turningrite

Much of what you say is true from a historical perspective but not really so in relation to more recent experience. Canada has for most of the past several years seen a net outflow of capital when calculating direct foreign investment coming into the country compared to Canadian direct investment outflow. (See the graph in the article linked below.) Some of this relates to changing economics in the energy industry, particularly after oil prices declined in 2014. But I suspect it also reflects longer term realities as well. Canada's energy industry, in particular, has experienced consolidation but also I believe a strengthening of Canadian ownership as a result of foreign investment pullback. Our automotive assembly sector has been in decline for quite some time. The auto parts sector, in which Canadian capital is more heavily involved, has been more robust but faces real threats as a result of Trump's approach. The vassal state problem has always existed for this country. I believe "free trade" has actually served to consolidate Canada's weaknesses rather than enhance its strengths or advantages. And I don't think Canadians other than some politicians and business leaders are particularly "freaked out' about Trump's trade strategy. I believe a poll published prior to Trump's NAFTA attacks indicated that the trade pact has resulted in more harm than good. Those who have benefited are naturally very attached to the status quo, but most Canadians are likely more equivocal and side with the government and business on NAFTA negotiations mainly as a reaction to Trump's attacks. I tend to subscribe to the opinion of the Toronto Star writer, Thomas Walkom, who says that ultimately a renegotiated NAFTA isn't singularly crucial to Canada's prosperity and that we could survive without it. And, like many Canadians, I oppose some of the provisions our government wants to preserve, including supply management and investor protection. https://business.financialpost.com/news/economy/investment-outflow-from-canada-already-underway-in-real-time-rbc-head

The other day, when in Toronto for the funeral of one of the victims and an obligatory visit to the Danforth, he looked like he wanted to be anywhere else. Maybe even meeting with Donald Trump. As I've said before, you really have to wonder what's going on. My guess is that senior public officials are aware of at least the preliminary conclusions arising out of the Danforth investigation. Will the public be the last to know? Apparently so.

Objective commentators have noted the increasing tendency to restrict speech in this country and replace 'free speech' with what is sometimes called 'acceptable speech' as if the latter is an acceptable substitute for the first. A very good article that addresses this point, written by Neil MacDonald, was published on the CBC's website during last year's M-103 debate. For some reason, this forum will not allow the link to be copied but you can search for the article under 'Neil Macdonald M-103' as I did. It will be interesting to see if Mr. Hardner comes up with anything to substantiate his assessment.

The likelihood that the mental illness explanation/theory is viable weakens with each passing day as authorities continue to tell us virtually nothing about the investigation. Mental illness claims and concerns would have been relatively easy to establish in the time period that's passed since the shooting. I think it relatively safe, therefore, to significantly discount this theory. Unfortunately, as Heather Mallick pointed out in a recent column, in the vacuum that's been created by official silence concerning the investigation the left has elevated the shooter to victim status by embracing the mental illness theory. To call this outcome perverse is to vastly understate its implications.

Our constitution allows for terms of up to 5 years. However, more recently, as fixed election date laws - which were once seen as inconsistent with parliamentary democracy - have emerged, we've moved in practice to 4 year terms. Governments aren't bound by the 4 year limit, however, and can easily bypass the election date laws by changing them, as is the prerogative of any majority government. Minority governments seldom last 4 years, much less through a 5 year term, so the issue is moot where minority government situations are concerned.

I believe these merchandise trade figures don't take into account other trade flows, particularly in services, technology transfers and capital returns (i.e. profits), where I believe the U.S. enjoys significant surpluses with its NAFTA partners. Also, while much of Mexico's merchandise surplus largely results from the relocation of labor intensive manufacturing to that country, any surplus Canada arguably enjoys is related more to resource exports to the U.S., an outcome intended by design rather by subterfuge or manipulation. If you can recall the FTA/NAFTA debate, (which I can), I remember the furor in Canada over guaranteeing American energy supplies. In fact, Canada's oil and gas industry, in particular, has always been heavily oriented to serving American markets. Is this now seen as a downside by the Americans? The article you cite actually notes that NAFTA has not been primarily responsible for U.S. manufacturing job losses ("Of course, blaming NAFTA alone for job losses is highly misleading, particularly given the dramatic trade shifts that took place when China joined the WTO..."), which seems to broadly contradict the tenor of your comments on this topic. and where manufacturing is concerned Canada has taken few if any jobs from the U.S. and in fact the reverse is more likely to be true. Anecdotally speaking, the Canadian-founded company my sister worked for relocated to the U.S. (and she along with it) following the implementation in the late 1980s of the original FTA deal, which preceded the NAFTA regime. And, speaking more broadly, Canada suffered a significant free-trade related recession at the beginning of the 1990s that witnessed the hollowing out of central Canada's manufacturing economy, in particular, a situation that was never reversed. So, ordinary Canadians don't need to be lectured on the deleterious impacts of globalized or even regionalized trade. We have been its victims as much as have many Americans who live in the "rust belt" states.

Well, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating, as the old saying goes. Many Americans might have to deal with negative results they hadn't anticipated. Why, for instance, is Trump already having to put in place taxpayer funded subsidies to offset losses incurred as a result of his trade policies? I think the bigger concern for American voters is whether Trump has any realistic concept of the broader actual economic realities facing the world's most complex economy. He boasts, essentially, that he operates on gut instinct and feelings, a situation many of his supporters seem happy with to date and may be happy with until, well, they're not anymore. Even though many economists have noted that the international trade system requires reform, most that I've read, or read about, are skeptical about Trump's rather incoherent trade strategy. Selling real estate and opening casinos involves different skill sets than does sound macroeconomic management. Trump's disruptive approach is a big gamble. Will it pay off? Some of his casino projects didn't. Gut instinct isn't always accurate, as it turns out.

As predictably as the weather gets cold in winter (well, in most of Canada at least), the Ford government announced yesterday that it's rolling back welfare reform in Ontario. In particular, it's chopping the "basic income" experiment even though I believe that prior to the election the Conservatives said they'd continue it. And measures announced yesterday will eliminate many other reforms as well as re-emphasize fraud reduction. Some of the changes are probably warranted as there's a concern that welfare and other unearned subsidies may be contributing to the entrenchment of an urban underclass. Also, it's difficult to justify a basic or guaranteed income to compensate for jobs that will theoretically be lost to automation when Canada's bringing in hundreds of thousands of immigrants each year to meet presumed labor market 'shortages', and about half of the newcomers end up living in Ontario. These policies, which are premised on conflicting logic, can't be rationally justified at the same time. So, what is the role of welfare at this point? Is it time we end it for employable people and simply set up a system of short-term repayable loans rather than encourage dependency? Maybe rolling back recent reforms isn't enough. Maybe we should begin to look at the whole system through a broader and more realistic lens.

WTO reform is the big prize, of course, and Trump should be working with other Western countries for change on that front. China, however, has some advantages in its trade conflict with the U.S., both in terms of its holdings of U.S. government debt as well as the self-interest of major American corporations that profit from the status quo and in particular from low-wage foreign labor. I'm no fan of globalism but among its biggest beneficiaries have been large multinational corporations, many of which are U.S.-based. The profits from these corporations flow back into the U.S., and in large measure to America's wealthy. Perhaps you don't realize how powerful the wealthy are in the American political and economic structure? If so, maybe you should take a look at the big winners in Trump's tax reform regime. Corporations and the wealthy collectively comprise the tail that wags the political dog in the money-driven American political culture. They'll swat Trump away like a pesky fly if his policies start to harm their interests.

There are always conflicts between countries on trade as well as many other bilateral and/or multilateral concerns. The problem with Trump is his screwball and often unfocused strategy. Perhaps he'll be successful, even if only as a result of luck, but the economist Paul Krugman has noted that his tariff strategy is so muddled that it's more likely to harm rather than help American interests. I think a lot of Trump's antics amount mainly to attention seeking. The fact that he has to tell us, and presumably himself, that he's "very stable" is in its own right quite informative.

I take it by competitive they're actually talking about polling, which means they likely realize that campaigning on a promise of economic stagnation might be a hard sell with voters.

Things are certainly getting silly at Queen's Park. Based on today's debacle at Queen's Park, it seems that Ford picked up a lot of tips on pointless political bickering during his years at Toronto city hall. It was bedlam down at the Park today. Let's hope this isn't a sign of things to come.

Trump is pussyfooting around China because he has to. Xi and his officials are too smart for Trump and will protect what they see as China's interests. The WTO system needs reform, for sure, but I think Trump is going about this in precisely the wrong way as he's alienated Western allies that could have helped promote change. He doesn't seem to understand this. Not a very smart guy, if you ask me.

Have you researched Export Action Global's website? I visited their website It appears they are in the trade business rather than being academic or neutral analysts. It's not a big surprise, then, that such an organization might be unhappy with the kind of trade friction that's grown in recent months. But let's not forget that this friction has largely been generated by the U.S. president. Perhaps EAG should be aiming their criticism at him? Just saying. No sovereign country has an obligation to cave in to Trump's bullying.

I think it reasonable to conclude at this point that it's likely the shooting was not primarily a result of a mental illness. Or at least not substantially so. The authorities have had ample time at this point to access the shooter's medical and hospital records and would surely have had all such evidence reviewed by qualified professionals. And if mental illness were the sole or even the main issue involved here I suspect the authorities would be champing at the bit to let the public know this. A reasonably objective observer would likely conclude that there's more going on.

It continues to fascinate me how Trudeau, Wynne, the media and the usual progressive choir quickly amped up the rhetoric about a reported hijab attack that turned out to be a hoax. It's particularly jarring, on the other hand, that Trudeau and Co. have been virtually silent about circumstances relating to the Danforth shooting - which was a real event in case they haven't yet figured it out. Real people were injured and killed. They were certainly willing to rush to judgment in the first case but have been so very unwilling to even appear to speak openly about the second. Besides utter hypocrisy, what's going on here?

I suspect most would accept a fulsome explanation of the circumstances. Some people would probably still believe there must be more to the story. Unfortunately, the delay in providing updates and explanations in the aftermath of the shooting will likely be held for quite some time as amounting to a legitimate basis for conspiracy theories.

I'm not sure how germane details relating to Hussain's brother are to the Danforth investigation. There were apparent leaks from the investigation that were reported in the days following the shooting although these leaks recently appear to have been plugged. There was an interesting AP report last week, which I referenced via a link in a previous post on this topic, that appears to have received little if any attention in Canadian mainstream media coverage. It seems to me that the coverage has been throttled, but it's not clear whether this might be due to a request on the part of the government for media deference, which if so would suggest an abdication by our mainstream media of their crucial role in our democracy. It might, however, be justified in the event of a security emergency, in which case I believe the public should at least be permitted to know this is the case. Trudeau's bizarrely vague comment yesterday about finding ways to keep citizens safe seems troubling in the absence of actual information. In a vacuum, is it any wonder that independent and perhaps more biased outlets may be reaching wider audiences? If this is the case, it appears to be the government's fault. It's up to the government to set the record straight.

You're kidding, right? I haven't read a single analysis that's argued anything other than that Trudeau's crew nixed electoral reform. With a majority government, the Libs had complete control on this issue. The NDP of course favored proportional representation, as it always has, and I believe the Conservatives favored the status quo, but the actual decision to do nothing was entirely Trudeau's call. He has to wear it.

I suspect the Libs will stay as far away from debate on their immigration and refugee policies as they can possibly manage to do. Their policies aren't big vote getters among the general population and as studies have indicated are even less likely to be so when the public is informed about the true extent and costs of these programs. The Lib approach has been to stifle debate and cast themselves as the keepers of truth and wisdom on these matters for so long that it's inconceivable they'd be open to actual rational public debate. It just won't happen.

Not a big shocker, really. The current Mexican regime may offer the U.S. its best bet for getting concessions from the Mexicans as the incoming leftist Lopez Obrador regime won't take power for several months. Why Mexico has such a long duration between its election and inauguration dates puzzles me, but that's the reality. Lopez Obrador, who recently won the Mexican presidency in a landslide, has been a critic of NAFTA and has reportedly urged the outgoing regime to postpone NAFTA renegotiations. However, it appears both the Pena Nieto and Trump regimes seem intent on working toward a quick resolution, which might benefit neither if Lopez Obrador nixes any new deal. Imagine the indignation had Obama negotiated new trade deals between the 2016 elections and Trump's inauguration. Would Trump have accepted their legitimacy? My guess is that Mexico's business community favors a quick resolution on NAFTA and wants to achieve something before the government changes. In any case, this is all about politics. Where Canada is concerned, both major federal parties are more or less on the same side on NAFTA so even with an election looming in 2019 it's unlikely Trump will be able to exploit political division north of the border in order to assert American interests and timelines as appears to be happening in Mexico.

Given that the public is being told little or nothing about the Danforth shooting investigation by authorities, I guess we have to revert to a form of what might best be termed 'Trudeauology' just as during the Soviet era commentators on that regime's intentions and motives looked for secondary clues in a fashion referred to as 'Kremlinology'. As I said in a post yesterday evening, Trudeau didn't seem himself on the TV news coverage of his visit to the Danforth. Today's Toronto Star was a little bit more precise about his commentary, where it indicated that he did roll out his boilerplate "compassion" speech although it's not entirely clear what he was asking those present to be compassionate about. I don't think he needed to lecture the crowd on public compassion for the actual victims as this has been more demonstrably apparent than it has in the government's response to date. Interestingly, in the Star's GTA Section coverage of Trudeau's Danforth appearance, a staff reporter notes that "Without offering any details, [Trudeau] said it was important for governments to look at the best ways they (sic) to keep citizens safe." (The apparent editing error in the print version is the Star's.) Hmmm.... But isn't this the same government that's assured us we are safe? Again, you have to wonder what they're not telling us, and why? And why did Trudeau seem so preoccupied? Surely after a little vacation time he should have been well-rested.

Based on the news coverage I watched earlier this evening, his visit to the Danforth was relatively subdued. He was heckled at the parkette that's become an informal memorial of sorts to the Danforth shooting victims so perhaps he was aware that an overt political commentary might not have been appreciated. As far as the TV news coverage is illustrative of Trudeau's appearance, he said nothing specific about the actual incident he was there to memorialize, making me wonder if he was trying to avoid media questions on the topic. And he didn't appear as ebullient as is usually the case and seemed somewhat nervous, making me wonder if he is actually nervous about details that have yet to officially come to light?

Again, you need to read. As I noted in a previous post, where I responded to a post by Centerpiece, both sides had incentives to reach an agreement. However, while the tone among Trump supporters is to view this as a "victory" for their side, it's clearly no such thing. The political situation in the U.S., and particularly within the Republican Party with the midterms approaching, was logically far more relevant to the timing of this deal than was any single industrial lobby or country in the EU. I guess it's a good thing that you realize you're OftenWrong, right?

Which, of course, is why Trump was in substantial measure, if not solely, driven by opposition within his own party to moderate his tariff dispute with the EU. At the end of the day, he's a politician too as his actions are driven and limited by political considerations.