Skip to main content
Log In | Register

TR Memescape


Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - borealis

1
They think that's a good thing. :thisisfine:
2
That does it. The bastard is after our wine now:
Except this was happening before Trump.

http://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/u-s-launches-trade-action-against-canada-over-b-c-wine-sales

Now you are giving him credit for this as well?

Did you think I was unaware of the history of trade disputes? He gets credit for renewed stupidity, and the timing says it's all for show.
3
Correct

          [citation needed]
You don't need citations.  You need a new attitude.  I've given you citations in the past from experts who are in a position to know and you dismiss them based on God knows what ... your superior intelligence I guess.
No you didn't. You gave thinly disguised, study-free, disguised as eco-friendly congratulatory articles that tried to make monster agricultural corporations like the palm oil industry look good. Thinning the canopy by 50% kills the original forest and drastically changes the eco system. Hundreds if not thousands of species disappear.

You're just too married to your heros to get it.
4
Canada makes wine?
Yes. Not in extravagant amounts, but some of it is quite good and Canadian Ice Wine is pretty famous.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_wine#Canada
5
That does it. The bastard is after our wine now:

Quote
But it won't end with softwood lumber and dairy. Next up in Crazy April: wine. The U.S. has already announced it will go to the WTO for the 26th time with a complaint over B.C.'s policy of selling B.C. wine in grocery stores, which the U.S. says "discriminates against the sale of U.S. wine." B.C. does allow U.S. wine to be sold under the "store within a store" option, but no grocery chain will go to the trouble or expense to do it. The situation also applies in other provinces like Ontario. Don't be surprised when President Trump soon starts talking about Canada's "disgraceful" wine policy. It is all about America First.
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/for-a-troubled-trump-canada-is-easy-pickings/
This means war!
6
Correct
You have no idea what you're talking about. You certainly have no knowledge at all about coniferous forests or softwood lumber.

And now your hero is starting a trade war with Canada, which is about as sensible as sticking your head between your legs and biting your own ass. Thousands of jobs are at risk on both sides of the border, and while Canada's jobless have a good social safety net to bear them up through the economic bad weather, your jobless can count on nothing other than a big fat 'sucks for you' from your heartless economically stupid Trumpian GOP..
7
Trump's mad about BC wine, too, as reported in this article about Trump's latest attacks on Canada re softwood lumber, dairy, and now wine:

Quote
But it won't end with softwood lumber and dairy. Next up in Crazy April: wine. The U.S. has already announced it will go to the WTO for the 26th time with a complaint over B.C.'s policy of selling B.C. wine in grocery stores, which the U.S. says "discriminates against the sale of U.S. wine." B.C. does allow U.S. wine to be sold under the "store within a store" option, but no grocery chain will go to the trouble or expense to do it. The situation also applies in other provinces like Ontario. Don't be surprised when President Trump soon starts talking about Canada's "disgraceful" wine policy. It is all about America First.
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/for-a-troubled-trump-canada-is-easy-pickings/
8
 Japan is pretty hungry for lumber as well. And once CETA kicks in it'll be easier to sell trees to Europe.

Trump wants to open national monuments to drilling rights also. Christ, Americans are so fucked right now. And did it to themselves with a little help from Russia.
9
This old fight again...

This will hurt Canadian lumber companies a little, but there are other markets that may step up their orders for softwood. The real hurt will be on housing construction in the US.

Sorry about your virgin forests, USians. :(
10
Lol, yeah. I posted the AP transcript link in Trumpocalypse this morning. It is pants-on-head word salad. Making sense of most of it is just indulging in word pareidolia; taking a dozen words in a row here and there and imagining there's a coherent message within.
12
... I've wondered if Trudeau's main target might be Chapter 11 of the agreement...
Careful! Trump is all about Chapter 11!


Lol, different chapter 11. :D

13
Just as well there are some grown-ups in the room.

http://occupydemocrats.com/2017/04/21/trump-just-called-canada-disgrace-justin-trudeaus-response-classy/
We have our own right wingers who insult Trudeau daily and consider him 'weak, ineffectual, an economic disaster, and he gets panned by the left for decisions such as the encouragement of pipelines.

They both are mistaken about Trudeau's character and politics: This is a man who learned his chops from two of the strongest and perhaps most divisive Liberal PMs Canada's had: his father Pierre and Jean Chretien. People are fooled by his good looks and seemingly easy charm. Beneath that is an intelligent and quite cautious politician, a very typical Liberal Party leader who will keep a sharp eye on the economy and attempt to balance reality with vision. He isn't perfect, none of them are, he'll make mistakes, his vision doesn't quite match what more left leaning Canadians want to see, but he won't tank the economy or make terrible legislation.

I think he's itching to renegotiate NAFTA - it's had little good or bad effect in Canada, and the Trump administration seems unaware of the possibility that the US could lose ground by making changes. I've wondered if Trudeau's main target might be Chapter 11 of the agreement:

Quote
.[73] Chapter 11 allows corporations or individuals to sue Mexico, Canada or the United States for compensation when actions taken by those governments (or by those for whom they are responsible at international law, such as provincial, state, or municipal governments) violate the international law.[74]

This chapter has been criticized by groups in the U.S.,[75] Mexico,[76] and Canada[77] for a variety of reasons, including not taking into account important social and environmental[78] considerations. In Canada, several groups, including the Council of Canadians, challenged the constitutionality of Chapter 11. They lost at the trial level[79] and have subsequently appealed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement#Chapter_11
14
Dave, if you're interested in the dairy situation, here's a couple Wisconsin farmers talking about it.

Quote
But Trump's slam of the Canadian dairy system is characterized by many in the state as misguided, because the real issue is broad overproduction.
Shane Sauer says his 120-head farm east of Madison and other such small operations have long been led to believe the market for milk was near endless.
"Processors have told us for quite a while that they want more milk," he said.  "We were told we need to feed the world. So we were just trying to do our part."
Advances in technology allowed dairy farmers everywhere to produce more milk.
 "We don't blame you," said Sauer said of Trump's comments about Canada. "We just want solutions."
Wisconsin alone has more milk cows than in all of Canada.


http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/we-dont-blame-you-wisconsin-farmers-on-trumps-blast-at-canadas-dairy-industry/ar-BBAa0cm?li=AAadgLE&ocid=spartandhp
15
Dave,
Do you understand the concept of competitive advantage?  It goes part and parcel with economies of scale (it's usually a precursor).

Also, resource rich countries, like The Republic of the Congo, are not always the best places for manufacturing.

The cost of transportation may not make sense in an efficiency argument (total energy required for production), but if energy is cheap w.r.t. the product then transportation is only a small incremental increase in cost and the savings come to importers via labor,  location or competitive advantage (usually a combination).

You don't understand history so you are destined to repeat it over and over.  Look at the UK in the 1800's, they were once the largest steel producer in the world (along with coal).  They imported all that cotton (resource rich southern states, that went far during the US Civil War) and wool (resource rich Australia and Scotland, again world powerhouses) to all those clothing factories that then re-shipped the product world wide (India and China).
* Steel production fell after Industrialization, US took over THEN Russia started producing more steel.  Today it's China.
*Coal production fell after Industrialization, US took over production THEN Russia THEN China and other resource rich nations.
*Clothing factories closed because of competition from cheaper labor in the US (Carolina's, etc.).  Then production moved from the US to overseas (China, Vietnam, Bangladesh, Phillipines).

Have you learned anything yet?
I'm way ahead of you. I know all that but I'm asking bigger questions which you apparently haven't even considered.
Which, apparently, you cannot articulate.

Meanwhile: is Canada doing the right thing, preferring Canadian milk?
Or is Trump right - and that is a disgrace?
Yes, Canada is doing the right thing.  Trump is wrong on this.  No one should be buying MILK from another country.  That's utterly ridiculous.  Cars, sure.  But milk?  Hell no.
Bluffy, how about when one family lives on one side of a border, and their friends, another family, right next door, live on the other side of that border?
Wouldn't make more sense for them to trade milk for eggs directly across that border than for each of them to drive to their respective nearest town to buy or sell eggs or milk?
Borders should be no more significant than zip code boundaries.
Well... there's the problem of dumping. Subsidised over-producing American dairies have been flooding the Canadian market with highly processed filtered milk protein, so Canada made some regulations to reduce that flood, and it is those regs that set the Americans off in the first place.

Canadians as a rule don't want American milk products because of the growth hormone and excessive antibiotic use permitted in the US, which are illegal in Canada.

You might eliminate borders, but you can't eliminate regions, and one region can ruin another region if there are no rules at all.
16
Just read this comment in  a reddit politics thread, re the disarray and lack of cohesion or ability to agree among the various warring factions in the republican government

Quote
oldgrumpy1: They dog whistled and dog whistled and dog whistled, and the dogs came, and they took over.
17
If so, what do you think happens to US export deals if the US bans imports?
Who said anything about banning imports? I'm not in favor of banning imports. But I am in favor of tariffs so as to protect our own industry.  The United States federal government was financed for most of our history with tariffs  if I recall correctly.
The world's moved on since then, buddy.

The people most hurt by placing high tariffs on imports to the US will be US citizens. Other countries now have other large markets to trade with, often under various free trade agreements. Imported goods in the US will skyrocket in price. Around then is when you find out how many things you aren't prepared or able to make inside the US. Also when manufacturers, anxious to get better deals on components they need for their products, start moving factories out of the country as fast as they can.

There'll still be trade with the US, but it will be reduced in volume both ways.
18
What *I* am claiming - trying to cut through all the BS and confusion propagated here - is that it's STOOPID to have a car factory in Japan to sell to the US market if labor rates are comparable. 

YOu would be less confused if you actually tried to understand what people are saying, instead of assuming that they, not you, are being stupid.

The obvious reason is (a) you have to ship materials from God knows where to Japan (b) you have to ship the cars here to the US market.  If you put the factory in the US, then you can source the materials from the US as well (we are resource rich) and you have much less shipping expense.

Moral of this story:  Make policy that encourages putting car factories in the USA for sales to the USA.

The end.

Ah, so this only applies to the US, not to Japan, or other smaller countries?


You know Dave. He'll figure the Japanese will make cars for Japan, Russians make cars for Russia, Luxembourg make cars for themselves, etc., so a billion belching steel mills in every country in order to supply their own steel etc.
19
He still hasn't answered my query about how his goats are doing and when they are due....
Well

Quote
The gestation period for goats is generally from 148 to 152 days with an average of 150 days. The gestation calculator uses 150 days from breeding date.
When did he send them for freshening? December?
20
It's extremely basic economics, Dave. Trade increases wealth and productivity, increases employment, reduces poverty, and encourages the best use of resources, among other things.
Well by "trade" ... if you mean "Dave likes to milk goats and cows but doesn't like to grow wheat so he trades milk for wheat" then yes ... I agree.

But if you mean that "buying Toyotas from a small nation 10,000 miles away somehow increases wealth and productivity, increases employment, reduces poverty, and encourages the best use of resources here in the USA" ... then I would beg you to explain that one to me.

Quote
It isn't simple of course
Right.  And you don't understand it.  But anyway you're sure it's good for us. Lol.
Quote
But people have been engaging in trade for many thousands of years, to the great benefit of civilisation.
What benefits?  I'm sure there are some, but I'd like to hear which things you think are benefits due to international trade (because it IS international trade you are advocating here).

Quote
I'm not going to teach you economics. But if you're interested, there are plenty primers and basic lessons online for you to read.
IOW you're just talking out of your ass again.  You're not going to "teach me economics" because you don't understand economics. 
No. I have no interest in 'teaching you economics'. There are multiple resources you can use, or you can remain ignorant.

You're so unpleasantly abusive it's not worth spending much time on you, Dave.

As for Trump, I don't think he's going to last long enough to completely destroy your country, but it's already weakened enough globally (ha! that word again!) to make Vlad happy,
21
Until this year I've not seen Dave express much interest in politics. Why he caught Trump Fever is a mystery, given much of what Trump campaigned on and seems to be trying to do has little relation to Dave's claimed aims in life.

Those 14th century ambitions, however, have always been antithetical to the idea of widespread trade, since he essentially wants people to produce the bulk of their needs on their personal acreage, other than a tiny bit of bartering.
Trade was widespread in the 14th century as well.  At least for the people who could afford the goods.  Dave wants a return to serfdom.  Will he still get to have Volvos and iPhones?
He is like Trump in that, like Trump, he seems unable to relate to the reality of needing external inputs to accomplish his goals and fulfil his needs. In Trump's case, he doesn't understand the importance of not pissing off the entire rest of the world to the point that trade and business in America will suffer. In Dave's case he doesn't understand that his vision, accomplished, would mean the end of iPhones and Volvos.
22
Until this year I've not seen Dave express much interest in politics. Why he caught Trump Fever is a mystery, given much of what Trump campaigned on and seems to be trying to do has little relation to Dave's claimed aims in life.

Those 14th century ambitions, however, have always been antithetical to the idea of widespread trade, since he essentially wants people to produce the bulk of their needs on their personal acreage, other than a tiny bit of bartering.
23
It's extremely basic economics, Dave. Trade increases wealth and productivity, increases employment, reduces poverty, and encourages the best use of resources, among other things. It isn't simple of course - nothing is that involves many nations. But people have been engaging in trade for many thousands of years, to the great benefit of civilisation.

I'm not going to teach you economics. But if you're interested, there are plenty primers and basic lessons online for you to read.
24
Are there any fundamental reasons why anybody in the United States should have to buy any  manufactured product from any other country?    I really cannot think of any.
Hmm. Are there any fundamental reasons why anybody outside the United States should have to buy any manufactured product from the US?
Hmm. I can't think of a product, manufactured or grown or dug out of the ground that isn't available from somewhere besides the USA. While it is currently economically advantageous for Canadians, for example, to purchase a very large volume of American products, it wouldn't take a huge increase in costs - say Trump's threatened tariffs - to make it much more feasible to import those products from some other country more interested in fair trade practices. :hmm:

For example, this trade agreement will almost certainly be enacted:

Quote
The Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) is a free-trade agreement between Canada and the European Union.[1][2][3] If enacted, the agreement will eliminate 98% of the tariffs between Canada and the EU.

The negotiations were concluded in August 2014. All 28 European Union member states approved the final text of CETA for signature, with Belgium being the final country to give its approval.[4] Justin Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada, traveled to Brussels on 30 October 2016 to sign on behalf of Canada.[5] The European Parliament approved the deal on 15 February 2017;[6] most of it can be applied provisionally from as early as April 2017. The remaining parts of the agreement are subject to ratification by national legislatures.[7][3]

The EU is already Canada's second largest trading partner, and if passed, CETA will lower the costs and remove roadblocks, leading to even greater exchanges of goods and services.
25
The Globalist.

Oops I mean ....

The Economist.
You know the rest of the world actually exists, right? And that you and your country are an integral part of it, as are all the other people and nations?

'Global' is not a dirty word. Like it or not you cannot be an isolationist nation in this era without your own people suffering from it.

As it is, Trump is busy alienating trade with allies, a stance that will have far reaching consequences and be painful, in the short run, for everyone, and in the long run even more painful for the US. The US is a huge market, but it isn't the only huge market, and if it becomes a costly and difficult market, well, there are other markets eager to buy what, for example, Canada is selling.