Orchard: How the Americans Could Save Us From Ourselves on Free Trade
http://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/orchard-how-the-americans-co...
"As in 1866, Canada has a choice: to integrate itself even further into the US economy, giving up the dream of Canadian independence, or it can do what it did in 1866: step forward and build a Canadian-owned, world-class economy.
It can stop pleading with the US to keep NAFTA and emerge as a significant competitor to our neighbour, not its colony..."
Good to see Orchard still at it.
Unfortunately, almost nobody else is.
David Orchard dreams of a Canadian national capitalism. Unfortunately no such animal exists nor will it ever exist.
Yeah, I actually talked politics with David Orchard once over supper. He's a nice guy, and I think he means well, but he's terminally naive. Which is why he fell for that promise from Peter MacKay, that MacKay would not join the Reform Party during that Conservative leadership convention. The promise that lasted long enough to commit to paper, but was then unceremoniously tossed out with the trash.
David Orchards hero was Diefenbaker, and Orchard always felt if they could just return the Conservative Party to the good old Dief days, all would be well.
Orchard was also one of the free money guys. Basically believed the government could just print money and spend it building hospitals and schools and housing and such, with no 'after effects'.
It's interesting that he never took an interest in the NDP. I believe it was because of the union connection. He was, after all, a prairie farmer, and more of less of a populist, so that part of the NDP he could understand. I don't think he could reconcile himself to the organized labour side of the NDP.
Still, he damn near won the leadership of the Conservative Party. One wonders what would have happened if he actually had won. I suspect the backroom boys would have found a way to get rid of him, but we'll never know.
Still, he damn near won the leadership of the Conservative Party. One wonders what would have happened if he actually had won. I suspect the backroom boys would have found a way to get rid of him, but we'll never know.
He would have been the 2000s' Canadian version of Donald Trump. Rising to power on a populist economic agenda, and then promptly instructed by the party and governmental elites about how exactly it was all gonna go.
I suspect Orchard might be too principled to go along with it, and just quit, but who knows. I've heard he's a bit of an ego, but that's mostly just hearsay.
I might try to write more later.
Shortly after I first came onto babble, the site seemed overrun(relative to the general population or even the left) with David Orchard followers, or at least people of that general bent.
I remember a debate where one poster, questioning the patriotism of another, demanded to know when that person's ancestors moved to Canada, and, when called on the carpet about this, tried to justify himself by claiming that studies had shown that the descendants of recent immigrants had less attachment to their countries.
Also, a thread that someone started called "What Would John Diefenbaker Be Doing If He Was Still Alive?", in which the opening post informed us that he would be supporting same-sex marriage, because Dief "was always enlightened on social issues" or some such. I think this was during a period where people had been raking Orchard over the coals for his social conservativism. (In fact, Diefenbaker criminalized female homosexuality and opposed Trudeau's criminal code revisions, so he was even worse than the general times on those matters).
And there was this weird thread where someone who didn't like Orchard posted a story(of whatever veracity) about how he(Orchard) had once tried to lead a rally of his followers to protest against the phone company for disconnecting his phone.
For some reason, I have the idea that this onslaught of Orchardites was connected to some plan he had for an entryist strategy into the Liberal Party, but I can't confirm that either way.
Yeah, I actually talked politics with David Orchard once over supper. He's a nice guy, and I think he means well, but he's terminally naive. Which is why he fell for that promise from Peter MacKay, that MacKay would not join the Reform Party during that Conservative leadership convention. The promise that lasted long enough to commit to paper, but was then unceremoniously tossed out with the trash.
David Orchards hero was Diefenbaker, and Orchard always felt if they could just return the Conservative Party to the good old Dief days, all would be well.
Orchard was also one of the free money guys. Basically believed the government could just print money and spend it building hospitals and schools and housing and such, with no 'after effects'.
It's interesting that he never took an interest in the NDP. I believe it was because of the union connection. He was, after all, a prairie farmer, and more of less of a populist, so that part of the NDP he could understand. I don't think he could reconcile himself to the organized labour side of the NDP.
Still, he damn near won the leadership of the Conservative Party. One wonders what would have happened if he actually had won. I suspect the backroom boys would have found a way to get rid of him, but we'll never know.
Calling him a “free money guy”? Nice right wing talking point.
He didn’t join the NDP largely because of the Quebec issue.
Josh wrote:
Calling him a “free money guy”? Nice right wing talking point.
Well, these days, when the right-wing talks about "free money", they usually mean social-welfare policies and other forms of government spending, derived from tax revenue and designed to alleviate poverty and other forms of material deprivation. But Pesky's reference to "printing money" made me think he meant something more like Social Credit, where, rationalized by opaque gobbledygook, the government does just print up a whole new batch of money out of the blue and hand it out willy-nilly. From a Catholic Social Credit site...
The dividend formula would be infinitely better than the present social programs like welfare, unemployment insurance, etc., since the dividend would not be financed by the taxes of those who are employed, but by new money created by the National Credit Office. No one would therefore live at the expense of the taxpayers; the dividend would be a heritage that is due to all Canadian citizens, who are all stockholders in “Canada Limited”.
Not that I think Orchard is a proponent of Social Credit per se, just that(going by my interpretation of Pesky) his emphasis is more on creating new money rather than redistributing existing wealth.
From Voice Of The Damned:
Not that I think Orchard is a proponent of Social Credit per se, just that(going by my interpretation of Pesky) his emphasis is more on creating new money rather than redistributing existing wealth.
Yes, that was the tenor of my interpretation of Orchard's fiscal beliefs. Strangely enough, I met Orchard through another friend who was an old-time Communist party member. I think it was that fiscal thing that brought them together.
In any case, as I say, I think Orchard is a decent person, but politically naive. My impression from that meeting was that he was not at all interested in the LIberals, nor the NDP. His idea was that if the Conservative Party would return to it's populist roots (that is, the 'progressive' side of the Progressive Conservatives), it could save the nation.
Red Toryism was a great tradition. Both in Canada and Great Britain. Killed by Thatcherism and neoliberalism.
DISCLAIMER: This is a musing post. Trigger alert. Consider avoiding if blood pressure is high.
Yeah, I actually talked politics with David Orchard once over supper. He's a nice guy, and I think he means well, but he's terminally naive. Which is why he fell for that promise from Peter MacKay, that MacKay would not join the Reform Party during that Conservative leadership convention. The promise that lasted long enough to commit to paper, but was then unceremoniously tossed out with the trash.
David Orchards hero was Diefenbaker, and Orchard always felt if they could just return the Conservative Party to the good old Dief days, all would be well.
Orchard was also one of the free money guys. Basically believed the government could just print money and spend it building hospitals and schools and housing and such, with no 'after effects'.
It's interesting that he never took an interest in the NDP. I believe it was because of the union connection. He was, after all, a prairie farmer, and more of less of a populist, so that part of the NDP he could understand. I don't think he could reconcile himself to the organized labour side of the NDP.
What an interesting thread. It shows why people can't be just divided up as left/right/centre to determine who they will support. Why would praire farmers be against unions but otherwise lefty? Why would a populist be against unions? Why would a populist be a conservative?
Populism is a word that has confused me since the first time I saw it used here as a pejorative against the people who supported Ford I think, not sure, feels like it was earlier than that. It seems to me that to be anti-populism is to be anti-democratic. To me there is an elitism, an underlying suggestion that ordinary people aren't qualified to make choices.
Populism is a political philosophy supporting the rights and power of the people in their struggle against a privileged elite.[1] Critics of populism have described it as "a political approach that seeks to disrupt the existing social order by solidifying and mobilizing the animosity of the "commoner" or "the people" against "privileged elites" and the "establishment".[2] Populists can fall anywhere on the traditional left–right political spectrum of politics and often portray both bourgeois capitalists and socialist organizers as unfairly dominating the political sphere.[3]
Political parties and politicians[4] often use the terms "populist" and "populism" as pejoratives against their opponents. Such a view sees populism as demagogy, merely appearing to empathize with the public through rhetoric or unrealistic proposals in order to increase appeal across the political spectrum.[5]
Populism is most common in democratic nations and political scientist Cas Mudde wrote: "Many observers have noted that populism is inherent to representative democracy; after all, do populists not juxtapose 'the pure people' against 'the corrupt elite'?".[6]
Just now from there I followed the demagogy link:
Throughout its history, people have often used the word demagogue carelessly, as an "attack word" to disparage any leader whom the speaker thinks manipulative, pernicious, or bigoted.[3][10]While there can be no precise delineation between demagogues and non-demagogues, since democratic leaders exist on a continuum from less to more demagogic, what distinguishes a demagogue can be defined independently of whether the speaker favors or opposes a certain political leader.[3] What distinguishes a demagogue is how he or she gains or holds democratic power: by exciting the passions of the lower classes and less-educated people in a democracy toward rash or violent action, breaking established democratic institutions such as the rule of law.[3] James Fenimore Cooper in 1838 identified four fundamental characteristics of demagogues:[3][6]
- They fashion themselves as a man or woman of the common people, opposed to the elites.
- Their politics depends on a visceral connection with the people, which greatly exceeds ordinary political popularity.
- They manipulate this connection, and the raging popularity it affords, for their own benefit and ambition.
- They threaten or outright break established rules of conduct, institutions, and even the law.
The central feature of the practice of demagoguery is persuasion by means of passion, shutting down reasoned deliberation and consideration of alternatives. Demagogues "pander to passion, prejudice, bigotry, and ignorance, rather than reason."[4] See below for a survey of the methods of persuasion used by most demagogues throughout history.
Sounds like Ford and Trump to me.
Modern demagogues include Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Huey Long, Father Coughlin, and Joseph McCarthy, all of whom built mass followings the same way that Cleon did: by exciting the passions of the mob against the moderate, thoughtful customs of the aristocratic elites of their times.[3]
That seems pretty prejudicial to me. Ordinary people are mobs. Aristocratic elites are moderate and thoughtful.
To me being anti-populist is anti-democratic and elitist. The problem does not lie with Ford and Trump for taking advantage of discontent to rise to power. The problem lies with the left or progressives or whatever. There is a tendency to look down on people considered insufficiently enlightened on just causes and not interested in micro-aggressions and intersectionality as vocabulary they need to understand and who reject the label of settler if they have even heard it. People who aren't interested in politics and keep up with pop culture and drive SUVs are todays ignorant commoner. Others see using tactics of pursuasion and slick campaigning as dishonest and a betrayal of unwritten principles of justice or as selling out.
Aristotle once explained to me that some voters on the prairies do switch between Conservative and NDP not Liberal which I still find confusing, but I believe it because I think he knows what he is talking about. It is evidence that the left/centre/right spectrum on which all politics seems to be discussed is misleading when talking about voters as opposed to political parties and issues.
Thucydides and Aristophanes came from the upper classes, predisposed to look down on the commercial classes. Nevertheless, their portrayals define the archetypal example of the "demagogue" or "rabble-rouser."[14]
This very site is called rabble. I love looking up words:
a disorderly crowd; a mob.
"he was met by a rabble of noisy, angry youths"
synonyms:mob, crowd, throng, gang, swarm, horde, pack, mass, group
"a rabble of noisy youths"
derogatory
ordinary people, especially when regarded as socially inferior or uncouth.
noun: the rabble
synonyms:common people, masses, populace, multitude, rank and file, commonality, plebeians, proletariat, peasantry, lower classes;
The people here may belong to these classes but I wouldn't consider us typical of todays "rabble". There's too much education. Rabble-rousers sure, but not rabble. The type of people here would have been leading their communities in the French Revolution, but you can't be a rabble-rouser if you can't connect with and motivate the typical suburban commuting just-barely homeowner who drives an SUV big enough for 2 carseats and cargo and maybe wants to vacation in the states or fly somewhere warm in winter for a week if they can stretch the budget, or maybe go to Disney World with the kids during the off season, skiing or snow-mobiling or camping on the weekend.
One thing from the quote above...
"Populism is a political philosophy supporting the rights and power of the people in their struggle against a privileged elite"
I think it would be more accurate to describe populism as a political style, rather than a political philosophy. Partly because "elites" is such a nebuolous idea, it can be used by almost any ideologue to describe the people they don't like.
Economic populism is both a political style and a philosophy.
Trump: Tariffs On Canada, Mexico Depend On Whether We Get A NAFTA Deal
"We're not backing down...Right now, 100% (chance we proceed with tariffs),' Trump said Monday in the Oval Office. 'But it could be part of NAFTA.'
These remarks supplemented a morning tweet indicating the tariffs are now a leverage play to squeeze Canada and Mexico in the trade negotiations. Trump tweets that steel and aluminum tariffs would only come off if a new NAFTA is signed.
Ottawa trade consultant Peter Clark predicted a few days ago that these tariffs might become a power-play at NAFTA. He called the move illegal from the start and even more illegal now that Trump is using it as a leverage play.
'These guys don't play by the rules. Might is right..."
Leaving the table might expose Canada to less, rather than more, extortion (why call this anything else?). Staying at the table risks being seen as a signal of capitulation.
I am not criticizing the government harshly in this -- I do not think Canada has had many choices lately.
Leaving the NAFTA table could force US friends of NAFTA to push harder for consessions to stop us than they might if they thought Canada would just surrender. It is a difficult position. Trump is vindictive but he is also a bully and standing down to a bully is asking for more of the same.
As for the trade deals, one of the most significant arguments agaisnt the FTA back in the day was the dependence. Another was the difficulty coming out if we wanted. At the moment Canada is looking at other trade deals to reduce the dependence and to try to provide a path if Canada comes out of the deal. The industries that the FTA wiped out are not coming back overnight. I have argued that thes deals have a toll at both ends -- you pay to play and you pay to stop. Industries adjust to the new reality and Canadian investment backs them up. We do not return to the options we had before 1989 by leaving NAFTA now.
One option for Canada could be to accept the sunset option and put in place a national policy based on NAFTA going away in the short term, while having something of a deal for now. Then Canada can pull the plug once Trump is gone and try to replace the deal then or walk away having had a few years to replace the economic activity from the deal.
Canada needs a modern industrial plan and it really does nto look like we have one. The circumstances are very difficult but Canada must replace dependence on NAFTA whether we are in it or out of it. This is what would allow Cnaada to say no to being bullied. It is what can allow Canada to explore options other than trade blocks for economic prosperity.
Also some of what we trade for is fodder for excessive landfills. Canada needs a cultural change in the expectation of what we import and consume.
Walking away from NAFTA could be expensive but it might be a lower price than sitting down for the next round of bullying anyway.
Resist A US Free Trade Deal. Your Life May Depend On It - George Monbiot
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/feb/14/us-trade-deal-gove...
Relevant to Canada.
Walkom: Trump Exposes How Unprepared Canada Is For The New World
https://www.thestar.com/opinion/star-columnists/2018/03/07/trump-exposes...
"The Trump tariff threat is a reminder of Canada's free-trade dependency. With its charming but outdated belief that free trade conquers all, Canada's government is singularly unprepared for this new world."
NAFTA Talks Falter, Time To Increase Pressure
http://www.flushthetpp.org/nafta-talks-falter-time-to-increase-pressure/
NAFTA was the start of a long line of disastrous trade deals that put the interests of large corporations ahead of the necessities of people and planet. This is the time for people in Mexico, Canada and the US to call for each government to not only withdraw from the talks but also to abandon the corporate model of trade that puts profits before protection of people and the planet."
ISDS Threatening Washington State Salish Sea
http://www.flushthetpp.org/isds-threatening-washington-state-salish-sea/
"The Canadian fish farm corporation, Cooke Aquaculture, threatened to use the NAFTA investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) arbitration courts as a last resort to avoid Washington State lawmakers from applying a ban on the farming of Atlantic salmon in the state.
This threat is a case study example of how corporations use ISDS to threaten regulations that protect the environment and infringe upon the democratic governance of countries over their economy and ecosystems..."
How sad that supposedly 'progressive' people have become so brainwashed and deluded as to support these destructive 'free-trade' deals and the corporatists that impose them upon us.
How Indigenous Mexicans Stood Up Against NAFTA 'Death Sentence'(and vid)
https://dissidentvoice.org/2014/01/how-indigenous-mexicans-stood-up-agai...
BASTA to NAFTA, 'Free-Trade' and 'Progressive' Neoliberal Capitulation to Corporate Rule!
BASTA to NAFTA, 'Free-Trade' and 'Progressive' Neoliberal Capitulation to Corporate Rule!...
unfortuneately saying no is not enough.....we need a strong activist government at all levels to put into place a rebuilding of an economy, outside the control of the corporate financiers and their stock markets...
this demands a political movement with an holistic view of how to rebuild, how to extract the wealth of the perpetrators of the globalist system, especially the banksters! How to build this?
A little OT, but this is somewhat encouraging.
Red Toryism was a great tradition. Both in Canada and Great Britain. Killed by Thatcherism and neoliberalism.
Nailed it.
tks for the article Josh.
kinda changes dynamics of things.
tks for the article Josh. kinda changes dynamics of things.
We could hope so but there are other possible interpretations. Here is one: The EU is an extra national agreement made by states. For it to say that those states cannot give some autonomy in another agreement suggests a supremacy of the EU autonomy over that of the individual state.
Of course I prefer the position the EU is taking because I do not like the idea of business being granted powers over democratic entities. However, there may be a problem for some people with the idea that the state no longer has the power to consider such arrangements if they want them, having given them up to the EU.
I am not judging one interpreation over another, I am just saying that I seriously doubt that such an opinion, or assertion by the EU settles it. It is even possible that the EU could enforce this and have that lead to states wanting to pull out realizing how much autonomy they have given up. (Yes, I know that this is a position the EU imposes on itself, but we have to consider the reach they have to impose it on their members.)
It would be best if no state agreed to such provisions in the first place rather than requiring membership in an extra-national organization to have to enforce this.
Europe is not yet at the point where it can claim to be an exclusive state and we do not know if it can get there. At the moment it shares not only the concept of nations within its borders but full-fledged states and people who identify with those states. This might be a dangerous power play by the EU if it cannot be certain to get away with it. Creating a hierarchy of statehood in the EU is a risky gamble that may or may not work out.
Canada Signs TPP With Sights Set On New Deal In South America
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cptpp-mercosur-champagne-1.4567284
Time to pop Champagne!
A Travesty of Protectionism
http://michael-hudson.com/2018/03/a-travesty-of-protectionism/
""Free-trade imperialism - is to convince other countries not to regulate or plan their own markets, but to let the US engineer an asymmetrical trade policy whose aim is to make other countries dependent while opening their markets to US companies..."
The Council Calls On the Trudeau Govt To Scrap the TPP
https://canadians.org/blog/council-calls-trudeau-government-scrap-trans-...
"The CoC says the TPP is a bad deal and calls on the Trudeau government to scrap it."
CrossTalk: Trade Havoc?
"Is a global trade war imminent? If Donald Trump follows through on increasing tariffs and upending existing trade deals, it is very likely.."
A Travesty of Protectionism ...
surprised by Hudson´s take on the efforts to rebuild the US steel and aluminum industries...these surely are not raw materials commodity operations...this is an important first step to rebuild the production of a country...
of course the efforts are futile, as the USA has gone way too far into a service based bankster operation...
suggesting of course the need to build a grass roots movement based on local real productions coupled with human based, community based, populist democracy....
Trump Says He Made Up Facts About Trade Deficit in Meeting With Trudeau
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trump-trudeau-1.4577179
"...Trump said on the recording that after Trudeau told him the US does not have a trade deficit with Canada, he replied, 'Wrong Justin, you do,' then added, 'I didn't even know...I had no idea.' Bruce Heyman, the US ambassador to Canada until January, blasted Trump in a series of tweets early Thursday while also apologizing to Canada for Trump's reported comments.
Heyman added that the president is 'casually throwing Canada under the bus and this is just wrong."
Who Saw Donald Trump Coming? Not Simon Reisman, that's for sure, But Maybe Ed Broadbent and John Turner
"Maybe, just maybe, we should have listened to John Turner, Liberal leader in the 1988 federal election, and Ed Broadbent the leader of the NDP, both of whom warned againsts the deal. Mr Turner, indeed, accused Mr Mulroney of 'selling out Canada.'
Unceasing propaganda ever since has painted 'free trade' with the US as a huge success. This propaganda has been relentless, which makes Thomas Walkom's column in the Toronto Star Monday all the more remarkable for telling the unblinkered truth about Mr Mulroney's free trade deal.
'There's one upside to Donald Trump's use of bully-boy tactics against Canada,' Mr Walkom wrote. 'They may force us to rethink our failed trade strategy with the US..."
Who Saw Donald Trump Coming? Not Simon Reisman, that's for sure, But Maybe Ed Broadbent and John Turner
"Maybe, just maybe, we should have listened to John Turner, Liberal leader in the 1988 federal election, and Ed Broadbent the leader of the NDP, both of whom warned againsts the deal. Mr Turner, indeed, accused Mr Mulroney of 'selling out Canada.'
Unceasing propaganda ever since has painted 'free trade' with the US as a huge success. This propaganda has been relentless, which makes Thomas Walkom's column in the Toronto Star Monday all the more remarkable for telling the unblinkered truth about Mr Mulroney's free trade deal.
'There's one upside to Donald Trump's use of bully-boy tactics against Canada,' Mr Walkom wrote. 'They may force us to rethink our failed trade strategy with the US..."
This was very much a part of the debate at the time: that the US may play nice for now but increased dependence eventually would give some future administration the power of extortion over Canada.
Now we can have the debate again as to whether doubling down and caving is the plan or paying a heavy to get out now is the least costly long-term solution.
Despite well-entrenched positions based on politics, the answer to this is likely more practical as there are two options here to consider:
1) get out now and pay the price -- this is best if the deal on the table is so bad that we have to leave now.
2) take the deal but do not trust the US any more and do all possible to diversify over the next few years -- presumably with the objective of pulling out once we have laid the ground for a more independent trade policy and less immediate pain.
Without knowing the details of the deal and the specific amount of pain Canada would pay to get out right now, I cannot say which is the best. However, long term comfort in such a deal with a country that is prepared to act as the US does is folly.
It was also a major part of the debate in 1988 that the US may or may not act like a bully at some point in the manner we are now seeing -- but there is no quesiton that if resources became an issue any of the protections Canada thought it had woudl be blown away if the US had this amount of power over Canada and wanted that done.
Given climate change and energy insecurity (long after oil is the main energy source Canada will probably eventually lead in alternate energy), it is very likely that Canada will see blackmail on some issue given the power difference. Since 1988, most critics have assumed that this will come over water. Very few see it any different today.
"It is impossible for a free market economy to compete internationally. A free market economy is one of economic collapse and austerity. America didn't get rich by being a free market. It got rich by being a protectionist country. China is getting rich by following the exact same policy that made America rich, Germany rich and other industrial countries - by having a mixed economy where the government provides most of what are called 'externalities'..."
Keiser Report (E120) @ 12:40
A free market economy is one of economic collapse and austerity. America didn't get rich by being a free market.....
The essential problem of course is that the political parties of Canada are all neoliberal as is the MSM...
somehow, quietly we must begin building an alternative...waiting the system to collapse...can anyone really find any credibility in the MS Parties, so long proponents of neoliberalism...but we need a voice to point this out...and if the MSM dares not to cover our positions...nail them under Section 3 of the Charter! Bankrupt them! Humiliate Canada´s press, internationally!
Free Trade Fantasies - A Conversation With David Orchard (podcast)
http://rabble.ca/podcasts/shows/rabble-radio/2018/05/free-trade-fantasies
"Despite all the boosterism for successfully renegotiated NAFTA that we are usually hearing on the media, there are still people who think it would be a good thing if the NAFTA talks fail. Today's guest on rabble radio is a well known opponent of NAFTA..."
Free Trade Fantasies - A Conversation With David Orchard (podcast)
http://rabble.ca/podcasts/shows/rabble-radio/2018/05/free-trade-fantasies
"Despite all the boosterism for successfully renegotiated NAFTA that we are usually hearing on the media, there are still people who think it would be a good thing if the NAFTA talks fail. Today's guest on rabble radio is a well known opponent of NAFTA..."
There is a substantial contradiction from many who were against the FTA and NAFTA and are celebrating a NAFTA failure now.
Proponents of these deals said that we could leave if we wanted to later. The majority of the opponents of these deals stated that they feared that these deals would cause so much damage to existing Canadian business that could not be brought back by getting out.
That is now the situation Canada finds itself in. The position Canada had cannot be recovered easily and our present position would be harmed by getting out not. The position Canada is in is more vulnerable to US government nastiness (like these tariffs Trump is proposing) than if we had stayed out at the time. The Irony of all this is that globalized trade, if Canada had waited for it, would ahve provided much of what Canada wanted without the integration that we went for.
So the position Canada is in is really poor today: we are being offered a bad NAFTA deal that is worse than the old NAFTA and a loss of NAFTA that would also be worse, until the economy adjusts to being on the outside (if it ever can).
Canada may have only one out left now and nobody really boosting the apporach needed.
Canada cannot walk away from NAFTA and think things will be okay nor can it expect a deal that will work out. Rather it would have to walk away and institute an industrial plan with huge government investment in key sectors to allow Canada to build a new economy out of the ashes the last decades of integration policies have created.
Countries the size of Canada have never been able to apply a laissez faire approach to business. Rather they have invested in key sectors making sure there are national industries able to succeeed on a global scale. There are many examples of this including European countries like France and Asian countries like Korea. Smaller economies do not become successful by default or by accident.
If Canada is willing to make the investment in an economy -- and undergo the kind of pain that will be coming from US interests -- then a new economy can be built outside NAFTA. This was always the choice. The government of Canada has never made the required investments to allow Canada to succeed independently in business.
Of course things are different globally now and Canada has the option of entering trade agreements with other countries on a more level playing field where there is not a partner that has five times the power of all others in the agreement put together.
The Liberals seem to be trying to create these other trade deals to make Canada independent of the extreme reliance on the US. They also understand the need to address Environmental and wage concerns -- although we hope that this is more than a political but a substantive effort. What the Liberals seem less able to do is tax enough wealth to create the kind of investment fund to drive Canadian business forward.
Gloves off!
https://www.ctvnews.ca/business/trump-hits-canadian-steel-aluminum-with-...
If the Americans want to play this game,Canada MUST play it back. Freeland needs to give it up. It's time to take the gloves off and hit the Americans very HARD. We'll see who wins this game of chicken. (Hint: It won't be the US)
Heres my candid youtube video about NAFTA, its dated 9 months. If there enough interest I do another video with up dated figures.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIuNLQ2zUZM
Gloves off!
https://www.ctvnews.ca/business/trump-hits-canadian-steel-aluminum-with-...
If the Americans want to play this game,Canada MUST play it back. Freeland needs to give it up. It's time to take the gloves off and hit the Americans very HARD. We'll see who wins this game of chicken. (Hint: It won't be the US)
In BC we know all about trade relations. The softwood lumber disputes over the last two decades have cost us the majority of jobs in the forestry industry. The paper mills have also all closed in the same timeframe. We now mostly export raw logs to US mills and chip underaged trees to ship to Asian pulp mills. Of course BC's interests were never really defended by Ottawa under either the Libs or Cons.
But you may be right that Ottawa may fight back, after all it is Central Canadian jobs at stake.
Gloves off!
https://www.ctvnews.ca/business/trump-hits-canadian-steel-aluminum-with-...
If the Americans want to play this game,Canada MUST play it back. Freeland needs to give it up. It's time to take the gloves off and hit the Americans very HARD. We'll see who wins this game of chicken. (Hint: It won't be the US)
In BC we know all about trade relations. The softwood lumber disputes over the last two decades have cost us the majority of jobs in the forestry industry. The paper mills have also all closed in the same timeframe. We now mostly export raw logs to US mills and chip underaged trees to ship to Asian pulp mills. Of course BC's interests were never really defended by Ottawa under either the Libs or Cons.
But you may be right that Ottawa may fight back, after all it is Central Canadian jobs at stake.
Central Canadian jobs were decimated by the petro dollar. You are a victim of divide and conquer. Central Canada is not your enemy.
Gloves off!
https://www.ctvnews.ca/business/trump-hits-canadian-steel-aluminum-with-...
If the Americans want to play this game,Canada MUST play it back. Freeland needs to give it up. It's time to take the gloves off and hit the Americans very HARD. We'll see who wins this game of chicken. (Hint: It won't be the US)
In BC we know all about trade relations. The softwood lumber disputes over the last two decades have cost us the majority of jobs in the forestry industry. The paper mills have also all closed in the same timeframe. We now mostly export raw logs to US mills and chip underaged trees to ship to Asian pulp mills. Of course BC's interests were never really defended by Ottawa under either the Libs or Cons.
But you may be right that Ottawa may fight back, after all it is Central Canadian jobs at stake.
Central Canadian jobs were decimated by the petro dollar. You are a victim of divide and conquer. Central Canada is not your enemy.
Agreed its the petro dollar. In capitalist economy the value of labour is key. All this talk of the education and skills is in my opionon is just happy talk. The job of a capitalist is to earn money and not invloved in social walfare. When I was young and believed in media happy talk. Like their are national champions in nationalisc ecomony are better then forigein capitalists. Then I met real socialst and his views of the world changed my view the world and economy. There no bad feeling and name calling of the indivdual capitalist. Capitalism is like shark, it must eat, and eat. It does not hate, or pity you but it will eat becasue it must to surive. Next time you see a major capitalist fail and destroy 100,000 jobs or cut your hours and wage, please dont rail agaisnt the individal rather see futher is the system that is failing you. Once you see that through drama and personal fallings of the fallen capitatist. This not about the person don't waste your emtional anger on the person. They will be replaced by more effective capitialist. If you see this as indivulal failure your trapped in the system. If you see this as a failure of the system I welcome you there is hope for all us yet.
As for the petro day I do some research. And put together something interesting.
Central Canadian jobs were decimated by the petro dollar. You are a victim of divide and conquer. Central Canada is not your enemy.
I'm sure Alberta (and Newfoundland and Sasksatchewan) is sorry for making something people want to buy. Seriously, the entire idea of a "Petro dollar" is quite silly. If bombardier suddenly sold thousands of planes to Delta, would you complain about our "Aero Dollar" and its ill effects? The dollar rises because we have valuable exports that bring in foreign currency, and oil happens to be the most valuable export. Canadian oil companies would love a low $CND, so they could make better money selling their oil...which is sold at $USD, while they pay their expenses in $CND. I'm foggy here, but I think a rule of thumb is that a $1.00 increase in the oil price is the same as a $0.01 decrease in the $CND relative to $USD for oil company operating profits (seriously foggy, so open to correction there). Of course, a higher $CND is great for the vast majority of people in Canada, who either travel to other countries or buy things from them. It makes little sense to deliberately devalue our dollar to a ghetto currency just to placate manufacturing industries that refuse to invest in productivity.
And to Alan’s earlier point about how we should take off the gloves and win this trade war with the US…I’m not sure what he’s smoking (but I’d like some…if I can somehow get it from the absurd government bureaucracy now that I live in Ontario – good alcohol seems to have been banned based on my surveys of LCBOs). A real trade war with the US would leave Canada a hollowed shell, while the US would merely be hurt. They are the most important global economy, and we are a tiny backwater country nobody cares about (even less now after the Kinder Morgan fiasco).
Actually,I haven't smoked anything in a month.
These tariffs are not just for Canada but the EU and Mexico. I see Canada,the EU and Mexico fighting this together and China may be a trump card (pardon the pun)
Unlike you,I don't think Canada should roll over on our backs and not respond to these tariffs. If the tariffs only hit Canada,you're right but these tariffs are hitting almost all of America's allies. You really think the Americans are going to be unscathed? I was watching an American business report and they suggested the US would get hurt with this trade war much harder than you suggested. They are even suggesting a huge recession in the US with these trade wars mixed with the massive tax cuts they made as their GDP could fall by 1% which translates into TRILLIONS of dollars.
I'm happy Canada stood up. Something I didn't think they'd do. As of July 1 our tariffs will be in place. Mexico and the EU have stood up as well. We're not America's rug to walk on and wipe their feet on. Neither is Mexico or the EU.
The Americans are going to regret this in the long run.
"According to the Trump administration, North Korea has brilliant potential and will be a great economic and financial Nation but Canada could be considered a national security threat to the US...Let that sink in for a moment."
A real trade war with the US would leave Canada a hollowed shell, while the US would merely be hurt. They are the most important global economy, and we are a tiny backwater country nobody cares about (even less now after the Kinder Morgan fiasco).
But Trump is picking a trade war against the entire world.
A real trade war with the US would leave Canada a hollowed shell, while the US would merely be hurt. They are the most important global economy, and we are a tiny backwater country nobody cares about (even less now after the Kinder Morgan fiasco).
But Trump is picking a trade war against the entire world.
This is the point -- Trump is breaking the first rule of bullying. If you bully people one at a time you can get results but trying to do that to several and you might just get beaten by people who individually are weaker than you are. Even as a bully trump is stupid. As well by putting so much of the world in the same position, Trump is focrcing many countries to act together and give each other alternatives.
All that said Canada will never fare well in such a batterl dues to the disproportionate reliance on US trade Canada has. While other countries can weather this more easily, Canada will suffer. But if there is any way to mitigate that suffering so it is a little less, this is it.
Canada's approach to succeed will have to be a combination of working with other countries to replace as much trading opportunities as possible, pusuit of international trade law avenues, and the construction of an interventionist industrial plan with the government developing key sectors. this latter policy has an opportunity in Trump's war with others. Under normal circumstances new interventions would be hard to get any international support for, but in the light of the US war on everyone, Canada may be able to negotiate some tolerance for neew supports with other countries being sympathetic and of a mind to help Canada be more independent of the US. This attitude of the world will be short lived so Canada would have to act quickly to create the international trading space for the country to create some state invested industries to make up for the losses. Another extreme Canadian action that might have some effect would be to nationalize some of the Amercian enterprises in Canada -- this might be possible, with some care to cycle them through a nationalization and in some cases privatization to Canadian stakeholders with legislation that they could not be sold offshore.
It will take quite a strategy to avoid a very long serious recession in Canada as alternatives are built.
There will also be the temptation to respond in the trade war hoping that the US will replace Trump soon. This strategy would squander the opportunity for Canada to reclaim some economic independence.
The other strategy is to not seek out independence so much as spreading the dependence around by engaging in a multitude of FT deals with other countries than the US. This would also waste an opportunity although it is true that reduced dependence on one large country is better than what we have now.
Trump Administration Takes Major Step Toward Global Trade War
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/06/01/trad-j01.html
"...In view of the further measures being prepared, however, the implications of the tariffs go far beyond their immediate impact. There is a growing sense that the entire system of post-World War II economic relations, which the US played a central role in constructing after the disasters of the 1930s, is being torn apart..."
Gloves off!
https://www.ctvnews.ca/business/trump-hits-canadian-steel-aluminum-with-...
If the Americans want to play this game,Canada MUST play it back. Freeland needs to give it up. It's time to take the gloves off and hit the Americans very HARD. We'll see who wins this game of chicken. (Hint: It won't be the US)
In BC we know all about trade relations. The softwood lumber disputes over the last two decades have cost us the majority of jobs in the forestry industry. The paper mills have also all closed in the same timeframe. We now mostly export raw logs to US mills and chip underaged trees to ship to Asian pulp mills. Of course BC's interests were never really defended by Ottawa under either the Libs or Cons.
But you may be right that Ottawa may fight back, after all it is Central Canadian jobs at stake.
Central Canadian jobs were decimated by the petro dollar. You are a victim of divide and conquer. Central Canada is not your enemy.
Read some history please.
As Trump Turns on Canada, Why is Ottawa Surprised?
http://rabble.ca/columnists/2018/06/trump-turns-canada-why-ottawa-surprised
"There is still time for Canada to adopt a 'Made in Canada' economic plan for the future."
Gloves off!
https://www.ctvnews.ca/business/trump-hits-canadian-steel-aluminum-with-...
If the Americans want to play this game,Canada MUST play it back. Freeland needs to give it up. It's time to take the gloves off and hit the Americans very HARD. We'll see who wins this game of chicken. (Hint: It won't be the US)
In BC we know all about trade relations. The softwood lumber disputes over the last two decades have cost us the majority of jobs in the forestry industry. The paper mills have also all closed in the same timeframe. We now mostly export raw logs to US mills and chip underaged trees to ship to Asian pulp mills. Of course BC's interests were never really defended by Ottawa under either the Libs or Cons.
But you may be right that Ottawa may fight back, after all it is Central Canadian jobs at stake.
Central Canadian jobs were decimated by the petro dollar. You are a victim of divide and conquer. Central Canada is not your enemy.
Read some history please.
I admit my historical knowledge is lacking but that is true of most Canadians right across the country. The people of Canada are all subject to our governments provincial and federal. Most wait to the last week to figure out who to vote for and most don't think there is much to choose from provincially and federally.
Maybe BC, or parts of BC would be better off separated from Canada and if BC made that choice I would support it. Central Canada will dominate for some time to come simply because the bulk of the Canadian population lives there. There is no need to demonize other Canadians for separation to be a good idea.
As Trump Turns on Canada, Why is Ottawa Surprised?
http://rabble.ca/columnists/2018/06/trump-turns-canada-why-ottawa-surprised
"There is still time for Canada to adopt a 'Made in Canada' economic plan for the future."
That was a really informative article if it is accurate but I don't see why the author thinks Ottawa is surprised. Trump threatened to cancel NAFTA within a month or two of taking office.
As Trump Turns on Canada, Why is Ottawa Surprised?
http://rabble.ca/columnists/2018/06/trump-turns-canada-why-ottawa-surprised
"There is still time for Canada to adopt a 'Made in Canada' economic plan for the future."
That was a really informative article if it is accurate but I don't see why the author thinks Ottawa is surprised. Trump threatened to cancel NAFTA within a month or two of taking office.
With respect to Duncan Cameron, this article is deeply flawed.
The premise of the title, is not accurate I am sure. I think that the government of Canada was getting advice right across the spectrum and we are told would have been surprised at nothing. Dissapointed, maybe even pretend surprised, but they knew that anything could happen. they have said publicly that they fear the wors, hope for the best and are prearing for everything. They are as shocked as a person would be when a dying relative who has been sick for years passes away: surprise and shock are not the same (believe me I know).
The bigger flaw is the analysis for where the Trump administration really is. All major initiatives of Trumps other than the trade file are largely in agreement with Trump's base and the GOP generally. The differences rest in the details and political embarassment. The trade file is another matter. This has Trump's base and the GOP divided both in terms of policy and awareness of what the result will bring. There is presently a disagreement about what is an intention and what is a tactic -- meaning that the GOP and the Trump base (in so far as they are even different at all right now) are now confused and prone to read in what they want rather than in agreement with a full understanding of what is happening.
The Canadian government is not ignoring the way that Trump ticks boxes on campaign pledges -- but this is not as universal as Cameron suggests. He has broken a few. The issue with the ignorance and fake news of Trump zealots is not lost on anyone other than Trump's supporters.
The worst part of the article is where Cameron tries to guess at the tea leaves of what Trump is really attempting to do. There is simly no evidence other than circumstance for it and a lot more evidence that Trump is winging it. The pivot to China phase he speaks about? -- Well if the Chinese make things worthwhile for the Trump family, no doubt this is a different pivot than Cameron is implying. the suggestion there is strategy in the bullying might even be the greatest misunderstanding of Trump.
Is it not more likely that he is just trying to please Americans competing with Canadians in the only way he can? Let's speculate for a minute. Canada has said that it already offered Trump most of what it was asking regarding China and was willing to discuss the rest. Instead of take advantage of that, Trump gave an ultimatum that had nothing to do with China and prevented talks from continuing. You know this in part becuase Cameron acknowledges what Canada did to please Trump on China. He just leaves that hanging.
Seems to me Cameron is too busy trying to write the narrative he wants about a long term opposition to trade' long term US position and his made-in-Canada conclusion. He is clearly bending his analysis and facts leaving no comment on the contradictions to get there. Cameron writes well and does great analysis but this is not a good article.
More interesting would be examing the point that on trade there this is a real contradiction in the GOP anf Trump base. Canada could try to take advantage. On the other hand, if you want Canada to develop a more independent strategy for trade and industry, let's consider how the current situtation could be used for that. Still playing let's pretend about the analysis and the facts and the trends of US policy from the GOP is not a way to produce objective analysis or even an opinion of how to redirect Canadian trade policy.
NDP Leader Singh Open to Bilateral Trade Deal With Trump
https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/ndp-leader-singh-open-to-bilateral-trade...
"Asked specifically, if he would be ok if Trump ripped up NAFTA and turned to Canada to work out something between the two countries, Singh said 'absolutely.'
