Out-freaking-standing!!!
Thanks for posting.
4 Likes
Depressing and commercially trite. Was hoping to see real people talking, not a grab for fame. This sort of video is why I almost never click on them.
IP
The Canadians have arguments, too
7 Likes
Thank you SuisseBear. That was worth clicking on.
IP
1 Like
A sovereign nation has to comply to the US. I’m seriously trying to unpack that. A NATO nation, at that.
11 Likes
bjurasz, identifies a key symptom of thejusticier’s erroneous statements.
thejusticier is pushing a debased and crippled form of International Realism, one that leverages avoidance of idiot pie in the sky idealism only to dive head first into self-indulgent fantasies (e.g. 2nd Iraq War) and now Trumpist fantasies outraging and dismaying key allies.
I am a lifetime “realist”, both professionally and academically, from designing upgrades to nuclear missile strategic control systems through having fully read and studied Thucydides, Macchiavelli, Hobbes, Clausewitz, Kennan, Aron, and simply glorying in a year long course on war under the underrated Stanley Hoffman Minda de Gunzburg Center for European Studies | Stanley Hoffmann †
We have seen and are seeing an absurd appropriation of the Realist school of thought by people grievously lacking both knowledge and prudence, crux qualifications necessary for good discernment of policies.
Blech.
7 Likes
Are you losing money? Thank him.
It is our turn to run trade surpluses and people are offended.
Meanwhile we took it on the chin to continue capitalism since 1981.
This is a larger shell game globally or capitalism does not work.
We should have an industrial policy but alas we can not get a single thing right.
Picking on Canada does not help the world. But it is our turn to run surpluses if we industrialize further.
This means corporate taxes must rise. But that is the last thing to expect. Ineptness.
Since 1981, Canada has generally had a trade surplus with the United States, with a few exceptions, particularly in the early 2010s.
Here’s a more detailed breakdown:
- Historical Trend:
Historically, Canada has had a trade surplus with the US, meaning its exports to the US have exceeded its imports from the US.
- Exceptions:
There were a few years, notably 1991 and 1992, where Canada experienced a trade deficit with the US. More recently, in the early 2010s, the trade balance shifted to a deficit for a few years.
- Current Status:
In 2023, the U.S. goods trade deficit with Canada was $64.26 billion. However, in 2024, the U.S. goods trade deficit with Canada was $63.3 billion.
- Trade in Goods and Services:
In 2023, the goods and services trade between the two countries totaled $923 billion.
- Dominant Trading Partner:
The United States is by far Canada’s largest trading partner.
She does not know economics. She may have a degree or even a Ph.d in econ she still does not know the topic.
This is not going to cause inflation. The dumb claims need to stop.
This will throw a lot of people out of work. This will cause a global slowdown. This will cause deflation. For how long we do not know.
My work place has begun to slow down. Our sales are slowing. The less experienced people will be allowed to leave for now. College students interns won’t be replaced for now. If you leave as a good friend of mine did it is doubtful you come back. He went to Verizon. We consider his move a mistake.
Hang on there Cochise. No-one is “entitled” to run a trade surplus, with anyone, at any time. You run trade surpluses by offering desirable products and consuming less than you build. The US, especially over the last 45 years, has rewarded financial speculation over productive endeavor, and conspicuous consumption over thrift. Debt is the natural outcome.
TIG spinning trade deficits as “theft” from the US is simply playing his victim card, yet again.
Steve
8 Likes
Not true
We have entitled countries to do so. How do you think the Chinese Miracle or Irish Miracle or EU sustainability or Marshall Program get their start. Don’t kid yourself.
If we raise our corporate taxes we take all the industry back to US quickly.
1 Like
???
That’s like saying Boeing is entitled to dominate commercial aviation, even though they build shoddy product and deliver late.
Steve
Raise corporate taxes here and Boeing will well outperform. They will invest much more heavily here instead of overseas. Overseas inclusive of the capital in the entire industry.
Entitled is a funny word. People who are very entitled let it roll off their lips as if no one else is entitled. I said my piece we are deciding who gets what from us. And yes it matters or they would not be whinging so much.
This market is the wealthiest per capita. We have a choice between who gets what.
You do not get forced to shop when you do not want a product. We do not have to fork over the collective wallet, the store, to every nation that wants to get ahead. Notice none of them willingly will run a deficit. We have. It is just a shell game. Time to change the seating arrangement. But the klutz is doing it the wrong way.
Boeing’s problems are internal, their Welchist approach to maximize short term loot. There are several other companies run the same way: building junk, while they ramp up prices. They are not entitled to anyone’s money, even though they may think they are.
That does appear to be the case. As expressed before, the USMCA could have had provisions written in, or added at the next negotiation window, to ramp up USian content, if that is the objective, in an orderly fashion.
The way things are actually being done, it looks more like a shakedown.
Steve
4 Likes
Meme coin anyone? The Lincoln Bedroom?
Just as they have a choice to take it or not. What we should not chose is to be without loyalty, if only because that hurts US. We should not chose to be rude when civility will do. We should not shoot our future selves in the foot because we are throwing a PAY ATTENTION TO ME tantrum.
We have a choice to be diplomatic and preserve our allies, even if deep down we are not sure of their usefulness. Insulting them to the point of their uniting against us and creating alternative pathways to the things that keep them tied to us is idiocy. There is more than one way to become united and powerful…it’s not just the USA that can do it.
IP
8 Likes
I would not choose directly. I would just hike the corporate taxation rate. The companies were invest much more heavily in the US driving down inflation pressures along with enriching the rest of us.
The debt to real GDP ratio would drop stabilizing our economy and government.
That is the exact opposite of the “supply side” narrative that people have been brainwashed about for 45 years. That narrative is still alive and well too. Ask anyone why they are skewing tax cuts toward the high end of the income range, and they will start blathering about “creating jobs”.
Steve
2 Likes
1932 ring a bell?
We may get there. No knowing yet. But the path is going down there.
Hoover juice.
1 Like
So it is wrong, Professor? Again insults and denials. When someone has a different perspective or present things differently, they have to attack and demean. Who is the ideologue?
I am not a realist. I am not an idealist. I would not label myself with others labels. I read (maybe more than you the Professional), and I collect stories, ideas and viewpoints. If anyone is observant rather than stuck with preconceived notions and ideologies, he would better understand what is going on.
He talks about NATO. NATO was designed to counter the URSS but it has no real purpose anymore now that the US don’t find any interest with the current situation, and is not threaten by Russia anymore. So there is no need for NATO.
The Americas are ruled by the USA. You can speak of sovereignty but as its neighbors, you have to accommodate and follow the US. Yes that is a realist view.
Quebec speaks of sovereignty. The First Nations speak of sovereignty. Greenland speaks of sovereignty. Why don’t you talk about that?