Summations Only

A few days ago, The Guardian had an article on Canada's protection of its dairy industry. Two points claimed in the article:Canadian consumers themselves, the one's paying the higher prices, are in favor of the dairy protections.Many American small dairy owners do not begrudge the Canadians their system; they'd like one like here in the US.

I didn't get it either. I've only read articles discussing trade numbers with Canada, with whom the US has a goods deficit and a services surplus. When the two are added the result is a net surplus. Trump is lying, though a number of news articles have called it a half truth (I strongly disagree). I'm not sure why as much serious news analysis is spent on what Trump says. He tells so many lies (biggest inauguration crowd in history, it was the Democrats who colluded with Russia, we run a trade deficit with Canada) and half truths that it just isn't worth it. Concerning whether we run deficits with Mexico and European countries, since in general the strongest economies tend to run trade deficits because they can afford to buy more, my guess is that it is true. Trade deficits are an effect of economic strength, not a sign of economic exploitation.--Percy

Just speaking about Canada, I would note the following.1. The US does not have a trade deficit with Canada. Trump has stopped claiming that this is the case after he bragged about making a bogus accusation of such during a meeting with Trudeau.2. Both the US and Canada have in the past accused the other of protectionism, and both states have implemented tariffs while complaining about the other. Trump currently cites the tariffs that Canada applies to imported dairy products but does not mention our tariffs on lumber products. Both countries give government subsidies to their agricultural sectors. Without a doubt, there is protectionism on both sides.3. The accusations that Trudeau somehow stabbed Trump in the back is patently ridiculous. Trudeau's response to US tariffs predates the G7 meeting.With respect to Europe? Well, Europe is not a country, and I have to admit to being clueless about the state of trade between the individual countries involved. However, comments like, "There are too many German cars in the US" are complete horse ca-ca. An imbalance in trade in a single commodity does not mean necessarily mean that Americans are losing. In part, it indicates that Americans buy more stuff than Europeans buy because they have a bit more money. In another part, it is an indication of whose cars are seen to be a better value. Making great cars is not an unfair trade practice. And it is more than useless to pick out one industry without noting whatever advantages that the US has in other sectors. Americans sell lots of cigarettes. Yet we strongly discourage our own population from smoking.Even if we decide that it is better not that we not trade with Europe because it costs American jobs, that does not make our allies evil. It makes them businessmen who we want to deal with less. The tenor of the comments by Trump as well as the "special place in Hell" comment from Navarro are completely out of place. For those tempted to defend Navarro, please note that he has already apologized.I'll further note that if you let Trump tell it. Apparently, North Korea and Russia are our buddies while France, Germany, and Canada are enemies who might want to burn the White House again. Surely, that isn't correct.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I'm starting to suspect that it's not impossible for the G7 to kick out the US.Comments from some European countries after the G7 amounted to a sentiment like this:"We used to think that President Trump was a very-annoying inconvenience we would have to tolerate in the short term while planning for things to 'return to normal' in the near future. However, President Trump's actions are moving further from 'annoying inconvenience' and closer to 'significant threat.' We are being forced to re-consider how we're dealing with President Trump and how things fit into future planning."Which could mean any number of things.However, if the G7 main ideals are something similar to "working towards mutual prosperity through sharing information and committing to free trade.." (or something like that?)... and President Trump continues to spit in the face of such ideals... well, it seems pretty easy to read the writing on that wall.If something so drastic was to happen...
I don't think it would be good for anyone. Not good for the US, not good for Europe, not good for Canada. But at some point... how do you say "this group stands for this!" when one member clearly does not...As for Canada vs the US in trade:No Nukes is right in that both sides have some level of "protectionism" going on. And really, why shouldn't they?The idea behind "free trade" is that tariffs and regulations are limited and restricted. Not absolutely non-existent.
As far as I know... Canada has always (last 50 or 100 years or so?) had certain tariffs on things coming from the US. And the US has always had certain tariffs on things coming from Canada. These small tariffs have always been squabbled over. Yet it's also always remained (generally) even.The US has 10x the population of Canada. And the US's army is... well, Canada may as well have no army at all in comparison.If the US used military force to invade Canada, the US would slaughter Canada.
However, this "population/army size advantage" doesn't really translate into a Trade War.There are things Canada is dependent on the US for via trade.
There are things the US is dependent on Canada for via trade.Both countries could survive without the other. But it would hurt. A lot.
Canada cannot support it's current population without the trading it does with the US.
But, as well, the US cannot support it's current population without the trading it does with Canada.It's not the largest, free-est (currently...) trading border in the world for nothing.If the US tariffs go into place, many jobs and some businesses will be lost in Canada.
And the retaliatory Canadian tariffs will cause many jobs and some businesses to be lost in the US.On a per-capita basis, the US may come out slightly ahead with slightly fewer losses.
But on a per-person basis, I think the US will actually lose more jobs and businesses (due to Canada's tariffs affecting a higher population).Whatever happens, if it goes ahead, it's not going to be a fun ride for either country.Attempting to become independent and self-sufficient is a good goal for President Trump to have (as it is for any nation's leader.)
However, this kind of immediate rip-the-bandaid-off "solution" will cause a lot more hurt before things will ever start to look better.

Generally agree with your comments, but wanted to respond to this: But isn't "independent and self-sufficient" the language of isolationists and anti-free-traders? Would it be okay to instead say "sovereign and self-reliant"?--Percy

Could very well be.I'm not very in-tune with the currently preferred terms. I was only attempting to describe the idea as I see it in my head. Sounds better to me

This isn't really what I was asking. I was more trying to figure out if, on average, the barriers for US exporters to send goods to Canada are greater than vice versa. I appreciate this is probably a very complex question since it's not easy to equate different tarrifs and subsidies; that's why I have not been able to find a clear answer. When saying 'Europe', I'm thinking the EFTA, which is one market even if it's many countries. The absence of internal trade barriers here means that Austria cannot impose a tarrif to protect its bubblegum industry from US imports; as US bubblegum can move freely over the borders from Germany or Hungary. This is why bilateral trade agreements are negotiated by Brussels on behalf of the whole common market. Trump also made a lot of absurd comments regarding the regulations and tests US cars have to pass to export their vehicles to Europe and Japan, apparently blissfully unaware of the often arcane and arbitrary hoops the DOT and EPA require carmakers to jump through to export to the US. German and Japanese carmakers simply approach this by building cars specifically for export to the US; complete with DOT markings. Of course, Japanese car manufacturers are arguably at an advantage here because of the relative sizes of the markets. The per unit cost is going to be higher for a US manufacturer to set up production specifically for Japan than vice versa, simply because there are less people to sell cars to.I don't think being a smaller country with a denser population can be construed as an unfair trade practice. Although if anyone was going to argue that it would probably be Trump.

I am guessing that there will not be a need to do this. It may well be that Trump simply stops coming. This time he arrived late, missed a bunch of stuff on purpose, and then left early. What's next?

When Brian Mulroney was Prime Minister of Canada, an acquaintance of mine complained that he was off on some international conference when he should have been here running the country. I said, "As far as I'm concerned, the farther away he is the better off the country is."Ditto Trump. Let him stay in his playpen diddling his tweeter.

Michael Avenatti appeared with Anthony Scaramuccii on Stephen Colbert's show last night, and it is worth watching. There's a commercial break in the middle, so it's divided into two YouTube segments:
If we want a Democratic candidate who can out-Trump Trump and can effectively speak truth to both lies and power, I think Avenatti's the guy. When he first burst on the scene it was as the self-promoting and attention-grabbing Stormy Daniels lawyer, but I've now heard him speak in interviews quite a bit, and I don't think that's who he is. This guy's got substance. I know he's not on anyone's list, but I've heard a lot of Democrats speak in opposition to Trump, and not one comes close to Avenatti.Could he run a government? Got me, but he'd have a much better chance of getting elected than any of the milquetoast Democrats, and he'd be a much better president than Trump, though that's faint praise because, hey, who wouldn't be.For those who don't recall Anthony Scaramucci, he had a brief dance at the White House as the Communications Director before he was fired on White House Chief of Staff Michael Kelly's recommendation after criticizing Trump officials and engaging in an expletive-laden interview with the New York Times.--Percy

Seeking to get it wound up and more BBC reportWe knew it was bad - but not that bad.

quote:

---

The lawsuit alleges that the foundation paid $100,000 (75,000) to settle legal claims against Mr Trump's Mar-A-Lago resort, $158,000 to settle claims against one of his golf clubs, and $10,000 to purchase a painting of Mr Trump to hang at another of his golf clubs.

---

If these things are proven to be true, I still don't believe a single Republican member of Congress would give a rat's ass about what is obviously criminal activity.

Please put things in context.The goal of modern Conservative Politics is to make Big Government ineffective and eventually obsolete. It is explicit Laissez-faire writ large.

It almost seems as if they also want a free press and media to devolve into propaganda rather than fact-based reporting. I really cant figure out why they want to start trade wars (which we would win in 1950 but certainly not today) with allies---all the while cozying up to the N.Korean Dictator and suddenly accepting him into the good ole boys club!Im not sure of the goal regarding trade wars.

Today's Washington Post reports Once-struggling Chesapeake Bay in the midst of a full recovery, new report card finds:

quote:

---

For the first time in the 33 years that scientists have assessed the health of the Chesapeake Bay, the nation’s largest estuary showed improvement in every region, a likely sign that a massive federal cleanup plan is working.

---

But has the Chesapeake Bay met Scott Pruitt yet? Who knows what havoc the current EPA chief will wreak once he hears about this or sees photos like this:

A pod of bottle-nosed dolphins swim this spring in the Chesapeake Bay watershed off Ragged Point in Dorchester County

--Percy