NAFTA negotiations.

[Wilber]

17 minutes ago, paxamericana said:

I Even if Canada get more liberal senate seats, gerrymandering is still in effect. The current system is pretty robust, look at how Trump got elected after loosing the popular vote. 

Why do you keep making great arguments not to do it?

[Zeitgeist]

57 minutes ago, paxamericana said:

I would argue against this part of the proposal. That's another form of apartheid and a time-bomb waiting to go off for future generations.  That's why if we were to have an economic union might as well get a political union in place. Even if Canada get more liberal senate seats, gerrymandering is still in effect. The current system is pretty robust, look at how Trump got elected after loosing the popular vote. 

Canadian sovereignty at the national level, especially given the cultural complexity with Quebec, indigenous peoples, Canada's national experience of Confederation, and international experience through wars and peacekeeping, is too precious to Canadians.   If you're worried about a power imbalance taking place down the road, the way to prevent this is to ensure that both countries are making fair contributions to shared interests.  Canadian military expenditures would need to rise.  On the other hand, you would need to retain some form of Obamacare, as Canada could not afford masses of health care migrants from the U.S., so there would be a few compromises.  However, we're not talking about multiple policies here.  We want to retain higher gun control.  The U.S. will no doubt want to retain fewer government services and lower taxes.  Also, if you didn't want to get into those compromises, keep the union weak, meaning that essentially if you want to live and work in either country, you live as decided by the citizenry of the country.  If you want voting rights, you have to apply for citizenship in that country.  Gerrymandering is not on in Canada.  We're about truly representative government.

Edited September 10, 2018 by Zeitgeist

[paxamericana]

3 hours ago, Wilber said:

Why do you keep making great arguments not to do it?

Because I disagree with liberal suicidal policies? I'm not about that welfare state. I think government should be limited not expanded. Healthcare is an individual responsibility, so is income, so is education, so is housing, so is life... er debatable, government is responsible for safe guarding life but shouldn't infringe on individual choices like abortion and assisted suicide. 

As for disgruntled canadians or anyone else who dislike american hegemony too bad, we won WWII so we get to make decisions for other countries. 

[Wilber]

12 minutes ago, paxamericana said:

Because I disagree with liberal suicidal policies? I'm not about that welfare state. I think government should be limited not expanded. Healthcare is an individual responsibility, so is income, so is education, so is housing, so is life... er debatable, government is responsible for safe guarding life but shouldn't infringe on individual choices like abortion and assisted suicide. 

As for disgruntled canadians or anyone else who dislike american hegemony too bad, we won WWII so we get to make decisions for other countries. 

Yawn.

[Army Guy]

On ‎9‎/‎7‎/‎2018 at 9:15 PM, Wilber said:

I was listening to an expert on SM from the U of Waterloo. He says only 7% of world dairy is traded, meaning the market is very small. That market is dominated by New Zealand, the EU and thee US in that order. The idea that there are huge export opportunities out there is just wrong according to him and that is why the world market is swimming in milk, depressing prices and looking for some place to get rid of it. Guess where they are looking. Why do we want to become part of that?

The US is also losing family farms but  because they are no longer profitable due to low prices and dairies refusing to take their milk because there is too much of it. 

The fact quota is traded on an open market and priced according to demand is a problem. Getting rid of it would be an even bigger problem. Because it is a commodity on its own, banks accept it as collateral on loans. Just making it worthless and erasing 30 odd billion of equity would bankrupt thousands of farmers and hit financial institutions hard. So how do you do it?

Most of the quota is in fact held by small farmers. The average Canadian dairy farm size is 85 cows, they are not mega corporations. I would say that getting rid of SM would make mega dairy more likely at the expense of family farms.  You will see a lot more mega farms in the US than in Canada. Canadian prices reflect the cost of production without subsidies, they have nothing to do with efficiency. Say the gate price of milk is $1 a litre. The farmer that keeps his cost down to 80 cents is going to make twice as much as they guy who's cost is 90 cents and the guy  who's cost is $1.05 will go broke. Under SM, the more efficient you are, the more money you make.

I say the claim that lots of people are pushed into poverty by SM is total  BS but if it is a hardship for some, there are other ways of helping them without destroying an industry and handing it to foreign farmers. Why do think the average consumer should have their dairy products subsidized? If you are not poor, why do you think your food should be subsidized?

There looking to Canada to find a larger market for their dairy, and because Canadian consumers pay out of their pocket for higher priced dairy products, look at the numbers a large portion of diary farmers are not even part of SM, locked out due high prices for the quota itself paid to each province as a tax of sort....much like the fishing industry want a larger quota pay more money....so the small guy is screwed right out of the gate....hardly fair 

Yes US dairy farmers are losing their farms, seen a news bit yesterday about NY state farms being a dying breed....Milk should be treated like any other product, where free enterprise rules, the company that can sell products to the consumer the cheapest rules....

On ‎9‎/‎7‎/‎2018 at 8:34 PM, Army Guy said:

Speaking at a GrowCanada 2014 agricultural conference, Mulroney said "we should consider "a careful, innovative and generous phase-out of our supply managed programs for dairy and poultry

 

On ‎9‎/‎7‎/‎2018 at 8:34 PM, Army Guy said:

In addition, a study pointed out that supply management was costing Canadian consumers $2.6 billion per year (compare to supply management dairy product bringing in $970 Million into the economy). The study stated that supply management impacts the poorest households five times (2.4% of income or almost 25% of income on food) more than wealthy families (0.5% of income or almost 6% of income on food) in relative household income, while another study point to that around 133,032 to 189,278 Canadians (or 67,000 to 79,000 households) are pushed into poverty due to burden of SM.^{[190][191][Macleans 10]}

Why is it always the consumer that has to keep private companies or farms afloat, I thought we had a free market, where supply and demand dictate price, and not set it artificially by some board...why do we not do this for all our products....

[Wilber]

Maybe you should look a the links I provided to August and consider what that industry puts back into the economy. The fact is, no other type of farming puts more back into a local economy than dairy. For their size, they use more infrastructure, machinery, products and services than any other type of farming, almost all of it locally sourced. But it's all about cheap stuff right? Regardless of where it comes from. As far as milk products being much cheaper goes, what US sourced product can you buy in Canada that is as cheap as it is in the US? Why do you think dairy will be much different?

 

Of course it is the consumer that keeps private companies afloat. Who else do you think should?

[Army Guy]

Wilber I get it your passionate about dairy , judging by your posts, protecting our SM cost consumers 1.6 bil each year, it does not allow our dairy industry to grow, milk will flow both ways across the border...it will also allow those dairy farms not covered under SM to find a place to sell their product as well, it will become cheaper for dairy farmers as they won't have to pay for quotas.....

And lets be honest our economy has always been about cheap stuff, the cheaper the better, if it was not why is most of our manufacturing gone to Asia or other 3 rd world countries, where slave labor and grossly under paid workers produce all of our luxuries....want to survive in the business you have to be competitive....why should dairy be any different

it might not be as cheap, but they will have to be competitive as well , and with no sm to set prices they will fall. because the Canadian consumer is not going to be paying for inflated US prices....

The government ...

[Wilber]

AG, I agree that the cost of quota can distort the price because it is an added cost of production that doesn't add value. What plan do you have to compensate those who played by the rules and have millions invested in quota, or do you just think they should have to eat it and compete with those who invested nothing? What happens when this market gets saturated as it will almost immediately? If everything is just about cheap stuff, why should we produce anything? In the long term, how well do you think we will do as a country just selling each other stuff other's make.

 

BTW.

1. Where do you get 1.6 billion?

2. The flow across the border is mostly one way as we imported four times as much from the US as we exported to the US. The US is already swimming in milk and the flow will become even more lopsided.

Edited September 10, 2018 by Wilber

[taxme]

On 9/7/2018 at 10:20 PM, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

....because it protects the Canadian "core identity" when poured on American cereal.

According to Frank Buckley, Professor of Law at George Washington University, in conversation with a so called journalist of the CBC the other day said that one of the stumbling blocks in the NAFTA negotiations with Canada is gender equity. What the hell is that? Are there business people in the business of dealing in gender equity trade of some kind now? How can this be part of any trade deal? I think that all Trudeau and Freeland are concerned about is gender equity and some Canadian culture of some Canadian kind. With 160,000 jobs on the line in the automotive industry in Canada these two morons are holding back from making a deal because of gender equity plus the concern about the dairy farmers of Quebec and Ontario. 

Only in Canada, you say? Pity.  

[Zeitgeist]

I agree with you on the gender equity business.  If Trudeau wants to push an affirmative action agenda domestically, that’s one thing, but to do it through a trade agreement with so many serious implications for workers in our countries, is rich.  Trudeau is too interventionist. He runs the risk of compromising the good partnerships we already have.  Trump, for very different reasons, is running similar  risks.

[taxme]

2 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Wilber I get it your passionate about dairy , judging by your posts, protecting our SM cost consumers 1.6 bil each year, it does not allow our dairy industry to grow, milk will flow both ways across the border...it will also allow those dairy farms not covered under SM to find a place to sell their product as well, it will become cheaper for dairy farmers as they won't have to pay for quotas.....

And lets be honest our economy has always been about cheap stuff, the cheaper the better, if it was not why is most of our manufacturing gone to Asia or other 3 rd world countries, where slave labor and grossly under paid workers produce all of our luxuries....want to survive in the business you have to be competitive....why should dairy be any different

it might not be as cheap, but they will have to be competitive as well , and with no sm to set prices they will fall. because the Canadian consumer is not going to be paying for inflated US prices....

The government ...

I would like to see the day when we finally have a prime minister like Trump who will fight for Canada and Canadians and for more job creation. Canada can be a super power today if we had political leaders who showed more concern for creating thousands of new jobs for Canadians rather than allowing jobs to go to another country. Those jobs should stay in Canada at all costs. Because of taxes and so many rules and regulations and of environmentalists and native Indians Canada will never get to see it's real super power potential. It's like our politicians want to turn Canada into a third world have not nation asap.

Thousands of jobs are about to disappear in the pipeline project all because of those two misfit groups mentioned above who get to run and pretty much try to screw this once great country up. One extra tanker a day coming into Canada is what those idiots are fighting against when there are hundreds of tankers every month docking at Vancouver docks. Those bloody fools mentioned above are just that bloody fools, and a bunch of eco terrorists as far as I am concerned. 

When we finally get a Canadian prime minister who does not like to play Mr. Dressup all the time or who does not call himself a feminist or a PM who has sex agenda perversions always on his mind all the time is the day when Canada can finally start to become great again. With the possibility that Canada could lose 160,000 jobs in the automotive industry in Canada if the NAFTA trade talks goes for a shit all over milk it will all fall on the shoulders of Trudeau and Freeland. Liberals and liberalism? What more can be said about them but yuk. 

[taxme]

7 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

I agree with you on the gender equity business.  If Trudeau wants to push an affirmative action agenda domestically, that’s one thing, but to do it through a trade agreement with so many serious implications for workers in our countries, is rich.  Trudeau is too interventionist. He runs the risk of compromising the good partnerships we already have.  Trump, for very different reasons, is running similar  risks.

I think that with these NAFTA negotiations, Trump is holding a straight flush. I doubt that Trudeau and Freeland will be able to get that royal flush that they will need to beat Trump's hand. Right now, Trudeau and Freeland appear to only have two pairs. Not much of a hand to play with other than maybe try to bluff. But I do not think though that anyone can bluff Trump in these negotiations and think that they will get away with it. Best to fold and go home and be happy with what you get to go home with. Trump really does have the better poker hand. 

[Zeitgeist]

3 minutes ago, taxme said:

I think that with these NAFTA negotiations, Trump is holding a straight flush. I doubt that Trudeau and Freeland will be able to get that royal flush that they will need to beat Trump's hand. Right now, Trudeau and Freeland appear to only have two pairs. Not much of a hand to play with other than maybe try to bluff. But I do not think though that anyone can bluff Trump in these negotiations and think that they will get away with it. Best to fold and go home and be happy with what you get to go home with. Trump really does have the better poker hand. 

On that we disagree.  Trudeau is representing important Canadian priorities.  The US benefits as much from trade with us as the reverse.  There might be some compromise, but it’s a two way street.  Canada will go to the wall on the critical issues, and that’s no bluff.  

[turningrite]

15 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

Trudeau is representing important Canadian priorities.  ...There might be some compromise, but it’s a two way street.  Canada will go to the wall on the critical issues, and that’s no bluff.  

Important? I'm not sure about that. Trudeau's priorities often seem overstated and even somewhat irrelevant. As Thomas Walkom noted in a Toronto Star column a few days ago (link below), none of the three major priorities identified by the federal government is likely all that important to Trudeau's negotiating team, which seems intent mainly on securing a few pyrrhic concessions. Trudeau's government will cave in to some degree on dairy to get a deal, as is likely wise. Is our protectionist system, supported by massive costs imposed on consumers, the hill on which Trudeau's team is willing to let NAFTA talks die? Its own cultural policies haven't been particularly consistent, nationalistic or protectionist and the dispute resolution mechanism, which has never been taken seriously by the Americans, is hardly the benefit Trudeau makes it out to be. So, what's left? 

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/star-columnists/2018/09/06/playing-culture-card-good-politics-for-trudeau.html

Edited September 11, 2018 by turningrite

[Zeitgeist]

10 hours ago, turningrite said:

Important? I'm not sure about that. Trudeau's priorities often seem overstated and even somewhat irrelevant. As Thomas Walkom noted in a Toronto Star column a few days ago (link below), none of the three major priorities identified by the federal government is likely all that important to Trudeau's negotiating team, which seems intent mainly on securing a few pyrrhic concessions. Trudeau's government will cave in to some degree on dairy to get a deal, as is likely wise. Is our protectionist system, supported by massive costs imposed on consumers, the hill on which Trudeau's team is willing to let NAFTA talks die? It's own cultural policies haven't been particularly consistent, nationalistic or protectionist and the dispute resolution mechanism, which has never been taken seriously by the Americans, is hardly the benefit Trudeau makes it out to be. So, what's left? 

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/star-columnists/2018/09/06/playing-culture-card-good-politics-for-trudeau.html

I find this NAFTA renegotiation just more boring business as usual practices of the past.  I'd rather see a bigger agreement that really opens both countries up to each other.  As long as public safety is secure and there's no taking advantage of government services, I'd love to see freedom of residency and labour for citizens of the two countries.  I think doing so would eliminate far bigger barriers than the ones at issue now.  It would take more time, but perhaps we could negotiate a preliminary deal to tide both countries over until a bigger deal is brokered.  Just my opinion, but I know there's been a lot of commentary from the right and the left in both countries on a bigger deal over the decades.  Trump and Trudeau would both be able to take credit for a big win and let the petty grievances go.  On the other hand, the basic renegotiations of NAFTA could fall apart completely.

[paxamericana]

16 hours ago, Wilber said:

What happens when this market gets saturated as it will almost immediately? If everything is just about cheap stuff, why should we produce anything? In the long term, how well do you think we will do as a country just selling each other stuff other's make.

 

Uh there is never a net loss of jobs, they just move somewhere else, somewhere more productive cough muricah. Production will eventually be automated and people need to move on to other jobs regardless of sentiment. 

[Wilber]

1 hour ago, paxamericana said:

Uh there is never a net loss of jobs, they just move somewhere else, somewhere more productive cough muricah. Production will eventually be automated and people need to move on to other jobs regardless of sentiment. 

Tell that to "tariffs are the greatest" Agent Orange

 

Ford will not move Focus production to US

Edited September 11, 2018 by Wilber

[bush_cheney2004]

3 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

I find this NAFTA renegotiation just more boring business as usual practices of the past.  I'd rather see a bigger agreement that really opens both countries up to each other.  As long as public safety is secure and there's no taking advantage of government services, I'd love to see freedom of residency and labour for citizens of the two countries.

 

No way....the United Kingdom learned its open borders lesson the hard way...and are now scrambling to undo the mistake.   The EU has plenty of other challenges because of such ideas.    The U.S. already has an estimated 100,000 overstays from Canada,  and Canadians take jobs away from American citizens and may seek to influence U.S. elections and political process (illegal voting).  

The border has become thicker for good reason since 9/11, and Canada (or the USA) should be treated like any other sovereign nation.

[Zeitgeist]

28 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

No way....the United Kingdom learned its open borders lesson the hard way...and are now scrambling to undo the mistake.   The EU has plenty of other challenges because of such ideas.    The U.S. already has an estimated 100,000 overstays from Canada,  and Canadians take jobs away from American citizens and may seek to influence U.S. elections and political process (illegal voting).  

The border has become thicker for good reason since 9/11, and Canada (or the USA) should be treated like any other sovereign nation.

Stop, we have far bigger problems with migrants from the U.S. than you have with Canadians moving south.  Our big cities are on fairly equal footing.  The reality is that the EU is better for open borders between the member countries.  I'm lamenting the fact that, as a dual citizen with both a Canadian and British passport, I can no longer live and work anywhere in the EU.  That freedom is worth more than any overblown fear of terrorist threats or fear of migrants taking jobs.  Brexit is a mistake.  Head offices in Britain are already moving to the continent.  Canada is pursuing free trade with Europe, Asia, and many other markets.  It's the outward looking mindset that will make countries competitive in the future.  We have much more to fear about Americans coming up than Canadians going south, especially in terms of firearms.  If I were you I'd jump at the chance to expand freedom for Americans in Canada, as I can see a day coming when our leaders will want a wall between our two countries.  In some ways we're already there.  Canada is the future.

[bush_cheney2004]

1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said:

Stop, we have far bigger problems with migrants from the U.S. than you have with Canadians moving south.  Our big cities are on fairly equal footing.  The reality is that the EU is better for open borders between the member countries.  I'm lamenting the fact that, as a dual citizen with both a Canadian and British passport, I can no longer live and work anywhere in the EU.  That freedom is worth more than any overblown fear of terrorist threats or fear of migrants taking jobs.  Brexit is a mistake.  Head offices in Britain are already moving to the continent.  Canada is pursuing free trade with Europe, Asia, and many other markets.

 

.....and yet, 75% of Canadian exports still go to a single nation...the United States.    50% of Canada's foreign direct investment comes from...the United States.

The world is not your unrestricted playpen.

 

Quote

It's the outward looking mindset that will make countries competitive in the future.  We have much more to fear about Americans coming up than Canadians going south, especially in terms of firearms.  If I were you I'd jump at the chance to expand freedom for Americans in Canada, as I can see a day coming when our leaders will want a wall between our two countries.  In some ways we're already there.  Canada is the future.

 

Canada is not a paradise....I have no reason to "jump" at the chance.   I do not wake up each day and wish I could go to Canada for cheaper gas and illegal drugs.

Edited September 11, 2018 by bush_cheney2004

[Zeitgeist]

3 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

.....and yet, 75% of Canadian exports still go to a single nation...the United States.    50% of Canada's foreign direct investment comes from...the United States.

The world is not your unrestricted playpen.

 

 

Canada is not a paradise....I have no reason to "jump" at the chance.   I do not wake up each day and wish I could go to Canada for cheaper gas and illegal drugs.

Do we have more illegal drugs than the US?  Unless you’re referring to weed, now legal in some of the cool states.  Canada already has massive market cap on that. I’m sure the US could use the revenue to support the military as it did with opium during Vietnam. 

[bush_cheney2004]

10 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Do we have more illegal drugs than the US?  Unless you’re referring to weed, now legal in some of the cool states.  Canada already has massive market cap on that. I’m sure the US could use the revenue to support the military as it did with opium during Vietnam. 

 

Legal and illegal opiates are impacting Canada same as in the USA....sorry...no blue ribbon.

The bottom line is that more Canadians travel and emigrate to the USA than Americans going north...for a very long time...and the USA has 10X the population.

Edited September 11, 2018 by bush_cheney2004

[taxme]

22 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

On that we disagree.  Trudeau is representing important Canadian priorities.  The US benefits as much from trade with us as the reverse.  There might be some compromise, but it’s a two way street.  Canada will go to the wall on the critical issues, and that’s no bluff.  

So, just what are those important priorities anyway? From what I have heard one of the stumbling blocks to try and get a deal signed is gender equity. WTH. Is gender equity some kind of a business that I am not aware of? Will jobs be created or lost over gender equity? If that is the priority for Trudeau and Freeland then we now know that the NAFTA deal is in big time  trouble.  Canada better not go to the wall with someone aiming a gun at them over silly things like gender equity. They will get shot for sure. . 

 

 

[bush_cheney2004]

Now Canada is worried about losing more foreign investment (FDI) and the impact of the Trump tax cuts, regardless of NAFTA.

Sunny ways !!

 

Quote

The chief executive officer of Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce is sounding an alarm over falling levels of foreign investment in Canada, warning that the country needs clearer rules to shore up investor confidence.

During a lunchtime speech in Toronto on Tuesday, Victor Dodig said he is increasingly hearing from the bank’s clients that opportunities for investment returns are better south of the border...

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-cibc-ceo-warns-about-rising-global-debt-levels-urges-canada-to/

 

 

Quote

...A report by the PwC accounting firm to be released Wednesday states that the U.S. tax changes put 635,000 Canadian jobs at risk and could potentially reduce Canada’s GDP by $85-billion, representing 4.9 per cent of the Canadian economy. The report said the potential harm of the U.S. tax cuts is far greater than estimates of what might happen if Canada fails to secure a new North American trade deal.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-morneau-looking-at-all-aspects-of-us-tax-cuts-as-new-report-warns/

 

[Zeitgeist]

2 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Now Canada is worried about losing more foreign investment (FDI) and the impact of the Trump tax cuts, regardless of NAFTA.

Sunny ways !!

 

 

 

 

Well this always fluctuates, sometimes the media says we don't have enough FDI, at other times there are complaints that too many assets are in foreign hands.  As for the U.S. tax cuts, they're incredibly regressive and will widen the gap between rich and poor that was already vast in the U.S.. 

4.9% of the economy is significant, but insufficient to make a marked difference if offset by other inputs, such as government spending on infrastructure, which has a huge multiplier impact on the economy.

Edited September 12, 2018 by Zeitgeist