Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      


Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 7
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6005
Reputation: 290
votes: 8

PostPosted: Wed Jun 13, 2018 8:39 am    Post subject: A trade war that we can't win Reply with quote

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwE_V0kjE_A

You have to watch this. It's an expert talking realistic about what is happening. The people are already trying to work it out, but our leadership has its head up its ... well, you know.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6005
Reputation: 290
votes: 8

PostPosted: Thu Jun 14, 2018 9:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Trade War History Is Not on Justin Trudeau’s Side
Tariffs could batter the U.S. economy, embolden Canadian nationalists and enrich China.
June 14, 2018, 7:00 AM EDT

In 1969, Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau reflected on his country’s relationship with the United States in a speech to the Washington Press Club. “Living next to you is in some ways like sleeping with an elephant,” he said. “No matter how friendly and even-tempered is the beast…one is affected by every twitch and grunt.”

His son Justin Trudeau, the current prime minister, might be tempted to describe the U.S. in even more colorful terms, given his recent diplomatic row with the Trump administration. It’s hard to believe that the two countries are on the brink of a war over tariffs, since Canada is second only to China as a trade partner of the U.S.

While the current fracas seems like a deviation from longstanding norms, it likely signals the revival of a much deeper history of acrimonious commercial conflict between the two nations. These conflicts have had profound consequences for Canadian politics. Justin Trudeau should take note.

After Canada’s first prime minister, Sir John Alexander Macdonald, came to power in 1867, he hoped to set up a free-trade relationship between his country and the U.S. These efforts failed. After losing power for several years, Macdonald regained his position as prime minister in 1878 by promising what became known as the “National Policy.”

This was Canada’s version of “America First”: It imposed very high tariffs on manufactured goods from the United States, with lower tariffs on raw materials needed by Canada’s fledging manufacturing sector. Macdonald’s policy became the new orthodoxy, and in his final successful re-election bid in 1891, the opposition Liberal Party went down to defeat after espousing reduced tariffs under a policy of “unrestricted reciprocity.”

The appeal of protectionism went well beyond economics. Many Canadians feared a commercial union with the U.S. would invite the absorption of their country by the elephant to their south. In fact, when the Liberal Party managed to secure a provisional free-trade agreement with the Americans in 1911, the Conservatives fanned fears that commercial reciprocity would lead to political annexation, and in the next election the Liberals lost.

For the remaining decades, Canada maintained its hostile stance toward free trade. The one time that trade barriers fell, between 1913 and 1921, it was the U.S. that unilaterally lowered tariffs on Canadian goods. After Congress reversed course with the passage of the Fordney-McCumber Tariff in 1922, cross-border trade resumed its usual contentious dynamic.

Predictably, the Liberal Party resumed its attempts to liberalize trade. Its leader, William Lyon Mackenzie King, hoped that lower tariffs would enable him to forge a winning political coalition. But the twitches and grunts of the elephant to the south ruined those plans.

In 1928, Herbert Hoover sought the Republican nomination. His platform included plans for higher tariffs on agricultural products, with Canada being the country most likely to suffer from these policies. After Hoover won the presidency, most Canadians doubted he would take any drastic measures. In 1929, the Toronto Globe expressed confidence that Hoover would “do everything in his power to discourage Congress from enacting drastic tariff increases whose chief effect would be to arouse resentment in Canada.”

But King, writing in his diary, expressed fears of a “tariff war developing,” and grimly predicted that Canada “could and probably would retaliate” if the United States made such a move. King hated the idea, but he knew that his Liberal Party was vulnerable on the issue. He proved prescient. Indeed, by this time, the new leader of the Conservative Party, Richard Bedford Bennett, was arguing that Canada should wall itself off from the U.S., and reorient its trade toward Great Britain.

In 1930, as the Great Depression began to cripple the global economy, Congress passed the infamous Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, which slapped a host of costs on Canadian goods. Bennett lost no opportunity to slam King and the Liberals as weak in their dealings with the Americans.

In a campaign speech, Bennett fanned nationalist fervor, declaring: “I will not beg of any country to buy our goods. I will make [tariffs] fight for you. I will use them to blast a way into markets that have been closed.”

Bennett rode these promises to victory in 1930, driving King from office. Canada soon slapped retaliatory tariffs on the U.S. and deliberately steered its trade toward the British Empire.

But retaliatory tariffs couldn’t save Hoover and Bennett. Both went down to ignominious defeat thanks to the Depression, replaced by Franklin Delano Roosevelt and, yes, Mackenzie King. In the 1930s, these two leaders began crafting the first agreements to liberalize trade relations. This time, King managed to quell anxiety in Canada that it would become a vassal state of the U.S. In the postwar era, he used the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, signed in 1947, to lower barriers.

These efforts laid the groundwork for further liberalization of trade, including the Canada-United States Automotive Products Agreements and, eventually, the North American Free Trade Agreement. In the eyes of Donald Trump, it was precisely this liberalization that has left the United States vulnerable, necessitating a revival of retaliatory tariffs.

If Trump continues waging a trade war, this will almost certainly lead to a revival of old-fashioned Canadian nationalism. The Conservative Party could readily use the conflict to ride back into power, toppling Trudeau’s Liberals, much as the Conservatives did repeatedly so many years ago.

And while Canada can no longer turn to the British Empire to replace trade with the Americans, there are other options available. China is currently Canada’s second-largest trading partner. There is no reason the Chinese can’t eventually supplant the U.S. for the top spot.

Such a shift would come at the expense of American jobs, prestige and influence, while strengthening China. In the long run, that’s not going to Make America Great Again.
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-06-14/trade-war-history-is-not-on-justin-trudeau-s-side
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6005
Reputation: 290
votes: 8

PostPosted: Thu Jun 14, 2018 12:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Chrystia Freeland made a speech in Washington, as a recipient of the Diplomat of the Year Award from a magazine ...

To my surprise, it didn't damage or inflame the situation, although is perplexes me how a woman of'such thin accomplishments in the field could compete with the professionals at the State Department ... maybe this is one of those awards they give on an "equity" basis.

http://nationalpost.com/news/p.....ech-in-d-c

She is at least playing the theme that Canada isn't the problem. The headline calls it a 'rebuke' but if so, it's a mild one. She blows it, a bit, by acting as if nations can't break treaties at will -- they can. There is nothing illegal about what Trump has done. He has served six months notice that he intends to terminate NAFTA. Why? To acknowledge that Canada isn't the problem -- but Mexico is at least a part of it. That's why they want two bi-lateral deals, and what these 'brainy' Liberals are ignoring. And the tariffs won't kick in until after that six months.

The situation is this -- the Americans do NOT have to negotiate with us. They can simply phase in new tariff protections if they like. Canada MUST negotiate to keep the auto pact, and to keep other advantages. It's like the Americans have a hostage.

What happens if we lose the auto pact? We probably lose the auto industry! Remember how, when oil prices dropped, the Canadian dollar was worth a dime less? 'This is the same kind of thing.

The stupidest part of this whole thing is we (or at least our besotted government) is doing the damage to ourselves. I am not saying that Trump is a perfect gentleman, but he's not the one slowing things down. We could have kissed off supply-management and given Trump an easy, watershed victory just by recognizing the genuine economic problem that Trump is addressing and cooperating. And a wink and a nudge, and we'd pretend to be amongst Trump's victims.

Meanwhile, the American economy is growing at a 4% figure, and Trump wants more. That's the biggest determinant of our own prosperity. We are in an economic unit with Americans. When they prosper, we prosper. That's now structural.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6005
Reputation: 290
votes: 8

PostPosted: Wed Jun 20, 2018 10:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Auto tariffs could cost Canada 160,000 jobs, TD estimates
CBC CBCJune 19, 2018

Donald Trump's threat to slap tariffs on Canadian cars and car parts could cost the country up to 160,000 jobs, especially if Canada retaliates, TD Bank warns.

In a report Monday, senior economist Brian DePratto crunched some numbers on the economic impact of a 10 per cent tariff on car parts, and a stiffer 25 per cent levy on fully assembled vehicles.

Those numbers aren't just pulled from thin air. They're the exact tariff levels the Trump administration recently implemented on aluminum and steel, and DePratto assumes a similar breakdown is a decent base-case scenario to work from, with 10 per cent on car parts, and 25 per cent on more high-value fully assembled vehicles.

His analysis also assumes that Canada would respond with some sort of tariff on U.S. cars and car parts, just as it did with metals.

Technically, nothing is written in stone and the earliest we'd likely see any vehicle tariffs would be August. But the wheels are certainly in motion for another front to soon open in the unexpected trade war between Canada and the United States. The first warning shots were fired in May when the Commerce Department began an investigation into the auto sector along national security grounds — the same justification that was made in slapping tariffs on steel, aluminum and other products.

Almost half of the 17 million new vehicles sold in the U.S. last year were imported from abroad, and about half of those imports were primarily assembled in either Canada or Mexico.

Even those vehicles that are considered "American-made" almost certainly contain components from afar. The Toyota RAV-4 sport utility vehicle is the best-selling vehicle in America that isn't a pickup truck, and many of the ones sold in the U.S. last year were made at the Toyota plant in Woodstock, Ontario.

But the engines in them were likely made in Alabama, and the transmissions in West Virginia. Other components came from Japan, China or elsewhere. Figuring out what parts will see a tariff and when would be a nightmare to calculate, but all told, DePratto figures roughly $74 billion worth of automotive exports between Canada and the U.S. could face some sort of tariff soon.

With tariffs of 10 and 25 per cent as a benchmark assumption, DePratto's number-crunching paints a pretty bleak picture in a hurry. He calculates that Canada's economy would lose about 0.4 per cent of GDP growth within a calendar year of any tariffs being implemented, compared to what he thinks would happen under the status quo.

Worse, there would be a "scarring" effect, he says, whereby the economy takes wounds from which it will never recover. That means "the level of investment is permanently lower as a result, reducing Canada's long-term economic capacity," as DePratto puts it.

But not all the pain would be shared equally. Manufacturing is a key sector in Ontario's economy, as roughly 40 per cent of the province's exports consist of manufactured products, mainly destined for the U.S., and much of them cars or car parts.

A loss of 0.4 percentage points may not be much on a national scale, but the slowdown could be as much as two per cent for Ontario alone, DePratto says.

Roughly 1.7 million Canadians worked in manufacturing last year, of which 771,000 were in Ontario, DePratto notes.

"This shock thus means there is the potential of losing nearly one in 10 of the jobs in this sector, or one in five in Ontario," he says.

While jobs in the auto sector would take a direct hit, that wouldn't be the sole economic impact because the sector filters into just about every facet of the economy. "Even those Canadians fortunate enough not to be in the direct line of fire are likely to feel the pinch in their pocketbooks," he says.

That's because tariffs tend to create what economists call "deadweight loss" in that the impact they have on prices and consumer confidence are usually far greater than the amount of any revenues that governments generate from them, he says. So even if governments spend tariff money and other revenues trying to support affected sectors, it can't possibly be enough to fully offset the pain.

When those broader impacts are included, the toll on Canada's economy is even starker. All in all, DePratto calculates that Canada could lose up to 160,000 jobs, if Canada and the U.S. start trading tit for tat tariffs on cars and car parts.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/auto-tariffs-could-cost-canada-080000481.html
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6005
Reputation: 290
votes: 8

PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 9:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Fix tax rate or risk business exodus, trade association warns
U.S. tax reform drawing business away from Canada
Chris Hall · CBC News · Posted: Jun 21, 2018 4:00 AM ET | Last Updated: 6 hours ago

Another of Canada's largest business groups is warning that Ottawa needs to act now to lower corporate taxes or risk a continued exodus of investment and jobs to the United States.

The Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, which represents 2,500 companies, released a report this week that paints a bleak picture of the business landscape in this country: declining investment in new equipment and technology, a sharp drop in foreign investment in Canada.

At the same time, investment in the U.S. is booming, fuelled in part by the uncertainty President Donald Trump is creating over the future of the North American Free Trade Agreement — and in part by his tax plan, released in December, that cuts the top corporate tax rate from 35 per cent to 20 per cent beginning this year.

It's all part of the Make America Great Again campaign, which Trump claims will bring manufacturing jobs back to the United States.

"A tax advantage is critical for Canada," said Dennis Darby, president of Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, in an interview for the Wednesday podcast edition of CBC's The House. "We are a smaller and less attractive market than the U.S. and we have many non-tax costs of doing business through regulatory red tape."

The report, entitled Restoring Canada's Tax Advantage: A Need for Tax Reform, says U.S. investment in Canada in 2017 was nearly half of the $40.6 billion recorded just four years earlier.

Over the same period, Canadian investment south of the border more than tripled.

"One of the things we really were struck by is that our exports of manufacturing goods (have) grown at less than the rate of inflation," Darby said.

The CME isn't the first business group to urge Finance Minister Bill Morneau to act. [....] http://www.cbc.ca/news/politic.....-1.4714866


This is Trump's policies working as they should. This is why we can't win a trade war. And I haven't even brought up what a trade war will do to the Canadian dollar, and what will happen when our national debt has to be paid in American dollars?

In the big leagues of finance, all that matters is the ratio of 'tax revenues available to pay interest to the amount of national debt. There is a death spiral here that we would do well to avoid.

Or ... we can keep our over-priced milk and poultry ...
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 1212
Reputation: 120.4
votes: 4
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 10:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

" Or ... we can keep our over-priced milk and poultry ..."

We could get rid of it in a heartbeat...... if the Americans would do the same. But they won't and none of their farmers want to reduce their subsidies since none of them would make money.

Simple
as
that.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6005
Reputation: 290
votes: 8

PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 10:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

And you know this .... how?

Certainly, Americans have protected and subsidized their agriculture, so there's no free-market 'edge' to that. But I invite those less visceral in their response that TC to use their heads when they weigh the Auto Pact against the agricultural cartels.

Hint: The auto industry adds hundreds of $biillions to our GNP. The dairy industry only 15.

The auto pact is a hostage they hold. TC's reaction, while satisfying in a cave-man way, would result in poorer future for the whole country.

In any case, businessmen understand ...
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 1212
Reputation: 120.4
votes: 4
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 11:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:
And you know this .... how?

Education.

The Yanks have subsidies up the wazoo yet dont talk about it.
Corn...woah, they take billions.

Look , the issue is simple. They have enormous subsidies that the American taxpayer covers. So...they all pay.

In Canada, it costs the taxpayer nothing. Not a penny of tax revenue goes to the supply mmgmt situation.

Quote:


Hint: The auto industry adds hundreds of $biillions to our GNP. The dairy industry only 15.

No it doesnt. Stop making up facts to bolster your argument.

Very unbecoming.
Quote:

The auto pact is a hostage they hold.

Except they really dont. No one, American or otherwise want to tariff parts coming into the US, then be tariffed again when coming here or vice versa.
The automakers are all working quietly behind the scenes to ensure nothing will fall apart here.

Quote:

In any case, businessmen understand ...


Yes , we do .

Your myopic condemnations need a reboot to cover the whole picture.

You could start with amending who started this all. Hint.... it wasnt Trudeau and I know that hurts you but..... stick to the truth
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6005
Reputation: 290
votes: 8

PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 11:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

That's not what I mean. Nobody denies that the US subsidizes its agriculture too. But don't pretend that this doesn't cost the taxpayers. It's just more "user pays" in Canada, whereas there's less redistributive effects, the flow of money from the rich to the poor.

You don't know -- nor do I -- that the US wouldn't "give up" taxing its own citizens who purchase goods from other countries even if we did the same.

This is my objection -- all I see is grandstanding, and all I hear about are the bean-counters niggling over details. It takes the heads of state to give the OK to big concessions, and the Stunned One thinks he's the world's rallying point for opposition to Trump. So that makes that a long reach.

If Goofy starts a trade war on July 1, he's going to rue the day ... and so will the rest of us, very likely. Because once the auto industry can sort out the separation, we will never get the auto pact back.
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 1212
Reputation: 120.4
votes: 4
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 11:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:
That's not what I mean. Nobody denies that the US subsidizes its agriculture too.

As far as I know, none of Trumps tweets ever suggest if we get rid of X the US will get rid of Y.
Honestly I doubt he even knows much about it , ya know...vis a vis his idiotic shoe diatribe that he got completely ass backwards.
Quote:

But don't pretend that this doesn't cost the taxpayers.

I wont. It doesnt. Cant be more factual than that. Stick to the facts , not opinions.
Quote:

It's just more "user pays" in Canada, whereas there's less redistributive effects, the flow of money from the rich to the poor.

You buy dairy, you pay. You dont but, you dont. Simple. Is it more expensive than perhaps it should be?
Sure.

But most first world countries do the exact same, control the market. Smart move.
Quote:

You don't know -- nor do I -- that the US wouldn't "give up" taxing its own citizens who purchase goods from other countries even if we did the same.

Not sure I understand your point here.
Quote:

This is my objection -- all I see is grandstanding,

You got that right. Its time tRump stopped doing so and learned the details since he doesn't seem to be on any page that's relevant.
Quote:

and all I hear about are the bean-counters niggling over details. It takes the heads of state to give the OK to big concessions,

You have that correct. But thats the process and shouldn't come as a surprise.
The bean counters sit down and go thru the items, come to a consensus/agreement on moving forward (within the parameters each govt sets) and then present them for public approval (which is already approved should they meet requirements)

It was an almost done deal until the orange doofus decided to move the goalposts.
Ok...lets keep talking said Canada.
Quote:

and the Stunned One thinks he's the world's rallying point for opposition to Trump.
Such a snarky thing to say and wholly without merit. But their ya go.
Quote:

If Goofy starts a trade war

You know very well that its tRump who is/has starting the trade war.

Does the name "China" mean anything to you?
Quote:
Because once the auto industry can sort out the separation, we will never get the auto pact back.


"Oh nO the sky is falling" is a silly way to think.

The auto folks are going to be just fine.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6005
Reputation: 290
votes: 8

PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 12:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TC's back to his scoffing emptiness. I think his presentation is nothing but a hope.

Trump will use whatever tools he has available to him to accomplish his goals. From Trump's point of view, trade must become balanced. What economist would disagree?

What tools has Canada got, as an effective matter? As much as anything, they own a lot of Canadian shares, and Americans, too, will be hurt. But we'll be the ones losing jobs. And auto jobs are the best jobs in manufacturing.

Trump knows how to use economic tools better than most Presidents before him, and we should understand the longer we wait to make a deal, the harder the deal will be.

That's how I read the tea leaves. TC reads them differently, and pretends his reading is 'factual'. I think what he means amounts to dismissive sniggers at the idea that Trump knows what he's doing. He's committed to the idea that everyone knows that Trump is an idiot.

TC thinks that nobody wins a trade war. Trump wins by reducing the imbalance of trade. He has the big market, he can set the terms for the world. Access to the American market and American financial institutions is the key to prosperity for the nations of the world. Otherwise, you're out there with Iran and North Korea.

TC doesn't look at this part of the problem.

It's the nature of trade wars that they escalate. First, come the steel-aluminum tariffs, and we retaliate with an avocado tariff ... then they retaliate with tariffs on soybeans and corn, and we hit them with strawberries and asparagus ... and finally they put a tariff on autos from Canada ...

Where does a trade war end?

TC doesn't look at this part of the problem.

Let's all hope that the worst outcomes imagineable don't await us ...
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 1212
Reputation: 120.4
votes: 4
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 12:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:
I think his presentation is nothing but a hope.


With facts...dont forget facts.

How's that $100's of Billions GDP doing?
No? Oh yea right.

Anyhoo...
Quote:

Trump will use whatever tools he has available to him to accomplish his goals. From Trump's point of view, trade must become balanced. What economist would disagree?
Of course he will, so will our PM.
As for econmists...Paul Krugman for one. Do you know him? You should
"

https://www.ft.com/content/2edf26f8-6b28-11e8-b6eb-4acfcfb08c11

Paul Krugman, the US economist and Nobel laureate, said Mr Trump appeared to be mistaking the EU’s application of value-added-tax (charged on imported and domestically produced goods equally) for a tariff, showing that he was “making trade policy with zero understanding of the most basic facts and concepts”.

No?
How about Adam Posen?
"

Adam Posen, president of the Washington-based Peterson Institute for International Economics think-tank, said: “Right now, the level of tariffs on trade in goods around the world is lower than it has been for 150 years . . . and that is due to the path of US policy over the last 75 years.”

Moreover, he added, each time the US had reached a so-called “bad deal” in trade negotiations, the other countries involved had lowered their tariffs and barriers more than the US. "

How about that huh?

Quote:

What tools has Canada got, as an effective matter? As much as anything, they own a lot of Canadian shares, and Americans, too, will be hurt. But we'll be the ones losing jobs. And auto jobs are the best jobs in manufacturing.

same in America more or less.
Don't forget China now. The real target of all this.
Quote:

Trump knows how to use economic tools better than most Presidents before him,


LOL LOL....oh my. So many examples of the complete opposite. He's your man.

Just how does his ass taste anyhow?
Quote:

That's how I read the tea leaves.

Try reading the news, the Economist , WSJ and many others.
Tea leaves are notoriously wrong.
Quote:
TC reads them differently,

Nope, dont read tea leaves. Thats for simpletons.
Quote:

and pretends his reading is 'factual'.

Backed w facts of course....LOL!
Quote:

I think what he means amounts to dismissive sniggers at the idea that Trump knows what he's doing. He's committed to the idea that everyone knows that Trump is an idiot.

Proven every day.

How about them shoes tariff eh Bugs? Wait....you think there is a tariff for shoes from the US?
Oh my....
Quote:

TC thinks that nobody wins a trade war.

Both sides win.... and lose. Specific areas may have a losing element but another is a winning element.
Quote:

Trump wins by reducing the imbalance of trade. He has the big market, he can set the terms for the world. Access to the American market and American financial institutions is the key to prosperity for the nations of the world. Otherwise, you're out there with Iran and North Korea.

TC doesn't look at this part of the problem.

Sure I do.

Its just that you have no idea that you are talking out of your ass.

A balance of trade is virtually impossible to achieve.
The deficit (for the US) can be as, and almost always is, a result of a booming economy. They need more imports than exports to keep it going.
Deficit = win , in this case.

They have a healthy surplus in trade services. So...good! But the US does import lots of services too in order to keep things running.

Quote:

Where does a trade war end?

First we need you to calm down and hope that tRump doesnt start one. If he does, then we make our move.
Quote:

TC doesn't look at this part of the problem.

I do kind of, but I doubt one will occur betw the USand CDa.

But at least I have an idea of what I am looking at instead of making up numbers (and failing horribly) and scenarios that have no real prospect of occurring.
Quote:

Let's all hope that the worst outcomes imagineable don't await us ...


Yup...deep breath...go have a beer.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6005
Reputation: 290
votes: 8

PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 1:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So--oo empty of content. TC actually cites Paul Krugman, the guy who, in 2009, said that recession would soon be over, that Paul Krugman? He's the David Suzuki of Economics. In real life a columnist for the New York Times. He also predicted that the bond vigilantes would come after the US dollar back in Bush's time. He's kind of a laughing stock.

None of this certifies anything. Is Trump trying to restore an $800 billion a year balance of trade loss, more or less, to nearer balance? Or is he just dicking with Canada over expanding the market for a few American dairy farmers?

He has a plan, and it involves reviving American industrial jobs. And a trade war works for him. Anyone who doesn't see that is a little dim. Sorry, they are.

There is still time. We'll see how it works out. July 1 isn't far away.
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 1212
Reputation: 120.4
votes: 4
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Fri Jun 22, 2018 11:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

You constantly refer to me in the TP.....why? Its so juvenile.
Bugs wrote:
So--oo empty of content.

Searching for the reams of info/links you supply.

Still searching. Can ya help me out?

Quote:
Is Trump trying to restore an $800 billion a year balance of trade loss, more or less, to nearer balance?


Bullshit, keep lying there bucko.

How does tRumps ass taste fan boy?

LOL!
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6005
Reputation: 290
votes: 8

PostPosted: Fri Jun 22, 2018 12:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's because often I am not talking to you so much as about what you pose as an argument. I don't think there's much point in trying to persuade you of much, and I would probably be the last person to do so.

Take our discussions about the trade war Trudeau is about to launch. We can't really compare a rough strategy, and comments about our priorities, because you don't offer an alternative to the Liberal Party's talking points. So I often address the gentle reader, hoping they won't stay stuck in the muck of the group-thinkl

Your points are so 'playbook' inspired, and often are more a display of your attitudes, rather than discussion. All with the Liberal Party seal of approval, even back to Michael Bryant days ... btw, here's a laff -- guess what he's doing now? He's got a sinecure as head of the Canadian Civil Liberties Union ... you know, the people who say nothing when you'd wish they woulld ... Alan Borovoy must be rolling over in his grave.

He must be amongst the most blackmailable of politicians, after George Smitherman.

And, btw, didja know Smitherman is now associated with one of the new marijuana companies presently forging new products so your kids can pop some weed without the teacher ever knowing about it ...
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 7

Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


A trade war that we can't win

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB