Canadian Politics 2017: I've Got a Pipeline Straight to the Heart of You

https://www.forbes.com/sites/francescoppola/2017/04/25/president-trumps-tariff-on-canadian-softwood-lumber-imports-will-hurt-america-most/#5f728ddf2232

But Trump’s trade team doesn’t have even a basic grasp of international trade economics. Peter Navarro has a Ph.D in economics from Harvard, but that doesn’t make him an expert on trade: his doctoral thesis was on why corporations donate to charity. And Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross’s background is in business, not economics. Both are protectionist to the core, as is Trump himself. All three are practising voodoo economics of the worst kind, to the detriment of the people they claim to serve.

...

Canada could end up having to tolerate a level of tariff that it considers unfair, because the alternative is a highly damaging trade war. Sometimes it is better to put up with bullying.

But sometimes it is better to dig your heels in. This policy promises to be extremely costly for Americans – as Canada was quick to point out:

"This decision will negatively affect workers on both sides of the border, and will ultimately increase costs for American families who want to build or renovate homes. The U.S. National Association of Home Builders has calculated that a $1,000 increase in the cost of a new house would put home ownership beyond the reach of more than 150,000 American families, and jeopardize thousands of jobs in the American home construction industry."

Lumber, of course, is a global commodity: it is as yet unclear exactly how global prices will respond to the tariff. But these estimates are similar to those produced by the Cato Institute in 2000 (I told you this was a long-running dispute):

"We calculate that trade restrictions add an estimated $50 to $80 per thousand board feet to the price of lumber, which drives up costs and shrinks profits for lumber users. The resulting addition of $800 to $1,300 to the cost of a new home prices some 300,000 families out of the housing market, denying them the dream of home ownership."

It is not just homebuyers who suffer from trade restrictions, either:

"Protectionist trade barriers in the softwood lumber industry impose great costs on businesses and consumers here in the United States in order to enrich a few lumber producers. To put employment figures in perspective, it is noteworthy that workers in the major lumber-using sectors outnumber logging and sawmill workers by better than 25 to 1."

The “major lumber-using sectors” include home construction and repair, industries which together employ thousands of Americans.

Nor is the impact limited to lumber-using industries. The Canadian dollar has already dropped sharply versus the US dollar: the weakness of the loonie, if sustained, will mitigate the impact of the tariff on Canadian producers, while the dollar’s strength will make all imports from Canada – apart from softwood lumber – cheaper. The tariff will therefore raise input costs for lumber users, and make it harder for other American businesses to compete with imports from Canada. This is bound to raise both consumer prices and unemployment.

Effectively, this policy subsidises one industry while imposing higher costs on others. It is obviously intended to hurt Canada, and it will of course have some impact there: but the principal pain will be felt by American citizens. The Cato Industry dubbed it a “beggar-my-consumer policy”. But it is also a "beggar-my-industry" policy - and that is much more harmful. Subsidising one small industry at the expense of other industries that employ far more people and contribute much more to American GDP makes no economic sense at all.

Protectionism always most hurts the people it aims to protect. Please, Mr. Trump, buy yourself some sensible trade advice – before you wreck the lives of the people who elected you. You promised them a better future. They are not likely to forgive you if you let them down.

man i always try to have a balanced few on things but this is quite possibly the dumbest thing trump has done so far

A very few things in life are zero-sum games. The entire philosophy of Trump is that everything is always a zero-sum battle.

But yeah, the death of NAFTA plus a burst of the real estate bubble (once causing another) would be devastating to our economy :(

And if Le Pen gets elected we can kiss CETA goodbye.

So everyone's completely on board with free trade these days? I admit my relative naivete about economics and don't have a 100% decided opinion all these trade deals (CETA does seem worthwhile and, like I said, my current status in the US depends on NAFTA). However, I'm just old enough to remember when the entire centre and left were opposed even to free trade with the US in 1988. (Even the Liberals were an anti-free trade party.) I'm sort of interested in how the shift came about. Does it just seem to work for most people? The way that investors can sue our government over environmental laws under NAFTA is what concerns me most, and I remember that it's what the centre/left warned about in the 80s and 90s.

the bc leadership debate on tv last night was about the worst thing I've ever seen

Was it worse than the GOP primary debates in the US?

didn't actually watch those!

it was just extremely poorly moderated. as in there would be 30-40 second stretches of two of the leaders talking over each other.

no-one came across well. clark came across most like a politician, most composed, and least agitated. but was completely glib and her party is a joke.

andrew weaver the green leader is a pompous ass with only two gestures, he ended up with a ted cruz-like globule of spit (saw a clip of this from the repub primary debate) on his lip at one stage too.

horgan comes across angry, agitated and inarticulate.

immediately after the debate i was ranting to my wife about the quality of it when the local ndp mla george hayman knocked on our door, which felt quite surreal

xxxp

according to your article, gov't of canada is being sued for $6 billion (CAD too!)

canada exported USD$295 billion to the US in 2015:

U.S. goods imports from Canada totaled $295 billion in 2015, down 15% ($53 billion) from 2014, but up 1.7% from 2005. U.S. imports from Canada are up 165% from 1993 (pre-NAFTA).

https://ustr.gov/countries-regions/americas/canada

trade deficit was USD$15 billion

i haven't studied free trade, so from my understanding and a supply chain perspective, free trades are good because, theoretically, it pressures companies to adhere to global standards ("standards of the world marketplace") that, at least in theory, are supposed to promote fairness and be held to higher scrutiny, like environmentally friendly operations and greener technology

yes, canada has done "poorly" in this regard, because it was supposed to promote more greener tech/solutions, and it is still pretty high on the list of environmentally friendly countries but it went down a few spots in the rankings because of the pipelines and ft mcmurray

it's a weird situation of give and take but it doesn't help that the us's way of negotiating is by bullying smaller countries, but again, theoretically, it's supposed to allow for lower-priced items at a consumer level. canadians don't always see this (e.g., american mfg'd books are more expensive in canada) because the gov't of canada imposes higher taxes and because quantity imported into canada is less (due to canada's low population or low demand), plus the greater the distance travelled to import a good the higher the cost (e.g., fruits from mexico), but even this has exceptions due to surplus and established trade chains/routes (basically less man hours spent, and how efficient they run their chain), which canada does benefit from (you'll sometimes see cheaper fruit from chile than mexico in bc eg)

having said that, there are so many opinions/books on free trade and when there is trade, there's always a winner and a loser

xpost. Missed the debate but I hung around outside the CBC building to get some photos of the leaders when they arrived. There was about 200 NDP supporters and about 200 Liberal supporters and I haven't seen that kind of tribal spear-shaking since I was last at a Kilmanock/Ayr United match. Got close enough to smell Christy's perfume. She smelled really good.

thankfully it didn't devolve into auchinleck talbot vs cumnock juniors level of frenzy

Well it's still mid-season, wait till the end of season relegation battles. Afterwards I milled around with the orange massive, scammed my way onto Horgan's bus after he'd gone into the CBC and got driven back to the West End while they all chanted and waved scarfs. It was fun.

I'm going to volunteer this weekend in my neighborhood (mount pleasant), i bloody hate going door to door so hopefully i can leaflet or something.

Standing on a corner with a big sign and cheering anytime someone honks is fun.

They were doing that last night and I joined in for about 5 mins which is how I earned their trust to let me on the bus.

haha

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/trump-nafta-us-canada-mexico/article34818889/

Instead, sources suggested the move was effectively a negotiating tactic designed to rattle Ottawa and Mexico City, put pressure on the U.S. Congress and throw red meat to the President’s base. Saturday is the 100-day mark in Mr. Trump’s presidency, a symbolic milestone when he will want to show his supporters he is acting on his agenda.

Mr. Trump, however, would have faced challenges in Congress, the courts and from businesses if he tried to issue the notice, and even greater hurdles if he actually tried to pull out of NAFTA unilaterally.

...

Canada’s NAFTA strategy – which has mostly consisted of trying to charm Mr. Trump and convince the United States that keeping markets open is in the country’s best interest – would not change as a result, the source said.

After Mr. Trudeau’s conversation with Mr. Trump, this strategy appeared to have borne fruit.

B.C. Premier Christy Clark, however, urged Mr. Trudeau to hit back at Mr. Trump by banning exports of U.S. thermal coal from her province’s ports.

At a campaign event in Surrey, B.C., on Wednesday, less than two weeks before election day in the province, Ms. Clark said the United States had become “hostile” on the trade front and Canada should “ban filthy thermal coal,” an industry particularly close to Mr. Trump’s heart.

...

Last week, he labelled Canada’s system of dairy price-fixing “very unfair” to U.S. producers and this week, he accused Ottawa of being “very rough” with the United States on softwood after his country levied tariffs averaging 20 per cent on Canadian lumber.

And he threatened to “get rid of NAFTA for once and for all” if Canada and Mexico don’t agree to “very big changes” in the deal.

The Trump administration is expected to formally notify Congress of its intent to renegotiate NAFTA within the next two weeks. That notification would trigger a 90-day countdown to the start of formal talks.

The process reported Wednesday would have been separate from that. Under Article 2205 of NAFTA, any country can withdraw after providing six months’ notice to the other two countries. If the United States pulled out, NAFTA would remain in force between Canada and Mexico.

ultimately and importantly:

For one, it is unclear whether the President has the authority to take the country out of a deal without the consent of the U.S. Senate, said Andrea Bjorklund, a trade-law expert at McGill University. Any order to that effect could face a court challenge, she said. And Mr. Trump would face pressure from both Congress and businesses affected by the move.

Wtf?

Guy isn't even pretending to have a clue what he's doing at this point, is he?

I suppose that's better than pretending.

ya he really isn't even being advised by people who are knowledgeable

he took the old school business hardman act too serious and holds "attitude" and "appearance" in higher esteem

This #iamlinda video reminds me of Gordon Brown

Is that actually a huge thing? I can't tell.

Yeah I wonder...it's a very popular hashtag, so that's gotta count for something

it does very conveniently reinforce the ndp message that Christy doesn't care about anyone who isn't giving her a big cheque, and a funny video of a politician exhibiting contempt towards constituents is just never a good look. it also seems galvanizing for the opposition, ndp candidates will probably beat it into the ground. on the other hand the media doesn't seem to be running with it much, and it all might blow over in a couple days.

spending the day making up lies about a civilian was probably the exact wrong way for the Libs to handle this, they turned it into a much bigger story, that BC media actually has to cover. not a great news cycle for them with not much time left. and I think when the election campaign has been so short of incident, stuff like this tends to stick

http://theprovince.com/news/bc-politics/mike-smyth-chance-encounter-on-campaign-trail-blows-up-on-clark

Yeah, tbh, I was sort of on board with Clark's original response in the grocery store, but if they wanted to screw it up, this seems like a way to do it.

I'm catching up on the BC debate. "Why haven't you brought up softwood lumber in Question Period in three years" is a damn weird line of questioning.

I actually kind of like Weaver so far in this.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/personal-finance/genymoney/geny-millennial-employment-jobs-canada/article34867183/

Sounds about right.

These bc election results are a real nail biter

libs: 42
ndp: 42
greens: 3

now 43/41/3 for the libs aaah :(

this is just crazy

Whoa.

Could there be any chance of an NDP-Green coalition, similar to the Lib-NDP Accord in Ontario in 85-87?

if these results hold, there'a s good chance of that...i'm not sure if I understand the process correctly, but in two weeks (May 22-24) electionsBC will count the absentee ballots, which last election were about 10% of the total. that means that any of the close seats could still flip, and a lib majority could easily happen while an ndp majority is still not completely impossible. the 1% popular vote margin could also still shift.

so 50,000 absentee ballots last time

ha the election that will last for another 2 weeks, shiiiiiiit

find the absentee ballots being counted much later thing really strange/dumb. everything else about voting in bc seems pretty decent - especially the extensive time period for early voting, and being able to vote at any polling place

this would be kind of cool

though it's a nightmarish process (libs/ndp coalition trauma)

we'll see if any proroguing happens

Weaver has said that the one issue anyone would have to agree to would the abolition of corporate and union donations.

Is it likely that either of the big parties would agree to this?

the ndp ran on it

using large union donations of course, haha. but the greens were taking such donations until about 6 months ago

the liberals would probably agree to that too. they are not exactly a party of firm principles.

it will hurt the libs much more than the ndp:https://www.desmog.ca/bc-political-donations

Donor Breakdown for Each Major Political Party in 2015

In 2015, the B.C. Liberal Party declared $9.9 million in political donations]. Of that total:

$5.2 million (52 per cent) came from corporations
$3.35 million (33 per cent ) from individuals
$728,795 (7 per cent) from unincorporated businesses and organizations, and
$24,075 (>1 per cent) from trade unions
In 2015, the B.C. NDP declared $3.05 million in political donations. Of that total:

$143,820 (4 per cent) came from corporations
$2.49 million (81 per cent) from individuals
$35,290 (1 per cent) from non-profit organizations, and
$376,336 (12 per cent) from trade unions
In 2015, the B.C. Green Party declared $394,310 in political donations. Of that total:

$383,720 (97 per cent) came from individuals
$10,549 came from corporations

(on top of that the ndp just has way more of a pool of volunteers with unions and activists for political campaigning that the liberals can't match, so if the corporate donations disappear they would be disadvantaged in an electoral campaign vs the ndp in the future)

but if the situation sits with the greens as kingmakers then what other choice would they have?

tbh if we have to have another clark gov if we have one that stops big donations and, one can hope, pushes for electoral reform, i'll be, well not happy, but not totally pissed off i guess?

Ah, interesting, thanks.

one controversy in the campaign was that premier clark actually has her premier salary topped up directly from donations (this was true and they stopped it iirc) and lives in a donor's large, expensive house in vancouver, which it is alleged by opponents, she does not pay rent for.

and donors get lots of gov contracts obv

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/b-c-has-a-best-government-money-can-buy-political-donations-system

not that the ndp does not act for its donors, e.g. john horgan has said that they should sell weed, when it's legalized, in bc liquor stores (because the workers are BCGEU)

There's no way that a Clark or any Liberal government would stop corporate influence. That is basically their raison d'etre. It's likely the Greens and NDP will form some kind of coalition, specifically to address this. And possibly an attempt at looking at proportional representation too. Which would probably require a referendum, which would probably fail due to corporate influence.

for some reason I'm p pessimistic and expect a liberal/green deal but without much good coming of it (weaver has voted with the libs on some bullshit frequently tbh)

it's a pretty huge controversy

housing seems to be on a lot of bc'ers mind

and a lot of the middle class is blaming chinese foreign money

bring into the mix that liberals actively sought out foreign donations and received ~$2 million from teck resources + affiliates, which from what i read, the chinese gov't owns 17% of, and there are lots of people fed up with that entire party

2016 article: http://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/douglas-todd-b-c-politicians-almost-alone-in-seeking-foreign-donations