case. There are winners and losers and the losers shouldn't be expected to quietly accept their fate, should they?

Much of the regulatory burden imposed throughout the West relates to ensuring compliance with adequate environmental and safety standards. It seems odd to tout the benefits of relieving businesses from this burden when the consequences, including environmental degradation, are so apparent in places where the burden is less onerous. Another thing to consider is the application of differential regulatory standards (so called "non-tariff" barriers) in some of the countries to which we've heavily exported manufacturing jobs. There is little reciprocity in many cases and yet manufacturing has continued to be offshored despite the onerous barriers erected elsewhere. As for taxation, there's almost no relationship between corporate taxation and the loss of manufacturing capacity in Western economies. The wage arbitrage effect is so pronounced that even bringing taxes down to zero would be unlikely to counteract it in most cases. Western countries have basically competed with each other's tax rates in an effort to grab whatever crumbs remain where the manufacturing sector is concerned but the hollowing out effect of corporate globalization has continued apace nevertheless.

Hong Kong's economic situation is unique in that it functions as an entrepot into the massive Chinese market and it has massively prospered as that market has expanded over the past generation. You realize, though, that about one-third of Hong Kong's people reside in subsidized housing of one sort or another, right? The local government recognizes the impact of the high-priced housing market and helps to promote continued productivity and access to reliable and affordable labour by ensuring that its workers are, at the very least, adequately housed. Canada and most other Western counties are in this respect far less interventionist than is Kong Kong. Further, China's increasing control over Hong Kong is undermining the human rights advantage(s) the former British colony's residents have long enjoyed. Many observers wonder whether Hong Kong's attractiveness as a business destination can be maintained as this situation develops further.

The problem with the dogmatic right's critique is that it too often fails to take into account the fact that "free" trade fundamentally and in most cases practically functions as an explicit form of wage arbitrage. Workers in Western countries simply can't survive at the wage levels paid in the developing world, no matter how productive they are or what regulatory environment (over which workers have no control in any case) their employers face. Corporate globalization is designed to provide investors with access to Western consumer markets while offloading wage costs. At some point, logically, the system tips toward negative outcomes when once well-paid workers simply lose their ability to consume even the supposedly cheaper (and often inferior, if truth be told) products that are available. Free trade theoretically generates a form of virtuous feedback loop whereby growing middle classes in developing countries can buy Western-produced high value products. But the global system (i.e. WTO) has permitted developing countries to protect their own domestic markets, thus negating the potential feedback benefits. The "free" trade system that's emerged under globalism is at fault here because it's based on an unsustainable model. The real nonsense lies in pretending this isn't the case and the absurdity of the situation is compounded by blaming Western workers for their plight.

I think the point is that JT's government quietly forgave the loans without apparently getting anything in return. Trump always demands something in return for his largesse. JT allowed Canadian taxpayers to be played for fools. GM may still have some production in Canada, but for how long? Also, the Oshawa plant could have been retooled to produce other lines. It's done all the time in the auto business. I believe GM's Oshawa plant has won many awards for productivity, quality and efficiency over the past two decades. But this didn't seem to do its workers much good. What more could they have done? Agreed to work for nothing?

I believe the root causes are/were primarily domestic and economic. Factional unrest became particularly problematic during the Arab Spring - which, as we should recall, was largely cheered on by many naive Westerners. Outside powers became involved, directly and indirectly, after the factional fighting broke into the open following the Arab Spring. However, the role of these powers in exacerbating factional tensions cannot be underestimated. The overthrow of Saddam in Iraq and the disbanding of his army fed into the creation of ISIS/ISIL, in particular. I tend to agree with those who hold that the civil war was and is not substantially grounded in the consequences of climate change. Instead, a self-serving autocratic regime, which had been in place for decades, became increasingly vulnerable due to long-term economic mismanagement and stagnation. Regimes that are considered by the populations they govern to be legitimate can withstand the problems and tensions that arise out of droughts and other catastrophes.

Maybe they could ask GM for our money back. LOL. The situation should send a very important message to voters. The Libs are much more sympathetic to corporate shareholders than they are to ordinary workers or taxpayers. Anybody who thought or thinks otherwise is deluded. The Lib government will sell us down the river without asking any questions in the process. Disgraceful, really. But also, sadly, predicable.

Wage arbitrage has been the primary goal of corporate globalization. Mainstream politicians have tried to buy, cajole and fake their way out of this. Former PM Harper, apparently a fan of "free" trade (which isn't really free, but that's a topic for another time) and large-scale immigration (albeit during his reign at more controlled levels than under Trudeau), noted in his recently published book that "...the world of globalization is not working for many of our own people. We can pretend that this is a false perception, but it is not. We now have a choice. We can keep trying to convince people that they misunderstand their own lives, or we can try to understand what they are saying." (Link to except published in the NP copied below.) Trump thinks he has a handle on and can contain corporate globalization. His 2016 presidential run certainly captured the zeitgeist (if I may use the term) among the increasingly dispossessed industrial working class in his country. But I wonder if he understands the depth and breadth of the problem? And I wonder if our fearless leader has any clue at all? https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/exclusive-stephen-harper-book-excerpt

The timing could hardly be worse, with Christmas only a month away. But the optics are even worse when considering the Trudeau government's recent and supposedly successful NAFTA (um, USMCA) renegotiation and Morneau's corporate tax cuts of last week. What's left of Canada's manufacturing sector, which once produced solid middle class jobs, is simply evaporating and it looks like there's nothing the government can or will do to stop it. Trudeau's pompous twaddle about sustaining the middle class and those "working hard to join it" surely must ring hallow for more people each day. When listening yesterday to the news about the closure of the Oshawa plant, I thought back to statements made by labour leaders a few short weeks ago about what a good deal the USMCA was/is. It appears their optimism was little more than wishful thinking. Would the last person to hold an ordinary middle class job in the private sector in this country please shut the lights off before shutting the door on your way out. The rest of us can't afford to pay to keep them on.

It's not as lopsided as it used to be. There is competition in the industry at this point, at least for package delivery, which means the postal workers have far less bargaining power than was previously the case. That's likely why we haven't seen a full-blown strike, as it would backfire. The public would demand that letter delivery be opened to general competition as well. Monopolies are inherently bad for consumers but very good for managers and workers protected by them. Were the postal workers' union to take a hard line, it would likely hasten the end of any advantage its members continue to hold.

I view large-scale immigration - which is promoted by both the left and right, at least in Canada - along with so-called "free trade" deals as the twin pillars of a unified agenda. In reality, it's taken the two in tandem to decimate the wage-earning middle classes in Western countries. I think the right understood the likely impacts all along, although I've read that Harper now says that the impact of "free trade" on industrial employment in the West was underestimated by right-wingers like himself. I guess there was a lot of wishful thinking going on - or more likely self-interest clouded the judgement of many in the economic and political elites. But I've never understood why the left jumped into the globalization camp and has stayed there ever since. My guess in that HIllary Clinton, an elitist at heart, was never a real lefty. But supposedly intelligent people on the left are still loathe to admit to or even consider the implications of their attachment to the instruments of corporate globalism. I believe this is why they're being eclipsed by nationalist movements throughout the West. The left lost the plot long ago. I don't know if it can recover.