NAFTA negotiations.

[Zeitgeist]

The U.S. government will do what it thinks is in its interests.  So will the Canadian government.  Mutual interest is often mostly the same as self-interest.  On the matter of assembly plants, the auto companies you're referencing have their headquarters in the U.S., but they have had some of their operations in Canada almost since their inception.  Technology and supplies have been moving between these operations for generations, so when you call them U.S. companies, you have to respect that they have had important Canadian components for a long time.  The Canadian market reflects that.  I could talk about McLaughlin, a Canadian auto company that became part of GM, more or less as Buick.  We had Bricklin, and early on, many domestic brands.  Magna is the second largest auto parts producer in the world.  The auto supply chain system is complex.  It's a very large topic of discussion.  Anyway, I already know your take on it will be that we're taking jobs from Americans.  Our taxpayers bailed out the auto sector in Canada after the largely U.S. recession in 2008.  We also saw GM and Ford close plants in Ontario.  Our auto manufacturing has shrunk. Our citizens have invested heavily in the auto sector as taxpayers and consumers.  It's an important part of our economy that provides middle class jobs for families.

[bush_cheney2004]

In other words, no Canadian owned companies have built auto/truck assembly plants in the United States or Mexico, while several other nations have (e.g. Japan, Germany, South Korea).

Canada exports 85% of automotive production to one nation...the United States.

Canada/Ontario are the most expensive for auto production (labour, energy, taxes, regulation, etc.), and it is logical that further reductions will/should occur.

If it so important to the Canadian economy, then invest more and depend less on American capital investment and market access.

 

[Zeitgeist]

No, you're wrong on almost all fronts.  85% of our auto exports go to the U.S., but we import more autos from the U.S. than we export to the U.S.:

"In 2016, the value of Canadian imports of automotive vehicles and components from all countries totaled US$109.4 billion, US$70.2 billion of which originated from the United States. The regulatory environment in Canada for the automotive sector is like that of the United States, with approximately 90 percent of the two countries’ road-safety regulations harmonized." (export.gov website)

Also, this was the value of our TOTAL auto exports from Canada to ALL COUNTRIES: $46.4 billion (WTEX website)

So you see the glaring trade surplus in autos that the U.S. has with Canada.

Canada has sometimes been more and sometimes less expensive than the U.S. for auto production, largely depending on exchange rate.  Yes our corporate taxes are lower and health care costs for workers are lower, but some other input costs are higher.  Generally the U.S. pays less for commodities which are priced in U.S. dollars.  The difference is slim to none.

There's a lot of capital investment from Canada and some very large financiers.  You yourself have cited Canadian pension funds as a major investor in U.S. infrastructure/projects.

With regard to why there isn't a wholly Canadian owned auto company building plants in other countries, in a sense we do through our auto parts.  Canada has had car companies, but decisions were made hand in hand with the CAW and UAW, governments, and all major auto makers, not only Ford, Chrysler and GM, to allocate in a fairly equitable manner.  Even the Japanese and German companies were in on this deal, doing things like joint ventures, such as the CAMY plant that has produced American and Japanese cars, mixing the content to ensure the right amount of NAFTA content.  The major concern for both unions has been the shipping of jobs south to Mexico.

Edited August 9, 2018 by Zeitgeist

[bush_cheney2004]

4 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

No, you're wrong on almost all fronts.  85% of our auto exports go to the U.S., but we import more autos from the U.S. than we export to the U.S.:

 

But you continue to ignore that American and other international auto makers have made the capital investment to bring that production on line, not Canada or Mexico.  This includes more investment in Canada and Mexico than has been reciprocated to the USA, and more American jobs lost.

Also, Canadian imports are total imports, not just U.S. production.

https://www.export.gov/article?id=Canada-Automotive

 

In the case of Japanese car production, Canada exports four times the amount of car imports, with most of those headed to the USA:

 

Quote

The vehicles assembled for export in the more than 60 Japanese car and car parts plants across Canada outnumber the Japanese-brand vehicles imported into Canada by four to one, JAMA reports. Within Canada, Japanese-brand new car sales – of some 719,807 units – accounted for roughly 35 percent of the market.

https://driving.ca/auto-news/news/canada-exports-four-times-the-number-of-japanese-brand-cars-it-imports

 

I don't care what kind of cushy deals were made between Canadian politicians and labour unions, American workers don't owe them a damn thing.   And slowly but surely, Ontario is losing more and more of what it doesn't own and can't afford to keep going.  

"If Canada wants to sell in the USA, then Canada better build it in the USA" is a twist on an old Canadian NAFTA slogan.

Canada is the only G-7 nation without a domestic car make.

 

Edited August 10, 2018 by bush_cheney2004

[Zeitgeist]

Stop twisting data.  Auto imports to Canada from the U.S.: "US$70.2 billion of which originated from the United States," far exceeding Canadian exports to the U.S..  Canada and provincial governments, especially Ontario, have made massive investments in the auto sector, some would say far too much, especially after the closures of auto plants in Oshawa and Windsor.  Magna, a major Canadian auto parts producer and other Canadian parts producers build key components for multiple car companies.  I can tell that you don't really understand the way that auto production works.  There are many different forms of production that go into making a vehicle.  A lot of engineering goes into the production of engines, transmissions, exhaust systems and the like.  Far less skill goes into final assembly.  Not as many companies or countries are in the business of making the higher tech, highly engineered components of cars.  Essentially, the lowest-skilled assembly work is like slapping stickers in a sticker book.  GM in Oshawa has always been a highly efficient, technologically sophisticated operation compared to most GM plants, yet it has seen closures due to pressure from the UAW, U.S. government, etc.  These are publicly traded companies, so when companies are determining where to get the biggest bang for their buck, they're looking at who has the technology and skills, production costs (including labour), as well as political pressure from governments, who in some cases have pumped a fortune of taxpayers' money to support the industry.  My point is, you're dealing with what are really transnational entities that are making decisions about how to make money for shareholders based on a range of factors.  The U.S. government doesn't own these companies.  I will tell you that, proportionally, Canada has invested at least as much in its auto sector as U.S. governments, sadly, probably much more.  Bush_cheney2004, you don't own any car companies, nor does Trump.  Again, Canadian workers, taxpayers, and consumers have contributed enormously to the auto sector.  Anyway, these are matters for experts in the industry to discuss with all of the stakeholders and negotiators.  I will tell you that you don't wipe out an industry or thousands of jobs without enormous repercussions.  Thankfully, unions and industry would fight a destructive upheaval.  The costs politically would also be far too great, as throwing a wrench in the supply chain production system would kill thousands of jobs in the U.S. as well as Canada. 

Edited August 10, 2018 by Zeitgeist

[bush_cheney2004]

45 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

 I can tell that you don't really understand the way that auto production works.  .... My point is, you're dealing with what are really transnational entities that are making decisions about how to make money for shareholders based on a range of factors.  ...The U.S. government doesn't own these companies.

 

Quite the opposite....I was a production engineer at a Tier 3 automotive supplier to GM, Ford, Chrysler, Toyota, etc. for many years including QS-9000 supply chain management and certification.   Traveled to many U.S. plants and saw the carnage.   NAFTA caused a major disruption to American jobs, and the "transnationals" didn't give a damn.  Unions did not save the day, only made things worse.    Government bailouts for Chrysler (twice) and Government Motors meant that they did own a large stake in those companies at one time.   

Fortunately, Canada/Ontario have increasingly priced themselves out of the market because of higher costs, and American jobs are coming back "home" to Michigan and lower cost, "right-to-work" states.   The "transnationals" that giveth to Canada can also taketh away.  

 

Quote

I will tell you that, proportionally, Canada has invested at least as much in its auto sector as U.S. governments, sadly, probably much more.  Bush_cheney2004, you don't own any car companies, nor does Trump.  Again, Canadian workers, taxpayers, and consumers have contributed enormously to the auto sector. 

 

Then Canadians can compete to keep what is left of dwindling automotive jobs in Canada, and Trump owes them nothing.   Canada can enjoy all the protectionist dairy/poultry products it wants because there may be many Canadian cows and chickens, but there are no Canadian cars or trucks.

 

 

 

Edited August 10, 2018 by bush_cheney2004

[bush_cheney2004]

While Canada watches on the sidelines.....the U.S. and Mexico move forward:

Quote

The Trump administration is closing in on a deal with Mexico to raise wages in the auto sector and push more manufacturing jobs to the United States – a major breakthrough in the renegotiation of the North American free-trade agreement.

Mexico is ready to agree to virtually all of the United States’ auto demands, said sources with knowledge of the closed-door talks in Washington, in a bid to drive NAFTA talks forward.

... It is still unclear when Canada will return to the table. The United States has not invited Canadian officials to participate in the most recent round of negotiations

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/world/us-politics/article-mexico-and-us-make-real-progress-on-removing-auto-roadblocks-to/

 

[Zeitgeist]

That carnage has negatively impacted Ontario more in recent years than Michigan, as you should know.  Your bluster reflects the overall tone the U.S. administration is taking in trade negotiations.  Canada also bailed out the auto sector.  The smartest move Canada could make is to give NAFTA negotiations a miss until fair-minded Americans enter the arena.  I feel for these Mexican negotiators who are going to be returning home fleeced.  Also, be careful with your "right to work" race to the bottom.  When states undermine the creation of unions and minimum wages, they are ensuring that the lowest-skilled jobs will be the ones associated with these states.  Essentially, the state is locking in a lower standard of living for workers.  Would be wiser to raise labour standards (including wages) to at least the average across all jurisdictions that enter into trade deals as the minimum standard.  But if you want to recreate Mexican living standards within your borders, that's your prerogative. 

Edited August 10, 2018 by Zeitgeist

[turningrite]

22 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

1.) Canada exports 85% of automotive production to one nation...the United States.

2.) Canada/Ontario are the most expensive for auto production (labour, energy, taxes, regulation, etc.), and it is logical that further reductions will/should occur.

3.) If it so important to the Canadian economy, then invest more and depend less on American capital investment and market access.

 

1.) And your point is? A large proportion of vehicles sold in the Canadian market is comprised in whole or in part by product manufactured in the U.S. and/or Mexico and in fact both the U.S. and Canada have steadily lost manufacturing capacity and employment to Mexico.

2.) Yes, Ontario is an expensive jurisdiction, which means that in economic terms it poses little or no real threat to America's auto manufacturing sector. Ontario has held its (declining) share of auto sector employment mainly as a result of automation and superior productivity. Assuming it's not attacked with arbitrary tariffs, it will likely continue to hold on to at least some share of North American auto manufacturing well into the future.

3.) Canada could decide to do as Australia has done and abandon its auto sector. In such an event foreign and mainly Asian manufacturers would likely gain a significant advantage and likely further displace American-based manufacturers. I'm not sure this is a result American corporations would prefer, but why would Canada have any obligation to offer American manufacturers preferential treatment in a post-NAFTA environment? The auto manufacturing sector reportedly accounts for about 100 thousand direct Canadian jobs at present, a figure that, as you suggest, is in decline. The broad IT/tech sector reportedly now employs about 800 thousand Canadian workers, and counting. The difference between the two is in the kind of jobs the two sectors create, but in the longer run Canadians might eventually be better off in a post-NAFTA world.

Edited August 10, 2018 by turningrite

[Zeitgeist]

Your third point is very topical in terms of automation and productivity.  If Canada is a very productive producer of autos, competitive when on a level playing field, then there is no reason why such production should not continue.  Also, Canada is a healthy market into which the U.S. and other countries can and do sell autos.  Why would Canadians buy goods from a country that shuts them out of its market?  We have balanced trade with the U.S.  Talk of how much we benefit from selling into the U.S. market is fiction in a lopsided trade agreement that favours the U.S. over Canada.  The take-away from this whole ordeal is that power in the wrong hands can do tremendous damage, so ensure that there's a Plan B when power becomes problematic in another country over which we have no control.  Watching Trump insult respectable leaders and allies, bully countries, and dump on international agreements on trade and the environment, knowing full well that his purpose is to extract exclusive benefits for the U.S., should alert countries to expand non-U.S. trade and form new alliances with powers that are thinking about the long-term health of the planet and ALL its peoples.

[bush_cheney2004]

3 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

That carnage has negatively impacted Ontario more in recent years than Michigan, as you should know.  Your bluster reflects the overall tone the U.S. administration is taking in trade negotiations.  Canada also bailed out the auto sector. 

 

Canada's choices are its own.   Trump knows that he has lots of leverage in the auto sector, and not just with Canada, but with other nations as well.   Trump is doing exactly what he said he would do if elected, and Canada had plenty of time to develop a strategy beyond Trudeau/Freeland's "feminist agenda" in trade talks.

Quote

.... Essentially, the state is locking in a lower standard of living for workers.  Would be wiser to raise labour standards (including wages) to at least the average across all jurisdictions that enter into trade deals as the minimum standard.  But if you want to recreate Mexican living standards within your borders, that's your prerogative. 

 

No, it is better to repatriate the production volume at a lower, more competitive labour rate & cost structure than to have none at all.  Unions help to create their own demise in the U.S., with unsustainable costs and pension plans.   New auto workers had to accept a lower tier compensation plan just to remain viable.

China has even out-Mexicoed....Mexico.

 

[bush_cheney2004]

1 hour ago, turningrite said:

1.) And your point is? A large proportion of vehicles sold in the Canadian market is comprised in whole or in part by product manufactured in the U.S. and/or Mexico and in fact both the U.S. and Canada have steadily lost manufacturing capacity and employment to Mexico.

2.) Yes, Ontario is an expensive jurisdiction, which means that in economic terms it poses little or no real threat to America's auto manufacturing sector. Ontario has held its (declining) share of auto sector employment mainly as a result of automation and superior productivity. Assuming it's not attacked with arbitrary tariffs, it will likely continue to hold on to at least some share of North American auto manufacturing well into the future.

3.) Canada could decide to do as Australia has done and abandon its auto sector. In such an event foreign and mainly Asian manufacturers would likely gain a significant advantage and likely further displace American-based manufacturers. I'm not sure this is a result American corporations would prefer, but why would Canada have any obligation to offer American manufacturers preferential treatment in a post-NAFTA environment? The auto manufacturing sector reportedly accounts for about 100 thousand direct Canadian jobs at present, a figure that, as you suggest, is in decline. The broad IT/tech sector reportedly now employs about 800 thousand Canadian workers, and counting. The difference between the two is in the kind of jobs the two sectors create, but in the longer run Canadians might eventually be better off in a post-NAFTA world.

 

1)  Good....and Team Trump wants even more concessions to bring jobs back to the USA from Canada and Mexico.   Parts do not have to travel across borders five times just because that's how it developed under NAFTA.   

2)  Ontario/Canada are not world class examples of worker productivity.   In general, Canada has invested far less in automation, research, and development.

 

Quote

Low productivity levels present an enormous challenge for Canada’s future economic prosperity. In 2012, Canada’s level of labour productivity was US$42, much lower than that of the United States, at US$52. This earned Canada a disappointing 13th place among its 16 peer countries on the level of labour productivity. Only Finland, Switzerland, and Japan were lower. Worse still, Canada’s labour productivity level has fallen to 80 per cent of the U.S. level from a high of 91 per cent in the mid-1980s. Despite a broad and growing consensus that Canadian productivity needs to be improved, the gap with the U.S. is widening, not narrowing.

https://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/Details/Economy/measuring-productivity-canada.aspx?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1

 

3) As demonstrated above, Canada already exports four times as much Japanese auto production than it imports.   Canada has no obligation to American automakers, but the reverse is also true.   Ontario should expect no "loyalty" for bailouts beyond contracted agreements, and more auto plants will be closed as dictated by costs and conditions.    Trump wants to use auto tariffs as one of those conditions.

 

[Zeitgeist]

You’re looking at overall productivity stats for the whole economy, not the auto sector, which is highly productive in Canada.  Also your stats are old, but let’s accept those for now.  The main reason that overall productivity has lagged, despite recent improvements, is that the resource sector hasn’t had to boost productivity to be profitable.  Think of the Toronto Maple Leafs, for years, not having to invest in their team to fill seats at outrageous prices.  Silly comment but you get the analogy.  Canada still leans too heavily on the sale of raw materials despite having a strong tech sector.  This is why we need to build more refineries for our oil and manufacture more finished products using our own materials, instead of buying back our own materials in the form of finished products from other countries. It’s an old problem that persists despite diversification of our economy over the decades.  It will inevitably improve with population growth, though companies need to invest further in R and D and technology.  We thought that lowering corporate tax rates would lead to more reinvestment in production, but companies have handed over much of the savings to shareholders. 

[bush_cheney2004]

12 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

You’re looking at overall productivity stats for the whole economy, not the auto sector, which is highly productive in Canada.  Also your stats are old, but let’s accept those for now.  The main reason that overall productivity has lagged, despite recent improvements, is that the resource sector hasn’t had to boost productivity to be profitable....

 

Not my concern....or Trump's concern.   Canada has made some improvements, but really lags in innovation.  

NAFTA is about far more than automotive production.

Canadian productivity: Even worse than previously thought

 

Foreign direct investment is dropping in Canada...FDI has been critical to Canada's economic growth for years:

 

Quote

Foreign direct investment into Canada plunged last year to the lowest since 2010, hampered by an exodus of capital from the nation’s oil patch and worries about the fate of the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Direct investment dropped 26 per cent in 2017 to $33.8 billion, Statistics Canada reported Thursday in Ottawa. Capital flows dropped for a second year, and are down by more than half since 2015. The investment that did take place was from reinvested earnings of existing operations. Net foreign purchases of Canadian businesses turned negative for the first time in a decade, which means that foreign companies sold more Canadian businesses than they bought.

https://business.financialpost.com/news/economy/foreign-direct-investment-in-canada-plunges-on-oil-exodus-1

 

[Zeitgeist]

Funny, you keep saying all of these things are critical to our economy and that the U.S. is Canada's savior.  Australia has functioned quite well with much less U.S. involvement with its economy.  It serves both Canada and the U.S. to trade with each other due to proximity and similarity of regulatory frameworks, inter-operative industries, and so on, but rationality doesn't seem to matter to some.  FDI in the oil patch comes and goes with oil prices.  It was only a couple of years ago that oil prices returned to strong profitability for the oil sands.  It doesn't matter.  Canada won't be bullied into bad agreements.  It doesn't need to be.  You should know by know that any new tariffs will be met with equal counter-tariffs, that workers and consumers will be impacted on both sides of the border.  Ultimately trade flows will shift to countries with lower barriers, however long it takes.  One thing is certain: Until and unless a reasonable deal can be brokered, the Canadian government should let all of Trump's threats play out, including auto tariffs if it comes to that.  Once the tariffs and counter-tariffs come into play, the whole charade will scream political interference and mismanagement.  The pressure is mounting on Trump right now.  HIs time is limited, even if he does two terms.  Farmers are worried and don't like the idea of aid.  Midterm elections are coming.  Wait this guy out.

Edited August 11, 2018 by Zeitgeist

[bush_cheney2004]

2 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

Funny, you keep saying all of these things are critical to our economy and that the U.S. is Canada's savior. 

 

No, I have said no such thing, and think it wise that Canada diversify it's export trade away from such a strong U.S. dependency...because there will be other Trumps and conditions that challenge Canada's economy. 

Canada's tariffs, non-tariff barriers, IP theft, and dumping will continue to be challenged by the U.S. and other nations.

[paxamericana]

3 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

Funny, you keep saying all of these things are critical to our economy and that the U.S. is Canada's savior.  Australia has functioned quite well with much less U.S. involvement with its economy.  It serves both Canada and the U.S. to trade with each other due to proximity and similarity of regulatory frameworks, inter-operative industries, and so on, but rationality doesn't seem to matter to some.  FDI in the oil patch comes and goes with oil prices.  It was only a couple of years ago that oil prices returned to strong profitability for the oil sands.  It doesn't matter.  Canada won't be bullied into bad agreements.  It doesn't need to be.  You should know by know that any new tariffs will be met with equal counter-tariffs, that workers and consumers will be impacted on both sides of the border.  Ultimately trade flows will shift to countries with lower barriers, however long it takes.  One thing is certain: Until and unless a reasonable deal can be brokered, the Canadian government should let all of Trump's threats play out, including auto tariffs if it comes to that.  Once the tariffs and counter-tariffs come into play, the whole charade will scream political interference and mismanagement.  The pressure is mounting on Trump right now.  HIs time is limited, even if he does two terms.  Farmers are worried and don't like the idea of aid.  Midterm elections are coming.  Wait this guy out.

Uh.....................that's why everything is shifting to mexico... good luck on waiting out trump. I suspect a red wall this mid term. I would not craft trade policy on a bet just saying... Actually trump has about the same amount of support he had when he first came in. This basically means he's untouchable. You can sling mud at him all you want but people just don't care. His base is obviously still with him...over 87 percent republican support. One of the highest of any president during mid terms. Also the democrats are losing on identity politics to trump. There's been a building momentum of minority support to the Republicans/Trump party. 

"

A largely under-reported Harvard/Harris Poll published last week found that Hispanic support of Trump has improved by 10 points, spoiling assumptions about group identity.

In a world where the prevailing rhetoric of the Left is that Trump is anti-immigrant, the data "suggests that Hispanics may not be the entrenched liberal voting constituency that Democrats so often imagine," wrote The Washington Times' Stewart Lawrence.

Furthermore, in the critical swing-state of Florida, GOP Gov. Rick Scott is surpassing his Democratic opponent among Hispanics in the senatorial race, according to a recent Mason-Dixon poll. But why would Trump and Republicans be seeing a significant upswing in Hispanic support?

"Hispanics, like most mainstream voters, are waking up to post-2016 America. Unemployment among Hispanics has fallen to its lowest level in decades, and there’s little doubt that Mr. Trump’s pro-business policies are the reason," Lawrence wrote. "

https://www.dailywire.com/news/34033/trumps-approval-rating-improves-democrats-wont-one-alexander-ruiz

Edited August 11, 2018 by paxamericana

[Zeitgeist]

The U.S. economy was on an upswing prior to Trump.  No doubt he has primed the economic pump through tax cuts, but he has no powder left.  I'm actually assuming a worst-case scenario wherein Trump and future Trump-like figures rise to prominence.  I know such figures will try these trade tactics for as long as they think they can get away with them.  That's why the only measure to take against belligerent trade action by the U.S. or any other country is equally impactful counter-tariffs/barriers.  I've said it many times.  Trump is playing a dangerous game.  It might earn him points looking the part of being tough on trade with his supporters, but in the long run, oppressive tactics hurt the U.S.'s image.  They undermine trust.  There's a wider context to consider here, the rise of China and other rapidly developing countries.  The U.S. won't feel the pinch for a while, but when it comes, it could finish up negotiating from a position of weakness because we'll all know their game. 

My father worked in the Japanese auto industry for most of his career.  When they dealt with India, a barter economy, they had learned that India would always low-ball in negotiations, so they always approached India with a higher price than other countries, knowing full-well that the price would be negotiated downwards and land roughly where it should be.  Trump is very transparent.  He talks up how the E.U. now wants to negotiate with him and how much U.S. farmers will benefit as though French farmers and European negotiators don't watch mainstream media.  Trump can't help to lay out all his cards on the table because posturing at rallies is his populist shtick.  Trade will flow to the countries where it makes economic sense to do business, no matter what people might want or feel.  Yes Trump's actions can hurt economies, including his own, but businesses and governments have a way of adjusting when they have to. 

Trump's approval rating is about 42 percent in the U.S.. Worldwide: "Germany has replaced the U.S. as the top-rated global power in the world, at 41 per cent according to Gallup. The U.S. is now just behind China at 31 per cent, and just ahead of Russia at 27 per cent."

Edited August 11, 2018 by Zeitgeist

[bush_cheney2004]

4 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

Trump's approval rating is about 42 percent in the U.S.. Worldwide: "Germany has replaced the U.S. as the top-rated global power in the world, at 41 per cent according to Gallup. The U.S. is now just behind China at 31 per cent, and just ahead of Russia at 27 per cent."

 

Polls do not determine global power...power determines global power.

The world was just delighted when Germany was last a true "global power".

...Germany, Russia, and China are not part of NAFTA.

[Zeitgeist]

Germany is the central power in the EU.  China is a growing superpower.  

[bush_cheney2004]

3 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Germany is the central power in the EU.  China is a growing superpower.  

 

Relevance to NAFTA ?    Canada and Mexico are not global powers.

[Zeitgeist]

NAFTA is a trade agreement between three countries, nothing more.  Being in a trade relationship with a global power doesn’t change the importance of fair and consistent rules. 

[paxamericana]

1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said:

NAFTA is a trade agreement between three countries, nothing more.  Being in a trade relationship with a global power doesn’t change the importance of fair and consistent rules. 

Tell that to the dairy farmer and farming cartel of Canada. You are right though,

 

13 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

Trade will flow to the countries where it makes economic sense to do business, no matter what people might want or feel.

That is why its all flowing out of canada.

[Zeitgeist]

Canada is doing well, but thanks for the fear-mongering. 

[turningrite]

On 8/10/2018 at 7:01 PM, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

2)  Ontario/Canada are not world class examples of worker productivity.   In general, Canada has invested far less in automation, research, and development.

 

You've fallen into the trap of confusing the general with the specific. Canada's overall productivity performance lags Western standards largely as a result of our reliance on resource-dependent industries which often can't as easily adopt new technologies as can industries in other sectors. Canada's auto manufacturing productivity, however, ranks as high as other jurisdictions and in some aspects may be superior. Below is a link to an article in BNN Bloomberg about this.

https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/canadian-auto-plants-are-the-most-productive-globally-linamar-ceo-1.543903