Donald Trump & NAFTA

161 posts / 0 new
Last post
Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

This pro-ISDS position makes it very clear that the Liberal Party of Canada cares only about the interests of Canadian billionaires who run multi-national corporations. Any government which cared at all about its own sovereignty, or the welfare of its citizens, would welcome the opportunity to get rid of this anti-democratic institution.

NDPP

Awfully late in the game for Canucklheads to finally get it about NAFTA and Trudeau/ Freeland's ill intentions on 'Free Trade.' Just wait until CETA, that other neoliberal monster Canadian 'progressives' slept through kicks in.  Too bad there's nothing will be done to stop it from this end and everybody knows it.

NDPP

The neoLiberal Trudeau regime loves ISDS. Here's a little sample of how it operates...

https://buff.ly/2ePYz5o

"The system is a scam created by corporations to serve their interest of extracting wealth from public funds."

 

Trudeau Trump Talk Speedy NAFTA Resolution in Hurricane Harvey Phone Call

http://www.metronews.ca/news/canada/2017/08/31/trudeau-trump-talk-nafta-...

"The two leaders also discussed the ongoing NAFTA negotiations and stressed their hope to reach AN AGREEMENT BY THE END OF THE YEAR. There was no mention of the NAFTA discussion in the account of the conversation that was initially released by the Prime Minister's office."

SeekingAPolitic...

You Want Crazy You Got Crazy.

https://ca.reuters.com/article/topNews/idCAKCN1BF00H-OCATP

This blows away the neo liberal theory of convergence Mexican wages will climb to higher to meet US and Canada standards.

Here are some jems

-Mexican minumum wage 4.50 american a day.  

-US auto worker 28 an hour

-Mexican auto worker 6 an hour

*******This too much to bear******

If you account for inflation in Mexico the wage is higher in real terms before Nafta went into effect.   NAFTA is anchor on Mexican wages according to Moody's or something like suppersion of unions probably pays a role.  We have been told that mexicans workers will buy more canadian and american goods---How in the world will they do that if purchasing power is in decline.  This is a disater.  NAFTA bad for all workers it seems.  

SeekingAPolitic...

NAFTA in power 1994 and so this means mexican workers worked their butts off for 23 years and got nothing.  Compare to Brazil and China with had real wage growth.  To me this is shocking news, this the first I have heard of this.  It shows how brankrupt the american model to development is.  

NDPP

NAFTA Talks Restart As Negotiators Tackle Major Differences

http://bit.ly/2eAYtSv

 

Mexicans Protest Second Round NAFTA Negotiations

http://bit.ly/2iN69lT

Canadians not so much...

josh

Canada seeks to end U.S. "Right to work" laws.

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/canada-demands-us-end-right-...

Appreciate the effort.  But that has no chance in the U.S. with the current electoral lineup.

josh
NDPP

No #NAFTA2, Yes To Trade For People & Planet

https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/09/14/no-nafta2-yes-to-trade-for-peopl...

"Workers in each country will be worse off, the planet will be threatened..."

NDPP

Thanks To Trump's Ludicrous Demands, NAFTA Negotiations Are Going Nowhere

https://t.co/Xp1hkSs7PU

If so, thanks indeed!

SeekingAPolitic...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/nafta-auto-sector-1.4353145

"Poison Pill" formally released as US demand.  

josh

This column is a classic example of why there should be no agreements like NAFTA.  If this drivel is the alternative, no wonder some people turn to the likes of Trump.

https://www.thestar.com/amp/opinion/commentary/2017/10/11/two-nafta-nego...

josh

The U.S. president routinely savages NAFTA, charging that the three-nation trade and investment pact is biased in favour of low-wage Mexico.

Equally routinely, he is chastised as a know-nothing protectionist for making these remarks.

But it seems that he may be right. Last week, General Motors informed workers at its Ingersoll, Ont. CAMI plant that it plans to deal with a month-long strike there by ramping up production at two of its cheaper Mexican operations.

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2017/10/16/donald-trump-isnt-all-wrong-about-nafta-walkom.html

WWWTT

josh wrote:

The U.S. president routinely savages NAFTA, charging that the three-nation trade and investment pact is biased in favour of low-wage Mexico.

Equally routinely, he is chastised as a know-nothing protectionist for making these remarks.

But it seems that he may be right. Last week, General Motors informed workers at its Ingersoll, Ont. CAMI plant that it plans to deal with a month-long strike there by ramping up production at two of its cheaper Mexican operations.

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2017/10/16/donald-trump-isnt-all-wrong-about-nafta-walkom.html

Yep! Couldn't agree more!

And the big defender of the current NAFTA pact that's dissolving Canadian jobs, Justin Trudeau's media coverage is himself having selfies with the Mexican senate!!!!!

I guess the Canadian corporate media is more concerned with their designated circus freek side show darling Justin to bother with the ugly side of the loss of Canadian jobs!

Give yourself a big pat on the back Canadian corporate liberal media! Ya that's what Canadians really care about, Justin's latest selfie, not Canadian jobs and the truth about NAFTA! Thank's Canadian corporate liberal media for throwing hard working Canadians under the bus bunch of useless stupid garbage assholes, how dare those hard working Canadians ask for proper compensation for their labour! God forbid their demands for fairness somehow tarnish your circus freek show darling Justin!

Rev Pesky

Of course the auto manufaturers could move all manufacturing out of Canada, and the Canadian government, sans NAFTA,  could place restrictive tariffs on the automobiles entering Canada from elsewhere, but who would pay those tariffs?

Pondering

WWWTT wrote:

josh wrote:

The U.S. president routinely savages NAFTA, charging that the three-nation trade and investment pact is biased in favour of low-wage Mexico.

Equally routinely, he is chastised as a know-nothing protectionist for making these remarks.

But it seems that he may be right. Last week, General Motors informed workers at its Ingersoll, Ont. CAMI plant that it plans to deal with a month-long strike there by ramping up production at two of its cheaper Mexican operations.

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2017/10/16/donald-trump-isnt-all-wrong-about-nafta-walkom.html

Yep! Couldn't agree more!

And the big defender of the current NAFTA pact that's dissolving Canadian jobs, Justin Trudeau's media coverage is himself having selfies with the Mexican senate!!!!!

I guess the Canadian corporate media is more concerned with their designated circus freek side show darling Justin to bother with the ugly side of the loss of Canadian jobs!

Give yourself a big pat on the back Canadian corporate liberal media! Ya that's what Canadians really care about, Justin's latest selfie, not Canadian jobs and the truth about NAFTA! Thank's Canadian corporate liberal media for throwing hard working Canadians under the bus bunch of useless stupid garbage assholes, how dare those hard working Canadians ask for proper compensation for their labour! God forbid their demands for fairness somehow tarnish your circus freek show darling Justin!

Do you know of any political parties opposing NAFTA that I could vote for in the next election?

josh

The Canadian Action Party was the only one that clearly opposed it.

progressive17 progressive17's picture

Go back to a policy that if you sell a car in Canada you have to build one here, or face large taxes. Canada's population is reaching critical mass. Millions of cars are sold here annually. There are taxes of up to 40% on gasoline cars in other countries, and considering the expense the rest of society has to incur to provide infrastructure for car drivers, I cannot see how that would be unreasonable.

Pondering

josh wrote:

The Canadian Action Party was the only one that clearly opposed it.

They deregistered, and I am not against trade deals in general I'm just opposed to the way they are currently written.

bekayne

josh wrote:

The Canadian Action Party was the only one that clearly opposed it.

I think they favoured free trade with space aliens though.

 

Sean in Ottawa

Mighty Middle wrote:

You said it yourself

kropotkin1951 wrote:

I actively fought against NAFTA in the day

Which means you support Trump stance in ripping up NAFTA

If you had just arrived, this would be excusable but we have had this discussion over the last six months. Those things do not follow at all.

Many were against the agreements when they were signed.

Some may have changed their minds -- although perhaps not many.

Others have made the point, as I have, that before these were signed opponents predicted permanent losses and said the deals were not worth it. The deals were signed and the losses occurred. Now ending NAFTA abruptly does not bring those jobs and businesses back.

I have stated here  a number of times that these deals have a cost going in and a cost going out. There is a lot of data to support this. It is one of the reasons many did not approve of them. It was stated by boosters at the time that if we did not like it we could withdraw. Opponents including myself, argued that this was false and that we would have paid the price and would only pay more by giving up any benefits we did get.

Nobody has stated that these agreements would not have winners and losers. Opponets said there would be more losers. But now we have largely paid the price and the winners are now to also become losers.

This is bullying without upside to Canada. You do not have to have been in favour of any trade deal to say that this will now hurt and it is the wrong way for it to be handled.

As well, you may also take the position that Canada ought to be prepared to walk away without approving of the President killing the deal. Our best course of action might remain tring to have a good deal and being prepared to walk from a bad one.

Your very simplistic arguments -- designed to attack and frnakly troll people are annoying and getting you no converts so what are you trying to do?

Mobo2000

Sean:   I get your logic in this statement: 

"But now we have largely paid the price and the winners are now to also become losers."

What do you see as the upside in the existing Nafta deal?   Who are the Canadian winners?   I haven't followed the previous conversations closely, so apologies if this is retreading old ground.

Rev Pesky

In the years since NAFTA was implemented there have been many changes at the World Trade Organization. As a writer in Report on Business pointed out, even if NAFTA died, the rules wouldn't be all that different simply because over the years the WTO rules have largely duplicated the types of rules implemented with NAFTA.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Canada has to grow a pair. Tear up all trade agreements with the US (which is what the Americans want anyway) 

Set up trade agreements with other countries such as the EU. Make sure these future tade agreements are fair trade not free trade.

Let the Americans become as isolated as they want. Immediately stop importing anything non-essential from the US and levy HUGE tariffs on exports Americans rely on.

Fuck them. I'm no fan of NAFTA but demanding trade deficits that DON'T EXIST is par for the course from the current insane asylum in Washington.

They are trying to fuck us. Time to fuck them back twice as hard. Stand up to them. What are they going to do? Invade us? With the Trump administration that actually COULD happen but it would back fire and destroy the United States.

The Empire is falling. Let's try to speed up its demise.

 

Mighty Middle

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Your very simplistic arguments -- designed to attack and frnakly troll people are annoying and getting you no converts so what are you trying to do?

UNIFOR President Jerry Dias is also cheering on Trump as he too says NAFTA needs to be ripped up saying

"I agree with Donald Trump about one thing, and one thing only: NAFTA,"

http://canada.autonews.com/article/20170324/CANADA/170329940/unifors-dia...

josh

Mighty Middle wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Your very simplistic arguments -- designed to attack and frnakly troll people are annoying and getting you no converts so what are you trying to do?

UNIFOR President Jerry Dias is also cheering on Trump as he too says NAFTA needs to be ripped up saying

"I agree with Donald Trump about one thing, and one thing only: NAFTA,"

http://canada.autonews.com/article/20170324/CANADA/170329940/unifors-dia...

 

Same with me,

Another casualty.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/14/us/union-jobs-mexico-rexnord.html?_r=0

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Set up trade agreements with other countries such as the EU.

Ya, but they're on another continent.  They'll know to look at the shipping charges.

Quote:
Immediately stop importing anything non-essential from the US

Why wouldn't they just drop YUGE levies on whatever those things are?  Orange juice?  Consumer electronics?  Netflix?  Whatever it is, we'd better be prepared to pay whatever they charge us, or else make/grow/produce our own.

Quote:
and levy HUGE tariffs on exports Americans rely on.

Maple syrup?  Hockey pucks?

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Set up trade agreements with other countries such as the EU.

Ya, but they're on another continent.  They'll know to look at the shipping charges.

Quote:
Immediately stop importing anything non-essential from the US

Why wouldn't they just drop YUGE levies on whatever those things are?  Orange juice?  Consumer electronics?  Netflix?  Whatever it is, we'd better be prepared to pay whatever they charge us, or else make/grow/produce our own.

Quote:
and levy HUGE tariffs on exports Americans rely on.

Maple syrup?  Hockey pucks?

You can make jokes but the US is our biggest trade partner with more than $1 billion a day going through our borders.

Now the US wants everything. They want us to roll over and leave them with all the capital.

They are making up (lying which is the new truth now in Trumpland) about trade deficits and trade surpluses that don't exist.

They are bvent on having a trade agreement where they get everything and we are expected to roll over and give it to them. This is why we should pull out of NAFTA and export with large tariffs the goods coming from here to the US.

And we export a hell of a lot more than 'hockey pucks'and 'maple syrup' but I can always count on you to make lame attempts at comedy.

We have to stand up to them. Stop importing things from them that we don't need is a start. As for oranges,fruit in general,we can import these things from South America and with  a tool such as hydroponics and greenhouses,we can literally grow any fruit or vegetable 12 months a year. I worked at a greenhouse and we were able to raise a banana tree. I think we have to find new trading partners. We can get our electronics from China,get a deal with them to ease tariffs on each other.It's not just Canada that should be doing this,it's all our trade partners to join in on helping Trump isolate his country from the rest of the world. Good fucking riddance.And when the US is in need of any of our vast natural resources,they should be hit with massive tariffs. The US is so small geographically and over populated that now as we speak and even more so as time goes by they are dependent on these resopurces. They day is going to come soon when the US is going to have to import their water. Again,massive tariffs on that.

And I think it is important to have a stronger relationship with Mexico who should do the same as us in imposing massive tariffs on goods the US may need from them.

It's also importtant to do business with Russia who are interested in Bombardier planes and there is a lot of ripe business deals at our disposal if we can get over the Russiaphobia bullshit.

They want to be isolated,then let them become a pariah. They will inevitably fall down hard. Their Empire is sinking fast. We should help in speeding it up and then we all can celebrate with a stack of pancakes drowning in maple syrup and a good ol' hockey game.

Now,back to you, funny guy.

Sean in Ottawa

Mobo2000 wrote:

Sean:   I get your logic in this statement: 

"But now we have largely paid the price and the winners are now to also become losers."

What do you see as the upside in the existing Nafta deal?   Who are the Canadian winners?   I haven't followed the previous conversations closely, so apologies if this is retreading old ground.

The winners would be Canadians who work for companies that sell into the US. There may not be a net jobs benefit in Canada from the deal. (Whle many point to increased jobs selling into the US we have to consider both the jobs lost as a result of NAFTA and what might have been had we never lost the initial jobs. So I am not arguing that there is has been a net gain in jobs -- for the moment I will leave that to others. However there are no many jobs tied up in the deal as it stands today at risk if it goes away. The jobs that were previously lost may never come back and opportunities that might be found outside of the deal will not materialize as quickly as the jobs currently based on its provisions will evaporate.

As well things have changed in terms of global trade rules outside of NAFTA. For one, we do not default to a protectionist position but to a liberalized gloabal trade arrangement. In this context losing what preferential access we had to the US may never be replaced with protections that now no longer exist. Some of those have changed due to automation and technology, international shipping, the emergence of China which does not rely on such bilateral deals etc.

In addition to jobs you have the effects of investment and how that would move investors. Given that Canada has considerable US owned investment here US companies pulling out due to a more robust border woudl leave Canadians here in a bad way. These enterprises may more or disappear -- they will not automatically become Canadian.

Trans nationals will have no reason to even exist here -- what is left of our auto industry could be gone in a flash. Building in the US and exporting to Canada under global trade rules is not that difficult. With the US now not interested in goodwill and behaving like a bully, Canada could find that it has little leverage outside the deal or within it. Replacing the deal with foreign trade is doable but is not job-friendly. What other partners want is the materials we produce that actually contribute to fewer jobs. We should not expect this disruption to be short. The truth is Canada should have developed its own ability to process our natural bounty rather than sell it off shore and participate in agreements that create a dependence where there is no reliability. Canada will need an industrial plan and it won't come on a six month notice and it will take years to implement and a willingness to invest in ways Canada has traditionally avoided.

To be blunt, the Canadian economy would need to be rebuilt without the US if protectionism swept the NAFTA community. I may argue that this is what we should ahve done in 1988 but today we have less to work with outside of the deal and would need a long-term plan to get through it. People who are now in their 50s and over may never see the recovery in their lifetime. We are talking about a major disruption.

And what we are also aware of is that this disruption can exist either without a deal or with a bad deal such as what  the US wants to impose. Canada appears to only have a choice between the two. The bad deal on the table looks worse than no deal.

 

Mobo2000

Hmm -  thanks for the response Sean, lots for me to think about, and think about I shall.

WWWTT

Mobo2000 wrote:

Hmm -  thanks for the response Sean, lots for me to think about, and think about I shall.

I'll have to agree somewhat with Sean in Ottawa as well. This is an complicated involved circumstance with many players many perspectives and many interests. For me it's down right mind boggling.

What I don't like is that it appears workers rights and compensation plays no role what so ever in all of this and it's all controlled by the corporate masters using these trade deals to undermine labour, fucking everyone over for their "bottom line!"

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

I think Sean is mostly accurate in his prognostications, however, I think he is missing the bigger picture. Whatever happens regarding NAFTA, there will be a much bigger economic dislocation within a few years at most, due to the next, and biggest yet collapse of the financial system. I don't know when this will happen, but all the indications I see are that it will be well within the lifetimes of those now in their 50s, and its effects on Canadians will be orders of magnitude bigger than those of ending NAFTA.

Sean in Ottawa

WWWTT wrote:

Mobo2000 wrote:

Hmm -  thanks for the response Sean, lots for me to think about, and think about I shall.

I'll have to agree somewhat with Sean in Ottawa as well. This is an complicated involved circumstance with many players many perspectives and many interests. For me it's down right mind boggling.

What I don't like is that it appears workers rights and compensation plays no role what so ever in all of this and it's all controlled by the corporate masters using these trade deals to undermine labour, fucking everyone over for their "bottom line!"

Exactly -- workers are not be considered eitehr on the way in or the way out.

Trade deals could be made in the interest of workers and they could be removed in their interest as well. This is not happening. The way to make that happen is to elect people who give a crap for workers. That seems very hard to do as they all pretend to -- until they don't.

Sean in Ottawa

Any Trump Impeachment may be tied directly to NAFTA. Putting a few things together:

We know that a potential impeachement vote is political and the legal and investigative is the means for the political to move. With Republicans holding both chambers, most complaints against a Republican are not going anywhere -- even if there is legal justification. Impeachment can occur for two reasons:

1) The investigation proves to politically embarassing for the Republicans

or

2) The Republicans have a reason to want to throw trump out

No doubt polling will be a factor.

A simple majority of the House of Representatives is required meaning very few Republicans.

The Senate requires a 2/3 majority. This means 66 Senators. The Democrats have 46 plus two independents who generally support Democrats.

18-9 Republicans are required. This is a tall order and to have 19 be so embarassed politically that they would do this is a stretch. However, this number decline when you consider the Republican Senators from States that have a great deal to lose with respect to NAFTA: Ohio 1, Texas 2, Indiana 1, Pennsylvania 1, Tennessee 2, Florida 1, Arizona 2, Georgia 2, North Carolina 2 = 14. Other States or Senators may be keen on NAFTA as well.

At the end of the day the combination of the Trade position of Trump and the investigation might turn the numbers required.

 

http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/05/news/economy/trump-nafta-top-10-states-i...

 

Pondering

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/09/20/most-canadians-say-walk-away-fro...

Eighty per cent of respondents agreed water should not be treated as a commodity under NAFTA, as it is now; 70 per cent said measures requiring Canada to maintain energy export quotas to the U.S. should be removed; and 63 per cent agreed that Chapter 11 should be removed from NAFTA. That provision allows companies to sue governments under NAFTA tribunals.

Chapter 11 has proven to be a headache for Canadians governments. A 2015 study from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives identified Canada as the most-sued country under Chapter 11, attracting 70 per cent of all claims.....

Among self-identified Conservatives, 69 per cent agreed Canada should bail on a "bad deal," while 77 per cent of Liberals, 80 per cent of Bloc Quebecois voters and 81 per cent of NDP voters agreed. Green voters were the likeliest to agree with rejecting the pact, at 90 per cent.

It seems to me there are lots of Canadians that are not that enthusiastic about trade deals in particular Chaper 11 and I doubt they would like the TPP/CETA versions either.

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
You can make jokes but the US is our biggest trade partner with more than $1 billion a day going through our borders.

Exactly.  All of those jokes were to point out that the U.S. is our largest trading partner.

So it's kind of silly to pretend that if we just stop importing corn chips, and impose a 1000% tariff on wild rice, we'll bring them to their knees.  That makes no sense, no matter how angry you are.

 

SeekingAPolitic...

I have hearing for sometime now that our exports to the US have become increasinly uncompetive.  I was curious about that view and I had a look stats can data.  Regardless of NAFTA or not we have been losing market share in the US market for almost 2 decades.  From the data that I will share it will become clear that the effects of NAFTA on "exports into the US markets has been neglible since 2001."

Source Table 228-0069    Trade figures since 1997.    

Canada exports by month to US Scale 000,000

Jan 1977 ----  19,871.6  -- Scale 19 billion

Aug 2000 ---- 30,032.7

In the span of 44 months our exports to the US exploded by 50%+.  This the hightide of Canadian trade with the US.

The lastest numbers show that in 2017 Aug we exported --- 32,613.9

but I will publish the last 12 month of trade with the US.

Aug 2016  ---  32,767.3

Sept 2016 ---  32,292.7

Oct 2016 ---- 32,922.5

Nov 2016 --- 34,142.8

Dec 2016 --- 33,865.3

Jan 2017 --- 34,873.2

Feb 2017 --- 34,406.8

Mar 2017 --- 34,043.9

Apr 2017 --- 35,774.7

May 2017 --- 36,436.4  ***** Peak from data range 1997-2017

June 2017 --- 34,367.7

July 2017 --- 33,202.2

So if use the peak data 

May 2017 --- 36,436.4  ***** Peak from data range 1997-2017

Aug 2000 ---- 30,032.7 over 17 years and increase of about 20%

OR 

The lastest numbers show that in 2017 Aug we exported --- 32,613.9

Aug 2000 ---- 30,032.7 over 17 years and increase of about 10%.

Regardless 10 or 20 percent over 17 years is peanuts.  After 2000 our market share of US market has been largely subduded.  NAFTA or no NAFTA our future exploation of the US market has been fully matured as other US trade partners have seiezed our market share.  Oh, BTW when people speak about 1 billion in canadian products being moved everyday over the border.  Now we know that condition was orginal ahicved 17 years ago rather than recent event.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Don't worry.

iyraste1313

re exports to the USA...your numbers, Seeking.....fail to consider that not all exports are the same...shipping raw logs, extracting bitumen to destroy the territory is not the same as building a self reliant industrial capacity to provide consumer goods to the People down the line, not to mention develop skills and opportunities, which is not the same as developing industry to produce war...which feeds nobody....these categories must be investigated to learn the real effects of NAFTA and the 1988 bilateral accords......

SeekingAPolitic...

If have problems with methodoloy take it up with stats can.  What your talking about is political economy, I am a big fan.  If I knew about potilical economy when I went to university I would taken when I was a young man.  Stats Can does not do political economy.

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

Political economy is a term used for studying production and trade, and their relations with law, custom, and government, as well as with the distribution of national income and wealth. Political economy as a discipline originated in moral philosophy in the 18th century and sought to explore the administration of states' wealth, with political signifying the Greek word Polity and "economy" signifying the Greek word "okonomie" or "household management". 

In the late 19th century, the term economics gradually began to replace the term political economy with the rise of mathematical modelling coinciding with the publication of an influential textbook by Alfred Marshall in 1890.[1] Earlier, William Stanley Jevons, a proponent of mathematical methods applied to the subject, advocated economics for brevity and with the hope of the term becoming "the recognised name of a science."

 

SeekingAPolitic...

I put that data from 228-0069 table into a 11 minute video.  Some ohs and ahs, but better effort then my last video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIuNLQ2zUZM

 

SeekingAPolitic...

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-24/mexico-s-2-50-an-hour...

When you click on the link a video playing is playing at the top.  The Guest speaker some kind of investor group says that with NAFTA gone mexico will lose 1 million jobs!  How credible the number is I can not judge but he is a guest bloomberg financial tv.  Its in the first 40 seconds

Mighty Middle

Jagmeet Singh says if he were PM he would STAND UP to Trump and not be bullied...unlike what Trudeau is doing

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/jagmeet-singh-justin-trudeau-should-s...

Sean in Ottawa

Mighty Middle wrote:

Jagmeet Singh says if he were PM he would STAND UP to Trump and not be bullied...unlike what Trudeau is doing

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/jagmeet-singh-justin-trudeau-should-s...

I do not think statements like this are helpful from the opposition.

Canada has a difficult position if it wants to keep the trade deal. Opposition MPs ought to say exactly what they would do differently. If Singh thinks the NDP should leave the table he should say so. But it is empty to say he would stand up without saying how.

This is the kind of rhetoric the NDP should avoid. This kind of statement will not win over support and will not achieve an influence -- if anything it will have people think that he does not know what he is talking about. I do not suggest that he is clueless but avoiding lame statements is a start to show that.

Many Canadian jobs are implicated in NAFTA. Jagmeet Singh should say if he agrees it is worth pursuing an agreement or not and what specific tactics should be pursued. The fact that the US is much bigger than Canada and is a bully right now does not mean that we can be empty about what to say about the PM's negotiations.

Singh should be offering up something concrete here given that I suspect most Canadians, who are not overly partisan, probably have some sympathy for the position the government is in and welcome its cautious approach. Other strategies are possible but you would have to make a case for them. This comment from Singh will be recieved in about the same way as Stephen Harper's -- without much respect.

 

If Singh thinks we should abandon NAFTA, he should then propose how to manage the end of NAFTA -- what should we do to locate other markets? What industrial plan could the government pursue? What investments make sense at this moment? Does the government have a decent back up plan or is it stumbling into this? What are the implications of a tougher stance -- how would this help Canadians?

Singh has to avoid the kind of empty rhetoric that he seems at moments attracted to or he will have the same success as Mulcair -- lose half his seats.

NDP supporters should jump on this quickly and make it clear that you cannot come from third without subtance and he was not made leader to blow hot air.

If you thhink I am harsh, it is becuase I have little patience for this kind of stuff from the NDP and I think it is the reason the party too often sits in third. The right wing are more successful in politics becuase they actually propose things. People are not happy with baloney.

Now maybe he thinks this works for NDP partisans. Perhaps but I think the party would rather hear specific directions and be convinced that he has something to offer other than meaningless platitudes.

Sean in Ottawa

Let me continue this -- the NDP could point out that the economy is weak and he could slamm the Liberal economic policies which run after the political concept of middle class while leaving many out in the cold and providing no basis for Canada to do well. Canada is making few investments in science and research, is unprepared for what woudl happen if NAFTA fails. No we do not need to stand up to Trump differently. We need to offer a back up plan for the economy and policies that will defend vulnerable workers while also investing in other possibilities.

Sean in Ottawa

Another question. Assuming that if the US does not want a deal Canada cannot force one -- we should be asking our government if it wants a deal. If it does, what is the plan while we wait for sanity to return south of the border. What would that deal look like? And if we don't what is the plan to replace it. How do we bring back a Canadina independent manufacturing sector and where should we invest?

I do not think Canada should trade threats with Trump. It would make us look like North Korea to the US. Instead we should soberly plan to do without the agreement and show the US that we are not as desperate to take any deal as they may think. The NDP could be asking for such a strategy -- or if it proposes another it should explain why it would work.

If the NDP is going to recover in the next year, it will be on one of two issues -- taxes or trade.

Criticizing is not going to make the case for an NDP revival but if Singh can sell an alternate apporach on either to the public, then this will happen.

SeekingAPolitic...

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Another question. Assuming that if the US does not want a deal Canada cannot force one -- we should be asking our government if it wants a deal. If it does, what is the plan while we wait for sanity to return south of the border. What would that deal look like? And if we don't what is the plan to replace it. How do we bring back a Canadina independent manufacturing sector and where should we invest?

I do not think Canada should trade threats with Trump. It would make us look like North Korea to the US. Instead we should soberly plan to do without the agreement and show the US that we are not as desperate to take any deal as they may think. The NDP could be asking for such a strategy -- or if it proposes another it should explain why it would work.

If the NDP is going to recover in the next year, it will be on one of two issues -- taxes or trade.

Criticizing is not going to make the case for an NDP revival but if Singh can sell an alternate apporach on either to the public, then this will happen.

The left has seeded the tax issue to the right a generation ago.  Unless you want to give out tax cuts as a policy of the NDP.  For all the problems I have with NDP pushing anything that smells like cut to the revenue base should be avoided.

Taxes are the sinews of the state”. Marcus Tullius Cicero quotes (Ancient Roman Lawyer, Writer, Scholar, Orator and Statesman, 106 BC-43 BC 

That is my view on taxes.  The left gave up a generation ago on the rhetoric of taxation.  The right wing word smiths came up "tax and spend".  Then it was turned to phrase that had a negative feeling attached to it.  The right clubbed the left short simple statements that became part of the pop culture. Since then trying to run of taxes has become harder.  Exception to this has been populist left wing politicians (with I support) but Canada is short off at the moment.  Unless your populist left wing pol your better talking about "investments".  Its nice word to use to explain the need of taxes.  The ndp will never win on tax policy.  As the right is critical of left talking about 'free stuff' left should be critical of attacks on tax base.

As for trade and NAFTA  until I did my research I thought that it was it critical to the economy.  But after 17 years stagnation in US Canada trade I have reconsidered.  The US market is mature market to Canada and we are losing market share.  The only value NAFTA is to defend our declining market share of the US market.  Please see youtube below which I made in post 142.

Singh can play with NAFTA he has no power to speak off and can say anything that will forward the position of the NDP.  Any plans or talk of NAFTA ending and plans for it is premature death will look pretty silly if its renewed.  He is doing what he should be doing attacking trudea.  All that NAFTA talk is for domestic consumption he the leader of the 3rd party in parliament nobody cares what he says in Washington if anyone heard of him.  Trump will make the decision and then we will adjust to the new or old reality.  I think the matter will be settled before an election.  And there are meixcan electoral conditions in 2018 to be talked about.  Which I will post in the thread but I need to read up on the latest news.

SeekingAPolitic...

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Let me continue this -- the NDP could point out that the economy is weak and he could slamm the Liberal economic policies which run after the political concept of middle class while leaving many out in the cold and providing no basis for Canada to do well. Canada is making few investments in science and research, is unprepared for what woudl happen if NAFTA fails. No we do not need to stand up to Trump differently. We need to offer a back up plan for the economy and policies that will defend vulnerable workers while also investing in other possibilities.

I don't think the NDP should spend alot political capital in describing a north america without the NAFTA agreement. 

1.your gambling that the deal will fail.  NDP has limited resources I think better used in some less risky area.

2.I think the party split internally on the value of NAFTA.  Any talk should general until trump makes a decision. I am sorry I meant to say the until liberals decide.   

But when say that we are unprepared for the failure is a massive understatement.  It will shock to the economic system, all the major parties wedded to NAFTA. I think we should have a national discussion about the end of the deal but I don't think any party wants to discuss it because its implications with frighten various factions in all the parties.

Sean in Ottawa

SeekingAPoliticalHome wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Let me continue this -- the NDP could point out that the economy is weak and he could slamm the Liberal economic policies which run after the political concept of middle class while leaving many out in the cold and providing no basis for Canada to do well. Canada is making few investments in science and research, is unprepared for what woudl happen if NAFTA fails. No we do not need to stand up to Trump differently. We need to offer a back up plan for the economy and policies that will defend vulnerable workers while also investing in other possibilities.

I don't think the NDP should spend alot political capital in describing a north america without the NAFTA agreement. 

1.your gambling that the deal will fail.  NDP has limited resources I think better used in some less risky area.

2.I think the party split internally on the value of NAFTA.  Any talk should general until trump makes a decision. I am sorry I meant to say the until liberals decide.   

this is a recipe for failure,

We need a backup plan. We need it becuase every other party to NAFTA is looking at one. The Trump Administration seems to want this and the US is preparing for it. Mexico is already prepared for it.

I do not see why you think I am gambling that it will fail. I am saying we need a plan if it does just like we need one it it is a success. Either could happen.

 

When it comes to negotiation, having a plan means a stronger position and looking less like we will take anything. Showing we can conceive of life without NAFTA gives Canada a better position at the table.

Simply saying Tudeau should stand up to Trump with no specifics on how is not practical.

A split in the NDP is not a big problem -- when it comes to planning for either possibility.

progressive17 progressive17's picture

I was a little concerned when I heard Mr. Singh bragging he could beat Mr. Trudeau in a fight.

Now Mr. Singh says he will "stand up" to Mr. Trump.

These juvenile machismo statements are of no consequence to Mr. Trudeau or Mr. Trump.

Mr. Singh has some growing up to do. Someone should remind him he is running to be Prime Minister, not the president of a fraternity club.

Pages