What should Canada give up in new NAFTA

[White_Unifier]

Traditionally, the Republicans have been the free traders but they seem willing to forget that to garner favour from President Whackjob.

Exactly! How reliable can the US be as a trading partner when its more free-trading party flips to protectionism. Again, I'm not excusing Canadian protectionism here and in some respects, Canadian protectionism itself has provoked it to a high degree; but that still doesn't excuse Trump's behaviour and still raises legitimate questions on the US' reliability as a trading partner. That's why I think Canada should turn to unilateral free trade and then engage in trade agreements only to supplement what we can't achieve through unilateral free trade.

 

[White_Unifier]

In fact, Maxime Bernier's more free-trading stance is what attracts me to him as a politician more so than any other party leader at present. Even Scheer comes across as a hard-core protectionist compared to Bernie.

 

[Twin_Moose]

Where is Max's money invested?

 

[Curious Cdn]

We had a chance at making an amicable deal, but this Gov. chose to make a mockery of it, and waiting for Governors and Senators to step in. Mexico stepped in and made a fair deal for themselves and we had no choice but to accept tweaked crumbs, Should have been the other way around.

Rubbish. A good deal for the Americans (and for you, it seems) is one that will rip us off. No "sweetheart" deal was ever offered to Canada. BTW. Trump clearly hates our country.

 

[White_Unifier]

Where is Max's money invested?

What does it matter?

 

[White_Unifier]

Rubbish. A good deal for the Americans (and for you, it seems) is one that will rip us off. No "sweetheart" deal was ever offered to Canada. BTW. Trump clearly hates our country.

He doesn't even love his own country, so how was he supposed to love ours?

And no, it wasn't a good deal for the Americans either. It really was a bad deal for all sides involved. In a sense, the US and Canada both got what they wanted: a mostly protectionist trade deal. we get what we deserve I guess.

 

[Twin_Moose]

What does it matter?

Makes a huuuge difference

 

[Twin_Moose]

He doesn't even love his own country, so how was he supposed to love ours?
And no, it wasn't a good deal for the Americans either. It really was a bad deal for all sides involved. In a sense, the US and Canada both got what they wanted: a mostly protectionist trade deal. we get what we deserve I guess.

What makes you say he doesn't love his country? he is trying to do a lot to get the economy firing on all cylinders again

 

[Curious Cdn]

What makes you say he doesn't love his country? he is trying to do a lot to get the economy firing on all cylinders again

If that were true, he would have left his tax cuts for the rich out and applied those monies to reducing their masdive and ballooning deficit. He has created a bonanza for an incredibly rich 1.5% of the population and no one else benefits. They are not going to dust off 50 year old steel Mills. Ain't going to happen. Why have American steel and aluminum mills closed by the dozen? The Ameticns are too sloppy and slow to compete and Americans have failed to invest in modern operations.

 

[White_Unifier]

What makes you say he doesn't love his country? he is trying to do a lot to get the economy firing on all cylinders again

They're all short-term or busy-work policies. Debt-financed growth is unsustainable in the long run, and tariffs create work by introducing inefficiencies (like a trucker shipping a product from a factory in NYC to Seattle when a business in Vancouver produces the same product, or when a factory in the US must produce a product on a small scale due to retaliatory tariffs when it could otherwise have shipped abroad too, or a factory that buys a less ideal machine domestically to avoid the tariffs on what would have been a more ideal machine, etc.).

All of that does create work, but it's busy work, not actual wealth-generating work.

 

[Cliffy]

Give up NAFTA. We really don't want to be associated with Nazi Yankeeland.

 

[Curious Cdn]

They're all short-term or busy-work policies. Debt-financed growth is unsustainable in the long run, and tariffs create work by introducing inefficiencies (like a trucker shipping a product from a factory in NYC to Seattle when a business in Vancouver produces the same product, or when a factory in the US must produce a product on a small scale due to retaliatory tariffs when it could otherwise have shipped abroad too, or a factory that buys a less ideal machine domestically to avoid the tariffs on what would have been a more ideal machine, etc.).
All of that does create work, but it's busy work, not actual wealth-generating work.

BTW, that trucker (and most/all other drivers) are about to be replaced by automation as are most workers as A.I. takes hold. Accountants, Engineers and most white collar occupations can and are being replaced by software. Service Sector is going to take up the surplus, you say? Those are not wealth generating occupations and, besides, as smaller and smaller sectors of the economy receive a living wage, service jobs will necessarily deteriorate into barter trade.

The top 1-2% will have concentrated almost all of the wealth of North America to themselves right up to the day that they'll all end up swinging from lamp posts.

 

[White_Unifier]

BTW, that trucker (and most/all other drivers) are about to be replaced by automation as are most workers as A.I. takes hold. Accountants, Engineers and most white collar occupations can and are being replaced by software. Service Sector is going to take up the surplus, you say? Those are not wealth generating occupations and, besides, as smaller and smaller sectors of the economy receive a living wage, service jobs will necessarily deteriorate into barter trade.
The top 1-2% will have concentrated almost all of the wealth of North America to themselves right up to the day that they'll all end up swinging from lamp posts.

I agree that the wealth have a moral responsibility towards the poor, but debt-financing and creating busy work are not the way to do it. Introduce a moderate wealth tax (say, 20% of accumulated wealth above essential and business assets and minus debt) and use that to provide trades and professional education for the unemployed, the under-employed, and the underpaid. Automation doesn't produce itself. Someone needs to build and maintain the equipment. While the equipment may replace workers, it also creates new, higher paid work for others. Instead of doing inefficient work at low pay, you can build or repair a machine that can produce far more efficiently than a person ever could and so that raises your wages. However, the poor need the skills for those jobs. Right now we have labour shortages and unemployed people. Why? Because they don't have the skills for the available work and no money to get the needed training. So the logical thing for the state to do is provide the training to match the shortage. I'm not saying immigration can't solve some of this too, but we need to help the poor too. In fact, the immigrants can expand the necessary tax base to help the poor.

 

[Twin_Moose]

If that were true, he would have left his tax cuts for the rich out and applied those monies to reducing their masdive and ballooning deficit. He has created a bonanza for an incredibly rich 1.5% of the population and no one else benefits. They are not going to dust off 50 year old steel Mills. Ain't going to happen. Why have American steel and aluminum mills closed by the dozen? The Ameticns are too sloppy and slow to compete and Americans have failed to invest in modern operations.

Top 2 in Bing search

Company restarting U.S. Steel McKeesport mill says workers needed

After 19 idle months, Iron Range taconite plant to resume operations

 

[White_Unifier]

Top 2 in Bing search
Company restarting U.S. Steel McKeesport mill says workers needed
After 19 idle months, Iron Range taconite plant to resume operations

Why weren't consumers choosing to buy from them before the tariffs went up? Do you not trust the consumer's ability to decide for himself what products suit him best, comrade?

It would seem to me that US consumers are being coerced to buy these products even though in a freer market, they would have bought from elsewhere instead. In other words, they're buying a product at a higher price or that otherwise does not meet their needs as well as an alternative would have.

 

[Curious Cdn]

Top 2 in Bing search
Company restarting U.S. Steel McKeesport mill says workers needed
After 19 idle months, Iron Range taconite plant to resume operations

Tariffs fossilize inefficiencies in the economy. The effect is similar to what happens in planned economies, such as Communist ones in which they become increasingly backward as their old (or previously shut down enterprises) are kept on artificial life support through protective trade tariffs.

The US gets a bit more backward every day on a range of fronts and are essentially abdicating their leadership role.

 

[White_Unifier]

Tariffs fossilize inefficiencies in the economy. The effect is similar to what happens in planned economies, such as Communist ones in which they become increasingly backward as their old (or previously shut down enterprises) are kept on artificial life support through protective trade tariffs.
The US gets a bit more backward every day on a range of fronts and are essentially abdicating their leadership role.

Bingo. Promoting economic efficiency costs jobs, unfortunately. If we want the economy to advance, we don't want to fossilize inefficiencies just to protect outdated jobs. Yes, this thus makes it harder for a government to help those affected since it might require more government investment in universal compulsory education, trades and professional education, addiction therapy, literacy education, and other strategies to help a worker back into the workforce. Allowing improvements in efficiency does result in a more volatile and constantly-changing economy that thus requires the government to constantly retrain its unemployed and underpaid; but however difficult that may be, it's far preferable to just fossilizing an economy in time. Yes, debt-financing and tariffs are a quick way to boost an economy in the short-term, and Trump is a short-term thinker, so I guess such a strategy suits him well since he can't understand the long-term consequences of his actions.

 

[White_Unifier]

Just to be clear though, I think Canada is just as bad as if not worse than trump in many of these respects. Just think Canadian content rules, supply management and agricultural tariffs, restrictions on foreign telecommunications companies in Canada, etc. If anything, rather than copy Canada's example, Trump should look to Canada as an example what not to do. But he's Trump, what do you expect.

 

[pgs]

Legally, Canada could still give 6 months' notice even after ratifying it. Add to that that we've not even ratified it yet.

Personally, I think Canada should adopt unilateral global free trade.

You can trade whatever commodity you want with who ever you want , whydoyouexpect our government to do your work for you?

 

[White_Unifier]

You can trade whatever commodity you want with who ever you want , whydoyouexpect our government to do your work for you?

Because the government decides to what degree I can trade internationally. Are you encouraging me to break the law by sneaking tariffed and quotaed products into Canada tariff and quota free? Wouldn't that qualify as incitement under Canadian law? You have no right to encourage me to commit a criminal offence since to do so is an offence itself.