What to do about China

[bush_cheney2004]

3 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

True for local trade within Africa and Asia, but the big money is still in Europe and America.  Want to play with the big boys?  You have to pay to play.  I don’t propose heavy, costly rules and regulations.  No way.  That’s the European model and it sucks.  You just need minimum standards that still make economic sense for poorer countries to participate because the benefits of increased trade outweigh the costs to business and taxpayers.  The reality is that we already meet most (all?) of the standards in North America, so basically we’re saying, you want to ship cheap goods here, well they can’t be that cheap because your labour and environmental standards will have to improve.  Otherwise we collect the tariffs and subsidize our own labour and emissions reduction costs.  

 

I understand your proposal, but I do not think a North American-centric framework would be accepted by other nations and trading blocs.   Many producers and wholeasle distributors in Canada and the USA are more than happy to take advantage of developing economies complete with work arounds for "progressive" rules.   Even within the EU there are numerous battles and carve outs for longstanding national protections...that's what made CETA take so long.

I have worked directly with the Chinese and their objectives/methods do not place a high priority on progressive western ideas.  They are singularly focused with longer time horizons than western quarterly earnings reports.   Some may not like the Chinese approach, but it works for China.

[bush_cheney2004]

3 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Don’t forget that Canada is still your biggest export market.  Yes Canada has too much reliance on exports as a small country, particularly to one country.  China is the US’s largest import trading partner.  That’s the problem.  Canada and most of the west are in the same boat.....

 

True, but it does not have the same impact as Canadian export trade to mostly the USA (75%), not to mention the reliance on foreign direct investment.

China is also important to the USA because of federal debt holdings, about 25% of all foreign held debt (about $1.3 trillion).   Like Canada, China wants access to the big fat American consumer and business market, and U.S. corps want access to the Chinese market as well.

Canada does not have the size/scale to take on China, nor should it be expected to do so.   But it is less helpful for Canadian leadership to inject virtue signaling and progressive touch points into the process when it does choose to engage.   Might be good for some votes back home...until the jobs start leaving.

 

[Dougie93]

16 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

  Might be good for some votes back home...until the jobs start leaving.

 

Canadian La-La-Land is not even really about votes.   

Progressive Conservatives are just the Other Liberals, thus it is effectively a One Party State.

The truth is that Canada is highly unstable, the Elite Consensus is really about staving off an insurrection to overthrow Confederation.

Otherwise known as Ontario bribing Quebec with Alberta's money.

 

[Zeitgeist]

31 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

True, but it does not have the same impact as Canadian export trade to mostly the USA (75%), not to mention the reliance on foreign direct investment.

China is also important to the USA because of federal debt holdings, about 25% of all foreign held debt (about $1.3 trillion).   Like Canada, China wants access to the big fat American consumer and business market, and U.S. corps want access to the Chinese market as well.

Canada does not have the size/scale to take on China, nor should it be expected to do so.   But it is less helpful for Canadian leadership to inject virtue signaling and progressive touch points into the process when it does choose to engage.   Might be good for some votes back home...until the jobs start leaving.

 

Yes Canada under Trudeau is too heavy on the progressive agenda and it has hurt both trade and resource development.  However, the peoples of modern western democracies voted for much of the progressive legislation we have today around health, labour conditions, education, maternity benefits, etc. because they saw good economic reasons to do so, such as a better skilled/educated workforce, greater female participation in the labour force, cheaper health costs for businesses and families, better transportation and other infrastructure, etc.  What we need to do, in my opinion, is decide what standards we want to be the non-negotiables for a healthy society, not in a gold-plated idyllic form, but in the way of minimum standards, such that countries still have very wide discretion over federal/sub-national policy, yet the policies that can only exist successfully on a macro level, such as environmental protection, are given their due.  Basically if countries want to undercut all such standards to provide the cheapest labour/goods possible, there has to be economic consequences.  The problem with the Trump ad hoc tariff approach is that it's too whimsical and doesn't have the backing of sensible rules.  It puts policy in the hands of one person or cadre who may impose such policy for dubious or corrupt reasons (i.e. quid pro quo with Ukraine).  Rules provide clarity and maximize inclusivity.  Anyone can join the club if they are willing to meet said standards.  At issue is what the standards should be.  This is where all political parties/governments who seek such a partnership need to put aside partisan politics and develop smart, responsive, data-based policy that meet the essential requirements without overreaching.  European overreach is the main reason for Brexit. 

Edited December 14, 2019 by Zeitgeist

[Zeitgeist]

9 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Canadian La-La-Land is not even really about votes.   

Progressive Conservatives are just the Other Liberals, thus it is effectively a One Party State.

The truth is that Canada is highly unstable, the Elite Consensus is really about staving off an insurrection to overthrow Confederation.

Otherwise known as Ontario bribing Quebec with Alberta's money.

 

It's more about Ontario's money and diplomacy than Alberta's oil money, which comes and goes with oil prices.  Quebec plays a big role too, whether the separatists like it or not.  Quebec started Canada.  The can't really walk away from running it because Canada overfunds Quebec.

[Dougie93]

3 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

The can't really walk away from running it because Canada overfunds Quebec.

That will change when Canadian La-La-Land drifts into the shoals of fiscal and economic crises.

[bush_cheney2004]

2 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Yes Canada under Trudeau is too heavy on the progressive agenda and it has hurt both trade and resource development.  However, the peoples of modern western democracies voted for much of the progressive legislation we have today around health, labour conditions, education, maternity benefits, etc. because they saw goo economic reasons to do so, such as a better skilled/educated workforce, greater female participation in the labour force, cheaper health costs for businesses and families, better transportation and other infrastructure, etc. 

 

OK...but those same voters can choose to go in a different direction, and will do so when pressured by lower living standards, illegal immigration, regional disparities, curtailed liberties, etc.  Union membership is now dominated by government workers, not industry employment.

 

Quote

 The problem with the Trump ad hoc tariff approach is that it's too whimsical and doesn't have the backing of sensible rules.  It puts policy in the hands of one person or cadre who may impose such policy for dubious or corrupt reasons (i.e. quid pro quo with Ukraine).  Rules provide clarity and maximize inclusivity.  Anyone can join the club if they are willing to meet said standards.  At issue is what the standards should be.  This is where all political parties/governments who seek such a partnership need to put aside partisan politics and develop smart, responsive, data-based policy that meet the essential requirements without overreaching.  European overreach is the main reason for Brexit. 

 

Trump used the only unilateral tool available to him as president, same as many other nations have done, including Canada.   As for rules based clarity and conformance, all nations would also be expected to pay up for the protection of that order, something that Trump has also exposed as a club wherein some members pay a lot more than others.

[eyeball]

5 hours ago, Argus said:

Finally?

Yes. I think your highfalutin concern about China is selective especially with regards to China's abuse of Muslim's human rights.  You've had little issue in the past with Canadian companies doing what they had to do to compete with multinationals from other countries in places where bribing public officials is the norm - officials that can ensure things like favourably lax labour and environmental standards.  If we didn't compete along these lines other countries would simply benefit to our loss so why not us?  You make the same argument about our oil and I have little doubt you'd be just as thrilled to sell as much to China as boycott their goods.  I think you're just virtue signalling in pretty much the manner as Trump or Trudeau so you can have it both ways.

As I recall tying trade to human rights and holding our multinationals responsible for taking advantage of other countries cheap labour and even cheaper ecosystems in the past drew laughter and references to commies and suggestions that Canadian slackers read the writing on the wall roll up their sleeves and work harder for less.

Nobody else recalls that?

Edited December 14, 2019 by eyeball

[eyeball]

4 hours ago, Rue said:

You are a tad confused. Kind of hard to play pool without  a cue ball.

Find out which one is the cue ball before you set off sinkin yer balls son.

Read on before you bite me.

[Zeitgeist]

3 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

OK...but those same voters can choose to go in a different direction, and will do so when pressured by lower living standards, illegal immigration, regional disparities, curtailed liberties, etc.  Union membership is now dominated by government workers, not industry employment.

 

 

Trump used the only unilateral tool available to him as president, same as many other nations have done, including Canada.   As for rules based clarity and conformance, all nations would also be expected to pay up for the protection of that order, something that Trump has also exposed as a club wherein some members pay a lot more than others.

I will give Trump credit for having chutzpah, but he’s one person of questionable morality creeping towards senility.  He has used tools at his disposal for sure, but it’s irresponsible to build trade policy around that, especially when the guy has demonstrated overreaction in situations when his fragile ego got bruised.  

I also agree that members of a trading block must adhere to the rules and pay their membership fees.  The challenge arises when one or more countries decides to far exceed the standards or fall too far below them.  For example, in NATO many members need to pay more, but the US has excessive military expenditures that no other democracy would support.  In the case of trade, when decisions didn’t go in the US’s favour, the government would simply bury the process in appeals and legal attacks at a price that other countries can’t pay.  Sometimes it would ignore the results of the dispute resolution.  When that happens credibility is lost.  

Yes the US can continue to be rogue on a range of issues, but there’s a price to pay in foreign relations.  The US has many enemies.  Many foreigners are afraid of a quasi-fascist rule by fiat that might exclude or set unreasonable conditions on their time in the US.  We’ve had these conversations and I know that the US has a more isolationist history and has had to avoid getting hemmed in by international policy sometimes for good reason, but a trade block with reasonable, enforceable rules, if the block was large enough, could be an effective counter to Chinese lowballing and bad behaviour in general.  Just keep the standards reasonable and minimal.  

[Argus]

19 hours ago, eyeball said:

Yes. I think your highfalutin concern about China is selective especially with regards to China's abuse of Muslim's human rights.  You've had little issue in the past with Canadian companies doing what they had to do to compete with multinationals from other countries in places where bribing public officials is the norm - officials that can ensure things like favourably lax labour and environmental standards.  If we didn't compete along these lines other countries would simply benefit to our loss so why not us?  You make the same argument about our oil and I have little doubt you'd be just as thrilled to sell as much to China as boycott their goods.  I think you're just virtue signalling in pretty much the manner as Trump or Trudeau so you can have it both ways.

As I recall tying trade to human rights and holding our multinationals responsible for taking advantage of other countries cheap labour and even cheaper ecosystems in the past drew laughter and references to commies and suggestions that Canadian slackers read the writing on the wall roll up their sleeves and work harder for less.

Nobody else recalls that?

I congratulate you on saying all this while totally ignoring that I posted proof to the contrary from 13 years ago. You are truly gifted in your ability to ignore reality. I guess that's a necessary component of being on the far left. Even you, however, must recognize how flaccid your argument has become, so you've now spread it out to the entire world around us in hopes of disguising your failure.

 

[bush_cheney2004]

18 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

I will give Trump credit for having chutzpah, but he’s one person of questionable morality creeping towards senility.  He has used tools at his disposal for sure, but it’s irresponsible to build trade policy around that, especially when the guy has demonstrated overreaction in situations when his fragile ego got bruised. 

 

Doesn't matter...Trump is a short term shock to the globalist status quo and imperfect by design.   Nixon did the same thing in 1971.   People who obsess on Trump's personal failings and ego are clueless about the larger game being played.

 

Quote

I also agree that members of a trading block must adhere to the rules and pay their membership fees.  The challenge arises when one or more countries decides to far exceed the standards or fall too far below them.  For example, in NATO many members need to pay more, but the US has excessive military expenditures that no other democracy would support. 

 

U.S. expenditures are irrelevant to the NATO agreement made in Wales (2% of GDP).   Germany has not only been a NATO deadbeat, it has also prevented EU economies from meeting the goal because of debt servicing to Germany and mandated austerity.    The U.S. has other, expensive defence responsibilities that go way beyond NATO.

 

Quote

Yes the US can continue to be rogue on a range of issues, but there’s a price to pay in foreign relations.  The US has many enemies.  Many foreigners are afraid of a quasi-fascist rule by fiat that might exclude or set unreasonable conditions on their time in the US.  We’ve had these conversations and I know that the US has a more isolationist history and has had to avoid getting hemmed in by international policy sometimes for good reason, but a trade block with reasonable, enforceable rules, if the block was large enough, could be an effective counter to Chinese lowballing and bad behaviour in general.  Just keep the standards reasonable and minimal.  

 

Again, your trade block approach still requires American and EU backing to make it stick, and neither are in a political position to do so.   The EU (and Canada) refuse to carry their weight in defending the post WW2 "rules based order".    No money...no honey.

[Dougie93]

18 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

   The EU (and Canada) refuse to carry their weight in defending the post WW2 "rules based order".  

America is that rules based order,  America is simply changing those rules, much to Europe's (and Canada's) chagrin.

[bush_cheney2004]

3 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

America is that rules based order,  America is simply changing those rules, much to Europe's (and Canada's) chagrin.

 

Right...none of Trump/America critics have proposed a different solution that doesn't involve U.S. economic and military power, despite other "democracies" having a much larger total population and GDP than the United States.   

[Dougie93]

1 minute ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Right...none of Trump/America critics have proposed a different solution that doesn't involve U.S. economic and military power, despite other "democracies" having a much larger total population and GDP than the United States.   

The solution would require them to ascend to be more than American client state vassals.

This however would force them to curtail the generous welfare states to divert resources to Freedom of Navigation.

Hence they defer to King Dollar to rule the waves for them.

 

[Dougie93]

The Western World is in essence a maritime Hegemony led by America as the Mahanian Eternal Seapower, in a Triumvirate with the British and French.

Edited December 15, 2019 by Dougie93

[Dougie93]

The strategic imperative for the Mahanian Eternal Seapower is to contain the Eurasians by ruling the waves to ensure Freedom of Navigation.

Particularly the Sea Lines of Communications, specifically the maritime choke points ; Panama, Gibraltar, Bosporus, Suez, Djibouti, Hormuz, Malacca, etcetera.

Edited December 15, 2019 by Dougie93

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, Argus said:

I congratulate you on saying all this while totally ignoring that I posted proof to the contrary from 13 years ago. You are truly gifted in your ability to ignore reality. I guess that's a necessary component of being on the far left. Even you, however, must recognize how flaccid your argument has become, so you've now spread it out to the entire world around us in hopes of disguising your failure.

 

Meanwhile you never disavowed why I said what I did because you're still as phony as you were 13 years ago.

You'll still just as happily sell China all the oil it wants won't you? 

 

[Argus]

26 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Meanwhile you never disavowed why I said what I did because you're still as phony as you were 13 years ago.

You can look through 13 years of my postings on China and find nothing I've ever said which suggested I liked them or wanted anything to do with them.

Quote

You'll still just as happily sell China all the oil it wants won't you? 

 

No. If you make a country an important customer you give it power and influence over you.  See the opening post of this topic for examples. Or go back 13 years to see how much foresight I had.

I don't trust the fairness of China as a trading partner. From all I've heard their government is thoroughly corrupt (even by Liberal Party standards) and they have to be partners in any project. Then there are limits to what profits you can take out of China. Finally, they are using their profits to modernize their enormous military. Given the rigid totalitarian nature of the Chinese Communist government that should be cause for concern for anyone. Is China going to modernize into a worldwide threat to replace the one the Soviet Union presented to the world?

 

 

Edited December 15, 2019 by Argus

[eyeball]

38 minutes ago, Argus said:

No. If you make a country an important customer you give it power and influence over you. 

Good on you then. My apologies.

[Zeitgeist]

6 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

The Western World is in essence a maritime Hegemony led by America as the Mahanian Eternal Seapower, in a Triumvirate with the British and French.

France was empowered as the Allied beachhead in Europe.  It had nothing at the end of the war, except a thin Resistance and DeGaulle. France in Europe isn’t much different from Japan in Asia.  They were the military strongholds set up after the war to prevent a reversion to the former hegemonies.  It worked militarily in Europe, not so much in Asia.  

[Dougie93]

57 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

France was empowered as the Allied beachhead in Europe.  It had nothing at the end of the war, except a thin Resistance and DeGaulle. France in Europe isn’t much different from Japan in Asia.  They were the military strongholds set up after the war to prevent a reversion to the former hegemonies.  It worked militarily in Europe, not so much in Asia.  

Neither the UK nor France have the logistics to fight a war independent of America, but they at least deploy some strategic assets, aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines primarily.

[Zeitgeist]

4 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Neither the UK nor France have the logistics to fight a war independent of America, but they at least deploy some strategic assets, aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines primarily.

True.  There was a time when Canada did as well...

[cannuck]

On 12/14/2019 at 12:20 PM, Dougie93 said:

Otherwise known as Ontario bribing Quebec with Alberta's money.

By George, he's got it.

[Dougie93]

48 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

True.  There was a time when Canada did as well...

The Postwar Canadian military (1945-1965) was not sustainable based on what Canadians are willing to spend.

The total collapse of the military since is more due to sheer ineptitude and ceaseless political interference.

The government actually spends a lot of money, it's just all wasted of boondoggles so nothing gets to the sharp end.

Canada is so inherently incompetent and corrupt that it is simply not capable of running a military.

The RCMP is a joke as well, Canada couldn't fight its way out of a wet paper bag at this point.

All that matters in Ottawa is being cronies to the entrenched interest company town, actual security is entirely farmed out to America.

Canada is a fake country with a fake government, all relevant services are delivered by the provincial governments.

The federal government is nothing but a boondoggle, it's a cancerous tumor which has killed Canada.

Edited December 16, 2019 by Dougie93