Jump to content

NAFTA negotiations.


Recommended Posts

Canada is a different country from the U.S., however similar the countries are in many ways. The melting pot is the U.S. way and the cultural mosaic is the Canadian way, and that’s fine.  Each country’s approach has met the wishes of its citizens.  Both countries are successful.  I know the U.S. doesn’t want to get into the colonial mess of trying to manage another country.  There’s no upside to do so.  Democracies require local representation and strong institutions.  Canada has these.  A strong Canada benefits the U.S. as a market, ally, and alternative perspective from which the U.S. can draw.  While I don’t think that U.S. isolationism has always served it well, nor its self-absorption, Canadians can and should appreciate its different history and perspective. Look, we’re all saturated with U.S. culture.  I’ve heard Americans complain about the ubiquity of the usual suspects everywhere they go: Starbucks, McDonald’s...

When I visit the U.S. I love the old Americana in Boston’s North End or places like New Orleans or Old Alexandria, the Mall monuments in D.C., the natural beauty of Monument Valley or the Grand Canyon or Napa Valley.  When Americans come to Canada they love old Quebec City, Victorian Niagara on the Lake, the privateers warehouses in Halifax, the natural beauty of Muskoka or Lake Louise in the Rockies, the icebergs and fjords of the North.  These are the kinds of things we want to preserve for everyone.  The cultural differences are interesting and worth preserving.  At least that’s the Canadian perspective.  In the face of challenges, we have built a relatively harmonious society.  We’re less polarized and violent than the U.S., but maybe also less dynamic and productive, so we should have the best of both worlds. 

Edited by Zeitgeist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

If Canada wastes this opportunity to diversify away from such dependence on NAFTA and U.S. export market, then it never will.   Trump is not the first American president to invoke protectionist measures against Canada, and he will not be the last.  

 

NAFTA is dead and Canada should move on

I tend to agree with this view. Thomas Walkom has written in the Toronto Star about why moving away from the NAFTA regime might not be such a bad thing, after all. We should pursue sectoral agreements and work with major trading partners to reform the WTO regime, which is sorely in need of updating. To me, the most salient aspect of the article you link is where it notes that our current trade policy is focused on "an unreliable American partner" and that reforming NAFTA does little or nothing to ameliorate this weakness. During the free trade debate in the 1980s, my businessman father (who married an American) was highly skeptical of pursuing free trade with the U.S., noting that the country was and always will be an "America-first" society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, turningrite said:

I tend to agree with this view. Thomas Walkom has written in the Toronto Star about why moving away from the NAFTA regime might not be such a bad thing, after all. We should pursue sectoral agreements and work with major trading partners to reform the WTO regime, which is sorely in need of updating. To me, the most salient aspect of the article you link is where it notes that our current trade policy is focused on "an unreliable American partner" and that reforming NAFTA does little or nothing to ameliorate this weakness. During the free trade debate in the 1980s, my businessman father (who married an American) was highly skeptical of pursuing free trade with the U.S., noting that the country was and always will be an "America-first" society.

 

Agreed...and this was very much debated during the first rounds of FTA/NAFTA negotiations.   Several Canadian authors sounded the alarm in many books and op-ed pieces (e.g. Maude Barlow - "Too Close For Comfort") , but the countervailing (pun intended) argument was that Canada had not pursued any other trading partnerships to compete with potential American export trade and foreign direct investment.   Canadian leadership was very short on better options.

J. L. Granatstein's "Yankee Go Home?" describes the long history of CanAm relations, specifically with respect to trade and conflicts that pale in comparison to current headlines.  I began reading these Canadian authors for a history lesson in anti-Americanism, as their well written books were readily available on the cheap at, ironically, America's Amazon.com.

Trump is just the latest version of what has always been concerning trade, and once again, objective Canadians are pointing it out all over again.

 

Quote

Now that Mr. Trump has, ahem, gotten our attention, what are we going to do about it?

 

Edited by bush_cheney2004
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Wilber said:

paxamericana shows his true colours. He isn’t about free trade or free anything, just about American hegemony and domination, as well as full of his own Cool Aid. All Americans my ass, blatant racism hasn’t been as alive and well in decades as it is under this president. This president and congress are making a mockery of their vaunted Constitution and its supposed checks and balances. The Scots had a term for it. Toom Tabard. 

 

What's wrong with American hegemony and domination, I mean you're living in it now, since 70 years ago actually. Racism is not alive and well as you mentioned, i suspect this is due to a lack of historical context. We are no where near the era of civil rights nor are we in a Utopian society, something lefty keep comparing america to. This is the reason why the left keep thinking that America is not great, because they are comparing it to a non-realistic society while lacking any context of how much of a shit-hole the rest of the world really is.

Trump is the direct result of unchecked leftist-ism, lefties railed against the most benign candidate the GOP offered up in 2012, Mitt Romney. It's your own fault for getting trolled by somebody like Trump. I'm just enjoying the heads exploding over things that isn't all that consequential while the intersectional left keep calling out conservative who don't agree with them homophobe, sexist, bully,racist etc... a double standard don't you think?

5 hours ago, Wilber said:

If you don’t care about what others think about you, why do you hang out on their forums so you can tell them you don’t care about what they think of you?

Don't worry about me canucks I do that too. You're only getting attention from me because I find it amusing that there were 30 million extra people i could expound American propaganda to and get a reaction like the one I'm receiving. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Trudeau created the new Trade Diversification portfolio.  We’ll see if it’s just lip service. 

Instead of waiting on lipservice you can just elect a government that will kowtow to trump I er mean accept a new NAFTA agreement like mexico. It would be the least painful way to resolve this trade dispute.  But I suspect that trade isn't really the issue with Canada, its what the word i'm looking for....oh yeah pride. 

Edited by paxamericana
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, paxamericana said:

What's wrong with American hegemony and domination, I mean you're living in it now, since 70 years ago actually. Racism is not alive and well as you mentioned, i suspect this is due to a lack of historical context. We are no where near the era of civil rights nor are we in a Utopian society, something lefty keep comparing america to. This is the reason why the left keep thinking that America is not great, because they are comparing it to a non-realistic society while lacking any context of how much of a shit-hole the rest of the world really is.

Trump is the direct result of unchecked leftist-ism, lefties railed against the most benign candidate the GOP offered up in 2012, Mitt Romney. It's your own fault for getting trolled by somebody like Trump. I'm just enjoying the heads exploding over things that isn't all that consequential while the intersectional left keep calling out conservative who don't agree with them homophobe, sexist, bully,racist etc... a double standard don't you think?

Don't worry about me canucks I do that too. You're only getting attention from me because I find it amusing that there were 30 million extra people i could expound American propaganda to and get a reaction like the one I'm receiving. 

That Kool Aid really tastes great. So far I haven't called you anything but only a clueless Kool Aid drinking isolationist would call the rest of the world a shit hole. There are quite a few other countries I would chose to live in before the US.

  

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no reason for Canada to accept a bad deal.  Trump can stomp his feet and put 500% tariffs on maple syrup.  We’ll react the same way every time: Throw equal counter tariffs on imports that have roughly the same trade volume and value.  The trade will flow elsewhere while the blowhard keeps blowing.  At some point the U.S. will price itself out of the market compared to Canada’s other trading partners.  Don’t forget that the U.S. is in a trade war with multiple countries. For us it’s just the U.S..  There’s a huge incentive right now to expand trade with other partners at the expense of the U.S..  We didn’t start this.  We’ve had this debate before.  I already know your response:  Canada needs the U.S. soo much.  Next!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

There is no reason for Canada to accept a bad deal.  Trump can stomp his feet and put 500% tariffs on maple syrup.  We’ll react the same way every time: Throw equal counter tariffs on imports that have roughly the same trade volume and value.  The trade will flow elsewhere while the blowhard keeps blowing.  At some point the U.S. will price itself out of the market compared to Canada’s other trading partners.  Don’t forget that the U.S. is in a trade war with multiple countries. For us it’s just the U.S..  There’s a huge incentive right now to expand trade with other partners at the expense of the U.S..  We didn’t start this.  We’ve had this debate before.  I already know your response:  Canada needs the U.S. soo much.  Next!

Lets look at this logistically, is it cheaper to ship in bulk to California or Vancouver I wonder? There are major port of entry along the American coast where they then can redistribute smaller truck loads of product to Canada. Again there is 330 million customer south. How many Sony TV will Canadians buy to fill up a ship compared to Americans? Again, Canada's population is the size of Texas. This notion that Canada should remain a separate foreign entity when it comes to trade is ludicrous. Free market will decide for Canada if getting out of NAFTA, at the expense of raising consumer goods, will be worth the pride to pay. 

Edited by paxamericana
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

...We didn’t start this.  We’ve had this debate before.  I already know your response:  Canada needs the U.S. soo much.  Next!

 

That's part of the problem....Canada wants to keep the status quo (tariffs, non-tariff barriers, dumping, transshipments, IP theft, etc.).   75% exports to the U.S. market and lots of American foreign direct investment.    U.S. export trade is far more diversified than Canada's.

Mexico and Canada use NAFTA for access to the American market far more than with each other.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

That's part of the problem....Canada wants to keep the status quo (tariffs, non-tariff barriers, dumping, transshipments, IP theft, etc.).   75% exports to the U.S. market and lots of American foreign direct investment.    U.S. export trade is far more diversified than Canada's.

Mexico and Canada use NAFTA for access to the American market far more than with each other.

 

The nation-states in these trade wars are to some extent artificial barriers.  Goods are sold to markets that are accessible and willing to buy them.  Of course more of Canada's exports are sold to the U.S. than Mexico.  It's bigger and closer.  Vermont is close but small and therefore a smaller market.  New York is close but bigger and therefore a bigger market.  We don't buy maple syrup from Guadalajara, but we might buy its peppers.  I don't know what the value is of stating truisms.  Are you suggesting that trade shouldn't take place between adjacent agglomerations of people?  Canada doesn't necessarily want the status quo.  It does want trade and can see the damage tariffs are levying.  Maybe in the short run, because Canada is more export dependent on the U.S. as a proportion of its total economy than the reverse, such tariffs will have a greater impact on Canada, but trade flows will adjust.  They impact Americans to at least the same extent in terms of economic volume.  The same number of people and jobs will be impacted on each side of the border.  It's just that Canada's economy is more export driven due to its smaller population, so these workers represent a larger proportion of the Canadian workforce than the American workforce.  In terms of real numbers though, it's the same volume on each side of the border.  Remember the U.S.'s trade surplus with Canada?  If Americans think protectionism and tariffs are good for the country, they can elect such approaches and see where they lead.  I'm not sure that Trump's approach has such a wide mandate in the U.S..  It's a risky gambit that may already be backfiring.

 

2 hours ago, paxamericana said:

Lets look at this logistically, is it cheaper to ship in bulk to California or Vancouver I wonder? There are major port of entry along the American coast where they then can redistribute smaller truck loads of product to Canada. Again there is 330 million customer south. How many Sony TV will Canadians buy to fill up a ship compared to Americans? Again, Canada's population is the size of Texas. This notion that Canada should remain a separate foreign entity when it comes to trade is ludicrous. Free market will decide for Canada if getting out of NAFTA, at the expense of raising consumer goods, will be worth the pride to pay. 

Yes, but Canada doesn't need American-sized or even California-sized trade coming through its ports.  Canada is a much smaller country than the U.S..  Vancouver is a large and important port.  It doesn't have to be as large as the largest U.S. port.  If countries want to access the Canadian market under conditions of U.S. tariffs, they will be incentivized to bring those goods directly to Canada.  Forget countries for a moment and remember that producers supply markets.  Cascadia is more of a trading block in many ways than say, Florida-Washington State.  Michigan-Ontario-New York function more as a single trade entity than say, Mississippi-Oregon.  This is one of the reasons that during the American Revolution many residents of the north-eastern colonies didn't want any trouble with Nova Scotia and vice versa: Neighbours naturally trade with one another.  I'm sure the cross border trade between Mexico and Texas or California is substantial.  It stands to reason.

Edited by Zeitgeist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what?  None of your data contradicts the fact that the U.S. trades roughly the same amount with Canada as the reverse, slightly more in fact.  Therefore roughly the same number of people are impacted on both sides of the border.  People are what matter here, not some misplaced pride in the size of your country. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

So what?  None of your data contradicts the fact that the U.S. trades roughly the same amount with Canada as the reverse, slightly more in fact.  Therefore roughly the same number of people are impacted on both sides of the border.  People are what matter here, not some misplaced pride in the size of your country. 

 

...and it is the "people" in each country who will support leadership that looks out for their economic interests (i.e. jobs).    Under NAFTA, American corps have made far more investment in Canadian/Mexican industry and markets than vice-versa...exporting American jobs.   

Why is Canada so dependent on the U.S. economy ?    Mexico is a NAFTA partner but Canada's exports there are around 2% ????

Still waiting for the first Canadian owned auto assembly plant to be built in the USA.

Edited by bush_cheney2004
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

...and it is the "people" in each country who will support leadership that looks out for their economic interests (i.e. jobs).    Under NAFTA, American corps have made far more investment in Canadian/Mexican industry and markets than vice-versa...exporting American jobs.   

Why is Canada so dependent on the U.S. economy ?    Mexico is a NAFTA partner but Canada's exports there are around 2% ????

Still waiting for the first Canadian owned auto assembly plant to be built in the USA.

You contradict yourself.  You bragged earlier about how much Canadian pension funds invest in U.S. markets and infrastructure, some of the biggest funds in North America.  You know as well as I do that we buy more cars from the U.S. than the reverse.  You talk about ownership of companies as though countries own them.  Okay, so let's unpack that.  If you're saying that companies like GM are virtual crown corporations because of government investment in them, look at how much Canada invested to bail out automakers after the made in U.S.A. 2008 economic meltdown.  Governments and consumers in Canada have invested heavily in these companies, which grew up on both sides of the border almost from their inception.  You, Trump, and the U.S. Treasury don't own these companies, which have components in various jurisdictions.  You try to oversimplify with slogans that are supposed to make it seem as though the U.S. taxpayers/government are Canada's benefactors.  In reality, Canadians work in businesses that create wealth that purchases goods from Canada, the U.S., and other countries, such goods as cars.  If some of these businesses are in the auto production supply chain, fair enough, as Canadians are also consumers of autos.  The U.S. sells many to Canadian consumers. 

Why do you insist on making this about Canada vs. U.S., when the real culprit in trade deficits is lower labour costs (which equate to lower labour, environmental, and other standards) in low cost jurisdictions?  If you want to reduce trade deficits, make factories more productive in higher cost jurisdictions and raise labour standards in low cost jurisdictions.  Between countries where trade is fairly balanced because standards are fairly balanced, there isn't a need to add trade barriers or have a major rewriting of standards (unless the wish is to raise them).  At risk of sounding like one of the "globalist elitists" that you so fear, we need international labour, environmental, and other standards if we want to try to reverse some of the trade flows from what are currently low cost jurisdictions.  That way one country, the U.S. for example, doesn't take the hit for putting up trade barriers to try to stem the flow of jobs to low cost jurisdictions.  Of course, the U.S. is free to raise all the barriers that its citizens elect, but don't think for a second that there won't be blow-back and consequences as countries react.  Trade will be redirected to where it makes sense to do business. 

Finally, don't underestimate the role that automation plays in the loss of manufacturing jobs.  The U.S. produces twice the number of goods it produced 30 years ago within its borders with one third fewer workers.  Companies will seek further innovations in the race to be more productive.  That's why education and skills are so important.  We need highly skilled workers and more workers in the fields of programming and robotics to remain competitive.  That isn't a trade unfairness thing.  That's a productivity thing.   

Edited by Zeitgeist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Zeitgeist said:

You contradict yourself.  You bragged earlier about how much Canadian pension funds invest in U.S. markets and infrastructure,

 

It is not a contradiction....the CPP investment board cannot find equivalent opportunities or returns in Canada, and Canadians derive far more income from U.S. FDI that generates the jobs and tax base than vice versa.    It is estimated that 50% of Canada's manufacturing base is American owned, and a good portion of oil/bitumen production as well.   Where is the equivalent Canadian investment in the United States ?   I keep asking this question different ways but never get a meaningful answer.

 

Quote

Why do you insist on making this about Canada vs. U.S., when the real culprit in trade deficits is lower labour costs (which equate to lower labour, environmental, and other standards) in low cost jurisdictions?

 

 

Because NAFTA is really about trade with the humongous US economy more than trade with Mexico for Canada.   Ditto Mexican trade with the USA over Canada.   Canada has been included because of dumping, transshipments, IP theft, tariffs, and non tariff barriers.

 

Quote

Finally, don't underestimate the role that automation plays in the loss of manufacturing jobs.  The U.S. produces twice the number of goods it produced 30 years ago within its borders with one third fewer workers.  Companies will seek further innovations in the race to be more productive.  That's why education and skills are so important.  We need highly skilled workers and more workers in the fields of programming and robotics to remain competitive.  That isn't a trade unfairness thing.  That's a productivity thing.   

 

Already discussed, and Canada is a laggard there as well.   Where is Canada LEADING and INNOVATING for any of these measures ?   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

It is not a contradiction....the CPP investment board cannot find equivalent opportunities or returns in Canada, and Canadians derive far more income from U.S. FDI that generates the jobs and tax base than vice versa.    It is estimated that 50% of Canada's manufacturing base is American owned, and a good portion of oil/bitumen production as well.   Where is the equivalent Canadian investment in the United States ?   I keep asking this question different ways but never get a meaningful answer.

 

 

Because NAFTA is really about trade with the humongous US economy more than trade with Mexico for Canada.   Ditto Mexican trade with the USA over Canada.   Canada has been included because of dumping, transshipments, IP theft, tariffs, and non tariff barriers.

 

 

Already discussed, and Canada is a laggard there as well.   Where is Canada LEADING and INNOVATING for any of these measures ?   

Investors, whether Canadian, American, or extraterrestrial, will invest in businesses where they think they can make money.  Canada is obviously a good place to do this because it attracts investment.  No one is forcing anyone to invest.  Some Canadians want to prevent FDI.  Canadian banks such as Royal, TC, and CIBC have made major investments in the U.S. commercial banking and financial services industries.  There's Thompson/Reuters in financial news, many examples of TV and film production (Bravo, Alliance, etc.).

The biggest issue in trade between economies of a vastly different scale, where trade flows and socio-economic demographics are fairly balanced between the countries, such as between Canada and the U.S., is that smaller players and industries in the smaller country can be overwhelmed by the larger players/industries in the larger country.  That's why some protections for culture through media are critical.  They are important to the smaller country, which also requires its citizens to pay more in taxes to sustain cultural identity.  Citizens do it because they value their culture and won't give it up. 

I already explained in prior posts that Canada's auto industry is highly productive, yet you seek to gain an unfair sector advantage through government intervention.  Canada has a strong tech sector in the Ottawa valley and Kitchener Waterloo.  Montreal has its design firms.  There are major links between research hospitals and universities, such as through the MARS project in Toronto.  There's far more to say about aquiculture, agritech...  Again though, in a free market, consumers, companies, and investors will decide themselves whom to patronize.

If the U.S. needs to lean on trade protections for the vast swath of its economy in such a large economy, that seems a bit desperate.  There's no need.  The U.S. is a wealthy country.  Yes we all worry about inroads from China and low-cost jurisdictions, but all the tariffs in the world won't return all the jobs.  We need a better plan.  The truth is that we have major surpluses in production.  It's not that people have to stop working and rely on government handouts, but maybe it's time to think about shorter work weeks, job sharing, and a guaranteed basic income of some kind.  I know it sounds radical now, but there are advantages to having more free time.  We also need to make service jobs pay better, since there are more of them than manufacturing jobs.  It's true too that we need to try to be at the lead edge technologically, but not everyone will be able to do those jobs.  "Jina" and other countries aren't going to disappear or stop competing for the best and the brightest.

Edited by Zeitgeist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Investors, whether Canadian, American, or extraterrestrial, will invest in businesses where they think they can make money.  Canada is obviously a good place to do this because it attracts investment.  No one is forcing anyone to invest.  Some Canadians want to prevent FDI.  Canadian banks such as Royal, TC, and CIBC have made major investments in the U.S. commercial banking and financial services industries.  There's Thompson/Reuters in financial news, many examples of TV and film production (Bravo, Alliance, etc.).

 

And yet U.S. investment is limited in those Canadian sectors by barriers.    Can't have it both ways.

 

Quote

The biggest issue in trade between economies of a vastly different scale, where trade flows and socio-economic demographics are fairly balanced between the countries, such as between Canada and the U.S., is that smaller players and industries in the smaller country can be overwhelmed by the larger players/industries in the larger country.  That's why some protections for culture through media are critical.  They are important to the smaller country, which also requires its citizens to pay more in taxes to sustain cultural identity.  Citizens do it because they value their culture and won't give it up.

 

So again, you are advocating for the tariffs, non-tariff barriers, and cultural protectionism that Canada maintains against the U.S. (and presumably Mexico).   I agree that Canada is the smaller fish in this scenario, and if it wants such protections, then it also must accept responses in kind.

 

Quote

I already explained in prior posts that Canada's auto industry is highly productive, yet you seek to gain an unfair sector advantage through government intervention.  Canada has a strong tech sector in the Ottawa valley and Kitchener Waterloo.  Montreal has its design firms.  There are major links between research hospitals and universities, such as through the MARS project in Toronto.  There's far more to say about aquiculture, agritech...  Again though, in a free market, consumers, companies, and investors will decide themselves whom to patronize.

 

Canada has much lower overall labour productivity and investment for R&D.   The MaRS programs in Ontario has been subject to lots of criticism for squandered investment, high salaries, and lack of accountability.    Other initiatives are in direct response to American (Silicon Valley) and other international players who are already leading...not following.

Canada is a rich nation, but for reasons that are unclear to me, it is not obvious where all the money goes given the lack of R&D, infrastructure, defense spending, etc., all issues routinely highlighted in Canadian news media. 

 

Quote

If the U.S. needs to lean on trade protections for the vast swath of its economy in such a large economy, that seems a bit desperate.  There's no need.  The U.S. is a wealthy country.  Yes we all worry about inroads from China and low-cost jurisdictions, but all the tariffs in the world won't return all the jobs.  We need a better plan.  The truth is that we have major surpluses in production.  It's not that people have to stop working and rely on government handouts, but maybe it's time to think about shorter work weeks, job sharing, and a guaranteed basic income of some kind.  I know it sounds radical now, but there are advantages to having more free time.  We also need to make service jobs pay better, since there are more of them than manufacturing jobs.  It's true to that we need to try to be at the lead edge technologically, but not everyone will be able to do those jobs.  "Jina" and other countries aren't going to disappear or stop competing for the best and the brightest.

 

The U.S. is not a partner with Canada on such a stage, it is a competitor.   I have personally supported technology transfers to China in exchange for access to the growing Chinese market, now America's largest trading partner, not Canada.   There seems to be a pathetic economic mindset that the U.S. should be more "cooperative" with Canada because it is an ally of the United States, when this has never been the case when it comes to trade.    NAFTA is obsolete for the USA....if Canada and Mexico wish to continue that is up to them, but it may prove difficult when the HUGE milk cow in the middle is no longer part of the deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know what you're trying to advocate.  The U.S. is free to put up however many barriers to Canada, Mexico, China.  If you're justifying Trump's latest tariffs by pointing to the cultural and small time industries that Canada is protecting for the sake of its very survival, that's a pretty harsh stance.  Trump and his supporters are free to take it, but Canadians aren't buying it.  In terms of wondering where all the money goes for R & D, infrastructure, and defense spending, Canada does spend a lot on infrastructure and should spend more on R & D, but it's business that isn't investing, not government.  We face some other costs related to health and our safety net, which Canadians value.  Also, it's a massive country with a small population.  Do you know the cost of maintaining postal, rail, medical, educational, and court services across such sparsely populated areas in the far north?  I laugh at the bravado from some commentators about a U.S. takeover of Canada, thinking of the U.S. getting the pleasure of dealing with those challenges.  Yet incredibly, whether in Nunavut, St. John's or Victoria, you know you're in Canada because of its institutions and infrastructure.  It's an achievement to administer a nation across the second largest country by land mass with so few people.  Canadians are keenly aware that the sparseness makes some of the our people/cultures very vulnerable.  Any trade relationship has to recognize that Canadian reality. 

In some ways, the groaning I'm hearing about having to deal with Canada at the negotiating table reminds me of constitutional discussions involving Quebec's status within Confederation.  It's always been contentious.  Westerners in particular didn't like the idea of special status for Quebec, yet no one would deny that making Canada bilingual, forcing companies to produce labels in French and English, or granting Quebec certain rights around its legal system (based on French Code Civil) didn't play a role in protecting that culture.  We may have moaned about cost, but most of us can't help admit that we sort of really like Quebec and the differences it brings to the table.  It's fair to question concessions in a trade agreement, but understand that in any deal there will be some non-negotiables.  On the other hand, there may be new bargains that bring greater rewards to both countries and make it worthwhile to let go of some sacred cows.   

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said:

I don't know what you're trying to advocate.  The U.S. is free to put up however many barriers to Canada, Mexico, China.  If you're justifying Trump's latest tariffs by pointing to the cultural and small time industries that Canada is protecting for the sake of its very survival, that's a pretty harsh stance. 

 

There is nothing "harsh" about it....why should Canada get special consideration when it is the 10th largest economy in the world ?   What's so special about Canadian industries and culture that deserve special carve outs  to be respected by competitors ?  

 

Quote

Trump and his supporters are free to take it, but Canadians aren't buying it.  In terms of wondering where all the money goes for R & D, infrastructure, and defense spending, Canada does spend a lot on infrastructure and should spend more on R & D, but it's business that isn't investing, not government. 

 

I don't care why the R&D investment isn't happening, only that it isn't because Canada seemingly has other priorities, or its private sector and government can't do both at the same time.    Canadians leave for the U.S. and other nations to have much greater opportunities in R&D.

 

Quote

We face some other costs related to health and our safety net, which Canadians value.  Also, it's a massive country with a small population. 

 

 

Yes, the "small population" excuse is heard often, even as Canada wants to run with the big dogs by selling out (i.e. FTA/NAFTA).

 

Quote

In some ways, the groaning I'm hearing about having to deal with Canada at the negotiating table reminds me of constitutional discussions involving Quebec's status within Confederation.  It's always been contentious.

 

Again, there is nothing special Canada's cultural sacred cows that require consideration by others at the negotiating table.   Business is business, and the Americans have always been ruthless about such matters, long before Trump.    If Canada wants a piece of the world's largest economy, then it should leave the cultural whining at the door.

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

I laugh at the bravado from some commentators about a U.S. takeover of Canada, thinking of the U.S. getting the pleasure of dealing with those challenges.

Remind me which country was it that won world war two and did so on two separate front across two vast ocean? Think of the infrastructure America had to build to support such a war effort.  Canada is a cake walk, don't kid your self. 

 

 

3 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

On the other hand, there may be new bargains that bring greater rewards to both countries and make it worthwhile to let go of some sacred cows.

Or....we could both adopt free trade and let the best competitor win while lowering prices and increasing productivity... There is no benefit in protecting the minority industry at the expense of the many. Look, dairy farmers don't need your help they're already worth an average of 5 millions each. I've said it before many times and its worth repeating, Canada should be viewed as a another state not a foreign country when it comes to trade. The differences in trade between the US and Canada are only highlighted by the protectionist policies for Canada's agricultural industry, something Trump is exploiting to hammer away at NAFTA, Canadians only have themselves to blame for their grievances by Agent Orange. 

3 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

Westerners in particular didn't like the idea of special status for Quebec, yet no one would deny that making Canada bilingual, forcing companies to produce labels in French and English, or granting Quebec certain rights around its legal system (based on French Code Civil) didn't play a role in protecting that culture. 

Quebec is the product of your social "mosaic". These sort of things do not exist in America because we are a melting pot, we assimilate other cultures not adopt protectionist policy to refuge said culture. If they want to have their own separate culture then they can do that back at their own home country, nobody begged them to come over here expecting their culture to be protected from assimilation. 

Edited by paxamericana
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Canada is a successful country that will seek to protect its values and cultures.  It will not accept trade deals that fundamentally compromise those values because it doesn’t need to.  The U.S. doesn’t have to appreciate that, but Canadians do.  It should be clear for these reasons why the U.S. would be opposed within Canada if its government seeks to eradicate or disrespect Canadian priorities.  Canadians are not fleeing, though we do receive hundreds of thousands of applications for immigration.  I’m glad the U.S. does too.  Good for you.  Canada is a separate country, not a U.S. state.  It serves the citizens on both sides of the border who trade with each other, roughly the same number on each side, to continue to do so.  If the U.S. seeks to impose new barriers to compromise that trade, that is unfortunate and will require adjustments in trade.  Having said that, all barriers should be discussed in negotiations, including dairy tariffs and the enormous U.S. farm subsidies.  If countries want to hold onto these, they may do so. It doesn’t matter because trade  was balanced before Trump imposed new tariffs.  These tariffs and counter tariffs may reduce trade between Canada and the U.S., but they most certainly won’t destroy Canadian trade.  Canada will just find new markets, albeit less convenient than the U.S. and the U.S. will also be seeking to replace its lost jobs impacted by loss of trade with Canada. How dumb and unnecessary this all is. 

Edited by Zeitgeist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said:

Canada is a successful country that will seek to protect its values and cultures.  It will not accept trade deals that fundamentally compromise those values because it doesn’t need to. 

What values is on the Nafta talk other then lefty progressive demands Freeland tried to shove down America's throat? What is Canada offering in return , what bargaining leverage does Canada have to get unfettered access to world's largest economy? Yet Trump was magnanimous enough to offer up free trade and ya blew it Canada. Good luck if you think your government is bargaining in good faith. Don't think Canada can cross the US and everything will be fine. Might I remind you what the cost is for countries who want to fight America and look tough, like Iran, Turkey and Venezuela. They're economically collapsed and that's not by accident. Take the carrot, avoid the stick. 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40928114

Quote

Canada is a separate country, not a U.S. state.  It serves the citizens on both sides of the border who trade with each other, roughly the same number on each side, to continue to do so.  If the U.S. seeks to impose new barriers to compromise that trade, that is unfortunate and will require adjustments in trade.  

The funny part is Canada's economy is collapsing even faster with the help of Trudeau and his cronies. Trump only slap a steel and aluminum tariff yet Trudeau decided to impose tax on a wide range of other goods affecting several different industry, weakening Canada's economy even faster. 

Quote

 How dumb and unnecessary this all is. 

Yes indeed, Canada was offer unfettered free trade to the world's largest economy and it turned that down because it wanted to shove Canadian progressive values down America's throat? I think we all know who the real aggressor here is. 

 

Edited by paxamericana
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,714
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    wopsas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Venandi went up a rank
      Explorer
    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...