Bluelight

Thread: Zombie NAFTA?

Results 1 to 19 of 19
  1. Collapse Details
    Zombie NAFTA? 
    #1
    Moderator
    Current Events and Politics
    cduggles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    In a chromatically corrected world
    Posts
    5,734
    Donald Trump confirms Star story on his secret bombshell remarks about Canada -Toronto Star

    High-stakes trade negotiations between Canada and the U.S. were dramatically upended on Friday morning after inflammatory secret remarks by President Donald Trump were obtained by the Toronto Star.

    Trump?s comments were viewed by Canadian negotiators as evidence for their suspicions that the U.S. was not making a legitimate effort to compromise. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau?s officials confronted the president?s officials with the leaked quotes at a high-level meeting on Friday morning.

    Trump?s words caused a U.S. media firestorm. By the end of the day, Trump had confirmed the accuracy of the Star?s report, said he was fine with the leak because now Canada knows his true feelings and also complained at length that the leak was a breach of his trust.

    Canada and the U.S. were not able to reach a deal by Trump?s informal deadline of Friday. The talks were scheduled to resume on Wednesday.

    Trump made his controversial statements in an Oval Office interview with Bloomberg News on Thursday. He said, ?off the record,? that he is not making any compromises at all with Canada ? and that he could not say this publicly because ?it?s going to be so insulting they?re not going to be able to make a deal.?

    ?Here?s the problem. If I say no ? the answer?s no. If I say no, then you?re going to put that and it?s going to be so insulting they?re not going to be able to make a deal ... I can?t kill these people,? Trump said of the Canadian government.

    In another remark he did not want published, Trump said that any deal with Canada would be ?totally on our terms.? He suggested he was scaring the Canadians into submission by repeatedly threatening to impose tariffs on imports of Canadian-made cars.

    ?Off the record, Canada?s working their ass off. And every time we have a problem with a point, I just put up a picture of a Chevrolet Impala,? Trump said. The Impala is produced at the General Motors plant in Oshawa, Ont.

    Bloomberg agreed to Trump?s request to keep the comments off the record. But the Star, which obtained the quotes from a source, is not bound by any promises Bloomberg made to the president, and it published the quotes after they became part of the critical negotiations.

    Trump corroborated the quotes in an afternoon tweet.

    ?Wow, I made OFF THE RECORD COMMENTS to Bloomberg concerning Canada, and this powerful understanding was BLATANTLY VIOLATED. Oh well, just more dishonest reporting. I am used to it. At least Canada knows where I stand!? he said.

    In a speech in Charlotte later, Trump said: ?These are very dishonourable people. But I said, in the end it?s OK, because at least Canada knows how I feel. So it?s fine. It?s fine. It?s true.?

    Trudeau, who was in Oshawa as the drama unfolded, said, ?We will only sign a deal if it is a good deal for Canada.? Trudeau and Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland maintained their practice of refusing to respond directly to Trump?s regular incendiary statements.

    ?Over the past year and a half, there?s a lot of things that have been said from time to time,? Trudeau said. ?I think people have noticed that our government?s approach is always to stay constructive, positive, to engage on the substance of issues, and to demonstrate that we understand that the path forward is one of making sure that there?s a win-win-win on all sides.?

    Trade experts said it was unclear how the disclosure of the quotes would affect the talks.

    ?I suspect that the negotiators on both sides are mostly focusing on the issues, not the rhetoric. Of course, as part of their own strategy, they each might bring up Trump?s comments. All of this is uncharted territory in trade negotiations, though, so nothing would surprise me,? said Simon Lester, associate director of trade policy at the Cato Institute.

    Eric Miller, president of a U.S.-Canada consultancy, said the disclosure ?will reverberate in the background of the NAFTA talks for the remainder of the negotiations.?

    ?For Canada, it will enhance the scrutiny the government will face about any outcome,? Miller said. But it is also ?damaging? to the U.S., he said, because it appears to reveal their strategy, ?and when it comes to the end, if each party is saying that it?s a good deal that?s a much easier sell in every country than if some parties are facing persistent questions about whether they were rolled.?

    On the record, Trump told Bloomberg that a deal was ?close,? that it could happen by Friday but might take longer, and that Canada ultimately has ?no choice? but to make a deal. Bloomberg quoted those remarks.

    But then Trump said, ?Off the record: totally on our terms. Totally.?

    ?Again off the record, they came knocking on our doors last night. ?Let?s make a deal. Please,?? he said.

    Bloomberg News editor-in-chief John Micklethwait, one of the journalists who conducted the interview, declined to comment.

    ??Off the record? means ?off the record? ? and we should respect that,? Micklethwait said in an email.

    Trump, of course, is known for both dishonesty and for bragging about his own greatness, and he regularly utters dubious boasts about how he is supposedly dominating the feeble people on the other side of the bargaining table. When he claimed to have made no compromises, it is possible he was making a false claim to impress the Bloomberg journalists.

    There was no apparent evidence on Friday for his claim that he has wielded a photo of an Impala as a negotiating tactic.
    NAFTA as written will stay in place if no one withdraws ("zombie NAFTA"), so it's not the end of the trade agreement.

    In reality, the US and Canada are fairly far apart on a number of issues.

    As some of our friends to the north would say, "on verra" (we'll see).
    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
     
    #2
    Trump says he?s ?terminating? NAFTA, announces new trade agreement with Mexico
    https://truepundit.com/trump-says-he...t-with-mexico/

    Top Mexican Official Says Trump 'Proved' Naysayers 'Wrong' on NAFTA
    https://truepundit.com/top-mexican-o...rong-on-nafta/

    U.S. and Mexican trade negotiators proved the naysayers wrong by striking a new deal replacing the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Mexican Secretary of Foreign Affairs Luis Videgaray Caso said Monday night on Fox News' "The Ingraham Angle."

    "A lot of people thought that NAFTA would be over last year - early last year - and that there was no way to fix this relationship in a way that would be constructive to both sides,? Videgaray Caso said. ?We proved them wrong through very disciplined, tenacious work and with a vision."

    President Donald Trump unveiled the U.S.-Mexico Trade Agreement (USMTA) Monday and touted it during a phone call with Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto, saying, "We'll get rid of the name NAFTA - It has a bad connotation because the United States was hurt very badly by NAFTA for many years."

    "It's really significant. I think it's a breakthrough, and it shows that two countries can actually get together and do a good deal - a good deal for both of them that is reciprocal, that is fair and will allow growth on both sides," Videgaray Caso said. "It's good for Mexican workers. It's good for the American worker. I think this is a brilliant deal."
    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
     
    #3
    Moderator
    Current Events and Politics
    cduggles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    In a chromatically corrected world
    Posts
    5,734
    Quote Originally Posted by first "source" from post above
    President Trump on Monday said he plans to terminate the existing North American Free Trade Agreement, as he announced a new tentative agreement between the United States and Mexico...
    How underwhelming.

    ----
    But since we're off-topic, is anyone surprised that Trump goes off the record? His mock outrage about journalistic ethics is hysterical, given his attacks on the press.

    ----

    Has Trump ended NAFTA? Not just yet.

    ...Alas, one of Trump?s first acts in office was to pull out of TPP. Worse, he subsequently lobbed new tariffs in virtually every direction, including at our allies in North America. The fallout from Trump?s trade war-mongering has unquestionably hurt Canada and Mexico, as well as U.S. firms.

    But on Monday, Trump proclaimed this front in his trade wars was over. We allegedly have a new deal with Mexico, he said ? a bilateral agreement that will replace NAFTA, and leave Canada cowering in fear.

    ?A lot of people thought we?d never get here,? he declared.

    But in truth, ?here? is pretty close to where we were before.

    There is still no signed Mexico deal. And, unfortunately for Trump, he does not actually have authority from Congress to split NAFTA into two separate bilateral deals.

    Additionally, most of what?s in NAFTA is implemented by statute. That means that no matter what Trump says, most of its provisions will live on unless and until Congress actually, you know, passes a new trade law. Which a Republican-led Congress doesn?t seem keen to do, at least if the new law in question is more protectionist than the one we have.

    Congress also isn?t the only barrier to ditching NAFTA in favor of separate bilateral trade agreements. Canada and Mexico have each said that any new trade pact that results should include the involvement of all three countries.


    In fact, during Trump?s Monday Oval Office event, Mexican President Enrique Pe?a Nieto said no fewer than four times that he still expected Canada to be part of any final agreement.

    He even closed his call by saying: ?We?ll be waiting for Canada to be integrated into this process.?
    ------
    Back to NAFTA and existing trade agreements as opposed to smoke and mirrors...
    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
     
    #4
    wow miss duggles, that seems very unpolitical minded and not very neighborly of mr trump.

    i hope that canada can look past these indiscretions and can stay open to the possibility of future trading with america.

    thank you for posting this. also i believe TLB was recently asking for evidence supporting why trump is not a very good president and i think this supports it.

    do you think that trumps actions have made things difficult for relations between canada and usa in the future?

    off topic: not surprised at all. people of his ilk say one thing and then slander without tact when they think no one is looking. haha, i agree, it's like a kid getting caught doing something they know is wrong and back peddling their way out of an embarrassing punishment.
    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
     
    #5
    Moderator
    Current Events and Politics
    cduggles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    In a chromatically corrected world
    Posts
    5,734
    Quote Originally Posted by invegauser View Post
    ...do you think that trumps actions have made things difficult for relations between canada and usa in the future?...

    off topic: not surprised at all. people of his ilk say one thing and then slander without tact when they think no one is looking. haha
    Why thank you kindly invegauser!

    To address the second, off-topic part first, it's interesting to think Trump can actually be ruder than he is publicly.

    The soft power of diplomacy is vital, of that I have no doubt. It's just human nature to want to work with people with whom you have a good relationship.

    Even yesterday, Trump was tweeting away insults towards Canada. And yes it matters. Trudeau is being pushed hard to stand up to Trump.

    Back in the US, Trump already blew TPP, and if he screws up NAFTA, the consequences will be serious, economically and politically.

    Excellent TPP primer

    This article is a good summary on what's really happening, and I'll post more tomorrow. Most of what Trump is trying to do is show how tough the US is to China. Not good strategy, but there it is.

    Trump is moving forward on a trade deal with Mexico, cutting out Canada for now. Here's what happens next.

    ? President Donald Trump notified Congress that the administration plans to enter a new bilateral trade deal with Mexico, starting an official countdown.

    ? The notification does not include Canada, the other member of the North American Free Trade Agreement.

    ? Talks between US and Canadian officials failed to produce an agreement Friday.

    ? US officials said negotiations with their Canadian counterparts will continue next week, and Canada may join the US-Mexico agreement "if it is willing."

    ? Here are the next procedural steps to move forward with the deal and the outstanding issues that need to be resolved between the US and Canada.

    President Donald Trump is moving forward with a bilateral trade deal with Mexico after talks with Canada to finish a full North American Free Trade Agreement overhaul stalled Friday.

    Trump's decision to notify Congress about the new US-Mexico agreement does not mean that Canada can't be included in a final deal. But it does officially start the countdown clock.

    Here are the next steps

    To renegotiate NAFTA, Trump decided to use Trade Promotion Authority, or TPA, also known as fast-track authority. This method allows Congress to approve a deal with a simple majority vote, avoiding a possible filibuster in the Senate. It also creates a statutory timeline for notifying Congress of any deal.

    ? Trump's notification of an intent to enter into an agreement with Mexico triggers a 90-day waiting period before Congress can take up the deal for a vote.

    ? As part of that waiting period, the Trump administration must produce the text of the deal 60 days before the vote.

    ? This gives the US Trade Representative and the rest of the administration 30 days to hammer out the fine details if they want to get a vote as soon as possible.

    But questions remain regarding the legality of a bilateral agreement with Mexico under the current TPA.

    Some trade experts and lawmakers believed that the wording of the TPA being used in the NAFTA renegotiation is restricted to a trilateral agreement, with both Canada and Mexico included.

    Other experts, such as Vanderbilt University law professor Tim Meyer, believe the Trump administration can use the current TPA but may need to add another procedural step. The TPA has two different 90-day notification steps: alerting Congress to the intent to negotiate, and alerting Congress to the intent to sign a deal.

    The Trump administration's notification to negotiate, Meyer told Business Insider, included both Canada and Mexico. So the Trump administration may need to first notify Congress of the intent to negotiate with just Mexico, adding another waiting period.

    Ultimately, the decision on whether or not this TPA covers the bilateral deal may come down to the Senate parliamentarian ? the official rules-keeper of the chamber.

    Where things stand with Canada

    While Friday's deadline was arbitrary, the notification to Congress does start a countdown clock for US-Canadian negotiations.

    US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer called the talks with Canada "constructive" and a senior administration official expressed hope that the Canadians would join the deal.

    "We continue to be in the process to work with Canada in terms of whether they want to be part of this historic agreement, but certainly that remains our intention," the official said in a call with reporters.

    Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland was also optimistic at a press conference Friday afternoon, telling reporters that she believes a deal is within reach, as long as all parties show "goodwill and flexibility."

    "The Canadian government will not sign an agreement that doesn't work for Canadians," she added.

    Both US and Canadian officials declined to answer reporters' questions Friday afternoon about the individual trade issues that still need to be resolved. Freeland said both sides have committed to avoid "negotiating in public" due to the intensity of the negotiations.

    But based on reports, here are the issues that still need to be resolved:

    1. Dairy: Trump has long complained about Canada's protection for its dairy industry, which restricts the ability of US farmers to enter the market. Lighthizer told reporters Friday morning that Canada was not making concessions about US dairy access to the Canadian market. Freeland, on the other hand, said that Canada has offered concessions on dairy.

    2. Dispute settlements: The US is aiming to get rid of a binding dispute settlement process created in Chapter 19 of NAFTA that allows one member to bring a grievance about unfair trade practices, such as countervailing duties or tariffs. Canada wants to maintain those protections.

    3. Cultural protection: The US has sought to eliminate provisions that allow Canada to shield Canadian-made books, music, and television from having to compete with American content. Canada imposes a quota system to ensure that broadcasters and publications feature a certain amount of Canadian content, and areas like Quebec, Ontario, and British Columbia are particularly keen to keep those protections.

    4. Trump: His off-record comments to Bloomberg were leaked by the Toronto Star on Friday. In the remarks, Trump claimed that the US is fleecing Canada in the trade negotiations. The comments threw a major public-relations wrench into the talks.

    When asked about Trump's leaked remarks, however, Freeland demurred and said she could only speak to the Canadian position.

    "My negotiating counterpart is Ambassador Lighthizer, and as I said, he has brought good faith and good will to the table," she said.
    Professionals are doing the negotiations, but Trump isn't helping. This is where an economic adviser who isn't bad at his job and a sycophant (here I refer to Larry Kudlow) would be v helpful if Trump listened to anyone.

    But Congress can overrule him and probably will.

    More tomorrow...
    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
     
    #6
    Quote Originally Posted by invegauser View Post
    i hope that canada can look past these indiscretions and can stay open to the possibility of future trading with america.
    LOL Canada needs the US, not the other way around.

    People are blowing this way out of proportion, and not being honest where the US was on the losing end of unfair trade negotiations.
    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
     
    #7
    Moderator
    Current Events and Politics
    cduggles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    In a chromatically corrected world
    Posts
    5,734
    ^ do you have, as you demand, reliable sources?

    "LOL"?

    Anyway, here is a slightly more nuanced version of the NAFTA negotiations from Foreign Policy:

    Justin Trudeau Can?t Take Any More Humiliation: Unless Canada?s prime minister strikes a trade deal on his own terms, Donald Trump?s bullying won't stop.

    The standalone trade deal negotiated by Mexico and the United States this month shows Canadians the truth of not one but two adages?Lord Palmerston?s observation that ?nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests,? and the age-old proverb that ?no good deed goes unpunished.?

    When Mexico-bashing and wall-building dominated U.S. President Donald Trump?s Twitter feed last year, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland nobly insisted that they wouldn?t sell out Mexico by negotiating any bilateral replacement for the three-way North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) that has been in place since 1994?a show of Canadian-Mexican solidarity that harkened back to the Three Amigos summit of 2016. At the time of this good deed, it was imagined (not unreasonably) that Mexico ultimately would bear the brunt of Trump?s protectionist ire, with Ottawa playing the role of honest broker, earnestly applying Canada?s negotiating clout to demand a fair deal for a poorer country.

    But Trump is, of course, a man of many moods. And as the first two years of his presidency passed, he has launched surprisingly bitter attacks against Canadian trade practices and has even insulted Trudeau personally. And this week, it was Mexico, not Canada, that took the opportunity to assert its interests by selling out a national amigo. ?There are things that we don?t control, particularly the political relationship between Canada and the U.S., and we definitely don?t want to expose Mexico to the uncertainty of not having a deal,? is how Mexican Foreign Affairs Secretary Luis Videgaray Caso gingerly spun the decision. ?Not having a trade agreement with the U.S., that?s a substantial risk to the Mexican economy. Literally millions of jobs in Mexico depend on access to the U.S. market.? As for Trump, he is now calling this deal ?the United States-Mexico Trade Agreement.? He has also been threatening Ottawa with a 25 percent tariff on its auto exports if no Canadian deal is reached, a move that experts predict would cost 160,000 jobs, push the country into recession, and massively devalue the Canadian dollar.

    These developments have triggered a round of predictable Trudeau-bashing in the Canadian media, with pundits recycling the caricature of their prime minister as a foreign-policy na?f getting a hard lesson in the art of the deal from hard-nosed world leaders. ?The Liberals still conduct foreign policy as if Barack Obama were [U.S.] president, or as if Hillary Clinton had taken his place,? wrote a columnist on the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. web site. ?Like Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and British Prime Minister Theresa May, Trudeau seemed to think his considerable charm and celebrity could mollify Trump.?

    There is a grain of truth to this. While Freeland and her team have shown admirable professionalism in the face of Trump?s erratic outbursts and shifting bargaining positions, Trudeau himself sometimes has sought to co-opt the trade issue to signal fashionable social justice positions. At a glitzy 2017 women?s rights conference in Toronto, for instance, he told journalist Tina Brown that any new iteration of NAFTA must include blanket guarantees of gender equality. Shortly thereafter, it was reported that Canadian negotiators were pushing for a what they called a ?groundbreaking? new NAFTA chapter on indigenous rights. The idea that Trump?s administration would say yes to either of these proposals belongs in the realm of satire.

    News of the U.S.-Mexican deal has created a sense of crisis in Canada. It?s not just that the draft agreement includes nuts-and-bolts provisions that Canadian negotiators have opposed, such as an increase in the required level of domestically sourced content in manufactured cars, which will disadvantage Canadian suppliers whose parts are used in U.S. assembly plants. More fundamentally, the sight of Canadian trade officials submissively signing on to an agreement negotiated entirely by two other countries would represent a humiliation for Canada?and for Trudeau himself, who followed his 2015 election win with the bold claim that ?Canada is back.?

    And yet, this sense of crisis hasn?t led to anything resembling panic. The Canadian benchmark TSX Composite Index has been largely flat over the last week. And the Canadian dollar is worth about 77 American cents?just where it was a month ago. Perhaps that?s because there are many reasons to expect that Trudeau?and, more importantly, the country he leads?will come out of this crisis in good shape, with both dignity and economy fully intact. Here are three of them.

    First, while Friday is being touted as a ?deadline? for Canadian buy-in on the U.S.-Mexico agreement, there isn?t as much urgency as some might think. The U.S. Congress would have to approve any new trade pact, a process that could take months?or even become stalled indefinitely. (And although any U.S. president could unilaterally withdraw from NAFTA after giving Canada and Mexico six months? notice, Congress can use legislative means to revoke or modify that power.) The fact of congressional involvement plays massively to Trudeau?s advantage because, from the moment Trump was elected, the prime minister and his team have been playing the long game in Washington, assembling a powerful network of pro-trade allies among legislators, business lobbyists, and governors. Already, some of these players are pushing back at the U.S.-Mexico deal and the associated ultimatum to Ottawa. ?The administration ? must reach an agreement with Canada,? Republican Sen. Pat Toomey warned Trump this week. ?NAFTA was a tri-party agreement.?

    Second, for all the talk of ?replacing? NAFTA, the new template seems, from what we know, a lot like the agreement it could replace. Moreover, at least one of the few proposed big-ticket changes to the status quo?a provision requiring at least 40 to 45 percent of a vehicle to be produced by workers earning at least $16 per hour?would actually play to Canada?s advantage, because it likely would encourage a shift in production from low-labor-cost Mexico to high-labor-cost Canada. As Catherine Porter of the New York Times notes, the deepest concerns Canada has with the U.S.-Mexico agreement are meta-issues: dispute resolution mechanisms (which Canada wants, but the United States doesn?t) and the addition of sunset provisions (vice versa). In both cases, the new model would provide less long-term assurance to Canada?s foreign investors than the incumbent NAFTA regime. But there would likely be no immediate effect on the economy.

    Third, Trudeau has a trump card he could play that would allow his negotiators to gain critical leverage on some or all of the above-listed issues?without hurting Canada?s bottom line. Just the opposite: Trump?s brinkmanship allows Trudeau political cover to end an outdated and inefficient protectionist program that impoverishes Canadian consumers even as it (properly) irks American competitors and trade negotiators.

    That program, of course, is Canada?s dairy cartel, which rigs the domestic market for eggs and milk products through a combination of price controls, production quotas, and tariffs. As I wrote in Foreign Policy several months ago, it?s a naked racket that drives windfall profits to the corporate farm operations that have steadily bought up most of Canada?s family farms (much of which is shoveled back into sentimental propaganda campaigns aimed at shoring up political support for the scheme). According to one authoritative 2012 study, the cartel costs the average Canadian family about 200 Canadian dollars (more than $150) per year. For decades, it has been taken as political gospel in Canada that no government could break up this scheme without suffering electoral catastrophe. But as polls show, every crisis creates opportunity. And if Canadians knew that ending the dairy cartel was the price they paid for the effective survival of NAFTA, few would object.

    Having been in office for almost three full years, Trudeau has witnessed the end of his political honeymoon. But he?s still in a good position to roll the dice on a grand trade bargain. While the prime minister is under fire from the right over a refugee crisis (albeit one that?s extremely mild compared to those endured by many European countries)?and from the left for his defense of oil pipeline construction?both of Canada?s main opposition parties are beset by weak leaders who?ve largely failed to capitalize on these issues. In any case, Canadians tend to rally around their leadership when it?s being targeted by U.S. bullying. And Trump is a bigger bully than most.

    Paradoxically, Trudeau may be able to preserve his bona fides as an anti-Trump even as he makes a deal with the U.S. president. In regard to coal, cars, steel, and a dozen other industries, Trump has espoused a chest-thumping protectionist creed that, in all cases, impoverishes ordinary consumers at the expense of a narrow class of corporate interests. Never does Trudeau sound more like Trump than when he strikes similarly parochial, economically incoherent postures on behalf of Canada?s dairy farmers. If he continues to protect this narrow corporate constituency at this critical juncture in trade negotiations, he won?t be striking a defiant blow against Trumpism. He?ll be paying it a self-defeating form of homage.
    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
     
    #8
    @cduggles: i'm pretty sure that trump is not done using mexico as a threat to the canadians, beware the ides of march usa. i didn't know milk was so serious that cartels are now involved. going to the grocery store will never be the same again.

    i'm glad there are groups involved in the decision making process who are more than just a figure head and i hope congress does over rule him if they need to.

    "On August 28, 2018, after Trump accused Google of rigging search results to show information biased against him, Kudlow told reporters "we're taking a look at" regulating Google".

    ^ sycophant indeed. no need to go scorched earth or dictator on google, just kick the board over and walk away. not like google can help that so many people don't like the current president. oh, sorry sources. i don't use wikipedia as fact but i found it there and backed up the info via other sites. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Kudlow. there is the washingtonpost, thenewamerican, politico, axios and cbsnews as well as cnbc and many other google results. i don't think the big bad CNN (Turner) and google can own all of those. it's a shame when the 1st amendment is attacked by someone who utilizes it so much to air the word p**sy into so many homes across america and the world.

    i find that with people like trump the problem isn't so much the here and now, they know how to press a situation so they come out on top. it's the long term i'm more concerned about. it seems like most of this is him using mexico to get canada to go the way he wants to and he will use this deal to intimidate the TPP11 in order to make the changes that benefit his popularity with the citizens here or at least bolster his numbers reflecting what a great guy and president he is. (sarcasm)

    "Trump has a long history of outsourcing a variety of his products and has acknowledged doing so" https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.78f4bccd1f8a

    i think what he values more than his ignorance towards the things he dislikes and the ego of himself is one thing, money. he will probably find a way to make mexico, china and a few other countries more complacent in order for his retirement to be prosperous financially.

    either way i hope he stops bullying our neighbors. how rude.
    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
     
    #9
    Moderator
    Current Events and Politics
    cduggles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    In a chromatically corrected world
    Posts
    5,734
    Great stuff as always invegauser!

    The Canadian government has a number of longstanding relationships within American government that will be useful to weather this round of Trump posturing. Countries don't forget humiliation tho, and neither do politicians.

    I'll be surprised if a new NAFTA is negotiated, for reasons mentioned above. It's not just Trump further ruining American credibility to look like a tough hombre. There are other reasons.

    It's likely we get zombie NAFTA, unless Trump completely leaves the deal. Congress would be v highly likely to step in tho because of the immediate regional economic instability.

    Luckily the timing is good. Mexico elected a far left President in Lopez Obrador, so the clock is running down. No one thinks anything else will happen after he steps up. And Republicans will behave until they get their clock cleaned in midterms. Odd how things come together.

    I can't believe we're picking a fight with Canada!
    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
     
    #10
    Yeah imagine if Trudeau decided to take military action against Trump
    Reply With Quote
     

  11. Collapse Details
     
    #11
    ^ i can. question is: can you?

    and before you answer: that was so funny i forgot to laugh.

    also

    brave words coming from someone 10,000 miles away from the action.

    this isn't about aggressive negotiations with a light saber youngling. this discussion includes the interest of both countries you have citizenship of.

    try to keep up, otherwise miss cduggles might sit you at the kiddy table while i continue to learn from a true master. m'kay.
    Reply With Quote
     

  12. Collapse Details
     
    #12
    lol ok.

    You guys are just overreacting when it comes souring relations between US & Canada. They can only sour to a certain point, but some people are claiming potential chaos and war. No chance.

    I'll say it again, renegotiating previous deals which put your country at a disadvantage in trade IS NOT BULLYING.
    Gaslighting people into accepting unfair trade deals is a form of bullying though.
    Reply With Quote
     

  13. Collapse Details
     
    #13
    sorry cduggles. i got off topic, it wont happen again.

    i can't say much for china, their economics seem to be based off manufacturing a lot of cheapo products that already exist and also importing jobs from other countries. but even if someone is holding a back door open for them they are still presented with a choice to have better options available through some upstanding countries being a positive influence as a result from these negotiations. (i think that is wishful thinking)

    what i can say is that in one of the articles you presented, i think they planned for the posturing and have a safety net to fall back on as well as hold out some incentive in negotiations with the next president based on good will. from excellent TPP primer at the bottom of the page:

    "CPTPP members caveat that the removed provisions have only been suspended, a distinction intended to signal that they could be easily reinstated if the United States decided to rejoin."

    though this could work both for and against them.

    i think the south american countries will benefit from getting goods they are not use to seeing being delivered so quickly while opening up another pipe line for drugs. australia opens up that new mine might be a good express lane for their exports. as resources are dwindling and people become more reliant on tech the rest of the countries can build upon the sharing of ideas that will create new technology that improves the quality of life.

    economically and production wise this deal sounds very good on paper. what i don't understand is the politics of it all. it seems to be an opportunity for corporations to become an even greater power on the world stage. here in the 90's we observed a loss in jobs due to them being exported because there is no government laws to keep them in complete check while consumers were less conscientious at the time and didn't realize they were sacrificing their neighbors job for a cheaper product.

    i think it is simply a matter of time before a few more deals like this are in place and corporations become the new government. (not trying to sound pessimistic). i like the ideas of the tariffs, property rights and investment for equality in keeping a countries identity in place but there is still nothing keeping these companies from becoming too big (like the banking and housing sectors of late) and then an even larger bail out from all parties involved would be required. thus making multiple countries reliant upon bigger corporations.

    after all it would be a deal sealed and started as the house that trump built. his negotiations tend to be stall tactics and getting what he can without concern for sustainability. in today's day and age how we start something is more important than the years of old where it was more important to start something as we were less experienced in finding out what works and what doesn't

    i think what is needed is an understanding between countries to keep things in check and dissolve (albeit temporarily) if need be this deal when the system is no longer working in mutual benefit for the countries but is birthing a monstrosity that is worse than trump or any number of combined nations. the corporation that is so wealthy and powerful it starts to buy countries one piece at a time.

    or is that grandiose thinking?
    Last edited by invegauser; 04-09-2018 at 07:31.
    Reply With Quote
     

  14. Collapse Details
     
    #14
    Moderator
    Current Events and Politics
    cduggles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    In a chromatically corrected world
    Posts
    5,734
    lol ok.

    You guys are just overreacting when it comes souring relations between US & Canada. They can only sour to a certain point, but some people are claiming potential chaos and war. No chance.
    Yes, Foreign Policy is such an overwrought publication. (It's not.)

    No one is talking about war and chaos here except you. "LOL".

    This thread is about trade negotiations and we're discussing the effects of Trump being a blowhard and a Tweet-brave idiot on said negotiations.

    I'll say it again, renegotiating previous deals which put your country at a disadvantage in trade IS NOT BULLYING.
    Gaslighting people into accepting unfair trade deals is a form of bullying though.
    Why do you think NAFTA puts the US at a net disadvantage? Because of a Tweet? Fictional imbalances? Links provided in the article I posted about the dairy industry?

    The reality is that we are soon going to have a southern neighbor with a President who hates Trump more than the current one, and was elected in part because of it, and a northern neighbor that we've deeply insulted. Let's see how that works out. I'm thinking not so well.

    No nation is an island and the US has lost its status as the sole, dominant superpower. Not acknowledging that doesn't make it false and it doesn't make it unimportant.

    We need NATO, we need allies, and it matters that America follows through with its commitments. Relationships can be important to both parties. It's basic.

    More on NAFTA will undoubtedly be coming soon.
    Reply With Quote
     

  15. Collapse Details
     
    #15
    This is like fighting with your big brother.
    Yes you may have fistfights.
    But if anyone else comes along seriously threatening the little brothers,
    Then you bet big brother will step in and protect them.
    Reply With Quote
     

  16. Collapse Details
     
    #16
    Moderator
    Current Events and Politics
    cduggles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    In a chromatically corrected world
    Posts
    5,734
    Okay?
    Reply With Quote
     

  17. Collapse Details
     
    #17
    Shadowmeister
    Senior Moderator
    Psychedelic Drugs
    Trip Reports
    Philosophy and Spirituality
    The Dark Side
    Shadowmeister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Nowhere
    Posts
    30,994
    Quote Originally Posted by JGrimez View Post
    This is like fighting with your big brother.
    Yes you may have fistfights.
    But if anyone else comes along seriously threatening the little brothers,
    Then you bet big brother will step in and protect them.
    That's your opinion, but how do you know that's how they feel?
    Reply With Quote
     

  18. Collapse Details
     
    #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Xorkoth View Post
    That's your opinion, but how do you know that's how they feel?
    It doesn't matter how they feel, it's a matter of geopolitics.
    What are Canada going to do? Cut ties with the US and ally with Russia?
    Think logically.
    Reply With Quote
     

  19. Collapse Details
     
    #19
    @Xorkoth: "It doesn't matter how they feel"
    it's called a diversionary tactic. i'm a lil brother, a big brother and a score of other roles in this life, i recognize one when i see it. i was raised by people who are far more effective at manipulating other people to get what they want.
    i can remove myself from a situation emotionally to see the logical and other outcomes but when it comes to anything humanity does removing ones emotions is only relevant in certain situations.
    our emotions and feelings (the two are not the same actually) are stamped on just about everything we do. mine are harder to read than others, my intent just as elusive.

    so i will be very clear by saying: you had a good and valid question. i see where you were going with that one. nice attempt.

    i think in the case of one way this nafta deal might be different is the back and forth hillary would've been left confounded on, effectively leaving it up to her subordinates to make the decision. she was in support of it under obama but when pressed on her own ideas of it (while running for election) she went with the safe bet. i've never met the woman but her intuition seems to be wrong more often than not.

    trump throws a tantrum to ensure he gets what he wants. hillary would've hit the wine to make the bad man stop.

    either way i believe miss cduggles said it best: "The soft power of diplomacy is vital, of that I have no doubt. It's just human nature to want to work with people with whom you have a good relationship."
    Last edited by invegauser; 05-09-2018 at 08:42.
    Reply With Quote
     

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •