Wow now Navarro invoking the Hell Doctrine (unspecific doom forecast) for Trudeau; now its getting really nasty...
Trump's trade adviser, Peter Navarro: "There's a special place in hell" for Justin Trudeau https://t.co/lwa7gN9TgV
— Axios (@axios) June 10, 2018
Trade war on track.
ReplyDeletePolitico — Kudlow: Trudeau ‘stabbed us in the back’
ReplyDeleteDaily Caller — NAVARRO: CHINESE TELECOM GIANT ZTE ‘WILL BE SHUT DOWN’ IF IT STEPS OUT OF LINE AGAIN
ReplyDeleteTrump tells Macron the EU is "worse" than China
ReplyDeleteThey're not biased anti-(trade)-war Tom.... the warriors always gotta be warring over something..
ReplyDeleteReuters — U.S.-Canada spat escalates after tense G7, Europeans criticize Trump
ReplyDeleteLooks like "the shit's on," as they say in the military when things turn hot.
That's why the process for selecting leaders in democracies is off-track. Alpha-baboons.
ReplyDeleteTom,
ReplyDeletenon-sequtir (sort of)... how is paradoxical thinking generally looked upon in the academe of Philosophy?
iow is it thought of as "bad"? or in Philosophy is no judgement generally applied to paradoxical thinking? it just "is" ie some people just can be seen to think this way not "good" or "bad" per se?
However, the problem may also be that no one is qualified for leadership in these countries.
ReplyDeleteLogic is to philosophy as math is to science.
ReplyDeleteThere are (at least) three logical factors involved here.
The first is non-sequitur, in which the consequent is not entailed by the antecedent in a conditional statement.
The second is contradiction, which involves asserting that the same thing is true and false at the same time and the same respect.
The third is paradox is an apparent contradiction that has an explanation on further analysis or is viewed in terms of a synthesis.
None of these apply to selection of poorly qualified or unqualified leaders. The problem is the design and execution of the selection process. Qualified people are not being identified and poorly qualified or unqualified prospects are not being exposed.
Instead, the selection process is largely dominated by candidates that show themselves to excel at fundraising from wealthy contributors. That guarantees adverse selection.
I guess there is always the possibility that the managements of the multinational firms will correct these imbalances themselves? If they eventually came to the thought that it was in THEIR best interests to do this?
ReplyDeleteI also think that it's highly likely that there are few if any people qualified for an office like POTUS where the person has virtually absolute power and a range of issues that impossible for a human mind to deal with adequately in the time frame that time-delimited decision-making allows.
ReplyDeleteSo it is not just a personnel problem, but a systemic one as well.
I don't see a possible solution in a liberal order other than direct democracy and trusting the process based on the wisdom of crowds. The technology is now available, so the question is whether the electorate is qualified enough for the wisdom of crowds to work.
The other thing Tom is it is not yet apparent how much of the US current account deficit has been due to tax avoidance strategies by US firms due to the old (prior to Jan 1 2018) tax laws... and how that may change going forward...
ReplyDeleteI dont see any changes yet in the data... but firms cant do it in one Quarter they need to develop transition plans, etc... but maybe by next year we will see an impact to the CAD... it might be substantial..
Not clear to me that the Trump people understand this dynamic in the accounting...
There is no simple solution because the issues are based on national politics.
ReplyDeleteTariffs protect farmers, for example, and the farm vote is crucial in winning elections. Same with some industries.
Trump wants global free trade and global free flow of capital.
The US would pretty easily dominate this arrangement by the sheer size and depth of the US economy.
Trump and the US elite are aware of this. The objective of firms is transnational corporate totalitarianism under US capital. This would lock in US global hegemony under rules dictated by the US.
That suits DJT vision for MAGA and America First. DJT's America First is not isolationism.
The Chinese and Europeans aren't in the dark about this.
Tom Hickey. Nicely said. As Michael Hudson emphasizes, free trade is the protectionism of the hegemon.
ReplyDeleteSo, of course, this is just grandstanding on Navarro's part. The notion that Canada is unfairly subsidizing anything vis-à-vis the US, or imposing any unfair protectionist measures is patently absurd. Tariff barriers on supply managed goods are there because Canada does not export them (or very minimally). That is the nature of a supply-managed industry. The US could do the same -- US farmers would be wealthier, the multinational agricultural companies would have less control and less subsidized, and US consumers would be less exposed to the vagaries and injustices of the market (albeit at slightly price higher off the shelf -- farmers have to be paid somehow). For instance, three years ago, due to a drought in New Zealand, there was huge global demand for milk products, with the result that in some US states for several weeks there was an infant formula shortage. Canadian consumers were insulated from this, as all production and the vast majority of sales were domestic.
Now, don't get me wrong -- Trump is quite right about Russia, and Trudeau should just recognize Crimea as Russian, and push for Russia's readmittance to the G8.
And, instead of continuing free trade nonsense, which just helps a small number of multinationals at the expense of the populations of all countries (even the hegemon, since it has chosen to offshore so much of its investment in fixed capital), what we need is a robust régime of managed trade. Shouting Trudeau stabbed Trump in the back is merely a tactic to rally the troops. And y'know, no Canadian prime minister ever lost power from standing up to a US bully.
I really DO hope NAFTA fails, since Canada is by far the country most sued (unfairly) by corporations under the investor protection provisions (which are designed to allow corporations to fight environmental protections). Even better, we could now deprive the US of national treatment in access to our vast energy resources -- wouldn't that be a great thing! I am not even necessarily opposed to US protectionism -- if it were designed to relaunch the American economy (and the Canadian inevitably by extension).
But we have dealt with this before -- the US does not abide by NAFTA rules in any case. If Canadian firms are substantially more competitive in some cases, despite our climate, it is because we still have legacy social and health programs. For instance, in the late 1990s, many auto sector jobs came back to Canada because so many workers in Southern US auto plants could not read -- US car companies were having to use flash cards to explain tasks. And then, our public health care system gives Canadian companies a 30 percent advantage out of the gate, over US companies. None of this is protectionism -- it is just being smart.
Trudeau and his fellow leaders may be monomaniacally tied to free trade doctrine, but the reality is, even under a system of more balanced and managed trade, imposing trade barriers the way Trump is doing would invariably occasion a retaliatory response from Canada.
"Trudeau and his fellow leaders may be monomaniacally tied to free trade doctrine,"
ReplyDeleteHow can you say that as Canada has many tariffs as youve just said??????
It like all the libertarian morons going all around saying we have 'free markets!" meanwhile the cartel OPEC operates with impunity...
We should bomb OPEC (FD: I am not biased anti-war) and just take the oil for 40 years and then we'd be even... and then try to go all "free market!"...
Here you say RIGHT HERE:
ReplyDelete" Tariff barriers on supply managed goods are there because Canada does not export them"
THEN you say RIGHT HERE:
"Trudeau and his fellow leaders may be monomaniacally tied to free trade doctrine"
How does your brain work???????
Serious question: Do you realize you are doing this????
Tom is such paradoxical thinking here exhibited by Marian considered "normal" from the pov of the academe of Philosophy?
ReplyDeleteBecause I can tell you from the pov of the STEM disciplines it is F-ED UP...
"The bridge can be designed to support the loads AND fall down AT THE SAME TIME!"
ReplyDelete"Canada has a policy of tariffs AND has a policy of "free trade!" AT THE SAME TIME!"
Whaaaaaaaattttt?????
Is this how all Art Degree people think????
"A famous quote from the Vietnam War was a statement attributed to an unnamed U.S. officer by AP correspondent Peter Arnett in his writing about Bến Tre city on 7 February 1968:
ReplyDelete'It became necessary to destroy the town to save it', a United States major said today. He was talking about the decision by allied commanders to bomb and shell the town regardless of civilian casualties, to rout the Vietcong.[3]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%E1%BA%BFn_Tre
Same thing....
"It became necessary to have protectionist tariffs in order to have free trade!"....
ReplyDeleteWith modern communication, effiecient transport of resources and cheap capital and no real comparative advantage anywhere, does it matter WHERE mfr happens?
ReplyDelete'It became necessary to destroy the town to save it'
ReplyDeleteThe elite thinks more bigly.
'It became necessary to destroy the country to save it.'
Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Iraq, Libya, Syria.…
Closely related to, "It is sometimes necessary to overthrow democracy to save it." Iran, Chile, Honduras, Ukraine,….
What led to Trump’s outburst against Trudeau: Behind the scenes at the G7
ReplyDeletehttps://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2018/06/10/what-led-to-trumps-outburst-against-trudeau-behind-the-scenes-at-the-g7.html
I thought this excerpt from the above article was interestin:
Trudeau offered the U.S. president a small token of friendship, a framed photo of Trump’s grandfather’s hotel in Bennett, B.C., which Trump’s press secretary tweeted as a “great moment” between the two.
You see, his grandfather's "hotel" was actually a bordello. I'm sure it brought a smile to the buffoon's orange face :)
PS: You guys notice Kudlow's nose puffed up?
PPS: And that Navarro: "For God's sake, man, you're on tv for the whole world to see -- fix you're lousy teeth!" (Good argument for free trade here ;) )
Canada has legacy supply management in: dairy, poultry and eggs. That's it. And in these industries, there is no competition with/in the US (a fundamental principle of the WTO). Elsewhere, Canada is a free trader, to its misfortune on the whole, and far more liberalized in its trade than the US, which massively subsidizes all its agriculture (or rather the large multinational agricultura industries in each sector) and industry (every part of the iphone, for instance, was been paid for by the US Government).
ReplyDeleteTrudeau is a great defender of the Canada-EU free trade deal, of NAFTA, and the TPP, none of which work to Canada's benefit!
American politicians, and perhaps Matt Franco, seem unable to distinguish between "free" trade and colonialism!
ReplyDeleteThe fundamental idea of free trade is reciprocity -- I must be able to export to you and import from you on the same terms that you export to me, or import from me.
The fundamental idea of colonialism is that a greater power should have unfettered access to the goods and factors of production that belong to another, less-powerful country. So. under NAFTA, for instance, Canada is not allowed to limit US access to Canadian energy resources. Israel does not bother with treaties when it takes Palestinian or Lebanese water.
Under international trade law, a country has the right to decide NOT to engage in trade -- in a sector or particular industry. Should it choose to trade, then concerns about reciprocity naturally apply. But if Matt Franco's position is that Canada must open its small dairy market to US exploitation, where Canada prefers NOT to engage in trade, not to export to the US, then Matt is simply saying that US has the right to treat Canada like an old-fashioned colony.
Mr Franko seems to have lost his mind.
ReplyDelete