Canada, Trump and the G7

mmphosis wrote:

Donald Trump was right. The rest of the G7 were wrong (theguardian.com)

by George Monbiot

In arguing for a sunset clause to the Nafta trade agreement, this odious man is exposing the corruption of liberal democracy

..txs mm

quote:

Even if the people of the US, Canada and Mexico had explicitly consented to Nafta in 1994, the idea that a decision made then should bind everyone in North America for all time is repulsive. So is the notion, championed by the Canadian and Mexican governments, that any slightly modified version of the deal agreed now should bind all future governments.

But the people of North America did not explicitly consent to Nafta. They were never asked to vote on the deal, and its bipartisan support ensured that there was little scope for dissent. The huge grassroots resistance in all three nations was ignored or maligned. The deal was fixed between political and commercial elites, and granted immortality.

In seeking to update the treaty, governments in the three countries have candidly sought to thwart the will of the people. Their stated intention was to finish the job before Mexico’s presidential election in July. The leading candidate, Andrés Lopez Obrador, has expressed hostility to Nafta, so it had to be done before the people cast their vote. They might wonder why so many have lost faith in democracy.

Nafta provides a perfect illustration of why all trade treaties should contain a sunset clause. Provisions that made sense to the negotiators in the early 1990s make no sense to anyone today, except fossil fuel companies and greedy lawyers. The most obvious example is the way its rules for investor-state dispute settlement have been interpreted. These clauses (chapter 11 of the treaty) were supposed to prevent states from unfairly expropriating the assets of foreign companies. But they have spawned a new industry, in which aggressive lawyers discover ever more lucrative means of overriding democracy.

I usually agree with Monbiot, but saying Donald Trump was right about NAFTA is rather like saying Hitler was right about Indian Independence. Both completely ignore the question of motive.

It also ignores the fact that is is one thing to force economies into an agreement like that - quite another to yank them back out once the economic damage is largely done.

On the G7 itself I am agnostic, since it isn't an organization with any political power, unlike the Bilderberg Group. As for evaluating them, I'd say the best place to start isn't at their proto origins 45 years ago, but rather with the communique they came out with this week:

https://g7.gc.ca/en/official-documents/charlevoix-g7-summit-communique/

As for Parker's comment, the presumed takeaway - that the central question is "getting along with Trump" doesn't make much sense. Ditto raising the G7's history as somehow an excuse for his obstructionism.

It reminds me of branding those who object to Trump's other assaults on the rule of law as somehow sympathizing with the CIA and FBI.

I usually agree with Monbiot, but saying Donald Trump was right about NAFTA is rather like saying Hitler was right about Indian Independence. Both completely ignore the question of motive.

..monbiot's piece was all about the sunset clause and the anti democratic nature of trade deals. trump and the g7 was the vehicle used as the entry point of that discussion not the focus.

progressive17 wrote:

The dollar is the ruler of the world. Bigger than any one state or group of them. G7 doesn't need to hold power for the $ any more. The $ now has its own power.

..if by the $ you mean capital..i totally agree. capital, though, can not work independently so structures have been built that facilitate it's movement. g7 is one such structure as are trade deals.

I don't think the raised eyebrows about Trump's actions are because he insulted the G7 as an organization, but rather, because he insulted the people who attened G7 meetings, ie. world leaders.

Though I think this sort of thing is probably a case of whose ox is being gored. If Corbyn became PM of the UK and went to the G8 and said "You guys are a bunch of blood-sucking, neoliberal scumbags, and I'm looking at you Macron", the left would probably think it was great, lese majesete aside.

eta..i've removed my drift comments because on reflextion this is on topic.

..the world is already in disarray and one of the reasons is trade deals. as for solutions..imo..they lie outside electoral politics. it lies with communities where change comes from.

mmphosis wrote:

Donald Trump was right. The rest of the G7 were wrong (theguardian.com)

by George Monbiot

In arguing for a sunset clause to the Nafta trade agreement, this odious man is exposing the corruption of liberal democracy

I think that Monbiot misses the point entirely here.

This was never something you get to walk away from and restore what you had and it is not a pact between equals.

When you consider these things you can see what Trump is trying to do -- build in an extortion schedule. It has nothing to do with walking away. Look at his other comments where he says that Trudeau will have no choice but to grovel.

Secondly this has nothing to do with democratic change. A position where either side has to take an action and notify the other is more democratic than something that just stops and needs measures to continue. You might think the opposite if you considered the Canadian political process with Parliament. You could not consider that if you consider both the US system and the political means used to get things through.

In the US you only get things through their government with horsetrading- local pork barrel politics. This means that due to their system (as well as their size and economic power) the process would be new concessions from Canada and Mexico at every single sunset clause-- just to get it through the US system.

The problem behind the entire project is made worse every single time there is a "negotiation." It is the relative power of the US. If Canada and Mexico had been smatter, they would have insisted as a condition on a block of countries where there woudl not be a majority where one could extort the others once the adjustments were made at the start. We should not have agreed to enter a trade deal as a minority powerless partner, but a trade block with more of the Americas and other countries where the US was no more than 40% of the economic power might have worked differently.

As it is Canada had to invest more into Free Trade than the US did as we rely more heavily on it and the adjustments were more costly as a percentage of our economy. Add this to the concentration of power in the arrangment in the US and you can see the problem with repeating a failing process every few years. The presumption that all the countries have an equal ability to return themselves to a pre-agreement position is the greatest falacy of the argument. Canada and Mexico, due to what had to be given up, either needed to not go in at all or to have much better assurances of stability once in it.

The power difference here and political system difference make Monbiot's argument invalid.

Now Canada is faced with a reality check. This country ought to be working as quickly as possible to mitigate this dependence and unequal power in this trade block Canada has put all its opportunities into.

The greatest waste will be if Canada goes through pain now, signs a worse deal and does nothing to reduce dependence. The next round will only be more costly. While it could hurt more now in the short term, taking steps to create alternatives for the next time this comes up is a better strategy. Agreeing to let this come up like clockwork is nuts.

..i know, i know you've heard this from me before. like a broken record. have patience with me yet another time..please. consider my words and the sincerity in which they are presented.

..for many years i understood the power of capital. for many years i waited for something to come along that would provide some direction, some hope, some vision of a different world that was not controlled by capital. 

..i never saw that in the ndp even as long ago as the early 70's when i became politically aware. mainly because the ndp never called for a different world. like all other political parties it talked like capital could be controlled but offered only reforms. albeit needed reforms.

..this began to change for me when the square occupations made their entrance. today we see where some have transformed into various entities. taken power at the municipal level and working to transform decision making from the bottom up. i'm taking millions of people being involved around the world. this is an incredibly positive approach to politics. it's also inclusive and doesn't divide populations into right, left and center. because people don't live that way. yes people still disagree with each other but no one is pigeon holed.

..yes these movements can be crushed. like greece was crushed. like the powers that be are trying to crush venezuela. but if they aren't demolished, if they find a way to survive they are changing the dynamic of capital power. reducing that influence on their lives.

..i really wish folks here would take this discussion on. with at least half the time and energy that is spent on electoral politics.

Der Spiegel's take on it:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/trump-plays-destructive-role-a...

..it's not about getting rid of or replacing capitalism pondering. i have no doubt it will eventually collapse under the weight of it's corruption. it is unsustainable.

..it's about making it less relevant in our daily lives via building coops, community banking, participatory decision making, collective ownership, building a solidarity economy etc.

..and it has nothing to do with my expectations. listen to what these communities are saying/doing/planning in the autonomy thread. i'm just repeating that stuff. this really is drift now so if folks want to continue the conversation that is where to go. 

epaulo13 wrote:

..it's not about getting rid of or replacing capitalism pondering. i have no doubt it will eventually collapse under the weight of it's corruption. it is unsustainable.

..it's about making it less relevant in our daily lives via building coops, community banking, participatory decision making, collective ownership, building a solidarity economy etc.

..and it has nothing to do with my expectations. listen to what these communities are saying/doing/planning in the autonomy thread. i'm just repeating that stuff. this really is drift now so if folks want to continue the conversation that is where to go. 

I do think that some of these objectives manifest in the political conversation.

So first we have the issue of parties that advocate a more independent ability for Canada to take a different path. Preserving enough autonomy is critical.

Notice how Free trade has functioned in Canadian history. A little over 100 years ago there was considerable reason to think that the US would move to the left of Canada and be more progressive. Conservatives opposed free trade that could tie Canada to that country then as it could enforce policies in Canada they did not agree with. Over the last century, Caanda move to the left of the US and it became the policy of the left parties to preserve a distinction for Canada while right of centre parties wanted to go all in with a country that reflected their positions more accurately.

I tend to disagree with you about your thoughts on the end of the capital system. I think that it is actually fueled well enough to continue until no system is possible at all. The end result of capitalism is a planet that cannot support life. I have absolutely no confidence that capitalism can blow itself out before the changes that would make the planet uninhabitable are no longer reversible. Sorry to be a downer but as we are closer to (if not already past) this point this has become all the more clear.

There may be a window between now and extinction where people reject capitalism but that window may be well be long past the point of no return. Sorry to put it that way. At the very least, there is no confidence that we are not in at the very least quite a battle that we have more chance of losing than winning.

To that end, I am more keen on radical immediate solutions than slow growth of alternatives to capitalism that cannot promise to take hold in time. In the meantime, I think we need to push policies that may not be the ultimate solution but perhaps might buy time for one to take hold.

I would love to be more optimistic. I actually am a fairly optimistic person by nature. Unfortunately logic and history is in the way. At that point the other human nature comes in: to try not to think about this in daily life becuase it is debilitating. Unfortunately, this is the crux of the denial that is allowing the worst to happen.

At the end of the day I believe that social and environmental sustainability are interdependent. I do not see much hope for either and even less for a majority realization of that relationship.

Why the G7 is A Zero

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-lets-dump-the-g7-its-an-...

"The G7 is an artifact of a bygone era..."

To that end, I am more keen on radical immediate solutions than slow growth of alternatives to capitalism that cannot promise to take hold in time. In the meantime, I think we need to push policies that may not be the ultimate solution but perhaps might buy time for one to take hold.

..txs sean

..do you mean like the resistance to pipelines? you seem to be setting some sort of deadline and i'm not certain where that comes from. can you flesh it out please?

..what i do know is that we are beyond only resitance. the movements i point to indicates that we are implementing a bottoms up approach to decision making. i don't know if this will be enough to stave off a collapse of the ecology but if we are going to have any chance at all..it is necessary. 

..and i agree to buying as much time as we can. also the more we can change/stop today the less we will suffer down the road. no matter what though a price must be paid. 

epaulo13 wrote:

To that end, I am more keen on radical immediate solutions than slow growth of alternatives to capitalism that cannot promise to take hold in time. In the meantime, I think we need to push policies that may not be the ultimate solution but perhaps might buy time for one to take hold.

..txs sean

..do you mean like the resistance to pipelines? you seem to be setting some sort of deadline and i'm not certain where that comes from. can you flesh it out please?

..what i do know is that we are beyond only resitance. the movements i point to indicates that we are implementing a bottoms up approach to decision making. i don't know if this will be enough to stave off a collapse of the ecology but if we are going to have any chance at all..it is necessary. 

..and i agree to buying as much time as we can. also the more we can change/stop today the less we will suffer down the road. no matter what though a price must be paid. 

I believe the progress to the destruction of the planet is moving so fast that we cannot afford to wait until the reality dawns on everyone. I do not think the capitalist market answer is the way to let change come in based on profit.

Countries spend large portions of their budgets on lessor military threats than environmental collapse. I think if nations invested the same portiojn to adjusting to the reality of a planet in trouble we would have a greater chance.

I did not mean resistance to pipelines -- although it would include that. Pipelines are about supply and I do not minimize this but I mean addressing demand and the structure of a growth economy where unless it is expanding past the point the planet can take the economy is considered broken.

An example of a policy I advocate that is a temporary mid solution rather than an ultimate fix is with respect to public transit: Have all cars within reach of public transit pay a plate tax that covers the cost of public transit. The reaosn is to provide an economic sttraction for people who presently own cars to use public transit  as well -- to slow down the effects of car use, knowing we cannot cut it off tomorrow or replace them all with a better energy source.

Moving taxes to discourage behaviour is also needed now: carbon taxes etc. This does not mean an increase in all taxes paid but a change in what they are paid on.

The connection between social sustainability and environmental sustainability must be a part of all policy. The high levels of poverty globally is compromising the ability of the planet to mitigate and move to better solutions. The present levels of global inequality make environmental progress impossible.

Recognition of the role of local people -- particularly indigenous -- in finding local solutions is essential. This role must be financed rather than a mandate delivered without the means to make good on it. Again injustice here is in the way of progress on all aspects of sustainability.

These are some of the things I was thinking about when I said that.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

epaulo13 wrote:

To that end, I am more keen on radical immediate solutions than slow growth of alternatives to capitalism that cannot promise to take hold in time. In the meantime, I think we need to push policies that may not be the ultimate solution but perhaps might buy time for one to take hold.

..txs sean

..do you mean like the resistance to pipelines? you seem to be setting some sort of deadline and i'm not certain where that comes from. can you flesh it out please?

..what i do know is that we are beyond only resitance. the movements i point to indicates that we are implementing a bottoms up approach to decision making. i don't know if this will be enough to stave off a collapse of the ecology but if we are going to have any chance at all..it is necessary. 

..and i agree to buying as much time as we can. also the more we can change/stop today the less we will suffer down the road. no matter what though a price must be paid. 

I believe the progress to the destruction of the planet is moving so fast that we cannot afford to wait until the reality dawns on everyone. I do not think the capitalist market answer is the way to let change come in based on profit.

Countries spend large portions of their budgets on lessor military threats than environmental collapse. I think if nations invested the same portiojn to adjusting to the reality of a planet in trouble we would have a greater chance.

I did not mean resistance to pipelines -- although it would include that. Pipelines are about supply and I do not minimize this but I mean addressing demand and the structure of a growth economy where unless it is expanding past the point the planet can take the economy is considered broken.

An example of a policy I advocate that is a temporary mid solution rather than an ultimate fix is with respect to public transit: Have all cars within reach of public transit pay a plate tax that covers the cost of public transit. The reaosn is to provide an economic sttraction for people who presently own cars to use public transit  as well -- to slow down the effects of car use, knowing we cannot cut it off tomorrow or replace them all with a better energy source.

Moving taxes to discourage behaviour is also needed now: carbon taxes etc. This does not mean an increase in all taxes paid but a change in what they are paid on.

The connection between social sustainability and environmental sustainability must be a part of all policy. The high levels of poverty globally is compromising the ability of the planet to mitigate and move to better solutions. The present levels of global inequality make environmental progress impossible.

Recognition of the role of local people -- particularly indigenous -- in finding local solutions is essential. This role must be financed rather than a mandate delivered without the means to make good on it. Again injustice here is in the way of progress on all aspects of sustainability.

These are some of the things I was thinking about when I said that.

..i agree with the list you have made. it's a good list. it is lacking though in that it doesn't include how any of it comes about. have you got any ideas on that? 

Nice little speech for a free trader.

We have to act collectively. Acting individually is nice but it doesn't make much of an impact. I think it's lip service, but plastic bag bans are the only significant means of reducing use enough to have even a small impact. Individuals choosing not to use them is a more of a statement than anything else. 

Ironically the free market will be our savior. 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/carbon-energy-technology-canada-1.4697697

As to the G7. Much ado about nothing. What is the big deal about a joint communique? It has no legal standing at all. It is no more signficant than if they all agreed to talk about having national holidays around the world on the same day. Utterly meaningless. 

It is all political theatre intended to distract us from the economics of rising inequality.