-1=e^ipi

Yes, you are completely indifferent to the plight of poor people. Also, you seem to be indifferent to having a giant trade war in order to protect a system that makes poor people suffer. But Donald Trump disagrees with dairy tariffs, therefore, by Canadian nationalism logic we must be pro giant tariffs and pro supply management system that makes food unnecessarily expensive for poor people. How disgusting nationalism is.

Absolutely. We saw that in Australia and New Zealand. The bigger question is in Canada can we get 1 major party to elect a leader that supports getting rid of this awful system so that we can vote to end this system in the first place. Special interest groups tend to have bigger influence in leadership conventions, when there are far less people voting, than in general elections. But due to the loss of Martha Hall Findlay and Maxime Bernier the answer so far is no.

double post

Trade should be reciprocal. Realistically, the US will not give up their subsidies for Canada because then they indirectly given concessions to the Europeans. Also, it is unlikely that we would get a world with 0 agricultural subsidies even if we were to get 100% economically literate politicians because there are national security reasons to subsidize agriculture (the supply management does the opposite and harms national security by reducing the quantity of food produced). So one possible reciprocal solution is that Canada simply imposes reciprocal dairy subsidies. One thing that I think is important to understand about trade issues internationally, is that often countries act completely against their interests, especially when it comes to subsidies. This is because of a combination of general economic illiteracy of politicians and because producers tend to have disproportionate political influence (be it the dairy farmers in Canada or the softwood lumber producers in the US). If a country subsidizes an industry then effectively the tax payers of the subsidizing country are subsidizing the consumption of consumers in another country. If you calculate the net impact on the economic welfare of a country due to the subsidy, the subsidizing country's overall welfare is always lower, while the other country may sometimes have a slightly higher welfare. Yet because producers tend to have disproportionate influence, many politicians and countries pretend that subsidies help the subsidizing country.

That was a different poster with the username BuzzKillington. The American's are not so much concerned about the supply management system (which isn't a subsidy) as they are with the associated tariffs. The supply management system depends on tariffs but the tariffs do not require the supply management system. Abolish the supply management system unilaterally. Only give up the tariffs if that is reciprocated.

I'm not against retaliatory tariffs or reciprocity. But what I am against is not putting the dairy, egg or poultry cartels on the negotiating table. Or the trade war that has resulted due to the refusal to keep a terrible unjust system that makes 0 economic sense and greatly harms poor people. Do you know why Australia and New Zealand got rid of their cartels 20 years ago? Because it's completely insane to keep them.

Canada should pursue a free trade agenda. Unfortunately, all the freedom hating parties in the house of commons are against that thanks to our first past the post system which reduces political diversity.

Maybe the people that want poor people to suffer by paying twice as much for milk, eggs, cheese, chicken, turkey and other basic food prices are the ones betraying the nation. Let along going into a giant trade war all in order to support such a terrible and unjust system.

Yes, because it would be so terrible for poor people to have cheaper food prices! *Sarcasm*

Yes, US subsidies tend to net benefit Canada and net harm USA. As it is basically American tax payers subsidizing Canadian consumption of food. But lobby groups which control government tend to represent producers instead of consumers. So as a result, many countries take positions that are against their own country's best interest.

No, one should engage in reciprocity (i.e. retaliatory tariffs) while pursuing free trade. It is actually possible for a country to benefit from tariffs, but only if the other country refuses to retaliate. Let's take a simple example: Market for oranges in Canada, where 100% oranges are produced by the USA. In the market equilibrium, the benefit to Canada, called the consumer surplus is areas 1 + 2 + 3. In the market equilibrium, the benefit to USA, called the producer surplus is areas 4 + 5 + 6. Under tariffs, the consumer surplus is area 1, the producer surplus is area 6, and the tax revenue is 2 + 4. Areas 3 + 5 is called the deadweight loss, the loss in economic activity due to the tariff. From Canada's perspective, Canada only cares about consumer surplus and tax revenue. This sum is 1 + 2 + 4. So Canada loses area 3 and gains area 4. If area 4 is larger than area 3 (which is certainly the case for small tariffs) then Canada net benefits from the tariffs.

The best move is to get rid of supply management.

Maxime Bernier has been kicked out of the Conservative Shadow Cabinet over this issue. Earlier this week there was a motion to support the dairy cartel. It received unanimous consent as Maxime Bernier chose to leave the house of commons during the motion.

All hail the all powerful dairy cartel!!!! We must at all costs protect the dairy cartel, not matter how severe of a trade war it causes. Because, as well all know, having poor people suffer from having to pay twice as much for eggs, milk and poultry is just part of Canadian values!

Of course we do, because we have an awful supply management system that restricts supply, in addition to 300% tariffs. So basically, you think that the awful supply management system justifies itself...

Yes. Legalize it all!

I can understand the undesirability of the 5 year sunset clause. However, the current NAFTA has the option to leave after 6 months notice, and it is reasonable to expect that agreements have ongoing consent (it would be rape without consent). I don't see why no 5 year sunset clause should be a pre-condition for Canada. It is better than no trade agreement for the next 5 years. I suspect there are other issues that the Trudeau government is unable to compromise on (such as supply management) and that they are using the 5 year sunset clause as a convenient excuse to justify inability to get a deal. Or maybe the Trump administration is too difficult to deal with. It's too hard to tell since both governments are protectionist.

That 12 billion is assuming the government is as efficient at building things as the private sector. They will create lots of bureaucracies for this, and have more regulatory reviews and hearings in order to obtain and reobtain social license for the project. Expect various diversity bureaucracies to make sure that the workers have equal representation of women, various minority groups, lgbt people, etc. Also expect a bilingualism bureaucracy for this, a first nations bureaucracy, climate bureaucracy, etc. They will make sure all workers are unionized, overpaid and have lots of vacation time. Will be way over-budget and take years and years to build.

Bad decision. Kinder Morgan bought the pipeline in 2007 for $550 million. Trudeau buys the same but older pipeline in 2018 for $4.5 billion. Kinder Morgan is very happy with the free government money. Trudeau gave up all negotiating power. He killed Energy East, killed Northern Gateway and was extremely passive on his support for Kinder Morgan (just like his passive support for Keystone XL). Then, as polls started to change, he started getting more serious after Kinder Morgan made its May 31 deadline, declares that the pipeline is in the 'national interest' regardless of how much money he promises to give to Kinder Morgan, and declares that the pipeline will get built no matter what.

They all lost. Vote none of the above party!

Then legalize prostitution and sex robots. Problem solved. With respect to having kids, legalize the sale of sperm, eggs, surrogacy services and artificial wombs. Problem solved. Canada needs more freedom in general.

To add context, Hawking's "understanding" of climate science is well outside of the scientific mainstream. Specifically his "understanding" of the magnitude of feedbacks and if they are anywhere close enough to cause runaway warming could use improvement.

So legalize sex robots and prostitutes? I think that the problem is that the incel ideology insists that people have sex with them; it's people who feel entitled to sex. Sex robots and prostitutes wouldn't fix that, so I don't think they just want a sex object.