Would you support a referendum on unilateral free trade?

[-1=e^ipi]

22 hours ago, Machjo said:

So by the same logic, a country may reciprocate to unilateral free trade by either dropping or at least reducing its own tariffs against the unilaterally free-trading country, no?

Yes, but the incentive structure you create by unilaterally imposing free trade is such that the other country does not have an incentive to have free trade. Rather it is preferable for that country to have mostly free trade but with some tariffs so that foreigners partially pay for that country's tax base rather than having 100% of that country's tax burden on citizens.

[Machjo]

3 hours ago, -1=e^ipi said:

Yes, but the incentive structure you create by unilaterally imposing free trade is such that the other country does not have an incentive to have free trade. Rather it is preferable for that country to have mostly free trade but with some tariffs so that foreigners partially pay for that country's tax base rather than having 100% of that country's tax burden on citizens.

No Canadian business will sell a product to US consumers at a loss. If the US raises tariffs, then the Canadian business will either stop selling to the US or pass the cost on to its US consumers. so in the end, it's really US citizens who'll pay for it.

The Canadian business is free to sell just in Canada if it wants to.

[-1=e^ipi]

20 hours ago, Machjo said:

or pass the cost on to its US consumers. so in the end, it's really US citizens who'll pay for it.

The demand functions of US consumers are not perfectly inelastic.

[BuzzKillington]

I got quite a laugh when Christy Freeland said "Trump has enacted ILLEGAL tariffs!"

And now we must do the same!

Well Christy, if they're "ILLEGAL" then why are you doing it?

Edited July 21, 2018 by BuzzKillington

[Machjo]

2 hours ago, BuzzKillington said:

I got quite a laugh when Christy Freeland said "Trump has enacted ILLEGAL tariffs!"

And now we must do the same!

Well Christy, if they're "ILLEGAL" then why are you doing it?

Technically Canada's aren't illegal since the WTO does allow for a country to retaliate proportionately. Economically though, retaliation didn't make any sense. Politically on the other hand, seeing how Trump's tariffs angered so many Canadians, I guess it was inevitable that the ruling party would need to retaliate to appease the angry voters even at the expense of the economy. Gotta love democracy, eh!

[August1991]

On 7/20/2018 at 6:59 PM, -1=e^ipi said:

The demand functions of US consumers are not perfectly inelastic.

I'm a foreigner. But I believe in America.

In many ways, Americans are carrying the heavy weight of being American.

As a Canadian, I enjoy all the privileges of being American without having to pay the cost of being American. 

[paxamericana]

Put it this way Canada, your entire economy is slightly smaller than my home state of Texas. Whether you adopt free trade is of no major consequence to the US. Same goes for mexico . 

[Michael Hardner]

24 minutes ago, paxamericana said:

Put it this way Canada, your entire economy is slightly smaller than my home state of Texas. Whether you adopt free trade is of no major consequence to the US. Same goes for mexico . 

'No major consequence' to the US overall but likely of major consequence to individual players.  For example GM.  Do you think GM may have more influence over the government than a state that has been in the bag for Republicans for 30 years ?

[paxamericana]

6 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

'No major consequence' to the US overall but likely of major consequence to individual players.  For example GM.  Do you think GM may have more influence over the government than a state that has been in the bag for Republicans for 30 years ?

I know GM has invested heavily in the state of Texas which tells me they plan on pulling out of Canada. The question then becomes are you willing to loose a core Canadian export over spilled milk(major pun intended)?

"GM bringing 600 jobs to Texas from abroad"

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/business/autos/general-motors/2017/06/16/gm-supplier-park/102926016/

Edited July 26, 2018 by paxamericana

[Michael Hardner]

1 minute ago, paxamericana said:

1) I know GM has invested heavily in the state of Texas which tells me they plan on pulling out of Canada.

2) The question then becomes are you willing to loose a core Canadian export over spilled milk(major pun intended)?

1) Cite.

2) I think we gave up supply management on cheese.  Even Canadians don't want it.  The sunset clause and having Trumpites change the rules every five years is just stupid.  Now Canada and Mexico are asking for a NAFTA deal again...

[paxamericana]

13 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

The sunset clause and having Trumpites change the rules every five years is just stupid

1) see above

2) Ah so this gets to the heart of the matter, Canada does not want to be "bullied" around by the US.

Canada, you're just going to have to deal with it. Canada has lost its only "trump" card (even more pun intended)  last time we negotiated NAFTA; when Canada's energy reserve were of significance. Now, it is no longer the case. 

[Michael Hardner]

11 minutes ago, paxamericana said:

1) see above

2) Ah so this gets to the heart of the matter, Canada does not want to be "bullied" around by the US.

Canada, you're just going to have to deal with it. Canada has lost its only "trump" card (even more pun intended)  last time we negotiated NAFTA; when Canada's energy reserve were of significance. Now, it is no longer the case. 

1) Them hiring 600 people in Texas means they are axing 10,000s of jobs in Canada.  Okaaaay...  You have no evidence except a Trumpian optimism.

2) Canada's energy companies, manufacturing companies are American-owned to a large degree.  So when you hurt Canada you hurt America.  5-year deals aren't long enough to warrant investment.

[paxamericana]

11 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1) Them hiring 600 people in Texas means they are axing 10,000s of jobs in Canada.  Okaaaay...  You have no evidence except a Trumpian optimism.

2) Canada's energy companies, manufacturing companies are American-owned to a large degree.  So when you hurt Canada you hurt America.  5-year deals aren't long enough to warrant investment.

1) Texans are more productive than Canadians? 

2) That just means they get to invest it else where in America. At least that way part of their proceeds won't get sapped into Canadian welfare. Sounds like we're doing ourselves a favor. 

Edited July 26, 2018 by paxamericana

[August1991]

2 hours ago, paxamericana said:

Put it this way Canada, your entire economy is slightly smaller than my home state of Texas. Whether you adopt free trade is of no major consequence to the US. Same goes for mexico . 

You don't understand "Texas" or the "US" - let alone "Canada".

=======

As a Canadian, taxpayers in Texas (the US) protect me. I'm a free rider. Bonne vie !

 

[paxamericana]

1 hour ago, August1991 said:

You don't understand "Texas" or the "US" - let alone "Canada".

=======

As a Canadian, taxpayers in Texas (the US) protect me. I'm a free rider. Bonne vie !

 

Oh mon Dieu, a Canadian who actually admits to their dependence on America. This is like the equivalence to a Canadian unicorn. 

[bush_cheney2004]

8 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

2) Canada's energy companies, manufacturing companies are American-owned to a large degree.  So when you hurt Canada you hurt America.  5-year deals aren't long enough to warrant investment.

 

How much investment has/will Canadian corps make in America ?   Maybe build an auto/truck assembly plant in Texas ?

[Michael Hardner]

40 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

How much investment has/will Canadian corps make in America ?   Maybe build an auto/truck assembly plant in Texas ?

What is your point ?  You post at me as though we disagree often, but we really don't.  America has a large interest in Canada, and American interests will bring the end to the trade war.

[bush_cheney2004]

Just now, Michael Hardner said:

What is your point ?  You post at me as though we disagree often, but we really don't.  America has a large interest in Canada, and American interests will bring the end to the trade war.

 

It's not about you or me....being a vassal state of America has a political and economic price that some Canadians are not willing to pay...especially when Trump rubs their noses in it.   Such Canadian disdain is not new,  but Trump has made it more difficult to be the happy mouse in a relationship with a "rogue" elephant.

In the end, I think Canada fears life more without America than the current status quo.   Canada has no Plan B.

 

[Michael Hardner]

11 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

1) ...being a vassal state of America has a political and economic price that some Canadians are not willing to pay...especially when Trump rubs their noses in it.  

2) Such Canadian disdain is not new,  but Trump has made it more difficult to be the happy mouse in a relationship with a "rogue" elephant.

3) In the end, I think Canada fears life more without America than the current status quo.  

4) Canada has no Plan B.

 

1) I'm trying to figure out if your metaphor is apt or not.  You see - the vassals aren't being taxed it's the Lords.... who are American.

2) It's hard to punish those who express disdain when they have almost no power.  

3) Of course we do.  So far you haven't posted anything I disagree with.

4) Moving ?

[OftenWrong]

21 hours ago, paxamericana said:

Oh mon Dieu

Pretty good french, Texan.

[paxamericana]

24 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

Pretty good french, Texan.

Dr. Google taught me well. 

[Machjo]

'Using a general equilibrium model, this paper explores the potential benefits of unilateral free trade for Canada. On the one hand, eliminating all tariffs would cost the federal government roughly $4 billion a year in revenue. Offsetting that, there would be some savings for government on the $75 million currently budgeted for collection of border taxes and the management of free trade agreements. More importantly, this paper projects output gains on the order of one per cent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) – approximately $20 billion a year based on the level of GDP in 2013 – in additional economic activity due to the cost savings to firms engaged in trade.'

http://www.ceocouncil.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Should-Canada-unilaterally-adopt-free-trade-Ciuriak-and-Xiao-May-20141.pdf

 

Gotta love economists.

[Machjo]

Supporters of unilateral free trade might find common ground with Bernier.