What to do about China

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, cannuck said:

1) It is not only "worth" it, but required to restore our "direction" within the continuum. 
2) We are sliding into useless tit hell from our dependence on consumerism ...
3) and cheap shit from China. 
4) It is just that the borrowing power of governments can mask the decline from Joe Lunchbucket - who seems to be exactly as his white collar compatriots totally ignorant of just how much debt we have racked up both publicly and privately - and what could ultimately cost in the end.

1) What does that mean specifically ?  It doesn't sound like economics.
2) Again "dependence on consumerism" sounds like a moral/spiritual statement.  Trade is consumerism and the economy is built on trade.
3) What do you mean by "shit" ?  We trade with China, and sell them raw materials as a way of making a living.  We get a lot of things imported directly from there and via other countries including much of our manufactured goods, electronics and clothing.  When the US trade war happened, Chinese goods found their way to the US via other nations and the overall trade deficit didn't go down from what I read.  
4) Our debt (prior to the pandemic) seems to go up and down.   When the politics demands it - as in the early 2000s - Canada seems to be able to pay down.

I am glad to hear about plans to cut ourselves off from China, or Saudi Arabia, Iran and so forth but given the complexity of the topic and my relative unfamiliarity with the topic I think I need to start with someone with credentials and a pedagogical bent.  This article isn't deep but touches on some aspects of what could happen:

https://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/what-a-trade-war-with-china-would-do-to-canada/

Please have a look.  The numbers cited would bring some reality to what you're suggesting.  Western provinces, already hit by declines in oil production, would be devastated.   The result could politically push Canada into a far-left situation where industries are nationalized, governments self-finance via MMT, universal basic income, or other scenarios. 

To survive that, we would need unity on a scale not shared since WW2, so we would need a national focus and buy-in on what we were about to go through, otherwise endless elections and policy flip flops would flounder this plan.

Do you really think we're ready for that ?  We can't even get people to wear masks these days.

[cannuck]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

I am glad to hear about plans to cut ourselves off from China, or Saudi Arabia, Iran and so forth but given the complexity of the topic and my relative unfamiliarity with the topic I think I need to start with someone with credentials and a pedagogical bent.  This article isn't deep but touches on some aspects of what could happen:

https://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/what-a-trade-war-with-china-would-do-to-canada/

Please have a look.  The numbers cited would bring some reality to what you're suggesting.  Western provinces, already hit by declines in oil production, would be devastated.   The result could politically push Canada into a far-left situation where industries are nationalized, governments self-finance via MMT, universal basic income, or other scenarios. 

To survive that, we would need unity on a scale not shared since WW2, so we would need a national focus and buy-in on what we were about to go through, otherwise endless elections and policy flip flops would flounder this plan.

Do you really think we're ready for that ?  We can't even get people to wear masks these days.

First of all, GOOD article from MacLean's - not somewhere I would expect.

1)  Must apologize for the cryptic response, had to move equipment early this morning, so was rushing through things.  By this, I mean the direction our economy is taking.   B the end of WWII, we had hoisted ourselves by the bootstraps from being a "hewer of wood and drawer of water" to an integrated economy that could and DID add value to our resources domestically to meet our own needs and sell into the export market.  Yes, a significant part of that was dominated by US products coming in, but that also included a significant proportion of value added processing that was unfortunately "branch plant" of US entities.   An example: the auto trade at the start of NAFTA period was 70% of Ontario's entire business economy and that was 90% of Canada's value added capacity - so 60-odd% of our value added processing was with the US - but in a trade relationship where we actually did more v/a export than import with them.

As I must repeat ad infinitum, you can only create wealth by adding value to a resource or delivering an essential service in support of that function.  Our economy has been sliding down the shitter in value added processing for decades, and that has been displaced by goods from China.   What is WRONG with those goods is that they not only displace a current Canadian value added function, but they tend to be absolute garbage that will be replaced over, and over, and over vs. the lifetime of a quality product that we once might have made.  Waste makes economists happy as they can measure an increase in economic activity, but it makes me very unhappy as it is nothing more than that: waste.

2) trade is much more than consumerism.  It is - or SHOULD be - about who benefits from what, and at what cost to the trading partner.  Trade for Canada is sliding from a place where we had the jobs, skills and infrastructure to produce high value added products to a position where we are mindless consumers of piss poor quality shit, and we eat that shit by paying for it with our FINITE supply of natural resources.  What we have exported to China is not just our wheat, barely, canola, coal and other minerals, but our work ethic, skills, infrastructure and expertise.  That may make an economist grin with delight as he/she can measure a bunch of economic activity, but it just pisses me off as a Canadian at how incredibly naive and ignorant we can be (and thus 3).

 

4) Yes this is a political forum, but debt comes from far more places than just government.  BUT: it has to be serviced from one single economy, and tht economy is no longer very productive, it is largely speculative (that is inflationary).  A good example: Chinese (and other ) immigration has pushed real estate prices in major centers to dizzying heights.  The only productive part of real estate is building something that is required.  Merely inflating its value, once again puts a smile on an economist's face because you have some growing numbers.  It shouldn't make anyone happy since that is money merely re-distributed and inflated within our economy, reducing the capital available for productive work by transferring that money into the hands of those who produce nothing - but misery.

Did I forget to mention that chairs in economics are mostly supported by banks???  It is not a discipline that deserves our respect.

[cannuck]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

 

I am glad to hear about plans to cut ourselves off from China, or Saudi Arabia, Iran and so forth but given the complexity of the topic and my relative unfamiliarity with the topic I think I need to start with someone with credentials and a pedagogical bent.  This article isn't deep but touches on some aspects of what could happen:

Please have a look.  The numbers cited would bring some reality to what you're suggesting.  Western provinces, already hit by declines in oil production, would be devastated.   The result could politically push Canada into a far-left situation where industries are nationalized, governments self-finance via MMT, universal basic income, or other scenarios. 

To survive that, we would need unity on a scale not shared since WW2, so we would need a national focus and buy-in on what we were about to go through, otherwise endless elections and policy flip flops would flounder this plan.

Do you really think we're ready for that ?  We can't even get people to wear masks these days.

I certainly don't want to cut us off from China, Iran or ESECIALLY KSA, as these are all places I do business in and have for decades.  My business partners carry passports from those places.   Doesn't mean I agree in any way with HOW we do trade relations with them (ESPECIALLY CHINA).

You have to first understand that China has a very different culture and values from Canada and the West in general.  To think you will do business with them as an equal in good faith - as we have come to expect from the USA and Europe - is a fallacy in the extreme.  They expect to "win" in all deals - and will do anything that can expedite that end goal.   I first experienced this in the '60s with Chinese students who would cheat endlessly on exams to get a high mark - as the pressure from the expectations of their parents who sent them (from Hong Kong then) was oppressive to say the least.  The problem is: they would get what THEY though from their value set was important - the degree and the mark - but often did not learn the subject matter worth a damn.  IMHO, the ONLY way a Chinese product should get into Canada is by demonstrating that it meets our standards for all of the things that we legislate that a Canadian producer must do to make a similar product.  That means environmental, worker rewards, protection and rights, safety and quality.  You can't close the door, but you have to control it (China does not reciprocate, it slams the door in your face).  

I agree very much with your statement of the unity we would require to do so.   It has to start with a very open and pointed discussion about what trade with China really means, and either we have that discussion now while we are somewhere around the rim of the shitter or we wait until we are circling the drain that the pain and consequence is unavoidable.

BTW: dealing with the issue of our speculative "economy" is of equal importance and difficulty.   What we NEED is actual leadership, not some half-wit silver spoon who can do nothing more than spew mindless BS and perpetuate the problem - hell EXACERBATE them with total ineptitude.  I don't blame the little twit, I blame Canadians.  WE elected the idiots - and go to WalMart to perpetuate our economic decline.

[Army Guy]

I know very little on this topic, but i do have some questions.

I think in this topic we are just considering How Canada alone handles this subject, i think there is a growing movement among western nations to reel in china, such as sanctions for what is happening on the human rights side of the house... many of these same countries are not happy with not only Chinese goods, but their investments and purchasing large swaths of these nations infra structure, and resources, take a look at Australia right now, where up to 80 % or their resources are now owned by china, their entire dairy industry is own by chinese , and have written how their dfairy is being distributed, most going to china...forcing Australia to import some to make up the difference. Perhaps the answer is a large coalition with similar objectives to gather and take action...spreading the pain...

It has taken years to build our relationship and trade to these levels , i'm sure it will take years to become more diverse in our trade, not only with china , but everyone to insolate us from crises. The feds could offer incentives fro manufactures to move their operations to other Asian countries. i mean we just spent 400 bil and don't have much to show for it...

 

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, cannuck said:

1) First of all, GOOD article from MacLean's - not somewhere I would expect.

2) B[y] the end of WWII, we had hoisted ourselves by the bootstraps from being a "hewer of wood and drawer of water" to an integrated economy that could and DID add value to our resources domestically to meet our own needs and sell into the export market.  Yes, a significant part of that was dominated by US products coming in, but that also included a significant proportion of value added processing that was unfortunately "branch plant" of US entities.  

3) As I must repeat ad infinitum, you can only create wealth by adding value to a resource or delivering an essential service in support of that function.  Our economy has been sliding down the shitter in value added processing for decades, and that has been displaced by goods from China.   

4) What is WRONG with those goods is that they not only displace a current Canadian value added function, but they tend to be absolute garbage that will be replaced over, and over, and over vs. the lifetime of a quality product that we once might have made.   ... Trade is much more than consumerism.  It is - or SHOULD be - about who benefits from what, and at what cost to the trading partner.  Trade for Canada is sliding from a place where we had the jobs, skills and infrastructure to produce high value added products to a position where we are mindless consumers of piss poor quality shit, and we eat that shit by paying for it with our FINITE supply of natural resources.  What we have exported to China is not just our wheat, barely, canola, coal and other minerals, but our work ethic, skills, infrastructure and expertise.  That may make an economist grin with delight as he/she can measure a bunch of economic activity, but it just pisses me off as a Canadian at how incredibly naive and ignorant we can be (and thus 3).

5)  Chinese (and other ) immigration has pushed real estate prices in major centers to dizzying heights.  The only productive part of real estate is building something that is required.  Merely inflating its value, once again puts a smile on an economist's face because you have some growing numbers. 

1) I find it a good magazine for well-presented ideas, described in plain language.
2) Ok but you are embedding an assumption that such situations can and should be managed to be static.  It was always in the cards that emerging economies would build up and compete with us, and the game (from the economists point of view) is not to prevent that but to move into areas that we can do well in.
3) This doesn't make sense to me either.  There seem to be lots of areas of wealth creation that don't do this.
4) I have pointed out that electronics, iPhones and quality western products are produced in China also.
5) This is also called foreign investment, which creates valuable jobs for Canadians.  I'm not defending real estate speculation, which has to be tamped down now, but having it go away completely ... or a bubble burst ... will be a disaster on the other side.

1 hour ago, cannuck said:

6)  You have to first understand that China has a very different culture and values from Canada and the West in general.  To think you will do business with them as an equal in good faith - as we have come to expect from the USA and Europe - is a fallacy in the extreme.  They expect to "win" in all deals - and will do anything that can expedite that end goal.   

7) IMHO, the ONLY way a Chinese product should get into Canada is by demonstrating that it meets our standards for all of the things that we legislate that a Canadian producer must do to make a similar product.  That means environmental, worker rewards, protection and rights, safety and quality.  You can't close the door, but you have to control it (China does not reciprocate, it slams the door in your face).  

? I agree very much with your statement of the unity we would require to do so.   It has to start with a very open and pointed discussion about what trade with China really means, and either we have that discussion now while we are somewhere around the rim of the shitter or we wait until we are circling the drain that the pain and consequence is unavoidable.

9) What we NEED is actual leadership, not some half-wit silver spoon who can do nothing more than spew mindless BS and perpetuate the problem - hell EXACERBATE them with total ineptitude.  I don't blame the little twit, I blame Canadians.  WE elected the idiots - and go to WalMart to perpetuate our economic decline.

6) I understand this.
7) I think that's largely the case, although environmental and worker controls haven't found their way into trade deals until recently although the NDP has called for that since the 1980s.
8.)  As soon as the economy started to tip downwards the main parties would split and the policy would be reversed.  You would need something drastic to convince people that they should sacrifice.  As I said they don't even wear masks to shield against disease
9) I can't tell if you realize that we get high end goods from China also, as you keep mentioning cheap products and WAL MART.  And you don't want Trudeau, that's fine, but you are advocating for something that will effectively mean strong government involvement in controlling the economy and that is left-wing.

34 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

1)  Perhaps the answer is a large coalition with similar objectives to gather and take action...spreading the pain...

2) It has taken years to build our relationship and trade to these levels , i'm sure it will take years to become more diverse in our trade, not only with china , but everyone to insolate us from crises. The feds could offer incentives fro manufactures to move their operations to other Asian countries. i mean we just spent 400 bil and don't have much to show for it...

 

1) But we are 'the west', meaning we are free and don't form coalitions like that so easily
2) Yes - government control of the economy, even for nationalistic reasons, is a left-wing thing.

[cannuck]

34 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

It has taken years to build our relationship and trade to these levels , i'm sure it will take years to become more diverse in our trade, not only with china , but everyone to insolate us from crises. The feds could offer incentives fro manufactures to move their operations to other Asian countries. i mean we just spent 400 bil and don't have much to show for it...

With China, it was a choice to either trade with them and include them in the world's economy or shun them and create a possible military enemy.  I applaud the choice of the former, but deride the ineptitude of diplomats and politicians who didn't bother to learn to understand the values of the country they were inviting UNRESTRICTED into our lives.  The sad part is: we could have simply asked the Nationalists who fled to Formosa who would have gladly taught us how and why to be wary of the Communists.   I was fortunate enough to have been in business with one of the latter who actually played a significant part in sourcing food internationally for Mao's regime.  He told me about how ruthless business would become, and one fine day we woke up and our Chinese business, all of its assets and the REQUIRED Chinese nationals who had to control it on paper simply disappeared.   A clearly criminal act over here, and no doubt SUPPOSEDLY so in China, but in law there, as with in fact everything they do and are - the interpretation and enforcement of law varies wildly with each passingd and context of each day.  Ask the two Michaels about it...if we ever get the chance.  As to Schellenberg:  a good example of Chinese law.  While I have no problem with anyone dealing drugs getting offed they DO deserve the right to be proven in a highly transparent way to actually BE involved.

[Shady]

Bill Maher had a great monologue on China.  It not only applies to America but Canada as well.

 

[cannuck]

2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

2) Yes - government control of the economy, even for nationalistic reasons, is a left-wing thing.

No, setting a LEVEL PLAYING FIELD is a very right-wing (and not exclusive to much of the left wing) is what government can and should be doing.  You seem to get hung up in ideology and not appreciate reality.

[bush_cheney2004]

There is no level playing field...ever...only different degrees of competition that seeks any and every advantage.   Hell, Canada is far more economically dominated and exploited by the U.S. than China, but this is far more acceptable because of history and geography ?  It certainly is not because the "playing field" was level, 'cause it ain't and will not be.

Fundamentally, it comes back to Canada and what it wants to be when it grows up, regardless of China.   Falling back on alliances in the face of competition with more lame excuses for worker productivity, R&D, capital investment, exports dependencies, commodities, brain drain, provincial trade barriers, etc. will only continue the status quo.

 

 

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, cannuck said:

No, setting a LEVEL PLAYING FIELD is a very right-wing (and not exclusive to much of the left wing) is what government can and should be doing.  You seem to get hung up in ideology and not appreciate reality.

I am not hung up on it, I'm saying that government jumping into the economy is a left wing thing, so be prepared for all that that entails.  

[Argus]

7 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

https://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/what-a-trade-war-with-china-would-do-to-canada/

Please have a look.  The numbers cited would bring some reality to what you're suggesting.  Western provinces, already hit by declines in oil production, would be devastated.   The result could politically push Canada into a far-left situation where industries are nationalized, governments self-finance via MMT, universal basic income, or other scenarios.

The Macleans article says nothing remotely like this. We have, for example, already lost Chinese tourism and Chinese students. So what? They won't buy soybeans and canola from us? Then they'll have to buy them from someone else who can't exactly supply the world. I mean, agricultural products are a lot like oil in that they command the same prices no matter who produces them. If China switches to buying elsewhere then we sell elsewhere. Just as we would with oil.

What we should be doing is vigorously pursuing other markets for our agricultural and other resources while also promising to switch purchase of consumer goods from China to them. Taiwan and Mexico, for example, would be susceptible to such offers, as would Japan, Thailand and Vietnam. We arrange the shift in consumer goods by slapping bans on imports from China in certain areas, and then expanding those bans as we make deals and find replacements with other countries.

We should also be working on manufacturing more products here in Canada, even if they cost a little more, and supporting those manufacturers with tariffs on anything that comes from China which competes  with them.

[SpankyMcFarland]

One small step I’d like to see: taking threats like this much more seriously:

https://globalnews.ca/news/7734158/china-pressure-activists-canada-uyghur-hong-kong-tibet-spying/

 

 

 

[Michael Hardner]

5 minutes ago, Argus said:

1) The Macleans article says nothing remotely like this.

2) They won't buy soybeans and canola from us? Then they'll have to buy them from someone else who can't exactly supply the world. I mean, agricultural products are a lot like oil in that they command the same prices no matter who produces them. If China switches to buying elsewhere then we sell elsewhere. Just as we would with oil.

3) What we should be doing is vigorously pursuing other markets for our agricultural and other resources while also promising to switch purchase of consumer goods from China to them. Taiwan and Mexico, for example, would be susceptible to such offers, as would Japan, Thailand and Vietnam. We arrange the shift in consumer goods by slapping bans on imports from China in certain areas, and then expanding those bans as we make deals and find replacements with other countries.

4) We should also be working on manufacturing more products here in Canada, even if they cost a little more, and supporting those manufacturers with tariffs on anything that comes from China which competes  with them.

1) The take on where this could take us is mine.  It was Conservatives that got us into globalization.  Liberal governments traditionally likes to prop up Canadian companies.

2) That didn't happen during the US trade war.  Inventory sat there.  The Chinese made do with less.

3) Well I'm not against the idea, but what you are talking about is huge government involvement.  Bans are a drastic response.  I feel that you may not know what would be needed from the Canadian government side, in terms of effort.

4) And also pushing China away from investing in those start ups.  We would end up buying them elsewhere at a higher price I fear.

[Argus]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

1) The take on where this could take us is mine.  It was Conservatives that got us into globalization.  Liberal governments traditionally likes to prop up Canadian companies.

Perhaps I'm misrembering all those prime ministerial trade jaunts made by Chretien and Trudeau to China, and Trudeau's earnest enthusiasm for a free trade agreement with the latter.

Not that dwelling on the past means much. China is not what it was. Hopes for trade with China were not what they were. The rules have changed - been changed by China's refusal to abide by rules.

Quote

2) That didn't happen during the US trade war.  Inventory sat there.  The Chinese made do with less.

That didn't happen because Trump knows nothing about trade or economics and applied a blunt weapon which he didn't even understand. I don't think he ever fully realized it was Americans paying the tariffs, or that China could simply offset this by lowering their currency. I'm talking about a lot more targeted intervention.

Quote

3) Well I'm not against the idea, but what you are talking about is huge government involvement.  Bans are a drastic response.  I feel that you may not know what would be needed from the Canadian government side, in terms of effort.

Again, China is not a fair trader and abides by no laws, rules, regulations or treaties. We cannot compete with Chinese companies subsidized by their government, which uses its intelligence agencies to spy on them on behalf of their companies, and which uses slave labour in the production of goods. China is not merely a trade opponent by a fascist enemy with growing international ambitions. They ban our goods. We should ban theirs instead of simply whining about how unfair they're being. 

Quote

4) And also pushing China away from investing in those start ups.  We would end up buying them elsewhere at a higher price I fear.

I don't want Chinese investment in Canada. And I'm willing to pay higher for goods elsewhere. But I think that's a temporary measure. We should be able to buy goods just as cheaply from lower labour cost countries like Mexico.

[Michael Hardner]

23 minutes ago, Argus said:

1. Perhaps I'm misrembering all those prime ministerial trade jaunts made by Chretien and Trudeau to China, and Trudeau's earnest enthusiasm for a free trade agreement with the latter.

2. Not that dwelling on the past means much. China is not what it was. Hopes for trade with China were not what they were. The rules have changed - been changed by China's refusal to abide by rules.

3. That didn't happen because Trump knows nothing about trade or economics and applied a blunt weapon which he didn't even understand. I don't think he ever fully realized it was Americans paying the tariffs, or that China could simply offset this by lowering their currency. I'm talking about a lot more targeted intervention.

4. We should ban theirs instead of simply whining about how unfair they're being. 

5. I don't want Chinese investment in Canada. And I'm willing to pay higher for goods elsewhere. But I think that's a temporary measure. We should be able to buy goods just as cheaply from lower labour cost countries like Mexico.

1.  No, you are correct of course but it had to be Conservatives to do something bold to make change.
2. Yes I agree.
3. Ok.  But also Canada doesn't have the clout of the US and nobody can be counted on to help us now.
4. In practical terms, we have to hope somebody on our side has a strategy for this.
5. Ok.  So I think that's $(?) billions you're talking about.  Even a less severe approach than yours is risky. Moral stances cost money, and I'm looking for something more substantial, that could explain how to do this.  See if you can find something as well.

[Army Guy]

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

 

1) But we are 'the west', meaning we are free and don't form coalitions like that so easily
2) Yes - government control of the economy, even for nationalistic reasons, is a left-wing thing.

I think the west or NATO per say has already established China is the new threat, and many western countries have already placed sanctions on China for one reason or another, including Canada... i don't think it would be a big leap to convince them to start shifting towards another Asian country...some western countries are starting to wake up( Canada, Australia, New Zealand and to name a few. )and are realizing that China owns a large portion of their resources, and have invested huge chucks of money in most areas of these countries.  In some cases they own enough or have leant enough to have major influence over how the country is run or how resources are used....... Canada is also influenced some what by China in many ways...maybe it is time for the west to change some if this.

Not saying that the government should control anything, rather than perhaps steer it in a different direction, it is after all the federal government that pushed us in this direction, including convincing China to be a larger trading partner... why could we not do the same thing with say India, or Vietnam, where large infra structure plants can be built much cheaper than China, it is not like we have not influenced a company to move or stay in this country... how much have we sank into GM, Ford, or French companies , why not convince a major Canadian company to shift manufacturing to another country..

[Army Guy]

5 hours ago, cannuck said:

With China, it was a choice to either trade with them and include them in the world's economy or shun them and create a possible military enemy.  I applaud the choice of the former, but deride the ineptitude of diplomats and politicians who didn't bother to learn to understand the values of the country they were inviting UNRESTRICTED into our lives.  The sad part is: we could have simply asked the Nationalists who fled to Formosa who would have gladly taught us how and why to be wary of the Communists.   I was fortunate enough to have been in business with one of the latter who actually played a significant part in sourcing food internationally for Mao's regime.  He told me about how ruthless business would become, and one fine day we woke up and our Chinese business, all of its assets and the REQUIRED Chinese nationals who had to control it on paper simply disappeared.   A clearly criminal act over here, and no doubt SUPPOSEDLY so in China, but in law there, as with in fact everything they do and are - the interpretation and enforcement of law varies wildly with each passingd and context of each day.  Ask the two Michaels about it...if we ever get the chance.  As to Schellenberg:  a good example of Chinese law.  While I have no problem with anyone dealing drugs getting offed they DO deserve the right to be proven in a highly transparent way to actually BE involved.

I think NATO is already steering in that direction, China has made it to the top of the threat list.. with spending being steered towards a large pacific battle area, even the Canadian military is placing more resources in that area, gone is the major battles in Europe, or middle east...

[Michael Hardner]

1 minute ago, Army Guy said:

1) many western countries have already placed sanctions on China for one reason or another, including Canada... i don't think it would be a big leap to convince them to start shifting towards another Asian country...s/ome western countries are starting to wake up( Canada, Australia, New Zealand and to name a few. )and are realizing that China owns a large portion of their resources,

2) ...maybe it is time for the west to change some if this.

3) Not saying that the government should control anything, rather than perhaps steer it in a different direction,

4) it is after all the federal government that pushed us in this direction, including convincing China to be a larger trading partner... why could we not do the same thing with say India, or Vietnam, where large infra structure plants can be built much cheaper than China,  

1) Yes but they are going it alone.  It would be a big leap because you're asking the US, basically, to organize and lead a trade war.  Canada has been owned by foreign companies in the past - it's nothing new to us.

2) If the US wants to, I suppose.  It's really up to them. 

3) "Steering" is "controlling". 

4) No - it was economic orthodoxy as adopted by the west as a bloc.  "Can be built" means to be built by business.  You are going to be disrupting the world economy upon which these same businesses are currently thriving to tell them to go built somewhere else.

As I said, I'm supportive of the idea but I need more than a moral stance to convince me that we could do something effective - sorry.  

[bush_cheney2004]

The EU has actually increased trade with China, overtaking the U.S. as the EU's # 1 trading partner early this year.    Anti-China sentiments in Canada are based on a political narrative over economic reality (e.g. "Two Michaels").   Other nations are not going to come to Canada's rescue as a trading bloc against China and their own interests.

This may play well for domestic Canadian politics, but will not translate into structural change and counters for Chinese globalism, something it learned from the west...and learned very well.

 

 

Edited April 4, 2021 by bush_cheney2004

[Army Guy]

1. It is not a trade in that sense rather a slow shift of policies.... one can not just sever the head from the body and expect to survive or atleast come out of it without some massive damage... this relationship was built over years, it would take years to dismantle it...China is becoming very aggressive towards western owned resources in China, perhaps there are already companies that are looking to escape and move, make it more attractive, our government could offer incentives, shit maybe the host country could also apply some incentives... this is a long term approach...

2. not sure they are even interested, but the idea could be popular with rep voters, maybe something biden might be support of...

3. if steering is controlling , Canada has been controlled for sometime now... Massive bail out packages, or feds paving the way for contracts in Libya for major Canadian companies...i mean whats a few hookers, they are now looking to cool the housing market...

4. these companies started in China because of Canada's lobbing , so it has been done before, they building plans already exist...we just need another target...

5. it is more than taking a moral stance, it is about preserving our own economy, insulating it from crises like bans on Canadian products, so we are not so trapped, or held hostage when they start to pout about something...and this is not just about china, is about all our trading partners....we all remember trumps aluminum tariffs.. diversify is the objective.. 

 

[Army Guy]

12 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

The EU has actually increased trade with China, overtaking the U.S. as the EU's # 1 trading partner early this year.    Anti-China sentiments in Canada are based on a political narrative over economic reality (e.g. "Two Michaels").   Other nations are not going to come to Canada's rescue as a trading bloc against China and their own interests.

This may play well for domestic Canadian politics, but will not translate into structural change and counters for Chinese globalism, something it learned from the west...and learned very well.

 

 

The 2 Michaels are nothing more than pawns in this game...any government MP will say a human life is not worth bils ....i do think it would not be a big leap for the US to lead the charge here, it is hard to not let US military policies and what they see as threats not to bleed into national policies, or practices... It seem a lot of the US military is being restructured for the pacific theater, marines getting rid of tanks, heavy armor, becoming lighter and faster, the navy is expanding, and the Air force is also shedding some capabilities to gain new ones...like the new 6 th generation fighter, already in the air, or so the rumor says...they all seem to be shedding heavy equipment and looking for lighter, more mobile stuff once again to be more suited with the new threat which is China...and it has been for atleast 10 years now...

[Michael Hardner]

14 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

1.  ....perhaps there are already companies that are looking to escape and move, make it more attractive, our government could offer incentives, shit maybe the host country could also apply some incentives... this is a long term approach...

2. not sure they are even interested, but the idea could be popular with rep voters, maybe something biden might be support of...

3. if steering is controlling , Canada has been controlled for sometime now...

3b. Massive bail out packages, or feds paving the way for contracts in Libya for major Canadian companies...i mean whats a few hookers, they are now looking to cool the housing market...

4. these companies started in China because of Canada's lobbing , so it has been done before, they building plans already exist...we just need another target...

5. it is more than taking a moral stance, it is about preserving our own economy, insulating it from crises like bans on Canadian products, so we are not so trapped, or held hostage when they start to pout about something...and this is not just about china, is about all our trading partners....we all remember trumps aluminum tariffs.. diversify is the objective.. 

 

1.  Looks to me that the US has more than $500B invested there.  "Escape" isn't the word that comes to mind.
2. It doesn't seem plausible to me that Biden would adopt Trump's approach on China, then amp it up and really press it.  But maybe.
3. Yes, Canada has been controlled for some time now.  The last guy I remember who was concerned about foreign investment was Trudeau Sr., so he's your guy if you want to stop money from coming over the border.
3b. The contracts in Libya were for Canadian-owned countries as I recall.  If you don't like what happened there, well that was Canadians playing ball with the big boys... dirty style AFAIC. 
4. Yes and now you are going to ask those same companies that Canada lobbied to take a loss and follow our moral beacon to invest in India.  
5. It sounds like you are an economic nationalist.  Again, Trudeau Sr. is your guy here.  Trade skirmishes, and Orange-faced presidents are themselves not a reason to abandon globalization.

Again, I feel it's necessary to point out that I like the idea of standing up to China but all I seem to be doing here is poking holes in these moral arguments.  I'm truly sorry I can't offer more, or ideas of my own.  But these are all interesting at least.  Frankly, we will likely fall in behind the states.  Whatever anti-China politics exist here are there also, so we're still in the same boat that way.

[bush_cheney2004]

5 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

The 2 Michaels are nothing more than pawns in this game...any government MP will say a human life is not worth bils ....i do think it would not be a big leap for the US to lead the charge here, it is hard to not let US military policies and what they see as threats not to bleed into national policies, or practices...

 

Canadian MPs may posture that way, but it is not the practical economic or geo-political reality.   Previous Canadian governments had the gravitas to deal with such situations to repatriate Canadian nationals...the Trudeau government has consistently underperformed in this arena.   One glaring example is the hesitancy to ban Huawei for 5G networks.

 

Quote

It seem a lot of the US military is being restructured for the pacific theater, marines getting rid of tanks, heavy armor, becoming lighter and faster, the navy is expanding, and the Air force is also shedding some capabilities to gain new ones...like the new 6 th generation fighter, already in the air, or so the rumor says...they all seem to be shedding heavy equipment and looking for lighter, more mobile stuff once again to be more suited with the new threat which is China...and it has been for atleast 10 years now...

 

The U.S. is not going to engage China beyond defensive protocols for longstanding alliances in the region.   Japan is partnering with Indonesia as well, but not to attack China. Either way, Canada is in a very poor position to project air and naval power in the region regardless of such alliances. 

The underlying theme remains the same...Canada has let itself go, and cannot expect other nations to pick up the slack.   China is going to remain and grow as an economic and military power/threat, and they will act in their national interest(s), same as western nations. 

 

 

 

[Argus]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

4. In practical terms, we have to hope somebody on our side has a strategy for this.
5. Ok.  So I think that's $(?) billions you're talking about.  Even a less severe approach than yours is risky. Moral stances cost money, and I'm looking for something more substantial, that could explain how to do this.  See if you can find something as well.

I think you are misunderstanding my intent. I don't want to launch a trade war with China on moral grounds. What I want is to remove Chinese influence here. I want to limit the number of Chinese diplomats, remove their non-diplomatic operatives who work for the Confucius institutes and the United Front and shut them down, greatly increase the size of CSIS and CSE and do much more to interrupt China's efforts to bully and blackmail their expatriates in Canada. I also want laws similar to what Australia has put in place to limit their influence with politicians at any level.

I feel these are necessary not out of a sense of moral outrage but for defending our sovereignty from a hostile foreign power.

 The actions I mention in the earlier post are those I feel will be necessary merely as part of actions taken after China retaliates against us for this.

[Army Guy]

33 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Canadian MPs may posture that way, but it is not the practical economic or geo-political reality.   Previous Canadian governments had the gravitas to deal with such situations to repatriate Canadian nationals...the Trudeau government has consistently underperformed in this arena.   One glaring example is the hesitancy to ban Huawei for 5G networks.

 

 

The U.S. is not going to engage China beyond defensive protocols for longstanding alliances in the region.   Japan is partnering with Indonesia as well, but not to attack China. Either way, Canada is in a very poor position to project air and naval power in the region regardless of such alliances. 

The underlying theme remains the same...Canada has let itself go, and cannot expect other nations to pick up the slack.   China is going to remain and grow as an economic and military power/threat, and they will act in their national interest(s), same as western nations. 

 

 

 

I could not agree more on Canada's poor response to any thing that has to do with inter national politics...and not much better with dealing with internal politics ... on all political party lines....

I think every nation is trying it's up most to prevent a major confrontation with any world power... but US military leaders have turned on the red light when it comes to warning the government about Chinese actions .. and it continues to demostrate to china almost daily it really does not control anything , be it naval/ air  demonstration, and arming Taiwan

On the political front  these types of warnings or briefings can effect other policies including trade or other actions... who knows perhaps the only one with the balls to take action on the trade front was trump. But one of the ways to disrupt a threat is stop feeding it or financing it,  might not be in it's best interest...and yes Canada did sign on to 5 eyes, but for the life of me can not see what it could provide...or afford to provide long term. then again our military is not for use, but rather a political tool, with no teeth.