Yes to much of this, so long as it is really about how our two countries engage in trade and the relative merits of protectionism. I am more concerned about the deeper subtext to what is happening in the US, as seen in the administration’s overall approach to Canada, Mexico, Panama and Greenland. We cannot dismiss that TruMusk’s pusposes may not be about ‘the deal’ but rather the acquisition. Much of the popular reaction is, justifiably I think, energized toward mitigating our exposure to Trump’s stated goal of economic annexation. If it was ‘only’ about trade deficits, globalization, etc, I’d be more comfortable with your measured approach.
Wasn't it just a few posts ago that you were lauding the rise of the rest of the world in education, in lower infant mortality, in rights? How did that happen beside global trade? You can't have it both ways. But you're right that Canada has squandered its opportunities badly and broadly. If there's one thing Canada is good at it's squander. Not quite as good as Britain, but up there. Combining the willingness of say, Scottish industrialists willing to throw their own under the bus for a buck with the British penchant for letting things go to seed for the emo gothic "charm" of it all we're sort of stuck. If it weren't for the French being dramatic and inventive and the diligent Dutch, "diligent-ing" I'd be stuck for a metaphorical solution to this here mix-tape of tropes attempting to explain the melange malaise that is Canada's cultural hindrance we have to overcome in order to achieve that perfect poise of trade you refer to. In other words, we want to achieve perfect poise and balance with trade, but we may lack the cultural ruthlessness to see to our own needs to do just that.
Look, instead of trying to reframe this as a considered public policy let's just call a spade a spade. Trump isn't doing tariffs for any other reason except dick-waving. Yeah, that's crude but so is he, so it fits. In fact, his ideas about trade generally are simplistic and unconsidered. A story he can sell to the masses instead of a policy he can take to wonks. This is a fight. Generally, in a fight you want to hit first and hit hard if you want to win. We didn't want to fight to begin with so the next move is to hit much harder with an aim to hobble. We should increase all energy exports to the US 200% from tomorrow and for the remainder of the winter no matter what happens on their side with tariffs. That's if we want to win. That's if we're serious about taking Trump as he is, a bender (see, you made me use hockey metaphors), an opportunistic bully with no real policy or political agenda except to get praise and money for himself. Make him politically pay by hitting him in the five-hole of the people who elected him.
However, we do need to come up with coherent trade policy given the fact that our much larger neighbours appear to be having a societal mental breakdown and may not be up to the task of keeping up their end of the bargain of being good trade partners and generally good neighbours.
I would argue that the world is a big and complex place and I absolutely can have it both ways... and I can get wrong until I get it right - not as a know-it-all all, but in an open book lifetime journey toward understanding.
I hope you do have the time to, "get it wrong it until you get it right." Truly. I'm glad that you're going for understanding, not "rightness." But sometimes life throws curveballs and you either have to bat them away or get hit and walk with a limp for awhile.
I think "we" must fight the tariffs with both hands by making & buying Canadian AND making sure that through our government responses US citizens get the message of how wrong their leader is. The broader global trade question is legit as well. Like everyone else, Canadians want everything, all the time, super-sized, and we want it cheap! We have become entitled. And have chosen to ignore and deny the socio-economic, environmental and health (including mental) costs. So there is a lot of room for backing up, taking stock, seizing this opportunity to do better.
Yes to much of this, so long as it is really about how our two countries engage in trade and the relative merits of protectionism. I am more concerned about the deeper subtext to what is happening in the US, as seen in the administration’s overall approach to Canada, Mexico, Panama and Greenland. We cannot dismiss that TruMusk’s pusposes may not be about ‘the deal’ but rather the acquisition. Much of the popular reaction is, justifiably I think, energized toward mitigating our exposure to Trump’s stated goal of economic annexation. If it was ‘only’ about trade deficits, globalization, etc, I’d be more comfortable with your measured approach.
Bah!
Wasn't it just a few posts ago that you were lauding the rise of the rest of the world in education, in lower infant mortality, in rights? How did that happen beside global trade? You can't have it both ways. But you're right that Canada has squandered its opportunities badly and broadly. If there's one thing Canada is good at it's squander. Not quite as good as Britain, but up there. Combining the willingness of say, Scottish industrialists willing to throw their own under the bus for a buck with the British penchant for letting things go to seed for the emo gothic "charm" of it all we're sort of stuck. If it weren't for the French being dramatic and inventive and the diligent Dutch, "diligent-ing" I'd be stuck for a metaphorical solution to this here mix-tape of tropes attempting to explain the melange malaise that is Canada's cultural hindrance we have to overcome in order to achieve that perfect poise of trade you refer to. In other words, we want to achieve perfect poise and balance with trade, but we may lack the cultural ruthlessness to see to our own needs to do just that.
Look, instead of trying to reframe this as a considered public policy let's just call a spade a spade. Trump isn't doing tariffs for any other reason except dick-waving. Yeah, that's crude but so is he, so it fits. In fact, his ideas about trade generally are simplistic and unconsidered. A story he can sell to the masses instead of a policy he can take to wonks. This is a fight. Generally, in a fight you want to hit first and hit hard if you want to win. We didn't want to fight to begin with so the next move is to hit much harder with an aim to hobble. We should increase all energy exports to the US 200% from tomorrow and for the remainder of the winter no matter what happens on their side with tariffs. That's if we want to win. That's if we're serious about taking Trump as he is, a bender (see, you made me use hockey metaphors), an opportunistic bully with no real policy or political agenda except to get praise and money for himself. Make him politically pay by hitting him in the five-hole of the people who elected him.
However, we do need to come up with coherent trade policy given the fact that our much larger neighbours appear to be having a societal mental breakdown and may not be up to the task of keeping up their end of the bargain of being good trade partners and generally good neighbours.
I would argue that the world is a big and complex place and I absolutely can have it both ways... and I can get wrong until I get it right - not as a know-it-all all, but in an open book lifetime journey toward understanding.
I hope you do have the time to, "get it wrong it until you get it right." Truly. I'm glad that you're going for understanding, not "rightness." But sometimes life throws curveballs and you either have to bat them away or get hit and walk with a limp for awhile.
I think "we" must fight the tariffs with both hands by making & buying Canadian AND making sure that through our government responses US citizens get the message of how wrong their leader is. The broader global trade question is legit as well. Like everyone else, Canadians want everything, all the time, super-sized, and we want it cheap! We have become entitled. And have chosen to ignore and deny the socio-economic, environmental and health (including mental) costs. So there is a lot of room for backing up, taking stock, seizing this opportunity to do better.
Agreed. And I think to the extent it is possible, Trudeau got the message across as well as anyone could in his speech last night.