NAFTA negotiations.

[Zeitgeist]

If NAFTA “collapses” we simply revert to the old rules plus any additional costs Trump decides to add to trade, impacting both countries after counter tariffs.  Trade wars are so old worldy and predictable. 

[scribblet]

Trudeau said he wouldn't be pushed around, well he has been and they did a deal behind his back.

According to what I've read, Mexico and the U.S. have been negotiating for weeks without Canada at the table.  Mexico's foreign minister is reported to have been to the White House 45 times and to Jared Kushner's home around 10 time.

Apparently Canada's negotiating team are is heading back to NAFTA table in Washington .

 

[bush_cheney2004]

55 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

 No country would ever put counter-tariffs on the U.S..

 

The U.S. has already experienced many tariffs by other countries for decades....including Canada.   Trump just upped the game that was already going on.

[bush_cheney2004]

Trudeau is trying his best to put a positive spin on playing catch-up to Mexico and the U.S. on NAFTA, realizing that if he screws this up, the Liberals are toast in the 2019 election.

I'm sure Canada's Sunshine Band will say this is how they planned it all along to get "progressive" values, and Freeland is a trade genius as she goes begging on the DC Beltway.

 

 

 

[SpankyMcFarland]

Hard to believe but...Trump’s friends in the US dairy industry hire an awful lot of immigrant workers and many of them are undocumented.

https://lacrossetribune.com/news/local/immigrants-are-backbone-of-wisconsin-s-dairy-operations/article_7acae07a-ed29-557c-84f0-c4465de00e5f.html

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2018/08/24/iowa-murder-casts-spotlight-farms-hiring-undocumented-immigrants/1075320002/

So Canadian farmers are expected to compete against illegal workers in the US. Maybe enforcing US law might be an easier way to solve this particular problem than building a wall? I would expect to see the promise of action on this matter rather than any actual things being done. 

 

 

Edited August 29, 2018 by SpankyMcFarland

[paxamericana]

The voice of doom i er mean wilbur ross on trade with Canada. 

ds

[betsy]

Freeland says Mexico gave a big concession.  And that Canada is encouraged by the deal between Mexico and USA.

 

Well.....that was Mexico.   The question is, what big concession is Canada willing to give? 

  Trump is eye-balling supply management.  Trudeau says there's no change in his position with supply management.  Trudeau also allegedly brushed aside the threat on auto tarriffs.

 

I suppose we'll see what happens on Friday.

Edited August 29, 2018 by betsy

[Queenmandy85]

I always follow Frank Howard's lesson. Howard was an MP who called a news conference to announce he was being blackmailed. He said he had been convicted of car theft when he was a teenager and spent time in jail. Rather than give in the the blackmailer to keep it secret, he broadcast the event himself. Never give in to blackmail or bullying. 

The US is not blackmailing or bullying Canada. It is merely using it's size to persuade Canada to accept a deal that puts Canada at a disadvantage. The problem is, if Canada accepts, the US is more likely to go for more and more. It is better to take the hit now than than a lot more hits later. It is a policy that has served Israel for decades. In the long run, it will be better for both countries. 

Frank Howard was re-elected with a larger vote total in the next election.

Edited August 29, 2018 by Queenmandy85

[cannuck]

many successive US governments have left the US market open to be raped and pillaged by Europe, Asia and CANADA for decades.   It can't survive on an economy predicated on consuming and speculative trading/investment, it has to go back to work.  It won't be able to do that until it stems the flow of garbage into the consumer AND industrial world that now comes from Asia in particular.

Canada has the weakest administration it may every have suffered at the helm, so we can expect to have our collective ass handed to us by the Yanks.

We will survive, and if we are smart (since if you look at what we elected as a government and its leaders - we clearly are not) we will get on with business and develop some more trading partners to plunder our resources, since we - as an economy integrated with the US - don't produce much of anything except cars and car parts for the Americans.

It is high time we open our eyes and put OUR own house in order.   Kudos to Trump for looking after his.

[SpankyMcFarland]

At least 685,000 illegal workers in the US agricultural sector and all manner of subsidies encouraging the export of excess product. I can smell the hypocrisy from here. 

One concession I would like to see - upping our duty-free threshold, one of the lowest in the world.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/de-minimis-free-trade-1.4801881

 

 

[Zeitgeist]

2 hours ago, cannuck said:

many successive US governments have left the US market open to be raped and pillaged by Europe, Asia and CANADA for decades.   It can't survive on an economy predicated on consuming and speculative trading/investment, it has to go back to work.  It won't be able to do that until it stems the flow of garbage into the consumer AND industrial world that now comes from Asia in particular.

Canada has the weakest administration it may every have suffered at the helm, so we can expect to have our collective ass handed to us by the Yanks.

We will survive, and if we are smart (since if you look at what we elected as a government and its leaders - we clearly are not) we will get on with business and develop some more trading partners to plunder our resources, since we - as an economy integrated with the US - don't produce much of anything except cars and car parts for the Americans.

It is high time we open our eyes and put OUR own house in order.   Kudos to Trump for looking after his.

 

Another fake Canadian 

[OftenWrong]

Remember when we were told that "Canada will not enter into bi-lateral negotiations", and that Mexico had promised Canada to do likewise? This government believed that bullshit. Of course, Mexico has forged ahead. They were looking for the best deal they could get, for their own interests.

The concessions that Mexicans made now impact directly on Canada's trade negotiations.

Freeland in 'extremely intense' NAFTA negotiations as Trump officials issue threats

Canada is particularly concerned with how Chapter 19 of the original NAFTA — the dispute settlement mechanism that can be used to challenge anti-dumping and countervailing duty cases, like what has been used by Canada in past on the softwood lumber file — has been renegotiated by the U.S. and Mexico. Chapter 19 has been a do-or-die issue for Canada as it is often relied on to fight punitive duties. Lighthizer, who is leading the U.S. negotiations, has long opposed this chapter as he believes it's in violation of U.S. sovereignty.

 

Go Freeland Go! Go Freeland...   

Sorry, but I can't say I have loads of confidence...

[bush_cheney2004]

1 hour ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

At least 685,000 illegal workers in the US agricultural sector and all manner of subsidies encouraging the export of excess product. I can smell the hypocrisy from here.

 

There are illegals from many nations (including Canada) working in many U.S. business sectors, even domestic housekeepers and nannies.    Others come for the social welfare state and public education system.   The economic incentives are stronger than the penalties for employers and illegal immigrants. 

[Queenmandy85]

What it comes down to is does the United States want to do business with Canada or not. If not, there are consequences for workers in both countries. No deal is temporary, a bad deal is forever, for both countries.

[paxamericana]

33 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

What it comes down to is does the United States want to do business with Canada or not. If not, there are consequences for workers in both countries. No deal is temporary, a bad deal is forever, for both countries.

No what it comes down to is does Canada want to do free trade or continue on with protectionist trade. If protectionist trade is Canada's long term goal then a trade deal with the world's largest freemarket economy will not be possible. 

[paxamericana]

3 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

 

Another fake Canadian 

Hurting other american i er mean canadian interest is un-canadian. So you sir are the "fake canadian". 

[bush_cheney2004]

1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

What it comes down to is does the United States want to do business with Canada or not. If not, there are consequences for workers in both countries. No deal is temporary, a bad deal is forever, for both countries.

 

The history of CanAm trade relations is full of far more dramatic outcomes...this too will pass.   Such conflict and competition is normal and to be expected.   The trucks and trains will still be rolling across the border.

 

[cannuck]

1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

What it comes down to is does the United States want to do business with Canada or not. If not, there are consequences for workers in both countries. No deal is temporary, a bad deal is forever, for both countries.

I would definitely say that the US is more protective than Canada, since to have same impact, one must realize 1/10 measure of US protection = one full measure of Canadian.  Any country that pays direct ag subsidies of about 3/4 the total Canadian Gross Domestic ag productiion is playing it dirty and dumb.  As long as there are more than 1,000 people living INSIDE of the Beltway who receive direct ag subsidy cheques greater than $1mm (that EACH !!) that is one issue that will not be dealt with.

The veracity of clause 19 is that EVERY time the ultra-protectionist forces within the US try to slap duties on Canadian softwood, when it goes for arbitration, they are proven to be wrong in every way.   

What is  VERY different between Canada and the US in trade (and so many other things) is that we actually play by the rules.   Remember BSE ("Mad Cow" disease)??  CFIA actually looked for it, found it, documented and announced it - costing us some extremely valuable beef export customers.  The reason it did not surface in the USA (our problem CAME from US sourced feed) was because nobody was looking for it, and when it popped up it was conveniently ignored.  That is bare faced protectionism at its best - and we simply don't do that.

[bush_cheney2004]

15 minutes ago, cannuck said:

.... That is bare faced protectionism at its best - and we simply don't do that.

 

There is plenty of bare-faced protectionism by Canada (tariffs and non-tariff barriers), often justified as "cultural protection" instead. 

Banking, telcom, dairy, poultry, CanCon, health insurance, etc., all plain to see.

Edited August 29, 2018 by bush_cheney2004

[cannuck]

7 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

There is plenty of bare-faced protectionism by Canada (tariffs and non-tariff barriers), often justified as "cultural protection" instead. 

Banking, telcom, dairy, poultry, CanCon, health insurance, etc., all plain to see.

Banking is done very differently here from the US.   We don't give them control and ownership of our central bank, nor does ANY other sovereign nation.  We are protecting ourselves from unbridled greed and avorice at its worst.   It's another "play by the rules" issue.  If you know any Basel II and III compliance consultants from the risk management side of banking, they could write books about how reckless and uncontrolled US banking is.  It is the one thing that will take down the country (yours, and then sadly ours as well).

Health (actually sick care) insurance is another.   The US is unable to tell the difference between business and social services (such as universal sick care insurance), leaving Canada with a split system somewhere between the rest of the old G7 and our whackey buds to the South.  We certainly need to protect the small portion of it we DO do right.

The others I will give you, and support you on to the bitter end.   BUT:  we do so strictly under the rules.  You should try it some time.

[bush_cheney2004]

2 minutes ago, cannuck said:

Banking is done very differently here from the US.   We don't give them control and ownership of our central bank, nor does ANY other sovereign nation.  We are protecting ourselves from unbridled greed and avorice at its worst.   It's another "play by the rules" issue. 

 

So what ?    Canadian banks are permitted to operate in the USA, so I am sure that American banks could learn how to make less money with Canadian rules.   The point is that American banks are excluded with barriers.

 

Quote

Health (actually sick care) insurance is another.   The US is unable to tell the difference between business and social services (such as universal sick care insurance), leaving Canada with a split system somewhere between the rest of the old G7 and our whackey buds to the South.  We certainly need to protect the small portion of it we DO do right.

 

Again, so what ?   Health insurance is a risk mitigation product that should be available to those who wish to purchase it.   Canadians already buy other forms of insurance (dental, vision, life, property, etc), and buy health insurance for travel.   Thank you for admitting that it is straight up, bare-faced protectionism.

 

Quote

The others I will give you, and support you on to the bitter end.   BUT:  we do so strictly under the rules.  You should try it some time.

 

So let me get this straight....Canada is better because it is very protectionist with "rules" ?    Ummmmm.....OK.

[cannuck]

35 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

So what ?    Canadian banks are permitted to operate in the USA, so I am sure that American banks could learn how to make less money with Canadian rules.   The point is that American banks are excluded with barriers.

 

 

Again, so what ?   Health insurance is a risk mitigation product that should be available to those who wish to purchase it.   Canadians already buy other forms of insurance (dental, vision, life, property, etc), and buy health insurance for travel.   Thank you for admitting that it is straight up, bare-faced protectionism.

 

 

So let me get this straight....Canada is better because it is very protectionist with "rules" ?    Ummmmm.....OK.

And, as a result we have a healthy banking system - not one that raped the US taxpayer for TRILLION$$ in reward for their treachery.   Only a complete fool would allow US banks into their economy (awww SHIT, we HAVE a complete fool for a PM now).

Universal sick care insurance is a government supplied social service, NOT a competitive business in Canada.   In that way, we can get better medical outcomes at half of the price.   I believe there are no barriers to US firms providing supplemental sick care benefits in the competitive insurance market, but I am not sure about that.

Yes, better because we will actually follow the rules that we have either published and imposed, or agreed to bi-laterally or multi-laterally.  Again: reference the softwood lumber fiasco(s) and outcome of arbitration.

Edited August 29, 2018 by cannuck

[bush_cheney2004]

8 minutes ago, cannuck said:

And, as a result we have a healthy banking system - not one that raped the US taxpayer for BILLIONS in reward for their treachery.   Only a complete fool would allow US banks into their economy (awww SHIT, we HAVE a complete fool for a PM now).

 

...and bare-faced  protectionism.  There is no reason why U.S. banks can't operate in Canada under Canadian regulations...but for protectionism.

 

Quote

Universal sick care insurance is a government supplied social service, NOT a competitive business in Canada.   In that way, we can get better medical outcomes at half of the price.   I believe there are no barriers to US firms providing supplemental sick care benefits in the competitive insurance market, but I am not sure about that.

 

It is protectionism and a monopoly that has been successfully challenged in Quebec.   You get half the services too....hence long wait times.    A vibrant insurance market would provide more private capital for Canada's health care infrastructure.    Canadian Forces and RCMP members can get Blue Cross health insurance (Medavie).

 

Quote

Yes, better because we will actually follow the rules that we have either published and imposed, or agreed to bi-laterally or multi-laterally.  Again: reference the softwood lumber fiasco(s) and outcome of arbitration.

 

It is still bare-faced protectionism.   

 

 

 

Edited August 30, 2018 by bush_cheney2004

[cannuck]

BTW: on the issue of dairy supply management not being a "subsidy":  well, it is, as it mandates that the buyer pay a price set by the agencies to guarantee support for the farm gate price of dairy, poultry and eggs.   I BELIEVE that there is a direct subsidy mechanism, as when there is overproduction, it usually ends up being bought by the government sponsored agencies or departments and dumped on international markets at a substantial loss.

BTW:  the dairy tarrifs into Canada are there because the US subsidizes dairy farmers who in turn could dump their subsidized product into our market - just as they screw up the Mexican corn markets with subsidized US feed.

[cannuck]

7 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

There is no reason why U.S. banks can't operate in Canada under Canadian regulations...but for protectionism.

 

 

It is protectionism and a monopoly that has been successfully challenged in Quebec.   You get half the services too....hence long wait times.    A vibrant insurance market would provide more private capital for Canada's health care infrastructure.    Canadian Forces and RCMP members can get Blue Cross health insurance (Medavie).

 

 

It is still bare-faced protectionism.   

 

 

 

Were we stupid enough to allow the US bank/finance world free access to Canadians, we would have been cleaned out by the hundreds of billions in the mortgage scam business.   Damn good thing we are protecting our banking from reckless, unregulated orgy of greed.  Your banks can't play by the rules.  Come talk to us when you can.

What was challenged in Quebec was delivery of service by private providers - not universal sick care.   ANYONE can buy supplementary insurance, as sick care universal coverage is for necessary medical only, not electives, dental, vision, etc.  I have Blue Cross, as do most people I work with - as we travel extensively in the US and around the world.

It IS all bare faced protectionism as we suffer from sharing a marketplace with a giant that has even greater levels of trade distorting protectionism in tariffs, subsidies and non-trade barriers.  And, one that does not follow the rules.