Japan's Abe, Trudeau agree to promote TPP

[G Huxley]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/international-business/abe-and-trudeau-agree-to-promote-trans-pacific-partnership/article27058428/

I'm glad I didn't vote for Trudeau after reading this. Like the Conservatives it's Neo-liberal economics as usual. Canadian sovereignty, protection of jobs and the environment lose.

[-1=e^ipi]

You can keep repeating a lie over and over again, that doesn't make it true.

Please explain how countries taking advantage of comparative advantage results in job losses.

[G Huxley]

One word: Outsourcing.

[Michael Hardner]

One word: Outsourcing.

I think Euler meant to ask about 'overall' job losses, not just one in a particular industry. Outsourcing happened prior to any trade deals, and now the TPP will reduce barriers in other areas, creating overall job increases in theory.

[-1=e^ipi]

I think Euler meant to ask about 'overall' job losses, not just one in a particular industry.

Yeah take NAFTA for example. If you listen to the protectionists/socialists in Mexico, it hurts them. If you listen to the protectionists/socialists in Canada, it hurts them. If you listen to the protectionists/socialists in the USA, it hurts them. Somehow trade, which is a positive sum game, causes everyone to lose according to protectionists/socialists. It's ridiculous.

Edited November 2, 2015 by -1=e^ipi

[Michael Hardner]

To add to your point - there doesn't appear to be any forum where "the" public can hear about the positive points about trade deals. This means that trade deals under discussion are kept under wraps, which exacerbates the problem of secrecy and lack of discussion.

Believe it or not, there was a time in this country when the left-of-centre was pro free trade and the right was against.

Economics today is the equivalent that alchemy was in the middle ages, ie. we leave it to the wizards to discuss.

[cybercoma]

How has free trade worked out for softwood lumber?

[GostHacked]

To add to your point - there doesn't appear to be any forum where "the" public can hear about the positive points about trade deals. This means that trade deals under discussion are kept under wraps, which exacerbates the problem of secrecy and lack of discussion.

Believe it or not, there was a time in this country when the left-of-centre was pro free trade and the right was against.

Economics today is the equivalent that alchemy was in the middle ages, ie. we leave it to the wizards to discuss.

If the deals are so good why were they so secretive during the talks?

Remember I am for fair trade not free trade. If the trade takes away from a certain sector of our economy, then that is not a fair trade.

[Wilber]

How has free trade worked out for softwood lumber?

It hasn't because it isn't part of NAFTA.

[-1=e^ipi]

If the trade takes away from a certain sector of our economy, then that is not a fair trade.

By that logic, we should have banned cars 100% years ago because it hurt the horse and buggy industry. And we should have never allowed the industrial revolution to occur because it hurt textile workers in the 19th century in the UK.

Personally, I think if a decision is of net benefit to the country then that decision should be made. The well-being of the vast majority of the country should not be held hostage by a few special interest groups.

[hitops]

By that logic, we should have banned cars 100% years ago because it hurt the horse and buggy industry. And we should have never allowed the industrial revolution to occur because it hurt textile workers in the 19th century in the UK.

Personally, I think if a decision is of net benefit to the country then that decision should be made. The well-being of the vast majority of the country should not be held hostage by a few special interest groups.

This.

The only thing that protecting a noncompetitive industry accomplishes is guarantee that it becomes further noncompetitive and dies off, taking all the jobs with it. Far better to allow the human capital to be re-directed into more competitive, wealth-generating activity.

If the deals are so good why were they so secretive during the talks?

Remember I am for fair trade not free trade. If the trade takes away from a certain sector of our economy, then that is not a fair trade.

There is no definition of fair trade though. How can I tell if something is 'fair'? That is a moral judgment with no way to know when it is achieved.

Edited November 2, 2015 by hitops

[Michael Hardner]

If the deals are so good why were they so secretive during the talks?

Read my post again: there is NO FORUM where people can hear the POSITIVE aspects of trade deals.

Remember I am for fair trade not free trade. If the trade takes away from a certain sector of our economy, then that is not a fair trade.

You are essentially saying that you would not find any trade deal to be 'fair'.

[Wilber]

Fair is a relative term. Fair to some is not fair to others. When the price of meat goes up because of this agreement, will you consider that fair? I'm sure the producers will.

[Michael Hardner]

Fair is a relative term. Fair to some is not fair to others. When the price of meat goes up because of this agreement, will you consider that fair? I'm sure the producers will.

I'll take it that your question is to me.

This is what I was commenting on: "If the trade takes away from a certain sector of our economy, then that is not a fair trade."

The entire point of trade deals is to remove barriers and bring another country in to compete with local providers. So some sector of our economy will always be impacted, jobs will always be lost in some area.

If you think that's unacceptable then you don't want trade deals.

For those who think that way, I wonder whether they actually would be in favour of restricting imports even more. Require oranges and coconuts to be grown in Canadian greenhouses - that would help local employment too.

[Wilber]

As long as you are not counting on this to give you cheap stuff because it won't always work that way.

[Bonam]

For those who think that way, I wonder whether they actually would be in favour of restricting imports even more. Require oranges and coconuts to be grown in Canadian greenhouses - that would help local employment too.

When it comes to food, I think it should always be mandated that at least some of it be produced domestically rather than overseas. Food is the #1 strategic commodity. A country that doesn't grow enough food domestically is extremely vulnerable to any possible disruption in international peace, trade, and distribution networks, and it's people are exposed to the risk of starvation as a result of decisions made by people in other countries rather than their own.

[Wilber]

When it comes to food, I think it should always be mandated that at least some of it be produced domestically rather than overseas. Food is the #1 strategic commodity. A country that doesn't grow enough food domestically is extremely vulnerable to any possible disruption in international peace, trade, and distribution networks, and it's people are exposed to the risk of starvation as a result of decisions made by people in other countries rather than their own.

I agree completely but you will have to pay at least world price for it or you are asking farmers to subsidize you.

Edited November 3, 2015 by Wilber

[ToadBrother]

When it comes to food, I think it should always be mandated that at least some of it be produced domestically rather than overseas. Food is the #1 strategic commodity. A country that doesn't grow enough food domestically is extremely vulnerable to any possible disruption in international peace, trade, and distribution networks, and it's people are exposed to the risk of starvation as a result of decisions made by people in other countries rather than their own.

Britain (which hasn't been able to feed itself for two or three centuries now) solved this in the 19th century by keeping large reserves. I believe at that time it was corn imported from the US.

As a completely off-topic side note, one of the chief accusations leveled against the British government during the Irish Potato Famine was that it sat on those large reserves, enough to feed Ireland.

[socialist]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/international-business/abe-and-trudeau-agree-to-promote-trans-pacific-partnership/article27058428/

I'm glad I didn't vote for Trudeau after reading this. Like the Conservatives it's Neo-liberal economics as usual. Canadian sovereignty, protection of jobs and the environment lose.

No Problem.

Print more money...soak the rich...whoops there aren't many of them out there..ooops

Profits evaporating....taxes too...just one place folks...and that's you :-(

New taxes for sure...first on list...carbon tax...next...waste tax...next...??

Gov will "support/invest" in Bombardier, etc, etc, etc...nirvana...we'll solve it...yes sireee

Fact is.....this mess...and it will be a mess and ugly...will be worn by Libs etal

Ordinary joe will of course have to pay the bills and debts...sad but true.

Funny but sad to see "tone" of news articles in Alberta now.

Corporations are evil, they have committed sins against.....everyone, everything.

Job loss in service sector is not result of 15/hr now...its evil private enterprise.

Job creation...with and by gov....using TAX dollars will save us....yahoo

What happens if no one earns and pays taxes??? Just wondering??? That's all.

Atlas Shrugged and Orwels 1984 coming true....wow...we are so screwed.

Just my take....hope I'm wrong....we'll see.

[poochy]

If the deals are so good why were they so secretive during the talks?

Remember I am for fair trade not free trade. If the trade takes away from a certain sector of our economy, then that is not a fair trade.

Who is "they"? All of the countries involved were sworn to secrecy, so does that mean it is bad for all of them? Why would any of them do it then?

[ToadBrother]

Who is "they"? All of the countries involved were sworn to secrecy, so does that mean it is bad for all of them? Why would any of them do it then?

I can't imagine how you would negotiate any significant treaty in public.

[Wilber]

I can't imagine how you would negotiate any significant treaty in public.

You couldn't.

[TimG]

When it comes to food, I think it should always be mandated that at least some of it be produced domestically rather than overseas. Food is the #1 strategic commodity. A country that doesn't grow enough food domestically is extremely vulnerable to any possible disruption in international peace, trade, and distribution networks, and it's people are exposed to the risk of starvation as a result of decisions made by people in other countries rather than their own.

This makes no sense to me:

1) Modern farms require numerous inputs including machinery, fertilizers, fuels and seeds. Without these inputs (which are often imports) the farms can't produce.

2) How local is local? Saskatchewan is much further away from BC than Washington state or California. Does favoring Saskatchewan farms really provide security to BC?

3) Many countries simply cannot produce enough food locally to feed their existing populations. They depend on the economy of scale provide by international food distribution to supply them.

4) Famines are largely a thing of the past because society is no longer dependent on the varigaries of weather in a single location. This resilience would be lost because can't have the international trade of food unless there is a demand and that demand would not exist if countries produced their own food.

Edited November 3, 2015 by TimG

[Bonam]

This makes no sense to me:

1) Modern farms require numerous inputs including machinery, fertilizers, fuels and seeds. Without these inputs (which are often imports) the farms can't produce.

2) How local is local? Saskatchewan is much further away from BC than Washington state or California. Does favoring Saskatchewan farms really provide security to BC?

3) Many countries simply cannot produce enough food locally to feed their existing populations. They depend on the economy of scale provide by international food distribution to supply them.

4) Famines are largely a thing of the past because society is no longer dependent on the varigaries of weather in a single location. This resilience would be lost because can't have the international trade of food unless there is a demand and that demand would not exist if countries produced their own food.

1) Farms can operate at a reduced level of productivity even with many of these external inputs limited. The goal is to produce enough to eliminate the risk of mass starvation, not necessarily to produce at normal levels.

2) Notice I used the term "overseas". Trade with close overland neighbors that are almost certain to remain friendly under foreseeable circumstances is secure enough, one could argue.

3) And those countries will be royally screwed if international trade is ever significantly impeded by the outbreak of a major war or severe planet-wide natural disaster.

4) International trade can still prosper even if the countries that are able to do so maintain a protected domestic food production capacity that is sufficient to keep the population from starving to death. For one, they can still all specialize in different types of crops that are best suited to their climates.

[Michael Hardner]

You couldn't.

I think you could if the mass media coverage only covered the broad strokes, as in "they're talking about a deal... some people say THIS, others say THAT... and the details are being discussed online at this site... led by these trusted groups"

People could conceivably go to those places to get the details, and follow the discussions.