Zeitgeist

Canada's big trade advantage going forward is free trade. We will be able to upgrade our manufacturing with technology from Canada, Europe, the U.S., Chile, and Pacific Rim partners. We'll be able to export both raw materials and finished goods into these markets with low barriers. We'll also have a vast variety of low-cost consumer goods from these countries, including items we simply can't produce in Canada. Our manufacturing will have to be super productive and value-added to compete with low-cost jurisdictions and highly skilled workforces. The challenge continues to be competing on wages and labour conditions, which is why having international labour laws, even an international minimum wage (based on purchasing power parity) is necessary. I think we'd all agree, Americans included, that when wages are similar, we can compete quite well. Higher wages also create new export markets.

Yup, raising tariffs is the protectionist game, which might be won by big powers in the short term, but over time the protectionist regime becomes uncompetitive, being reliant on artificial mechanisms to maintain production rather than free markets. New ideas and technologies are kept out of the country. In a closed society like the Soviet Union, consumers had no choice but to buy the limited supply available to them, but none of these products would sell on the world market, except resources. There was no incentive to improve, no competition. Tariffs are a Great Wall. I still think counter-tariffs are necessary to prevent countries from taxing more of your exports.

Yes, and those autos would be considered domestically produced vehicles, not imports, because they're produced in China. That's why it's so difficult to ascribe a nationality to companies anymore. Most major companies are publicly traded multi-nationals. They're as national as their production. Really though, it should be the market that counts. As you clearly explain, the U.S. is no longer the big market it used to be, or rather, it's not the only big market. It's number 3.

Right to Work legislation is the saddest piece of anti-labour legislation. Talk about hollowing out the middle class. Lower what were once the kinds of wages that allowed workers to buy the products they produced and price them out of the market. Henry Ford's greatest achievement after the car assembly line was paying workers $5.00 a day for building the Model T. Those high wages (for that time) helped create the middle class and a huge market for the autos Ford's plants cranked out. Brilliant. That's what a $16.00 minimum wage in Mexico will hopefully do for auto workers. Right to Work-type anti-union policy erodes workers' wages and benefits, period.

But the U.S. isn't a big exporter in general as compared to what it imports. There are astonishingly few U.S. auto exports to Asia. The U.S. might drive down imports, but it would seem much more needs to be done to increase exports, and I don't think the world is bullish on buying U.S. right now.

I think Parliament should make removal of the steel and aluminum tariffs a condition of ratification. Don't care which U.S. department is in charge of which aspect of trade policy. They need to go. For me, that was the biggest stone left unturned. We're fools if we wait for the U.S. to remove these tariffs out of the goodness of their hearts. No goodness; no hearts. I don't see how our counter-tariffs can't be taking a toll, given that the U.S. sends more steel our way than the reverse and U.S. Steel is one of our steel producers! Did someone miss the memo?

What are facts?

If he said that, I agree that’s a ridiculous contradiction.

Relying on a low dollar doesn’t make a country competitive. The trick is to have workers making high wages selling quality, value added products, at fair but not low prices. If the products are great, people buy them at quite high prices. Think of Apple.

I hear you about the self-promotion, but Trudeau does seem to be pushing for pipelines, which are greener than shipping by truck or rail.

I can't tell if you're another fake Canadian "WestCanMan", but I have to call out some inaccuracies as they arise. You said, "Our [Canada's] government is busy killing our energy sector and piling up massive debt" [and] "Canada is in a far worse state than the US in that regard. " That is untrue. The U.S.'s debt is 105.4% of GDP. Canada's debt is 89.6% of GDP. What's more, according to Quartz, "The IMF expects only the US to up its debt-to-GDP ratio by 2023." It's important to discern how much of a rise in GDP is due to public spending (debt), whether in the form of tax cuts or some other stimulus. If debt is rising faster than GDP, that's a problem.

Every generation has its counterculture. McLuhan wrote about that. It's in Greek tragedy, Orestes winning his innocence in a trial. New beats old essentially.

I know, we're all just looking down a hall of mirrors. Everything old is new again. There's nothing new under the sun...

Some important points to take away: 1. America is now a state of consumption rather than a state of production, paid for through borrowing (increasing debt to pay for tax cuts). We'd like to think more people are working at middle class jobs, but that isn't really the case. 2. Democratic institutions are seriously weakened as government has been painted as the scapegoat for social problems rather than a solution, and gutted accordingly. 3. Many of the disenfranchised are either checking out through opioids or taking solace in right-wing extremism. 4. What's especially concerning is that the U.S. is quite a violent society replete with weaponry, so when people express their frustration and rage, the results won't be pretty. 5. What tools will there be to fix the mess after a crash, with interest rates already low and debt already high?

A very thoughtful if worrisome interview with Chris Hedges on the current state of affairs:

So now that USMCA is pending implementation, is the U.S. plan to remove the steel and aluminum tariffs on Canada if Canada imposes these tariffs on China? Is the U.S. trying to align our trade policy against low-cost jurisdictions? I wonder what high-level discussions, if any, have taken place between our governments in this regard.

There are many unprofitable services that a society needs to function. No business will run them because the profits of the infrastructure don’t flow immediately to the service provider. In most countries, especially those with uneven population distribution like Canada, these include: postal service, public transit, inter city rail, medical services, police, national defence, elementary and secondary education, roads, canals, water supply, and in many cases even energy and steel production. Government plays a critical role in most of these areas no matter how many road tolls, private schools and hospitals, or similar user-pay mechanisms you introduce. In fact in most cases private business takes care of only the most profitable markets — the rich students in Rosedale or the heavily traveled train route, leaving everyone else with substandard service. I guess if you’re rich it works for you.

Well you may not, but most Canadians do: Dec 26, 2016 - The Queen's overall approval rating remained high in this latest poll, with eight in 10 Canadians agreeing that she has done a good job in her role as monarch. (Global News) I don't have any special affinity for the monarch or her rep the Governor General, except that I think it's sensible to separate the political head from the figurehead, and the GG does valuable work recognizing the accomplishments of Canadians and building relationships with domestic and international leaders. The GG is basically a well-respected, non-partisan public figure who deals with inevitable state work: welcoming and hosting foreign heads of state, recognizing people who have made contributions to the country, ensuring that the parliament doesn't go rogue and act counter to the public interest.

Don't worry, the U.S.A. is number one in causing shit worldwide! Nicaragua, El Salvador, Panama, Chili, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya. So much intervention in so little time, and far more than the Roman or British Empires: arms for hostages, opium for arms, arms for dictators, arms for Muslim extremists, Cold War black ops, CIA secret invasion, puppet dictatorships. U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A.!

Very few people deserve to be called deplorable. It's not fair to characterize a large segment of the population that way. Ignorance is prevalent among the masses, however, and a media savvy guy like Trump knows how to stir emotion and support among people who don't understand the complexity of some issues. By repeating slogans and stirring the crowd, Trump was able to sell a characterization of America and its place in the world that either isn't the whole truth or that obfuscates reality. It's irresponsible. Almost all politicians do this at least sometimes, but Trump lowered the bar. He is especially appealing to traditionally powerful groups who have seen their power slide: white people, especially white men. I don't deny that this demographic deserves attention, but Trump's policies disproportionately favour big owners of capital, the rich. It's important to distinguish his policy from the rhetoric he used to win support. He's very good at appealing to emotion and the common man at rallies. There isn't enough critical thinking about Trump's policies, especially among his supporters.

That's absurd and you know it. When you don't have the glamour of a monarch, you create it. Remember the Kennedys and Camelot? The Queen and her role in a constitutional monarchy is mostly cultural. It hearkens back to the Magna Carta and the early ideas of representative government and limiting the power of the landed gentry and feudal lord. We enjoy the pageantry of the monarch and the GG and see the monarch as the symbolic family. We like them on our tea cups and seeing them visit hospitals and our military, putting medals on lapels and visiting with indigenous chiefs as fellow heads of state. There are many good things about having a monarchy as long as it has virtually no political authority, like in Canada.

Our so-called head of state, the GG, is just about powerless, so we have no need to worry. A PM or president for life, however? That would be the end of democracy in our countries.

It's a figurehead whose main function is to ensure that parliament is acting in the interests of the people. It's other main function is recognizing the achievements of Canadians and welcoming foreign dignitaries so that the PM can focus more on policy. The GG is nothing like a president or a PM. What political authority does Queen Elizabeth have in Great Britain? Okay, she has a lot more money than our GG, but it's largely a symbolic role.

The problem with populism is that it appeals almost entirely to emotion rather than sense. Because it seeks appeal among the lowest common denominator, it relies on unsophisticated platitudes and generalizations. It's messaging is sloganeering, propaganda really. It lacks nuance and shuns expertise that doesn't fit the popular narrative. Right now the target of the right-wing populists (and most of them are on the right) is "globalists", "social justice warriors", and "elitists". The irony is of course that in order to benefit from tax cuts you need to have an income, and unless the tax cuts are progressive (decreasing in percentage of cut with level of income), then it's the rich (elites) who benefit the most from tax cuts. The populist Republicans under Trump have mastered the propaganda of being seen as the anti-elite party that's there for workers, yet they have cut the policies and supports that would most benefit the greatest number of citizens. I see the nativist appeal of appearing tough on trade and raising the basic tax exemption. However, by pissing off foreign countries through trade aggression and by bankrupting the Treasury with massive tax cuts, the populists are selling the family farms to drive fancy cars that will one day break down (recession). The repair costs (public spending) will be too high, especially since the lease payments on the cars will be high and require constant repayment (deficits). Trading partners meanwhile will have expanded other markets with fairer trading countries. Good governance requires true conservatism, creating sustainable policy that gets the greatest bang for the buck for the long term, but most politicians only care about winning public support ahead of the election every four years. With regard to "social justice warriors", I'd argue that such folks have always been on the fringe. No one likes oversensitive people who cry that the sky is falling over every minor example of political incorrectness, especially when it involves trying to destroy people's characters by investigating their private lives. On the other hand, there are real social justice concerns, such as extreme poverty, political oppression, government corruption. Fascists used to go after progressives on the left, calling them decadent liberal degenerates and elitists. It's important not to paint every progressive with the same brush, which the populists tend to do. Finally, on the matter of "globalism", let's not forget that the main reason for having global organizations was to prevent aggressive outliers from invading countries, oppressing citizens, and acting unfairly on the world stage. Has there been some overreach by international organizations? It would be hard to argue that position. Rule of law is important because it protects citizens, people, and governments. The U.S. has long wanted to take exception to international rules-based organizations, such as the ICC (International Criminal Court). Even Canada has acted outside of the UN from time to time. I'd just caution you that without rule of law, both domestically and internationally, people become susceptible to aggression from the outliers, much as Canada has been taken advantage of by the U.S. on trade, because the U.S. has fought or disregarded NAFTA dispute resolution decisions and the current U.S. federal government is trying to strip the World Trade Organization of decision-making authority, basically so that it can strong-arm countries on trade. Smaller countries like Canada MUST support global, multilateral rules-based organizations for our very survival.

I wish I could believe there are greater aspirations there, but I don't see it.