Trump and Canada

[paxamericana]

14 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

How should countries respond to U.S. tariffs?

1. Boycott all 100 percent U.S. made goods.

2. Lean on multi-literalism: Trump is playing the Machiavellian game of divide and conquer.  By seeking bilateral agreements, he is setting U.S. trading partners against each other.  Don't give into the temptation to do this for the sake of a trade agreement with the U.S.. Canada, Mexico, the E.U. and other impacted countries should support each other and enhance free trade with each other.

3.  Do NOT remove or reduce any of the counter-tariffs against the U.S. until the U.S. removes its 2018 tariffs.  Again, all non-U.S. trading partners must have absolute unity in the application of this measure.

LOL, good luck with the unity part. The whole reason we got into this "trade war" mess in the first place is because of your protectionist policies. Trump suggested our countries do completely free trade which is beneficial to both, but your PM wanted to keep his pride at the cost of your money. You can thank Trudeau for that. 

[Zeitgeist]

Just not true.  Even in dairy, the U.S. has a surplus in trade with Canada (as it does in steel and aluminum).  Also, consider the exorbitant subsidies to U.S. agriculture, hardly fair trade:

Quoted from ThoughtCo:

Yearly Farm Subsidy Payments

The U.S. government presently pays about $25 billion in cash annually to farmers and owners of farmland. Congress legislates the number of farm subsidies typically through five-year farm bills. The last, The Agricultural Act of 2014 (the Act), also known as the 2014 Farm Bill, was signed by President Obama on Feb. 7, 2014.

Like its predecessors, the 2014 farm bill was derided as bloated pork-barrel politics by a plethora of Congress members, both liberals, and conservatives, who hail from non-farming communities and states. However, the powerful farm industry lobby and members of Congress from agriculture-heavy states won out. 

Who Benefits Most From Farm Subsidies?

According to the Cato Institute, the largest 15 percent of farm businesses receive 85 percent of the subsidies. 

The Environmental Working Group, a database that tracks $349 billion in farm subsidies paid between 1995 and 2016 backs these statistics up. While the general public may believe that the majority of subsidies go to helping small family operations, the primary beneficiaries are instead the largest producers of commodities like corn, soybeans, wheat, cotton, and rice:

 

"Despite the rhetoric of 'preserving the family farm,' the vast majority of farmers do not benefit from federal farm subsidy programs and most of the subsidies go to the largest and most financially secure farm operations. Small commodity farmers qualify for a mere pittance, while producers of meat, fruits, and vegetables are almost completely left out of the subsidy game."

[paxamericana]

1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said:

Just not true.  Even in dairy, the U.S. has a surplus in trade with Canada (as it does in steel and aluminum).  Also, consider the exorbitant subsidies to U.S. agriculture, hardly fair trade:

Quoted from ThoughtCo:

Yearly Farm Subsidy Payments

The U.S. government presently pays about $25 billion in cash annually to farmers and owners of farmland. Congress legislates the number of farm subsidies typically through five-year farm bills. The last, The Agricultural Act of 2014 (the Act), also known as the 2014 Farm Bill, was signed by President Obama on Feb. 7, 2014.

 

Like its predecessors, the 2014 farm bill was derided as bloated pork-barrel politics by a plethora of Congress members, both liberals, and conservatives, who hail from non-farming communities and states. However, the powerful farm industry lobby and members of Congress from agriculture-heavy states won out. 

Who Benefits Most From Farm Subsidies?

 

According to the Cato Institute, the largest 15 percent of farm businesses receive 85 percent of the subsidies. 

 

The Environmental Working Group, a database that tracks $349 billion in farm subsidies paid between 1995 and 2016 backs these statistics up. While the general public may believe that the majority of subsidies go to helping small family operations, the primary beneficiaries are instead the largest producers of commodities like corn, soybeans, wheat, cotton, and rice:

 

 

 

"Despite the rhetoric of 'preserving the family farm,' the vast majority of farmers do not benefit from federal farm subsidy programs and most of the subsidies go to the largest and most financially secure farm operations. Small commodity farmers qualify for a mere pittance, while producers of meat, fruits, and vegetables are almost completely left out of the subsidy game."

That's why we were trying to work out a deal to open up free trade for both sides. But apparently you guys want to play hard ball. 

[Zeitgeist]

No, that doesn't make sense.  The provocation came from the U.S. 

[bush_cheney2004]

1 minute ago, Zeitgeist said:

No, that doesn't make sense.  The provocation came from the U.S. 

 

Canada was happy with the status quo...supply management, easy access to the world's largest economy, American foreign direct investment, and dumping of over-production.

Canada has no car/truck assembly plants in the United States, and exports 85% of auto production to the USA.

[bush_cheney2004]

Here is an excellent history lesson and reminder of just how dependent Canada is on the U.S. economy, regardless of Donald Trump.   Canada has been fighting a divisive battle for generations when it comes to the United States' dominance:

 

Quote

...And, most notably, contemporary Canadians simply accept that our economy is dependent upon the United States and fight to keep it that way.

The politics of pipelines are the politics of Canadian sovereignty

 

[Zeitgeist]

I agree entirely with the position of that article, that Canada has relinquished too much ownership of resources and their extraction/distribution to foreign companies, especially U.S. companies.  Canada should be seeking to move oil west to east within the country and from Alberta to the B.C. coast for export to markets beyond North America.  As much of this resource development should be in Canadian hands as possible.  As I said before, while this trade war will spell short-term pain for Canada, it may force Canada to break down internal divisions and expand export markets.  Really, we need Energy East, bigger refining capacity, and to better control and profit from the export of resources.  Right now the U.S. treats Canadian resources as domestic resources at the same time as it is treating our companies as foreign companies.  Unlimited access to our resources must equate to unlimited access to U.S. markets for Canadian exports.  In the long run, we're better off protecting our resources, because international demand for them will only grow.  Foreign markets for Canadian exports will only grow.  The U.S., on the other hand, has serious domestic problems with gun crime, environmental degradation, water supply, political division, foreign enemies, the list goes on.  Canadians love the American people and were happy to provide refuge during 911 and support the U.S. in almost all of its foreign adventures.  There's a shared history of solidarity through challenging times.  Canada behaved honorably and made enormous sacrifices from the beginnings of the world wars.  However, Trump is trying to treat Canadians like second class citizens, which isn't on.  Current trade flows favour the U.S., but that apparently isn't enough for Trump.  What's most apparent in this assertion of empire is the U.S.'s decline.  Foreign powers will simply work around the U.S., overcome the short-term challenges, and the U.S. will look like a pariah.  It's not too late to change this scenario, yet Trump seems bent on playing out this gambit.  Alignments will change and the U.S. will become increasingly isolated.  It's time for the international community to discuss the price of flouting international law and agreements.  What the U.S. Executive Branch and State Department won't admit, but every other western democracy sees, is that all countries are paying the price for U.S. geopolitics.  What is the cost to Canada of admitting 50,000 Syrian refugees?  It isn't represented as a contribution to NATO, but it's an enormous contribution to world stability and an indirect contribution to NATO alliance countries.  What is the cost to Germany of admitting 1000000 refugees?  Europe, China, India, and emerging economies are asking the question, What is the relevance of a United States that makes plenty of international messes and isn't interested in providing global security or modeling rule of law and liberal democracy?  Should the U.N. be in New York?   

Edited June 24, 2018 by Zeitgeist

[paxamericana]

3 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

I agree entirely with the position of that article, that Canada has relinquished too much ownership of resources and their extraction/distribution to foreign companies, especially U.S. companies.  Canada should be seeking to move oil west to east within the country and from Alberta to the B.C. coast for export to markets beyond North America.  As much of this resource development should be in Canadian hands as possible.  As I said before, while this trade war will spell short-term pain for Canada, it may force Canada to break down internal divisions and expand export markets.  Really, we need Energy East, bigger refining capacity, and to better control and profit from the export of resources.  Right now the U.S. treats Canadian resources as domestic resources at the same time as it is treating our companies as foreign companies.  Unlimited access to our resources must equate to unlimited access to U.S. markets for Canadian exports.  In the long run, we're better off protecting our resources, because international demand for them will only grow.  Foreign markets for Canadian exports will only grow.  The U.S., on the other hand, has serious domestic problems with gun crime, environmental degradation, water supply, political division, foreign enemies, the list goes on.  Canadians love the American people and were happy to provide refuge during 911 and support the U.S. in almost all of its foreign adventures.  There's a shared history of solidarity through challenging times.  Canada behaved honorably and made enormous sacrifices from the beginnings of the world wars.  However, Trump is trying to treat Canadians like second class citizens, which isn't on.  Current trade flows favour the U.S., but that apparently isn't enough for Trump.  What's most apparent in this assertion of empire is the U.S.'s decline.  Foreign powers will simply work around the U.S., overcome the short-term challenges, and the U.S. will look like a pariah.  It's not too late to change this scenario, yet Trump seems bent on playing out this gambit.  Alignments will change and the U.S. will become increasingly isolated.  It's time for the international community to discuss the price of flouting international law and agreements.  What the U.S. Executive Branch and State Department won't admit, but every other western democracy sees, is that all countries are paying the price for U.S. geopolitics.  What is the cost to Canada of admitting 50,000 Syrian refugees?  It isn't represented as a contribution to NATO, but it's an enormous contribution to world stability and an indirect contribution to NATO alliance countries.  What is the cost to Germany of admitting 1000000 refugees?  Europe, China, India, and emerging economies are asking the question, What is the relevance of a United States that makes plenty of international messes and isn't interested in providing global security or modeling rule of law and liberal democracy?  Should the U.N. be in New York?   

Simply because you all lack the initiative and will, not to mention distrust one another. It's like this, you are all a bunch of sheep and without strong leadership you will stray and fail. As winston churchchil put it, the only thing worse than fighting a war with allies is fighting one without. Take a look at your commonwealth and domestic politic to name a few issue.

Edited June 24, 2018 by paxrom

[bush_cheney2004]

4 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

I agree entirely with the position of that article, that Canada has relinquished too much ownership of resources and their extraction/distribution to foreign companies, especially U.S. companies.  Canada should be seeking to move oil west to east within the country and from Alberta to the B.C. coast for export to markets beyond North America.  As much of this resource development should be in Canadian hands as possible.  As I said before, while this trade war will spell short-term pain for Canada, it may force Canada to break down internal divisions and expand export markets.

 

Agreed...President Trump is actually doing Canada a long term favour for more economic independence....internally and externally.   Trump did not create Canada's economic dependency on the United States....Canadians did.

 

Quote

  ....Current trade flows favour the U.S., but that apparently isn't enough for Trump.  What's most apparent in this assertion of empire is the U.S.'s decline.  Foreign powers will simply work around the U.S., overcome the short-term challenges, and the U.S. will look like a pariah.  It's not too late to change this scenario, yet Trump seems bent on playing out this gambit.  Alignments will change and the U.S. will become increasingly isolated.

 

There is nothing special about Canada in Trump's trade imbalance strategy....other nations are also being challenged.   Part of the problem here is that many Canadians, including Justin Trudeau insist that the Canada/USA relationship is "special", when it is not and never has been regarding trade.  Nation states have interests, and Canada made its own bed with tariffs, non-tariff barriers, and trade agreements.   Such issues preceded Trump by many decades (e.g. softwood lumber).

 

Quote

It's time for the international community to discuss the price of flouting international law and agreements.  What the U.S. Executive Branch and State Department won't admit, but every other western democracy sees, is that all countries are paying the price for U.S. geopolitics.  What is the cost to Canada of admitting 50,000 Syrian refugees?  It isn't represented as a contribution to NATO, but it's an enormous contribution to world stability and an indirect contribution to NATO alliance countries.  What is the cost to Germany of admitting 1000000 refugees?  Europe, China, India, and emerging economies are asking the question, What is the relevance of a United States that makes plenty of international messes and isn't interested in providing global security or modeling rule of law and liberal democracy?  Should the U.N. be in New York?   

 

Ah, so we cut to the heart of the matter....U.S. policies are tolerated and even supported as long as it benefits the "post WW2 order" and economies of allied nations.   As long as the Americans pay most of the bill, then Canada and other NATO deadbeats are on board.   Trump wants to change that, and he will probably fail to do so, but he has exposed the game for what it is and always has been.

The UN is in New York because Europe was a basket case after two world wars.   Canadians were still British subjects.

Edited June 24, 2018 by bush_cheney2004

[Zeitgeist]

What’s most disturbing in these debates is the lack of knowledge and context. The reason the relationship between Canada and the U.S. is special is because of their shared history and geography.  These countries and their economies grew up together. It was obvious in the citing of the auto sector that people in these discussions don’t realize that Canadian and U.S. auto production was always intertwined and developed simultaneously. The oldest rubber plant is in Bowmanville, Ontario.  McLaughlin was building cars in Oshawa, which eventually became GM’s centre of auto production in Canada.  The largest auto parts producer is in Ontario.  U.S. Steel bought Ontario’s Stelco. To try to separate out Canadian content is absurd.  It doesn’t matter.  Keep ranting.  I just hope that soon the U.S. gets more sophisticated federal leadership.  It’s ridiculous and everyone, including Americans, pays the price.  I used to look forward to hearing the State of the Union Address and hearing the U.S. President’s vision for the U.S. and the world.  He who stands for nothing falls for everything.  Greed, fear and division are the message now.  It’s a zero sum game where the U.S. can’t win unless someone loses.  History will remember. 

[bush_cheney2004]

2 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

..... I just hope that soon the U.S. gets more sophisticated federal leadership.  It’s ridiculous and everyone, including Americans, pays the price.  I used to look forward to hearing the State of the Union Address and hearing the U.S. President’s vision for the U.S. and the world.  He who stands for nothing falls for everything.  Greed, fear and division are the message now.  It’s a zero sum game where the U.S. can’t win unless someone loses.  History will remember. 

 

Doesn't matter what you hope for in Canada with respect to American policies.   President Obama, "loved" so much by Canada, also lowered the boom on Canada's economy (e.g. Buy American, canceling KXL), and continued Bush era foreign policies.

The common denominator here is a over-dependence on the American export market and capital investment in Canada.

EMD London was never Canadian owned....it only existed to beat Canada's import tariffs.

[Zeitgeist]

Interesting that you cite EMD.  For readers who don't know, this was a London, Ontario locomotive plant that was shuttered after owners slashed wages by 50%.  After union opposition, Caterpillar moved its operations to a low-wage jurisdiction, another example of the race to the bottom sparked by "Right to Work" legislation in some U.S. states.  If there's any value in a renegotiation of NAFTA, it's in the requirement for some form of minimum wage, at least one that would provide the kind of standard of living expected for an auto worker in an advanced economy, regardless of where the job is located.