TPP

NO
O

But our Prime Cuckister is pushing Obama to get it through before Trump or Shilldog shut it down (which they won't)

Smart men.

It's literally a US deal to buy off Southeast Asia.

Fuck it. I am tired of selling out America for geopolitics and muh presidential legacy.

Good men

Republican congress just stopped the bill. They won't vote on it for at least a year now.

Trump will block it. Shillary will sign it.

t. Work for Congress

1. Canada.
2. Yes. I also support pre-existing agreements like NAFTA, and other new and upcoming agreements such as CETA. Free trade is only an economic concern if your country's (or region's) dominant industries are unprofitable without state assistance. In a province like Saskatchewan, more trade means more exports means more economic activity means more and higher wages means more tax income for social spending. Free trade is positive feedback loop, provided you're a winner. If you're a loser, another story.

Republicans just promised to kill it/delay it.

Democrats may shill it through if they win the election though

*is a positive feedback loop

I've heard a lot of rhetoric from Trump on the topic of protecting American industries from Mexico and from China. Does Mr. Trump see Canada as an economic threat to be protected against as well?

Care to explain thisITC is a self-proclaimed pro-trade organization.

They themselves admit the "benefit" is within margin of error to be negative.

I don´t think so

Maybe just in minerals and maple syrup

>Does Mr. Trump see Canada as an economic threat to be protected against as well?

Canada is a rich country of 30 million.

India has 1.3 billion people with $20 dollars.

It's not only about profitability. The least people care about this here. It's about consumer protection and genetically modified food which is not allowed here etc. etc.

Free trade makes winners win and losers lose. From a competitiveness standpoint, it's always a long-term positive, even when it results in little to no GDP growth (or even GDP loss). This is because free trade reorients the economy towards productive industries; the profitable are rewarded and the unprofitable and bayoneted.

Capital shouldn't be tied up in old, obsolete technologies and industries that are dependent on government assistance to keep afloat. Not only is that a bad model because the assistance from the state first had to come from the taxpayer, it's also bad because that money would be better invested in something actually profitable, or even some new enterprise that could feasibly become profitable. Employing protectionist tactics to defend, say, the automotive industry, is only a good idea if you're a-okay with continuing to bail them out crisis after crisis.

China and Mexico enable corporations to Jew us out of what manufacturing we have left and a lot of people depend on manufacturing jobs to maintain a decent standard of living. Most people don't want to lose their job to Zhang who makes $9 a week so they want some sort of protectionism for their jobs

Canada doesn't really have the population to steal a significant number of manufacturing jobs from us and it's a post industrial cunt so they only really compete with us on services which is fine

When called on the dubious value of trade deals (first our 'Free Trade' deal with China and now TPP) our corporatist shill politicians deflect by talking about the value of 'trading in services' and the importance of making this happen with (binding, legislation-by-stealth) trade deals.

It's really a disgusting state of affairs with our major parties.

>It's about consumer protection

Well, you're German and I'm Canadian, so let's say we're talking about CETA. To address Germany (and Europe's) anxieties about safety and protecting consumers: Canada's food safety and consumer protection laws are the strictest in the world. More Canadian products on the market doesn't lower the bar for quality, it raises the bar.

GMOs are another issue altogether. Canada's food safety laws are science based, and Canadians don't generally have any strong cultural objections to genetically modified food. My understanding is that European anxieties about genetically modified food are one of the more major concessions Canada is making in CETA.

>From a competitiveness standpoint, it's always a long-term positive, even when it results in little to no GDP growth (or even GDP loss).

>by talking about the value of 'trading in services'

What is hilarious is that even trade economist have no good explanation for how this works.

*are bayoneted, can't fucking type

>a lot of people depend on manufacturing jobs to maintain a decent standard of living

Right. But that isn't a good thing. It isn't good for America that a lot of Americans' pay-checks are dependent on an industry that is not and never will be profitable. Effectively, people working in the automotive industry are on welfare, and that they have to build cars to earn their welfare is just an elaborate method of thwarting welfare cheats. The United States government should not be spending taxpayer dollars on preventing losers from losing.

We can't compete with machines in the long run, so really the choices are protectionism now or revolution later.

Luddites have a two hundred year long tradition of being proven wrong.

>I know that last invention didn't destroy the economy, but I'm telling you, this next one will put us ALL out of a job!

Flag
Yes

I don't know much about it, but the government says it's good
t. Smart person

>It isn't good for America that a lot of Americans' pay-checks are dependent on an industry that is not and never will be profitable.

>t. Lelbourne

It isn't good for America that millions of niggers subsist on welfare payments, but at least automotive workers are doing something

>the government said it is good so it must be good

Amazing how common this thought process is.
Not exactly saying it's illogical though.

The full employment of the post-war era has already yielded to employment insecurity and underemployment. The middle classes of developed classes are shrinking. The wellbeing of the common man will not disappear in a puff of smoke, but a gradual oozing that is already in train.

*developed countries

Neoliberals and neocons seem to have forgotten the social benefit of employment and the social negative of unemployment. It's all about profit to them.

They rather you be on welfare than be marginally unprofitable in manufacturing or farming. Subsidies are supposedly evil.

North America's automotive industry has been in decline for decades and should have died completely in the Bush years. Even with all of their bailout money, Ford and GM still aren't turning a profit from making cars. The chief revenue stream for both companies is from financing, not manufacturing. North America's car makers make all of their profits from the interest on the cars they sell you, not the actual cars themselves.

If you buy a new Ford F-150 outright, Ford loses money. Even with the government assistance they're given, the manufacturing of that truck cost more than the price you paid for it. For Ford to turn a profit, you need to lease or finance. The North American car companies of today have a business model that is less about manufacturing products to sell to consumers and more along the lines of how a bank works. This is a part of the reason why the finance industry is consuming a larger and larger proportion of America's GDP. Using government policy to protect these companies is only going to exacerbate the problem. We need to bayonet the wounded. Keeping these companies and their jobs on life support only delays the problem, and worse, it gets more and more expensive every year to keep them from flat-lining.

This
It will impose our shitty copyright laws on all members.

What's wrong with the deal, it's legit. Liberal economy is best for everyone

That one scares me

>They rather you be on welfare than be marginally unprofitable in manufacturing or farming.

No. I'd rather you get a job somewhere else, in a company or industry that is actually going to be able to contribute positively to government coffers and compete without assistance on the open market.

On farming: it is absolutely possible for the agricultural industry to be massively profitable without subsidies. Saskatchewan's agricultural industry is a shining example of this; provided that you're not stuck in what you want to grow and you're not anxious about genetic modification, you can rake in ludicrous profits from working the land. I would even suspect that it's possible for manufacturing to turn over the same leaf and become profitable, but it will be new, smaller companies whose business model is rooted in innovation that succeed, not grizzled old giants that have to turn themselves into banks to stay afloat. I believe there are some luxury car makers in Michigan that are an example of manufacturing, even automotive manufacturing, succeeding on their merits.

>Keeping these companies and their jobs on life support only delays the problem, and worse, it gets more and more expensive every year to keep them from flat-lining.

Why is providing subsidies to benefit our key industries a bad idea?

Employment and key industries have a social benefitAlso, 8-10 year guaranteed Trademark Law.
Pharm companies love it. But no more generics.

Flag
Fuck no, all FTA's are made by the one percent for the one percent and only benefit the one percent and this is no different

for all the supporter, do us a favour and kys

>No.
>I'd rather you get a job somewhere else, in a company or industry that is actually going to be able to contribute positively to government coffers and compete without assistance on the open market.
One of these two sentences is logically inconsistent.

I hate my country. I want Canadian jobs to go overseas.

I want the Canadian economy as a whole to suffer.

I want capital to flow into the pockets of the tiny ruling elite.

muh potash muhfugga

>Why is providing subsidies to benefit our key industries a bad idea?

These aren't nascent industries that you need to keep afloat in stormy seas for awhile until they're big enough to fend for themselves. Ford and GM have capitalizations in the hundreds of billions and have been around for generations. They're old enough that they shouldn't be sucking off the government teat any more, but instead they're draining Auntie Sam's tits of all their calcium faster and faster and faster. They're not innovating, not meaningfully, because they don't need to change anything to stay around. They know that the next time they shit the bed, America will clean it up for them. If we gut these fat slobs and let new, small business feast on their corpses, we could potentially have a manufacturing industry that is actually competitive.

t. Unironically what most rich people say

I don't want anyone on either direct or indirect welfare. American workers should work for companies that are in the black off their own backs, not the taxpayer's.

America supports key industries as industrial champions.

Boeing, Ford, GM, Intel, Dell, Google, Apple.

We support all of them because some protectionism can be smart for your economy.

Who cares if we take other country's growth?

We already take 1 million in a brain drain.

America is a parasite. And we are proud of that.

Well, I disagree.

America taking on extensive debt can be useful.

>We support all of them because some protectionism can be smart for your economy.

Only ever in the short run. And even in the short run, you need to have competent individuals in charge of the major industry champions for the country to benefit. Do you really think that Ford and GM's strategy of turning themselves into financial institutions is the next step forward for the automotive industry?

>Who cares if we take other country's growth?

You're not just taking another country's growth, you're taking global growth. Part of that is growth in other countries, sure, but part of it—and a disproportionately high portion—is growth that could be occurring in the United States. This isn't just because smaller American automotive manufacturers could grow off of Ford's demise, but also because it's America footing the bill. 100% of the direct financial cost of protectionism falls on the taxpayers of the country implementing the protectionism. This has a cascading negative effect on every other American industry.