turningrite

It's my perception that there's a large immigration and refugee industry in this country that's essentially reliant on a constant flow of new arrivals. Whether or not this has beneficial impacts for the broader host population seems utterly irrelevant to policy makers. Increasingly, objective academic analyses conclude that the economic and demographic arguments trotted out to support large scale immigration are largely overstated. And a recent piece in the National Post (link below) notes that our current policies and practices exceed our obligations under international law (i.e. Trudeau's excuse for the current mess). Unless some party is willing to wholeheartedly and completely advocate that immigration and refugee programs be openly and rationally debated, how can things change? I believe we should be informed of the "all-in" costs to taxpayers entailed in the current programs. But politicians prefer to dodge such accountability, mainly I suspect because it's expedient for them to do so. https://nationalpost.com/opinion/trudeau-is-exaggerating-what-international-refugee-law-compels-canada-to-do

I'm not convinced the Chinese are doing much more than humoring Trump. My guess is that they have a pretty solid read on his idiosyncrasies. The real proof they're committed to liberalization would be to drop the preferential "developing" economy status they're afforded under WTO rules. But there's much more to free and fair trade than simply adjusting tariff and investment rules. Non-tariff barriers are equally problematic. A friend of mine who lived in South Korea for a few years talked about the lack of imported products available to consumers in that country. When discussing this with locals she was asked "Why would we buy foreign stuff that we can make here?" SK's ascension to developed world status was, of course, propelled by exports to developed countries as is now happening with China. But China, South Korea and even Japan, which all retain significant protectionist policies, customs and practices, lobby against American protectionism, which seems hypocritical.

I'm wondering how many of them are waiting for appointments to corporate boards, consultancies, interest group lobbies, think tanks and the like? This seems to be the common fate of the politicians we turf, no matter the quality of governance they provided. There's seldom a "hard" fall from power for these people.

Perhaps true, but surely then Trump is correct in his argument that China's favorable treatment as a "developing" economy should be abolished? I believe that under current WTO rules, China gets relatively open access to markets in developed/wealthy countries while it gets to protect its domestic markets for its own manufacturers. If China is really as or more advanced than the rest of the developed world, it should have to play by the same rules, right? The current WTO model surely doesn't seem to amount to either free trade or fair trade.

You appear to be talking about white nationalism or white separatism, in which case you should explicitly state this.

To me, consultative plebiscites would ask general questions about policy, the response(s) to which politicians would have to respect. The details of policy and legislation would be left up to politicians to figure out. For instance, a question on immigration wouldn't have to ask about specific intake numbers (about which many are largely unaware according to studies) but might ask whether voters prefer to maintain the currently unfocused large-scale program or, instead, tailor intake levels to address and respond to specific economic factors and conditions like unemployment/underemployment and poverty among newcomers and/or housing availability, and/or generally match per capita intake levels to those in similar countries like the U.S. or Britain. The specifics would be left to politicians to address. I agree with you that most voters likely won't pay enough attention to educate themselves or perhaps even vote on policy matters. As such, online plebiscites would likely have to be rather infrequent. It might be best to include several issues, provide the option to not respond on matters that don't interest individual voters, and conduct these online plebiscites once a year. But even if only 30 or 35 percent of the population participates, there would be a much broader range of input than now exists within the traditional and often self-serving political party coterie that sets public policy in this country.

There was bound to be a backlash against globalization. It's a system that was designed to transfer wealth from advanced Western economies to low-wage economies and in the process allow investors and corporations to skim profits from the savings achieved in lowered labor costs, looser regulations and less stringent environmental rules. We were sold on the notion that it would create a virtuous loop whereby enriched consumers in the developing world would be able to buy products and services from the Western economies but this never really happened. It's time to admit that the whole thing was a sham. But I don't think politicians will have as much control over the reaction and outcome as they'd likely believe. I think we're entering a new paradigm in which technology will eliminate the much of the advantage enjoyed by low-wage economies.

How many others in the economy have their incomes and wealth so specifically and completely nurtured and protected by public policy and subsidy? Essentially, a small group of farmers (perhaps 10,000) have become wealthy due to an almost complete elimination of competition. An article I recently read indicated that the average dairy farm in Canada is now worth millions of dollars. It's effectively a lactate lotto in which the winners are determined in advance. The system violates the basic principles, rules and safeguards that are supposed to govern free market economies.

I'm not sure what you mean by "white pride"? It's a generic term that seems mainly to imply reference to genetic characteristics like skin and eye color. Personally, I don't see much point in that. I think there is a valid case to be made that we should be proud of the accomplishments of Western civilization, out of which and despite often tumultuous battles, concepts like democracy and individualism have become firmly rooted. The cultural and material accomplishments of Western civilization massively impact the entire globe and likely will continue to do so for quite some time.

Supply management is a terrible idea that serves mainly to benefit the stakeholders (i.e. quota holders) in a particular industry at the expense of consumers. It's a gigantic subsidy system entirely funded by consumers. Phasing it out should be a priority for our politicians as retaining it undermines the legitimacy of our free trade arguments and thus negatively impacts the remainder of the economy. There are other aspects of a renegotiated NAFTA to which we should be open as well, including the elimination of the provision that allows corporations to sue governments for laws that corporations believe negatively impact their interests and profits. The NAFTA arrangement is no panacea where it comes to Canada's economic prospects. As Thomas Walkom has argued in his columns on the topic in the Toronto Star, we prospered prior to NAFTA and we can do so again without it, if need be.

The Star seems apoplectic that Ford got elected. I read the Star every day and feel that the tenor of much of its coverage of the Ford government is increasingly shrill and tiresome. For the most part, Ford is doing what he said he'd do. Isn't that what democracy is about? The problem with many political and media types is that they believe there's an established (and, frankly, often tiresome) set of "values" that simply can't be challenged. But these values have in many cases been artificially set by those same political and media types without much reference to or even interest in public opinion. Ford's government is correct on the migrant issue. It's a mess the federal government must pay to clean up and a large majority of Ontarians (and probably other Canadians) agrees with this. It's not dog-whistle politics, as the Star prefers to portray it. Ford hasn't spoken French in public nor made the apparently obligatory nods to Indigenous interests. Well, so what? He probably doesn't speak French in the first place and he likely understands that Indigenous demands are in many cases at odds with the broader public interest. So, why act hypocritically and virtue signal just for the sake of so doing? For the most part, Ford is an open book. What you see is what you get. For the time being, I suspect most Ontarians are fine with that. Let's see what his government can and will do when it gets to the meat and potatoes of running the province rather than focus on the window dressing the media and special interests seem so concerned about right now.

Well, I'll defer to a Nobel prize winner in this case. I think the entire economic model will likely be restructured over the next generation and I suspect few countries are prepared to deal with this. I recently read an article (which I wish I could locate online) that argued the low-wage economies will be hit hardest because the kind of jobs they've come to rely on will disappear due to automation. Services-based economies will have an advantage. But we'll have to be smart in making the necessary adjustments to ensure we utilize comparative advantage where we can. Canada can produce aluminum more inexpensively than can the U.S. because of the availability of abundant and cheap hydroelectric power in the producing provinces. Why shouldn't this be used to the benefit the entire North American economy? I think Trump's zero-sum approach is economically naive. But he comes from a background in the real estate and casino industries, so likely has little understanding of foreign trade.

I agree for the most part with the sentiments expressed in your post, however I believe we'd still need politicians to deal with the legal minutiae associated with drafting and implementing legislation. Also, constituents often require representatives who can intercede on their behalf with often mind-numbingly obtuse bureaucracies. But I agree with the basic concept of direct democracy, whereby voters would provide direct input on policy direction, in a similar fashion to the way we now file taxes and submit census forms online. We'd all be provided a voter I.D. number (similar to a SIN) and would vote at regular intervals on matters of general importance based on public petition and/or on significant support in parliament (perhaps 1/3 of members) for obtaining such input. But I think these electronic plebiscites would have to be consultative rather than binding. To further democratize the electoral and parliamentary systems, I favor proportional representation, which would serve to break down the ideological stranglehold now held by the traditional parties. I agree with those who argue the current system is much too restrictive and offers voters far too little choice. Most support parties at election time on the basis of a couple major issues or promises but in so doing end up endorsing a party's entire agenda, which seems to me to be anything but democratic. Imagine the poor suckers who voted for the federal Libs because they thought they'd actually see electoral reform implemented. (I know a couple people in this category.) And look what we're stuck with!

I'm not sure I really understand the basis of your confidence in Trump's strategy. The U.S. is lucky that its reliance on foreign trade is less pronounced than is the case for other advanced economies because that might shield it from some of the damage it potentially faces as a result of Trump's policies. A recent article by the highly respected Nobel prize-winning American economist Paul Krugman, 'How to Lose a Trade War' (link below), discusses the lack of coherence and/or logic in Trump's tariff moves. I agree with you, though, that globalization has been a bust that was designed to transfer manufacturing activities and jobs to low-wage economies. The supposedly beneficial feedback loop that was supposed to be generated by increasing demand for Western products in low-wage countries never materialized. It was a hoax, and a very destructive one at that. But this process has been as harmful to some of the countries, like Canada, that Trump is currently attacking. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/07/opinion/how-to-lose-a-trade-war.html

The money he got them? Huh? I don't think you understand how NATO works.

No, I'm saying they're biding their time. What else can they do? They can't interfere in U.S. politics to get rid of him, so they'll wait for his regime to discredit and/or defeat itself. They're likely hoping the midterms will undermine Republican control of Congress. So why give him any ammunition when they know he'll use it to ramp up the kind of rhetoric his base seems to favor. So, they'll stay calm, carry on and pander to Trump's narcissism, at least to a degree that's politically possible in their respective countries.

The development of border controls and immigration policies is actually quite recent. The Indians (Indigenous in Canada, unless you want to be subjected to scorn) didn't have an immigration policy and neither did anybody else at the time. On a more amusing note, when I asked one of my American relatives why Indian/Indigenous relations are far less controversial in the U.S. than in Canada despite the fact there are far more North American Indians living in the U.S. and Canadian Indigenous peoples are afforded greater government support on a per capita basis, he said "we defeated them so our rules apply." Wow, I thought, that's pretty forthright.

Thanks for the link. Our dictatorship of racial and diversity sensibilities strikes again! (Has Trudeau assigned a new Ministry to this task? LOL) You have to wonder where the progressives think these migrants originate? Reportedly, at first the migrants who were/are entering illegally were largely from Haiti and more recently from Nigeria, which both have mainly black populations as far as I'm aware. The news items I've watched have pretty clearly illustrated that most of these migrants are "diverse" so is news video coverage now going to be banned as well? Are the networks blurring the migrants' faces yet? This country is quickly being transformed into a tragicomical Potemkin village.

That's not quite the actual legal purpose and/or application of the clause. It was mainly instituted in order to address concerns that the Charter granted courts an inordinately significant role in a system that's otherwise modeled on the centuries old British principle of "supremacy of Parliament". The fear was that the courts would have the ability to overturn laws passed by democratically elected governments, which when you think about it is a legitimate concern. Any government, provincial or federal, has the right and/or ability to assert the notwithstanding clause to nullify a court decision that on Charter grounds overturns a law or an aspect of a law. Also, a government can assert the clause when passing legislation in order to ensure the law is immune from Charter challenges. I believe the clause can only be applied for temporary periods (up to five years?) but can be reasserted (or withdrawn) if/when a government wishes to do so. Provincial governments, particularly in Quebec, have applied the clause, but I don't believe it's ever been applied by a federal government, although many think that in some cases it could and probably should have been.

The Canadian dollar's value started its decline with the collapse in global oil prices in 2014. For a few years following the 2008/09 recession its higher value had been sustained mainly by high energy prices to the extent that some considered it a "petrocurrency". The current irony is that Trump's threats and policies, including tariffs, are driving down the currencies of many of America's trading partners, which has the effect of undermining his tariff strategy. The Canadian dollar should have started picking up steam as energy prices increased over the past year but this hasn't happened. So, Canadian exporters are benefiting from a Trump buffer, so to speak. On another note, according to recently released stats, Canadian travel to the U.S. hasn't declined but has in fact picked up over the past year. American prices for many products and services are generally low in comparison to Canadian prices, compensating to a significant extent for our discounted currency.

As I've noted before, Christiane Amanpour pointed out last week that following the collapse of the Soviet bloc the Europeans wanted to establish a stand-alone security system but were opposed in this by the Americans who wanted to remain involved in European security. (I've read that the British were also opposed due to their preference to sustain their "special relationship" with the U.S. and serve as a middleman of sorts between Europe and America.) So, it's hardly credible for the U.S. to argue that it's been stuck with European/NATO costs when this is the security system it preferred in the first place. But would Trump even know this, particularly given that he reportedly doesn't read? Likely not. I too think NATO is obsolete and in the emerging Trumpian World Order maintaining it is probably counterproductive, although my concerns are likely grounded in different logic than are yours. Europe, and Canada too for that matter, would be better off adopting a MAGA mantra - Make America Go Away.

You do realize they're just acknowledging and responding to his well-documented egotism and vanity, right? He is a "very stable genius", after all, to the extent he feels he must reassure us of this. I think it's really the "very stable" claim that's the major clue here. Years ago when I took a crisis prevention course at work (excellent training, by the way), we were told to respond in a calm fashion to and generally placate potentially unstable clients rather than verbally confront them. It was the only way to negotiate with them as confrontational responses often lead to an escalation in unreasonable, unpredictable and even violent conduct.

Really? I doubt that many objective observers would agree with you. I think it starts in school. In high school, at least when I attended, Canadian history was relegated to a single grade. In other years, we took credits or half-credits in Ancient (Greek and Roman) history, American history, and British and European history. And on average more Canadians are better informed than are Americans about international geography as well. I've read that a National Geographic study concluded that American students rank below their counterparts in almost all other countries surveyed, including Canada, the UK and Germany, in their international geographical knowledge. Such knowledge gaps have political implications and consequences. According to a 2014 Washington Post article, Americans who couldn't identify Ukraine on a world map were more likely to support American military intervention in that country. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/04/07/the-less-americans-know-about-ukraines-location-the-more-they-want-u-s-to-intervene/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.0e0cd6fdc644

I tend to agree with you on the public facilities issue. A good friend of mine - now, sadly, deceased - tried after completing his first lengthy round of cancer treatments to go back to his local recreation facility to work out but was told he'd have to change his schedule due to an arrangement that provided "religious" accommodation for a small group of female users. He wouldn't use the facilities in high-use periods because of self-consciousness about his physical deterioration and other times of day were simply impractical as I believe he was receiving scheduled home care visits and had various appointments. So, he simply gave up. e could no longer enjoy the benefits of a taxpayer-funded facility he had used for about a decade even though I believe his doctors said he could resume his workouts, which could have been medically and psychologically beneficial to him. You have to ask whose rights were really trampled on here? Had he requested accommodation on grounds of disability, would it have been accorded him? He doubted it would, which demonstrates the moral inconsistency in our accommodation regime. I believe we have developed an artificial hierarchy of accommodation rights, where some rights are rendered more politically important than are others.

Is there any foreign country about which most Americans are particularly well-informed? Hmmm.... The Trump debacle seems to have a legs in the U.S. media, too. We in Canada are as horrified and mesmerized as no doubt are viewers throughout the Western world. One big advantage we have in Canada, though, is our immediate access to U.S. news outlets. Our politics is comparatively boring, scripted and mundane. But we can watch the American drama unfold in real time, unfiltered. It's kind of like reality TV, which was Trump's former stomping ground, right? We don't need to press our noses to the glass to watch. It's in our living rooms here as much as it is in the living rooms of people living in, say, Iowa or Florida. We were unconvinced by Trump's embarrassing and halfhearted backtracking yesterday, no more or less so than were U.S. media commentators.