By on September 21, 2018

nafta-secretariat

The United States is getting extremely close to having to move forward on its NAFTA deal with Mexico without Canada, according to White House economic adviser Kevin Hassett.

“I’m a little surprised that the Canadians haven’t signed up yet,” Hassett said in an interview with Fox News. “I worry that politics in Canada is trumping common sense because there’s a very good deal that was designed by Mexico and the U.S. to appeal to Canada. And they’re not signing up and it’s got everybody over here a little bit puzzled.”

On Thursday, Canadian Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland and U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer met in Washington to discuss terms. However, no agreement was reached. 

“We discussed some tough issues today, the atmosphere continues to be constructive, and we continue to work hard towards a deal,” Freeland told the media. “I chose my words carefully: Today we discussed some tough issues, the conversation was constructive.”

Trump struck a side-deal with Mexico last month and has begun threatening to exclude Canada if it won’t agree to his terms. He also said he might impose a 25 percent duty on Canadian auto exports, possibly simply to rattle negotiators into playing ball.

Canada is seeking some kind of guarantee that, if a deal is reached with the United States, it won’t include those lofty auto tariffs. According to Bloomberg, Unifor President Jerry Dias, head of the union representing Detroit Three autoworkers north of the border, hung around the meeting to talk to the press about it. He said an agreement without a no-tariff assurance would be foolish, adding that Canadians aren’t stupid.

“Why would Canada sign a trade agreement that deals with all the important issues and then have Donald Trump impose a 25 per cent tariff on automobiles?” Dias asked reporters while trade discussion progressed between Freeland and Lighthizer.

It’s a good question, but may be one the United States is less interested in seeking an answer for anymore. Hassett says a standalone deal with Mexico is right around the corner, in which case NAFTA is effectively over if an agreement can’t be reached with Canada before October 1st.

It’s another self-imposed target that could go ignored but the U.S. seems steadfast in its adherence to it. While previous deadlines have passed during the arduous, year-long negotiations aimed at revising NAFTA, pressure on Canada to sign a deal has never been higher. While asking for quite a bit initially, America has repeatedly rolled back its demands and now wants to push something through Congress before Mexico’s new government takes office on December 1st of this year.

Meanwhile, reports have come in that U.S. negotiators want Canada cap its auto exports to the United States at 1.7 million vehicles a year. However, industry sources have said such a cap has not been officially discussed and would be deemed unacceptable anyway. Mexico’s deal is rumored to cap tariff-free or nearly duty-free Mexican imports to the United States at 2.4 million vehicles. Canada currently sends the U.S. roughly 2 million vehicles annually.

[Image: NAFTA Secretariat]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

133 Comments on “Trade War Watch: NAFTA Window Almost Closed, Canada Still Isn’t Interested...”


  • avatar
    highdesertcat

    Maybe separate deals with Mexico and Canada will work better, this time around.

    NAFTA was a bad deal for many Americans who lost their job, and a great deal for others profited from goods made in Mexico or Canada and imported free and clear into the US.

    Trade should benefit all parties. For far too long the US has been at a disadvantage in relation to their trading partners.

    Hopefully that will change with the current US administration.

    Maybe unilateral trade deals are the way to go for the next century.

    • 0 avatar

      Somebody drank the Trump koolaid. Yes, some low paying, unskilled laborers lost their jobs.

      NAFTA also resulted in U.S. trade with its North American neighbors more than tripling.

      “Regional trade increased sharply over the treaty’s first two decades, from roughly $290 billion in 1993 to more than $1.1 trillion in 2016.”

      By nearly any measure, the United State as a whole has come out the overall winner by some margin since the implementation of NAFTA. Any other conclusion is cherry picking for the sake of one minority group or another.

      https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/naftas-economic-impact

      • 0 avatar
        Alcolawl

        >>Somebody drank the Trump koolaid.

        Why was this sentence necessary? Why is it that every time someone on the internet seems to support our President they get passive-aggressive comments or insults hurled their way? Isn’t that what left-leaning voters blast Trump for all the time? You continued to present solid counterpoints, but the first sentence eclipses your whole argument because it’s toxic. It’s specifically there to piss people off and/or insult highdesertcat.

      • 0 avatar
        highdesertcat

        I didn’t vote for Trump but he’s done pretty damn good in the job. So I will vote for him if he runs again in 2020.

        He’s done alright by me. My standard of living has improved dramatically since the last guy in office and I am much better off under Trump than any other US president in MY lifetime. Really!

        And for more than 7 decades the US has been trading with other nations always at a disadvantage to the US while those other nations shunned American-made goods or placed tariffs and VAT on them.

        Every trading relationship is different. Maybe America should not lump Mexico and Canada together in one trade agreement. Maybe America should have individual trade agreements with each trading partner.

      • 0 avatar
        Lockstops

        @Ziprage: Ok, so people lose their jobs, production is moved out of the US, and then the US has to buy those products it used to make from abroad. In other words trade increases. Why is that binarily a good thing?

        You also write that it was only low paying, unskilled labourers who lost their jobs… You think that’s really all that modern production consists of? And what happens next, when the US has lost the production base? What happens in the other countries that have produced those products for years, you think they just stop there and happily let the US take in much of the profits, not cutting the US out of the chain, only relegating Americans to customers?

        How much do you wanna bet that giving away your country’s interests and production is a good thing in the long run? Whatever you want to bet on it I don’t want you to bet on my behalf: I’d rather make sane, rational decisions based on logic and not end up in s**t creek later on.

      • 0 avatar
        Superdessucke

        Those unskilled laborers helped vote Trump into the office.

        Your argument assumes that trade between the three countries would not have increased without NAFTA. Trade would have increased anyway, and with better wages and terms for U.S. workers, and probably the workers in Mexico as well.

        • 0 avatar
          TrailerTrash

          See, the real way to measure by MY reasoning is what type of goods are being traded.
          If i recall, we were buying real goods, cars, machinery etc while canada was buying services.
          OK…which would YOU rather be importing and exporting?
          Would you rather export accounting and travel or manufactured goods????????

          • 0 avatar
            Superdessucke

            Manufactured goods keep people employed. Not everyone can go to college you know. And even if they did, there wouldn’t be enough jobs in the service sector for them because our trading partners have unfair trade barriers on those services.
            And due to their booming economies I don’t see us maintaining an advantage in the service sector for very long.

            So I would rather be strong in all three areas. I believe every country needs a strong manufacturing base not only for a better overall economy but for future protection.

            Had Hillary won it was only a matter of time before China could have easily taken us over cuz we wouldn’t have been able to build anything to defend ourselves!

          • 0 avatar
            TrailerTrash

            to clear my p[osition up here, i am in favor of the american position…being one.
            and yes, the real jobs like manufacturing that the middle-class needs for survival, are going the canadian route.

            and i am in complete agreement when trump calls steel and other production a national security issue.

            when you want to convert your factories into war production in times of war…you better damn well have the factories.

      • 0 avatar
        TrailerTrash

        by nearly every measure?
        so how about the measures of proportion and percentage?

    • 0 avatar
      connecting_rodd

      I remember back when the original NAFTA deal was signed many Canadians thought that it was stacked too much in Mexico and the USA’s favour. In fact it as a big point of contention with the 1993 election that saw the liberals rise to power partly on the promise to scrap nafta when elected. Fast forward 25 years and now we have an America president singing the same tune. All I can say, is that if no one can decide who truly got the better deal, then it probably was about right the first time. I find it amusing that so many people are quick to believe Trump’s verbal diarrhea with regards to NAFTA as all they need to do is pick up a first year economic text book to see how false his claims are. Trump supporters truly should be insulted by the lies that Trump is shoving down their throats as he’s taking them for fools.

      The Canadian government would have to be certifiable to accept the deal that Trump is offering to them with at least a fight. It’s not a win-win deal by any stretch and it seems Trumps idea of a deal is completely taking advantage of the other party. Trump might in the end succeed with bullying his way to this deal but it will leave collateral damage in its wake and severely damage the relationship of the two countries. Trump would have a much easier time getting his way in this world if he wasn’t such an unlikeable person – people dislike him to much that they are more than willing to suffer through hardship just to not give in to him because of who he is.

    • 0 avatar
      bd2

      NAFTA was an even worse deal for the small farmer in Mexico as cheap/subsidized agricultural products (particularly corn) devastated rural villages.

      Which led to the mass migration of working adults from those areas north.

      The movement of manufacturing from the US to Mexico has been a fairly recent phenomena, as manufacturers had previously preferred China (where costs were lower).

      But as the cost of production has risen in China (along w/ wanting shorter supply-lines and lower transport costs), Mexico has become more attractive to manufacturers.

      It was the liberal Dems who were against NAFTA (the centrist Dems sided w/ the Republicans).

      As for China, the charge to move manufacturing there was also led by the Republicans (in no small part at the request of Walmart, which has been a major financial supporter of the Republicans).

      Unilateral trade deals are nothing new.

      The US has one w/ SKorea and a # of other countries.

  • avatar
    Hummer

    Canada screwed itself by acting uninterested in dealing with the US when we talked to Mexico. The picture of the “scary” trade negotiation team is a hilarious caricature of Canada’s government. But that’s what happens when you have a wimpy boy in charge, not coming to the table for the benefit of your entire country was the act of a fool.

    • 0 avatar
      WheelMcCoy

      It’s worth noting that with Canada, the U.S. exports more and imports less. In other words, the U.S. has a trade surplus with Canada, so Canada’s reaction to tariffs is quite understandable. It’s also worth noting that Canada is our ally.

    • 0 avatar
      donatolla

      I’d call it “won’t be bullied” not “uninterested”.

      • 0 avatar
        Hummer

        Trade with Canada accounts for 2% of the US economy

        Trade with the US accounts for 20% of Canada’s economy.

        Clearly they need us more than we need them, they can call it bullying but they had every opportunity to be at the table when the agreement was made and they chose not to. By all means Canada screwed itself, Mexico was clearly smart enough to realize the first person at the table would get the better deal, but when they are the only one at the table they must be getting a killer deal. I’ll go ahead and get the popcorn popping if Canada thinks it has any leverage, they lost their chance and now they have to play save face.

        • 0 avatar
          plcsystems

          Canada represents 24.4% of the US export economy according to the WTO. And Canad represents 17.4% of US imports. This is one of the largest trading partnerships in the world. Perhaps you should check your facts?

        • 0 avatar
          Luke42

          I wouldn’t be surprised if Canada were in secret talks to join the Europran Free Trade Association.

          That would mean that their BATNA is far better than Trump thinks it is. Trump is acting like Canada had no choice but to cave to his bullying, and the Canadians are acting like they have an alternative. The USA is no longer a reliable partner, due to Trump’s attempts to put them over a barrel, and so they need to diversify their foreign trade to mitigate the risks which come with people like Trump now being electable in the US. It’s quite possible that, between EFTA and China/New Silk Road, the Canadians might come out ahead in the long run — both in terms of risk-mitigation and in terms of trade-wealth. Their BATNA may be so good that they can just tell Trump to f*ck off.

          Time will tell if this is what they’re doing. My comment is just speculation based on what I would be doing if I were the Canadian government, and Trudeau et al are at least as smart as I am.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @Luke42 – Canada has signed a trade deal with the EU. The EU signed off on it last year. (CETA – Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement)

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          @Hummer – politics like religion or lust have very little to do with logic. Americans of all people should understand that, you have Trump as a President.

          Canada doesn’t have any real leverage over the USA other than the fact that a trade war between the USA and Canada would be a poison pill for the USA. The “world” tends to see Trump as a “one hit wonder” therefore the hope is that they just have to hang on until that rodeo ride ends.

          Tariffs and killing NAFTA would obviously severely damage Canada financially but would most likely be of political benefit to those on the left i.e. the Liberal Party and the more socialist New Democratic Party.

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            Americans are sick of politicians so we hired a well loved business man that has created more wealth than any politician in Washington, logically speaking the type of person President Trump is should be the type of people we elect into all offices. Not Pol-Sci majors, lawyers, or worse social justice warriors.
            The US simply does not need Canada nearly as bad as Canada needs us. If fair trade makes Canada go further socialist than good for you, just don’t come pouring into our country after your quest to recreate Venezuela ends in abject failure.

    • 0 avatar
      formula m

      “Wimpy boy” ? That literally describes Donald. Why would you vote for a 80yr old man that can’t even negotiate sex without paying $130K USD for it

      • 0 avatar
        Lockstops

        He didn’t pay for sex, he paid the bitch to shut the F up after she had sex with him.
        I wish I would have so much money that I could pay b*****es to shut the F up.

        • 0 avatar
          formula m

          Well it shows what pathetic people you and Donald are. Is that how women should be treated?

          He tries to pay that because he is scared he is going to get teased and made fun of like the loser he is after women have been with him.

          • 0 avatar
            Lockstops

            formula m:
            So now suddenly that ‘pornstar’, or what do you think would be better to call someone who has a career of having sex for money, then is basically a leftist honeypot going for straight up blackmail, then after being paid their blackmail ransom still publishes personal and intimate things about someone…for money and to _hurt_ them?

            Also, please repeat your view on my argumentation: am I right or am I wrong in writing that he did in fact not pay for sex?

            It’s amazing to see what kind of mental gymnastics spineless leftists are capable of. Now she’s such a ‘lady’ that calling her a b***h is somehow something to once again play victim of? Your hero is basically a w***e, your party engages in despicable soviet-level political mudslinging going to a new low never before seen in western politics. I guess you’d applaud it if some male prostitute (or female, whatever Hillary is into) would entrap Hillary and then describe her vagina in a book? That would be lofty, graceful, honourable, nay majestic behaviour?

    • 0 avatar
      mikey

      @ Hummer ….I couldn’t have said it any better, and I’m a Canadian …The sooner we dump these fools in Ottawa the better

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      Hummer,
      Why should Canada become involved when IT did state to the US that the direction of the talks was not in its liking ….. with the Mexicans?

  • avatar
    megaphone

    Why would anyone sign a deal with this President since he is incapable of honoring deals made by past administrations and has a history of not honoring deals he made in business.

    • 0 avatar
      stingray65

      What deals are you talking about? Do you mean the Paris climate agreement that was never approved by Congress, which would cost the US taxpayers and consumers $billions annually to possibly reduce temperatures by .0001 C in 80 years? Or do you mean Iran deal, which was also never approved by Congress and lets a crazy theocracy develop Nukes and gives them lots of money to continue to support terrorism and threaten Israel? Or do you mean the NATO deal that means the US gets to pay almost the entire defense bill to protect Western Europe so the Euroweanies can spend defense money on the welfare state instead? Or do you mean Obamacare that is unworkable without unconstitutional subsidy payments to insurance companies or the unconstitutional Dreamer act to allow millions of illegals to stay in the US to continue collecting welfare and committing crime? Any rational actor would look at Trump’s refusal to continue with deals and policies that are bad for the American taxpayer and realize that Trump isn’t going to roll over in new negotiations like his predecessors.

      • 0 avatar
        golden2husky

        The cost of not addressing climate change will so far outstrip the cost of trying is is not even funny. You have grandkids SR? Of everything you listed, only expecting NATO to increase their contributions (a reasonable ask of Trump) makes any sense. .0001 degree? I know your ilk ignores science for Fox News created fantasy but at least try to sound like you know what you are talking about

        • 0 avatar
          stingray65

          Golden – you don’t know what you are talking about. If the climate change “experts” are correct, we would need to totally shut down the modern economy to keep temperatures at the “safe” level, which would kill millions of people who would starve to death or freeze to death from the loss of modern agriculture and other benefits derived from the use of carbon based fuels. I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to live with a 1876 carbon footprint, which is what the “experts” say Americans will need to do to stop global warming. Fortunately the “experts” seem to be wrong as none of their models have predicted the lull in global temperatures over the past 20 years despite constant increases in human sources greenhouse gases.

          Perhaps you could use a little education:
          https://www.prageru.com/videos/paris-climate-agreement-wont-change-climate

          • 0 avatar
            golden2husky

            I’m more than well educated on the topic but always willing to look at data that may not agree with me, or those 97% of the world’s climatologists that have reams of data showing the fact that man has influenced the climate. The real argument should no longer be “is it happening” because it is. By the way, I’m not sure of the “lull” you are referring to because the last year that saw global temperatures below the average was 1976. A fact cast in stone. No, the real argument is what will it mean and is there anything that can be done about it. No, I don’t want to live like it was in 1876. But there are so many areas of improvements that can be made. Example – over 40% of the food produced in this country ends up in the trash. And most of that is from highly energy intensive farming methods. Loads of potential right there. Look at a City skyline – thousands of empty buildings with all the lights left on.

            It is easy to say nothing can be done about it. I’m sure many thought that in the 1960s when America had dozens of air quality alerts and a famous river that actually caught on fire. Remeber the stink of traffic? Almost all gone due to an effort made (backed by regulations) that made it happen. Climate change is a more complex issue for sure, but it is safe to say that rolling back methane regs (due to the bonehead in office) is a step in the wrong direction.

            Since money is all that matters to most conservatives, what do you think the cost of protecting the stock exchange in NYC will be? The longer any real effort is made to slow the warming, the costs will just explode. At that point the feedback effect will likely make any effort by man to reduce the change irrelevant. The time to act is now. I get it – this is asking people today to pay for the protection of people tomorrow – and that is a tough sell. But pretending nothing can be done about it will simply dump the issue on your grandkids.

            Regarding your link, I found this on their website:

            …We take the best ideas from the best minds and distill them down to five focused minutes. We then add graphics and animation to create the most persuasive, entertaining, and educational case possible for the values that have made America and the West the source of so much liberty and wealth. These values are Judeo-Christian at their core and include the concepts of freedom of speech, a free press, free markets and a strong military to protect and project those values…

            Clearly not a source of unbiased information to be sure. I would not provide a link from Environmental Defense Fund to you…you would rightly accuse me of providing information from a group with an agenda.

          • 0 avatar
            philipwitak

            sorry, one will not find even “…a little education” @ prager / prageru. does not represent legitimate science and/or known salient facts regarding climate change.

          • 0 avatar
            stingray65

            So the Prager video doesn’t represent the facts? Did you actually view the video? Lomborg cites the same models used by the Paris people to demonstrate how ineffective the agreement would be even if there was 100% compliance until 2100, but also shows it would cost $1 trillion a year to achieve that extremely minor result. Instead of criticizing the source, why don’t you put up some counter facts – oh I guess because you have nothing to back up your side except the 97% bullsh-t. Science isn’t a popularity contest, its about accurate predictions and climate science hasn’t even come close to accurate over the last 20 years.

        • 0 avatar
          TrailerTrash

          husky…
          here is trick you and others are trying to put forth…the changing from man-made climate change to climate change itself.
          NOBODY IN THIS WORF DISAGREES THERE IS CLIMATE CHANGE!!!
          Every friggin day the climate changes.
          But now we get switched on the argument.

          trying then to change the earth’s climate is indeed a difficult deed.
          And doing so might just be stupid.

          watching the insane government policies over the years is like watching a horror film.
          from damming the Mississippi to forest control, its all gone nuts.

          • 0 avatar
            golden2husky

            …here is trick you and others are trying to put forth…the changing from man-made climate change to climate change itself…

            No trick at all. All the real sources of true data do take into account input from natural sources that have nothing to do with man. The complexity is enormous for sure. Once can reasonably argue that there are so many variables that interplay with each other, that predicting an outcome is impossible. A more simple, but still complex example, would be weather. A argument might be that we can’t even give a real two week weather forecast – how can we possibly predict 50 years? All good arguments. But there are plenty of other factors too. One good example is temperature increase that is moving in near-lockstep with rising atmospheric CO2.

          • 0 avatar
            TrailerTrash

            husky

            “All the real sources of true data…”
            wait, what?
            this is the dead end of this discussion.
            cause right now i can give you so many scientific reports stating otherwise and explaining the errors of the so-called consensus science taking place right now it would spin you.
            but then the counter is…these aren’t real scientist or studies.

            well, they are and others have proven your sources as cheaters and out to save their jobs and get funding.

        • 0 avatar

          @ GH: You also might want to check out Seductive Simulations, a paper authored by Myanha Lahson. It examines the flaws in prediction simulations. It’s on the scholarly side, but still worth the read for another point of view.

          • 0 avatar
            golden2husky

            THX, thanks for the info. I will check it out for sure. I have no problem – and in fact like – seeing other points of view . I just find it annoying when people get all emotional and ignore real fact, like saying the 97% number in comments above as “BS” simply because it does not agree with one’s point of view.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            If one were to contract cancer and your oncologist told you that his recommendations are backed by 97% of those in oncology, what would you do?

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            I would wonder the hell he is trying to sell me on statistics rather than facts.

      • 0 avatar
        mleitman

        How about the current Nafta deal? The steel and aluminum tariffs and threatened auto tariffs are not in the US national security interest contrary to what the US administration alleges. During WWII, Canadian aluminum smelters were themselves deemed to be in the US national interest and protected as such

      • 0 avatar
        redapple

        Sting

        Wow. Nice list of FACTS. I agree with you 100%. Thank you for putting it out there.

      • 0 avatar
        thelaine

        Boom! Another great, accurate comment Stingray. Much appreciated.

  • avatar
    motorrad

    I read your linked article and I think you cherry picked your quote. Here is another quote from your article “The U.S.-Mexico trade balance swung from a $1.7 billion U.S. surplus in 1993 to a $54 billion deficit by 2014.”

    I think there are good and bad things about NAFTA, but just stating that increased trade automatically means it benefited Americans is disingenuous.

    • 0 avatar
      Luke42

      “I think there are good and bad things about NAFTA, but just stating that increased trade automatically means it benefited Americans is disingenuous.”

      That’s actually wrong.

      Trade does benefit Americans IN AGGREGATE in all cases. All of the abstract Econ 102 arguments about the Gains Of Trade aside, no person or business in any country will do a transaction unless they benefit. When both parties benefit, the trade will occur.

      THE PROBLEM is that, even if America ends up wealthier in aggregate, there are still winners and losers within the US. The business who just doubled their profit margins wins, as for the people who buy the product for less. The people who lose are the people who the company used to employ — but everyone remaining in the value chain wins bigly.

      If you want to increase your national wealth AND keep individuals or groups (say unskilled workers) from being f*cked over, you have to figure out what to do for those who lose out (even though the nation as a whole benefits).

      I have a great answer to the question how to have our cake and eat it too, but you’re not going to like it. It took me darned near a decade to come around to it, too. I’ll save the answer for later, and just let you digest what I’ve said so far.

      • 0 avatar
        ToddAtlasF1

        It’s such a great answer that it killed 94 million people during the 20th century. The guys who made $2.8 billion a piece and more reducing the net worths of five thousand households at a time by $400k each aren’t going to shed a tear for you when your ideology cleanses you from the planet along with the rest of the inconvenient middle class. I’m sure there will be more money to be made by turning off the benefit taps when the level of dependency is sufficient.

  • avatar
    TDIandThen....

    I think it was the Washington Post this morning had a graphic showing how a Lexus engine is cast and bored in Tennessee,pistons and rods are made in Ohio or Michigan, the engine is then assembled in Ontario, and the final car is painted / prepped for shipment back in US plants.

    The US may have a trade deficit in one product that is balanced out in another with Canada. For example the US loses some milk customers because we have more rigorous health standards but Canada loses many more sugar customers than the US due to US barriers.

    And anyway, for what small deficit there is, exactly how much does having a massive US forward operating base on the Russian border and one of the nicest group of folks to cover for your warmongering internationaliy, mean to you?

    I’m a dual citizen and sick of Americans drinking the kool-aid and threatening my other home for no good reason.

    We’ll sell our resources and labour to multilateral relations and friends elsewhere and we’ll suffer a bit economically. What you’re not hearing in the press is that for many Canadians this has become about national pride and the US can shove it.

    • 0 avatar
      Hummer

      What are you talking about? Canada is a strategic ally, it shouldn’t be a parasite to America. No reason any US citizen should care about the economic wellbeing of another country, particularly one that is importing terrorists that have crossed our borders and has actively attempted to undermined a sitting administration in said country that’s suppose to be passionate to their needs. Real ally Canada is… beside we have enough issues at home.

      If it’s such a small deficit then why can’t Canada fix the issue?

      • 0 avatar
        Whatnext

        You’re ridiculous. How could a country of 37 million be expected to consume anywhere near as much as a country of 326 million? The fact that Canada has surplus goods, particularly natural resources, to trade only benefits the USA.

        One terrorist tried to cross the border from Canada to the USA in 2000. Hardly the threatening scenario you try to paint. You’re nothing more than the stereotype of a bigoted, fearful Trump supporter blindly following President Mushroom down the rabbit hole.

        • 0 avatar
          Hummer

          And your nothing more than the stereotypical democrat blindly following the media and other far left syndicates to support your confirmation bias.

          Regardless I don’t expect Canada to consume as much as the US, but frankly I don’t live in Canada so I take minimal interest in how they support themselves or govern themselves.
          Maybe the rest of the world should figure out that this isn’t a game where everyone gets an equal shot at winning. As a US citizen the only country I’m concerned about is my own, if I were a Canadian then that would be my concern. Again, since I’m a US citizen I am only worried about the well being of my country and it’s people.

    • 0 avatar
      ToddAtlasF1

      “What you’re not hearing in the press is that for many Canadians this has become about national pride and the US can shove it.”

      Justin Trudeau. National pride. Choose only one.

  • avatar
    formula m

    Trump has been relentless in declaring how badly the USA have been ripped off. I’m positive Trump and the Republicans don’t like Mexico.

    Why would Canada sign a deal that Donald and the Mexicans drew up? It’s obviously garbage if Trump is happy and Canada wasn’t even there to negotiate it. Why would Canada sign a trade deal that they weren’t even represented during the “side- bilateral “ discussions.

    • 0 avatar
      Hummer

      US asked both Canada and Mexico to work with them to develope a new trade agreement that was more fair to the US. Both sides has equal opportunity to come to the table. Clearly Mexico was smart enough to understand the first to the table would get the best deal. Canada on the other hand thought acting like a child not getting its way would benefit them. Canada didn’t even show up to the US-Mexico meeting. By all accounts Canada is at fault here.

      • 0 avatar
        mleitman

        Except on Trump’s and his ilk’s perverted perception of “fair” the existing Nafta already is fair (I speak from the Canadian/US perspective not knowing enough about US/Mexican trade)

        • 0 avatar
          Hummer

          Again as the leader of the US, his only concern are that if his people; if Canada doesn’t want to play ball it can suggest its own unilateral trade agreement. Would have been smart on canadas side to act on it when we first opened the idea. Any deal where the US holds a trade deficit with another country is a bad deal. Particularly one where Canada so heavily relies on the US.

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      America’s trade policy started with the post-war Marshall Plan. The tenets of that global economy-rebuilding plan were for the US to trade with other nations at a disadvantage in order to rebuild their war-devastated economies.

      And that policy remained in place until……. the new Sheriff came to town.

      I was stationed in West Germany ’72-’80 and each US dollar was worth 4.80 Deutsche Mark. A lot of GIs went home with primo German goods, including some fine cars. And the German economy grew and grew, rebuilding the country.

      The US has been absorbing the goods made by other nations at a disadvantage for 73 years while those other nations have shunned American-made goods, or put tariffs and VAT on them.

      Time for a change. Let’s make trade free and equitable. If American goods are tariffed, America should tariff the goods of that trading partner.

      That’s called leveling the playing field.

      • 0 avatar
        WalterRohrl

        “I was stationed in West Germany ’72-’80 and each US dollar was worth 4.80 Deutsche Mark.”

        No it wasn’t. Not even close. The highest value each US Dollar had at any point between 1/1/1972 and 12/31/1980 was DM3.27 per 1US$

        Look it up, it’s easy to do.

        In fact that high point was actually in January 1972, it pretty much straightlined down the whole time until you left in 1980 at which point each dollar wasn’t even worth 2DMs.

        • 0 avatar
          highdesertcat

          In revisiting that comment I see that I left the reader with the impression that it stayed that high for the duration.

          As you wrote, “it pretty much straightlined down the whole time until you left in 1980 at which point each dollar wasn’t even worth 2DMs.”

          I was actually in Germany TDY with Reforger over several years prior to PCS in ’72.

          Exchange rates very high at those times and we went home with tons of wine, cheese, cases of Jaegermeister, Bols, etc bought on the economy.

          Not good today, or when I was there in 2016.

          • 0 avatar
            formula m

            I’m sure Donald is very current on dollar value and exchange rates for mail order brides and companionship that he imports and enjoys tariff free. Trust him, he won’t rip you off.

          • 0 avatar
            WalterRohrl

            @HDC – You are still incorrect by a lot. Going back as far as 1953 the HIGHEST it ever was is $4.21:1. From 1960 on it held right about 4:1. I doubt you were there any earlier than that but even if you were the Deutsche Mark wasn’t established until 1948.

            Instead of obfuscating, you should just look it up. By being incorrect, having it pointed out, and then actually doubling down on the incorrect assertion just makes ANYthing else you say look suspect.

      • 0 avatar
        redapple

        High Desert;
        Many people on this site dissect posts they disagree with. Find 1 fact that is wrong. Then blast the poster as lair , stupid, fact twister.

        So, the whole post must be wrong and disregarded.

        The most important item in the post was the Marshall Plan was designed to build up europe at the expense of the USA.

        Trump is righting the imbalance.

        Factual.
        True and the correct thing to be doing. How could any sane person not agree?

        • 0 avatar
          philipwitak

          regarding: “America’s trade policy started with the post-war Marshall Plan. The tenets of that global economy-rebuilding plan were for the US to trade with other nations at a disadvantage in order to rebuild their war-devastated economies. And that policy remained in place until……. the new Sheriff came to town.”

          and: “The most important item in the post was the Marshall Plan was designed to build up europe at the expense of the USA.”

          must not have been ‘too much of a disadvantage or an expense’ considering how well things turned out for the united states, compared to all the other countries also recovering from the war.

          consider the incomparable rate-of-GDP-growth achieved by the USA over the last seventy years / since the end of world war ll.

          check out the chart for yourself. google it. go ahead. you still reading this?

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            Philip your argument is ridiculous, because America did so well at such a disadvantage we should be happy enough? The hens will come home to roost eventually and they did. Our income has not matched inflation for some time, it’s time for America to look out for Americans.

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          “The most important item in the post was the Marshall Plan was designed to build up europe at the expense of the USA.”

          Yes, the USA would just let themselves get fooked over and it had nothing to do with the fact that if you help people recover, it drastically reduces the odds that they will want to go to war with you!

          “How could any sane person not agree?”

          I’m not going to touch that comment!

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            Lou
            The Marshall plan was clearly never meant to be permanent, I don’t even understand what your arguing here, clearly the fret of us going to war over changing our trade practices so we’re not “fooked” by everyone is equal to 0% at this point. No ones arguing it’s original intent and a 5th grader could make the same connection you did but time moves on, we are no longer living in the 20th century despite the lefts attitude on trade.

      • 0 avatar
        ect

        “those other nations have shunned American-made goods, or put tariffs and VAT on them”

        highdesertcat, as soon as you mention VAT as a trade issue you reveal that you know nothing about trade or economics. VAT is simply a sales tax imposed on all goods, whether they are produced domestically or imported. In trade terms, it is completely neutral.

        And hey, NAFTA is all about the elimination of tariffs among the member countries, which is something you should support if you’re truly about making “trade free and equitable”.

        It must also be said that US manufacturing output has doubled since NAFTA was signed, while direct manufacturing employment has fallen by 1/3. Those unskilled and low-skilled jobs were killed by technology, not trade deals.

        And Trump’s trade and tariff shenanigans are causing considerable pain to US manufacturers and farmers, who must pay more for inputs while losing access to foreign markets. If this is winning, I’m sick of it….

    • 0 avatar
      TrailerTrash

      well, not to argue with your weird points about us conservatives not liking Mexico, I’ll give some free advice.
      You are fighting the Party Of Stupid, so it is easy to win. The GOP is not the same cohesive, bond together at allcost like the Dems.
      just hire Christine Blasey Ford’s attorney!
      she seems to be great at winning the bait n switch thing with one of the biggest puddy brains in congress, grassley.

      i feel like i’m watching lucy pull the ball out from poor charlie every damn day.

    • 0 avatar
      Luke42

      The idea is that Canadians have no choice but to be bullied into signing the agreement, because trade with the US is a big part of their economy.

      If I were the Canadian government, I’d be working this problem several different ways. First, I’d play hardball with Trump — because that’s popular with the Canadian people, and because beating him at hardball only way to end up on equal footing with a guy like Trump. I’d also be starting secret talks with the EU, China, and India to create free trade agreements there.

      That’s a lot of irons in the fire, but that’s why you have a team of competent trustworthy professionals to do the work — rather than a bunch of rich playboys/playgirls and “tough guys” who fight among themselves. A good team can do all of that.

      So, yeah, the Trumpies think they can apply enough direct unilateral pressure to make Canada sign an agreement — because they think the Canadian’s best alternative to a negotiated agreement (BATNA) is economic ruin. But, if the Canadian government folks are at least as smart as a minivan-driving dad from the American Midwest, they’ll have been working behind the scenes to improve their BATNA. Depending on how the Chinese, Indians, and Europeans are feeling, Canada’s new BATNA might be *very* good — even if there would be some adaptation upfront.

      The Trump administration’s theories of negotiation have a certain swaggery appeal,
      but they don’t stand up to B-school analysis very well.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        @Luke42 – Canada dropped the ball in relation to India. China is having a lot of their own issues and “we” wanted to bring human rights into trade talks. That doesn’t work with a totalitarian regime.
        Canada is working on other avenues of trade. Sometimes one needs a big shock to get off their asses to find a better way forward.

        In 1982 I graduated from college with a plan to work in forest resourse management. That was around the time the USA and Canada had a major war over softwood lumber. We lost badly and I got a job as a security guard to pay the bills, then went back to college.
        30 odd years later the Trumpocalypse hits Canada with a stiff round of softwood tariffs.
        The result this time around?
        *Sweet f–k all.*
        It had zero effect on sales to the USA but USA consumers pay more for a new house since USA companies can’t match demand. British Columbia sells just as much if not more wood to Asia.

  • avatar
    Gardiner Westbound

    A recent Toronto Sun editorial cartoon illustrates Prime Minister Trudeau’s accomplishment.

    https://torontosun.com/opinion/cartoons/sept-17-2018

  • avatar
    vanpressburg

    Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau doesn’t have an interest to sign a deal with Trump. Trudeau needs an enemy for his political carrier.
    Don’t wait for Canada.

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      Trade is beneficial to all partners as long as it is fair and equitable. Both Canada and the US benefit from being trading partners and should continue to do so.

      The US had free-trade agreements with other countries, at one time that included Australia and New Zealand, The Netherlands (Holland), Belgium, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Israel, and probably others I forgot.

      Maybe the list has changed these days, but there was free-trade with several of America’s trading partners at one time because they were not as war-ravaged as the nations falling under the Marshall Plan.

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al from Oz

        Yes, then make the zero tariff trade deal with the EU. Trump wanted that and when the EU agreed Trump faltered …… the chicken tax and US tech barrier got in the way …. with the US vehicle industry not reducing cars to suit the EU consumer.

        Not hard HDC to think objectively …. is it?

  • avatar
    Sub-600

    The folks in Ottawa have their panties in a bunch, that tells me that Donaldus Maximus is getting the job done. The gravy train is grinding to a halt for U.S. trading “partners”. Let Canada increase it’s trade with China, they can take turns screwing each other. You know there’s a serious problem when asking for fair trade makes the Prime Minister fly into a petulant rage.

    • 0 avatar
      tombalas

      No need for Canada to do anything. In the USA, NAFTA is a law that Trump cannot unilaterally terminate – that requires an act of Congress. Trudeau knows this as well as anyone – and he also knows the chances of this Congress terminating NAFTA without a replacement agreement involving Canada are nil. It’s all theater – all sides know it. And since Trump’s popularity has plummeted, Trudeau also knows as well as anyone that Canada has time to wait out this fool and extract better terms. Trudeau has all of the leverage; Trump continues to just BS his way through life.

  • avatar
    pdog_phatpat

    Yeesh. 2 years after the fact and some of you babies still need a pacifier. You still gonna be crying like this in 6 years?

  • avatar
    pmirp1

    Canada is an ally, but they are being delusional. Lets see if they can sell their cheese or lumber that they sell to America to Europe. Work a deal. Its better for Canadians.

    It is crystal for even common men to understand Canada needs America, based on amount of trade per percentage of their overall trade is so much more than America’s.

    Not to mention, Canada is under protection of America’s armed forces, and they also don’t contribute their fare share (2%) as per NATO agreements. In fact Canada is among the bottom third of NATO countries when it comes to defense spending. What would happen to Canada vs. Russia if America is not there??????

    • 0 avatar
      Sub-600

      Canada reminds me of California, they tout their economies with no thought as to what Uncle Sam does for them. Canada needs an attitude adjustment, that’s all, they’ve been getting away with murder for a long time. A little spanking is in order. It won’t take much economic pressure to bring that ponce in Ottawa back to reality. It’s funny, his father, Mick Jagger, is an extremely canny businessman. Apparently it didn’t rub off.

      • 0 avatar
        mikey

        Mick Jagger is it ?? The Rumour up here is its Fidel Castro’s boy .

      • 0 avatar
        ect

        Sub-600, Californians pays more to the federal government than the state receives in federal spending, which makes it a “giver” state.

        FYI, the top 5 “taker” states (in order) are New Mexico, West Virginia, Mississippi, Alabama and Virginia. Virginia is obvious, since so much of the DC workforce lives there. The rest are pretty much solid Red.

        • 0 avatar
          Sub-600

          @ect California talks about secession as if it could survive without U.S. government contracts, grants that support the liberal university system, military installations, etc. That’s not to mention services such as forestry, Coast Guard, defense, etc. It’s risible. I’m not even scratching the surface. The only thing Californians wouldn’t miss is ICE and border security, because they feel they don’t need them anyway. It won’t be a “giver state” much longer when that state pension disaster comes home to roost soon either. Good luck.

          • 0 avatar
            carguy67

            re: “California talks about secession as if it could survive without U.S. government contracts, grants that support the liberal university system, military installations, etc.”

            Where do you live? I’ve lived in California for all of my 65 years on this planet (I’m fourth generation). Nobody is seriously ‘talking’ about secession in California (though I do hear Red-Staters talk about kicking us out of the Union, or hoping we fall into the Pacific). We do occasionally have movements about splitting CA into a number of smaller states, but they never go anywhere (the most recent was struck down by the courts). Californians are as patriotic as any other Americans; we do, possibly, have a different idea of what patriotism is.

          • 0 avatar
            ect

            carguy67, +1 to you.

            Sub-600 is delusional

    • 0 avatar
      redapple

      Canada not paying the 2%
      Shameful.
      Sticking it to the USA and laughing about it.
      Spend the savings on social programs.
      Good for you scammers.

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      pmirp,
      Hmmmmm? Do you know what the fnck you speak?

      The US has had an import tariff on Canadian lumber for years.

      US dairy is also quite heavily socialist and regulated.

      Here in Australia we have a deregulated dairy industry. We can buy 2kg (4.4lbs)of cheddar (real cheese not plastic American cheese) for $7 AUD or $5 USD. A litre of milk is $1 or 70 US cents. This is what freedom does. Maybe the US can free up its market to become competitive.

      Wow.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    Trump needs to declare war on Canada just like in the movie Canadian Bacon. We can ally ourselves with Russia and declare war against Europe and all our other allies. I am not saying that we haven’t been taken advantage of trade wise but Trump’s methods are belligerent and make it hard to reach any agreement. He seems to like to move the goal posts as soon as an agreement is reached. Maybe Canada and Western Europe need us now more than we need them but if an agreement is not reached then they might not not need us at all in the future and we will lose our influence as a global power. We are not the only game in town.

  • avatar
    golden2husky

    …I worry that politics in Canada is trumping common sense…

    I don’t think anybody in the Trump administration should be making such a comment.

  • avatar
    kosmo

    The surf is down now.

    Trudeau and his team will be back at the table Monday morning, ready to get back to work.

  • avatar
    mikey

    We sent Bambi into the ring, to take on Godzilla .

    We’re gonna lose.

  • avatar
    Vanillasludge

    While there is a car related issue to this story it’s mostly aboult international politics. This site is not where I go to get my dose of negativity.

    I like you all when we’re talking cars and I don’t care one bit about your political opinions.

    Best wishes
    Dan

    • 0 avatar
      Behind

      I agree with you Dan, generally.

      However whenever we talk about cars, politics can’t really be extricated from discussion, since politics do shape our choice of cars, the design of the cars, and our use of them. Having said that, the less said the better about politics.

      Happy driving!

  • avatar
    redapple

    If you know anything about Economics, you ll know that a manufacturing job is kinda special. The USA should have a FAIR TRADE POLICY to maximize those jobs. Not an upside down one where everybody wins EXCEPT THE USA.

    1- the average mfg job pay is much higher than non mfg job.
    2- each job creates 2-4X more spin off jobs than a service job.
    3- Econ 101. Only manufacturing, mining and agriculture jobs create wealth. All other jobs are moving stuff around and skimming off the top

    Therefore. More manufacturing jobs = Greater wealth.
    Greater wealth = better ability for us to pick up the tab for being the worlds policeman.
    Shut us down, bankrupt us, condemn us. Fine.
    China will be CRUSHING YOUR CHILDREN AND GRAND CHILDREN.

    Queue lib hate storm in 3..2..1.. now.

    • 0 avatar
      mleitman

      But what is”fair”? In Trump’s estimation it has to be win – lose. To be truly fair it needs to be win – win, or at least lose less -lose less. You cannot expect a trading partner to willingly enter into negotiations with a side that seeks only concessions on the other side’s part, without a quid pro quo.

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al from Oz

        mlietman,
        Yes. The issue with the pro Trumpeteers is the believe the US is the best and have given all away. This is far from the truth.

        I empathize with their misguided beliefs as It makes their insecure existence manageable.

        The reality is the US is not a great competitor of consumer manufacturing. The US like most Western nations is post industrial.

        It’s a pity the Trump Luddites still live in the 50s.

    • 0 avatar
      ect

      redapple, thank you for this 19th century screed. Unfortunately, the world has changed since then.

      The top 4 US-based companies are all technology companies, not manufacturers or miners. The tech sector is driving job growth.

      As I noted above, US manufacturing output has doubled since NAFTA was signed, while direct manufacturing employment has fallen by 1/3. The reduction in manufacturing employment is because technology has been busy killing unskilled and low-skilled jobs in that sector, just as it killed agricultural jobs a century ago.

      The jobs that have been eliminated are not coming back. Ever. The US must focus on leading the future, not trying to recreate a past that is gone forever.

      • 0 avatar
        connecting_rodd

        Ect>> agreed 100%. Trying to rebuild jobs in coal mining and certain areas of manufacturing is akin to 100 years ago, trying to rekindle the carriage building industry. As progresses technology and the economy moves ahead, some jobs are eliminated and others created. Trade I the same way, for any given nation, some industries will be disadvantaged and some advantage – but there will be a net gain. The reason the west has a high standard of living is in no small part because of trade.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      @redapple – most jobs lost in manufacturing are due to automation. I saw the same thing happen in my part of the world in the logging industry.

  • avatar
    Behind

    My $0.02 worth on trade.

    When someone in Vermont sells something to someone in Maine, it is called trade, and it is of course not cross (international) border trade. And the transaction is made in USD. Due to many reasons, a lot of trade in the world is USD denominated. However since I don’t live in the US, I have to earn some USD in order to import stuff. Those living in the US have the privilege of paying for stuff you import with money you print.

    If the US makes it difficult to sell things to their market, we would sell to countries like Japan etc for which we would probably be offered to be paid in Japanese Yen, and the such. You can see how quickly the USD could be irrelevant to the market place.

    Going back to the Vermont trade with Maine, trade happens becos of competitive advantage, which makes both sides richer and more efficient. The US imports things which just happen to be more competitively made overseas, and fortunately for the US, a lot of these stuff are low tech and low value-add. The State of Maine isn’t going to make things difficult for the fella from Vermont, so why should the US make it so difficult for Canada? Afterall the US is just printing USD to pay for them, I think an exchange of paper for lumber is no bad deal!

  • avatar
    el scotto

    If you work in a factory; your company is doing all they can to automate your job. No offense to meant to Mikey our stalwart Gm line worker. Or no, they’re not going to build Chebbies in abandoned coal mines. International trade is not a zero-sum game; a fact lost to many on here. I didn’t have to build navy bases all across the pacific like grandpa or parachute into France like his brother. That’s what NATO and our other international military alliances assure. Glad to see this post shows the “Breitbart Automotive News” aspect of TTAC. I’m sure the Editor-at-Large approves.

    • 0 avatar
      mikey

      @el scotto…I haven’t set foot inside the place for place for almost 10 years..During my 36 plus years I’ve witnessed just exactly what automation does. Your right, GM would stop at nothing order to eliminate one job.

      Automation wiped out hundreds of jobs. Hundreds of other jobs were eliminated with smarter engineering . Even 10 years ago we had stamping presses that can churn out 12 body sides (from the firewall back) in a minute, with very little human interaction.

      One of my few regrets would be never seeing the hugely automated, highly efficient Flex plant in operation. Unfortunately with this NAFTA thing not settled, the Flex plant has no product allocation.

  • avatar
    jacob_coulter

    I hope trade agreements move more towards bilateral agreements where we negotiate one on one instead of entering some kangaroo court arrangement where the international community can feed off the United States like a parasite.

    The US will win any trade war with Canada, our market is simply way more valuable and automotive companies will start moving production back to the United States to avoid supply chain issues moving forward.

    • 0 avatar
      connecting_rodd

      Jacob<<<

      A bilateral agreement would be very inefficient and no one is going to agree to a trade agreement where America courts get to themselves decide who is in the right/wrong. It seems to be decided by an independent 3rd party. If the US is finding that too many disputes are not being decided in their favour, maybe that should tell them sometime about their trade practices.

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      Jacob,
      Bilateral arrangements will not work, especially with multinationals.

      Why do you want bilateral agreements? What is the upside?

  • avatar
    Carrera

    I’ve lived and worked in Canada for 5 years during the previous administration. The US wasn’t liked by the Canadians back then and now I assume is just pure hatered. When I lived there, US poultry and milk products were non-existent. By that, I mean, there were not present at all. The adds on the radio were made to reflect that. MCDonalds would say “ice cream made with pure Canadian milk, hamburgers made with proud Canadian beef”. I always found that kind of funny and if probably done here, the station would be boycotted and shut down, accused of racism, etc. I understand why they did it..to some extent, but c’mon, give us may be 20% of the market.
    I know lot of people in the Maritimes who would never shop at Walmart or McDonalds just because they are American. I found that funny since all the stores had basically the same items regardless of corporate ownership. I actually really like Canada, and with my little one being born there and having Canadian Citizenship I feel a strong connection with that place, but they do some silly things for sure.

    • 0 avatar
      mikey

      Very true Carrera..Many Canadians think exactly as you described. Not all of us though. I worked for an American company for many years. My pension comes from an American based company. My wife and I traveled extensively in the States, and we loved it.

      As Canadian ,and the son of a Military officer I’m embarrassed that we are not pulling our weight in Military spending.

      All politics, and B.S aside. I sleep better at night knowing the might of the US Military is just 30 miles south of me.

    • 0 avatar
      ect

      Carrera, I’m a dual citizen myself, born in and currently living in Canada. I don’t see any great animus against the US, quite the opposite. Most Canadians I know like the US and Americans, but often don’t like certain US government policies – especially under Trump.

      I personally think that supply management in dairy and poultry is bad policy, but I also acknowledge that US protectionism in dairy, tobacco and sugar (among other commodities) is bad policy. In both countries, it comes down to venal politics.

      I also recall a colleague in the US telling me about his service in the US Navy, where he said that the highest level of intelligence sharing was “ABC” – American, British, Canadian. On defence, Canada and the US are joined at the hip, regardless of Trump’s antics.

    • 0 avatar
      connecting_rodd

      “I always found that kind of funny and if probably done here, the station would be boycotted and shut down, accused of racism, etc.”

      Funny because America’s have been doing the same thing for a long time. Even labelling on packaging clearly advertises MADE IN AMERICA.

    • 0 avatar
      Jagboi

      “MCDonalds would say “ice cream made with pure Canadian milk, hamburgers made with proud Canadian beef”. I always found that kind of funny and if probably done here, the station would be boycotted and shut down, accused of racism, etc. ”

      Why would a station be shut down in the USA for saying they used something that was made in the USA? That’s everywhere in the USA, it’s just the same in Canada, that those who use/sell products made in their own country advertise it.

      Or are you saying that Canadian dairy producers should be guaranteed 20% of the USA market? Fair’s fair after all…

  • avatar
    thelaine

    National “friendship” does not exist. Mutual interests exist. Canada is not “friends” with the US. The US and Canada benefit from our peaceful relationship. Canada has benefited more, as have all of the NATO countries, because they can offload much of their defense to the US and pump the money into their health care and social programs. It is time for a re-balance. The current president isn’t saying anything that hasn’t been said before, he just realizes that if you are not rude about it, you get ignored, as has every president since Truman when it comes to NATO. The US has been a sucker and has gotten played. Our “friends” like it that way, but it is time for some revisions.

    As an aside, I have encountered many Canadians and have found them to be, in general, quite polite but also smug, condescending and passive-aggressive in their attitude toward Americans and the US. Canada itself is gorgeous and Canadians are doubly blessed to have an exceptionally lovely nation sitting right next to the USA. They were born on 3rd base and think…

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      Theane,
      The US didn’t become involved in NATO because its swell. It created NATO as a buffer for it’s own defence.

      You are quite naive to consider otherwise.

      • 0 avatar
        thelaine

        BAFO,

        Blowhard, is a rural locality 17.7 km (10.99827 statute miles) from Ballarat, in South Western Victoria, Australia. It is located between Creswick and Learmonth. Blowhard was once a prominent mining area.[2]

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    A huge part of the problem with these trade negotiations is that as long as Trump continues to use his theatrics then no agreement will be reached. The theatrics might work in a reality show but not when you are negotiating with other nations. Both Canada and the US have something to gain and something to lose and middle ground should be reached. Canada should give as well especially on protective measures that exclude certain US products such as dairy. Bombastic tweets and rhetoric will not get the US anywhere. Once you insult the other party, Canada, they will get defensive and walk away from the table. Best to keep negotiating and keep the insults to a minimum.

  • avatar
    thelaine

    Trade negotiations will resume and deals will be made because an agreement is in the best interest of both country’s business people. Afterward, everyone will claim to be “friends” again and say nice things. Hurt feelings over “insults” (howevermuch truth was contained in them) are a waste of time. Business people have money at stake. They are driving the bus.

  • avatar
    thelaine

    Many Canadians secretly wish they had their own Trump an not their current Bieber.

    • 0 avatar
      Sub-600

      I wish they’d take the real Bieber back to Canada. He’s been milling around CNY all summer, he’s involved with some chick who’s got relatives here. “Justin was at the gas station, Justin was at the cineplex, Justin was at the mall…”. We should place tariffs on them just for letting this wingnut loose on the populace. Justin Jagger-Castro-Trudeau can’t pony up for NATO because he’s blowing Canada’s bankroll on hotel rooms for immigrants. 18-30 year-old males, or as he calls them “women and children”. Things will smooth out when Ford is elected PM and Justin retires to Calgary to follow his dream of becoming a rodeo clown.

  • avatar
    Michael500

    Canada needs the US market MUCH MORE than we need them. We don’t need ANYTHING from them we can’t get somewhere else. Trump is the first president since Calvin Coolidge that isn’t owned by the globalists. Bravo Trump for putting Americans first. Mexico was smart enough to get on board, the Canadians must be really stupid.

  • avatar
    Roland

    As a Canadian who opposed the FTA and NAFTA right from the beginning, I’m kind of hoping that all of these big trade deals will start to fall apart.

    Canada’s living standard will decline somewhat, but the national independence would be worth it.

    As for military alliance, maybe the better solution is nuclear proliferation. Canada should have its own modest nuclear striking forces. So should countries like Poland and Taiwan (then they wouldn’t need any help to fend off their bigger neighbours).

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    @thelaine–You brought up an interesting point about Trump. I was in Cancun before the 2016 Election and there was a Canadian couple complaining about being overrun by immigrants. They were hoping Trump would win and hoping that this would rub off on Canada. They did not like Trudeau. The wife said she was heckled by some immigrant men because she wore shorts–they did not like that she was not covered up. She said the Canadian Government was too apologetic toward immigrants and she resented being told what to do by them.

    • 0 avatar
      thelaine

      Jeff S,

      Immigration, particularly of illegals and refugees from culturally illiberal countries, is such a hot topic in many Western countries and is very hard to discuss without facing charges of racism, xenophobia, fascist nationalism etc… The left and the Chamber of Commerce right both favor illegal immigration, but blue collar workers and cultural conservatives are bitter about it. Many people are silent about it because they don’t want to get attacked with vicious accusations.

      You have to be pretty aggressive in order to withstand the barrage. It was one of the main issues that helped Trump get elected because he is willing to stand up, take the heat, and attack his critics in return. People on the left and many on the right hate him because of his crude style, but his supporters love him because they believe he fights for them. On policy, though, he is mostly Reagan so far.

  • avatar
    RedRocket

    Junior Trudeau does not like Trump and the feeling is mutual. That plus his insistence on putting his “progressive” politically-correct positions forward in such talks as these and others have resulted in many setbacks for Canada of late. His administration is a disaster, and he maintains the same anti-American mindset as did his father. Justin knows that if he sacrifices the Canadian dairy industry in these talks the way Trump wants, that it would be political suicide. In the past there would be ways to finesse the question but these two national heads do not possess the skills to do so.

    I would take issue with the statement by @ect about how Canadians feel about Americans. There is a long-standing inferiority complex among Canadians towards the USA. The comedian Rick Mercer made a career out of his “Talking to Americans” schtick which made fun of Americans, and Canadians lapped it up. Canadians almost universally deride Trump thanks to the left-wing bent of most citizens. Now that Canada is foolishly legalizing weed and the US Border Service has stated that Canadians responding positively to questions about their use of it will be turned back, the reaction has been almost universally “why would I want to go to that lousy country anyway” or words to that effect. It is simply bizarre.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    @thelaine–I have also talked to many Brits that were for Brexit many stating that they didn’t want to be dictated to by the EU on how many immigrants GB would have to take and they didn’t want their rights to fish their own waters to be restricted. It is not that these people were racist but they felt like they no longer had a country and were sick of being told what to do. These people were professionals such as engineers, doctors, and lawyers. You are correct I don’t like Trump’s outbursts or tweets but I fully understand why many voted for Trump because they are sick of being dictated by the left and by others that want to stifle their opinions and freedoms. I am not a fan of Trump but I am not an extremist. I would like to see the President tone it down but at the same time stand up.

    • 0 avatar
      thelaine

      Jeff S,

      I’m with you on this. The immigration debate is poison because the left does not want a debate. They want you to STFU and take it, or else.

      I did not vote for Trump because of his many faults, but that was a mistake. I will be voting for him in 2020, because his economic, judicial, trade and immigration policies are all far better than the leftist alternatives.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    I do believe as the rhetoric dies down we will come to a trade agreement with Canada. Inequities in trade have been ignored in the past and the US has many times got the short end of the stick. Chrystia Freeland has kept the talks open and I believe she sincerely wants to work out an amicable agreement. I remember seeing her on the Sunday morning talk shows such as This Week and she always made very sensible level headed statements and her discussions with other panel members were good. In this case it would be better to leave out comments from Trump and Trudeau because they are not helping to move forward to an agreement.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    @the laine–Many voters resented the fact that Clinton ignored their concerns about immigration and felt that she was more concerned about the rights of some individuals to use the bathroom of their choice. I felt that that was a non-issue to me and that either way I felt that there were more pressing issues. Many felt that they were being labelled racists when they had legitimate concerns. Sure there are racists and those people will most likely never change but most people are not and they get frustrated and angry when they feel they are not being heard. On paper Clinton had the qualifications but she came across negatively. I did not vote for Trump as well and I still have my reservations about him but he is our President. I do like some of the changes that have happened but I wish the President was more restrained in his statements and tweets. I do feel that we need to come to an agreement with Canada because of the number of jobs that would be effected and that is not only in the auto industry. If it takes a longer period of time to come to an agreement then so be it as long as it is a win win for both countries.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • HotPotato: It would be good MPG for an AWD compact CUV, but the Kona is a subcompact FWD hatchback with CUV styling...
  • ptschett: #RadicalSandwichCrossoverHatch backAnarchy
  • SC5door: Fiat build quality for $30K? Pass.
  • SC5door: Only way to get 201 HP is to require premium fuel for the 1.6T. Some Kona owner ran theirs only on premium...
  • Carlson Fan: This is good news. Hopefully it will help flood the market in a few years with used lease return...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributors

  • Timothy Cain, Canada
  • Matthew Guy, Canada
  • Ronnie Schreiber, United States
  • Bozi Tatarevic, United States
  • Chris Tonn, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States
  • Mark Baruth, United States
  • Moderators

  • Adam Tonge, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States