NAFTA negotiations.

[bush_cheney2004]

1 hour ago, turningrite said:

I'm glad you're conceding by means of admitting that it's not your purpose to explain. Presumably, your purpose is merely to express your opinions, which you have done. In any case, it's your prerogative but we now know this argument is at an end and you're position has lost.

 

Ummm....no...it is labour productivity in Canada/Ontario that has lost.

 

Quote

How Ontario lost 300,000 manufacturing jobs (and why most aren’t coming back)

Automation, globalization, exchange rates, and low productivity help explain why manufacturing employment has dropped from 15.8% to 10.3% of Ontario’s workforce.

https://mowatcentre.ca/how-ontario-lost-300000-manufacturing-jobs/

 

Edited August 14, 2018 by bush_cheney2004

[Zeitgeist]

As mentioned before, productivity is only one consideration and it varies by sector.  Most of the reasons given in that article as to why manufacturing has taken a hit in Canada apply also to the loss of manufacturing jobs in the U.S..  As for the impact of exchange rates, right now the Canadian dollar is low, which helps our exports overall, though it does raise the cost of some of the materials we use for manufacturing, especially since commodities are priced in U.S. dollars.

 A few years ago the Canadian dollar was worth more than the U.S. dollar, which pressured exports.  The value of having our own currency and Bank of Canada is that we can set our own monetary policy to meet our country’s unique needs, just as the U.S. does. 

[bush_cheney2004]

48 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

As mentioned before, productivity is only one consideration and it varies by sector.  Most of the reasons given in that article as to why manufacturing has taken a hit in Canada apply also to the loss of manufacturing jobs in the U.S..  As for the impact of exchange rates, right now the Canadian dollar is low, which helps our exports overall, though it does raise the cost of some of the materials we use for manufacturing, especially since commodities are priced in U.S. dollars.

 

Nevertheless, productivity in Canada is less competitive than measured peers, and it is not getting better anytime soon:

 

Quote

...Despite broad consensus that Canadian productivity needs to be improved, the gap with the U.S. has widened in most provinces over the past few decades. This suggests that most provinces simply are not keeping up with the U.S. and other international peers on innovation and other measures to improve productivity.

https://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/provincial/innovation/labour.aspx?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1

 

[Zeitgeist]

Canada is a very large country many with resources but a small population.  If you can find data comparing Canada with countries that have very similar characteristics, that would be more telling.  As mentioned before, certain types of productivity in certain industries are important, but in some industries productivity is not as important to the success of the business.  Some types of productivity don't relate to innovation at all, such as sweatshop productivity.  Productivity tends to increase with competition.  If you're a supplier of a rare earth commodity, you might not have much competition.  Increasing productivity has been a challenge in Canada.  Different countries have different challenges (for example, the U.S. has security and gun violence challenges).  Opening up markets and increasing trade tends to add competition instead of reducing it.  Consumers have more choices; businesses have to have competitive prices and products.  Protectionist policies tend to protect uncompetitive industries, so think about whether increased trade barriers are the way to go.  I said before that China stagnated after the Great Wall was completed.

[bush_cheney2004]

4 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

Canada is a very large country many with resources but a small population. 

 

I have already discussed why Canada lacks the domestic capabilities to extract such resources on a continental scale with a smaller population.   Without foreign direct investment, it would not be possible, as Canada lacks sufficient domestic capital and market size.   Accordingly, Canada is far more dependent on export trade than the United States, specifically the U.S. market (85% of exports).

There was a great wall to trade before FTA/NAFTA, in the way of tariff and non-tariff barriers.   Many U.S. owned corps set up shop in Canada to beat the tariffs and increase access to Canadian/Commonwealth markets (e.g. EMD London).   There is a reason so many American owned subsidiaries have "Canada" at the end of their name.

[Zeitgeist]

I don’t know what point you’re trying to make.  The U.S. is a bigger economy with more investment money at its disposal than Canada.  So what?  There are many Canadian investors as well doing business in many countries.  We discovered a long time ago that many Canadian success stories would be bought out by foreign investors when they reached a certain size.  Some argue that we should prevent foreign investment, especially in certain key industries.  Others invite more of it.  Usually the conservatives take the latter position.  Canadian ownership sounds better, but as long as most of the jobs and taxes accrue to Canada, if royalties are collected, then ownership isn’t so important, especially if it makes important projects more viable.  I would argue that energy should have more government ownership.  Others would disagree.  

Yes there were more trade walls in the past, but I don’t think those were better days for most countries, including the U.S. and Canada.  You’re welcome to go back there, but Canada won’t. 

Edited August 16, 2018 by Zeitgeist

[bush_cheney2004]

President Trump rattles Canada's cage on NAFTA negotiations with Mexico sans Team Trudeau....they will just have to wait on the U.S. and Mexico.

 

Quote

...Canadian officials have insisted they’re unfazed by being left out of the discussions because it’s allowing the United States and Mexico to sort out tough bilateral issues, such as their differences on autos. They’ve stressed there have been a lot of one-on-one talks during NAFTA’s renegotiation process.

But some observers have refused to buy that argument. They’ve said Ottawa’s partners have frozen it out of the critical NAFTA negotiations as a tactic and have warned that Canada could eventually be forced into accepting a deal reached between the United States and Mexico.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-trump-suggests-canada-has-been-sidelined-from-latest-nafta/

 

 

 

[Zeitgeist]

Canada should post-pone negotiations as long as possible.  Trump will lose support at the mid-terms and the counter-tariffs against the U.S. from multiple countries will start to really bite.  Canada doesn't have to accept a deal under a "Deal or No Deal" scenario.  If the U.S. and Mexico come to Canada and say, "Accept the terms or no deal," the answer is simple: "No deal."  If it's a tripartite agreement, then all parties must be at the table.  If the U.S. wants to go bilateral, that's fine, but that doesn't mean more concessions for the U.S..

[bush_cheney2004]

59 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Canada should post-pone negotiations as long as possible.

 

Canada is not even invited to current negotiations....left sitting on the sideline.

If the USA and Mexico are hammering out a new NAFTA auto deal, Canada would be last to consider as it produces the least amount of vehicles in North America:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/204240/us-and-canada-and-mexico-vehicle-production/

Mexico surpassed Canada in 2013.

[Zeitgeist]

That makes no difference.  Some of Mexico's gains in the past have been both the U.S.'s and Canada's loss. The U.S. doesn't control the negotiations.  If they do or think they do, as the Mexicans are probably discovering, then those are sham negotiations and we want no part of it. 

[bush_cheney2004]

1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said:

That makes no difference. 

 

Agreed...if present non-competitive conditions continue, Canada/Ontario will continue to lose share in N.A. vehicle assembly anyway, irrespective of NAFTA.

[Zeitgeist]

If the market remains free the way that freedom loving people will always demand, I’m confident in Canada’s ability to remain competitive.  

[bush_cheney2004]

8 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

If the market remains free the way that freedom loving people will always demand, I’m confident in Canada’s ability to remain competitive.  

 

Freedom loving people can choose not to join a union...less so in Canada.   Ontario has lost many thousands of auto sector jobs under the existing NAFTA protocol, and will likely lose more with changes or leaving a "bad deal".

 

[paxamericana]

16 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

Canada should post-pone negotiations as long as possible.  Trump will lose support at the mid-terms and the counter-tariffs against the U.S. from multiple countries will start to really bite.  Canada doesn't have to accept a deal under a "Deal or No Deal" scenario.  If the U.S. and Mexico come to Canada and say, "Accept the terms or no deal," the answer is simple: "No deal."  If it's a tripartite agreement, then all parties must be at the table.  If the U.S. wants to go bilateral, that's fine, but that doesn't mean more concessions for the U.S..

Pipe dream. As we tried to explain, tariff hurt the rest of the world a lot more than it hurt us. International trade is only roughly 20 percent of our gdp. And most of that is import not export! America to the rest of the world: get over your self.

Edited August 18, 2018 by paxamericana

[Army Guy]

17 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

Canada should post-pone negotiations as long as possible.  Trump will lose support at the mid-terms and the counter-tariffs against the U.S. from multiple countries will start to really bite.  Canada doesn't have to accept a deal under a "Deal or No Deal" scenario.  If the U.S. and Mexico come to Canada and say, "Accept the terms or no deal," the answer is simple: "No deal."  If it's a tripartite agreement, then all parties must be at the table.  If the U.S. wants to go bilateral, that's fine, but that doesn't mean more concessions for the U.S..

What is it that Canada has absolutely have to say no to, what is it that we have to risk everything for  ? The US has asked for no tariffs , if they reciprocate how could that be a bad thing....I'm all for paying less for dairy, and many other products that Canada has inflated the price on for taxation purpose or to preserve some failing industry....SO ya post pone it until the election....make it a platform that all parties can run on , and destroy the liberals that could not seem to solve this complex issue....

[Zeitgeist]

We need to keep our Canadian farming.  The U.S.’s subsidized big agri would wipe out Canadian agriculture without some kind of protection. Growing food locally is food security and better for the environment than shipping long distances.  Maybe there are reasonable solutions to meet the needs on both sides.  It seems like both sides are close.

[paxamericana]

47 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

We need to keep our Canadian farming.  The U.S.’s subsidized big agri would wipe out Canadian agriculture without some kind of protection. Growing food locally is food security and better for the environment than shipping long distances.  Maybe there are reasonable solutions to meet the needs on both sides.  It seems like both sides are close.

Or you could just buy it from us in america for a lot cheaper... you know where our warmer climate is more efficient for growing...a natural comparative advantage that canada artificially tried to subsidized through trade barrier and supply management at the cost of canadians like your self. Growing food locally is a relative word. My salad comes from the fields of mexico.

[Zeitgeist]

Canada has much arable land in the south, especially places like the prairies, western Ontario, BC’s Okanagan Valley and PEI.  If the U.S. dropped its farm subsidies, the economics of farming would be similar to ours.  You see there are protections on both sides.  Don’t kid yourself.  Those U.S. farm subsidies probably aren’t going anywhere.  So why should we drop our policy if the U.S. won’t?  We also buy from Mexico, South America, the U.S. and Europe the fruit and vegetables that our climate won’t support. If a place like PEI didn’t have farming, that province’s economy would collapse.  Not everything is about providing cheap goods for consumers, or else we’d all by every good from Southeast Asia.  No one would have a job but consumer goods would be dirt cheap.  We have to recognize that not everything is up for grabs in a trade agreement.  Otherwise there’s no value in such agreements. 

Edited August 19, 2018 by Zeitgeist

[Wilber]

9 hours ago, paxamericana said:

Or you could just buy it from us in america for a lot cheaper... you know where our warmer climate is more efficient for growing...a natural comparative advantage that canada artificially tried to subsidized through trade barrier and supply management at the cost of canadians like your self. Growing food locally is a relative word. My salad comes from the fields of mexico.

So why does the US Federal government shell out over 25 billion a year in farm assistance? If the ability to produce steel and aluminium is a matter of national security, a country's ability to produce food surely is.

Supply management is a user pay system that does not require government subsidies. 

[paxamericana]

1 hour ago, Wilber said:

So why does the US Federal government shell out over 25 billion a year in farm assistance? If the ability to produce steel and aluminium is a matter of national security, a country's ability to produce food surely is.

Supply management is a user pay system that does not require government subsidies. 

And yet trump was the one who offered, zero tariff, zero non tariff barriers ie supply management and zero subsidies. So why did canada reject free trade?  Food is a matter of national security to who, the agriculture cartel of canada? Is there such a thing as national security interest of canada? I mean they are located next to the most powerful nation on earth. 

Edited August 19, 2018 by paxamericana

[Wilber]

11 minutes ago, paxamericana said:

And yet trump was the one who offered, zero tariff, zero non tariff barriers ie supply management and zero subsidies. So why did canada reject free trade?  Food is a matter of national security to who, the agriculture cartel of canada? Is there such a thing as national security interest of canada? I mean they are located next to the most powerful nation on earth. 

 You don't eat, you starve. If you are completely dependent on other countries for food, that is a matter of national security.  Ask the Brits, they would have starved and lost the war if the Battle of the Atlantic had been lost. If you think Canadians are comfortable about having to rely on the US for anything these days, you are dreaming. 

I think you should look at the list of tariffs the US has on agricultural products before you accuse us of rejecting free trade.

I don't think Trump can deliver on zero subsidies, the agriculture lobby is too strong. Dairy accounts for less than 2.5% of agriculture trade between us and we already buy four times as much from you than you buy from us.. Frankly, I think he is full of shit, like when he blames Canada for California fires. The man is supremely ignorant and a patent liar.

The US already has a trade surplus in agriculture with Canada including a 400% surplus in dairy. 10% of Canada's dairy market is open to foreign competition, the US only allows foreign access to 3% of its dairy market.

[bush_cheney2004]

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

[paxamericana]

1 hour ago, Wilber said:

 You don't eat, you starve. If you are completely dependent on other countries for food, that is a matter of national security.  Ask the Brits, they would have starved and lost the war if the Battle of the Atlantic had been lost. If you think Canadians are comfortable about having to rely on the US for anything these days, you are dreaming. 

I think you should look at the list of tariffs the US has on agricultural products before you accuse us of rejecting free trade.

I don't think Trump can deliver on zero subsidies, the agriculture lobby is too strong. Dairy accounts for less than 2.5% of agriculture trade between us and we already buy four times as much from you than you buy from us.. Frankly, I think he is full of shit, like when he blames Canada for California fires. The man is supremely ignorant and a patent liar.

The US already has a trade surplus in agriculture with Canada including a 400% surplus in dairy. 10% of Canada's dairy market is open to foreign competition, the US only allows foreign access to 3% of its dairy market.

Which is why canada should take trump's generous offer on free trade. He's offering to remove all barriers. You haven't address the question. Why don't canada accept this free trade offer. It benefits BOTH parties. As for national security, are you joking that's "insulting and unacceptable."-Trudeau .Is this the 1940s and germany is invading canada? Your neighbor is the most powerful country on earth. You think there is someone around willing to do a embargo or blockade food to canada. 

[Wilber]

2 hours ago, paxamericana said:

Which is why canada should take trump's generous offer on free trade. He's offering to remove all barriers. You haven't address the question. Why don't canada accept this free trade offer. It benefits BOTH parties. As for national security, are you joking that's "insulting and unacceptable."-Trudeau .Is this the 1940s and germany is invading canada? Your neighbor is the most powerful country on earth. You think there is someone around willing to do a embargo or blockade food to canada. 

If Trump is so much into free trade, why is he imposing tariffs right and left?  I don't give a crap if you think it is insulting and unacceptable. Your Agent Orange distributes insults on a daily basis.

On edit

We shouldn’t be insulted when Agent Orange designates our steel and aluminum to be a threat to your national security but you find it insulting and unacceptable if we want to feed ourselves. Give me a friggin break.

 

 

 

 

Edited August 19, 2018 by Wilber

[Zeitgeist]

The U.S. farm lobby has embedded interests.  Trump can tweet that he’s offering zero trade barriers, but it’s just a statement.  He would have to get through many hurdles within his own branches of government, departments, and interest groups to make that possible.  What’s more, it probably isn’t in the interests of U.S. trade or agriculture to dismantle all of the supports.  It’s like a ‘Just say no’ approach to trade barriers, laughably simplistic and out of step with what experts are advising.  

Someone on here said there’s no cultural difference between Canada and the U.S. apart from Quebec.  That’s the crux of the problem in these discussions.  Interlocutors don’t understand the complexity of what is being disputed in trade.  French Acadia in the Maritime provinces is different from Quebec.  Newfoundland is vastly different from Ontario or even Nova Scotia.  The indigenous groups vary widely east to west and especially compared to the far north.  Trade experts in both Canada and the U.S. know what’s at stake.  In a small country like Canada, we have to work to preserve our First Nations, francophone, and other cultures.  We value them. Agriculture isn’t something we’re just going to scrap to save a little on milk.  In fact, milk, meat, and produce cost roughly  the same in New York as in Ontario.  There’s simply no favourable argument for giving up our culture and industries.  

Focus on a fair trade agreement in the areas where we can establish agreement.  This is how it’s done.  Trump and some other commentators throw out selective data to get a reaction, but all this does is erode trust.  We want to carve out a fair deal, but Canadians and to some extent the rest of the world have been given ample reasons for cynicism.  It’s not too late to turn this around, but we need honest arguments, good faith, and fair negotiations.