NAFTA negotiations.

[paxamericana]

25 minutes ago, turningrite said:

2.) And you know this how? As you seem to provide your own views to refute Stiglitz, do you have the education and/or training and/or credentials to do so?

Credentials are necessary in many fields but economics is not one of them. It's literally add and subtract. Also economic modeling are only as accurate as weather prediction. 

Growth is the quintessential goal of all economies. It fixes many of the issue that you were referring to. But don't take my word for it. Do your own research. 

Here's another economist counter view to Stiglitz's perspective.

 

[bush_cheney2004]

1 hour ago, turningrite said:

1.) Oh my. I don't think you understand the 2008/09 recession

 

Of course not...I only lived through it in the United States, managed investments, bailed out family members, laughed at foreclosures, voted for a president, cursed Government Motors,  and worked for Morgan Stanley as a client through the crisis.    Anybody in Ontario would be far more understanding than I.

Obama didn't save the western world by himself....it was also the U.S. Congress, Fed, and measures by the previous administration. Ben Bernanke was Bush's guy, not Obama's.

Either way, the 2008 recession sure as hell wasn't Trump's fault or doing.

 

Quote

 

2.) And yet you're on a Canadian forum. If you don't want to interact with Canadians or listen to their views, why are you on here?

 

 

I am here because some Canadians live and breathe what happens in the United States, which is exactly where this forum is hosted.   The least I can do is become just as obsessed with Canada.

Edited August 3, 2018 by bush_cheney2004

[Zeitgeist]

Agriculture is an important part of the Canadian economy and plays a major role in France’s economy  Supporting local farmers is better for the environment and makes countries more self sufficient  We all know the US wants to sell more of its low grade hormone-filled milk  We can argue the merits of supply management,, but it’s purpose is to provide stability for farmers   It’s a domestic policy and who are you to tell us how to manage internal affairs?  I thought you weren’t a globalist.

 

[Zeitgeist]

Kudlow, really?  He’s as partisan as it gets. 

[turningrite]

9 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

1.) Of course not...I only lived through it in the United States, managed investments, bailed out family members, laughed at foreclosures, voted for a president, cursed Government Motors,  and worked for Morgan Stanley as a client through the crisis.    Anybody in Ontario would be far more understanding than I.

2.) Obama didn't save the western world by himself....it was also the U.S. Congress, Fed, and measures by the previous administration. Ben Bernanke was Bush's guy, not Obama's.

3.) Either way, the 2008 recession sure as hell wasn't Trump's fault or doing.

4.) I am here because some Canadians live and breathe what happens in the United States, which is exactly where this forum is hosted.   The least I can do is become just as obsessed with Canada.

1.) And yet you don't/can't acknowledge that the 2008/09 recession was the result of a massive policy failure the roots of which extend back to Reagan era policies and were in the years immediately prior to the 2008 crash exacerbated by Bush II's policies, which overstimulated and already overstimulated boom in speculation? Many believe that Trump is simply doubling down on the same kinds of policies that led to the crash. Oh my, how little people learn.

2.) Of course, he didn't save the Western world by himself. But he led the effort to restore liquidity to the financial system and to address some of the flaws that contributed to the crisis. He had help from other institutions as well as from other, mainly Western, governments. If he failed in any fashion, it was in not taking the opportunity to exert concessions from American capitalism and in particular from sectors, like banking and finance, that the government bailed out.

3.) No, but as stated previously, he hasn't learned the lessons either.

4.) Well, Canada experienced the 2008/09 recession as well, even if not to the extent the Americans did. For one thing, our more heavily regulated banking sector didn't experience the liquidity crisis to nearly the same extent as did its American counterpart. As Pierre Trudeau once noted, living next door to the U.S. is like sleeping with an elephant in that you have to be aware of its every twitch and groan lest you get crushed. Canadians have to take an interest in the U.S. as it's both prudent and crucial for us to do so. It's not clear to me, however, why you're so frustrated with our attentiveness to America?

Edited August 3, 2018 by turningrite

[turningrite]

9 hours ago, paxamericana said:

Credentials are necessary in many fields but economics is not one of them. It's literally add and subtract. Also economic modeling are only as accurate as weather prediction. 

Growth is the quintessential goal of all economies. It fixes many of the issue that you were referring to. But don't take my word for it. Do your own research. 

Here's another economist counter view to Stiglitz's perspective.

 

Is Kudlow really an objective analyst? While he has a background in the financial sector (including with Bear Stearns, no less) and as a neoliberal lobbyist, it's my understanding that he was appointed by Trump to the post of Director of the National  Economic Council earlier this year. So, he's part of Trump's regime and has an obvious interest in championing the policies of the administration. It would be absurd to imagine that he wouldn't support its policies when that's part of his job. Can you cite an independent or objective source to counter the criticism economists like Stiglitz and Krugman have raised concerning the Trump administration's policies?

[bush_cheney2004]

1 hour ago, turningrite said:

1.) And yet you don't/can't acknowledge that the 2008/09 recession was the result of a massive policy failure the roots of which extend back to Reagan era policies and were in the years immediately prior to the 2008 crash exacerbated by Bush II's policies, which overstimulated and already overstimulated boom in speculation? Many believe that Trump is simply doubling down on the same of policies that led to the crash. Oh my, how little people learn.

2.) Of course, he didn't save the Western world by himself. But he led the effort to restore liquidity to the financial system and to address some of the flaws that contributed to the crisis. He had help from other institutions as well as from other, mainly Western, governments. If he failed in any fashion, it was in not taking the opportunity to exert concessions from American capitalism and in particular the sectors, like banking, the government bailed out.

3.) No, but as stated previously, he hasn't learned the lessons either.

4.) Well, Canada experienced the 2008/09 recession as well, even if not to the extent the Americans did. For one thing, our more heavily regulated banking sector didn't experience the liquidity crisis to nearly the same extent as did its American counterpart. As Pierre Trudeau once noted, living next door to the U.S. is like sleeping with an elephant in that you have to be aware of its every twitch and groan lest you get crushed. Canadians have to take an interest in the U.S. as it's both prudent and crucial for us to do so. It's not clear to me, however, why you're so frustrated with our attentiveness to America?

 

1)  And you can't/won't acknowledge that Obama continued many of the Bush II policies in the wake of the crisis for your own inexplicable, partisan reasons.  U.S. presidents may name the eras, but they are not singularly responsible for the U.S. economy, banking system, or capital markets.

2)  Actually, he had help from U.S. fiscal and monetary policy that transcended Obama, who was more interested in health care reform.  The Eurozone was slow to adopt such measures and is only now recovering from the crash.   So much for "lessons learned".

3)  Trump can't do any worse on deficits than did Bush or Obama.

4)  Canadian banks also required bailouts...from Canada and the U.S.    I agree that Canada is far more interested in and dependent on what happens in the United States, because it has no other viable option.   Or to put it in your terms, Canada hasn't learned the lessons either. 

Over my years on this forum, I have come to the conclusion that the strong disdain that many (not all) Canadians have for the U.S. stems from this very dependency...an understandable resentment at being impacted so much by a foreign country over which they have no control and whose policies they loathe.  The present day NAFTA fiasco only emphasizes this again.

Edited August 3, 2018 by bush_cheney2004

[turningrite]

53 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

1)  And you can't/won't acknowledge that Obama continued many of the Bush II policies in the wake of the crisis for your own inexplicable, partisan reasons.  U.S. presidents may name the eras, but they are not singularly responsible for the U.S. economy, banking system, or capital markets.

2)  Actually, he had help from U.S. fiscal and monetary policy that transcended Obama, who was more interested in health care reform.  The Eurozone was slow to adopt such measures and is only now recovering from the crash.   So much for "lessons learned".

3)  Trump can't do any worse on deficits than did Bush or Obama.

4)  Canadian banks also required bailouts...from Canada and the U.S.    I agree that Canada is far more interested in and dependent on what happens in the United States, because it has no other viable option.   Or to put it in your terms, Canada hasn't learned the lessons either. 

Over my years on this forum, I have come to the conclusion that the strong disdain that many (not all) Canadians have for the U.S. stems from this very dependency...an understandable resentment at being impacted so much by a foreign country over which they have no control and whose policies they loathe.  The present day NAFTA fiasco only emphasizes this again.

1.) Bush II's tax measures, in particular, helped to fuel the speculative boom that resulted in the 2008/09 crash. The tax cuts fed the speculative beast while Obama had to continue those measures for an entirely different reason. Obama had to pursue fiscal policies that sustained aggregate demand in the economy and stanched surging unemployment as the consumer economy was at risk of collapse in the aftermath of the crash. According to Keynsian theory, which has dominated fiscal policy in the Western world for much of the post-WW II period, the proper role of government is to restrict access to money in boom periods when an economy is operating at or near capacity and to expand access to money during recessions in order to foster greater economic activity. So, the same solution doesn't similarly apply to the two situations. Knowledge of Keynsian theory helps to explain the difference. Many economists, including Stiglitz are now warning that Trump's tax measures, which are mainly giveaways to corporations and the rich, will unwisely generate adverse effects on an economy already operating at or near capacity. The lessons of 2008/09 aren't being heeded.

2.) I believe Obama spent most of his first term focused on addressing the consequences of the 2008/09 crash. He also understood that addressing America's health care system was crucial to resolving long-term fiscal and financial problems facing the U.S. government and economy, including the sustainability of Social Security. He largely failed in his pursuit of effective health care reform, mainly as a result of the election of Republican majorities in Congress. And he seemed to lose his nerve as well, particularly where he eventually caved in on the "public option" he originally proposed in his reforms. Dealing with both immediate and longer-term economic issues is both advisable and necessary for governments. There's no contradiction in pursuing both paths at the same time.

3.) Obama inherited a massive deficit situation from Bush II, which he sought throughout his two terms to address. That progress is now being reversed by Trump.

4.) Which Canadian banks got bailouts from the U.S.? I'd be fascinated to see any proof you might provide for this contention. The Canadian government enhanced bank liquidity by buying some mortgages from the banks, but the bailout was minor in comparison to the situation south of the border. Canada's federal deficit situation remains far less problematic than is the case in the U.S., however there are problems where some provinces are concerned, and particularly with Ontario's situation. And Trudeau hasn't helped much with his approach, which is to increase non-productive spending and deficits mainly in the promotion of dependency rather than increased productivity. But at least many (most?) Canadians are willing to contemplate that our federal government is imperfect and often unwise, something many Trump supporters seem unable to admit about his regime.

Edited August 3, 2018 by turningrite

[bush_cheney2004]

23 minutes ago, turningrite said:

1.) ....Knowledge of Keynsian theory explains the difference. Many economists, including Stiglitz are now warning that Trump's tax measures, which are mainly giveaways to corporations and the rich, will unwisely generate adverse effects on an economy already operating at or near capacity. The lessons of 2008/09 aren't being heeded.

2.) I believe Obama spent most of his first term focused on addressing the consequences of the 2008/09 crash.

3.) Obama inherited a massive deficit situation from Bush II, which he sought throughout his two terms to address. That progress is now being reversed by Trump.

4.) Which Canadian banks got bailouts from the U.S.?

 

1)  Believe it or not, Keynsian theory was also well known before Obama became president.   Why do you presume/assume that any such "lessons" would be heeded now ?

2)  False....President Obama expended much time and political capital pushing for the ACA (ObamaCare) from the 'git go (first term), taking more of both to get it through a Democrat controlled House and Senate than did Trump to get tax cuts.

3)  Deficits do not come from presidents.

4) CIBC, BMO, RBC, TD, and Scotiabank

Quote

Canada's banking system is often lauded for being one of the world's safest. But an analysis by CCPA senior economist David Macdonald concluded that Canada's major lenders were in a far worse position during the downturn than previously believed.

...But Canadian lenders also dipped into a program set up by the U.S. Federal Reserve aimed at providing cash to keep American banks afloat. CIBC and BMO took almost $3 billion each out of the fund, RBC and TD took out $8 billion and Scotiabank drew down almost $12 billion, the CCPA report found.

That data came from the U.S. Federal Reserve, which released it publicly. But Macdonald's analysis found that Canadian banks got a comparable amount — $41 billion — from Bank of Canada facilities, an agency that has been far less transparent in sharing information.

"Despite Access to Information requests for the data, the Bank of Canada refuses to release it," the CCPA report states.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/banks-got-114b-from-governments-during-recession-1.1145997

 

If the integration of trade and capital markets is such a risk, then Canada should learn the "lessons" and walk away from NAFTA to find true love elsewhere.

Edited August 3, 2018 by bush_cheney2004

[turningrite]

1 hour ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

1)  Believe it or not, Keynsian theory was also well known before Obama became president.   Why do you presume/assume that any such "lessons" would be heeded now ?

2)  False....President Obama expended much time and political capital pushing for the ACA (ObamaCare) from the 'git go (first term), taking more of both to get it through a Democrat controlled House and Senate than did Trump to get tax cuts.

3)  Deficits do not come from presidents.

4) CIBC, BMO, RBC, TD, and Scotiabank

 

If the integration of trade and capital markets is such a risk, then Canada should learn the "lessons" and walk away from NAFTA to find true love elsewhere.

1.) So, why don't you acknowledge its impact on your argument? Obama's continuation of Bush II's policies was warranted to bolster sagging aggregate demand while when implemented Bush II's similar policies were unnecessarily and dangerously expansionary. Apples and oranges...

2.) As I said, good leaders can and must address current crises while at the same time addressing issues with serious future implications. It is possible to be able to walk and talk at the same time, after all.

3.) Deficits arise from the fiscal policies implemented by various administrations. Some administrations, like Bush II's, when catering to special interests (i.e. corporations and the rich) implement policies that can turn out to be particularly destructive, depending on the underlying economic circumstances. Similar policies, however, can become necessary where economic circumstances warrant, as was the case following the 2008/09 crash. It's fair to say that the Reagan, Bush I and Clinton administrations all implemented policies that to some degree fed into the almost catastrophic 2008/09 recession. Bush II's regime simply implemented what the French call the 'coup de gras' or death blow, almost guaranteeing a more severe crash than might otherwise have occurred. I think the biggest failure on Obama's part was that he didn't force an accounting of or compensation from the elites for the financial debacle his government used public funds to remedy, thus reinforcing the problem of assuming public risk to ensure private gain that bedevils many Western countries.

4.) To the extent that Canadian banks received any funds from the U.S. bailout, my assumption is receipt of such funds related to the operations of these institutions in the U.S., as most Canadian banks have over the past few decades moved to establish footholds in U.S. markets. I seriously doubt that U.S. bailout funds were in any way utilized to buy out mortgages issued in Canada, as was done by the Canadian government.

[paxamericana]

4 hours ago, turningrite said:

Is Kudlow really an objective analyst? While he has a background in the financial sector (including with Bear Stearns, no less) and as a neoliberal lobbyist, it's my understanding that he was appointed by Trump to the post of Director of the National  Economic Council earlier this year. So, he's part of Trump's regime and has an obvious interest in championing the policies of the administration. It would be absurd to imagine that he wouldn't support its policies when that's part of his job. Can you cite an independent or objective source to counter the criticism economists like Stiglitz and Krugman have raised concerning the Trump administration's policies?

Its not about partisanship, its about economic policies. Those are differing views between Stiglitz and Kudlow. 

[turningrite]

7 minutes ago, paxamericana said:

Its not about partisanship, its about economic policies. Those are differing views between Stiglitz and Kudlow. 

Kudlow speaks for an administration to which he definitionally belongs. His defense of the administration's policies is therefore part of his job. When, say, Morneau defends the Trudeau government's economic policies and record nobody holds his statements to inherently amount to rationally objective analysis. He's a partisan, and so, whatever his qualifications, is Kudlow. You know, many economists who work with and for various administrations are later found to have operated on the basis of faulty logic and analysis. Supply-side economics grounded in tax cuts and "trickle-down" theory has largely been discredited, although Trump and the Republicans, presumably including Kudlow, are still believers. (Of course they are, because the corporate sector and the rich largely back the Republican Party.) A major IMF study, discussed in a 2015 Huffingtonpost article, 'The Benefits Do Not Trickle Down...'' (link below), concluded that when government gives tax breaks to the poor an economy will grow while if they're given to the rich it will grow more slowly. So, if you want to be objective, take Kudlow's views with a grain of salt.

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/06/16/imf-trickle-down-economics-inequality_n_7595860.html

[Zeitgeist]

Generally U.S. debt rises under Republican administrations.  It did big time under Reagan and Bush 2.  They don’t seem especially concerned about the mess made of the public’s finances because they’re not in the business of the public good as much as the private good.  The idea is to ramp up police and security, so that as crime rises with the rise in unemployment and stagnation of wages at the bottom, you can simply throw these people in jails and build yourself a sweet private enclave with other rich folk in a gated community.  After all those societal problems are too big to fix, but if I can lower my own taxes I can buy my own comfort and safety. It’s actually a throwback to the eras of South American dictatorships.  

The problem of course is that the social problems and security costs keep getting bigger.  Americans won’t tackle their social problems and now no amount of money can protect you from the society you’ve created.  Life is cheaper down there. If the U.S. had more banking regulations and more even distribution of wealth, it could solve these problems, but you have too many right wing cooks who call such reasonable measures communist.  They’re the same crowd who scream about Second Ammendment rights as children are gunned down in schools. 

[paxamericana]

1 hour ago, turningrite said:

Kudlow speaks for an administration to which he definitionally belongs. His defense of the administration's policies is therefore part of his job. When, say, Morneau defends the Trudeau government's economic policies and record nobody holds his statements to inherently amount to rationally objective analysis. He's a partisan, and so, whatever his qualifications, is Kudlow. You know, many economists who work with and for various administrations are later found to have operated on the basis of faulty logic and analysis. Supply-side economics grounded in tax cuts and "trickle-down" theory has largely been discredited, although Trump and the Republicans, presumably including Kudlow, are still believers. (Of course they are, because the corporate sector and the rich largely back the Republican Party.) A major IMF study, discussed in a 2015 Huffingtonpost article, 'The Benefits Do Not Trickle Down...'' (link below), concluded that when government gives tax breaks to the poor an economy will grow while if they're given to the rich it will grow more slowly. So, if you want to be objective, take Kudlow's views with a grain of salt.

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/06/16/imf-trickle-down-economics-inequality_n_7595860.html

Ah you say that but when I used to live in a communist country that did land reform i saw the same issue in reverse. They took land from productive rich land owners and gave it all to the poor masses. What happened was the worse starvation that happened in the country's history. So taking from the rich and giving to the poor just doesn't work. What trump is doing is actually helping the poor. He's making it so that companies have to hire more american workers. Once the labor supply diminish, the rich are forced to pay workers more cutting out of their own pocket voluntarily instead of government mandated tax that hurt profitable companies and wealthy individual and see production move oversea or hiring of cheaper international laborer as we've seen in the previous two administration. This tax-cut and whole of government approach allow the system to have a floating feedback mechanism instead of a bracket tax system that has no feedback to market condition. The way trump is doing it is much more tactful something you critics failed to recognize. 

Also this way, it forces companies and talented individual to reduce labor requirements through innovation in order to fill out their own pocket not having to pay more for labor , increasing productivity, America's competitive edge. 

True trickle down economic.

Edited August 3, 2018 by paxamericana

[Zeitgeist]

I appreciate the importance of open markets, but without some regulations and contributions from those at the top to the public good, you soon end up with new distortions, such as dubious investment schemes (subprime mortgages), monopolies (the end of a competitive marketplace), and exploitation (the potential for the highest paid directors to earn up to 1000 times what the lowest paid workers earn, abusive labour practices, etc.).  You also create a class system in which upward mobility is hard to achieve.  It creates an underclass: the dangerous inner city hood, the dilapidated trailer park and so forth.  The rich can try to avoid the public realm through private schools, gated communities, and country clubs, but the chances are high of being bitten by the social ills of the neglected society at some point. 

[bush_cheney2004]

3 hours ago, turningrite said:

1.) So, why don't you acknowledge its impact on your argument?

2.) As I said, good leaders can and must address current crises while at the same time addressing issues with serious future implications. It is possible to be able to walk and talk at the same time, after all.

3.) Deficits arise from the fiscal policies implemented by various administrations.

4.) To the extent that Canadian banks received any funds from the U.S. bailout, my assumption is receipt of such funds related to the operations of these institutions in the U.S., as most Canadian banks have over the past few decades moved to establish footholds in U.S. markets. I seriously doubt that U.S. bailout funds were in any way utilized to buy out mortgages issued in Canada, as was done by the Canadian government.

 

1)  Because it has no impact on the Keynes vs. supply side debate....the U.S. made choices that you disagree with...so ?

2)  All presidents do this with varying degrees of success...Bush had a great run too after the so called Clinton.com recession.

3)  Agreed...and Obama's were whoppers !

4)  The U.S. Fed pumped billions into many foreign banks via the discount window, including Canada's.

 

Quote

Borrowers all over the world needed help that only the Fed could provide. At the worst of the crisis, the Fed had nearly $1.7 trillion in emergency loans outstanding. Of that, roughly $600 billion was extended directly to foreign central banks.

https://www.barrons.com/articles/how-the-u-s-saved-the-world-from-financial-ruin-1533328064

 

[bush_cheney2004]

NAFTA has been a disaster for American workers and wage growth while increasing the pace of globalization.

 

Quote

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NATFA) was the door through which American workers were shoved into the neoliberal global labor market.

By establishing the principle that U.S. corporations could relocate production elsewhere and sell back into the United States, NAFTA undercut the bargaining power of American workers, which had driven the expansion of the middle class since the end of World War II. The result has been 20 years of stagnant wages and the upward redistribution of income, wealth and political power.

https://www.epi.org/blog/naftas-impact-workers/

 

President Trump should continue to pressure Canada and Mexico on NAFTA for concessions, and aggressively pursue a more balanced trade agenda with other nations.

 

[Zeitgeist]

The U.S. risks raising its cost of living as cheap imports become more expensive and business costs go through the roof.  The good news for Canada if we don’t preserve some form of NAFTA is that the branch plant economy ends.  Every North American company that wants to do substantial business in Canada will need a manufacturing plant and head office there, not just one anywhere North America.  Canada will however continue free trade with Europe, South America, the Pacific Rim countries, and others, no matter how many trade barriers the U.S. erects.  Our lower cost economy and free exchange of goods and services will be an advantage, but it means shifting trade from the U.S..  Europe, Africa, and Bric countries will be the growing markets. 

[bush_cheney2004]

1 minute ago, Zeitgeist said:

.... Our lower cost economy and free exchange of goods and services will be an advantage, but it means shifting trade from the U.S..  Europe, Africa, and Bric countries will be the growing markets. 

 

Canada is already the higher cost economy for production and consumer goods/services.   Because of a lack of investment, Canadians are also less productive workers.  That's why so many Canadians cross the border for shopping, emigrate to the USA, and invest in American opportunities.  

[Zeitgeist]

Your descriptions of life in Canada are so off the mark.  Our corporate taxes are still lower than yours, though Trump is bringing yours more in line.  Our universal health care is a huge savings for companies in terms of health benefits.  Cross border shopping comes and goes with the currency exchange. Right now there isn’t much of it.  We’re quite happy within our borders thank you.  I used to go down a couple of times a year to our Florida place, but I took a pass this summer due to Trump’s mistreatment of Canada.  

[bush_cheney2004]

4 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Your descriptions of life in Canada are so off the mark.  Our corporate taxes are still lower than yours, though Trump is bringing yours more in line.  Our universal health care is a huge savings for companies in terms of health benefits.  Cross border shopping comes and goes with the currency exchange. Right now there isn’t much of it.  We’re quite happy within our borders thank you.  I used to go down a couple of times a year to our Florida place, but I took a pass this summer due to Trump’s mistreatment of Canada.  

 

Clearly you choose to ignore reality...Canadian media reports more (lot less) travel by Canadians to the United States.

Why Canadians talk about boycotting the U.S. but are actually travelling there more

[OftenWrong]

8 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Our universal health care is a huge savings for companies in terms of health benefits.

Been to a hospital ER lately? if not, be prepared to wait at least 5-6 hours before someone sees you, unless you're dying on the stretcher. In which case, good luck to you and best wishes. My old neighbour died in the waiting room, after he awoke in the morning and could not see out of one of his eyes. He was having a stroke. After two hours waiting to be seen, he up and died. Last time I was there with a broken foot, waiting to be seen for an -ray. After 5 hours, I just left. You know it's a nightmare, so don't you try to defend the goddamned shame of it!

8 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

We’re quite happy within our borders thank you

You mean you are. Your "Florida place", eh? That's nice... Plenty of people are certainly not well off enough to afford a trip anywhere, and not happy about the situation in Canada.

Edited August 3, 2018 by OftenWrong

[Zeitgeist]

I’m realizing even the “Canadians” on here are fakes.  You’re not characterizing Canada accurately, so we can’t have a real conversation.  Canada is obviously a sore spot for the commentators on here because they know something is amiss in the U.S. approach, but they’re too brainwashed to figure it out.  

[paxamericana]

3 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

I’m realizing even the “Canadians” on here are fakes.  You’re not characterizing Canada accurately,

LMAFO. The thing you have to realize is that Canadians are just Americans with anti-american fetish. You follow our news, you watch our tv shows and movies, you sound, talk, act, look like us etc....But for some reason decided that a hallmark Canadian trait is to hate on America. Something BC has been pointing out for 10 years on this forum. 

If it makes you feel better , the brits, ozzy and kiwis are doing the same thing, it's hilarious. 

Edited August 4, 2018 by paxamericana

[paxamericana]

On 8/3/2018 at 4:04 AM, Zeitgeist said:

 It’s a domestic policy and who are you to tell us how to manage internal affairs?  I thought you weren’t a globalist.

 

As if you should consider Canada another country economically...it's just another state that should be absorbed by the US. I am anti globalist in many aspect but not between Canada and the US, not when two country share that level of similarity. My views is that Canada should be annexed and brought under occupation i uh mean management by America; manifest destiny at its finest. There really isn't a valid argument as to why Canadians should considered themselves non-american culturally asides from Quebec that is... My beef(ag pun intended) with globalism stem from the fact that most countries do not share social/cultural similarities and hence political similarity. But if you were able to achieve economic AND political globalism then I'm all for it. You should not integrate a global economy with national political systems, it only encourages protectionism as evident by your comments and also other countries willingness to cheat,  this is the main reason why globalism failed to deliver the promised good. 

Edited August 4, 2018 by paxamericana