Milnet.ca Forums

The Mess => Canadian Politics => Global Politics => Topic started by: tomahawk6 on June 08, 2018, 02:17:54

Title: US VS G7
Post by: tomahawk6 on June 08, 2018, 02:17:54
Or better stated Climate vs Climate Deniers or Macron and Trudeau vs Trump.My money is on Trump.I have zero respect for Macron and Trudeau.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/07/politics/trump-g7-canada/index.html
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Journeyman on June 08, 2018, 14:03:08
I have zero respect for Macron and Trudeau.
Well, Trump has  created an almost global consensus regarding his admirable traits and respect.  Hard to compete with that!  :nod:
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Good2Golf on June 08, 2018, 15:13:09
Shouldn't the thread title be "US VS G6?"  Otherwise, Trump is 14.3% fighting himself...

G2G
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: MARS on June 08, 2018, 17:00:10
Shouldn't the thread title be "US VS G6?"  Otherwise, Trump is 14.3% fighting himself...

G2G

Fake news.  The percentage has to be WAY bigger than that.  Massive crowds percentage.  'UGE you might even say.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Blackadder1916 on June 08, 2018, 18:22:06
Well, Trump has  created an almost global consensus regarding his admirable traits and respect.  Hard to compete with that!  :nod:

Couldn't care less about creating global consensus but do want to know what was created to keep his hair in place on the Bagotville tarmac.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42eqKWSwJ3I
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: tomahawk6 on June 09, 2018, 01:45:02
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5821265/Trump-says-PUTIN-G7-summit-Canada.html
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: tomahawk6 on June 10, 2018, 06:19:22
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/photo-of-merkel-trump-goes-viral/ar-AAyr0ub?ocid=spartanntp
© Bundesregierung/Jesco Denzel/Handout/Reuters German Chancellor Angela Merkel speaks to U.S. President Donald Trump during the second day of the G7 meeting in Charlevoix city of La Malbaie, Quebec, Canada, June 9, 201

Trump proposes zero tariff zone
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/06/president-trump-proposes-zero-tariffs-zero-barriers-and-zero-subsidies-at-g7-summit-video/
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on June 10, 2018, 13:13:22
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/photo-of-merkel-trump-goes-viral/ar-AAyr0ub?ocid=spartanntp
© Bundesregierung/Jesco Denzel/Handout/Reuters German Chancellor Angela Merkel speaks to U.S. President Donald Trump during the second day of the G7 meeting in Charlevoix city of La Malbaie, Quebec, Canada, June 9, 201

Trump proposes zero tariff zone
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/06/president-trump-proposes-zero-tariffs-zero-barriers-and-zero-subsidies-at-g7-summit-video/
That would be nice,  considering...

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/TM.TAX.MRCH.WM.AR.ZS?end=2016&start=2016&view=bar

Average tariff rates charged by G-7 nations:
USA: 1.6%
EU: 1.6%
UK: 1.6%
Italy: 1.6%
Germany: 1.6%
France: 1.6%
Japan: 1.4%
Canada: 0.8%

Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on June 10, 2018, 13:14:54
http://video.foxnews.com/v/5795869384001/?#sp=show-clips

FOX interviewed Stephen Harper

"Canada is the biggest single purchaser of US goods and services in the world...This is the wrong target. And from what I understand of American public opinion, I don't think even Trump supporters think the Canadian trade relationship is a problem."
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on June 10, 2018, 13:32:00
Trudeau needs to walk away from nafta renegotiations right now and dare Trump to bring this before congress.

Congress passed NAFTA,  they would need to repeal it. Call his bluff. Until congress repeats it,  it's business as usual.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Fishbone Jones on June 10, 2018, 13:44:13
Perhaps Trump should just wait until 2019 and deal with Scheer, instead of the incompetence of Team Trudeau  :rofl:
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on June 10, 2018, 13:52:54
Perhaps Trump should just wait until 2019 and deal with Scheer, instead of the incompetence of Team Trudeau  :rofl:
When even Harper is saying the US president is out to lunch,  that should say it all.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: ballz on June 10, 2018, 13:53:05
Perhaps Trump should just wait until 2019 and deal with Scheer, instead of the incompetence of Team Trudeau  :rofl:

The only thing standing in the way of a deal right now is supply management. Scheer and all of these fake conservatives are more committed to this communist policy than Trudeau is.

Supply management was a perfect bargaining chip. It is literally a win for us to get rid of it. Unfortunately, I believe Trump has made enough of a stink about it now that he is going to start making it harder for Trudeau to bargain it away, because it will make Canadians think we're losing something.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on June 10, 2018, 13:55:22
The only thing standing in the way of a deal right now is supply management. Scheer and all of these fake conservatives are more committed to this communist policy than Trudeau is.

Supply management was a perfect bargaining chip. It is literally a win for us to get rid of it. Unfortunately, I believe Trump has made enough of a stink about it now that he is going to start making it harder for Trudeau to bargain it away, because it will make Canadians think we're losing something.
It should be noted that TPP,  which trump oh so wisely pulled out of, included major Canadian concessions on dairy.

But good point,  sheer owes his leadership to the dairy lobby,  he's not giving up on supply management any more than trudeau is.

And for the other sticking point,  the 5 year sunset clause,  it is complete nonsense. What company would set up to do business with the USA,  Canada or Mexico only to have the rules change in 5 years?  No one.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on June 10, 2018, 14:01:16
My hope is that the democrats wipe out the Republicans in November and stonewall any agenda Trump has after that,  including any changes to NAFTA.

This is complete nonsense. Again,  the weird state where America blasts its allies,  doesn't sign a communique with Americas allies, personally insults a leader of the G7, leaves early to go shake hands with a mass murdering,  nuclear war threatening,  despot of a country with the GDP of new Brunswick.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Rifleman62 on June 10, 2018, 14:44:08
Altair:
Quote
And for the other sticking point,  the 5 year sunset clause,  it is complete nonsense. What company would set up to do business with the USA,  Canada or Mexico only to have the rules change in 5 years?  No one.

Are you e.g. speaking about Cdn Federal and Provincial elections?

Altair:
Quote
......to go shake hands with a mass murdering,  nuclear war threatening,  despot of a country.....

The big picture Altair is that Trump is attempting to get NOK to give up it's nuc wpns which threaten the whole region and NA, which Canada for instance has no defence (the Liberal policy is that the Party is against ABM's, now and previously).

Are you against Trump for trying for that?

As to Trump  "Blasts Canada's Trudeau as 'Weak and Dishonest", I think many in Canada agree with that.


Kudlow: Canada's Trudeau stabbed us in the back


https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=54&v=a4HCULGOxN8
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Jarnhamar on June 10, 2018, 14:53:39
Quote from: Rifleman62
The big picture Altair is that Trump is attempting to get NOK to give up it's nuc wpns which threaten the whole region and NA, which Canada for instance has no defence (the Liberal policy is that the Party is against ABM's, now and previously).

Are you against Trump for trying for that?[/b]


I bet a lot of North Americans are simply due to the fact they'll support anyone who is appears to be against Trump.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: RomeoJuliet on June 10, 2018, 15:29:00
Perhaps Trump should just wait until 2019 and deal with Scheer, instead of the incompetence of Team Trudeau  :rofl:
Ya that’s a good plan. Sigh.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Good2Golf on June 10, 2018, 15:46:27
The only thing standing in the way of a deal right now is supply management. Scheer and all of these fake conservatives are more committed to this communist policy than Trudeau is.

Supply management was a perfect bargaining chip. It is literally a win for us to get rid of it. Unfortunately, I believe Trump has made enough of a stink about it now that he is going to start making it harder for Trudeau to bargain it away, because it will make Canadians think we're losing something.

So President Trump is the champion of his people, re: protecting them from Canada's "unfair" supply management?  Perhaps he supports large corporate conglomerates and not the farmer producing the milk?

https://brownfieldagnews.com/news/wisconsin-farm-bureau-supports-canadian-style-dairy-supply-management/ (https://brownfieldagnews.com/news/wisconsin-farm-bureau-supports-canadian-style-dairy-supply-management/)

If one pulls back for a moment to the overall trade picture and play's out what Trump is seeking to achieve (trade parity with all countries trading with America) then one can't help but question "Why would America want to deliberately limit its exports to only the levels of national productivity and output that other nations' markets can return in kind?"  China loves trade surpluses; it shows they're growing their economy and spreading their productivity around the world - they're not limiting themselves the the balance sheets of one-on-one tit-for-tats with 180+ countries.  ???

:2c:

G2G



Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on June 10, 2018, 15:49:41
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/john-mccain-tweet-twitter-donald-trump-us-president-g7-trade-war-a8391881.html%3famp (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/john-mccain-tweet-twitter-donald-trump-us-president-g7-trade-war-a8391881.html%3famp)
Quote

John McCain has criticised Donald Trump after he withdrew the US’s endorsement of a G7 communique and threatened to start a trade war with Canada.

“To our allies: bipartisan majorities of Americans remain pro-free trade, pro-globalization & supportive of alliances based on 70 years of shared values,” the veteran Republican politician and one time rival to Mr Trump for the presidency, tweeted

“Americans stand with you, even if our president doesn’t,” the senator added.

I like to think there are americans, republicans especially, who agree with Canada.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: tomahawk6 on June 10, 2018, 15:54:43
Watch Fox news and the comments about Trudeau.It isn't pretty.Best to disregard McCain as he is a neverTrumper.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on June 10, 2018, 16:02:56
Watch Fox news and the comments about Trudeau.It isn't pretty.Best to disregard McCain as he is a neverTrumper.
McCain has stopped Trumps agenda before, healthcare being one instance.

Seeing how much of the GOP is pro trade, and NAFTA is a act of congress, and would thus need to be a act of Congress to cancel, having men like John McCain saying such things and taking stances with Allies like Canada and the G7 is a good thing, and not to be disregarded.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: tomahawk6 on June 10, 2018, 16:29:37
I don't see NAFTA going away.Any new agreements might have to be approved by the Senate. They wont like the 270% tariff on US dairy products.What Trudeau forgets is that a lot of Canadians shop just across the border to avoid higher Canadian prices.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Fishbone Jones on June 10, 2018, 16:54:56
I don't see NAFTA going away.Any new agreements might have to be approved by the Senate. They wont like the 270% tariff on US dairy products.What Trudeau forgets is that a lot of Canadians shop just across the border to avoid higher Canadian prices.

Sure do. $1.94/ gal US compared to $1.35/ ltr Cdn. 24 beer for $13.00 (5%) - $2.40 for the cans = $10.60/ 24. Cheaper food and all within a 15 minute  drive. 26oz porterhouse steaks (can't find them in Canada anymore) shrimp boat and all the fixings including a drink for $30.00. I can be stateside in less time than it takes to drive across town. I make no apologies for saving my money.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Infanteer on June 10, 2018, 17:10:44
That's been going on for decades.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Fishbone Jones on June 10, 2018, 17:25:22
That's been going on for decades.

I also remember when our dollar was stronger than the USD and the exchange rate was in our favour. Those were even better times. Unfortunately, I don't think well ever see that again.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on June 10, 2018, 17:30:25
Sure do. $1.94/ gal US compared to $1.35/ ltr Cdn. 24 beer for $13.00 (5%) - $2.40 for the cans = $10.60/ 24. Cheaper food and all within a 15 minute  drive. 26oz porterhouse steaks (can't find them in Canada anymore) shrimp boat and all the fixings including a drink for $30.00. I can be stateside in less time than it takes to drive across town. I make no apologies for saving my money.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/TM.TAX.MRCH.WM.AR.ZS?end=2016&start=2016&view=bar

Average tariff rates charged by G-7 nations:
USA: 1.6%
EU: 1.6%
UK: 1.6%
Italy: 1.6%
Germany: 1.6%
France: 1.6%
Japan: 1.4%
Canada: 0.8%

Those who live in glass houses...
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: dapaterson on June 10, 2018, 17:30:42
I also remember when our dollar was stronger than the USD and the exchange rate was in our favour. Those were even better times. Unfortunately, I don't think well ever see that again.

You mean 2011?
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on June 10, 2018, 17:55:24
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/06/trump-threatens-to-end-all-trade-with-allies.html
Quote
Leaving the G7 summit on Saturday, President Trump said that the U.S. might end all trade with America’s closest allies if those countries don’t submit to his demands over reduced trade barriers. Trump also confirmed that he had told the leaders of Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Canada, and Italy that there should be no tariffs between them and the U.S. of any kind. Whether Trump’s characteristically hyperbolic threat, or overarching proposal, will be taken seriously is another matter.

Referring to what he called “ridiculous and unfair” tariffs on U.S. imports, Trump said, “It’s going to stop — or we’ll stop trading with them. And that’s a very profitable answer, if we have to do it.”

“We’re the piggy bank that everybody is robbing, and that ends,” added Trump, who also repeated his exaggerations of U.S. trade deficits by tens or hundreds of billions of dollars. The president framed his trade attacks as a defense of U.S. national security, citing the weakening of the country’s “balance sheet” as the corresponding threat.


Perfect way to sink the global economy.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Fishbone Jones on June 10, 2018, 19:07:00
You mean 2011?
I consider 2011 a short lived anomoly. Before 1960. I was seven but still  remember many trips across the border. I most certainly cared little for politics but even a 7 year old knew our dollar was stronger while perusing the shelves.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Eaglelord17 on June 10, 2018, 20:23:36
I don't see NAFTA going away.Any new agreements might have to be approved by the Senate. They wont like the 270% tariff on US dairy products.What Trudeau forgets is that a lot of Canadians shop just across the border to avoid higher Canadian prices.

That is true, however you are also forgetting that Americans also shop in Canada to take advantage of the higher value American dollar. Its a two way street and one that was working quite well until Trump decided to try and play hardball and discovered that his allies aren't going to be pushed around that easily.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on June 10, 2018, 20:47:03
USA GDP: 19 Trillion


Canada GDP: 1.8 Trillion
Mexico GDP: 1.1 Trillion
UK GDP: 2.7 Trillion
France GDP: 2.6 Trillion
Germany GDP: 3.6 Trillion
Japan GDP: 5 Trillion 
Italy GDP: 1.9 Trillion

18.5 trillion dollars.

Might be time to go to the G6 until the post trump era
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: PuckChaser on June 10, 2018, 20:51:00
Might be time to go to the G6 until the post trump era

Bail on a major partner because he's saying things you don't like? Nobody bailed on Italy when they (as part of PIGS) almost tanked the EU.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on June 10, 2018, 20:58:52
Bail on a major partner because he's saying things you don't like? Nobody bailed on Italy when they (as part of PIGS) almost tanked the EU.
America is actively working against the rest of the G7 at this point.

Italy falling over their own feet wasn't intentional,  america threatening and acting on those threats of a trade war on those who don't submit to its demands is intentionally taking down and working against the goals of the G7.

The only comparable to this is the united front(until recently)  against russian action in the Crimea.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on June 10, 2018, 21:05:25
Perhaps Trump should just wait until 2019 and deal with Scheer, instead of the incompetence of Team Trudeau  :rofl:
and right on cue,  Andrew scheer wants those canadian tariffs due for July 1st put in place immediately.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Brad Sallows on June 12, 2018, 23:52:08
America Trump is actively working against the rest of the G7 at this point.

There are things Trump can do alone as the executive, but few of them are beyond intervention by Congress.  Congress has the power to override Trump on tariffs - it isn't politically easy, but all that is needed is to convince enough people that the economic damage will outweigh the political damage.  As the former accumulates, the threshold will be reached by an increasing number of members.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: E.R. Campbell on June 13, 2018, 07:07:53
America Trump is actively working against the rest of the G7 at this point.

There are things Trump can do alone as the executive, but few of them are beyond intervention by Congress.  [size=13pt]Congress has the power to override Trump on tariffs - it isn't politically easy, but all that is needed is to convince enough people that the economic damage will outweigh the political damage.[/size]  As the former accumulates, the threshold will be reached by an increasing number of members.


And that I believe is what is behind the quite detailed list of retaliatory tariffs that Canada (officials, not ministers, not even François-Philippe Champagne, maybe the pick of the litter in Team Trudeau, had that sort of a detailed plan in mind ~ that's officialdom at its best) proposed the day after Trump imposed his tariffs on aluminium and steel. Each tariff is designed, I suspect, to stick a pin into a specific state or even congressional district where our officials think support for President Trump might be wavering. The Europeans are making a similar list but they don't know the Americans as intimately as we do.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Fishbone Jones on June 14, 2018, 12:23:27
Now both sides are coming out, and if believed, Trudeau is THE bad guy here. Trump gave up the sunset clause and Trudeau DID stab him in the back. The clause appeared to be one of the very few sticking points left and Trump gave it up. I wonder if Trudeau is trying to draw heat from the dairy marketing board?

http://business.financialpost.com/opinion/kevin-libin-trudeau-stumbled-into-a-trade-war-that-isnt-all-trumps-fault?utm_term=Autofeed&utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1528971836

Quote
Trudeau has reason to raise a glass himself, now that this rush of pent-up anti-Trump Canadian catharsis has obscured how much he too is to blame for this trade-war disaster

   
“There’s a bit of a patriotic boost going on these past few days,” chuckled Prime Minister Justin Trudeau at an event hosted the other day by the supply-managed farmers who have been celebrating that we’re all blaming Trump for this mess instead of their politically powerful protectionist racket, the primary culprit. They were even giving out free milk and eggs near Parliament Hill, Tuesday. Trudeau has reason to raise a glass himself, now that this rush of pent-up anti-Trump Canadian catharsis has obscured how much he too is to blame for this trade-war disaster.

Largely missed in the sudden and furious reaction to Trump’s salty tweets Sunday was a report by CBC’s Rob Russo on The National that night, which clarifies just how wonderfully it appears trade talks were going between Canada and the U.S. That is, until Trudeau held his post-G7 press conference to remind Trump that Canada would “not be pushed around” by any American president and called the president’s treatment of Canada “kind of insulting.”

Trudeau wasn’t wrong, of course, but his comments were clearly ill-timed. Russo reported that Trump had offered a major giveaway to Trudeau in a NAFTA meeting on the G7 sidelines, finally agreeing to waive his longstanding demand for a sunset clause, the automatic expiry of the deal if it wasn’t renewed every five years, which had been one of the last sticking points. Russo said that Trump’s sudden concession was “surprising (to) his own chief negotiator, according to people who were there, and people (there) think that it’s great.” At the end of the summit, with a NAFTA deal perhaps within grasp, the celebrating was underway. Then came the news conference.

It’s obvious to everyone, and probably even to Trump himself, that the president overreacted, calling Trudeau “very dishonest” and “weak,” in his fit of pique. But it’s also not hard to see why he might have felt antagonized. As Don Lenihan, a senior associate at the progressive think-tank Canada 2020 noted in a commentary this week, “In Trump’s mind, the decision to waive the sunset clause had been a generous act of reconciliation. Yet Trudeau publicly denigrated him just to score political points with Canadians.”

Trudeau, who has since refused to confirm or deny Trump’s offer about the sunset clause, might not have meant it that way (Lenihan suggests he was actually trying to play it safe, sticking to his previous script, since the deal over the sunset clause hadn’t yet been made public). But the president was also hours away from meeting America’s arguably most dangerous enemy, Kim Jong Un. That kind of pressure is hard to imagine; the resulting over-sensitivity to even a mild display of back talk — just after he left a successful meeting in which he apparently offered a significant, friendly gesture — is, however, perfectly easy to imagine.

And after Kim and Trump’s cordial summit, Canada might just rank as the country least able to get along with the U.S. right now. That can’t just be Trump’s fault. From throwing a stink bomb into NAFTA talks with their “progressive” demands, to bringing in protectionist union leader Jerry Dias to consult on the negotiations, to their defiant defence of the unjustified tariff wall protecting Canada’s dairy barons, the Liberals have not done an excellent job of figuring out how to make a deal with a man who literally loves nothing more than making deals. After nearly a year of discussions, things seem at an all-time low. That cannot be blamed all on one man.

Meanwhile, our own overreaction to some ill-considered comments from that one man is growing dangerous for the future of free trade. The last few days have been paradise for protectionists, with protected-milk parties on Sparks Street, unanimous declarations in the House of Commons praising our mighty agriculture cartel, and Tory leader Andrew Scheer demoting MP Maxime Bernier for refusing to publicly submit to the party’s proudly anti-market beliefs about groceries. The steelworker union is today demanding big, fat tariffs against U.S. imports, and also big, fat handouts from taxpayers to help them survive their battle against consumers. And Dias, head of the labour union Unifor, says we need more tariffs, faster: “I think we have to fight fire with fire … strike back… hit hard,” he said this week. “I believe it’s the only real way to get this guy’s attention.”

Dias evidently doesn’t understand how to handle this White House any better than when he was called in to taint the NAFTA talks, because Canada already has Trump’s attention, unfortunately, and the challenge is how to make the best of it. It was Trudeau’s responsibility to make sure America’s attentions remained friendly and Canada’s exports kept flowing, not to stumble into a trade war. That we’re nevertheless here means he must share the blame.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Fishbone Jones on June 14, 2018, 12:45:48
America Trump is actively working against the rest of the G7 at this point.

There are things Trump can do alone as the executive, but few of them are beyond intervention by Congress.  Congress has the power to override Trump on tariffs - it isn't politically easy, but all that is needed is to convince enough people that the economic damage will outweigh the political damage.  As the former accumulates, the threshold will be reached by an increasing number of members.

Japan's reaction seems to be one of sitting on the fence. Italy, appears behind Trump. We're not hearing all the doomsday rhetoric from them. We know the EU ties to the globalist cause. More like against the G4 of Canada, Britain, France and Germany, the globalist, open border countries. The ones with the press, image and political backing to spin this their way.

So I don't see Trump against the G7. I see it as 4 against 3.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Cloud Cover on June 14, 2018, 14:41:13
Note Japan, Italy: https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statistics/highlights/top/top1804yr.html

Good overall picture of the US trade activity by sector: https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statistics/highlights/congressional.html   >>> imports are down, exports are up. Go figure.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Good2Golf on June 14, 2018, 15:34:09
Very interesting, W601. So Canada and China are almost identical total trade, at 1/5 Trillion US dollars each, yet while Canada’s trade surplus with the US is only 4.7% compared to China’s 281.3% surplus, Canada gets the higher tariffs.  It must be that China doesn’t pose a National Security threat to the US. ???

Regards
G2G
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: tomahawk6 on June 14, 2018, 17:04:22
Canada is at 270% on dairy so I am sure this is a ploy by Trump to see that reversed.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Good2Golf on June 14, 2018, 17:55:25
Canada is at 270% on dairy so I am sure this is a ploy by Trump to see that reversed.

'Lies, damned lies, and statistics' they say...

So what is the issue, really...let's take a different look at things from the Trump Administration's focus on tariff percentages... 

FACT*: The U.S. dairy industry exports 134% more, or 2.43 times the dairy products physically into Canada, than Canada exports to the U.S.  Woah!  :o  That's what some would call a physical trade surplus....for the U.S.!  I thought Trump wanted to level all the surpluses/deficits? ???  Apparently only by the figures he chooses.  Trump and the farmers of the U.S. dairy industry are probably quite happy more than doubling the amount of Dairy exports they send North of the border, than Canada sends down. 

Interesting that few to none really question the huge subsidies that the US Government provides American dairy farmers to allow them to charge such low prices pre-tariff.  In many parts of the world, heavily-subsidized trade like that is called "dumping"...you know, like the U.S. forestry industry accuses the Canadian forestry industry of doing (yet the WTO says no)...but its okay to dump when it's America apparently.

All to say, that the issue is not quite the facile "remove the 'unfair' 270% tariff on our [heavily subsidized, but we'll never admit it] American dairy products" argument.

:2c:

Regards,
G2G


Fact refs: * - see "2017 - Dairy - US to Canada.pdf below, column "KG, 2017", bottom row "TOTAL DAIRY PRODUCTS", amount: 145,329,818kg; an amount 2.34 times greater than the 62,196,598kg that Canada exports to the U.S. (see "2017 - Dairy - Canada to US.pdf, same bottom KG-2017 cell)
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: RomeoJuliet on June 14, 2018, 18:08:32
Now both sides are coming out, and if believed, Trudeau is THE bad guy here. Trump gave up the sunset clause and Trudeau DID stab him in the back. The clause appeared to be one of the very few sticking points left and Trump gave it up. I wonder if Trudeau is trying to draw heat from the dairy marketing board?

http://business.financialpost.com/opinion/kevin-libin-trudeau-stumbled-into-a-trade-war-that-isnt-all-trumps-fault?utm_term=Autofeed&utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1528971836
No words...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on June 15, 2018, 10:32:05
Very interesting, W601. So Canada and China are almost identical total trade, at 1/5 Trillion US dollars each, yet while Canada’s trade surplus with the US is only 4.7% compared to China’s 281.3% surplus, Canada gets the higher tariffs.  It must be that China doesn’t pose a National Security threat to the US. ???

Regards
G2G
That didn't last long

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/united-states-china-tariffs-1.4707336

Quote
The Trump administration is announcing a 25 per cent tariff on $50 billion US worth of Chinese imports, escalating a trade dispute between the world's two largest economies.

President Donald Trump has vowed to clamp down on what he calls China's unfair trade practices.

It comes in the aftermath of Trump's nuclear summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un and his push for China to maintain economic pressure on the North.

Trump has already slapped tariffs on steel and aluminum imports from Canada, Mexico, Europe and Japan, drawing a rebuke from U.S. allies.

China has said it will retaliate against any move by the U.S. to impose punishing tariffs on tens of billions of dollars of Chinese goods.

Foreign Ministry spokesperson Geng Shuang said Friday that China's response would be immediate and Beijing would "take necessary measures to defend our legitimate rights and interests."
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Journeyman on June 15, 2018, 10:53:42
FACT*
Ah, but with the global growth in 'populist' political leadership, facts are increasingly dispensable -- from Putin denying any knowledge of either 'green men' in Crimea or the SA-11 missing one SAM missile returning to Russia following the Malaysian airliner downing over the Donbass... to Dutarte disavowing responsibility for the Philippines' 12,000+ drug-related murders.... to a growing list of political lies in between.

Godwin warning:  it was codified in Hitler's Mein Kampf  (1925) as "große Lüge" or the "big lie" -- the use of a lie so "colossal" that no one would believe that someone "could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously."  It's obviously making a comeback, and is so increasingly common that perpetrators are given a free pass -- "oh sure he lies all the time, but.... [insert current hobbyhorse] -- even by people who would previously deny there being any lies,  routinely falling back on the default lie to cover the current lie, it's "fake news."  But now politicians' lies are so constant, that peoples' senses become dulled to even noticing the bigger ones.

In the case of the US in particular, I see a problem in repetitive claims that the media is lying and the judiciary crooked and conspiratorial having a global knock-on effect;  any corrupt leader can now simply say, "if the world's 'greatest and most liberal country' cannot trust its media, police, or courts, then we cannot either," in dismissing the efforts of these people.  In effect, legitimate pillars of fair governance are being hamstrung. 



I'd recommend Emily Dreyfuss, "Want to Make a Lie Seem True? Say It Again. And Again. And Again," Wired, 11 Feb 2017  LINK (https://www.wired.com/2017/02/dont-believe-lies-just-people-repeat/)
Quote
You only use 10 percent of your brain. Eating carrots improves your eyesight. Vitamin C cures the common cold. Crime in the United States is at an all-time high.

None of those things are true.

But the facts don't actually matter: People repeat them so often that you believe them. Welcome to the “illusory truth effect,” a glitch in the human psyche that equates repetition with truth. Marketers and politicians are masters of manipulating this particular cognitive bias—which perhaps you have become more familiar with lately.
But be warned, she uses US political examples that some people may find hurtful.   ;)
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: CBH99 on June 15, 2018, 16:14:16
"Mr. President, I have an idea.  I think we should alienate our closest NATO allies, and unilaterally start a trade war with them."

"Who do you mean?"

"Who you ask?  Well, Mr. President...everybody who matters.  Canada.  Europe.  Japan.  Probably South Korea soon too, just so they don't feel left out.  We want everybody to know we're willing to cripple relations very quickly, based on assumptions & wrong facts!  And we are going to tell the countries that buy our military equipment, allow our military to have bases on their soil, and constantly support our military-driven foreign policy that the reason for this is that THEY pose a threat to our national security!"

"Okay, and then what?  This sounds like an awful idea.  Are you serious?  Is it April fool's today?"

"No sir, I'm totally serious.  And then once we piss everybody off, and even threaten to make their people suffer as a result of their governments trying to negotiate in their own interest, we need to re-ignite a trade war with China.  Remember the concessions we made a few months ago, against the recommendations of the FBI?  Well, we're going to tear those up and start a trade war with China too."

"Ummmmmmm...well...sure.  Why not.  This administration has been absolutely killing it since we got here, I've obviously got amazing advisors.  Good job guys, make it happen!"


^^   :trainwreck:
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on June 15, 2018, 16:36:50
"Mr. President, I have an idea.  I think we should alienate our closest NATO allies, and unilaterally start a trade war with them."

"Who do you mean?"

"Who you ask?  Well, Mr. President...everybody who matters.  Canada.  Europe.  Japan.  Probably South Korea soon too, just so they don't feel left out.  We want everybody to know we're willing to cripple relations very quickly, based on assumptions & wrong facts!  And we are going to tell the countries that buy our military equipment, allow our military to have bases on their soil, and constantly support our military-driven foreign policy that the reason for this is that THEY pose a threat to our national security!"

"Okay, and then what?  This sounds like an awful idea.  Are you serious?  Is it April fool's today?"

"No sir, I'm totally serious.  And then once we piss everybody off, and even threaten to make their people suffer as a result of their governments trying to negotiate in their own interest, we need to re-ignite a trade war with China.  Remember the concessions we made a few months ago, against the recommendations of the FBI?  Well, we're going to tear those up and start a trade war with China too."

"Ummmmmmm...well...sure.  Why not.  This administration has been absolutely killing it since we got here, I've obviously got amazing advisors.  Good job guys, make it happen!"


^^   :trainwreck:
It's amazing watching a Empire fall.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Good2Golf on June 15, 2018, 17:55:51
It's amazing watching a Empire fall.

Some say Trump is America's Neville Chamberlain (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-13/trump-kim-adolf-hitler-benito-mussolini-chamberlain-wwii-peace/9863156).

Hopefully not...but usually "Hope is not a method."

Regards
G2G
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: tomahawk6 on June 15, 2018, 18:17:34
We had hope for 8 years but change has spurred our economy.How's yours ?
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Good2Golf on June 15, 2018, 19:02:19
We had hope for 8 years but change has spurred our economy.How's yours ?

Pretty good.  Lowest unemployment in 42 years.  You guys are only hitting an 18 year record.  :dunno:

Cheers
G2G
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Jarnhamar on June 15, 2018, 19:08:02
Quote from: Altair

It's amazing watching a Empire fall.

Did Rome's trade partners and allies prosper when that nation fell? Honest question.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Infanteer on June 15, 2018, 19:21:00
Did Rome's trade partners and allies prosper when that nation fell? Honest question.

Well, Rome didn't really have allies.  Other societies around it prospered because they feasted on the carcass of the empire.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Remius on June 15, 2018, 20:33:40
Well, Rome didn't really have allies.  Other societies around it prospered because they feasted on the carcass of the empire.

It had client states.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: E.R. Campbell on June 15, 2018, 21:15:02
It had client states.

Which, some might suggest, is the model that President Trump understands and wants to emulate.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on June 16, 2018, 20:52:21
Which, some might suggest, is the model that President Trump understands and wants to emulate.
What could go wrong?
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: tomahawk6 on June 17, 2018, 20:31:08
Trump ran on Making  America Great Again and promised that the US would not be taken advantage any more that's what he's doing.He is talking to his base.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: mariomike on June 17, 2018, 20:44:12
rump ran on Makin on the trade g America Great Again and promised that the US would not be taken advantage any more that's what he's doing.He is talking to his base.

Never heard him called that before.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: E.R. Campbell on June 17, 2018, 20:58:10
Never heard him called that before.


You haven't been paying attention ... almost everyone calls him an ***.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: daftandbarmy on June 18, 2018, 00:54:47
Did Rome's trade partners and allies prosper when that nation fell? Honest question.

Rome fell after it stopped being able to keep the barbarians out due to the decline of internal management mechanisms etc. Basically: They got soft, the others didn't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_the_Western_Roman_Empire

Comparing the US with Ancient Rome is, while fun, also probably a pretty solid venture into false analogy land ;)
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on June 18, 2018, 02:38:22
Rome fell after it stopped being able to keep the barbarians out due to the decline of internal management mechanisms etc. Basically: They got soft, the others didn't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_the_Western_Roman_Empire

Comparing the US with Ancient Rome is, while fun, also probably a pretty solid venture into false analogy land ;)
Ineffective,  cruel,  incompetent emperors probably had something to do with it as well.

Commudus,  Severus,  Nero,  Tiberius,  Caracalla,  Caligula,  even the strongest empires can only withstand inept leadership for so long before things start to collapse.

But you are correct,  comparing the modern day USA to ancient rome is a false analogy.

America tearing down the liberal democratic order it spent decades building,  praising dictatorships and oligarchies while openly antagonizing allied democracies will cause a much quicker collapse of international prestige,  power and wealth than the slow collapse of the Roman empire.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: tomahawk6 on June 18, 2018, 04:26:18
Ineffective,  cruel,  incompetent emperors probably had something to do with it as well.

Commudus,  Severus,  Nero,  Tiberius,  Caracalla,  Caligula,  even the strongest empires can only withstand inept leadership for so long before things start to collapse.

But you are correct,  comparing the modern day USA to ancient rome is a false analogy.

America tearing down the liberal democratic order it spent decades building,  praising dictatorships and oligarchies while openly antagonizing allied democracies will cause a much quicker collapse of international prestige,  power and wealth than the slow collapse of the Roman empire.

Maybe Canada and the rest of Europe should help the US financially or if the US wanted to screw allies the US could just go full on isolationist.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Good2Golf on June 18, 2018, 07:06:07
Maybe Canada and the rest of Europe should help the US financially or if the US wanted to screw allies the US could just go full on isolationist.

Nothing the world hasn't seen from the U.S. before, with the 1930 Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, which many economists attribute world-wide deepening and prolongation of the Great Depression.  Only this time, seems the U.S. is in much better position to screw over the rest of the world (until the Dragon calls in its debt marker).  Not sure that's something to be proud of...but it is the will of the people...

Regards
G2G
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on June 18, 2018, 07:46:41
Nothing the world hasn't seen from the U.S. before, with the 1930 Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, which many economists attribute world-wide deepening and prolongation of the Great Depression.  Only this time, seems the U.S. is in much better position to screw over the rest of the world (until the Dragon calls in its debt marker).  Not sure that's something to be proud of...but it is the will of the people...

Regards
G2G
I believe the world is more or less banking on this being a short term blip that has to be withstood before things return to normal in 2020.

At which point the USA has a lot of work to do trying to rebuild its reputation and relationship with its allies. Even then,  I don't think Europe or Canada will fully trust them again,  knowing that they can elect a populist with no regard for allies at any time.

Never mind if it goes on beyond 2020
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: tomahawk6 on June 18, 2018, 08:26:57
PLan on Trump winning in 2020.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Good2Golf on June 18, 2018, 08:29:44
PLan on Trump winning in 2020.

...and 2024 and 2028 and...
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on June 18, 2018, 08:33:59
...and 2024 and 2028 and...
would there need to elections at that point or would he be president for life like his good friend Xi?
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: E.R. Campbell on June 18, 2018, 08:44:53
PLan on Trump winning in 2020.


Anyone, anywhere, who is NOT planning on Trump being president until 2024 is a strategic nincompoop. In fact I suspect that the Trump Party might be a major factor in US politics for a generation.

Good, old fashioned, English liberalism was hijacked, in the 1940s, '50s and '60s by a (largely American) 'new liberal elite' that was unconcerned with individual rights and liberties and was focused, instead, on issues like productivity and lifting society, at large, out of poverty. They did a lot of good ... they gave us a 'new world order' that, by the 21st century, had lifted more people out of abject poverty in 50 years than had happened in 5,000+ years of recorder history. But in the process they excluded the 'ordinary' American, Brit, Canadian and Dane from the political process and they tried to move globalization from the economic realm to a broader social realm ... where, in my opinion, it does not belong. I think the populist reaction, Trump in America, Brexit in Britain and now Doug Ford in Canada, is the logical and even (by only a few) predictable result.

My, personal view, is that in Canada the Conservatives are trying to reclaim the 'classically liberal' ground, but the federal party may be split by one faction that wants to move very quickly. In Britain I see the Conservatives in ruins, split between those want to appease the populists, those who want to carry on as the 'new order elite' and those who want to reclaim traditional liberalism. In America I think the populists are in control of both the Tea Party and the Trump Party factions and I think the Democrats are on a long term, left leaning course. Someone needs to reinvent the Eisenhower Republicans with middle class, Main Street social and economic values.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Baden Guy on June 18, 2018, 11:44:45
I think many people who vote Liberal would be delighted to vote for "  Eisenhower Republicans with middle class, Main Street social and economic values."
If only the option existed.  :(
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on June 18, 2018, 11:59:02

Anyone, anywhere, who is NOT planning on Trump being president until 2024 is a strategic nincompoop. In fact I suspect that the Trump Party might be a major factor in US politics for a generation.

Good, old fashioned, English liberalism was hijacked, in the 1940s, '50s and '60s by a (largely American) 'new liberal elite' that was unconcerned with individual rights and liberties and was focused, instead, on issues like productivity and lifting society, at large, out of poverty. They did a lot of good ... they gave us a 'new world order' that, by the 21st century, had lifted more people out of abject poverty in 50 years than had happened in 5,000+ years of recorder history. But in the process they excluded the 'ordinary' American, Brit, Canadian and Dane from the political process and they tried to move globalization from the economic realm to a broader social realm ... where, in my opinion, it does not belong. I think the populist reaction, Trump in America, Brexit in Britain and now Doug Ford in Canada, is the logical and even (by only a few) predictable result.

My, personal view, is that in Canada the Conservatives are trying to reclaim the 'classically liberal' ground, but the federal party may be split by one faction that wants to move very quickly. In Britain I see the Conservatives in ruins, split between those want to appease the populists, those who want to carry on as the 'new order elite' and those who want to reclaim traditional liberalism. In America I think the populists are in control of both the Tea Party and the Trump Party factions and I think the Democrats are on a long term, left leaning course. Someone needs to reinvent the Eisenhower Republicans with middle class, Main Street social and economic values.
The Trump Party will be around for a long time, but how big is the Trump party?

Trump was elected president on a razor thin margin, with disenfranchised Democrats staying home or voting for trump. Trump did better with Latinos and Blacks than Romney did in 2012, what are the chances that happens again?

I don't think Democrats are going to sit at home fuming that their guy or gal didn't win the primary this time around, there is going to be a strong anti Trump movement come next election,and assuming the democrats don't pick the second most hated politician as their flag bearer, I don't think it's foolish to think that this may be a one time blip.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: QV on June 18, 2018, 12:17:40
I will disagree with you there Altair.  The way I read it is there is only one thing that will sewer Trump for the next election and that is a crash in the US economy.  I believe in the last election the one thing holding him back from a larger victory was how unsure everyone was with this bombastic celebrity as president.  So long as the world isn't in WWIII and the American economy is humming along nicely (with all that entails) I think you will see a much larger victory in 2020 because the fence sitters will see that he hasn't wrecked the country and that in fact things have improved for most Americans.  The tax breaks, reduced regulations, potential for peace with NK - these are all huge things that a large majority of people approve of - despite what MSM says.     

If things get worse for most Americans, such as a significant economic down turn or the brink of nuclear war, then yes he will lose.  Hopefully none of those things happen, despite the wishes of folks like Bill Maher.

   

Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Cloud Cover on June 18, 2018, 12:26:35
Things will get very ugly south of the border after the mid terms if the Dems take one or both legislatures, Trump and his base will rail like hell against them and have a perfect target to blame everything and nothing on, the main thing is lay blame and take credit at the same time. 

"Of course, populist protest is only partly economic. But even where that protest is cultural, it is fueled by way of mainstream neoliberalism, sanctimoniously pronouncing its policies to be based on scientific economics. Yet populists’ views about the economy are, to put it kindly, often ambiguous. Tea Party activists generated rage against the Affordable Care Act as a big-government imposition on them and a benefit to undeserving others—until Trump tried to repeal it and many noticed that it provides their health insurance .... Populism might be interpreted more consistently as holding that society, rather than government per se, can and must circumscribe the economy within its compass. Hence the opposition to trade treaties. This view is not obviously wrong. “Ideas, knowledge, science, hospitality, travel—these are the things which should of their nature be international,” John Maynard Keynes wrote. “But let goods be homespun whenever it is reasonably and conveniently possible, and, above all, let finance be primarily national.”

The North American Free Trade Agreement launched a far more extensive international economic regime than Keynes even imagined. It focuses less on trade per se—by the time it was negotiated the United States had already lifted nearly all obstacles to manufactured imports—than on protecting investors’ property rights and thus supporting their ability to move across borders."    - Jonathan Schlefer "Market Parables and the Economics of Populism: When Experts Are Wrong, People Revolt" Foreign Affairs July 24, 2017

About the Eisenhower years, some of those were the St Laurent years in Canada until he was beaten by...a populist leader in charge of what soon became a factionalist party.   Since then, Conservatives have only governed when they are unified under a leader they believe in. This is also why our current PM is a populist, many of his own MP's do not trust him or even like him.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Baden Guy on June 18, 2018, 13:06:40
While I can't disagree with the points made by QV....

The new batch of politicians starting to campaign in their home districts are encountering voters who primary area of concern is healthcare.
 
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Remius on June 18, 2018, 14:25:18
Rome fell after it stopped being able to keep the barbarians out due to the decline of internal management mechanisms etc. Basically: They got soft, the others didn't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_the_Western_Roman_Empire

Comparing the US with Ancient Rome is, while fun, also probably a pretty solid venture into false analogy land ;)

There are a whole pile of reasons why the Roman Empire fell.  Death by a thousand cuts including economic ones.

I agree that it is a false analogy but there are many similarities that we are seeing.

Altair mentioned the inept leadership but I would label more as unpredictable leadership and inept government.  But other more comparable issues:

- Retreating from the world.  Rome abandoned their furthest territories.  Receding their military to deal with other issues.  Pulling forces from South Korea, Europe and the Middle East would be similar to Rome leaving Britain, Africa and the territories along the Rhine. 

- Immigration pressures.  Rome saw an influx of Goths seeking refuge in Roman territory.  They were fleeing the Huns and others.  similar to what we see at the Mexican border as well as in Europe.  Very similar. 

- A stagnation in the economy.  They stopped and reduced foreign trade to the massive imbalance in wealth among the population. 

Heck, just look at the financial crisis of 33 Ad, very similar to the US housing crisis.

One only has to look at Julius Caesar as well.  Very much a populist wanting to return the land to the people but also tried to make himself dictator for life to make it happen...
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on June 18, 2018, 15:14:09
There are a whole pile of reasons why the Roman Empire fell.  Death by a thousand cuts including economic ones.

I agree that it is a false analogy but there are many similarities that we are seeing.

Altair mentioned the inept leadership but I would label more as unpredictable leadership and inept government.  But other more comparable issues:

- Retreating from the world.  Rome abandoned their furthest territories.  Receding their military to deal with other issues.  Pulling forces from South Korea, Europe and the Middle East would be similar to Rome leaving Britain, Africa and the territories along the Rhine. 

- Immigration pressures.  Rome saw an influx of Goths seeking refuge in Roman territory.  They were fleeing the Huns and others.  similar to what we see at the Mexican border as well as in Europe.  Very similar. 

- A stagnation in the economy.  They stopped and reduced foreign trade to the massive imbalance in wealth among the population. 

Heck, just look at the financial crisis of 33 Ad, very similar to the US housing crisis.

One only has to look at Julius Caesar as well.  Very much a populist wanting to return the land to the people but also tried to make himself dictator for life to make it happen...
History does tend to repeat itself.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on June 18, 2018, 15:26:28
And more of the G6 + 1, President Trump blasts Germany via twitter.

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
The people of Germany are turning against their leadership as migration is rocking the already tenuous Berlin coalition. Crime in Germany is way up. Big mistake made all over Europe in allowing millions of people in who have so strongly and violently changed their culture!


1.Publicly undermining one of USA's most important allies.
2.Flat out lying about their historically low crime rate.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2018/06/18/trump-says-crime-in-germany-is-way-up-german-statistics-show-the-opposite/?utm_term=.5f67916d1094

Quote
Notably, Merkel's biggest challenger on immigration policy is on record as saying just last month that crime in Germany was the lowest it had been in decades.

Interior Minister Horst Seehofer had released new crime figures in May that pointed to an overall decline in Germany during the past year. The figures showed that 5.76 million crimes were reported in 2017 — a drop of 5 percent from 2016 and the lowest number since 1992. Given the increases in Germany's population, Seehofer told reporters in Berlin, this meant that Germany's reported crime rate was at the lowest it had been for three decades.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Jarnhamar on June 18, 2018, 15:40:31
Quote from: Altair
2.Flat out lying about their historically low crime rate.


Good job on Germany for figuring out how to lower their crime rates.



Cologne police ordered to remove word ‘rape’ from reports into New Year’s Eve sexual assaults amid cover-up claims
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/cologne-police-ordered-to-remove-word-rape-from-reports-into-new-year-s-eve-sexual-assaults-a6972471.html

Cover-up' over Cologne sex assaults blamed on migration sensitivities
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/12085182/Cover-up-over-Cologne-sex-assaults-blamed-on-migration-sensitivities.html

German authorities accused of migrant attack cover up
Mass circulation Bild newspaper says police in several reluctant to disclose information about refugees’ involvement in crimes
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/12090655/German-authorities-accused-of-migrant-attack-cover-up.html
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Jarnhamar on June 18, 2018, 15:47:07
There are a whole pile of reasons why the Roman Empire fell.  Death by a thousand cuts including economic ones.

Would it be fair to suggest after the Roman empire fell education, literacy, sophisticated architecture, advanced economic interaction and the rule of written law stagnated and suffered. Not to pick up again until 1000 years later during the renaissance?
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Remius on June 18, 2018, 16:43:40
Would it be fair to suggest after the Roman empire fell education, literacy, sophisticated architecture, advanced economic interaction and the rule of written law stagnated and suffered. Not to pick up again until 1000 years later during the renaissance?

Historically that is how it is viewed but it is somewhat more complex.  More and more scholars are pointing to that period as one of cultural change rather than a fall per se.  There are a few works on how late antiquity to early middle ages are being considered more and more as one period.

The empire split into various city states, kingdoms etc.  Many of which maintained roman traits for a while after the "fall". 

The U.S in a short time span is abdicating its role as the leader of the free world.  We may see geo political blocks form in the wake of that and old alliances break as a result of it.  And do we see a break up of the republic itself?

 the question is who fills the void?  Russia, China?

The one big difference with the fall of the Roman Empire is technology.  Rome never had an industrial revolution and its slave based society prevented any real advancement on that front. 

 
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on June 18, 2018, 16:50:30
Historically that is how it is viewed but it is somewhat more complex.  More and more scholars are pointing to that period as one of cultural change rather than a fall per se.  There are a few works on how late antiquity to early middle ages are being considered more and more as one period.

The empire split into various city states, kingdoms etc.  Many of which maintained roman traits for a while after the "fall". 

The U.S in a short time span is abdicating its role as the leader of the free world.  We may see geo political blocks form in the wake of that and old alliances break as a result of it.  And do we see a break up of the republic itself?

 the question is who fills the void?  Russia, China?

The one big difference with the fall of the Roman Empire is technology.  Rome never had an industrial revolution and its slave based society prevented any real advancement on that front.
Both

https://globalnews.ca/news/4265214/shanghai-cooperation-organization-summit/

Quote
Chinese President Xi Jinping hailed the entry of India and Pakistan into a Chinese-led bloc at a closely orchestrated gathering Sunday that stood in stark contrast to the G-7 summit that ended in disarray.


Xi welcomed Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Pakistani President Mamnoon Hussain, calling their presence “of great historic significance” in opening remarks at this weekend’s summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization in the northern Chinese port of Qingdao. The two South Asian nations joined the bloc as full members last year.

“More member states means greater strength of the organization as well as greater attention and expectations of people of regional countries and the international community,” Xi said Sunday.

“We also share greater responsibilities in maintaining regional security and stability and promoting development and prosperity,” he said.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Jarnhamar on June 18, 2018, 17:33:10


The U.S in a short time span is abdicating its role as the leader of the free world. 
Yessir. People are upset when the US acts as the world police then the same people cry when the US says we're not the world police.
The same way people cried that Trump was going to start WW3 with Korea and turn around and cry when he meets their leader and appears to be de-escalating the while nuclear winter thing  ::)

Maybe this may turn out to be a good thing.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Remius on June 18, 2018, 17:40:21
Yessir. People are upset when the US acts as the world police then the same people cry when the US says we're not the world police.
The same way people cried that Trump was going to start WW3 with Korea and turn around and cry when he meets their leader and appears to be de-escalating the while nuclear winter thing  ::)

Maybe this may turn out to be a good thing.

I’m not sure I want to see China or Russia fill the void.

Trump could have still have made his NK overture (the results of which are still undecided) without alienating all of the US allies just before doing it.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: QV on June 18, 2018, 17:44:04
A lot of countries were sure offended when Trump suggested they pay their fare share (2%) of defence spending.  How else will you be able to fund your social programs if you have to pay for that army/navy/air force?  A carbon tax price on carbon is one option, I hear.   

     
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Remius on June 18, 2018, 17:53:36
A lot of countries were sure offended when Trump suggested they pay their fare share (2%) of defence spending.  How else will you be able to fund your social programs if you have to pay for that army/navy/air force?  A carbon tax price on carbon is one option, I hear.   

     


I am fairly certain that this trade war would still be happening regardless of whether those countries increased their défense spending.

Edit:in fact it seems I was right. 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-15/nato-members-post-new-defense-spending-rise-amid-trump-pressure
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Good2Golf on June 18, 2018, 18:28:04
Maybe Canada and the rest of Europe should help the US financially or if the US wanted to screw allies the US could just go full on isolationist.

Nothing the world hasn't seen from the U.S. before, with the 1930 Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, which many economists attribute world-wide deepening and prolongation of the Great Depression.  Only this time, seems the U.S. is in much better position to screw over the rest of the world (until The Dragon calls in its debt marker).  Not sure that's something to be proud of...but it is the will of the people...

Regards
G2G


For those who are either: a) interested in said Dragon's ascendancy, or b) wish to refute charges that America is in decline, and no matter which, don't mind taking some time (approx. 20-min) to read...an interesting piece by Dr. Ferry de Kerckhove of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute:

A World Larger Than Trump’s: China’s (https://www.cgai.ca/a_world_larger_than_trumps_chinas?utm_campaign=fisherpac_pod&utm_medium=email&utm_source=cdfai)
Quote
Executive Summary
While China's climb towards global, superpower status has now been underway for decades and is accelerating rapidly, that ascent is being helped enormously by the crisis of American leadership exemplified by Trump. This should be a major concern for the Unites States and the rest of the world. Through his “concession speech” at the United Nations on September 19, Trump has allowed a rekindling of the concept of spheres of influence. In Asia, China represents a model many hope to emulate to bring their people out of poverty. With it, for governments, comes the attraction of power unfettered by the shenanigans of democracy. In Europe, the U.S. foreign policy dearth has had allies looking for a new paradigm, order, stability and a minimum of predictability. China has taken over the number one rank as a donor or investing country in Africa and expects to invest half a trillion dollars in Latin America. The U.S. continues to exercise considerable influence over events, lead the fight against terrorism, brokers negotiations between foes, dominates a large chunk of the world economy, leads on innovations, and is the world’s preeminent military power. But under Trump, beneath all these evidences, confidence in the U.S. has been broken and uncertainty prevails.


Regards
G2G
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Cloud Cover on June 18, 2018, 19:07:38
  And do we see a break up of the republic itselfl

Really good question. I would posit that it is geographically, legally and economically intact but that’s about it. What other ties that bind remain is not clear to me. Politically, socially, culturally, state, community, neighbourhood and household they seem quite unravelled.  I would not be surprised if chunks of the military have no faith or personal loyalty to their CIC, I suspect a great number do not trust or respect him. Certainly the primary federal law enforcement agency and the national security apparatus are institutionally wary of the administration.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Brad Sallows on June 18, 2018, 20:41:20
For those who might be interested, there is Jonah Goldberg's thesis in his recently published Suicide of the West (https://jonahgoldberg.com/suicide-of-the-west/).  Briefly: flavours of tribalism are the natural social and political organization of people; the principles and institutions of liberalism are not easy to come by and foster; only once in history (our current era) has (part of) humanity managed to find its current state of prosperity and liberty - Goldberg calls it the "Miracle" - by leveraging a critical mass of those principles and institutions; if tribalism is the mean to which everyone reverts, then liberalism requires constant upkeep and our status quo is (and always will be) unstable.

Everyone who supports a flavour of tribalism (populism, nationalism, class warfare, caste societies, identity politics, etc) is ultimately an enemy of liberty and prosperity; everyone who chips away at classical liberals until they throw in the towel and revert to the politics of tribalism is an enemy.

If the US is in the grip of populism and reverting more to the "us vs. them" posture, it is incumbent on the rest of the G7 to become less "us vs. them" until (hopefully) the US "recovers".  But that requires acknowledging and defending the correct principles and institutions, and eschewing the politics of tribalism.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Cloud Cover on June 18, 2018, 21:22:04
Re: "Tribalism", it seems there is disagreement about what that even means as things fall apart: https://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2017/11/a-nation-of-tribes-and-members-of-the-tribe/544907/
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on June 18, 2018, 21:49:51
For those who might be interested, there is Jonah Goldberg's thesis in his recently published Suicide of the West (https://jonahgoldberg.com/suicide-of-the-west/).  Briefly: flavours of tribalism are the natural social and political organization of people; the principles and institutions of liberalism are not easy to come by and foster; only once in history (our current era) has (part of) humanity managed to find its current state of prosperity and liberty - Goldberg calls it the "Miracle" - by leveraging a critical mass of those principles and institutions; if tribalism is the mean to which everyone reverts, then liberalism requires constant upkeep and our status quo is (and always will be) unstable.

Everyone who supports a flavour of tribalism (populism, nationalism, class warfare, caste societies, identity politics, etc) is ultimately an enemy of liberty and prosperity; everyone who chips away at classical liberals until they throw in the towel and revert to the politics of tribalism is an enemy.

If the US is in the grip of populism and reverting more to the "us vs. them" posture, it is incumbent on the rest of the G7 to become less "us vs. them" until (hopefully) the US "recovers".  But that requires acknowledging and defending the correct principles and institutions, and eschewing the politics of tribalism.
While the USA actively acts contrary to the shared interests of the G7 they should be expelled.

The other 6 members have the GDP and global reach and influence equal to the USA,  and would do better working together than meerly trying to stay together with the USA trying to rip them apart.

Might even be time to find new members to join,  Brazil for example.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: GR66 on June 18, 2018, 22:17:46
While the USA actively acts contrary to the shared interests of the G7 they should be expelled.

The other 6 members have the GDP and global reach and influence equal to the USA,  and would do better working together than meerly trying to stay together with the USA trying to rip them apart.

Might even be time to find new members to join,  Brazil for example.

We shouldn't make any rash decisions.  We need to learn to be more patient and play the long game.  We know there are many in the US government and business world that disagree with Trump's trade policies.  Do what we've done and respond with measured and proportionate counter tariffs while at the same time politely and calmly (but firmly) reasserting our position and courting allies to our position.

There are mid-term elections coming up.  Let's see how that plays out.  Then let's see what happens in the next presidential election.  At the same time we can work on developing other markets and partners, but I don't see any need to rush out and burn bridges. 

Like it or not we are neighbours.  That's not going to change, so we better find ways of getting along even when we disagree. 
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Fishbone Jones on June 18, 2018, 23:20:00
I'm not an economic genius, so someone can explain what is wrong with Trump's idea of true free trade. Drop all tariffs and surcharges, an open and free global marketplace?


Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on June 18, 2018, 23:22:19
We shouldn't make any rash decisions.  We need to learn to be more patient and play the long game.  We know there are many in the US government and business world that disagree with Trump's trade policies.  Do what we've done and respond with measured and proportionate counter tariffs while at the same time politely and calmly (but firmly) reasserting our position and courting allies to our position.

There are mid-term elections coming up.  Let's see how that plays out.  Then let's see what happens in the next presidential election.  At the same time we can work on developing other markets and partners, but I don't see any need to rush out and burn bridges. 

Like it or not we are neighbours.  That's not going to change, so we better find ways of getting along even when we disagree.
its not US business men and women coming to G7 meetings. Its not US business men and women who are trying to work out policy. It's the US president and his administration. US business men and women have no power to set US trade or economic policy. 

As for playing the long game,  the only game the G7 is going to be playing in the next 2-6 years is trying to keep the group from tearing itself apart. There is a precedent for this. Russia was kicked out after they were deemed to be working counter to the value and ideals of the group. At this point,  America is dangerously close to being a nuisance and disruption in the G7 and their shared goals.

Expel the US from the group until they are ready to rejoin western democracies in a constructive manner,  till then,  the G6 would work much better than the current G7.

On top of that,  the USA needs to know there are consequences for acting the way it is. No free pass.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Brad Sallows on June 18, 2018, 23:23:48
Expelling the US is the kind of thing Trump would do if some other member of a group were kicking up a fuss and he had the authority.

The other G-7 members should not be drawn into unnecessary and/or unwinnable battles.  They must not lose sight of their aim(s).  Part of being the "adults" in the room would be the willingness to lose some "face", if that's what it takes to hold things together until some acceptable resolution is reached and Trump loses interest and moves on to whatever grabs his attention next.

Goldberg goes into enough depth on his notion of "tribalism".  Simple cultural quiffs - costume, cuisine, language - are not at stake, nor is "tribe" as a term of art in different contexts.  "Tribalism" is in-group versus out-group.  An example would be freedom of speech for everyone in my tribe because "X"; limits on everyone else.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on June 18, 2018, 23:31:15
I'm not an economic genius, so someone can explain what is wrong with Trump's idea of true free trade. Drop all tariffs and surcharges, an open and free global marketplace?
America has among the highest tariffs in the G7. Canada among the lowest.

This isn't about free trade,  or balanced trade. This is about every trade relationship tilted in Americas favor.  And when other countries don't just roll over and take it,  they try to up the stakes. Case in point,  the american government is looking to slap tariffs on the canadian auto sector after canada tariffs on american good take place,  America is looking to slap tariffs on 200 billion dollars of Chinese good if they retaliate on the tariffs placed on 50 billion dollars of Chinese goods.

This is going into full protectionist mode,  a full global trade war in which america has no allies.

America can win a trade war versus Europe. It can win a trade war versus canada or Mexico. It can win a trade war against china. It cannot win a trade war against all of them at the same time,  although its the global economy that wil take the real beating.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on June 18, 2018, 23:41:33
Expelling the US is the kind of thing Trump would do if some other member of a group were kicking up a fuss and he had the authority.

The other G-7 members should not be drawn into unnecessary and/or unwinnable battles.  They must not lose sight of their aim(s).  Part of being the "adults" in the room would be the willingness to lose some "face", if that's what it takes to hold things together until some acceptable resolution is reached and Trump loses interest and moves on to whatever grabs his attention next.

Goldberg goes into enough depth on his notion of "tribalism".  Simple cultural quiffs - costume, cuisine, language - are not at stake, nor is "tribe" as a term of art in different contexts.  "Tribalism" is in-group versus out-group.  An example would be freedom of speech for everyone in my tribe because "X"; limits on everyone else.
That is ridiculous.

There is no reason that leaders of other  sovereign nations should have to try to work around the destabilizing influence that the US represents at this point. The G7 can not get any work done with the current leadership of the USA,  and if they cannot get any work done then what exactly is the point of the group?

Every initiative they try to forward is a unwinnable battle. Every trade initiative is a unwinnable battle. The environment is a unwinnable battle. Women's rights is a unwinnable battle. All because of one member who is moving 180 degrees in the opposite direction of the other 6.

This isn't the USA and friends group. This is the G7. America doesn't get to set the agenda and drag the group where it doesn't want to go.america doesn't get to stop in its tracks the agenda and goals of the other 6.

This is honestly a case where,  like Russia,  america can either get with the program or find another group to join that shares its newfound values.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: PuckChaser on June 18, 2018, 23:53:17
This isn't the USA and friends group. This is the G7. America doesn't get to set the agenda and drag the group where it doesn't want to go.america doesn't get to stop in its tracks the agenda and goals of the other 6.

USA GDP: 19 Trillion


Canada GDP: 1.8 Trillion
Mexico GDP: 1.1 Trillion
UK GDP: 2.7 Trillion
France GDP: 2.6 Trillion
Germany GDP: 3.6 Trillion
Japan GDP: 5 Trillion
Italy GDP: 1.9 Trillion

18.5 trillion dollars.

When they have more GDP than the combined of the other 6, they kinda do get to set the agenda. Just because they haven't before, doesn't mean it isn't right. You may not like the US bullying people around, but they have leverage and are using it.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on June 18, 2018, 23:55:22
When they have more GDP than the combined of the other 6, they kinda do get to set the agenda. Just because they haven't before, doesn't mean it isn't right. You may not like the US bullying people around, but they have leverage and are using it.
let's them exercise that leverage on their own.

The G6 can get more done sans the USA now than with it.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Brad Sallows on June 19, 2018, 00:09:48
>Every initiative they try to forward is a unwinnable battle. Every trade initiative is a unwinnable battle. The environment is a unwinnable battle. Women's rights is a unwinnable battle. All because of one member who is moving 180 degrees in the opposite direction of the other 6.

Nothing stops them from pursuing any of those as a "coalition of the willing", neither including the US in the agreements nor excluding the US from the G-7.  In fact, I'm curious to see just how far they can move on any of those issues.

>There is no reason that leaders of other  sovereign nations should have to try to work around the destabilizing influence that the US represents at this point.

Except for all of the reasons you mentioned that I included above, plus however many more anyone can think of.  I go further: it's imperative for the remaining members (and their leadership) to swallow their own pride, soothe Trump's ego to the extent necessary, and work around the US when there is no better alternative.  Trump has used up all the latitude for bombast, posturing, bullying, and blustering - there's no room for any of the others to do anything but Serious Policy Achievement.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on June 19, 2018, 00:20:55
>Every initiative they try to forward is a unwinnable battle. Every trade initiative is a unwinnable battle. The environment is a unwinnable battle. Women's rights is a unwinnable battle. All because of one member who is moving 180 degrees in the opposite direction of the other 6.

Nothing stops them from pursuing any of those as a "coalition of the willing", neither including the US in the agreements nor excluding the US from the G-7.  In fact, I'm curious to see just how far they can move on any of those issues.

>There is no reason that leaders of other  sovereign nations should have to try to work around the destabilizing influence that the US represents at this point.

Except for all of the reasons you mentioned that I included above, plus however many more anyone can think of.  I go further: it's imperative for the remaining members (and their leadership) to swallow their own pride, soothe Trump's ego to the extent necessary, and work around the US when there is no better alternative.  Trump has used up all the latitude for bombast, posturing, bullying, and blustering - there's no room for any of the others to do anything but Serious Policy Achievement.
Macron,  Trudeau have both tried to get on the Americans good side.

Both have been hit by tariffs,  both might be hit with more tariffs,  and Trudeau has had the added privilage of being the target of a twitter blast.

The time for playing nice with america is over. If anything,  its time to start activity working against the USA if they ramp their protectionist agenda. How do you have a group where the member of six are working against one at the same time as the one is working against the other six?

No, its probably time to kick the USA out,  and then use the group to actively target American industries in swing states to make sure the average american feels the consequence of the decisions american leadership is taking.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: GR66 on June 19, 2018, 00:55:42
Macron,  Trudeau have both tried to get on the Americans good side.

Both have been hit by tariffs,  both might be hit with more tariffs,  and Trudeau has had the added privilage of being the target of a twitter blast.

The time for playing nice with america is over. If anything,  its time to start activity working against the USA if they ramp their protectionist agenda. How do you have a group where the member of six are working against one at the same time as the one is working against the other six?

No, its probably time to kick the USA out,  and then use the group to actively target American industries in swing states to make sure the average american feels the consequence of the decisions american leadership is taking.

Kicking the US out of the G7 would be biting off your nose to spite your face.  Yes it's the Trump administration that goes to the G7, etc. and not the members of Congress, the Senate, business leaders, activists and members of State legislatures.  But it is those people who vote in 2018 and 2020. 

Being reactionary to Trump sets you up as the perfect target for his bombast...see, I told you those Canadians are trying to screw us over in trade, etc.  Why play into his hands by proving his assertions of us being a national security threat as being true?  It's not like the rest of the G7 can't just ignore Trump and work together without the drama of kicking the USA out.  Do what we feel needs to be done.  Set the example for others to follow.  Be the adults in the room.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: SeaKingTacco on June 19, 2018, 01:02:24
Macron,  Trudeau have both tried to get on the Americans good side.

Both have been hit by tariffs,  both might be hit with more tariffs,  and Trudeau has had the added privilage of being the target of a twitter blast.

The time for playing nice with america is over. If anything,  its time to start activity working against the USA if they ramp their protectionist agenda. How do you have a group where the member of six are working against one at the same time as the one is working against the other six?

No, its probably time to kick the USA out,  and then use the group to actively target American industries in swing states to make sure the average american feels the consequence of the decisions american leadership is taking.

Except that I know no quicker way to unify Americans than to put them under attack- perceived or real. Look how quickly Canadians rallied to Trudeaus defence when attacked by Trump and how quickly he wrapped himself in the flag. The average American is way more patriotic and you are going to give Trump the war that he is looking for?

Find another way. An indirect way. Don't directly attack US industry in a way that leaves fingerprints. Above all, keep calm and don't go bombastic.

Canada would be crushed in an all out trade war with the US. We have allies is the US. Dont go forcing them to pick another side because Canada has wounded pride.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on June 19, 2018, 01:19:56
Except that I know no quicker way to unify Americans than to put them under attack- perceived or real. Look how quickly Canadians rallied to Trudeaus defence when attacked by Trump and how quickly he wrapped himself in the flag. The average American is way more patriotic and you are going to give Trump the war that he is looking for?

Find another way. An indirect way. Don't directly attack US industry in a way that leaves fingerprints. Above all, keep calm and don't go bombastic.

Canada would be crushed in an all out trade war with the US. We have allies is the US. Dont go forcing them to pick another side because Canada has wounded pride.
Canada has allies internationally,  all similiarly hit with tariffs from America.

The USA would crush Canada one on one in a trade war.  Canada,  China, Europe,  Mexico would crush America in a coordinated trade war.

America is doing this now because they have yet to feel the repurcussions of their trade protectionism. But once Americans start losing jobs in Michigan,  Ohio, Wisconsin,  Florida,  expect American leadership to start taking notice.

I wonder what american resolve would be once trade wars are not so easy.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Fishbone Jones on June 19, 2018, 02:33:15
America has among the highest tariffs in the G7. Canada among the lowest.

This isn't about free trade,  or balanced trade. This is about every trade relationship tilted in Americas favor.  And when other countries don't just roll over and take it,  they try to up the stakes. Case in point,  the american government is looking to slap tariffs on the canadian auto sector after canada tariffs on american good take place,  America is looking to slap tariffs on 200 billion dollars of Chinese good if they retaliate on the tariffs placed on 50 billion dollars of Chinese goods.

This is going into full protectionist mode,  a full global trade war in which america has no allies.

America can win a trade war versus Europe. It can win a trade war versus canada or Mexico. It can win a trade war against china. It cannot win a trade war against all of them at the same time,  although its the global economy that wil take the real beating.

That didn't answer my question, but thanks.

Trump proposed everyone drop all tariffs and trade barriers, while at the G7 summit. Why didn't everyone jump on board? Isn't that true free trade?  Isn't this where they want to be?
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Remius on June 19, 2018, 07:08:50
That didn't answer my question, but thanks.

Trump proposed everyone drop all tariffs and trade barriers, while at the G7 summit. Why didn't everyone jump on board? Isn't that true free trade?  Isn't this where they want to be?

Maybe because no one trusts what he says from day to day.  He drops a bunch of tariffs on his allies then tells them there should be no tariffs.  Huh?  Negotiating tactic? Maybe.  And maybe they’d aren’t buying it.

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-suggests-dropping-all-tariffs-trade-barriers-at-g7-summit-2018-6

And you don’t just jump into something without looking at it first. Especially with this president.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Good2Golf on June 19, 2018, 11:01:04
Tariffs are one thing in free trade.  So too are subsidies. We don't see the US dropping all of its subsidies in the dairy and aerospace industries, amongst others. It's very easy to say "remove all tariffs" when tariffs are only a tactical tool, and you have the hammer of the 'harder to prove' strategic tool of subsidies to effect economic combat with other nations.

Separately from my take on answering Recceguy's fair question about all to in tariffs, vis-a-vis G7, nothing keeping a de facto G6 from working a solution on gat themselves to mutually support their own interests...although it might have to be a G5 as Italy seems a bit wavering at the moment. Key would be to not directly engage/confront the U.S., but follow those initiatives that mutually support each other... :2c:

Regards,
G2G
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on June 19, 2018, 11:32:13
Tariffs are one thing in free trade.  So too are subsidies. We don't see the US dropping all of its subsidies in the dairy and aerospace industries, amongst others. It's very easy to say "remove all tariffs" when tariffs are only a tactical tool, and you have the hammer of the 'harder to prove' strategic tool of subsidies to effect economic combat with other nations.

Separately from my take on answering Recceguy's fair question about all to in tariffs, vis-a-vis G7, nothing keeping a de facto G6 from working a solution on gat themselves to mutually support their own interests...although it might have to be a G5 as Italy seems a bit wavering at the moment. Key would be to not directly engage/confront the U.S., but follow those initiatives that mutually support each other... :2c:

Regards,
G2G
De Facto as in the Americans still get invited? Because that doesn't seem to work.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Good2Golf on June 19, 2018, 11:44:38
De Facto as in the Americans still get invited? Because that doesn't seem to work.

...no.  I mean CAN-DEU-FRA-ITA-JAP-GBR and the two EU observers.  To be less provocative (to the US), don't even call it a G6 (hence my de facto), but rather a multi-lateral economic cooperation group.

G2G
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on June 19, 2018, 11:57:21
...no.  I mean CAN-DEU-FRA-ITA-JAP-GBR and the two EU observers.  To be less provocative (to the US), don't even call it a G6 (hence my de facto), but rather a multi-lateral economic cooperation group.

G2G
Makes sense. I could get behind that for sure, up until the point that the US is ready to re assume the position of leader of the free world.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Brad Sallows on June 19, 2018, 14:42:30
>If anything,  its time to start activity working against the USA if they ramp their protectionist agenda.

Basic economics: even when a trading partner pursues protectionism, we're still better off (overall) unilaterally eschewing protectionism.

Good will is hard to build and easy to destroy.  There is a faction of Americans cheering for Canada and the Europeans to take down Trump a notch; they are loud and control much of the communications media but I am not convinced they are a majority, let alone a substantial one.  There is also a faction that will hold to "my country, right or wrong" and bear a long grudge.  The latter could be tolerated if they lived in a less powerful country that could essentially be ignored.

It's easy to countenance an escalating trade war when you think it will be over (with victory in your hand) by Christmas.  Some thought needs to be given to the outcomes in which it becomes a negatively reinforcing downward spiral that drags on for much longer and consumes industry after industry.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on June 19, 2018, 14:45:37
>If anything,  its time to start activity working against the USA if they ramp their protectionist agenda.

Basic economics: even when a trading partner pursues protectionism, we're still better off (overall) unilaterally eschewing protectionism.

Good will is hard to build and easy to destroy.  There is a faction of Americans cheering for Canada and the Europeans to take down Trump a notch; they are loud and control much of the communications media but I am not convinced they are a majority, let alone a substantial one.  There is also a faction that will hold to "my country, right or wrong" and bear a long grudge.  The latter could be tolerated if they lived in a less powerful country that could essentially be ignored.

It's easy to countenance an escalating trade war when you think it will be over (with victory in your hand) by Christmas.  Some thought needs to be given to the outcomes in which it becomes a negatively reinforcing downward spiral that drags on for much longer and consumes industry after industry.
And which country, in your opinion, is not giving thought to the outcomes in which it becomes a negatively reinforcing downward spiral that drags on for much longer and consumes industry after industry?

I'll give you a hint. There is one country right now that holds the belief that trade wars are easy to win, and are hitting allies and biggest trading partners with tariffs, getting tariffs on them in return and are in turn threatening more tariffs again.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Brad Sallows on June 19, 2018, 17:59:47
>And which country, in your opinion, is not giving thought to the outcomes in which it becomes a negatively reinforcing downward spiral that drags on for much longer and consumes industry after industry?

I'm not privy to the decision-making processes and discussions, so I don't know how much is cold realpolitik and how much is emotionally driven.

Canada can reply with the most cleverly focused tit-for-tat sanctions ever conceived, each perceived as eminently wise and fair by all other observers; but if each response of ours simply leads the US to add another one of its own, the spiral by definition continues downward until at least one party stops.

For example: Auto tariffs could cost Canada 160,000 jobs, TD estimates (http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/auto-manufacturing-td-bank-1.4711080).  So: what is worth paying that cost?
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Remius on June 19, 2018, 18:16:01
>And which country, in your opinion, is not giving thought to the outcomes in which it becomes a negatively reinforcing downward spiral that drags on for much longer and consumes industry after industry?

I'm not privy to the decision-making processes and discussions, so I don't know how much is cold realpolitik and how much is emotionally driven.

Canada can reply with the most cleverly focused tit-for-tat sanctions ever conceived, each perceived as eminently wise and fair by all other observers; but if each response of ours simply leads the US to add another one of its own, the spiral by definition continues downward until at least one party stops.

For example: Auto tariffs could cost Canada 160,000 jobs, TD estimates (http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/auto-manufacturing-td-bank-1.4711080).  So: what is worth paying that cost?

If they hit us with tariffs on auto then that would be cause to go after pharma patents as mentioned by a few.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Jarnhamar on June 19, 2018, 18:24:20
If they hit us with tariffs on auto then that would be cause to go after pharma patents as mentioned by a few.

What do you mean "go after"?

If it has anything to do with making it harder for Americans to get prescription medicine I can see that backfiring.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: ModlrMike on June 19, 2018, 19:16:51
It means that we suspend all US patents in Canada, thereby depriving their pharmaceutical industry huge amounts of money for name brand medications. It would have the knock on effect of Canadian drug manufacturers being able to produce generic versions here, which in theory would lower our drug costs.

There are also a number of other IP areas where the US is vulnerable in Canada. To add, if we do it, so can the Europeans.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Remius on June 19, 2018, 19:19:12
What do you mean "go after"?

If it has anything to do with making it harder for Americans to get prescription medicine I can see that backfiring.

Nope.  It’s going after US patents in Canada.  The pharma lobby is one of the biggest in the US.

See here:  https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/why-pharmaceuticals-could-be-the-prescription-for-trade-warfare-that-truly-hurts-america/
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: QV on June 19, 2018, 22:07:45
Well if Canada were a sovereign nation not so reliant on one ally for everything from defence to the economy we might be in a better negotiating position.  But why run pipelines to the coasts when we can sell a reduced amount at a reduced rate to the US, for example? Canada is in a bad position here. 
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Remius on June 20, 2018, 07:59:27
Well if Canada were a sovereign nation not so reliant on one ally for everything from defence to the economy we might be in a better negotiating position.  But why run pipelines to the coasts when we can sell a reduced amount at a reduced rate to the US, for example? Canada is in a bad position here.


Silly us for thinking the US could be a reliable ally. 
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: daftandbarmy on June 20, 2018, 10:29:36

Silly us for thinking the US could be a reliable ally.

“Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests.” Lord Palmerston
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: QV on June 20, 2018, 11:58:20

Silly us for thinking the US could be a reliable ally.

I think the US is still and will always be a reliable ally, Canada can't afford it not to be.  And the US knows this.  Don't you think it would be better for us if we perhaps pursued some things to increase our standing in the world?  To be a serious middle power?  To be actually be able to project some force if required?  Our present situation on defence is pathetic and we are killing our resource sector.  If just those two things were well sorted we would no doubt be two things: a better ally to our friends and we would have a better negotiating position in the world.   
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: tomahawk6 on June 20, 2018, 12:33:26
Merge with the US that will show them. ;D
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Remius on June 20, 2018, 12:38:33
I think the US is still and will always be a reliable ally, Canada can't afford it not to be.  And the US knows this.  Don't you think it would be better for us if we perhaps pursued some things to increase our standing in the world?  To be a serious middle power?  To be actually be able to project some force if required?  Our present situation on defence is pathetic and we are killing our resource sector.  If just those two things were well sorted we would no doubt be two things: a better ally to our friends and we would have a better negotiating position in the world.

Sort of like France and Great Britain?  Where is that getting them?  A link I provided showed that we actually increased our NATO spending and it doesn't seem to have made any difference in any negotiations.  Facts are ignored by this President.  So it really doesn't matter if there isn't actually a trade deficit or if we actually don't pay tariffs on shoes (which we smuggle in apparently).  The President thinks we "helped the US" in WW2 and WW1.  "Truthiness" at its best.

Our standing in the world isn't the problem but our standing with the US is because we can't count on actual facts to be something they will consider.

So I agree with you.  The former leader of the free world cannot be relied on and we should create stronger ties with our Europe, China etc.  At least we can count on how they operate as opposed to the unpredictability south of us.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Remius on June 20, 2018, 12:39:10
Merge with the US that will show them. ;D

Lol.  I hear California is looking for a new home  ;D
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: tomahawk6 on June 20, 2018, 12:49:42
No matter  if they get the votes they wont be going anywhere.Staying makes more sense,but I wouldn't stop them.I suspect that conservatives would split the state into several parts.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Thucydides on June 20, 2018, 13:10:02
Rather astonishing that neither the chattering classes or many of the commentators here seem to remember the dictum that "Nations have no permanent friends or allies, only permanent interests".

President Trump has been speaking about trade deficits for decades now (there is a YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEPs17_AkTI) clip of him in 1989 speaking about the same issues he campaigned on in 2016), and sees eliminating or drastically reducing the US trade deficit as being a key US interest. If we want to be relevant, then we need to recognize the US interest and see how it aligns with our interests, and act accordingly.

I also suggest that looking to the G6 nations to take up the slack of 20% of our GDP is a fools game, does anyone really think the EU, Japan or anyone else is going to step up, unless they can achieve the best deal for themselves? China and Russia might step in, if only to poke a stick in the American's eye (probably not a great idea), and they will be looking for very predatory concessions from us.

This is simply a further example of a thesis I have had, where changes in technology, economics and demographics have strained the institutions and social structures erected in earlier ages to the breaking point. The "New Deal/Great Society" model of American politics is collapsing under a mountain of debt, the need for institutions like NATO have become irrelevant in a changing security environment and even trade deals like NAFTA need to be reexamined under the new economic conditions.

What makes this discussion difficult is that while we can see the collapse of old institutions, we cannot really see the path of the future nor confidently predict what will arise to replace  them. And obviously the people who benefit the most from the Old Order will fight tooth and nail to prevent the loss of the structures and institutions which benefit them, so there won't be a clean transition.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Fishbone Jones on June 20, 2018, 13:46:16
Maybe because no one trusts what he says from day to day.  He drops a bunch of tariffs on his allies then tells them there should be no tariffs.  Huh?  Negotiating tactic? Maybe.  And maybe they’d aren’t buying it.

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-suggests-dropping-all-tariffs-trade-barriers-at-g7-summit-2018-6

And you don’t just jump into something without looking at it first. Especially with this president.

I don't buy that. Everything starts with an idea, then it gets explored. It costs nothing to listen. Just because you don't trust someone doesn't mean you can't at least kick the can down the road and see where it leads. There's nothing to 'jump' into. Nothing will be done without talks, just like the G7 started with and Pan Pacific or any other trade or international committee. To sweep something off the table, without any type of consideration is not the way you move ahead.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on June 20, 2018, 14:39:22
I don't buy that. Everything starts with an idea, then it gets explored. It costs nothing to listen. Just because you don't trust someone doesn't mean you can't at least kick the can down the road and see where it leads. There's nothing to 'jump' into. Nothing will be done without talks, just like the G7 started with and Pan Pacific or any other trade or international committee. To sweep something off the table, without any type of consideration is not the way you move ahead.
Nothing said by the USA right now is worth listening to.

Facts don't matter,  numbers don't matter,  and worst yet,  positions flip flop daily. 

The USA would be shunned if it wasn't the most powerful nation on earth.  No other nation would be taken seriously acting like this. As such,  it's best for the west to simply work around and without the USA than try to seriously work with it.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Thucydides on June 20, 2018, 14:50:54
Just for people who see things in binary terms, Instapundit has posted and excerpt form the WSJ. German car makers are offering to drop tariffs on autos and auto parts in exchange for the United States to do the same. Since President Trump's initial offer was actually to drop tariffs (more specifically he wanted that to be the longer term agenda of trade between G7 nations), at least one sector in one nation is trying to move in that direction.

This suggests that there is plenty of room to work without attempting to do a "tit for tat" trade war (particularly when Canada-US trade makes up 20% of our GDP, while US-Canada trade makes up @ 1% of their GDP....). The US negotiating tactic is really an extension of "The Art of the Deal", which was published in 1989, so it is pretty amazing that no one seems to have caught onto that yet. For aspiring journalists who may be reading this thread, the book is in most libraries with the catalogue number 333.33092 Tru.

https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/299879/

Quote
WINNING? Germany’s Largest Auto Makers Back Abolition of EU-U.S. Car Import Tariffs. “The U.S. ambassador to Germany is expected to relay the industry offer in meetings with Trump administration.”

Their proposal, people familiar with the situation say, is simple: Abandon all import tariffs for cars between the European Union and the U.S.

That would mean scrapping the EU’s 10% tax on auto imports from the U.S. and other countries and the 2.5% duty on auto imports in the U.S. As a prerequisite, the Europeans want Mr. Trump’s threat of imposing a 25% border tax on European auto imports off the table.

Over the past few weeks, Mr. Grenell has held closed-door meetings with the chiefs of all major German automotive companies, including bilateral meetings with the CEOs of Daimler AG , BMW AG and Volkswagen AG , which operate plants in the U.S. Overall, Germany’s auto makers and suppliers provide 116,500 jobs in the U.S., according to the Association of German Automotive Manufacturers.

During these talks, which the ambassador initiated, the managers said they would back the scrapping of all import tariffs on trans-Atlantic trade in automotive products as the keystone of a broader deal covering industrial goods. The German government is on board and Mr. Grenell promised to support the idea, according to U.S. and German officials.

Excellent.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on June 20, 2018, 15:00:28
Just for people who see things in binary terms, Instapundit has posted and excerpt form the WSJ. German car makers are offering to drop tariffs on autos and auto parts in exchange for the United States to do the same. Since President Trump's initial offer was actually to drop tariffs (more specifically he wanted that to be the longer term agenda of trade between G7 nations), at least one sector in one nation is trying to move in that direction.

This suggests that there is plenty of room to work without attempting to do a "tit for tat" trade war (particularly when Canada-US trade makes up 20% of our GDP, while US-Canada trade makes up @ 1% of their GDP....). The US negotiating tactic is really an extension of "The Art of the Deal", which was published in 1989, so it is pretty amazing that no one seems to have caught onto that yet. For aspiring journalists who may be reading this thread, the book is in most libraries with the catalogue number 333.33092 Tru.

https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/299879/
great,  except Germany cannot make independent trade deals, it must go through the European Commission.

Good luck with that.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Brad Sallows on June 20, 2018, 23:58:15
>If they hit us with tariffs on auto then that would be cause to go after pharma patents as mentioned by a few.

So your solution is to continue the downward spiral until the US surrenders?

Which country do you suppose will suffer the most long-lasting damage?
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on June 21, 2018, 01:17:27
>If they hit us with tariffs on auto then that would be cause to go after pharma patents as mentioned by a few.

So your solution is to continue the downward spiral until the US surrenders?

Which country do you suppose will suffer the most long-lasting damage?
What would you suggest?

Simply let the USA impose as many tariffs as possible without any repercussions?
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: CBH99 on June 21, 2018, 05:45:29
One thing I think we should all remember is that Trump doesn't control the US - Congress & the Senate do.  And he is losing support unbelievably quickly in both of those, to the point where an angry & evasive Rose O'Donnell doesn't even want to do the press briefings anymore.  (Sorry, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, my bad...)

To be fair, her job must be truly difficult.  And I mean that.  Getting infront of the press on a daily basis, and trying to rationally explain the motives, reasoning, thought processes, and actions of the Trump administration...I don't think any of us could do that job, and not be forced to lie through our teeth & know how transparent the lies are.


Back on point - there can only be so much disruption in key markets & key sectors before lawmakers take drastic steps to protect their turf.  From both parties.  And many of those Congressmen & Senators are already voicing their deep concerns about Trump's position on this.

It isn't just us.  It's the EU & China also.  So whether we implement our own tariffs on pharma & a few other things, and the EU does the same, and China does the same -- it adds up, and it adds up quickly.  Does he really want a trade war with their 3 largest trading partners?  Nope.

Americans will whine & ***** if the price of gas goes up more than a few cents.  Imagine everything getting more expensive?  Cars?  Clothing?  Food?  Groceries?  Gas?  etc etc


At the end of the day, Congress & the Senate won't allow for too much disruption before they say "Yeah, no, we're going back to how things were."  Trump has learned the hard way, a few times now, that just because your the President doesn't mean you actually get to do what you want.  (Muslim ban?  Great Lakes clean-up?  etc etc)
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Remius on June 21, 2018, 07:28:45
>If they hit us with tariffs on auto then that would be cause to go after pharma patents as mentioned by a few.

So your solution is to continue the downward spiral until the US surrenders?

Which country do you suppose will suffer the most long-lasting damage?

I would rather my country not turtle.  Trump has already made false statements and reasoning to make his points against Canada to pander to his base.  I’d rather see Canada push back against that. 
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Remius on June 21, 2018, 07:31:24
One thing I think we should all remember is that Trump doesn't control the US - Congress & the Senate do.  And he is losing support unbelievably quickly in both of those, to the point where an angry & evasive Rose O'Donnell doesn't even want to do the press briefings anymore.  (Sorry, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, my bad...)

To be fair, her job must be truly difficult.  And I mean that.  Getting infront of the press on a daily basis, and trying to rationally explain the motives, reasoning, thought processes, and actions of the Trump administration...I don't think any of us could do that job, and not be forced to lie through our teeth & know how transparent the lies are.


Back on point - there can only be so much disruption in key markets & key sectors before lawmakers take drastic steps to protect their turf.  From both parties.  And many of those Congressmen & Senators are already voicing their deep concerns about Trump's position on this.

It isn't just us.  It's the EU & China also.  So whether we implement our own tariffs on pharma & a few other things, and the EU does the same, and China does the same -- it adds up, and it adds up quickly.  Does he really want a trade war with their 3 largest trading partners?  Nope.

Americans will whine & ***** if the price of gas goes up more than a few cents.  Imagine everything getting more expensive?  Cars?  Clothing?  Food?  Groceries?  Gas?  etc etc


At the end of the day, Congress & the Senate won't allow for too much disruption before they say "Yeah, no, we're going back to how things were."  Trump has learned the hard way, a few times now, that just because your the President doesn't mean you actually get to do what you want.  (Muslim ban?  Great Lakes clean-up?  etc etc)

Yep.  And this whole child separation at the border has shown that with enough pressure he can cave. 
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: tomahawk6 on June 21, 2018, 08:26:34
Any Republican that opposes the President has lost their re-election or decided to retire. The public is fed up with their obstructionism of his agenda.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: FJAG on June 21, 2018, 09:41:29
Any Republican that opposes the President has lost their re-election or decided to retire. The public is fed up with their obstructionism of his agenda.

You confuse one element of the public with the public in general. As the extreme end of the Republican Party clings to the Gong Show that is the US Presidency, the middle group will move away from it. Even now key Republicans from past administrations, like Steve Schmidt, are abandoning the Republican Party.

https://www.denverpost.com/2018/06/20/steve-schmidt-republican-party/ (https://www.denverpost.com/2018/06/20/steve-schmidt-republican-party/)

There will come a time, IMHO, where not just "elite" conservatives, but the common man will see the light.

 [cheers]
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Jarnhamar on June 21, 2018, 09:44:22
One thing I think we should all remember is that Trump doesn't control the US - Congress & the Senate do.  And he is losing support unbelievably quickly in both of those, to the point where an angry & evasive Rose O'Donnell doesn't even want to do the press briefings anymore.  (Sorry, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, my bad...)

To be fair, her job must be truly difficult.  And I mean that.  Getting infront of the press on a daily basis, and trying to rationally explain the motives, reasoning, thought processes, and actions of the Trump administration...I don't think any of us could do that job, and not be forced to lie through our teeth & know how transparent the lies are.


Back on point - there can only be so much disruption in key markets & key sectors before lawmakers take drastic steps to protect their turf.  From both parties.  And many of those Congressmen & Senators are already voicing their deep concerns about Trump's position on this.

It isn't just us.  It's the EU & China also.  So whether we implement our own tariffs on pharma & a few other things, and the EU does the same, and China does the same -- it adds up, and it adds up quickly.  Does he really want a trade war with their 3 largest trading partners?  Nope.

Americans will whine & ***** if the price of gas goes up more than a few cents.  Imagine everything getting more expensive?  Cars?  Clothing?  Food?  Groceries?  Gas?  etc etc


At the end of the day, Congress & the Senate won't allow for too much disruption before they say "Yeah, no, we're going back to how things were."  Trump has learned the hard way, a few times now, that just because your the President doesn't mean you actually get to do what you want.  (Muslim ban?  Great Lakes clean-up?  etc etc)

Oh ya. Americans are fed up, Trump probably won't have a job by the end of the week.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Infanteer on June 21, 2018, 09:46:15
Lol.  The usual refrain is that democratic governments aren't good at statecraft and working the international system because they only see things in 4 (or 5) year cycles.  Good statecraft requires looking beyond electoral cycles.

Some of you here aren't even looking past the next news cycle.  Look to the long game - the Canadian-American relationship has survived worse (look how Nixon and Trudeau Sr. got on) and is greater than the politik between election cycles.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: mariomike on June 21, 2018, 10:23:08
As the extreme end of the Republican Party clings to the Gong Show that is the US Presidency, the middle group will move away from it.  [cheers]

Chuck was the ringmaster and tormenter. He said, “a really bad review means the show will be on for years”.

But, what do the critics know?  :)


Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Fishbone Jones on June 21, 2018, 10:25:22
Yep.  And this whole child separation at the border has shown that with enough pressure he can cave.

Cave or do the right thing? He didn't write the law.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on June 21, 2018, 10:37:19
Cave or do the right thing? He didn't write the law.
That's a cop out.

He chose to apply the law in that manner. Then he caved to public outrage to stop doing it.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Fishbone Jones on June 21, 2018, 10:41:44
That's a cop out.

He chose to apply the law in that manner. Then he caved to public outrage to stop doing it.

That is simply your opinion. You are not inside his head, nor do you share proof of your statement. Thanks for sharing.
.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on June 21, 2018, 10:48:44
That is simply your opinion. You are not inside his head, nor do you share proof of your statement. Thanks for sharing.
.
All we have are opinions, unless someone here claims to be in his head, or have proof of his intentions.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Fishbone Jones on June 21, 2018, 10:58:35
All we have are opinions, unless someone here claims to be in his head, or have proof of his intentions.

True, that's pretty well the point I was making. I don't accept your opinion, but you are entitled to it. HAGO
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Remius on June 21, 2018, 11:19:31
That is simply your opinion. You are not inside his head, nor do you share proof of your statement. Thanks for sharing.
.

First his hands were tied and now mysteriously they aren't...   
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Infanteer on June 21, 2018, 11:40:29
 :boring:
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Thucydides on June 21, 2018, 13:28:14
From "Just Right Media" (hardly fans of Trump, BTW), an analysis of what's going on in the trade wars. I really suggest many people read "The Art of the Deal" before posting, because they seem to have no understanding of how President Trump works. While this isn't going to be an explicit guide to getting inside his head (really nothing is), it is far better to go to source material like this, watch interviews with then media/real estate mogul Donald Trump in the late 1990's and early 2000's to see where he is actually coming from.

He has taken the measure of the G-6 and other world leaders, and is applying pressure to various weak points to move things in his desired direction (and don't think he hasn't thought about using indirect pressure on larger bodies. The German car industry is a powerful lobby, and having separate influence groups inside large organizations pulling in different directions makes the overall ability of the EU [in this case] to move and take action against the US far more difficult).

From "Just Right"

https://www.justrightmedia.org/blog/archives/8776

Quote
Just Right 561- June 21, 2018
TRUMP TRADE TIRADE

It’s too bad that the substance of U.S. President Donald Trump’s statement at the G7 Summit in Charlevoix Quebec on June 9 was utterly lost on the general public.  His message needed to be heard.

The media tirades against Trump’s policy on trade serve a purpose and it is not to enlighten.  Their purpose is to create confusion about where Trump stands on free trade, to hide corrupt trade practices like ‘Supply Management’ in Canada, and to express their hatred about the reality that U.S. President Donald Trump holds all the cards – and Canada’s Prime Minister Trudeau holds none.

Both the mainstream media and Leftist political interests portray Trump’s threats of tariffs and trade barriers as a threat to the status quo trade that exists now.  None want to acknowledge Trump’s strategy as a means to push other nations to drop their own tariffs, barriers, and subsidies – which is exactly what Donald Trump has been telling them he’s doing all along.

“No tariffs.  No barriers.  No subsidies.  That’s the way it should be,” Trump stressed at the G7 Summit, but few have even heard these words, and continue to believe that Trump is against ‘free trade.’

Added White House chief economic advisor Larry Kudlow: “I don’t know if (the NAFTA negotiators) were surprised by President Trump’s free trade proclamation, but they certainly listened to it and we had lengthy discussions about that.  Reduce barriers.  In fact, go to zero.  Zero tariffs.  Zero subsidies.  And along the way we’ll have to clean up the international trading system. This is the best way to encourage economic growth."

Meanwhile, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has boldly and virtuously taken the position that Canada won’t allow itself to get ‘pushed around’ by Trump.  He has been supported by the likes of past Conservative MPs Jason Kenney and John Baird, as well as Progressive Conservative leader Doug Ford who is about to take the helm as Ontario’s premier elect.

The free trade issue makes strange bedfellows.  It also makes hypocrites of those who abandon recognized principles – to achieve power at the expense of losing their objective.

Just ask Maxime Bernier, whose opinions on Canada’s own trade barriers were expressed in a previously-deleted-from-his-book Chapter 5: “Live or die with supply management.”  It is an indictment of supply management, both in theory and in practice.

Unfortunately, evidence and argument are often not enough to sway those who have interests to protect at the expense of the public purse.

Consequently, there are those who view the issue of free trade as an ‘ideological’ one.  Others see it as mere ‘economic theory.’

It is both, but it is more. Above all, free trade is a moral issue – one that concerns the justifiable use of force in society.

Though the G7 nations would all benefit from trade free of tariffs and barriers, it is those opposing Trump who hypocritically hold most of the barrier cards in this trading game.  Watching Canada’s prime minister as the joker at the table, it’s clear that America holds the Trump card.

Whether free trade is seen as economic theory or ideology, the bottom line on free trade is that in the end (and as an end), it’s Just Right for everyone.



Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Good2Golf on June 22, 2018, 13:32:38
...and you think the U.S. will remove all its subsidies (primary, secondary, tertiary)? 

Answer (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37OWL7AzvHo)
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Fishbone Jones on June 22, 2018, 15:49:12
...and you think the U.S. will remove all its subsidies (primary, secondary, tertiary)? 

Answer (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37OWL7AzvHo)

....and I'm pretty sure that if the G7 was serious about all of this, they would ensure an equitable outcome, in order for it to take place. I really don't think they would stand for an imbalance. The zero system will be a whole new process that won't happen overnight, but I'm not going to worry much about it until there is signs it might fly and other countries are serious about it.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Good2Golf on June 22, 2018, 18:24:37
....and I'm pretty sure that if the G7 was serious about all of this, they would ensure an equitable outcome, in order for it to take place. I really don't think they would stand for an imbalance. The zero system will be a whole new process that won't happen overnight, but I'm not going to worry much about it until there is signs it might fly and other countries are serious about it.

Frankly, I don't believe America is serious about it...or at least Trump isn't.  The aerospace sector, for example, is rife with subsidies, Americans and Europeans, neither is innocent and I bet you neither is willing to fully remove the competitive advantage that they believe they have that's taken decades to build up. In 1990 Airbus had a 19% market share in airliner sales compared to Boeing...now it's over 51% between the two competitors.  Don't look for America to pull the plug on its many levels of subsidies any time soon.

"No tariffs, no duties, no subsidies" is just one more buzz phrase in Trump's negotiation arsenal.

To quote Ronald Reagan's words repeating an old Russian proverb (re: Soviets at the time, and disarmament) -  "Trust, but verify."  How will anyone be able to verify Trump's words.....even if they didn't change regularly? ???

...it'll be a stand-off a best...

:2c:

Regards,
G2G

Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: tomahawk6 on June 22, 2018, 18:32:58
Airbus said today they would pull out of the UK if it left the EU if there was no deal.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/airbus-warns-could-leave-uk-no-brexit-deal-084103512.html
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Good2Golf on June 22, 2018, 19:25:20
Airbus said today they would pull out of the UK left the EU if there was no deal.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/airbus-warns-could-leave-uk-no-brexit-deal-084103512.html

Don’t think it’ll be going to America any time soon. Ireland is now the preferred EU destination due to the incredibly low taxes.

Also, they’ll likely leverage the high-tech but lower cost work they get in Mexico.

Question: Where does Airbus sub-contract its multi-million € wiring harness for each of their A380s to a French sub-contractor? (SAFRAN)
Hint: Starts with an ‘M’ and rhymes with ‘exico’
Bonus: If you also correctly identified that same location and French sub-contractor as the location and source of where Boeing gets the multi-million USD wiring harnesses for their 787 Dreamliners. :nod:

#globalsupplychaincomplexity
#peskybusinessfacts

People who think Trump will come out of this smelling of roses are likely to be surprised when all does not go as he’s bragged about.

:2c:

Regards
G2G
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: tomahawk6 on June 22, 2018, 19:34:38
Don’t think it’ll be going to America any time soon. Ireland is now the preferred EU destination due to the incredibly low taxes.

Also, they’ll likely leverage the high-tech but lower cost work they get in Mexico.

Question: Where does Airbus sub-contract its multi-million € wiring harness for each of their A380s to a French sub-contractor? (SAFRAN)
Hint: Starts with an ‘M’ and rhymes with ‘exico’
Bonus: If you also correctly identified that same location and French sub-contractor as the location and source of where Boeing gets the multi-million USD wiring harnesses for their 787 Dreamliners. :nod:

#globalsupplychaincomplexity
#peskybusinessfacts

People who think Trump will come out of this smelling of roses are likely to be surprised when all does not go as he’s bragged about.

:2c:

Regards
G2G
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Remius on June 22, 2018, 19:40:28


People who think Trump will come out of this smelling of roses are likely to be surprised when all does not go as he’s bragged about.

:2c:

Regards
G2G

Won’t matter.  He’ll just change his story, claim victory, and his base will believe every word he says.

Just like how he saved the day by keeping families together at the border.   ::)
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on June 22, 2018, 19:46:22
https://www.missourinet.com/2018/06/22/southeast-missouri-nail-company-gets-hammered-by-trumps-tariffs/

Quote
President Trump’s tariff on steel imports that took effect June 1 has caused a southeast Missouri nail manufacturer to lose about 50% of its business in two weeks. Mid Continent Nail Corporation in Poplar Bluff – the remaining major nail producer in the country – has had to take drastic measures to make ends meet. The company employing 500 people earlier this month has laid off 60 temporary workers. It could slash 200 more jobs by the end of July and be out of business around Labor Day.

So the last major producer of nails in the entire country is going to be put out of business by Trump's tariffs. So who actually produces the nails used in American construction? China, Europe, Canada, Mexico. Almost exclusively.

This plant that employees 500+ people is where exactly? Poplar Bluff Missouri, population 17000. Voted 79.2% for Trump. Those ~550 jobs represent somewhere in the range of 8% of all employed people in Poplar Bluff.

MAGA
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Remius on June 22, 2018, 19:54:15
https://www.missourinet.com/2018/06/22/southeast-missouri-nail-company-gets-hammered-by-trumps-tariffs/
 
So the last major producer of nails in the entire country is going to be put out of business by Trump's tariffs. So who actually produces the nails used in American construction? China, Europe, Canada, Mexico. Almost exclusively.

This plant that employees 500+ people is where exactly? Poplar Bluff Missouri, population 17000. Voted 79.2% for Trump. Those ~550 jobs represent somewhere in the range of 8% of all employed people in Poplar Bluff.

MAGA

#tired of winning

As long as they lose less than everyone else.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on June 22, 2018, 20:15:54
#tired of winning

As long as they lose less than everyone else.
yup. Nobody wins in a trade war,  its a matter of who loses the least.

Ironic,  for the president needs a strong economy in order to win a second term,  yet he's also doing fundamental damage to it with his protectionism.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Brad Sallows on June 22, 2018, 20:25:42
>Simply let the USA impose as many tariffs as possible without any repercussions?

Yes.  Let the tariffs (self-imposed taxes on goods consumed in the US) create the repercussions.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on June 22, 2018, 20:31:27
>Simply let the USA impose as many tariffs as possible without any repercussions?

Yes.  Let the tariffs (self-imposed taxes on goods consumed in the US) create the repercussions.
I respectfully disagree.

Targeted tariffs to inflict maximum pain in america,  and when Americans notice that its hurting their pocketbooks they can blame the president.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Cloud Cover on June 22, 2018, 23:02:10
They won’t blame Trump, at least most of them. They will blame the country that dares to challenge America, and Trump will fan those flames.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on June 22, 2018, 23:08:39
They won’t blame Trump, at least most of them. They will blame the country that dares to challenge America, and Trump will fan those flames.
I can't even begin to express how disappointed I am in america.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Infanteer on June 22, 2018, 23:16:00
Well, you've begun here about every fourth or fifth minute with a post about Trump's policies....
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Brad Sallows on June 22, 2018, 23:43:56
>Targeted tariffs to inflict maximum pain in america

I'm not sure we can inflict "maximum" pain.  I doubt we can, comparatively, inflict much pain at all.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Jarnhamar on June 23, 2018, 00:09:18
>Targeted tariffs to inflict maximum pain in america

I'm not sure we can inflict "maximum" pain.  I doubt we can, comparatively, inflict much pain at all.

Perhaps while we're at it we can tell the USA we will only accept goods from companies that have qualified all their employees on Gender Based Analysis+

Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: tomahawk6 on June 23, 2018, 00:31:18
How about just cutting off your nose to spite yourself.Trump when he came into office got the pipeline moving creating jobs on both sides of the border.If Hill had won that wouldn't have happened.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on June 23, 2018, 01:14:14
How about just cutting off your nose to spite yourself.Trump when he came into office got the pipeline moving creating jobs on both sides of the border.If Hill had won that wouldn't have happened.
I don't think hill would have said she was going to tear up nafta,  and start hitting Canada with tariffs.

Net loss.

That's fine though. Job losses due to higher costs due to the new tariffs have begun,  and tariffs on american business from european,  canadian,  mexican, Chinese governments are starting to be put in place.

Let's see how america likes the repercussions of a global trade war.

MAGA
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on June 23, 2018, 01:15:44
Well, you've begun here about every fourth or fifth minute with a post about Trump's policies....
I was disappointed in the man a long time ago. That disappointed is quickly spreading to the Americans who put him in power.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Remius on June 23, 2018, 10:20:58
I was disappointed in the man a long time ago. That disappointed is quickly spreading to the Americans who put him in power.

I was happy Hillary lost but not pleased that Trump won.  I honestly thought that things would be worse under Hillary.

I think I was wrong.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Jarnhamar on June 23, 2018, 10:24:04
I was disappointed in the man a long time ago. That disappointed is quickly spreading to the Americans who put him in power.

45% approval rating, highest since January.  Same approval rating Obama had at the same time in his run.

Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Thucydides on June 23, 2018, 11:34:23
>Targeted tariffs to inflict maximum pain in america

I'm not sure we can inflict "maximum" pain.  I doubt we can, comparatively, inflict much pain at all.

Trade with the United States accounts for @ 20% of our GDP. American trade with Canada accounts for @ 1% of their GDP. You cam base the rest of your analysis on that metric....
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on June 23, 2018, 13:10:45
Trade with the United States accounts for @ 20% of our GDP. American trade with Canada accounts for @ 1% of their GDP. You cam base the rest of your analysis on that metric....
of course. Canada would get crushed in any trade war with america.

Thankfully,  Europe is putting tariffs on american good,  Mexico is putting tariffs on american goods,  china is putting tariffs on american goods,  and things are already getting more expensive for american businesses and we are starting to see job losses already.

America can easily win a trade war versus any one individual nation. America cannot win a trade war versus the world.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: GR66 on June 23, 2018, 13:24:21
of course. Canada would get crushed in any trade war with america.

Thankfully,  Europe is putting tariffs on american good,  Mexico is putting tariffs on american goods,  china is putting tariffs on american goods,  and things are already getting more expensive for american businesses and we are starting to see job losses already.

America can easily win a trade war versus any one individual nation. America cannot win a trade war versus the world.

So in your opinion then Canada should take one for the team since we're likely the one country in that "coalition" the stands the most to lose?
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on June 23, 2018, 13:34:18
So in your opinion then Canada should take one for the team since we're likely the one country in that "coalition" the stands the most to lose?
Mexico is pretty integrated into the american economy and they are on board with tariffs as well.

Let's be clear,  america is starting a trade war with its number 1 trading partner,  its number 2 trading partner(canada,  and we are the largest market for US exports,  tariffs we put on america hurt more than any other country, Mexico being second) ,  its number 3 trading partner,  its number 4 trading partner,  its number 5 trading partner,  its number 7 trading partner and its number 8 trading partner.

Make no mistake,  the countries that the  US is deciding to mess with can do more collective damage to the US economy than the US can do to theirs.

Unfortunately this is a race to see who can avoid hitting the bottom.

In the end,  if this escalates, we are looking at a big global reccession,  and for what? Thanks america.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Jarnhamar on June 23, 2018, 13:52:51
of course. Canada would get crushed in any trade war with america.

Thankfully,  Europe is putting tariffs on american good,  Mexico is putting tariffs on american goods,  china is putting tariffs on american goods,  and things are already getting more expensive for american businesses and we are starting to see job losses already.

America can easily win a trade war versus any one individual nation. America cannot win a trade war versus the world.

Can't they?
The US provides 320 million dollars of aid to Mexico annually.  Forbes suggests the U.S. Gives Financial Aid to 96% of All Countries.

If the US comes up with  fancy #NotOneMorePenny plan a lot of countries will be in a shittier place. I think in your crusade to hate everything Trump you're underestimating how many countries get handouts from the US and just what kind of damage the US can do when they start swinging.



Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on June 23, 2018, 13:59:24
Can't they?
The US provides 320 million dollars of aid to Mexico annually.  Forbes suggests the U.S. Gives Financial Aid to 96% of All Countries.

If the US comes up with  fancy #NotOneMorePenny plan a lot of countries will be in a shittier place. I think in your crusade to hate everything Trump you're underestimating how many countries get handouts from the US and just what kind of damage the US can do when they start swinging.
please,  do enlighten me on how much foreign aid the USA gives China,  Canada,  Japan,  Germany,  the UK and France.

You know,  those countries that America is trying to win a trade war with.  Again,  if america wants to take down the whole global economy,  and make itself into a pariah in order to achieve its goal of complete trade balance or america only friendly deals,  that's up to them. It says more about the sad stat america finds itself in than it does about the rest of the global community.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Jarnhamar on June 23, 2018, 14:17:34
Millions.


2012   The U.S. disbursed $33.2 billion—$19 billion in economic assistance to 184 countries and $14.2 billion in military assistance to 142 countries. 
I'm sure a lot of those countries have business and trade relationships with aforementioned G7 countries and I don't think the US would be above putting political and economic pressure on those countries in order to in turn pressure the G7 ones.

I know I know. We'll see the evil Trump empire fall "in a few months".

hand outs to 184 and 142 countries. Trumps approval rating seems to suggest Americans are more supportive of what he's talking about than you want to believe.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on June 23, 2018, 14:26:16
Millions.


2012   The U.S. disbursed $33.2 billion—$19 billion in economic assistance to 184 countries and $14.2 billion in military assistance to 142 countries. 
I'm sure a lot of those countries have business and trade relationships with aforementioned G7 countries and I don't think the US would be above putting political and economic pressure on those countries in order to in turn pressure the G7 ones.

I know I know. We'll see the evil Trump empire fall "in a few months".

hand outs to 184 and 142 countries. Trumps approval rating seems to suggest Americans are more supportive of what he's talking about than you want to believe.
Yes,  of course.

I'm sure all those crap hole countries(the american presidents words)  will side with America in a true global trade dispute.

Let's look at the numbers.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/08/foreign-aid-these-countries-are-the-most-generous/

America 30 billion

Germany 20 billion

UK 19 billion

France 10 billion

Huh. So the top 3 Euro donors top Americas contributions. So much for that.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Jarnhamar on June 23, 2018, 14:35:02
Guess we'll see how the next half year pans out  ;)
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on June 23, 2018, 14:36:47
Guess we'll see how the next half year pans out  ;)
I'm going to side with the rest of the free world+china.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: tomahawk6 on June 23, 2018, 14:45:41
The US has a huge open market that many countries want to sell to.With a booming economy with goods and services in demand its even more attractive.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Jarnhamar on June 23, 2018, 14:47:34
The free world that the US provides 142 countries with military assistance to? Okay.


Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Good2Golf on June 23, 2018, 14:49:10
I'm going to side with the rest of the free world+china.

It will be interesting.

China hasn’t even started to swing punches yet. Calling in America’s debt markers would have a profound effect on the American economy. 

America is certainly poised to win lots of economical tactical battles in the near future.........
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on June 23, 2018, 14:56:11
The US has a huge open market that many countries wantbooming economy with goods and services in demand its even more attractive.
it certainly does.

Shame they want to make it harder for other countries to sell to them,  and as a result those countries making it harder for American companies to export.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: GAP on June 23, 2018, 15:01:15
us-foreign-aid-explained
http://theconversation.com/us-foreign-aid-explained-74810 (http://theconversation.com/us-foreign-aid-explained-74810)

Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on June 23, 2018, 15:03:26
It will be interesting.

China hasn’t even started to swing punches yet. Calling in America’s debt markers would have a profound effect on the American economy. 

America is certainly poised to win lots of economical tactical battles in the near future.........
I don't think they win the long game. A lot of countries were hit with this off guard. But once the initial surprise is over, then comes the pushback.

https://www.google.ca/amp/amp.timeinc.net/time/5319575/donald-trump-us-trade-tariffs-eu-india-turkey-china

Quote
And the highest-stakes fight still looms: In two weeks, the United States is to start taxing $34 billion in Chinese goods. Beijing has vowed to immediately retaliate with its own tariffs on U.S. soybeans and other farm products in a direct shot at President Donald Trump’s supporters in America’s heartland.

The tit-for-tat conflict between the United States and China — the world’s two largest economies — is poised to escalate from there. The rhetoric is already intensifying.

“We oppose the act of extreme pressure and blackmail by swinging the big stick of trade protectionism,” a spokesman for China’s Commerce Ministry said Thursday. “The U.S. is abusing the tariff methods and starting trade wars all around the world

“We’ve never seen anything like this,” said Mary Lovely, a Syracuse University economist who studies international trade — at least not since countries tried to wall themselves off from foreign competition during the Great Depression.
Hmmm
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on June 23, 2018, 15:07:37
us-foreign-aid-explained
http://theconversation.com/us-foreign-aid-explained-74810 (http://theconversation.com/us-foreign-aid-explained-74810)
Yes,  America give a lot of money in foreign aid, but I don't think people realize that its not a overwhelming amount.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: SeaKingTacco on June 23, 2018, 15:36:57
I'm going to side with the rest of the free world+china.

You seem like you are in an awfully big hurry to get into a war.

Why?
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on June 23, 2018, 15:42:44
You seem like you are in an awfully big hurry to get into a war.

Why?
me? I would prefer there was no trade war.

But if we are going to be dragged into one,  might as well win it.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Good2Golf on June 23, 2018, 16:48:59
I don't think they win the long game. A lot of countries were hit with this off guard. But once the initial surprise is over, then comes the pushback....

Note I left a long ...........  after postulating they’d win a lot of tactical economic battles.  I think America thinking it’s going to be winning a strategic trade war is far from a sure thing.

G2G
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: tomahawk6 on June 23, 2018, 20:57:37
I think Trump will drop tariffs in exchange for EU and Canada dropping their subsidies,which then levels the playing field.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on June 23, 2018, 21:26:35
I think Trump will drop tariffs in exchange for EU and Canada dropping their subsidies,which then levels the playing field.
Interesting. Would the US also drop their subsidies? Or are those above board?

farmers alone receive 20 billion.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: kkwd on June 23, 2018, 21:58:55
Will all this have an effect on US foreign aid to Canada?
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on June 23, 2018, 22:11:28
Will all this have an effect on US foreign aid to Canada?
what is 0 divided in half?
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: kkwd on June 23, 2018, 22:26:01
what is 0 divided in half?

Take a look at the drop list of countries the US gives aid to. I was surprised.

https://explorer.usaid.gov/cd/CAN?fiscal_year=2016&measure=Disbursements (https://explorer.usaid.gov/cd/CAN?fiscal_year=2016&measure=Disbursements)
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on June 23, 2018, 22:59:16
Take a look at the drop list of countries the US gives aid to. I was surprised.

https://explorer.usaid.gov/cd/CAN?fiscal_year=2016&measure=Disbursements (https://explorer.usaid.gov/cd/CAN?fiscal_year=2016&measure=Disbursements)
We shall all be poorer for the loss of that 21 million dollars.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Thucydides on June 24, 2018, 01:54:13
Lets review the desired end state:

https://www.justrightmedia.org/blog/archives/8776

Quote
Just Right 561- June 21, 2018
TRUMP TRADE TIRADE

It’s too bad that the substance of U.S. President Donald Trump’s statement at the G7 Summit in Charlevoix Quebec on June 9 was utterly lost on the general public.  His message needed to be heard.

The media tirades against Trump’s policy on trade serve a purpose and it is not to enlighten.  Their purpose is to create confusion about where Trump stands on free trade, to hide corrupt trade practices like ‘Supply Management’ in Canada, and to express their hatred about the reality that U.S. President Donald Trump holds all the cards – and Canada’s Prime Minister Trudeau holds none.

Both the mainstream media and Leftist political interests portray Trump’s threats of tariffs and trade barriers as a threat to the status quo trade that exists now.  None want to acknowledge Trump’s strategy as a means to push other nations to drop their own tariffs, barriers, and subsidies – which is exactly what Donald Trump has been telling them he’s doing all along.

“No tariffs.  No barriers.  No subsidies.  That’s the way it should be,” Trump stressed at the G7 Summit, but few have even heard these words, and continue to believe that Trump is against ‘free trade.’

Added White House chief economic advisor Larry Kudlow: “I don’t know if (the NAFTA negotiators) were surprised by President Trump’s free trade proclamation, but they certainly listened to it and we had lengthy discussions about that.  Reduce barriers.  In fact, go to zero.  Zero tariffs.  Zero subsidies.  And along the way we’ll have to clean up the international trading system. This is the best way to encourage economic growth."


Meanwhile, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has boldly and virtuously taken the position that Canada won’t allow itself to get ‘pushed around’ by Trump.  He has been supported by the likes of past Conservative MPs Jason Kenney and John Baird, as well as Progressive Conservative leader Doug Ford who is about to take the helm as Ontario’s premier elect.

The free trade issue makes strange bedfellows.  It also makes hypocrites of those who abandon recognized principles – to achieve power at the expense of losing their objective.

Just ask Maxime Bernier, whose opinions on Canada’s own trade barriers were expressed in a previously-deleted-from-his-book Chapter 5: “Live or die with supply management.”  It is an indictment of supply management, both in theory and in practice.

Unfortunately, evidence and argument are often not enough to sway those who have interests to protect at the expense of the public purse.

Consequently, there are those who view the issue of free trade as an ‘ideological’ one.  Others see it as mere ‘economic theory.’

It is both, but it is more. Above all, free trade is a moral issue – one that concerns the justifiable use of force in society.

Though the G7 nations would all benefit from trade free of tariffs and barriers, it is those opposing Trump who hypocritically hold most of the barrier cards in this trading game.  Watching Canada’s prime minister as the joker at the table, it’s clear that America holds the Trump card.

Whether free trade is seen as economic theory or ideology, the bottom line on free trade is that in the end (and as an end), it’s Just Right for everyone.

Since maintaining the Status Quo is not the answer President Trump wants, he is putting pressure on the various players, enough to move people off their positions (see the German auto industry) and essentially force changes.  When powerful internal players are pushing against the political establishments in order to retain market access to the United States, then presenting any sort of United front will be difficult. For people doubting that the US cannot "take on the world", remember the US is a continental economy with over 300 million customers, so while there will be hardship, there is also a lot of room in the internal market to take up the slack.

So President Trump is playing a very complex multivalent game (I'm pretty sure part of what is happening is an attempt to take some of the economic wind out of China's sails in order to hamper the Chinese military buildup) in order to shake up the global status quo and realign things quite differently.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: SeaKingTacco on June 24, 2018, 02:16:41
me? I would prefer there was no trade war.

But if we are going to be dragged into one,  might as well win it.

We cannot win a trade war against our neighbour, whose economy is 10x the size of ours. We can match them tariff for tariff all day long and we wil still be crushed. Them? Not so much. I cannot stress enough how stupid it is to fight a trade war on the terms that some in the US would like us to fight.

The only way to win against the US is to play for time; making as few concessions as possible, while we lobby the crap out of those in Congress that matter. Oh yeah, and clean up our own crappy record on free trade and competitiveness in the meantime, too.

I still, for the life of me, cannot figure out why 12,000 (ish) dairy farmers in Canada are being defended like they are the Crown Jewels....
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on June 24, 2018, 03:51:19
We cannot win a trade war against our neighbour, whose economy is 10x the size of ours. We can match them tariff for tariff all day long and we wil still be crushed. Them? Not so much. I cannot stress enough how stupid it is to fight a trade war on the terms that some in the US would like us to fight.

The only way to win against the US is to play for time; making as few concessions as possible, while we lobby the crap out of those in Congress that matter. Oh yeah, and clean up our own crappy record on free trade and competitiveness in the meantime, too.

I still, for the life of me, cannot figure out why 12,000 (ish) dairy farmers in Canada are being defended like they are the Crown Jewels....
And canada couldn't defeat the Germans in WW2,  but we had help,  didn't we?
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Good2Golf on June 24, 2018, 09:14:17
Thucydides, I’d be very interested to hear your thoughts about how the US intends to repeal the 2014 Congressional Farming Appropriation Act to remove massive farm (both agricultural and dairy) subsidies?  As well, very interested to hear your perspective on the Wisconsin Dairy Farming Board, that represents a large portion of the small to medium sized family owned dairy farms, that  makes the case for a supply managed methodology like Canada’s to give its members greater stability in the production (and export) of dairy products, thereby reducing the perturbations that contribute to small producers’ closure and absorption by large dairy producing conglomerates?

SKT, agree combination political play for manoeuvre time, including targeted engagement with key American trade players who have constituents who will be disproportionately impacted by import tariffs, is a sound COA. :nod:

Regards
G2G
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: E.R. Campbell on June 24, 2018, 09:39:23
Thucydides, I’d be very interested to hear your thoughts about how the US intends to repeal the 2014 Congressional Farming Appropriation Act to remove massive farm (both agricultural and dairy) subsidies?  As well, very interested to hear your perspective on the Wisconsin Dairy Farming Board, that represents a large portion of the small to medium sized family owned dairy farms, that  makes the case for a supply managed methodology like Canada’s to give its members greater stability in the production (and export) of dairy products, thereby reducing the perturbations that contribute to small producers’ closure and absorption by large dairy producing conglomerates?

SKT, agree combination political play for manoeuvre time, including targeted engagement with key American trade players who have constituents who will be disproportionately impacted by import tariffs, is a sound COA. :nod:

Regards
G2G


I agree 100% with the highlighted bit.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Remius on June 24, 2018, 10:08:58
Same here.

You don’t take on the Romans in open warfare.  You hit them where it hurts.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: SeaKingTacco on June 24, 2018, 10:32:42
And canada couldn't defeat the Germans in WW2,  but we had help,  didn't we?

Your analogy sucks. The Germans were (largely) defeated by the Russians. This is not World War 2 and the United States of America are orders of magnitude more powerful economically and militarily than Germany was then. And, at the end of the day, Americans are not our enemy!. They are our closest neighbour and trading partner- current irritants aside.


Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: daftandbarmy on June 24, 2018, 10:53:03
I still, for the life of me, cannot figure out why 12,000 (ish) dairy farmers in Canada are being defended like they are the Crown Jewels....

Because: Quebec.

"I accepted for a period of time that the Quebec dairy establishment was the third rail of separation politics, but the arguments are wearing thin, as I reflect on the relative costs of food across Canada. When Island dairy farmers (remember Island Proud) sold out to the Quebec dairy cartel, they lost my goodwill." http://www.timescolonist.com/opinion/letters/too-much-deference-to-farm-lobby-1.23343865
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on June 24, 2018, 11:26:03
Your analogy sucks. The Germans were (largely) defeated by the Russians. This is not World War 2 and the United States of America are orders of magnitude more powerful economically and militarily than Germany was then. And, at the end of the day, Americans are not our enemy!. They are our closest neighbour and trading partner- current irritants aside.
my analogy is spot on.

The Americans will largely be defeated by Chiba in this case,  who have very big guns to bring to this fight. Canada would be playing a support role.

And in this case,  America is our enemy. America is the one threatening canadian livelyhoods on some factless crusade against our country.

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/427292002
Quote
Trudeau came to see me. He’s a good guy, Justin. He said, ‘No, no, we have no trade deficit with you, we have none. Donald, please,’ ” Trump said, according to audio obtained by the Post of the private event in Missouri on Wednesday. “Nice guy, good-looking guy, comes in — ‘Donald, we have no trade deficit.’ He’s very proud because everybody else, you know, we’re getting killed.

“... So, he’s proud. I said, ‘Wrong, Justin, you do.’ I didn’t even know. ... I had no idea. I just said, ‘You’re wrong.’ You know why? Because we’re so stupid. … And I thought they were smart. I said, ‘You’re wrong, Justin.’ He said, ‘Nope, we have no trade deficit.’ I said, ‘Well, in that case, I feel differently,’ I said, ‘but I don’t believe it.’ I sent one of our guys out, his guy, my guy, they went out, I said, ‘Check, because I can’t believe it.’

Well, sir, you’re actually right. We have no deficit, but that doesn’t include energy and timber. … And when you do, we lose $17 billion a year.’ It’s incredible.”

The Office of the United States Trade Representative says the United States had a $12.1 billion trade surplus with Canada in 2016.


So in this case,  where they will so nonchalantly throw our shared interests,  long history of cooperation,  and lucrative trade away on the back of blatant lies and mistruths,  they,  IMHO,  are not our friend and ally. They are our opponents in a global trade conflict,  they seek out to do harm to the canadian economy,  and economics of others for their own gain,  and for that reason,  I fully support every effort to harm theirs right back.

Hopefully when enough Americans are hurting from a trade conflict brought on by their leadership,  they, as a democracy, will decide a change of leadership is necessary.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: tomahawk6 on June 24, 2018, 11:58:03
Does Canada have any refineries ? I found a number that I didn't believe.That the US exported oil to Canada.True or false ?
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: SeaKingTacco on June 24, 2018, 12:11:12
my analogy is spot on.

The Americans will largely be defeated by Chiba in this case,  who have very big guns to bring to this fight. Canada would be playing a support role.

And in this case,  America is our enemy. America is the one threatening canadian livelyhoods on some factless crusade against our country.

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/427292002
So in this case,  where they will so nonchalantly throw our shared interests,  long history of cooperation,  and lucrative trade away on the back of blatant lies and mistruths,  they,  IMHO,  are not our friend and ally. They are our opponents in a global trade conflict,  they seek out to do harm to the canadian economy,  and economics of others for their own gain,  and for that reason,  I fully support every effort to harm theirs right back.

Hopefully when enough Americans are hurting from a trade conflict brought on by their leadership,  they, as a democracy, will decide a change of leadership is necessary.

So, how does that one Donald Trump quote make all of the United States of America our enemy, on par (according to you) with Nazi Germany?

You have no idea of what you speak.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Journeyman on June 24, 2018, 12:15:23
Hopefully when enough Americans are hurting from a trade conflict brought on by their leadership,  they, as a democracy, will decide a change of leadership is necessary.
1)  A significant percentage of Americans will likely believe that any economic hardship is brought on by the evil foreign counter-tariffs, not Trump;  not only are 'facts' irrelevant, but "retaliatory" has wa-aaay  too many syllables for those informed solely by Fox & Friends.  They would believe that any financial heartache simply "proves" Trump was right all along.*

2)  If they do change leadership, who's to say it's not a Mike Pence?  He is every bit as economically protectionist, but also suffers from an increasingly rabid, born-again evangelical ideology -- his track record as governor shows that he considers the concept of 'separation of church and state' to be an abomination. 

Careful what you wish for.



* Confirmation bias (https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/science-choice/201504/what-is-confirmation-bias):  basically, one is more likely to look for, notice, and remember anything that confirms opinions already held.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on June 24, 2018, 12:16:11
So, how does that one Donald Trump quote make all of the United States of America our enemy, on par (according to you) with Nazi Germany?

You have no idea of what you speak.
You show me where I called America an enemy on par with Nazi germany?

I'll wait.  ;D
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: SeaKingTacco on June 24, 2018, 12:16:26
Does Canada have any refineries ? I found a number that I didn't believe.That the US exported oil to Canada.True or false ?

Canada has about 15 refineries left, IIRC.

We don't import oil from the US, so much as refined petroleum product into certain markets (BC lower mainland, for example). We also export refined product to the US, as well.

The point is that North America is a highly integrated market for petroleum. It generally moves where it can be refined cheapest and sold for the highest profit, without regard to the Canada-US border.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on June 24, 2018, 12:18:06
1)  A significant percentage of Americans will likely believe that any economic hardship is brought on by the evil foreign counter-tariffs, not Trump;  not only are 'facts' irrelevant, but "retaliatory" has wa-aaay  too many syllables for those informed solely by Fox & Friends.  They would believe that any financial heartache simply "proves" Trump was right all along.*

2)  If they do change leadership, who's to say it's not a Mike Pence?  He is every bit as economically protectionist, but also suffers from an increasingly rabid, born-again evangelical ideology -- his track record as governor shows that he considers the concept of 'separation of church and state' to be an abomination. 

Careful what you wish for.



* Confirmation bias (https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/science-choice/201504/what-is-confirmation-bias):  basically, one is more likely to look for, notice, and remember anything that confirms opinions already held.
1) politics is anything but predictable, so we shall see.

2) I would rather deal with an adult.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: SeaKingTacco on June 24, 2018, 12:19:01
And canada couldn't defeat the Germans in WW2,  but we had help,  didn't we?

No problem.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on June 24, 2018, 12:26:41
No problem.
its simply an example of canada working with others to defeat a much larger opponent,  it was in no way calling America Nazi Germany.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: SeaKingTacco on June 24, 2018, 12:47:12
its simply an example of canada working with others to defeat a much larger opponent,  it was in no way calling America Nazi Germany.

Well, good. I am glad we cleared that up.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on June 24, 2018, 12:49:59
Well, good. I am glad we cleared that up.
We may not agree but its still nice to keep it above board.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Blackadder1916 on June 24, 2018, 16:33:36
Take a look at the drop list of countries the US gives aid to. I was surprised.

https://explorer.usaid.gov/cd/CAN?fiscal_year=2016&measure=Disbursements (https://explorer.usaid.gov/cd/CAN?fiscal_year=2016&measure=Disbursements)

What surprised me is that the US government is identifying that $21 million as "aid" to Canada.  Actually, it shouldn't surprise anyone, it is just the usual spinning a story to suit their narrative.  If one drills down deeper to what that money is for, it quickly becomes obvious (since the primary recipient of the funds is "Ducks Unlimited" - different from the Canadian subsidiary "Ducks Unlimited Canada") that it has something to do with migratory birds and wetlands conservation.  So why would the US government be handing out money for such a frivolous activity.  Maybe they still realize, as they did 100 years ago when the US and the United Kingdom (representing Canada) signed the
Quote
CONVENTION BETWEEN THE UNITED KINGDOM AND THE UNITED STATES FOR THE PROTECTION OF MIGRATORY BIRDS IN CANADA AND THE UNITED STATES

Whereas, many species of birds in the course of their annual migrations traverse certain parts of the Dominion of Canada and the United States; and

Whereas, many of these species are of great value as a source of food or in destroying insects which are injurious to forests and forage plants on the public domain, as well as to agricultural crops, in both Canada and the United States, but are nevertheless in danger of extermination through lack of adequate protection during the nesting season or while on their way to and from their breeding grounds;

His Majesty the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British dominions beyond the seas, Emperor of India, and the United States of America, being desirous of saving from indiscriminate slaughter and of insuring the preservation of such migratory birds as are either useful to man or are harmless, have resolved to adopt some uniform system of protection which shall effectively accomplish such objects, . . .

So someone south of the border realized if they want to shoot and eat ducks and geese (a most enjoyable pastime - but yeah the other things are important too) then their habitats and breeding areas (many of which are in Canada) have to be saved.  What an unusual concept, paying someone for something you want, very capitalistic in nature.

And maybe that is why the US Congress included the following in the DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2018
Quote
north american wetlands conservation fund

       For expenses necessary to carry out the provisions of the
     North American Wetlands Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 4401 et
     seq.), $38,145,000, to remain available until expended.

And how does the US government spend that money?
https://www.fws.gov/birds/grants/north-american-wetland-conservation-act.php
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: PPCLI Guy on June 24, 2018, 16:58:44
Nice piece of research.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Thucydides on June 24, 2018, 18:13:11
Thucydides, I’d be very interested to hear your thoughts about how the US intends to repeal the 2014 Congressional Farming Appropriation Act to remove massive farm (both agricultural and dairy) subsidies?  As well, very interested to hear your perspective on the Wisconsin Dairy Farming Board, that represents a large portion of the small to medium sized family owned dairy farms, that  makes the case for a supply managed methodology like Canada’s to give its members greater stability in the production (and export) of dairy products, thereby reducing the perturbations that contribute to small producers’ closure and absorption by large dairy producing conglomerates?

SKT, agree combination political play for manoeuvre time, including targeted engagement with key American trade players who have constituents who will be disproportionately impacted by import tariffs, is a sound COA. :nod:

Regards
G2G

I can't claim to know how the Congress is going to react, but since trade is a two way street and the President's expressed end goal is the repeal of tariffs and subsidies, I can imagine some of the pain of being cut off from larger global markets will give the President some sort of leverage against the Congress.

Perhaps this is another level to the game, changing some of the relative power groupings inside the Untied States. Many of the President's domestic policies have essentially changed the playing field against current "rent seekers", so this could be more of the same. (Consider the President being able to "self fund" his own election campaign from the primaries onwards had the effect of cutting off professional fund raisers and other political rent seekers from the huge cash flow typical of elections, since they simply were not needed. This would explain a great deal of anger against President Trump from the GOP side).

We need to keep in mind known data points like the President's long standing desire to reduce or eliminate trade deficits and "unfair" trade deals (once again, there is a 1989 interview where he states exactly that when asked if he would run for President), his desire for nominal allies to start picking up their share of burden sharing, the desire to "drain the swamp" of domestic politics and the desire to keep America secure within her own borders. Unless analysis is based on seeing and understanding how the President's actions move towards these goals, then I think anything put forward by the chattering classes (or me, for that matter) will be off the mark.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Eaglelord17 on June 24, 2018, 19:04:24
I can't claim to know how the Congress is going to react, but since trade is a two way street and the President's expressed end goal is the repeal of tariffs and subsidies, I can imagine some of the pain of being cut off from larger global markets will give the President some sort of leverage against the Congress.

Congress is apparently putting though a bill right now that would prevent the President from unilaterally declaring tariffs. Personally I think that is a good thing as the intent of the current law is to allow the President to impose tariffs for national security, clearly something that it is not being used for.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on June 24, 2018, 19:16:13
Congress is apparently putting though a bill right now that would prevent the President from unilaterally declaring tariffs. Personally I think that is a good thing as the intent of the current law is to allow the President to impose tariffs for national security, clearly something that it is not being used for.
that got squashed.

Republicans were afraid it would upset the president

https://globalnews.ca/news/4270314/tariffs-aluminum-steel-bob-corker-poke-bear/

Quote
Tennessee Republican Sen. Bob Corker ripped into his party Tuesday for sidestepping a vote on his amendment to roll back U.S. President Donald Trump’s trade authority — by blocking it altogether.

In a passionate speech on the Senate floor, Corker argued that Republicans were blocking his trade proposal because they feared what Trump might do to the party if they upset him ahead of an election

Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: tomahawk6 on June 24, 2018, 23:35:55
Peter Navarro is the trade hawk at the White House.In 1984 he wrote this book: "The Policy Game: How Special Interests and Ideologues are Stealing America.The book is out of print.You might find a copy on the internet or Axios.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on June 25, 2018, 09:05:54
http://business.financialpost.com/pmn/business-pmn/china-eu-to-form-group-to-modernize-global-trade-rules

Quote
Europe and China will form a group aimed at updating global trade rules to address technology policy, government subsidies and other emerging complaints in a bid to preserve support for international commerce, the vice-president of the European Union’s governing body said Monday.

European Commission Vice-President Jyrki Katainen said unilateral action by U.S. President Donald Trump in disputes over steel, China’s technology policy and other issues highlighted the need to modernize the World Trade Organization to reflect developments in the world economy.

U.S. officials have said the WTO, the Geneva-based arbiter of world trade rules, is bureaucratic, rigid and slow to adapt to changes in global business and needs an overhaul.

Katainen said he did not expect negotiations on updating trade rules to be easy but that they were necessary to save the environment for multilateral trade.

Look at who wasn't invited. America abdicating it's position as a global leader in matters of trade.

MAGA.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: PuckChaser on June 25, 2018, 09:17:27
China and the EU are 1 and 2 in terms of GDP, with the EU only barely ahead. The EU's importance will drop substantially when BREXIT kicks in, which is why the EU is fighting so hard against it. Regardless of how you view the current US leadership, isolating the world's third largest, and largest nominal GDP will just destroy any semblance of credibility. It's also laughable that China is going to recommend technology trade policies when they literally just steal whatever technology they want.

China's also not going to strike back all that hard against the US, 18% of their export economy is to the US. Not many country's can handle that big of a blow, and any major trade action like that would likely cause a global collapse.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Remius on June 25, 2018, 09:31:21
It's also laughable that China is going to recommend technology trade policies when they literally just steal whatever technology they want.


Yeah, except the country that could be a foil to that just packed up its toys and went home. Voids get filled.  China is all too happy to fill it.

Thank you U.S.



 
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on June 25, 2018, 09:32:15
China and the EU are 1 and 2 in terms of GDP, with the EU only barely ahead. The EU's importance will drop substantially when BREXIT kicks in, which is why the EU is fighting so hard against it. Regardless of how you view the current US leadership, isolating the world's third largest, and largest nominal GDP will just destroy any semblance of credibility. It's also laughable that China is going to recommend technology trade policies when they literally just steal whatever technology they want.

China's also not going to strike back all that hard against the US, 18% of their export economy is to the US. Not many country's can handle that big of a blow, and any major trade action like that would likely cause a global collapse.
If we take China at its word, it's going to strike back dollar for dollar at US tariffs. Another sector it may hit the US is oil, as the USA is currently exporting quite a bit of oil to China.

It just so happens that there is a country that has recently been black listed by the USA that has quite a bit of oil that it will wants to export.

As for isolating the US and their economy, it must be noted, America is doing this to itself. And when it comes right down to it, the EU and China together have more sway economically than the USA alone, where it finds itself.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on June 25, 2018, 09:33:49
Yeah, except the country that could be a foil to that just packed up its toys and went home. Voids get filled.  China is all too happy to fill it.

Thank you U.S.



 
Americas withdrawal is opening space for China to advance their interests and agenda.

It would be humorous if it wasn't so serious.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Journeyman on June 25, 2018, 09:39:49
Peter Navarro, The Policy Game: How Special Interests and Ideologues are Stealing America.  The book is out of print.
It can be had on Amazon.CA (https://www.amazon.ca/Policy-Game-Interests-Ideologues-Stealing/dp/0669141127)…. for $4.93

Trump as "ideologue"?  His financial 1%'er cronies as "special interests"?  Maybe quite prescient, but not worth my $4.93 to find out.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on June 25, 2018, 10:33:29
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-25/harley-davidson-to-shift-motorbike-production-to-counter-tariffs

Quote
Harley-Davidson Inc. plans to shift some production of its motorcycles out of the U.S. in response to European Union tariffs, as President Donald Trump’s trade war undermines an iconic American manufacturer.

Each motorcycle will cost about $2,200 more after the European Union raised its levies on imported U.S. bikes to 31 percent from 6 percent on June 22, the Milwaukee-based manufacturer said Monday in a regulatory filing. This will cost Harley about $90 million to $100 million annually, as the company will absorb rather than pass extra costs on to customers.

Quote
The EU tariffs are only the latest blowback Harley has faced from Trump’s trade policies. The company has warned that Trump’s tariffs on steel and aluminum will drive up raw materials costs. Chief Executive Officer Matt Levatich also was a supporter of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which could have lowered barriers in some of the largest markets for motorcycles in the world. Trump withdrew from the long-planned trade pact in January 2017.A week after pulling the U.S. out of the TPP, the president hosted Levatich and other Harley executives and union leaders for a White House listening session and held the motorcycle maker out as an “American success story since 1901.”

A U.S. motorcycle sales slump has deepened since then, spurring Harley’s decision in January to close a plant in Kansas City, Missouri, eliminating about 260 jobs.
The European trade tariffs already starting to sting American companies. And this is before Canadian and Chinese tariffs are set to come into effect.

MAGA.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on June 25, 2018, 11:18:24
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/24/business/trump-trade-war-cheese-exports.html

Quote
For domestic cheesemakers like Sartori, Mr. Trump’s approach has further tilted the global playing field against American manufacturers, giving them an even steeper climb in an increasingly competitive global economy.

The dairy industry now faces substantial tariffs on products it exports as Mexico, Canada and other countries retaliate against Mr. Trump’s steel and aluminum tariffs. American exporters also fear that they could lose access to Canada and Mexico if the president goes ahead with his threat to withdraw from the North American Free Trade Agreement. And they are finding themselves at an increasing disadvantage as other countries move ahead with trade agreements that grant each other freer access to their markets while Mr. Trump further isolates the United States.

Quote
The Sartori company, which employs roughly 500 workers in the state, earns just one-tenth of its revenue from exports to 49 countries of cheese like Parmesan, Cheddar, asiago, Gorgonzola, Romano and fontina. But its exports to foreign markets are the company’s fastest growing segment and the one where it sees the most opportunity.

That equation changes dramatically when tariffs are factored in. Sartori, which sells its cheeses to retail stores and fast casual restaurant chains in Mexico, now faces a 15 percent tariff on its exports, which will rise to 25 percent on July 5, in retaliation for Mr. Trump’s levies on global metal. The price increase is enough that the company’s customers, including restaurant chains, are looking at signing contracts with Sartori’s European competitors.

Targeted tariffs at specific industries harming American business.

Only, in these articles, the americans effected by this trade war don't seem to be blaming Canada and Mexico.

MAGA.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on June 25, 2018, 11:29:14
https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/money/agriculture/2018/06/01/mexico-pork-tariff-trade-war-threats-iowa-producer-losses-trump-steel-canada-china-exports-ham/663212002/


Quote
Iowa pork producers already dealing with a 25 percent tariff on U.S. pork exports to China could face another trade hit, with Mexico considering a 20 percent tariff on hams and pork shoulders.

Growing trade worries have cut pork prices in recent weeks, costing Iowa producers about $560 million, said Dermot Hayes, an Iowa State University economist.

Mexico is the largest export market for U.S. pork, based on volume.

Mexico bought $1.5 billion of U.S. pork last year, followed by China-Hong Kong at nearly $1.1 billion.

The tariffs are "potentially devastating news for Iowa’s pig farmers and the rural Iowa economy," said Gregg Hora, president of the Iowa Pork Producers Association.


A few more markets who are going to need to suffer in order to Make America Great Again.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on June 25, 2018, 12:13:09
https://www.dailyrepublic.com/all-dr-news/wires/business/minnesotas-soybean-sales-could-take-big-hit-if-china-tariffs-proceed/

Quote
Minnesota’s farmers exported $2.1 billion worth of soybeans in 2016, according to government statistics. Most of them went to China.

If the Chinese proceed with a threatened 25 percent import tariff on U.S. soybeans in retaliation for 25 percent protective tariffs Trump placed on a variety of nonagricultural Chinese products, Minnesota soybean growers and others across the country face a loss of 69 percent of Chinese sales, said Purdue University agricultural economist Wallace Tyner, who analyzed data for the U.S. Soybean Export Council.

The loss of U.S. sales comes because the retaliatory tariff will make U.S. soybeans more expensive than those China can buy from other countries, principally Brazil.

Some of those lost Chinese sales can be made up selling U.S. soybeans in other parts of the world, Tyner said. But if the tariffs stay in effect for a long time, U.S. soybean exports to the world could shrink by 29 percent. Brazil, meanwhile, would see its soybean export business grow conspicuously at America’s expense, according to Tyner.
Odd, looks like this trade conflict can Make Brazil Great Again.

MBGA.

There are hundreds of stories like this out there, where tariffs are hitting american companies, limiting business expansion and growth, cutting revenue and jobs, moving manufacturing out of the USA.

America cannot bend the global economy to its will, and now countries all over the globe are hitting back, targeting specific industries, making it hurt. All the while, China, Europe, even Canada and Mexico, try to find new opportunities not involving the USA.

Still, I guess as long as America clings to the belief that they hold so much sway over the global economy that they can force it to do what it wants, they will continue down this road. I believe we will all be poorer for it.

Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: E.R. Campbell on June 25, 2018, 13:23:11
https://www.dailyrepublic.com/all-dr-news/wires/business/minnesotas-soybean-sales-could-take-big-hit-if-china-tariffs-proceed/
Odd, looks like this trade conflict can Make Brazil Great Again.

MBGA.

There are hundreds of stories like this out there, where tariffs are hitting american companies, limiting business expansion and growth, cutting revenue and jobs, moving manufacturing out of the USA.

America cannot bend the global economy to its will, and now countries all over the globe are hitting back, targeting specific industries, making it hurt. All the while, China, Europe, even Canada and Mexico, try to find new opportunities not involving the USA.

Still, I guess as long as America clings to the belief that they hold so much sway over the global economy that they can force it to do what it wants, they will continue down this road. I believe we will all be poorer for it.


That's because it is almost always true that trade wars hurt everyone ~ this one (actually these ones) are unlikely to be exceptions to that general rule.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: E.R. Campbell on June 25, 2018, 13:26:52
https://www.dailyrepublic.com/all-dr-news/wires/business/minnesotas-soybean-sales-could-take-big-hit-if-china-tariffs-proceed/
Odd, looks like this trade conflict can Make Brazil Great Again.

MBGA.

There are hundreds of stories like this out there, where tariffs are hitting american companies, limiting business expansion and growth, cutting revenue and jobs, moving manufacturing out of the USA.

America cannot bend the global economy to its will, and now countries all over the globe are hitting back, targeting specific industries, making it hurt. All the while, China, Europe, even Canada and Mexico, try to find new opportunities not involving the USA.

Still, I guess as long as America clings to the belief that they hold so much sway over the global economy that they can force it to do what it wants, they will continue down this road. I believe we will all be poorer for it.

Two points:

   First ~ yes, it probably can bend the global system to its will in the short term and even medium simply by being more able to accept damage then are its many competitors ...
   for a while; and

   Second ~ those "new opportunities" require Australia, Britain, Canada, China, the EU and India to all agree to cooperate with one another which is going to be a helluva lot harder
   than many commentators think.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on June 25, 2018, 13:42:45
Two points:

   First ~ yes, it probably can bend the global system to its will in the short term and even medium simply by being more able to accept damage then are its many competitors ...
   for a while; and

   Second ~ those "new opportunities" require Australia, Britain, Canada, China, the EU and India to all agree to cooperate with one another which is going to be a helluva lot harder
   than many commentators think.
On your first point, that is not a given. Democracies are fickle, people enjoy their standard of living and jobs, and tend to punish the ruling party when that is upended.

On your second point, it is going to be rather complicated, that much is true. It's telling that China and the EU are getting together though. China is trying to take a leadership role in the US absence
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: mariomike on June 25, 2018, 13:46:06
Reply #225

Quote
Harley-Davidson Inc. plans to shift some production of its motorcycles out of the U.S. in response to European Union tariffs, as President Donald Trump’s trade war undermines an iconic American manufacturer.

"Thank you Harley Davidson for building... In America...."
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/report.php?pid=436
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on June 25, 2018, 14:07:24
Reply #225

"Thank you Harley Davidson for building... In America...."
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/report.php?pid=436
That didn't age well at all.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Humphrey Bogart on June 25, 2018, 16:32:02
On your first point, that is not a given. Democracies are fickle, people enjoy their standard of living and jobs, and tend to punish the ruling party when that is upended.

On your second point, it is going to be rather complicated, that much is true. It's telling that China and the EU are getting together though. China is trying to take a leadership role in the US absence

You are assuming the people that put Trump in power aren't supportive of these actions when the consensus seems to be that they are.

A quick google of "Trump Tariffs" reveals that googling Trump is more popular in Canada than it is in the United States and the Canadian Government and Media seem to think people in the United States will suddenly care the more we write and publish about how angry we are.

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=Trump%20Tariffs (https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=Trump%20Tariffs)

Or from the past 7 days:

"Donald Trump Tariffs"

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=now%207-d&q=Donald%20Trump%20Tariffs (https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=now%207-d&q=Donald%20Trump%20Tariffs)

Almost nobody in the World really gives a crap about Donald Trump or what he says about Tariffs, the only people that really care is us and the United States could crush Canada like a bug if it really felt like it.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on June 25, 2018, 16:55:01
You are assuming the people that put Trump in power aren't supportive of these actions when the consensus seems to be that they are.

A quick google of "Trump Tariffs" reveals that googling Trump is more popular in Canada than it is in the United States and the Canadian Government and Media seem to think people in the United States will suddenly care the more we write and publish about how angry we are.

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=Trump%20Tariffs (https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=Trump%20Tariffs)

Or from the past 7 days:

"Donald Trump Tariffs"

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=now%207-d&q=Donald%20Trump%20Tariffs (https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=now%207-d&q=Donald%20Trump%20Tariffs)

Almost nobody in the World really gives a crap about Donald Trump or what he says about Tariffs, the only people that really care is us and the United States could crush Canada like a bug if it really felt like it.
At the yellow part, I don't believe that to be true. It's for the domestic audience, not the American audience.  And there are a great many Canadians upset about how this is going down, and would, naturally, like to read about it and inform themselves, or share their own opinions about it.

Nobody cares about what the American President says about tariffs, but I'm sure they care about the actual tariffs themselves, which is understandable.

And yes, America would crush Canada like a bug, but this it's America versus Canada, this is really America versus the world.

The EU put tariffs on America. That's already hurting american businesses and moving jobs out of america.

China is about to put tariffs on America, that has certain sectors of America worried about job losses and loss of revenue

Canada has put tariffs on American goods, and we are their largest export market, that isn't to be taken lightly.

India has put tariffs on America

Turkey has put tariffs on America

Mexico has put tariffs on America, and they are hurting certain sectors of the American Market.

Japan has plans for tariffs on American goods

Canada may not be able to go head on versus the USA in a trade war, but Canada doesn't have to.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Remius on June 25, 2018, 17:01:08
You are assuming the people that put Trump in power aren't supportive of these actions when the consensus seems to be that they are.

A quick google of "Trump Tariffs" reveals that googling Trump is more popular in Canada than it is in the United States and the Canadian Government and Media seem to think people in the United States will suddenly care the more we write and publish about how angry we are.

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=Trump%20Tariffs (https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=Trump%20Tariffs)

Or from the past 7 days:

"Donald Trump Tariffs"




https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=now%207-d&q=Donald%20Trump%20Tariffs (https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=now%207-d&q=Donald%20Trump%20Tariffs)

Almost nobody in the World really gives a crap about Donald Trump or what he says about Tariffs, the only people that really care is us and the United States could crush Canada like a bug if it really felt like it.

Go look at June 12.  Apparently the world (except Canada again...)  gave a crap about the NK summit either.

I think it just shows that we might be a bit more plugged in online that most countries.  or that we like to stay informed.   Given the reaction of every country hit by tariffs I'd say we aren't the only ones that care...

Also the World Cup is on...
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Humphrey Bogart on June 25, 2018, 17:21:56
At the yellow part, I don't believe that to be true. It's for the domestic audience, not the American audience.  And there are a great many Canadians upset about how this is going down, and would, naturally, like to read about it and inform themselves, or share their own opinions about it.

Nobody cares about what the American President says about tariffs, but I'm sure they care about the actual tariffs themselves, which is understandable.

And yes, America would crush Canada like a bug, but this it's America versus Canada, this is really America versus the world.

The EU put tariffs on America. That's already hurting american businesses and moving jobs out of america.

China is about to put tariffs on America, that has certain sectors of America worried about job losses and loss of revenue

Canada has put tariffs on American goods, and we are their largest export market, that isn't to be taken lightly.

India has put tariffs on America

Turkey has put tariffs on America

Mexico has put tariffs on America, and they are hurting certain sectors of the American Market.

Japan has plans for tariffs on American goods

Canada may not be able to go head on versus the USA in a trade war, but Canada doesn't have to.

Are they really hurting the US though?  I don't see any indication of it and the only real testimonies I see are on websites like the CBC, which again, are playing to the domestic political audience.

It's all fine and well to say that "we are going to find other markets" but I have no faith that the G7-1 can come to some sort of consensus, let alone getting China, India, Australia, South Korea, Mexico, etc. to present any sort of unified front.


Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on June 25, 2018, 17:50:34
Are they really hurting the US though?  I don't see any indication of it and the only real testimonies I see are on websites like the CBC, which again, are playing to the domestic political audience.

It's all fine and well to say that "we are going to find other markets" but I have no faith that the G7-1 can come to some sort of consensus, let alone getting China, India, Australia, South Korea, Mexico, etc. to present any sort of unified front.
I posted 4 articles(I could have posted many more)  from US newspapers about how tariffs from the EU and Mexico and China are hurting the USA,  and those were all for a smaller dollar amount than what canada is about to hit the USA with.

EU tariffs total 3.6 billion and they are already having repurcussions. Canada is about to hit the USA with 16.6 billion dollars worth of tariffs.

Again,  4 articles,  from american sources,  top of this page.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Colin P on June 25, 2018, 17:59:57
https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/money/agriculture/2018/06/01/mexico-pork-tariff-trade-war-threats-iowa-producer-losses-trump-steel-canada-china-exports-ham/663212002/

A few more markets who are going to need to suffer in order to Make America Great Again.

Question is, can Mexico get replacement pork as cheap and easily? Now it will all have to come from overseas, even by Canada, so shipped to port, loaded on a ship and then to a Mexican Port, the trucked through the country. Not sure how many ships go from Canada to Mexico and return, but I suspect it's not that many.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: GR66 on June 25, 2018, 19:19:03
At the yellow part, I don't believe that to be true. It's for the domestic audience, not the American audience.  And there are a great many Canadians upset about how this is going down, and would, naturally, like to read about it and inform themselves, or share their own opinions about it.

Nobody cares about what the American President says about tariffs, but I'm sure they care about the actual tariffs themselves, which is understandable.

And yes, America would crush Canada like a bug, but this it's America versus Canada, this is really America versus the world.

The EU put tariffs on America. That's already hurting american businesses and moving jobs out of america.

China is about to put tariffs on America, that has certain sectors of America worried about job losses and loss of revenue

Canada has put tariffs on American goods, and we are their largest export market, that isn't to be taken lightly.

India has put tariffs on America

Turkey has put tariffs on America

Mexico has put tariffs on America, and they are hurting certain sectors of the American Market.

Japan has plans for tariffs on American goods

Canada may not be able to go head on versus the USA in a trade war, but Canada doesn't have to.

You seem to be very keen on the idea of the world getting together to gang up on the US and crush them with punishing tariffs in retaliation for their actions.  However you accept the fact that such a trade war will hurt everyone.  Why are you so set on a course of action that with each new tariff and counter-tariff will make the lives of everyone involved worse and worse? 

Why not try and put a halt to the spiral of escalation?  We all know that Trump's actions are designed to play to his base and play on their fears of being taken advantage of by others.  Why not try and lessen those fears?  Trump says dairy supply management is totally unfair.  There are a number of Canadian policy analysts that feel there are problems with supply management as well.  Take that as an opportunity to review the system and see if some changes can be made that will still benefit Canada but also addresses some of the USAs greatest concerns.  Trump can present that as a victory to his base.  He can say "look...I told the Canadians they were cheating us and we're not going to take it and they made changes".  Let him take credit...I could care less.

I'm not saying to bend over and let our industries get screwed, but take his objections as an opportunity to make changes to some sacred cows that might actually need to be made (even to our long-term benefit). 

Trump says our steel and aluminum exports are a national security threat?  Maybe then we could have proposed a joint task force to review how we could jointly ensure that cheap foreign steel is not entering our markets through back doors so that we can protect both of our domestic industries. 

Or if national security is the Trump concern of the day then announce that we're moving up the competition for our replacement fighters so that we can meet our NORAD needs and that the US aircraft are of course free to compete.  Or opt in to ballistic missile defense as part of our shared responsibility to continental defense.  Or announce an increase in defense spending to meet our agreed 2% target, etc. (using whatever accounting method the PMO chooses to fudge that number with).

This sounds much better to me than tit-for-tat trade war escalations that will simply create harder lines and bad feelings between the same countries that we are always talking about needing to work together to solve the major problems facing the planet.

Also, don't forget what kind of political atmosphere resulted from the last major protectionist trade war in the 1930s.  Intentionally going down the path of creating economic hardship for everyone creates the risk of even more hardline, extremist political leaders. 

From a personal point of view I totally get the utter distaste for Trump and his policies, but I have no interest in making the world a much more dangerous place just for the satisfaction of being able to say "I told you so"...or, "We win".

 :2c:
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Blackadder1916 on June 25, 2018, 19:39:29
Question is, can Mexico get replacement pork as cheap and easily? Now it will all have to come from overseas, even by Canada, so shipped to port, loaded on a ship and then to a Mexican Port, the trucked through the country. Not sure how many ships go from Canada to Mexico and return, but I suspect it's not that many.

I suppose Canadian pork producers could ship it the same way they currently ship the $194 million of pig meat that they currently export to Mexico.  Of course that is a miniscule market share compared to the $1.5 billion that American producers exported to Mexico last year, but then we exported $1.4 billion of pork products to the USA last year and they sent us $792 million last year.  Now if the Americans can't be competitive with Mexico pork tariffs added and China putting restrictions on them as well, they will probably look to Canada to offloaded that surplus pork.  So maybe we might see pork prices go down with a glut of American hogs  . . .  and on and on.  It's that integrated economy thing again.

Most Canadian exports to Mexico probably already go by ground surface - truck and rail.  These guys don't think it's a unusual deal.
http://www.cpr.ca/en/customer-resources/shipping-guides/customs-and-border-services
Quote
Shipping to Mexico

Help us serve you better by including the following information on all electronic data interchange (EDI) billing of shipments to Mexico from Canada or the U.S.:
1.Final consignee in Mexico, address, city, state
2.Importer name in Mexico, address, city, state
3.Customs broker in Mexico, address, city, state
4.U.S. Freight Forwarder, address, city, state
5.CAED or B13A number if exported from Canada
6.Internal Transaction Number (ITN); or Post-Departure Filing citation for all U.S. origin goods exported from the U.S. to Mexico

For information on shipping to or from Mexico, please contact the CP Mexico office at:
011-52 553-000-4070 (from anywhere in North America)
01-553-000-4070 (from anywhere​​​ in Mexico)
https://www.milgram.com/milgram/en/services/transportation/mexico
http://giggexpress.ca/en/services-trucking-canada-mexico.php
http://www.countrytransport.com/EN/home.php

Or are we now going to start speculating on the USA closing the borders to transnational shipping?
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Thucydides on June 25, 2018, 21:56:00
Altair, like so many of the chattering class, is busy cherrypicking singular stories to buttress his point, without seeing the larger picture. This isn't limited to trade, despite a barrage of "oh, the poor children" stories in the media, the public still is heavily supportive of the President's position on immigration, and American's attitude about family separation seems to be summarized by "send them all back together...", a huge propaganda fail by the media and the Left.

While there is no doubt that individuals and companies may feel the sting of tariffs in a trade war, the stated overall objective is to change the current trade regime which the President feels is heavily unbalanced against the United States. Every cheese maker and medium sized manufacturer in the EU, the Anglosphere and Sinosphere will also be feeling the bite, and they will also be putting pressure on their respective governments as well. President Trump has the advantage that he is sitting on a single unified market, while the various other nations and groupings not only compete against the United State, but against each other. Canada will discover that the EU, China, Australia or even Zimbabwe are not going to be welcoming Canadian goods with open arms, or if they do, will be imposing restrictions on Canada which we will have little power to protest, given our relative size and market size and power (well, maybe we can get a level playing field with Zimbabwe, but I doubt they'll do any Gender Based Analysis on their trade practices). The same story will be repeated throughout the world, and even within trade blocks like the EU there will be a great deal of stress (exacerbating their own "own goal" with immigration).

I'm afraid the Altair's of the world will be rather disappointed. Even is a putative "united front" is created, the situation will be rather like OPEC, where the incentives to cheat will be pretty much built in and the global market will be a realm of backstabbing and underhanded deals, very few of which will be in our favour. The only potential winner might be China, which of course will be imposing rules and regulations on trade which will make the current situation seem like Adam Smith's fondest daydreams.

Of course the President understands how to put pressure on people in order to achieve his negotiating aims (Kim Jong Un, anyone?), this game has far more players and moving parts, so there will be a much more complicated series of events over a much longer time frame to follow before things get resolved.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on June 25, 2018, 23:09:52
Altair, like so many of the chattering class, is busy cherrypicking singular stories to buttress his point, without seeing the larger picture. This isn't limited to trade, despite a barrage of "oh, the poor children" stories in the media, the public still is heavily supportive of the President's position on immigration, and American's attitude about family separation seems to be summarized by "send them all back together...", a huge propaganda fail by the media and the Left.

While there is no doubt that individuals and companies may feel the sting of tariffs in a trade war, the stated overall objective is to change the current trade regime which the President feels is heavily unbalanced against the United States. Every cheese maker and medium sized manufacturer in the EU, the Anglosphere and Sinosphere will also be feeling the bite, and they will also be putting pressure on their respective governments as well. President Trump has the advantage that he is sitting on a single unified market, while the various other nations and groupings not only compete against the United State, but against each other. Canada will discover that the EU, China, Australia or even Zimbabwe are not going to be welcoming Canadian goods with open arms, or if they do, will be imposing restrictions on Canada which we will have little power to protest, given our relative size and market size and power (well, maybe we can get a level playing field with Zimbabwe, but I doubt they'll do any Gender Based Analysis on their trade practices). The same story will be repeated throughout the world, and even within trade blocks like the EU there will be a great deal of stress (exacerbating their own "own goal" with immigration).

I'm afraid the Altair's of the world will be rather disappointed. Even is a putative "united front" is created, the situation will be rather like OPEC, where the incentives to cheat will be pretty much built in and the global market will be a realm of backstabbing and underhanded deals, very few of which will be in our favour. The only potential winner might be China, which of course will be imposing rules and regulations on trade which will make the current situation seem like Adam Smith's fondest daydreams.

Of course the President understands how to put pressure on people in order to achieve his negotiating aims (Kim Jong Un, anyone?), this game has far more players and moving parts, so there will be a much more complicated series of events over a much longer time frame to follow before things get resolved.
You seem to think that America is invincible on trade and doesn't need the global market.

Reality check,  it does.  And when you have players like the EU and China deciding to join sides against you,  you've lost in more ways than just trade.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: PPCLI Guy on June 25, 2018, 23:11:20
Altair, like so many of the chattering class, is busy cherrypicking singular stories to buttress his point, without seeing the larger picture. This isn't limited to trade, despite a barrage of "oh, the poor children" stories in the media, the public still is heavily supportive of the President's position on immigration, and American's attitude about family separation seems to be summarized by "send them all back together...", a huge propaganda fail by the media and the Left.

While there is no doubt that individuals and companies may feel the sting of tariffs in a trade war, the stated overall objective is to change the current trade regime which the President feels is heavily unbalanced against the United States. Every cheese maker and medium sized manufacturer in the EU, the Anglosphere and Sinosphere will also be feeling the bite, and they will also be putting pressure on their respective governments as well. President Trump has the advantage that he is sitting on a single unified market, while the various other nations and groupings not only compete against the United State, but against each other. Canada will discover that the EU, China, Australia or even Zimbabwe are not going to be welcoming Canadian goods with open arms, or if they do, will be imposing restrictions on Canada which we will have little power to protest, given our relative size and market size and power (well, maybe we can get a level playing field with Zimbabwe, but I doubt they'll do any Gender Based Analysis on their trade practices). The same story will be repeated throughout the world, and even within trade blocks like the EU there will be a great deal of stress (exacerbating their own "own goal" with immigration).

I'm afraid the Altair's of the world will be rather disappointed. Even is a putative "united front" is created, the situation will be rather like OPEC, where the incentives to cheat will be pretty much built in and the global market will be a realm of backstabbing and underhanded deals, very few of which will be in our favour. The only potential winner might be China, which of course will be imposing rules and regulations on trade which will make the current situation seem like Adam Smith's fondest daydreams.

Of course the President understands how to put pressure on people in order to achieve his negotiating aims (Kim Jong Un, anyone?), this game has far more players and moving parts, so there will be a much more complicated series of events over a much longer time frame to follow before things get resolved.

What happened to the Libertarian in you?
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Cloud Cover on June 25, 2018, 23:43:53
What happened to the Libertarian in you?

What happened to Libertarians, period. 

Let’s be serious, Trump has no plan, and plans to have no plan. He has a filthy, self indulgent, narcissistic brain and the Wharton school should refund and disclaim all responsibility from him. He is a political synonym of “disruption” that cleanses companies that become complacent and he doesn’t even know how it happens but still takes credit. He has managed to be philosopher king and village idiot of an island admidst a digital stream that has swollen to become a river of dictionary vomit on Twitter. 
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on June 25, 2018, 23:51:44
https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2018/06/25/trump-says-hes-surprised-by-harley-davidson-moving-some-production-.html

Quote
President Donald Trump said Monday he was "surprised" by Harley-Davidson's announcement that it will move some of its production out of the U.S. to avoid European Union tariffs.

Trump again accused the EU of engaging in trade practices that "hurt" the American economy.

 

He is surprised.  Surprised. Surprised that his trade actions have consequences. Seriously?  Oh boy,  if he is surprised now I can't wait to see him surprised later.

Amateur hour.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Brad Sallows on June 26, 2018, 01:14:30
Nations can't impose tariffs "on America" any more than America can impose tariffs "on them".  Tariffs are paid by domestic consumers on purchases of foreign goods (imports).  When the US imposes a tariff on Canadian imports, it's actually a tax "on Americans".  Tariffs lessen the domestic appetite for foreign goods, and increase the cost of foreign inputs required for domestic outputs.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on June 26, 2018, 01:17:59
Nations can't impose tariffs "on America" any more than America can impose tariffs "on them".  Tariffs are paid by domestic consumers on purchases of foreign goods (imports).  When the US imposes a tariff on Canadian imports, it's actually a tax "on Americans".  Tariffs lessen the domestic appetite for foreign goods, and increase the cost of foreign inputs required for domestic outputs.
Not necessarily.

In the case of China putting tariffs on American Soybeans.

The Chinese can then just source Brazilian soybeans, Chinese importers have no obligation to buy American Soybeans.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Journeyman on June 26, 2018, 10:52:43
Let’s be serious, Trump has no plan, and plans to have no plan. He has a filthy, self indulgent, narcissistic brain and the Wharton school should refund and disclaim all responsibility from him. He is a political synonym of “disruption” that cleanses companies that become complacent and he doesn’t even know how it happens but still takes credit. He has managed to be philosopher king and village idiot of an island amidst a digital stream that has swollen to become a river of dictionary vomit on Twitter.
:rofl:  Stop beating around the bush and tell us how you really  feel.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Colin P on June 26, 2018, 11:28:04
I suppose Canadian pork producers could ship it the same way they currently ship the $194 million of pig meat that they currently export to Mexico.  Of course that is a miniscule market share compared to the $1.5 billion that American producers exported to Mexico last year, but then we exported $1.4 billion of pork products to the USA last year and they sent us $792 million last year.  Now if the Americans can't be competitive with Mexico pork tariffs added and China putting restrictions on them as well, they will probably look to Canada to offloaded that surplus pork.  So maybe we might see pork prices go down with a glut of American hogs  . . .  and on and on.  It's that integrated economy thing again.

Most Canadian exports to Mexico probably already go by ground surface - truck and rail.  These guys don't think it's a unusual deal.
http://www.cpr.ca/en/customer-resources/shipping-guides/customs-and-border-serviceshttps://www.milgram.com/milgram/en/services/transportation/mexico
http://giggexpress.ca/en/services-trucking-canada-mexico.php
http://www.countrytransport.com/EN/home.php

Or are we now going to start speculating on the USA closing the borders to transnational shipping?

If there is a bit of a trade war and Mexico is tariffing US pork, you think they are going to easily allow us to tranship our pork across their country and borders to circumvent their products? We might also be part of a trade war and with NAFTA defunct, we may not be able to easily ship products across them.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: mariomike on June 26, 2018, 11:36:25
He has managed to be philosopher king and village idiot of an island admidst a digital stream that has swollen to become a river of dictionary vomit on Twitter.

What a sentence!
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on June 26, 2018, 11:47:31
http://business.financialpost.com/transportation/autos/trump-threatens-harley-with-big-tax-on-bikes-imported-to-u-s

This trade war is off to a great start.

Quote
“Harley must know that they won’t be able to sell back into U.S. without paying a big tax!” Trump said on Twitter Tuesday.

A Harley-Davidson should never be built in another country-never! Their employees and customers are already very angry at them. If they move, watch, it will be the beginning of the end – they surrendered, they quit! The Aura will be gone and they will be taxed like never before!

Great, except the fact that

Quote
“To address the substantial cost of this tariff burden long-term, Harley-Davidson will be implementing a plan to shift production of motorcycles for EU destinations from the U.S. to its international facilities to avoid the tariff burden,” the company said.

The production moving overseas will be to be able to sell to their international markets, first because the USA pulled out of the TPP, and now because of tariffs the European placed on their products originating from the USA, so these are not meant to be sold in the US market, thus...no tax.

But the passion, look at that passion.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Journeyman on June 26, 2018, 12:31:09
"Their employees and customers are already very angry at them."
Speaking only for myself, as someone who owns two Harleys, I'm not remotely angry at H-D -- baffled about Trump supporters, who are as irrationally loyal as Maple Leaf fans, sure  -- but angry at Harley? Nope. 

Just another made-up Twitter "fact" from the Compulsive Liar-in-Chief.   :boring:
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: GAP on June 26, 2018, 13:26:19
Hmmm.....A company adjusting it's manufacturing locations to take advantage of local area taxation .......criticized by the "supposed" billionaire businessman who has made a career of doing the same......what doesn't add up....
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Remius on June 26, 2018, 13:27:54
Speaking only for myself, as someone who owns two Harleys, I'm not remotely angry at H-D -- baffled about Trump supporters, who are as irrationally loyal as Maple Leaf fans, sure  -- but angry at Harley? Nope. 

Just another made-up Twitter "fact" from the Compulsive Liar-in-Chief.   :boring:

I find it funny that he is shocked.  H-D has to do what it has to do. 

Canadian tariffs take effect next week. 

Interesting article on US Bourbon in England.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/united-kingdom-bourbon-spirits-european-union-tariffs-american-products-1.4706348

The key take away I got from that is that aficionados will likely still want the product and be willing to pay for it.

Also this https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/china-opec-oil-tariffs-1.4713944 and how the trade war could realign the global oil market...



 
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on June 26, 2018, 13:30:34
Hmmm.....A company adjusting it's manufacturing locations to take advantage of local area taxation .......criticized by the "supposed" billionaire businessman who has made a career of doing the same......what doesn't add up....
Even funnier that his daughter runs a clothing line that has everything manufactured in Indonesia, China, Vietnam, Ethiopia and Bangladesh.

Bet you wouldn't catch him raging about the Ivanka Trump clothing line needing pay a big tax like never before on products entering the US market.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on June 26, 2018, 13:35:30
I find it funny that he is shocked.  H-D has to do what it has to do. 

Canadian tariffs take effect next week. 

Interesting article on US Bourbon in England.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/united-kingdom-bourbon-spirits-european-union-tariffs-american-products-1.4706348

The key take away I got from that is that aficionados will likely still want the product and be willing to pay for it.

Also this https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/china-opec-oil-tariffs-1.4713944 and how the trade war could realign the global oil market...
Yeah, China buying Iranian oil and thus making the US embargo rather pointless is not out of the question.

And if 3.6 billion dollars of European tariffs on American goods is causing such a fuss, I'm going to enjoy the week after Canada day.

16.6 billion in Canadian tariffs. That's going to hurt some markets.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Colin P on June 26, 2018, 14:40:21
Hmmm.....A company adjusting it's manufacturing locations to take advantage of local area taxation .......criticized by the "supposed" billionaire businessman who has made a career of doing the same......what doesn't add up....

Like a certain PM with a foreign flagged shipping line?
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: GAP on June 26, 2018, 14:43:46
Yup
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on June 26, 2018, 15:10:36
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/harley-davidson-announcement-shows-the-folly-of-trumps-trade-war

Quote
But the President’s bluster couldn’t disguise the fact that his trade war, which some Wall Street analysts initially wrote off as a quixotic diversion, is getting serious—and that it is already hurting many American companies. The makers of Levi’s, Jack Daniel’s whiskey, and Tropicana orange juice are among the other businesses whose products have been hit by sizeable E.U. tariffs.

Next week, American farmers could join the list of victims. These days, China is a major market for American food producers, and, on July 6th, the Trump Administration is set to levy tariffs on a range of Chinese manufacturers. The government in Beijing has said that it will retaliate by imposing duties of fifteen per cent on a wide range of American food products, including soybeans, cashews, almonds, apricots, strawberries, and other fruits. Pork products, which are very popular in China, would be hit with a tariff of twenty-five per cent.

Just as Trump is personally driving the U.S. protectionist agenda, Xi Jinping, the Chinese President, is directing the Chinese response—and he seems to be in no mood to back down. “In the West you have the notion that if somebody hits you on the left cheek, you turn the other cheek. In our culture we punch back,” he told a group of Western C.E.O.s last week, according to a report in the Wall Street Journal.

Quote
Back in March, Trump claimed that trade wars are “good and easy to win.” The American employees of Harley-Davidson have already discovered that isn’t true. How long will it take the President to learn?

A few things to note. Nobody is blaming the countries that are hitting back with their own tariffs.

Second, nobody, yet, is backing down when hit with US tariffs. most seem more than content to hit back.

Third, to date, instead of helping american businesses and jobs, it's only harming them. We shall see how things progress in the future, but as of right now, this trade war doesn't seem "good" or "easy" to win.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: tomahawk6 on June 26, 2018, 15:35:46
Don't worry Altair the US now has 2 supervolcanos brewing,one in the NE US and the other at Yellowstone.We're coming North. ;D
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on June 26, 2018, 15:43:14
Don't worry Altair the US now has 2 supervolcanos brewing,one in the NE US and the other at Yellowstone.We're coming North. ;D
If either go up, the ash in the atmosphere will create a lot of global cooling. Canadians are heading south.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: tomahawk6 on June 26, 2018, 16:10:29
If either go up, the ash in the atmosphere will create a lot of global cooling. Canadians are heading south.

I wont live to see that day.But in the US we are used to Canadians flocking to Florida and Mexico.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Remius on June 26, 2018, 16:13:44
I wont live to see that day.But in the US we are used to Canadians flocking to Florida and Mexico.

When did Mexico become a state?   ;D
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on June 26, 2018, 16:17:26
New Mexico?
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: tomahawk6 on June 26, 2018, 17:50:15
Mexico is warm and the beer is cold,its great as you might have seen on HGTV.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Remius on June 26, 2018, 18:24:16
I thought it was full of MS-13 types.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: CBH99 on June 26, 2018, 19:18:48
If either go up, the ash in the atmosphere will create a lot of global cooling. Canadians are heading south.


I'm actually factoring a Yellowstone eruption happening in the near future - next 1 to 3 years - into my contingency plans.  Not remotely kidding.

Conspiracy theorists & alarmists aside, there's a terrifying number of well qualified scientists pointing out a large number of changes happening right now, that all indicate an eruption is relatively imminent.  (Relatively being the next few years, at best.)

Australia & New Zealand.  Opposite side of the world & opposite hemisphere...best bet. 
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on June 26, 2018, 19:23:41

I'm actually factoring a Yellowstone eruption happening in the near future - next 1 to 3 years - into my contingency plans.  Not remotely kidding.

Conspiracy theorists & alarmists aside, there's a terrifying number of well qualified scientists pointing out a large number of changes happening right now, that all indicate an eruption is relatively imminent.  (Relatively being the next few years, at best.)

Australia & New Zealand.  Opposite side of the world & opposite hemisphere...best bet.
global cooling isn't going to be limited to north america or hemisphere.

The closer to the equator the better.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: tomahawk6 on June 26, 2018, 20:23:38
The PM slapped a tariff on Chinese steel today.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Remius on June 26, 2018, 21:25:12
The PM slapped a tariff on Chinese steel today.

Not yet.  Probably next week.  A counter measure to avoid dumping as a result of US action.  Europe will be doing the same.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Brad Sallows on June 26, 2018, 22:58:21
Cheap steel and steel dumping was already a problem; to some people, a short trade war (steel only) to tighten the market might be OK.

When assuming that importers can simply replace imports under tariffs with imports not under tariff from elsewhere, do not assume that all suppliers have infinite goods and infinite transportation capacity.  And if nation A imposes tariffs on US goods, don't assume other suppliers won't take advantage of the situation to hike prices.

Too many people making assumptions about who will "have to" cave first is why the spiral continues downward.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on June 26, 2018, 23:14:54
Cheap steel and steel dumping was already a problem; to some people, a short trade war (steel only) to tighten the market might be OK.

When assuming that importers can simply replace imports under tariffs with imports not under tariff from elsewhere, do not assume that all suppliers have infinite goods and infinite transportation capacity.  And if nation A imposes tariffs on US goods, don't assume other suppliers won't take advantage of the situation to hike prices.

Too many people making assumptions about who will "have to" cave first is why the spiral continues downward.
Im sure the global economy is going to face some major headwind with all of this going on.

I would prefer if this wasn't happening at all,  trust you me.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: daftandbarmy on June 27, 2018, 02:21:40
China's economy seems built on pretty shaky ground, and the mythical 'Chinese saver' won't come to the rescue. If their economy collapses because of a Trade War, real war might follow:

"And what do we actually find when we look for the mythical Chinese saver in the real Chinese economy, rather than in the macroeconomic assumptions? Bank balances offset against enormous, rapidly rising, bad debts, a property bubble out of all contact with reality, a closed capital account to prevent money draining overseas while it still can, and an unregulated shadow banking sector where vast pools of notional value endlessly gyrate on air currents of uncertain origin. Against this backdrop, expecting the Chinese consumer to be the next big global growth driver seems like a hope destined for disappointment, for there is no Chinese saver at the end of anybody's rainbow, just an ever growing lake of unpaid bills. And then, of course, there is the Chinese government, relentlessly cracking the credit whip in search of a growth target they can neither afford, nor afford to miss."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/douglasbulloch/2017/04/26/the-myth-of-chinas-excess-savings-is-weighed-down-by-excessive-debt/#200f3e3b458a
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: CBH99 on June 27, 2018, 03:18:25
What would war accomplish though, if the Chinese economy collapses?  Serious question.

I've always understood war in the context of taking territory away from an adversary, or containing them within a certain country or geographic area.  (Gulf War 1990, taking over Iraq.  Vietnam, containing the North.  Korea, the same.  Gulf War 2.0, taking over Iraq.)

What would be accomplished in a war due to one or two major powers having their economies collapse, because they are so interconnected?


"So we sunk a bunch of their ships, and shot down a bunch of their planes.  And they did the same to us.  Aaaaaannnndddddd...oh yeah, we're both still economically f**ked."   
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on June 27, 2018, 03:25:29
China's economy seems built on pretty shaky ground, and the mythical 'Chinese saver' won't come to the rescue. If their economy collapses because of a Trade War, real war might follow:

"And what do we actually find when we look for the mythical Chinese saver in the real Chinese economy, rather than in the macroeconomic assumptions? Bank balances offset against enormous, rapidly rising, bad debts, a property bubble out of all contact with reality, a closed capital account to prevent money draining overseas while it still can, and an unregulated shadow banking sector where vast pools of notional value endlessly gyrate on air currents of uncertain origin. Against this backdrop, expecting the Chinese consumer to be the next big global growth driver seems like a hope destined for disappointment, for there is no Chinese saver at the end of anybody's rainbow, just an ever growing lake of unpaid bills. And then, of course, there is the Chinese government, relentlessly cracking the credit whip in search of a growth target they can neither afford, nor afford to miss."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/douglasbulloch/2017/04/26/the-myth-of-chinas-excess-savings-is-weighed-down-by-excessive-debt/#200f3e3b458a
fortunately for the chinese,  they have been loaning money like they are the iron bank,  and can call in their debt from the good ole USA.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: SeaKingTacco on June 27, 2018, 10:52:52
fortunately for the chinese,  they have been loaning money like they are the iron bank,  and can call in their debt from the good ole USA.

And if the US refuses to pay?  Serious question.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Remius on June 27, 2018, 11:03:15
And if the US refuses to pay?  Serious question.

https://www.thebalance.com/what-happens-when-a-country-defaults-1978981

End results could be:

Banking crisis
Monetary crisis
Financial crisis
limited or no access to future credit

China being the biggest creditor.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on June 27, 2018, 11:09:03
And if the US refuses to pay?  Serious question.
Nothing good.

Long story short,  the money the USA owes china isn't a direct government to government loan,  its through Treasury bondd, which is managed through the international markets. To refuse to pay china back would mean defaulting on those treasury bonds.

If the US tried to default its debt and refuse to buy back those treasury bonds China holds, China could simply sell it to a third country whoever wants it. The problem is the price will drop rapidly since there are huge amount of bonds in China’s hands. China will suffer a significant financial loss.

But the loss the US government will suffer is way worse. Modern economy is built and running on the basis of credits. That's why credit rating agencies like Moody are taken very seriously by various governments.

US borrowing costs would skyrocket,  as america would be seen as untrustworthy, capital will flee as the dollar is no longer seen as a safe currency,  and the global markets will tank as investors flee the uncertainty in the US,  and by extension,  chinese markets.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Remius on June 27, 2018, 11:21:21

That's why credit rating agencies like Moody are taken very seriously by various governments.


Well most governments.  The McGuinty/Wynne government being one exception.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on June 27, 2018, 11:27:44
Well most governments.  The McGuinty/Wynne government being one exception.
their debt was still "affordable"

Its currently around 37 percent debt to GDP. Quebec got up 54 percent before it cried uncle
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Thucydides on June 27, 2018, 11:40:34
What happened to the Libertarian in you?

The Libertarian in me still feels reducing State power is the best way to go, but the realist sees the world is overrun by rent seekers. It is hard to advocate for voluntary cooperation when your hand is extended over a tank of piranhas.

I am trying to see the "trade war" through the lens of President Trump's negotiations with the DPRK, the main problem with any analysis of a global trade war is there are so many different players and so many different variables (including temporal variables: many effects will become apparent over different time frames so what may seem like a success or failure could really be part of the longer term shaking out process). China may have a strong hand against the United States financially, but imports calories and raw materials in order to survive, any smaller player like Australia could make a move there for their own advantage, and upset China's position against the United States.

This is why I think the calls for a "United Front" will fail, and this is where the United States has the ultimate advantage. Provoking a global trade war pits the different players against each other, rather than the United States attempting to subdue them one by one. I even see the hand of Secretary Mattis at work here. This process will change the way alliances, regional trade groups and even internal organizations relate to each other, perhaps one of the effects will be to limit the ability of the more bellicose players on the international scene to make long term plans of their own.

As for me, I'm settling in with a big bag of popcorn and casting over my bookshelf for good historical periods to study. Margaret MacMillan, Barbara W. Tuchman, and Naill Ferguson's studies of the period prior to WWI seems a good place to start.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Remius on June 27, 2018, 11:46:08
So I found this article.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/22/us/politics/trump-tariff-waivers.html

I was not aware of waivers.

But if this article is to be believed then some 20,000 US companies have filed for waivers (some might be the same company with multiple waiver requests I think though).



Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on June 27, 2018, 11:52:11
So I found this article.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/22/us/politics/trump-tariff-waivers.html

I was not aware of waivers.

But if this article is to be believed then some 20,000 US companies have filed for waivers (some might be the same company with multiple waiver requests I think though).
Because the president is starting to rattle the business class.

They probably loved the tax cuts,  which they have been using to buy back stock and make themselves rich,  but this is going to cut into growth and expansion,  which will cost them in the long run.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on June 27, 2018, 11:55:55
The Libertarian in me still feels reducing State power is the best way to go, but the realist sees the world is overrun by rent seekers. It is hard to advocate for voluntary cooperation when your hand is extended over a tank of piranhas.

I am trying to see the "trade war" through the lens of President Trump's negotiations with the DPRK, the main problem with any analysis of a global trade war is there are so many different players and so many different variables (including temporal variables: many effects will become apparent over different time frames so what may seem like a success or failure could really be part of the longer term shaking out process). China may have a strong hand against the United States financially, but imports calories and raw materials in order to survive, any smaller player like Australia could make a move there for their own advantage, and upset China's position against the United States.

This is why I think the calls for a "United Front" will fail, and this is where the United States has the ultimate advantage. Provoking a global trade war pits the different players against each other, rather than the United States attempting to subdue them one by one. I even see the hand of Secretary Mattis at work here. This process will change the way alliances, regional trade groups and even internal organizations relate to each other, perhaps one of the effects will be to limit the ability of the more bellicose players on the international scene to make long term plans of their own.

As for me, I'm settling in with a big bag of popcorn and casting over my bookshelf for good historical periods to study. Margaret MacMillan, Barbara W. Tuchman, and Naill Ferguson's studies of the period prior to WWI seems a good place to start.
It sure will.

Probably not a good thibg in the case of america. If america is seen as untrustworthy, people will simply work without it as best they can.

Europe and china working together on trade.

France calling for a G6

Europe creating its own unified military organization, with the goal of working independently from NATO,  aka, the USA.

All this is showing is the USA losing influence in global affairs.  Yay change!
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Remius on June 27, 2018, 12:01:30
A CBC take on how the retaliatory tariffs could impact Canadians.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/tariffs-u-s-steel-consumer-goods-surtax-1.4723277

Glad I recently bought some appliances. 
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Cloud Cover on June 27, 2018, 12:10:20
Ian Bremmers group publishes a weekly called Signal (yikes!): Anyway it is usually pretty light and always interesting to read. part of this mornings edition is based on the escalating trade war with China, with some interesting background:

"While the Treasury Department had been widely expected to announce new investment restrictions this week, it now looks like Congress might take the lead, with less certainty around timing. Either way, the result will be a new form of pressure on China.

Here’s what makes this next phase of the US-China spat different:

The future matters more than the past. The Trump administration’s technology tariffs (see graphic below) are meant to compensate for what the US considers to be China’s long history of technology theft and unfair trade practices. By nature, they’re backward-looking. The new investment regime, in contrast – which encompasses both new limits on Chinese investment in the US and potentially heightened government scrutiny of US high-tech exports – is aimed at stopping future transfers of “industrially significant technology” from the US to China. Even if the Washington and Beijing can reach a truce on tariffs, the investment restrictions are likely to linger. They may even become permanent.

Concentrated pain. The new investment regime will target high-tech industries that Chinese President Xi Jinping considers vital to cementing his country’s power and prestige in the 21st century. Beijing will look to retaliate by making life harder for US companies in China, but China’s dependence on the US for key components like cutting-edge semiconductors mean it will feel real, unavoidable pain.

The big picture: This is an irresistible-force-meets-immovable-object situation, where both sides will be reluctant to cave, and the global tech sector risks getting caught in the middle.


This is the real trade war that will tank everything else. If the US tightens trade with tariffs on its closest allied trading partners, and shutters out it largest creditor and main non-North American trading partner who also happens to be the main adversary, the entire global economy will shift.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on June 27, 2018, 12:40:36
Ian Bremmers group publishes a weekly called Signal (yikes!): Anyway it is usually pretty light and always interesting to read. part of this mornings edition is based on the escalating trade war with China, with some interesting background:

"While the Treasury Department had been widely expected to announce new investment restrictions this week, it now looks like Congress might take the lead, with less certainty around timing. Either way, the result will be a new form of pressure on China.

Here’s what makes this next phase of the US-China spat different:

The future matters more than the past. The Trump administration’s technology tariffs (see graphic below) are meant to compensate for what the US considers to be China’s long history of technology theft and unfair trade practices. By nature, they’re backward-looking. The new investment regime, in contrast – which encompasses both new limits on Chinese investment in the US and potentially heightened government scrutiny of US high-tech exports – is aimed at stopping future transfers of “industrially significant technology” from the US to China. Even if the Washington and Beijing can reach a truce on tariffs, the investment restrictions are likely to linger. They may even become permanent.

Concentrated pain. The new investment regime will target high-tech industries that Chinese President Xi Jinping considers vital to cementing his country’s power and prestige in the 21st century. Beijing will look to retaliate by making life harder for US companies in China, but China’s dependence on the US for key components like cutting-edge semiconductors mean it will feel real, unavoidable pain.

The big picture: This is an irresistible-force-meets-immovable-object situation, where both sides will be reluctant to cave, and the global tech sector risks getting caught in the middle.


This is the real trade war that will tank everything else. If the US tightens trade with tariffs on its closest allied trading partners, and shutters out it largest creditor and main non-North American trading partner who also happens to be the main adversary, the entire global economy will shift.
Yeah, pretty much. Watch for the rest of the world to ignore US patents as well, and have China start pumping out US products with cheap labour. That round of the fight will be fun as well, especially if the US has trouble exporting due to having tariffs placed on them.

Speaking of

Quote
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
Harley-Davidson should stay 100% in America, with the people that got you your success. I’ve done so much for you, and then this. Other companies are coming back where they belong! We won’t forget, and neither will your customers or your now very HAPPY competitors!

I love how the president doesn't acknowledge his role in all of this.

Harley Davidson is just the public face of what is going on across america right now. Tariffs making things more expensive coming in, tariffs making things harder to export. The squeeze is on, which is why you see the President of the United States twitter raging against an American icon.

Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Thucydides on June 27, 2018, 13:43:17
Evidently the idea that individuals, individual interest groups, nations and even coalitions might have competing interests seems lost in the rush to bash the US.

Europe and China cooperating on trade seems great on the surface, but how closely are the EU and the Sinosphere actually aligned? The EU's bureaucracy is infamous for things like nitpicking over the definition of a banana, or at one point only allowing Japanese electronics entry through one port in Southern France. China builds cars which have exact panel lines to existing Buick products (you can fit a door or window or any other body part without any modifications whatsoever) but insists these are indigenous designs, and BTW, GM still does not get to sell cars in China....I see a great relationship between the two already.

So the reality is everyone is scrambling, interests are going to be knocked very hard against competing interests and the current status quo is going to be overturned regardless of what the chattering classes or the various national and subnational players desire. How to keep from being swept up in the vortex is really the name of the game, now.

As another aside, I had coffee with Professor Salim Mansour (former Sun columnist) and his take on this for Canada is that we now have to decide once and for all if we are going to be a "North American" nation, or attempt to be a "European" nation. His view is Canada needs to decide where our actual long term interests are aligned, and realistically our national interests are largely aligned with those of the United States. This is not to say we cannot partake of agreements and deals with other nations and organizations, but the primary interest should always be to protect and enhance our national interests and natural alignments. Trying to become a "European" nation is not going to be a good fit, and the odds that the interests of the EU or even individual European nations will be aligned with those of Canada really does not pass the sniff test.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on June 27, 2018, 13:50:48
Evidently the idea that individuals, individual interest groups, nations and even coalitions might have competing interests seems lost in the rush to bash the US.

Europe and China cooperating on trade seems great on the surface, but how closely are the EU and the Sinosphere actually aligned? The EU's bureaucracy is infamous for things like nitpicking over the definition of a banana, or at one point only allowing Japanese electronics entry through one port in Southern France. China builds cars which have exact panel lines to existing Buick products (you can fit a door or window or any other body part without any modifications whatsoever) but insists these are indigenous designs, and BTW, GM still does not get to sell cars in China....I see a great relationship between the two already.

So the reality is everyone is scrambling, interests are going to be knocked very hard against competing interests and the current status quo is going to be overturned regardless of what the chattering classes or the various national and subnational players desire. How to keep from being swept up in the vortex is really the name of the game, now.

As another aside, I had coffee with Professor Salim Mansour (former Sun columnist) and his take on this for Canada is that we now have to decide once and for all if we are going to be a "North American" nation, or attempt to be a "European" nation. His view is Canada needs to decide where our actual long term interests are aligned, and realistically our national interests are largely aligned with those of the United States. This is not to say we cannot partake of agreements and deals with other nations and organizations, but the primary interest should always be to protect and enhance our national interests and natural alignments. Trying to become a "European" nation is not going to be a good fit, and the odds that the interests of the EU or even individual European nations will be aligned with those of Canada really does not pass the sniff test.
Canada should be neither of those things.

Canada is in an ideal position, with a presence on both coasts, and connected to the USA.

CETA is a good trade deal, allowing Canada to access the European Market, with a seperate free trade deal probably in place after Brexit.

TPP is a good trade deal allowing us to enter the south american market and increase trade with Asian.

At some point both China and Canada will get serious about a trade deal there, maybe with trade barriers going up around America, that will speed things up.

NAFTA would be nice to round things out, but considering the fact that it's not yet dead, and would need to go through congress to kill it, maybe we Canadians can afford to wait it out until America gets more friendly management.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: daftandbarmy on June 27, 2018, 15:13:37
Canada should be neither of those things.

Canada is in an ideal position, with a presence on both coasts, and connected to the USA.

CETA is a good trade deal, allowing Canada to access the European Market, with a seperate free trade deal probably in place after Brexit.

TPP is a good trade deal allowing us to enter the south american market and increase trade with Asian.

At some point both China and Canada will get serious about a trade deal there, maybe with trade barriers going up around America, that will speed things up.

NAFTA would be nice to round things out, but considering the fact that it's not yet dead, and would need to go through congress to kill it, maybe we Canadians can afford to wait it out until America gets more friendly management.

Or we just artificially price all our natural resource products at rock bottom prices, and corner the market globally for everything the world needs to run modern economies e.g., EFF YOU UNCLE SAM et al :)
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Colin P on June 27, 2018, 16:47:28
I doubt very much China is going to "open" it's markets to use, for them free trade is full access for them and a little bit for us. Sort of like the US, but worse.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on June 28, 2018, 14:23:18
http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-trade-war-destroy-100000-us-jobs-oxford-economics-2018-6

Quote
The trade conflict sparked by President Donald Trump could cause 100,000 Americans to lose their jobs next year, a new report argues.

The report, published by the research house Oxford Economics, says in a worst-case scenario Trump's tariffs would knock 0.1 percentage points off US gross domestic product in 2019 and cost a significant number of jobs. This scenario would include substantial tariffs on the European automotive sector — something Trump has threatened but so far has not enacted.

Pleasant news for sure.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/27/how-a-trade-war-impacts-you.html

Quote
On the flip side, U.S. companies dependent on imported aluminum and steel — say for the production of cars, appliances and canned food or drinks, like soda and beer — will have to absorb the higher costs somehow, which could also mean layoffs or price hikes on finished products down the road, according to Michael Salerno, lead director of global banking at First National Bank of Omaha.

There will be some lag time, Salerno said, as companies grapple with the challenge, but it could translate into “higher prices at the register around the holiday season.”

One estimate puts the effects of this trade conflict at 250,000 in lost jobs and $210 in higher costs for an average family.


And just so everyone remembers, this is the effect from the opening round of a trade war. The more everyone goes down the downwards spiral of counter tariffs on top of counter tariffs, the more the USA will be hurting.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on June 29, 2018, 09:24:03
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/trump-trade-war-us-car-factory-volvo-south-carolina-tariffs-a8417061.html

Quote

The south will one day be the ground zero for US auto manufacturing,” predicts Kevin Graham, the Volvo plant’s director of assembly, in a cheeky warning to the “motor city” of Detroit.

Yet Ridgeville could also be ground zero for collateral damage from Donald Trump’s kamikaze trade war.

The US president fired up Twitter last Friday by going public with a new threat to impose 20 per cent tariffs on European Union cars and car part imports to the US.

Volvo will import a great deal of its parts for Ridgeville, including engines from Sweden and (possibly for a while) batteries from China. A 20 per cent tariff would inflict serious economic damage on the new Ridgeville plant.

But that’s not all. Volvo intends to export around half of the cars it manufactures in South Carolina. If the EU or China hike tariffs in response to Trump’s, this European-Chinese company could get doubly walloped.

“Good thing they built it before the threats, because they may not have come otherwise” says Frank Hefner, an economist at the College of Charleston.

It's absolutely incredible the amount of collateral damage that is going to occur from this trade conflict between supposed allies.

Absolutely incredible and sad.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Humphrey Bogart on June 29, 2018, 10:21:04
Canada should be neither of those things.

Canada is in an ideal position, with a presence on both coasts, and connected to the USA.

CETA is a good trade deal, allowing Canada to access the European Market, with a seperate free trade deal probably in place after Brexit.

TPP is a good trade deal allowing us to enter the south american market and increase trade with Asian.

At some point both China and Canada will get serious about a trade deal there, maybe with trade barriers going up around America, that will speed things up.

NAFTA would be nice to round things out, but considering the fact that it's not yet dead, and would need to go through congress to kill it, maybe we Canadians can afford to wait it out until America gets more friendly management.

Altair, this bottom bit is one of the best things I've seen written on here.  We know that the US President has a limited life expectancy, at most another 6 1/2 years.  The next election is 2 1/2 years away and Trump has a very limited window of time over the next six months to a year before he will need to start campaigning again.   

Time is our greatest asset in this disagreement.  I wasn't upset with Trudeau because he disagreed with President Trump, I was upset with the way he went about it.  Trudeau used the crisis to get a few sound bites in for a short term political boost.  The problem I have is that by doing so, he hurt Canadians.  I have very little respect for Trudeau as a statesman, he is another version of a Trump painted in a different colour.  A cheesy Canadian Pop Icon.

We should have hard disagreements with the Americans but it should be kept behind closed doors. 
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Infanteer on June 29, 2018, 10:34:49
Altair, this bottom bit is one of the best things I've seen written on here.

Yes, and it sounds like something that was said about six pages ago.... ;)

Lol.  The usual refrain is that democratic governments aren't good at statecraft and working the international system because they only see things in 4 (or 5) year cycles.  Good statecraft requires looking beyond electoral cycles.

Some of you here aren't even looking past the next news cycle.  Look to the long game - the Canadian-American relationship has survived worse (look how Nixon and Trudeau Sr. got on) and is greater than the politik between election cycles.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on June 29, 2018, 10:58:18
Altair, this bottom bit is one of the best things I've seen written on here.  We know that the US President has a limited life expectancy, at most another 6 1/2 years.  The next election is 2 1/2 years away and Trump has a very limited window of time over the next six months to a year before he will need to start campaigning again.   

Time is our greatest asset in this disagreement.  I wasn't upset with Trudeau because he disagreed with President Trump, I was upset with the way he went about it.  Trudeau used the crisis to get a few sound bites in for a short term political boost.  The problem I have is that by doing so, he hurt Canadians.  I have very little respect for Trudeau as a statesman, he is another version of a Trump painted in a different colour.  A cheesy Canadian Pop Icon.

We should have hard disagreements with the Americans but it should be kept behind closed doors.
It's a delicate dance that any prime minister must undertake, for his domestic audience will want to know the governments position on tariffs and what they intend to do about it, all the while without poking the bear.

It's telling however, that Trudeau, by in large, kept to the same talking points that he did before the American President blew up on twitter.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/u-s-tariffs-canada-insulting-trudeau-1.4689819

Quote
As tariff battles commence and a new NAFTA deal has yet to take shape, Canada's limits as the kind neighbour are being tested, the prime minister said.

"We step up when we need to. We're going to be polite, but we're also not going to be pushed around," Trudeau said.

This article is dated june 3rd, before the G7 conference.

http://thehill.com/policy/international/372147-trudeau-warns-us-that-canada-will-not-be-pushed-around-on-nafta

Quote
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau warned the United States on Friday that Canada "will not be pushed around" on trade negotiations as the two countries, along with Mexico, seek to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
This is dated February 3rd.

This was a consistent message from the Prime Minister, I he was asked about it and this was his standard response. Now maybe the American President didn't notice it the other times he said it, and only noticed it now, but in all honesty, how could Trudeau know that the same standard response he has been using for months would blow up that one time?

This speaks more to the unpredictability of the US president and his lack of any sort of diplomacy than it does to the Canadian response to NAFTA and tariffs.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on June 29, 2018, 11:08:33
Yes, and it sounds like something that was said about six pages ago.... ;)
Not quite, as my statement was limited to NAFTA negotiations.

NAFTA cannot die without congressional approval, so if we stall out on negotiations until a new president is chosen in either 2 or 6 years, the current deal wont die.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: SeaKingTacco on June 29, 2018, 11:09:08
The problem with all of this is, once the spiral of tariff/counter-tariff takes off and the economic damage begins to mount, positions will harden, not weaken.

No political leader on either side is going to be the one to admit that his tariff resulted in job loses on his own side- it is always going to be the other guy's fault.

It becomes a real war, where climb down becomes impossible.

If something doesn't change, this summer will be remembered as the start of the Great Depression of 2018 (at least).  I am not kidding.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on June 29, 2018, 11:12:54
The problem with all of this is, once the spiral of tariff/counter-tariff takes off and the economic damage begins to mount, positions will harden, not weaken.

No political leader on either side is going to be the one to admit that his tariff resulted in job loses on his own side- it is always going to be the other guy's fault.

It becomes a real war, where climb down becomes impossible.

If something doesn't change, this summer will be remembered as the start of the Great Depression of 2018 (at least).  I am not kidding.
Yes, and in all honesty, if it takes massive job losses and crippling economic contraction to stop the American Presidents protectionist agenda, then that's what it's going to take.

And I have a feeling that is exactly where we are heading. I can only hope people point the blame at the American leadership for dragging to globe down this road to ruin.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: SeaKingTacco on June 29, 2018, 11:17:30
Yes, and in all honesty, if it takes massive job losses and crippling economic contraction to stop the American Presidents protectionist agenda, then that's what it's going to take.

And I have a feeling that is exactly where we are heading. I can only hope people point the blame at the American leadership for dragging to globe down this road to ruin.

The blame will always get pointed outside ones border.

Very soon, patriotism will take over, everywhere, and no politician will face much in the way of domestic criticism. Not when there is "the other" to blame.

You are will will to risk economic collapse in North America to "stop Trump"? Really?
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Remius on June 29, 2018, 11:22:20
The blame will always get pointed outside ones border.

Very soon, patriotism will take over, everywhere, and no politician will face much in the way of domestic criticism. Not when there is "the other" to blame.

You are will will to risk economic collapse in North America to "stop Trump"? Really?

I don't get the argument that everyone should just turtle up and give in.  Or why any Canadian would side with Trump on this issue.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on June 29, 2018, 11:23:43
The blame will always get pointed outside ones border.

Very soon, patriotism will take over, everywhere, and no politician will face much in the way of domestic criticism. Not when there is "the other" to blame.

You are will will to risk economic collapse in North America to "stop Trump"? Really?
Me? What power do I have?

Me? Am I hitting Americas allies with tariffs, inviting counter tariffs and dragging the worlds largest economies into a global trade war that no one can win, only lose the least?

Me? I have the power to wish for things, like, first of all, no trade war whatsoever. Or, if that doesn't come true, that america falls flat on its face and lose miserably. Or, failing that, that the entire world economy goes belly up and that people rightly point the finger at the Americans who started it. I can also wish for a billion dollars and the playboy mansion, but at the end of the day, these are all wishes and don't do squat.

So don't look at me. I mean absolutely nothing in the grand scheme of things.

You point your attention at the American President who has his hands on the steering wheel of the largest economy on the planet as he does his best to play a game of chicken with the global economy.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: SeaKingTacco on June 29, 2018, 11:29:37
I don't get the argument that everyone should just turtle up and give in.  Or why any Canadian would side with Trump on this issue.

I am not supporting Trump and you just proved my point. Being critical of the Liberals will soon become impossible.

The unserious nature in which they approached NAFTA negotiations; the manner in which they misjudged Trump; the illogical defence of Supply Management (which hurts low income Canadian worst of all)- all will get swept under the carpet as Trump gets the blame for everything in Canada.

But, hey, what are millions of unemployed Canadians? Small price to pay to "stop Trump", huh?
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on June 29, 2018, 11:39:07
I am not supporting Trump and you just proved my point. Being critical of the Liberals will soon become impossible.

The unserious nature in which they approached NAFTA negotiations
Even if that is true, those are not the issues holding up negotiations right now
Quote
; the manner in which they misjudged Trump;
Canada and every other country on the planet. Macron tried to befriend the american president, got hit with tariffs, Canada tried to befriend the american president, got hit with tariffs, mexico was downright rude and actively fought the US President, got hit with tariffs, Merkel stood up to Trump, got hit with tariffs, China and Xi tried to work with Trump, with both carrot and stick, getting hit with tariffs, Russia has been hot and cold with the American president, still being hit with Sanctions, who in the world isn't in the US crosshairs in some fashion?
Quote
the illogical defence of Supply Management (which hurts low income Canadian worst of all)- all will get swept under the carpet as Trump gets the blame for everything in Canada.
Both parties in Canada support supply management, Canada is rather united in that sense, America already sells a lot dairy in Canada and would have sold more under TPP, which they left. It also doesn't touch on the fact that the americans heavily subsidies their dairy farmers, and as such have such a oversupply of dairy that they are looking to dump it in Canadian markets in order to save themselves, so no, Canada shouldn't open up our dairy market simply to save american farmers from themselves and American policy makers from their own short nearsightedness.
Quote

But, hey, what are millions of unemployed Canadians? Small price to pay to "stop Trump", huh?
You make it sound like Canada has so many other options.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Remius on June 29, 2018, 11:42:01
I am not supporting Trump and you just proved my point. Being critical of the Liberals will soon become impossible.

The unserious nature in which they approached NAFTA negotiations; the manner in which they misjudged Trump; the illogical defence of Supply Management (which hurts low income Canadian worst of all)- all will get swept under the carpet as Trump gets the blame for everything in Canada.

But, hey, what are millions of unemployed Canadians? Small price to pay to "stop Trump", huh?

No issues being critical of the liberals.  But for what exactly?

How is it unserious?  Serious question. Seems that they are being lauded for their efforts from all political sides.
Supply management...Scheer was elected leader on that.  It isn't just the liberals.

Scheer, Ford, Harper, Mulroney (Sr) are all on side.  Targeted asymmetrical tactics are being used.  Rona Ambrose is even on the advisory committee. 

If you want to criticise the Canadian Approach sure.  But this is a bi-partisan effort.

I doubt the Conservatives would be behaving any differently.  the only difference I would say, and I am being honest when I say it is that if the conservatives were running the show I have no doubt that the Liberals and NDP would be playing dirty politics with it to undermine their efforts. 



Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: SeaKingTacco on June 29, 2018, 11:54:07
The problem is that Canada doesn't have many other realistic options to the US market- many limitations are self created. We certainly won't get a better trade deal with China. Trudeau pretty much blew the TPP talks. He pretty much destroyed an additional trade deal with India after his disasterous "costume vacation" there this winter.

We could have had two additional pipelines pumping oil east and west for export by now, and earning all Canadians revenue from non-US sources, but...the Liberals and Climate change.

Why should I care if the US government is stupid enough to subsidize my grocery bill to the tune of $350.00 per year? Is economic collapse worth 15,000 dairy farmers?

None of this is a support of Trump. It is simply stating that we made our hand much, much worse.

Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Remius on June 29, 2018, 12:07:14
The problem is that Canada doesn't have many other realistic options to the US market- many limitations are self created. We certainly won't get a better trade deal with China. Trudeau pretty much blew the TPP talks. He pretty much destroyed an additional trade deal with India after his disasterous "costume vacation" there this winter.

We could have had two additional pipelines pumping oil east and west for export by now, and earning all Canadians revenue from non-US sources, but...the Liberals and Climate change.

Why should I care if the US government is stupid enough to subsidize my grocery bill to the tune of $350.00 per year? Is economic collapse worth 15,000 dairy farmers?

None of this is a support of Trump. It is simply stating that we made our hand much, much worse.

We signed the TPP deal.  https://globalnews.ca/news/4069924/tpp-trans-pacific-partnership-signing-canada/  did something happen?

You know as well as anyone else that BC NDP/Green government is holding up the pipeline issue.  Mind you I agree that they are putting themselves in a corner with their green energy/environmental stuff. 


But, you are adding other issues to the plate. I thought we were talking about NAFTA.

I agree that we need to diversify.  no argument there .  But that does not mean caving to the US on NAFTA.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on June 29, 2018, 12:13:16
The problem is that Canada doesn't have many other realistic options to the US market- many limitations are self created. We certainly won't get a better trade deal with China.
Yes, they are a tough nut to crack
Quote
Trudeau pretty much blew the TPP talks.
TPP is a go, what are you talking about?
Quote
He pretty much destroyed an additional trade deal with India after his disasterous "costume vacation" there this winter.
Sure, but it's not like there was one on the table
Quote

We could have had two additional pipelines pumping oil east and west for export by now, and earning all Canadians revenue from non-US sources, but...the Liberals and Climate change.
Moot point, as Canada is still getting 3 pipelines which will take care of most of Albertas current export capacity
Quote
Why should I care if the US government is stupid enough to subsidize my grocery bill to the tune of $350.00 per year? Is economic collapse worth 15,000 dairy farmers?
Why does America care about BC subsiding American Lumber? Because of domestic politics, and interests. No country want foreign nations dumping products in their market. Isn't that the reason why the American president has put tariffs on everyone for steel and aluminum? Can't have it both ways.
Quote

None of this is a support of Trump. It is simply stating that we made our hand much, much worse.
Canada and the rest of the world isn't left with too many options. Either hit back with tariffs or accept that america has tilted trade in their favor above yours, perhaps permanently.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Journeyman on June 29, 2018, 12:26:18
If something doesn't change, this summer will be remembered as the start of the Great Depression of 2018 (at least). 

The last big one started with the 1929 stock market crash, (which actually began recovering after stock holders lost about $40 billion) before the rest of the dominoes fell over.  About 9,000 banks collapsed because deposits were uninsured, so they stopped lending money, so fewer expenditures... which meant people/businesses stopped purchasing items.  With US businesses failing, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff (1930) penalized imports, sparked economic retaliation, and quelle surprise....led to less international trade, further crippling economies.   /Hist 101   ;)

This depression will work in the other direction, starting  with tariffs and retaliation. 

Shame some people don't understand history or economics.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on June 29, 2018, 12:29:38
The last big one started with the 1929 stock market crash, (which actually began recovering after stock holders lost about $40 billion) before the rest of the dominoes fell over.  About 9,000 banks collapsed because deposits were uninsured, so they stopped lending money, so fewer expenditures... which meant people/businesses stopped purchasing items.  With US businesses failing, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff (1930) penalized imports, sparked economic retaliation, and quelle surprise....led to less international trade, further crippling economies.   /Hist 101   ;)

This depression will work in the other direction, starting  with tariffs and retaliation. 

Shame some people don't understand history or economics.
One would think it would be a requirement for the President of the United States, but alas...
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: SeaKingTacco on June 29, 2018, 12:37:45
My apologies on TPP- I was mistaken.

Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on June 29, 2018, 12:53:48
My apologies on TPP- I was mistaken.
It shouldn't be overlooked, Canada is going to be well set up with CETA and TPP coming into effect in the next few years, both negotiated by the Harper Conservatives and the Trudeau Liberals.

NAFTA, while under threat, is not yet dead. All these negotiations mean nothing if

1) The American President cannot get a repeal bill through congress, not a done deal or;

2) Canada continues to stall until after the mid terms and the Democrats take control of congress.

Then NAFTA would simply continue on, negotiations would most likely die as America couldn't ratify a new deal, or kill the old one.

That leaves the tariffs. We might need to absorb a heck of a lot of economic damage, and try to do as much as we could along with Europe and China to make america feel enough pain to change course.

and before you say it, every article, from american sources, none of them have the american public pointing fingers at Europe, China, Mexico, or Canada.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on June 29, 2018, 14:56:31
I doubt very much China is going to "open" it's markets to use, for them free trade is full access for them and a little bit for us. Sort of like the US, but worse.
http://money.cnn.com/2018/06/28/news/economy/china-tariffs-india-south-korea-apta-us/index.html
Quote
Beijing will reduce tariffs on thousands of products from India and South Korea, as well as the smaller economies of Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Laos, China's commerce ministry said Thursday.

The reductions are due to take effect on July 1. They're part of an agreement between the six countries called the Asia Pacific Trade Agreement (APTA) that covers more than 10,000 goods in total, the ministry added.

China has identified more than 8,500 goods from the five countries on which it will "reduce or cancel tariffs," China's Ambassador to India Luo Zhaohui said on Twitter. They include soybeans, steel, aluminum as well as other agricultural and chemical products, he added.

#China will reduce or cancel tariffs on imports of 8,549 types of goods from #India, South Korea, Bangladesh, Laos & Sri Lanka. The goods include chemicals, agricultural & medical products, soybean, clothing, steel & aluminum products. Good news to help reduce trade imbalance.

— Luo Zhaohui (@China_Amb_India) June 27, 2018
Many of those products could help replace imports from the United States that will become more expensive in China if the two countries go ahead with tariffs on $34 billion of each other's exports next week.

Although the Asian trade agreement was planned before the US-China dispute escalated, some experts say Beijing is highlighting it now to send a message to the White House.

"This is basically a tactical measure to counter the Trump administration's tariff rise," said Srikanth Kondapalli, a professor of Chinese studies at New Delhi's Jawaharlal Nehru University. "They are trying to tap into other markets if the United States goes ahead with a trade war," he added.

The trade in soybeans is particularly important for both sides. Soybeans are America's leading agricultural export and China is its biggest customer, buying them from US farmers to use as a protein source in animal feed.

China plans to hit American soybeans with a 25% tariff in response for planned US tariffs on Chinese goods.

Government officials from India, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh did not immediately respond to requests for comment, while officials in Laos and South Korea could not immediately be reached.

India has reportedly offered to step in if US soybean exports to China fall. A senior Indian official said at a meeting in Beijing in April that his country could "substitute for" products like soybean and sugar, according to Indian media.

India exported soybeans worth only $155 million last year, nearly 60% of which went to the United States, according to Indian government data. None went to China.

The five Asian countries could also benefit from Beijing's reduced tariffs by buying food products from the United States and selling them on to China.

"In addition to soy, the United States exports higher valued food products such as pork, wine, tree nuts, and fruits to China," Loren Puette, director of market research firm ChinaAg, told CNNMoney.

"The tariff concessions could benefit [the five countries] as re-exporters if they import US food products and export them to China at a reduced rate," he added..

https://www.vox.com/world/2018/6/29/...-soy-trade-war

Quote
China seems to be positioning itself to deal with the fallout of a bruising trade war with the US.

On Thursday, China’s commerce ministry announced that the country had agreed to lower or cancel existing tariffs, or border taxes, on thousands of goods from India, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, and Laos starting July 1.

Trade experts say that the move is plain evidence that China is looking for alternative sources for goods that it imports from the US. China is currently planning on imposing sweeping tariffs on numerous goods from the US, retaliating against Trump’s tariffs on Chinese goods that are scheduled to begin next week.

For example, China plans to lower tariffs on soybeans imported from those five Asian countries — all of which are party to the Asia Pacific Trade Agreement (APTA). That should help Chinese consumers find alternatives to soybeans imported from the US, which are going to become much more expensive when China hits them with tariffs.

“There’s no question that China is preparing for a trade war,” Edward Alden, a trade scholar at the Council on Foreign Relations, told me.

China is currently planning on placing tariffs on $34 billion worth of US goods in response to Trump’s plan to hit $34 billion in Chinese goods with tariffs next week. Beijing is attempting to dissuade Trump from considering additional tariffs in the future by matching the scale of the US’s first batch of them.

While China and its Asian trading partners began to work on an agreement before the recent escalations in trade tensions between the US and China, analysts say the timing of the announcement is politically charged.

China’s plan to impose tariffs on soybeans is going to hit the US hard. China buys about a third of the US’s soybean exports, making it far and away the largest importer in the world for the American crop. The biggest soybean producers in the US include Ohio, Iowa, Missouri, and Indiana — states in the heart of Trump country where neither the president nor his party wants to see economic instability or job losses in the run-up to the 2018 midterm elections, or the 2020 elections.

Experts say that China’s move will also help it foster closer ties with its neighbors at a time when US influence in the region is ebbing.

“These tariff cuts will also help to strengthen China’s relations with its Asian neighbors, even as the United States has turned its back on the region economically, by walking away from the TPP,” Alden told me.

Trump pulled out of the TPP — a free-trade agreement with 11 other Pacific Rim countries — in his first week in office. At the time, trade analysts feared that China, which was not a member of the agreement, would have a unique opportunity to consolidate power in the region. That seems to be exactly what’s happening.

America makes a void, China fills a void.

How many times are we going to see this as a trade war drags on?

I'm betting on a lot of times.

Chinese influence is only going to continue to grow, especially as they will be see as a stable long term partner and America will be seen as at the mercy of the whims of whoever happens to be president at the time.

For example, how many international agreements/organizations  have been discarded or attacked by the American leadership since november 8th 2016?

the Paris accord.

 NAFTA

TPP

NATO

The G7

Outer Space Treaty

The Iran deal
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Remius on June 29, 2018, 21:08:00


GM and Toyota experessing concern about the tariffs....

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jun/29/general-motors-trump-tariffs-gm-jobs
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Brad Sallows on June 29, 2018, 22:26:25
>I don't get the argument that everyone should just turtle up and give in.

I don't get the argument that everyone should just turtle up and let Austria-Hungary have Serbia.

There is a remarkable amount of jingoism everywhere: tit for tat for tit for tat ...  Would people be so enthusiastic if military force were involved?  This is an economic conflict, not a military one, but there will be damage.  I'm sure the press will highlight anyone who stands up to support the tariffs in spite of personally taking a heckuva beating, but I suppose most people who support sticking it back to Trump have secure employment/benefits or don't think of themselves as being in a line of work potentially affected.

This all could have been stillborn with Trump's first round if everyone had just sucked up the limited damage and started working on Congress.

I suppose tunes will change if Trump pulls the trigger on auto tariffs.

Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on June 29, 2018, 23:05:26
>I don't get the argument that everyone should just turtle up and give in.

I don't get the argument that everyone should just turtle up and let Austria-Hungary have Serbia.

There is a remarkable amount of jingoism everywhere: tit for tat for tit for tat ...  Would people be so enthusiastic if military force were involved?  This is an economic conflict, not a military one, but there will be damage.  I'm sure the press will highlight anyone who stands up to support the tariffs in spite of personally taking a heckuva beating, but I suppose most people who support sticking it back to Trump have secure employment/benefits or don't think of themselves as being in a line of work potentially affected.

This all could have been stillborn with Trump's first round if everyone had just sucked up the limited damage and started working on Congress.

I suppose tunes will change if Trump pulls the trigger on auto tariffs.
Congress? Congress isn't doing anything,  for fear of the president destroying their chances of winning their primaries.

But canada from everything I've read,  has been working on congress,  both parties have.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Good2Golf on June 29, 2018, 23:50:02
So what should Canada have done?  Not invoke retaliatory tariffs, decommission dairy supply management and yield on removing NAFTA Chapter 19?

At the very least, is not negotiation iterative closure of differences between two parties?  How is it negotiation if Party 2 says to Party 1, “we don’t agree, but you’re way bigger than us, so we accept your initial offer.”

???

Regards
G2G
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Brad Sallows on June 30, 2018, 12:22:09
Retaining NAFTA, perhaps with amendments, is what I see as the aim.  Trump could apply tariffs as part of his negotiating tactics to apply pressure; Canada could refuse to reply in kind without withdrawing from negotiations.  Not applying counter-tariffs is not equivalent to acceptance of any kind of offer.

>Congress isn't doing anything...

...because of the election.  Maybe nothing will change after the election, but I suppose with that pressure removed, members will have more attention to pay to trade and other foreign affairs.  Looking at all that is going on in the US right now, I see an immense amount of attention focused on balances of power; I am not surprised that the US appears distracted from outside.  Right now, nothing outside matters as much.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on July 01, 2018, 21:55:07
https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2018/07/02/trump-team-reportedly-drafted-a-bill-that-abandons-key-wto-rules.html&ved=0ahUKEwjg1b-vmf_bAhVi94MKHeN9DMQQyM8BCCIwAA&usg=AOvVaw3TBoXQuRi8XRwy_D_tPfIl&ampcf=1

I don't even think the USA is trying to avoid looking stupid anymore.

If the president has his way,  the US would get the US Fair and Reciprocal Tariff act. Aka, the US FART act.

Quote
The bill, called the "United States Fair and Reciprocal Tariff Act," ignores fundamental WTO principles, said Axios, which reported that it obtained a leaked draft. Those principles include the prohibition of nations setting different tariff rates for countries outside of free trade agreements and the established tariff ceilings that WTO countries have agreed to.

If the bill were to be passed, "it would be the equivalent of walking away from the WTO and our commitments there without us actually notifying our withdrawal,"

This is really scary stuff coming out of this administration. Global economic collapse kind of stuff.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: ballz on July 02, 2018, 00:56:34
So what should Canada have done?

Well, we probably could have prevented a lot of trouble not saying "We'll be very happy to renegotiate NAFTA" before Donald Trump had even become President and was only thinking about Mexico. Everyone seems to have forgotten how our leader flying off the seat of his pants opened us up to all of this...

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/rick-santorum-jeers-pm-trudeau-s-nafta-move-1.3165964

"Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was foolish to signal his willingness to re-negotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement, former U.S. senator and Donald Trump insider Rick Santorum said Wednesday."

“When you’re negotiating, the first person who opens up the door creates an opportunity for the other side,” Santorum said. “I’m not too sure that’s a great negotiating posture for him but we certainly appreciate it.

 - November 16, 2016... 19 months ago or so...

Pretty bad when you make Rick Santorum look like a genius...

Also, supply management is a perfect bargaining chip. "We'll give up supply management as long as there is no sunset clause." Back behind close doors, "Perfect, two problems solved, what a bunch of suckers!"
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on July 02, 2018, 01:23:25
Well, we probably could have prevented a lot of trouble not saying "We'll be very happy to renegotiate NAFTA" before Donald Trump had even become President and was only thinking about Mexico. Everyone seems to have forgotten how our leader flying off the seat of his pants opened us up to all of this...

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/rick-santorum-jeers-pm-trudeau-s-nafta-move-1.3165964

"Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was foolish to signal his willingness to re-negotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement, former U.S. senator and Donald Trump insider Rick Santorum said Wednesday."

“When you’re negotiating, the first person who opens up the door creates an opportunity for the other side,” Santorum said. “I’m not too sure that’s a great negotiating posture for him but we certainly appreciate it.

 - November 16, 2016... 19 months ago or so...

Pretty bad when you make Rick Santorum look like a genius...

Also, supply management is a perfect bargaining chip. "We'll give up supply management as long as there is no sunset clause." Back behind close doors, "Perfect, two problems solved, what a bunch of suckers!"
Oh,of course. And then we would magically have been the one nation to avoid the wrath of the American president.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Good2Golf on July 02, 2018, 10:06:34
Well, we probably could have prevented a lot of trouble not saying "We'll be very happy to renegotiate NAFTA" before Donald Trump had even become President and was only thinking about Mexico. Everyone seems to have forgotten how our leader flying off the seat of his pants opened us up to all of this...

So just having heard Trump already say he would negotiate NAFTA at this point in the campaign, Trudeau should have: a) said no we won’t, or b) just ignored Trump?

"Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was foolish to signal his willingness to re-negotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement, former U.S. senator and Donald Trump insider Rick Santorum said Wednesday."

“When you’re negotiating, the first person who opens up the door creates an opportunity for the other side,” Santorum said. “I’m not too sure that’s a great negotiating posture for him but we certainly appreciate it.

 - November 16, 2016... 19 months ago or so...

Pretty bad when you make Rick Santorum look like a genius...

Except when Trump formally first offers to talk to Kim Jong Un...then it’s okay, right?

Also, supply management is a perfect bargaining chip. "We'll give up supply management as long as there is no sunset clause." Back behind close doors, "Perfect, two problems solved, what a bunch of suckers!"

And upthread a ways we see the actual numbers that the US exports more physical volume/weight of dairy products to Canada than Canada does to the US, and that many US dairy produces have stated their desire for a supply management system to help them weather the global dairy production variance.  So you’re quite confident that Canada giving up the moderating function of its own supply management would remove the sunset clause?  Oh, and don’t forget retaining the impartial complaint adjudication clause...we’d get both those for sure, right?

Regards
G2G
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: ballz on July 02, 2018, 12:26:29
So just having heard Trump already say he would negotiate NAFTA at this point in the campaign, Trudeau should have: a) said no we won’t, or b) just ignored Trump?

He came out of the gate with a weak opening stance. It was that time, early on in his tenure, when PM Trudeau still hadn't realized that every small quip out of his mouth gets analyzed to nth degree and he said something that undermined his goals on a weekly basis. It took him far longer to learn that than most, and he is still learning how not to put his foot in his own mouth. With one thoughtless response, he opened the door to President Trump taking a hard-line stance and Canada being on the defensive in NAFTA negotiations. It literally plays right into the President's negotiating strategy.

Except when Trump formally first offers to talk to Kim Jong Un...then it’s okay, right?

I'm not entirely sure how that is relevant to what PM Trudeau should have / could have done when first approached about NAFTA. Also not sure it's an accurate analogy given that POTUS had been taking a hardline stance towards NK for quite some time.

And upthread a ways we see the actual numbers that the US exports more physical volume/weight of dairy products to Canada than Canada does to the US, and that many US dairy produces have stated their desire for a supply management system to help them weather the global dairy production variance.

First off, the fact that *farmers* in the US want the gov't to give them their own cartel is pretty bad evidence that supply management is a good system. Exactly which profit-oriented person would argue against being part of a gov't enforced cartel support their business?

As for the trade surplus/deficit... who cares? Why can't people grasp that having another country's taxpayers pay for their groceries for them is a good thing? What other things would the US like to produce and sell to us for cheap? Please, open the flood gates already. Tobacco? Alcohol? What about inputs into businesses? The less money the consumer spends on sustainment, and the less money our businesses need for inputs, the more productive our economy is going to be. Once you take behaviour-controlling taxes out of the picture, it's just going to shift to industries where Canada is more efficient/competitive.

If protectionism is so good for us, why don't we put tariffs on the price of oranges. Make it $10 an orange so only Canadian oranges can be competitive in Canada? Why not sap the resources out of consumers and businesses, as long as they are only buying Canadian, right? POTUS wants to hurt his economy by putting tariffs on everything and making it harder for American consumers and businesses to thrive. We should let him hurt his own economy and citizens. Never interrupt your adversary when they are making a mistake. Don't match his stupidity with our own stupidity.

Aggressively exploring other free trade deals is the real medicine here. That's why we've been doing it for years. If we have free trade with numerous other countries, we have more bargaining power and less reason to give a rip when the POTUS starts taxing the crap out of his own people.

So you’re quite confident that Canada giving up the moderating function of its own supply management would remove the sunset clause?  Oh, and don’t forget retaining the impartial complaint adjudication clause...we’d get both those for sure, right?

We're in a thread that is purely speculation. Don't pretend anything else that's been said about NAFTA is anything more than speculation. I said it's a great bargaining chip because getting rid of it would help us anyway. I'd give it up for far less...
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Good2Golf on July 02, 2018, 12:41:26

As for the trade surplus/deficit... who cares?


Hidden gem in all your reciprocal argumentation....apparently mostly so to Trump, hence his whole campaign to apply tariffs to force pure trade equivalency.  Everything else, including NAFTA negotiations are being driven by Trumps infatuation with complete bilateral trade equivalence.

G2G

*edit* - bilateral, vice blister
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Journeyman on July 02, 2018, 13:03:07
…. given that POTUS had been taking a hardline stance towards NK for quite some time.
Well, right up until he met with Kim Jong Un and started ovulating.    ;)
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on July 02, 2018, 15:04:00
He came out of the gate with a weak opening stance. It was that time, early on in his tenure, when PM Trudeau still hadn't realized that every small quip out of his mouth gets analyzed to nth degree and he said something that undermined his goals on a weekly basis. It took him far longer to learn that than most, and he is still learning how not to put his foot in his own mouth. With one thoughtless response, he opened the door to President Trump taking a hard-line stance and Canada being on the defensive in NAFTA negotiations. It literally plays right into the President's negotiating strategy.

I'm not entirely sure how that is relevant to what PM Trudeau should have / could have done when first approached about NAFTA. Also not sure it's an accurate analogy given that POTUS had been taking a hardline stance towards NK for quite some time.

First off, the fact that *farmers* in the US want the gov't to give them their own cartel is pretty bad evidence that supply management is a good system. Exactly which profit-oriented person would argue against being part of a gov't enforced cartel support their business?

As for the trade surplus/deficit... who cares? Why can't people grasp that having another country's taxpayers pay for their groceries for them is a good thing? What other things would the US like to produce and sell to us for cheap? Please, open the flood gates already. Tobacco? Alcohol? What about inputs into businesses? The less money the consumer spends on sustainment, and the less money our businesses need for inputs, the more productive our economy is going to be. Once you take behaviour-controlling taxes out of the picture, it's just going to shift to industries where Canada is more efficient/competitive.

If protectionism is so good for us, why don't we put tariffs on the price of oranges. Make it $10 an orange so only Canadian oranges can be competitive in Canada? Why not sap the resources out of consumers and businesses, as long as they are only buying Canadian, right? POTUS wants to hurt his economy by putting tariffs on everything and making it harder for American consumers and businesses to thrive. We should let him hurt his own economy and citizens. Never interrupt your adversary when they are making a mistake. Don't match his stupidity with our own stupidity.

Aggressively exploring other free trade deals is the real medicine here. That's why we've been doing it for years. If we have free trade with numerous other countries, we have more bargaining power and less reason to give a rip when the POTUS starts taxing the crap out of his own people.

We're in a thread that is purely speculation. Don't pretend anything else that's been said about NAFTA is anything more than speculation. I said it's a great bargaining chip because getting rid of it would help us anyway. I'd give it up for far less...
people keep say what trudeau shouldn't have done,  but don't say what he should have done instead.

He could have said no,  canada isn't willing to renegotiatate nafta, which is pointless,  because the USA would have triggered renegotiations anyways. He could have ignored it,  and been accused of not caring about trade with canadas biggest partner. And then,  when tariffs eventually got issued on canada,  he would have been blamed for not working with america on  renegotiations and thus to blame for NAFTA going potentially falling apart.

He could have caved on every issue, only to have america ask for more,  first dairy,  then lumber, then the auto sector.  Once america realized that canada could be pushed around,  it wouldn't have stopped at the dairy sector. I don't think the american president cares one iota about canadian industry having success, at least not more than American industries doing better.

So I would really like to hear what you think Justin trudeau and  should have done instead as opposed to what they shouldn't have done.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: ballz on July 03, 2018, 01:19:23
Hindsight is 20/20, but...

On Trump talking about renegotiating NAFTA

"I'm not aware of any trade issues between Canada and the US. Certainly, reducing tariffs and increasing free trade will benefit all businesses and consumers. However, given the current upswing in the economy I don't think it would be wise to insert uncertainty surrounding NAFTA negotiations at this point in time."

And on Trump putting tariffs on things...

"We're a country that believes in free trade, and that seems to be a non-partisan issue. Tariffs harm everyone. They harm consumers and businesses on both sides of the border. We certainly don't believe these self-imposed sanctions on US businesses and consumers are going to help anyone on either side, so we're not going to respond by adding more tariffs which just hurt Canadian consumers and businesses just as much as they hurt US consumers and businesses. We will continue our pursuit of trading relationships with all like-minded nations around the world. If the US no longer sees the benefit in free trade, that is their prerogative. I suspect they will realize they are missing out on a lot of opportunities for growth and positive relationships and will change their mind after punishing their own businesses and consumers."

Look, Trump is owning the frame here and we're playing right into it. We are literally only hurting ourselves by playing into a trade war (which we couldn't win anyway).
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Thucydides on July 03, 2018, 02:31:50
This is right out of "The Art of the Deal".

President Trump's position is no tariffs, no subsidies (announced at the G7 summit), but everyone chose to ignore this (as well as other US concerns). The breakfast summit where the topic was gender issues in trade pretty much sums up how seriously everyone was taking this position.

So the next phase (currently) is to push hard to knock people off their positions. The size and scope of the tariffs were deliberately designed to produce immediate pain and (as in the case of the German Auto industry) provide reactions between and within various competitors. While there is a great cheerleading section for the Liberals, is there any realistic way for Canada to come out with our position intact (especially given the 20:1 ratio between our portion of GDP based on US trade to their portion of GDP based on Canadian trade?). Frankly, it seems the elitist view of President Trump has turned around to bite us very hard in the behind, and the essentially offhand way the Liberals have approached both shoring up our internal economy (strangling oil pipelines, not intervening on behalf of free trade between provinces) or their approach to NAFTA (particularly attempting to insert their social engineering agenda into the deal) seems much like agonizing over what hat to wear as a freight train barrels down the track at your stalled car.....

While it is true *we* have limited options, essentially taking them off the table before you start seems a ....counterproductive..... way to approach negotiations.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Eaglelord17 on July 03, 2018, 06:49:56
From the way some of you talk on here, Neville Chamberlain must have been the greatest politician of all time. "There will be peace for our time" what a joke.

Giving in to a clear and direct attack on our economy made in a attempt to force us into a poor trade agreement is the worst thing we could do. The US is illegally (by the terms they agreed to) breaking international trade agreements. They will have to pay the bill in the future. Until then it is a waiting game.

In regards to the US free trade & no subsidies, when is the US going to stop subsidizing its own industries then? Until they are willing to do that there is no point in even talking about it.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Remius on July 03, 2018, 07:29:02
This is right out of "The Art of the Deal".

President Trump's position is no tariffs, no subsidies (announced at the G7 summit), but everyone chose to ignore this (as well as other US concerns). The breakfast summit where the topic was gender issues in trade pretty much sums up how seriously everyone was taking this position.

So the next phase (currently) is to push hard to knock people off their positions. The size and scope of the tariffs were deliberately designed to produce immediate pain and (as in the case of the German Auto industry) provide reactions between and within various competitors. While there is a great cheerleading section for the Liberals, is there any realistic way for Canada to come out with our position intact (especially given the 20:1 ratio between our portion of GDP based on US trade to their portion of GDP based on Canadian trade?). Frankly, it seems the elitist view of President Trump has turned around to bite us very hard in the behind, and the essentially offhand way the Liberals have approached both shoring up our internal economy (strangling oil pipelines, not intervening on behalf of free trade between provinces) or their approach to NAFTA (particularly attempting to insert their social engineering agenda into the deal) seems much like agonizing over what hat to wear as a freight train barrels down the track at your stalled car.....

While it is true *we* have limited options, essentially taking them off the table before you start seems a ....counterproductive..... way to approach negotiations.

Funny how you keep bringing up the Art of the Deal.  I’m pretty sure those negotiating with trump have read it.  Right now it seems North Korea did just that and is using it to play for time, playing Trump like a fiddle.  So is Putin.

One of the main tennants of his book is to fight back.  Seems that is exactly what the world is doing...
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Good2Golf on July 03, 2018, 09:41:23
This is right out of "The Art of the Deal"...

...While it is true *we* have limited options, essentially taking them off the table before you start seems a ....counterproductive..... way to approach negotiations.

But it's productive when Trump puts the very tariffs he says are bad...ONTO the table?

Which is it Thucydides?

G2G
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on July 03, 2018, 09:48:08
This is right out of "The Art of the Deal".

President Trump's position is no tariffs, no subsidies (announced at the G7 summit), but everyone chose to ignore this (as well as other US concerns). The breakfast summit where the topic was gender issues in trade pretty much sums up how seriously everyone was taking this position.
Your position is really rather weak when you say no tariffs, no subsidies, when you are among the worlds largest subsidies, have the highest average tariffs in the Western world, and have just punished you allies with more. Kind of like being anti war after you have decided to invade someone, abstinent while having sex. It kind of rings hollow.
Quote


So the next phase (currently) is to push hard to knock people off their positions. The size and scope of the tariffs were deliberately designed to produce immediate pain and (as in the case of the German Auto industry) provide reactions between and within various competitors.
And what you seem to not realize is that Canada, Europe, China, everyone is playing the same game as the US. The world is trying to knock america off its position with tariffs deliberately designed to produce immediate pain. And so far, it's working. America is feeling pain.
Quote
While there is a great cheerleading section for the Liberals, is there any realistic way for Canada to come out with our position intact (especially given the 20:1 ratio between our portion of GDP based on US trade to their portion of GDP based on Canadian trade?).
People keep pushing this false narrative. It's not a 20-1 ration between our economy. We have allies in this trade war, and they are hitting the USA as well, and collectively, us and our allies have a much bigger collective Economy and trade with USA. If this was WW1, you wouldn't be complaining that Germany is a lot bigger than Canada, thus it's better to not even attempt to fight, yet here you would rather Canada just do nothing while the USA attacks our economic interests
Quote
  Frankly, it seems the elitist view of President Trump has turned around to bite us very hard in the behind, and the essentially offhand way the Liberals have approached both shoring up our internal economy (strangling oil pipelines
How many pipelines have the liberals approved?You act as if it is none.
Quote
, not intervening on behalf of free trade between provinces)
what Canadian Prime minister has gotten the provinces to agree to free trade? What heavy handed approach do you want a Prime Minister to use on what is really a provincial jurisdiction?
Quote
or their approach to NAFTA (particularly attempting to insert their social engineering agenda into the deal)
People seem to be pushing this narrative as well. Do you hear the americans complaining about that? No. It seems for all intents and purposes that it got nowhere fast, and the Canadians dropped it as a negotiation point
Quote
seems much like agonizing over what hat to wear as a freight train barrels down the track at your stalled car.....
Again, not what is holding up negotiations
Quote

While it is true *we* have limited options, essentially taking them off the table before you start seems a ....counterproductive..... way to approach negotiations.
Again, more talk of what Justin Trudeau and Canada shouldn't have done, but no talk about what they should have done instead. It's easy to whine and complain, much harder to come up with alternatives.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on July 03, 2018, 09:50:36
Hindsight is 20/20, but...

On Trump talking about renegotiating NAFTA

"I'm not aware of any trade issues between Canada and the US. Certainly, reducing tariffs and increasing free trade will benefit all businesses and consumers. However, given the current upswing in the economy I don't think it would be wise to insert uncertainty surrounding NAFTA negotiations at this point in time."

And on Trump putting tariffs on things...

"We're a country that believes in free trade, and that seems to be a non-partisan issue. Tariffs harm everyone. They harm consumers and businesses on both sides of the border. We certainly don't believe these self-imposed sanctions on US businesses and consumers are going to help anyone on either side, so we're not going to respond by adding more tariffs which just hurt Canadian consumers and businesses just as much as they hurt US consumers and businesses. We will continue our pursuit of trading relationships with all like-minded nations around the world. If the US no longer sees the benefit in free trade, that is their prerogative. I suspect they will realize they are missing out on a lot of opportunities for growth and positive relationships and will change their mind after punishing their own businesses and consumers."

Look, Trump is owning the frame here and we're playing right into it. We are literally only hurting ourselves by playing into a trade war (which we couldn't win anyway).
Such a false narrative. Sure canada couldn't win a trade war versus the USA by itself. But we aren't in a trade war with the USA by ourselves. So why act like we are?

China, Mexico, the EU, Turkey, India, among others are hitting back at the USA. That a is huge chunk of the global economy making it harder or impossible for American business. Why can't we win that?
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on July 03, 2018, 10:22:30
https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/trade-war-trump-states_us_5b3abfaee4b07b827cb9ed7a

Quote

Several states that voted for Donald Trump in the presidential election are likely to be among the hardest hit in the trade war the president has triggered, according to the nation’s largest business organization.

A detailed study by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce tracked the expected effects in each state of U.S. tariffs and retaliatory action against U.S. goods by China, European countries, Mexico and Canada.

Of the 10 states the U.S. Chamber of Commerce says will be hit the hardest by the tariffs, only California, Illinois and Washington voted against Trump in the presidential election. Louisiana, Texas, Alabama, Ohio, South Carolina, Michigan and Pennsylvania will all take major hits thanks to the trade policy of the man those states sent to the White House. Trump won Michigan and Pennsylvania by less than a single percentage point.

The number of exports that could be hit by retaliatory tariffs among the 10 most vulnerable states ranges from $1.7 billion in Pennsylvania to $6.2 billion in Washington.

“Tariffs are beginning to take a toll on American businesses, workers, farmers, and consumers as overseas markets close to American-made products and prices increase here at home,” U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Thomas Donohue said in a statement Monday. “Tariffs are simply taxes that raise prices for everyone.”

The traditionally GOP-friendly organization, which represents more than 3 million businesses, has launched a campaign against Trump’s tariffs, arguing that they have triggered a trade war that will cost U.S. jobs and will send consumer prices soaring.

And that, my friends, is why you have to make it hurt for America to undertake these actions. When GOP friendly organizations start to lobby against the GOP president, that begins to get noticed.

When the states that the American president won start to get hit economically because of his actions(and Americans are not dumb, most articles show that people know who started this), that start to get noticed. The American president might not back down, but congress is probably hearing it from their constituents and they will be getting nervous.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on July 03, 2018, 10:34:15
And we can go on all day about how the German Auto industry is trying to surrender, but meanwhile, the GOP has lost the Koch Brothers.

Seeing how the American political system runs on money, that is huge.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-44366737

Quote
Since Mr Trump's surprise victory, Charles and David Koch have sought common ground with the president, particularly on tax reform, but they continue to be far from ideological soul mates. Now, as the president bangs the drums of a trade war, the relations between the libertarian-leaning billionaires and the populist-nationalist president are becoming increasingly frayed.

It's not full political warfare yet, however. The advertising and advocacy campaign proposed by the Koch groups tilts in the direction of "friendly advice" for the president, not hostile criticism. When paired with congressional efforts to curtail the president's ability to enact new tariffs, however, and the stakes increase.

The Republican party has long been a welcoming home to free trade advocates, who point to the economic benefits of globalism and international competition. Mr Trump is trying to change that - but he's picking a fight with some very deep-pocketed adversaries.

If there is an ally the GOP doesn't want to lose more important than the Koch brothers, I would like to know who they are.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Remius on July 03, 2018, 11:22:08
Washington will also take notice of this resolution by the WGA last week...

http://westgov.org/resolutions/policy-resolution-2018-14-international-trade/





Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on July 03, 2018, 16:43:07
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-france/full-trade-war-threatens-2008-style-recession-warn-french-government-advisors-idUSKBN1JT10E

Quote
A full-scale trade war would likely be as devastating for the world economy as the 2008-2009 recession, warned France’s Council of Economic Advisors, a body which gives input to the country’s prime minister.

The United States and China could see a permanent loss of three percent of economic output and the European Union (EU) four percent in the case of a full-blown trade war, it estimated on Tuesday.

If it has to happen, let it happen before 2020 and let the American President need to campaign during that.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Brad Sallows on July 03, 2018, 21:41:06
If I am correct about the election diverting Congress's attention somewhat from trade issues, then the approach I propose is an indirect one to exploit their interest in the former using the context of the latter.

Midterm elections generally don't favour the president's party, or a party which has held the House or Senate for a long time.  (Caveat: movement in the Senate depends a lot on which one-third of seats are contested.)  Republicans should get a boost from two things: the fate of the political balance in the USSC; and a strong economy.

So the course of action I suggest is not to fight an expanding trade war, but to cut those losses and instead wage an IO campaign among US representatives and senators encouraging them to recognize their deep self-interest in not having their economic indicators go down the tubes just before the election.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on July 03, 2018, 23:52:40
If I am correct about the election diverting Congress's attention somewhat from trade issues, then the approach I propose is an indirect one to exploit their interest in the former using the context of the latter.

Midterm elections generally don't favour the president's party, or a party which has held the House or Senate for a long time.  (Caveat: movement in the Senate depends a lot on which one-third of seats are contested.)  Republicans should get a boost from two things: the fate of the political balance in the USSC; and a strong economy.

So the course of action I suggest is not to fight an expanding trade war, but to cut those losses and instead wage an IO campaign among US representatives and senators encouraging them to recognize their deep self-interest in not having their economic indicators go down the tubes just before the election.
no GOP congressman has survived the president twitter blast.

They are all cowering. Their self interest seems to be limited to surviving the midterms,  and their nomination battles.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Brad Sallows on July 04, 2018, 00:00:22
My point is that if you can persuade them to equate "fix trade war" with "survive nomination battle and midterm election" (ie. positive election impact of "fix trade war" > negative election impact of "oppose Trump"), then the problem may be resolved without successively widening circles of economic damage.  If the perception of "just give up" is unacceptable for other facets of this issue, it should be unacceptable for this one.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on July 04, 2018, 00:27:25
My point is that if you can persuade them to equate "fix trade war" with "survive nomination battle and midterm election" (ie. positive election impact of "fix trade war" > negative election impact of "oppose Trump"), then the problem may be resolved without successively widening circles of economic damage.  If the perception of "just give up" is unacceptable for other facets of this issue, it should be unacceptable for this one.
I have every faith in the canadians advocating in the USA,  the liberals, Rona Ambrose,Brian Mulroney, even Steven Harper.

 I have no faith in the GOP ability to stand up to the american president
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Journeyman on July 04, 2018, 10:37:01
So the course of action I suggest is not to fight an expanding trade war, but to cut those losses and instead wage an IO campaign among US representatives and senators encouraging them to recognize their deep self-interest in not having their economic indicators go down the tubes just before the election.
I don't understand your cause & effect here.  If countries do not respond to Trump's tariffs with counter-tariffs (yellow), how would the US suffer economically (orange)?  What would an IO campaign be based upon?
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: PuckChaser on July 04, 2018, 10:42:47
I don't understand your cause & effect here.  If countries do not respond to Trump's tariffs with counter-tariffs (yellow), how would the US suffer economically (orange)?  What would an IO campaign be based upon?
I'd be more based on the US bullying people,  which could garner sympathy across party lines. By targeting consumer goods in the US, life for the average Canadian just got more expensive, when Canada could have just mirrored steel and aluminum tariffs with little impact to the daily life of most Canadians. Its harder to galvanize support for your cause when that support has a price that is eating away what little disposable income lower middle class Canadians have.

It also looks suspect when our tariffs are carefully targeted at Republican areas,  making us look like we're trying to effect political change instead of get a fair trade deal.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Journeyman on July 04, 2018, 11:12:05
I'd be more based on the US bullying people,  which could garner sympathy across party lines.
Your response actually gets further from answering the question; how would drawing attention to "the US bullying people" harm 'US economic indicators'?  Maybe let Brad Sallows address the original point.

Quote
It also looks suspect when our tariffs are carefully targeted at Republican areas,  making us look like we're trying to effect political change instead of get a fair trade deal.
???  It's not suspect at all;  our tariffs ARE carefully targeted predominantly  at Republican areas because we ARE attempting to effect political change surrounding these trade issues.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Baden Guy on July 04, 2018, 12:35:45
And this thread is an example of why I see little value in engaging in such debates. :(
Except for J Man of course.  :nod:
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: tomahawk6 on July 04, 2018, 13:01:43
Merkel the peacemaker ?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/germany-merkel-pledges-every-effort-to-avert-us-trade-war/ar-AAzz4q0?ocid=spartanntp
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Brad Sallows on July 04, 2018, 22:32:58
>how would the US suffer economically (orange)?

Tariffs are self-inflicted damage.  The steel tariffs alone seem to adversely affect roughly 10 times the number of jobs that they positively effect.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on July 04, 2018, 23:50:28
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/04/us-pork-producers-brace-for-new-pork-tariffs-from-china-mexico.html

Quote
U.S. pork producers are about to be bitten by a second batch of hefty retaliatory tariffs from China and Mexico — and that has some large producers predicting they could lose big money and be forced to invest overseas.

Executives say the pork industry has been expanding in recent years, in part on the expectation of export opportunities that would continue to support growth. However, the threat of a trade war is adding uncertainty and driving fear. One in 4 hogs raised in the U.S. is sold overseas, and the Chinese are the world's top consumers of pork.

"We put a halt on all investment, not just because we will be losing money, but because we don't know if growing in the U.S. is the right move if we won't be an exporting country," said Ken Maschhoff, chairman of Maschhoff Family Foods and co-owner of the nation's largest family-owned pork producer.

Maschhoff said the farm industry has been "asked to be good patriots. We have been. But I don't want to be the patriot who dies at the end of the war. If we go out of business, it's tough to look at my kids and the 550 farm families that look us into the eye and our 1,400 employees."

Mexico imposed a 10 percent tariff on chilled and frozen pork muscle cuts effective June 5, and that import tax is set to double to 20 percent on Thursday. Mexico's retaliatory action followed the Trump administration's duties on imported aluminum and steel.

China, meantime, is scheduled to start collecting an additional 25 percent import duty Friday on American pork products as it targets $34 billion worth of U.S. goods in response to President Donald Trump's action against Beijing for alleged intellectual property theft.
In other news, Canada is set to over take the US as the largest supplier of pork to China.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: PuckChaser on July 04, 2018, 23:57:49
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/04/us-pork-producers-brace-for-new-pork-tariffs-from-china-mexico.html
 In other news, Canada is set to over take the US as the largest supplier of pork to China.
How's that any different than the $100B CAD in oil and gas investments that have left Canada since the 2015 election? I don't think we should be throwing stones at a glass house when our government is torpedoing our economy just as badly.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on July 05, 2018, 01:46:34
How's that any different than the $100B CAD in oil and gas investments that have left Canada since the 2015 election? I don't think we should be throwing stones at a glass house when our government is torpedoing our economy just as badly.
The differences are vast,  but rather than derail this thread,  I'm going to stay on topic.

America is engaged in a trade war with its allies, I'm going to kept on that point.

I'm also going to repeatedly point out the folly in that policy.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Journeyman on July 05, 2018, 10:25:48
Tariffs are self-inflicted damage.  The steel tariffs alone seem to adversely affect roughly 10 times the number of jobs that they positively effect.
Got it. Thanks.  :nod:
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Thucydides on July 05, 2018, 16:24:09
How's that any different than the $100B CAD in oil and gas investments that have left Canada since the 2015 election? I don't think we should be throwing stones at a glass house when our government is torpedoing our economy just as badly.

The fundamental problem is the Liberals had no plan in 2015, went "all in" on ill conceived "Green" "Climate change" and "Carbon tax" initiatives for their rent seekers and with the weight of their initiatives crushing the economy, now have no strategic room to move with US tariffs and other trade initiatives in play. Being painted into a corner by your opponent is one thing (and given the gross disparity between our two economies, that outcome may have been inevitable anyway), but preemptively. painting yourself into a corner is hardly the mark of people who are planning ahead or are engaged in the process.

So my prediction stands: we are in deep soup until at least 2028 (President Trump is re elected in 2020, and the new Administration in 2024 will take at least one term to wind things down, unless the global situation is settling into a new alignment by that time as seems to be the President's plan).

The only out we might still have is if either opposition party simply looks at Canada's national interests, sees where they align with those of the US in the emerging world order and makes a sensible plan to implement it and beat the recession. This will require tremendous self control (remember the Liberals will run on a platform of "Trump is a big meanie", and so far the other political parties and organizations seem to have climbed aboard that train), as well as a really awesome selling job to the public to demonstrate how having a plan will work to their benefit.

You can colour me sceptical that such an epiphany is actually going to happen.....
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on July 05, 2018, 16:34:03
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jul/05/carney-tells-trump-escalation-of-trade-war-will-hurt-us-most

Quote
Speaking hours before the world’s top two economies prepare to launch tariffs on one another’s imports, Mark Carney said further escalation would have serious and damaging consequences for global GDP. He cautioned that US growth could be hit by as much as 5%, compared with a slowdown for the rest of the world of up to half that amount.

The intervention from the head of a G7 central bank against another member of the club of wealthy nations marks one of the boldest criticisms levelled against the US president so far.

Speaking in Newcastle on Thursday, Carney said the current round of import tariffs from the US and retaliatory measures against the country, including spats with the EU, had already slowed the global economy.

Mark Carney always seemed like a pretty level headed guy, I doubt he would be this alarmist without good reason.

Seems clear thought that he thinks the USA is going to end up on the losing end of this. I hope he is right.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Journeyman on July 05, 2018, 22:59:37
….and the new Administration in 2024 will take at least one term to wind things down, unless the global situation is settling into a new alignment by that time as seems to be the President's plan.
I'm seriously curious what sort of "new alignment" you foresee.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: CBH99 on July 06, 2018, 02:38:30
Global situation settling into a new alignment?  I'm thinking more & more that China will absolutely surpass the US as the global "go to" country for a variety of needs, whether it be economic, military, foreign development, etc.

China has one of the largest armed forces in the world, and isn't spread across the world the way the US is.  And I believe China's "goal" of having a blue water navy was met long ago, as the warships it's literally pumping out in volumes are coming out pretty equal technology-wise to European & American ships in many ways. 

China is one of the largest economies in the world, and does not link it's foreign aid money with a bunch of conditions, the way the US does.  If your a 3rd world government with little regard for ethics, doing business with China is less of a hassle than doing business with the US (ethics aside)

China has one of the largest consumer bases in the world.  Want to seek private investment?  China.  Want to sell a product?  China.  Want to market an entertainment or product to a country with 3x as many people as the US?  China.


India is too incompetent to compete, it's about as good at buying military equipment as we are.  Plus it has the 'burden' of a democratic government system, which gives China the advantage as they can act in the best interest of China without the constant interference of multiple government parties opposing.  India is even being muscled out of the Maldives by Chinese investment right now.  The local government has chosen not to renew land leases to the Indian government, and has instead welcomed a huge investment in condos, malls, infrastructure, airports, etc etc from the Chinese. 

New alignment...I'm thinking very much China.  The dragon isn't just crawling out of it's egg anymore, it's grown into a pretty dominating beast & it only continues to eat & get bigger.     :2c:
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on July 06, 2018, 03:23:23
Global situation settling into a new alignment?  I'm thinking more & more that China will absolutely surpass the US as the global "go to" country for a variety of needs, whether it be economic, military, foreign development, etc.

China has one of the largest armed forces in the world, and isn't spread across the world the way the US is.  And I believe China's "goal" of having a blue water navy was met long ago, as the warships it's literally pumping out in volumes are coming out pretty equal technology-wise to European & American ships in many ways. 

China is one of the largest economies in the world, and does not link it's foreign aid money with a bunch of conditions, the way the US does.  If your a 3rd world government with little regard for ethics, doing business with China is less of a hassle than doing business with the US (ethics aside)

China has one of the largest consumer bases in the world.  Want to seek private investment?  China.  Want to sell a product?  China.  Want to market an entertainment or product to a country with 3x as many people as the US?  China.


India is too incompetent to compete, it's about as good at buying military equipment as we are.  Plus it has the 'burden' of a democratic government system, which gives China the advantage as they can act in the best interest of China without the constant interference of multiple government parties opposing.  India is even being muscled out of the Maldives by Chinese investment right now.  The local government has chosen not to renew land leases to the Indian government, and has instead welcomed a huge investment in condos, malls, infrastructure, airports, etc etc from the Chinese. 

New alignment...I'm thinking very much China.  The dragon isn't just crawling out of it's egg anymore, it's grown into a pretty dominating beast & it only continues to eat & get bigger.     :2c:
Well said.

It is absolutely amazing to watch america cede its status in the world,  create voids being filled by china, bleeding influence,  prestige and shortly,  wealth.

America should be using this time to create stronger ties,  politically and economically to counter rising chinese strength and wealth,  instead it is doing the polar opposite,  almost pushing the world into chinas welcome,  non judgmental arms.

Damage like this is not easily undone,  and it is in my opinion, the act of a society that has grown arrogant about its status in the world. America,  Americans have not known a period of time where they have not been the premier power on the globe,  an empire with a web of treaties and alliances that allow it to project power wherever it pleases. Having always known this status,  they don't respect how easy it is for it all to slip away,  and how fast it can happen.

Especially since the fall of the USSR,  america could always count on there being no nation that could challenge its hegemony on world,  financial, and military affairs. But you are right,  for decades now,  china has been playing the long game,  careful to never fully upset the balance of power too quickly or forcefully. But now they can play the fast game,  for the world,  repulsed by the actions it does not understand,  appreciate, or are willing to go along with, are actively looking for ways to knock america down a peg.

And what better way than the global power in waiting,  china.

It would be all lot more interesting,  even entertaining,  if it were not so serious,  or depressing.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: QV on July 06, 2018, 11:29:07
Just have to love that basic dictatorship, eh? If only the rest of us weren’t so damn democratic.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Brad Sallows on July 06, 2018, 15:43:32
There is an irony in the progressive crowd that loves to love China (eg. Thomas Friedman) with its real authoritarianism, but can't stand Trump on the basis of his being "authoritarian" (which by definition he is not).

I have no more welcome for China as a big player than I did for the USSR.  The Chinese peoples and their essential values (except for a certain amount of chauvinism) are wonderful; their government is an abomination.  I too look forward to the US ending its current turmoil; but Trump is a symptom, not a cause, of the underlying cultural war.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on July 06, 2018, 16:03:39
There is an irony in the progressive crowd that loves to love China (eg. Thomas Friedman) with its real authoritarianism, but can't stand Trump on the basis of his being "authoritarian" (which by definition he is not).

I have no more welcome for China as a big player than I did for the USSR.  The Chinese peoples and their essential values (except for a certain amount of chauvinism) are wonderful; their government is an abomination.  I too look forward to the US ending its current turmoil; but Trump is a symptom, not a cause, of the underlying cultural war.
I don't love China, but I can appreciate the game that their government is playing.

Same way I can shake my head at how the current US leadership is playing right into their hands.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: daftandbarmy on July 06, 2018, 17:50:35
Just have to love that basic dictatorship, eh? If only the rest of us weren’t so damn democratic.

“Dictators ride to and fro upon tigers which they dare not dismount. And the tigers are getting hungry.” ~ Winston Churchill

When they fall off, you'll be able to hear the screaming from here.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on July 09, 2018, 13:35:18
https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/30-billion-dollar-fund-eyed-trade-war-begins_us_5b3865ece4b08c3a8f6b10a9

Quote
But Trump, who has attacked Harley-Davidson for plans to move some production to its overseas plants to avoid retaliatory European tariffs, is looking to save “my farmers” from the trade war he launched. Rural support was critical to his presidential victory. Unhappy farmers could spell trouble for midterm elections.

Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue said last month at a Chicago convention that the Commodity Credit Corporation is a “tool” he’s considering to comply with Trump’s instructions to “craft a strategy to support our farmers against retaliatory tariffs. The program, which was started to help farmers during the Great Depression, allows the Agriculture Department to borrow as much as $30 billion from the U.S. Treasury that could be used to buy crops from farmers that would go unsold in a trade war.

Needing to save the farmers from the trade war he decided to begin, the american president now needs to pump out 34 billion in relief to those farmers.

Same economics at work here.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on July 13, 2018, 09:54:50
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/mps-voice-outrage-at-repulsive-donald-trump-broadside-against-theresa-may/ar-AAA1259?li=AAggNb9

Quote
 
Donald Trump’s incendiary newspaper interview on the eve of his first official visit to the UK, in which he took aim at Theresa May’s Brexit plans and suggested Boris Johnson would make a great prime minister, has been met with outrage by MPs, who have accused him of “disrespecting” the nation and suggested Theresa May should show him the door.


Trump, who is due to meet Theresa May for bilateral talks at her Chequers residence on Friday, was heavily critical of the Brexit deal and called into question any future UK-US trade deal. “If they do a deal like that, we would be dealing with the European Union instead of dealing with the UK, so it will probably kill the deal,” he told the Sun.


Justin Trudeau in good company, seems like it's leader of host nation beware.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: PPCLI Guy on July 13, 2018, 10:24:29
https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/30-billion-dollar-fund-eyed-trade-war-begins_us_5b3865ece4b08c3a8f6b10a9

Needing to save the farmers from the trade war he decided to begin, the american president now needs to pump out 34 billion in relief to those farmers.

Same economics at work here.

So, government subsidies of business?  To compete with another nation?  Sounds unfair to me....

#cognitivedissonance
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on July 16, 2018, 18:46:24
https://business.financialpost.com/news/economy/trump-hits-back-at-canada-allies-and-china-for-retaliatory-tariffs-with-wto-complaint?video_autoplay=true

Quote
The Trump administration is hitting back at a number of countries for what it considers unjustified retaliatory tariffs that were imposed as a response to the steel and aluminum duties the U.S. applied on its closest allies in the name of national security.

The U.S. Trade Representative said it launched formal challenges against China, the European Union, Canada, Mexico and Turkey at the World Trade Organization on Monday. They come in response to retaliatory measures taken by these countries on American-made products earlier this year.

“The actions taken by the President are wholly legitimate and fully justified as a matter of U.S. law and international trade rules. Instead of working with us to address a common problem, some of our trading partners have elected to respond with retaliatory tariffs designed to punish American workers, farmers and companies,” U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer said in an emailed statement.
Now that is rich.

The USA is going to the WTO saying that tariffs put on their goods is not legal.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on July 16, 2018, 22:30:35
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jul/16/imf-trump-trade-war-global-economy-us-tariff-weo

Quote
Rising trade tensions between the United States and the rest of the world could cost the global economy $430bn (£324bn), with America “especially vulnerable” to an escalating tariff war, the International Monetary Fund has warned.

Delivering a sharp rebuke for Donald Trump, the Washington-based organisation said the current threats made by the US and its trading partners risked lowering global growth by as much as 0.5% by 2020, or about $430bn in lost GDP worldwide.

Although all economies would suffer from further escalation, the US would find itself “as the focus of global retaliation” with a relatively higher share of its exports taxed in global markets. “It is therefore especially vulnerable,” the fund said.
For all the talk of the Canada being unable to win, how many people are talking about the Americans inability to win a trade war?
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on July 16, 2018, 22:40:38
https://nationalpost.com/news/world/americans-blast-absurd-auto-tariff-proposal-in-written-submissions-to-u-s-government?video_autoplay=true

Quote
Absurd.” “Ridiculous.” “Devastating.” “Outrageous.” “Enormously Stupid.”

From ordinary Americans to small factory owners and the big-three U.S. car makers, the message to the United States Commerce Department is clear: imposing a 25-per-cent tariff on cars imported from Canada and elsewhere for national security reasons would be a misguided, job-killer of a policy.

The overwhelming majority of more than 2,200 written submissions made to the department either criticize the auto-tariff idea President Donald Trump has floated, or plead for exemptions for items from used parts to antique cars.

Americans not blaming Canada for this trade war. Seems to be a common theme. Interesting.

It's as if they know whos fault this is exactly. The American Presidents fault.

Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Loachman on July 16, 2018, 22:48:06
I will tend to agree with that. I cannot see any sense in it at all. The interesting plot twist has yet to materialize and, this time, likely will not.

Anyway, I need groceries, and it grows late.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on July 19, 2018, 18:57:59
https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/19/politics/trade-war-dairy-farmers-utah/index.html

Quote
Times have been difficult for Gibson and dairy farmers across the country the past couple years. Dropping milk prices and a disappearing labor force have forced thousands of US dairy farms to close.
"We have 160 dairy farms in Utah right now," Gibson explained. "It's a very real possibility that by the end of this year, we could have 100."
With looming trade wars on the horizon after President Donald Trump's proposed tariffs, Gibson fears foreign buyers of American milk will find other markets to buy from and never return. The administration has placed numerous tariffs on Chinese goods in recent months, with the latest round announced earlier this month affecting goods such as fruit and vegetables, handbags, refrigerators, rain jackets and baseball gloves.
"I hope that one morning President Trump's just going to wake up and send out that 3:30 in the morning tweet that says tariffs are gone," said Gibson. "But the problem I have is once he sends that tweet, are the buyers across this world going to come back to American agriculture? Or are they going to be so upset at us over this whole mess that we don't get our customers back?"

Salient point really.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on July 19, 2018, 20:48:41
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-07-19/donald-trump-is-pushing-europe-into-asia-s-embrace

Quote
With friends like these, it’s wise to look around for some new ones.

Donald Trump has called the EU a “foe” and advised British prime minister Theresa May to sue the rest of the bloc over Brexit. The U.S. president has already levied tariffs on European steel, and is threatening to do the same on lots of other products, including cars. So it’s hardly a surprise that Europe’s leaders are turning eastward in search of new allies.

This week, the EU has signed a landmark trade deal with Japan, known as JEFTA, which will make it easier for European food producers to sell their products into Japan while further opening up European markets to Japanese carmakers. There was also a rapprochement with Beijing. For the first time since 2015, the yearly EU-China summit ended with a joint statement, as well as limited progress toward a bilateral investment treaty.
China EU, EU Japan, the TPP, CETA, a lot of trade deals happening without the USA being involved.

Influence definitely waning.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on July 20, 2018, 13:53:30
https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2018/07/20/trump-were-playing-with-the-banks-money-on-markets-gain-since-el.html

Quote
President Donald Trump said the stock market rally since his election victory gives him the opportunity to be more aggressive in his trade war with China and other countries.

“This is the time. You know the expression we’re playing with the bank’s money,” he told CNBC's Joe Kernen in a “Squawk Box” interview aired Friday.



A crying shame for everyone who isn't heavily invested in the stock market who, when they lose their jobs,  wage growth,  or the potential of work in the future.

Bur the president is correct, for the wealthy on wall street,  there is a bit of a cushion built up that can be sacrificed trying to win a global trade war.

Given his background, I can see why he would be concerned about those types.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: daftandbarmy on July 20, 2018, 13:55:30
Bur the president is correct, for the wealthy on wall street,  there is a bit of a cushion built up that can be sacrificed trying to win a global trade war.

Or, of course, anyone with a public service pension....
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on July 20, 2018, 14:04:07
Or, of course, anyone with a public service pension....
True.

They can be counted as the "banks money" that the president is going on about.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Cloud Cover on July 23, 2018, 12:22:08
Interesting statements in Bloomberg coming out of Japan about bilateral versus multi lateral trade:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-22/abe-s-lieutenant-pours-cold-water-on-bilateral-japan-u-s-fta

Top Japanese Official Has No Interest in Trade Deal With Just the U.S.

One of Japan’s top policy makers indicated the government will continue to resist U.S. efforts to create a bilateral free trade agreement between the two nations.

"Japan is not going to do anything with any country that harms the national interest," said Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga. "With FTA negotiations too, we’ll handle them in that way."

During a wide-ranging interview in Tokyo on Saturday, Suga also said he expects Prime Minister Shinzo Abe to stand for re-election in September as leader of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party. If he wins that contest, which appears likely, Abe could remain PM until 2021, making him the nation’s longest serving post-war premier.


Suga’s comments came as officials from the Group of 20 countries meeting in Argentina pushed back against the Trump administration, which has shunned multilateral agreements and embraced tariffs.

At the G-20, Finance Minister Taro Aso pressed U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin to alleviate Japan’s concerns over trade, discussing U.S. tariffs on steel and aluminum, as well as possible levies on car and auto part imports.

Economy Minister Toshimitsu Motegi and U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer are expected to sit down for bilateral trade discussions later this month.

Suga said he knows the U.S. side is keenly interested in a bilateral trade deal, but Japan will continue to insist that the U.S. returning to the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement is in the best interests of both countries. President Donald Trump pulled the U.S. out of the agreement during his first week in office.

Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: Altair on July 23, 2018, 15:32:58
Interesting statements in Bloomberg coming out of Japan about bilateral versus multi lateral trade:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-22/abe-s-lieutenant-pours-cold-water-on-bilateral-japan-u-s-fta

Top Japanese Official Has No Interest in Trade Deal With Just the U.S.

One of Japan’s top policy makers indicated the government will continue to resist U.S. efforts to create a bilateral free trade agreement between the two nations.

"Japan is not going to do anything with any country that harms the national interest," said Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga. "With FTA negotiations too, we’ll handle them in that way."

During a wide-ranging interview in Tokyo on Saturday, Suga also said he expects Prime Minister Shinzo Abe to stand for re-election in September as leader of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party. If he wins that contest, which appears likely, Abe could remain PM until 2021, making him the nation’s longest serving post-war premier.


Suga’s comments came as officials from the Group of 20 countries meeting in Argentina pushed back against the Trump administration, which has shunned multilateral agreements and embraced tariffs.

At the G-20, Finance Minister Taro Aso pressed U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin to alleviate Japan’s concerns over trade, discussing U.S. tariffs on steel and aluminum, as well as possible levies on car and auto part imports.

Economy Minister Toshimitsu Motegi and U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer are expected to sit down for bilateral trade discussions later this month.

Suga said he knows the U.S. side is keenly interested in a bilateral trade deal, but Japan will continue to insist that the U.S. returning to the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement is in the best interests of both countries. President Donald Trump pulled the U.S. out of the agreement during his first week in office.
America might need to realize that it isn't the overwhelming superpower of the global economy,  and that there are a lot of powerful trade blocs other that them around these days.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: PPCLI Guy on July 23, 2018, 15:43:23
America might need to realize that it isn't the overwhelming superpower of the global economy,  and that there are a lot of powerful trade blocs other that them around these days.

Like, say, China?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/theworldpost/wp/2018/07/23/china-world-order/?utm_term=.7e724a76819a (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/theworldpost/wp/2018/07/23/china-world-order/?utm_term=.7e724a76819a)

Quote

A Chinese world order
 by Jonathan Hillman
July 23 at 10:51 AM
 
BUDAPEST — Earlier this month, 16 Central and Eastern European heads of state assembled around a single foreign power in Sofia, Bulgaria. The convening force was not the European Union, Russia or the United States, which historically have the deepest cultural, political and security ties in this region. Instead, China was at the center — as it increasingly is around the world.

Now in its seventh year, the “16+1” summit perfectly captures China’s deceptive brand of multilateralism. Bringing together many countries, it gives the outward appearance of inclusivity and consensus-building. Official statements at the summit affirmed support for the World Trade Organization and the United Nations, two genuine pillars of multilateralism that are increasingly under strain. “We need to uphold multilateralism,” Chinese Premier Li Keqiang told attendees.

But beneath the surface, China’s 16+1 format is fundamentally different from the multilateral practices and institutions it claims to uphold. China and its partners do not subscribe to a common set of rules that has any significant impact on their behavior. Nor is anything of consequence done by consensus. China’s multilateralism lacks depth, and it relies on stroking egos and dangling bilateral deals. Call it “flatteralism.”

Where this approach has benefits, they mostly accrue to China. Under the guise of broader participation, China favors governments where investment rules are less strict, ensuring Chinese companies are hired to build large projects. For example, Bosnia’s economy is roughly one-third the size of Croatia’s, but it is not subject to E.U. procurement rules that require open bidding. Last year, it received ten times as much Chinese investment, according to data collected by the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

There are practical and political advantages as well. These annual gatherings allow Chinese officials to efficiently lavish high-level attention on smaller economies. And when China comes to town, its summits are less board meetings than auditions. The 16 countries essentially compete for the attention of the one. China uses variations of this model elsewhere, positioning itself at the center of summits in Africa and Latin America. This is adept diplomacy, but it is not multilateralism.

Flatteralism also runs through Chinese President Xi Jinping’s signature foreign policy vision. Unveiled in 2013, China’s Belt and Road initiative aims to move Beijing close to the center of everything through new hard infrastructure projects, trade deals, cultural exchanges and a multitude of other connections. “Together, we can build a broad community of shared interests,” Xi told an audience of nearly 30 heads of state and representatives from more than 130 countries and 70 international organizations in Beijing last year.

The Belt and Road is a masterstroke in geopolitical advertising. Wrapping the effort in Silk Road mythology, Xi is effectively selling a Sino-centric order to the world. Rather than cringing at maps that depict all roads leading to Beijing, roughly 70 countries have signed onto the effort. The United Nations, WTO and other traditional standard-bearers of multilateralism have all expressed varying degrees of support for an effort that could further erode their effectiveness.

In practice, the Belt and Road is a sea of bilateral deals between China and participating countries, including many markets where few others dare to go. More than half of the countries participating in the Belt and Road have sovereign debt ratings that are either junk or not graded. China’s emphasis on building big-ticket infrastructure projects resonates with foreign leaders looking to impress at home and establish a legacy.

Ribbon cutting ceremonies are difficult for leaders to resist, and as the deals pile up, development can give way to dependency. In a former Sri Lankan president’s home district, major projects — including an international airport, a cricket stadium and a port — had three things in common: they used Chinese financing, Chinese contractors and his name. Now they are barely used, Sri Lanka has crushing debt, and China has control of the port.

Praise flows freely along the Belt and Road. China touts an “all-weather strategic” partnership with Pakistan, a “comprehensive strategic partnership” with Russia, a “comprehensive strategic cooperative partnership” with Vietnam and “strategic cooperative” relationships with a long list of neighbors. It has become the Baskin-Robbins of partnerships, offering flavors for everyone.

But what China has yet to offer is deep multilateralism at scale. Its closest attempt, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, has attracted broad participation and adopted rules similar to those of the World Bank. But having lent only $5 billion to date, the AIIB is easily overshadowed by Beijing’s bilateral lending mechanisms. Over the next five years, the China Development Bank has committed to invest $250 billion in countries along the Belt and Road.

Less than a week after China’s 16+1 summit, NATO heads of state gathered in Belgium. Normally, a meeting of the world’s most powerful collective security alliance would provide a stark contrast to Beijing’s shallow summitry. But in the absence of strong U.S. support for authentic multilateralism, it is becoming more difficult to spot imposters.
Title: Re: US VS G7
Post by: daftandbarmy on July 28, 2018, 13:23:58
Like, say, China?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/theworldpost/wp/2018/07/23/china-world-order/?utm_term=.7e724a76819a (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/theworldpost/wp/2018/07/23/china-world-order/?utm_term=.7e724a76819a)

Welcome to Planet China:


China’s belt-and-road plans are to be welcomed—and worried about

The “project of the century” may help some economies, but at a political cost

SHUNNING all false modesty, China’s leader, Xi Jinping, calls his idea the “project of the century”. The country’s fawning media hail it as a gift of “Chinese wisdom” to the world’s development. As for the real meaning of the clumsy metaphor to describe it—the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI)—debate rages.

The term itself is confusing. The “road” refers mostly to a sea route; the “belt” is on land. Countries eager for China’s financing welcome it as a source of investment in infrastructure between China and Europe via the Middle East and Africa. Those who fear China see it instead as a sinister project to create a new world order in which China is the pre-eminent power.

One cause of confusion is that the BRI is not a single plan at all. A visitor to its website would click in vain to find a detailed explanation of its aims. There is no blueprint of the kind that China’s leaders love: so many billions of dollars to be spent, so many kilometres of track to be laid or so much new port capacity to be built by such-and-such a date.

Chinese maps show the belt and road as lines that trace the routes of ancient “silk roads” that traversed Eurasia and the seas between China and Africa (see Briefing). That was the original conceit, but these days China talks about BRI as if it were a global project. The rhetoric has expanded to include a “Pacific Silk Road”, a “Silk Road on Ice” that crosses the Arctic Ocean and a “Digital Silk Road” through cyberspace.

To the extent that this is all about building infrastructure, the idea is welcome. Trillions of dollars’ worth of roads, railways, ports and power stations are needed in countries across Asia, Africa and Europe. China’s money and expertise could be a big help in spreading wealth and prosperity.

China says anyone can join in. Countries such as Azerbaijan and Georgia, which stand to benefit immensely from better connections to the world, are wildly enthusiastic. One of China’s motives is to strengthen security on its western flank by helping Central Asian countries prosper—thereby, it hopes, preventing them from becoming hotbeds of Islamist terrorism. Everyone would benefit from that, too.

But there are worries. The BRI is bound up with the growing cult around Mr Xi. State media call it “the path of Xi Jinping”. It has become shorthand for China’s overseas aid, state-led investment abroad and for Mr Xi’s much-ballyhooed “great-power diplomacy with Chinese characteristics”. China urges other countries to praise the BRI, so that their words can be relayed back home as propaganda. Few Chinese dare offer open criticism; that makes mistakes more likely.

The citizens of countries hosting BRI projects may come to regret their governments’ enthusiasm. Like all Chinese cash, the BRI billions come without pesky questions about human rights or corruption. Indeed, the terms are often shrouded in secrecy, raising fears that local politicians may benefit more than their people. Projects tend to require the use of lots of Chinese labour. BRI countries risk piling up dangerous amounts of debt, which some fear is designed to give China a strategic hold over them. Pakistan, one of the most important BRI countries, has just held an election in which candidates vied to take credit for Chinese investment; yet the debts are so large that, before long, Pakistan is likely to need an IMF bail-out.

Then there are possible security risks. In his metaphorical flights, Mr Xi sometimes speaks of his belt and road as a single thoroughfare, a “road of peace”. But what if the Chinese navy were to take advantage of ports such as Hambantota? This was repossessed by a Chinese state-owned firm after the Sri Lankan government struggled to repay the debts it had amassed to build it. Military planners worry that China could develop a string of such berths that its ships could use to extend their reach far beyond China’s shores.

Analysts in Asia and the West believe that China wants to displace America as the Asian hegemon. The BRI could end up furthering that plan, even if it is not its focus. China’s crude maps show the belt and road running through disputed territory, including the bitterly contested waters of the South China Sea where China has been busy building fortresses on reefs.

Some Asian countries, including India and Vietnam, are wary and most Western countries share their unease. Last year America’s defence secretary, James Mattis, said that: “No one nation should put itself into a position of dictating [BRI]”. In January France’s president, Emmanuel Macron, warned that the BRI “cannot be the roads of a new hegemony that will make the countries they traverse into vassal states.” He added: “The ancient silk roads were never purely Chinese…These roads are to be shared and they cannot be one-way.”

What should the world do about the BRI? For a start, it needs to keep some perspective. Even if China does hope to use it as a political tool to beat back Western influence, Beijing is bound to face difficulties, as projects go awry, debts go bad and people grow hostile to China’s presence. History suggests that simply doling out money will not, on its own, usher in a Pax Sinica.

The world can also use its influence to make the BRI more beneficial. Even China’s billions cannot finance everything on offer. Money coming from the West, from the European Union and from institutions such as the World Bank and the IMF should be lent according to international standards—including on such things as transparency, environmental safeguards, public procurement and debt sustainability. So long as they are good projects, let China include them in the BRI if it wants to.

Last is security. The way to assuage fears about the BRI’s threat to the balance of power is not by trying to frustrate China’s efforts, let alone by starting a trade war or by pulling America’s armed forces out of Asia, as President Donald Trump sometimes seems to contemplate. On the contrary, the balance of risks and benefits of the BRI is related to America’s commitment to Asia. If the United States is engaged, the world can mitigate the dangers of BRI and reap its rewards. If not, the risks will outweigh the benefits. The BRI is yet one more argument for America to stay in Asia.

https://www.economist.com/leaders/2018/07/26/chinas-belt-and-road-plans-are-to-be-welcomed-and-worried-about