AuthorTopic: The G7 thread  (Read 963 times)

Offline Palloy2

  • Global Moderator
  • Sous Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 6097
    • View Profile
    • Palloy's Blog
The G7 thread
« on: June 07, 2018, 08:38:34 PM »
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-06-07/trump-plans-adopting-confrontational-tone-g-7-response-g-6-pressure
"The Old Order Is Over": Trump To "Confront" G-7 As Macron Plans On "Standing Up" To US President
Tyler Durden
06/07/2018

In comments made alongside Canada PM Justin Trudeau in Ottawa, French President Emmanuel Macron said that no head of state is "eternal” and that he stands ready to work with the six other Group of Seven members if U.S. wants to stand alone.

"You say President Trump doesn’t care. Maybe. But none of us are eternal and our countries, the commitments taken, go beyond us. None of us who have been elected by the people can say ‘all prior commitments disappear.’ It’s just not true, there is a continuity in state affairs at the heart of international laws. Sometimes we’ve inherited some commitments that weren’t core to our beliefs, but we stuck to them, because that is how it works for nations. And that will be the case for the United States - like for every great democracy", Macron said quoted by Bloomberg.

Macron also said he doesn’t exclude a G-6+1 situation at the upcoming G-7 meeting: "Maybe the U.S. President doesn’t care to be isolated but we don’t care being with the six together,” Macron says, adding they represent values, a “global force” and an economic market

The French president then launched a thinly veiled threat: "the combination of the six markets of the G-7 group is bigger than the U.S. market" and cautioned Trump that "there is no global hegemony if we can organize" adding he will “fight against hegemony”

* * *

Ahead of what is shaping up as the most confrontational G-7 meeting in history (the first meeting took place in 1975), we reported that Germany chancellor Angela Merkel already was setting the ground for the Toronto showdown among the world's top political leaders - where Trump will also be present - vowing to challenge Donald Trump on virtually every issue, from trade to climate, and warning that the lack of room for compromise means leaders may fail to agree on a final statement, an unprecedented event at a summit of the world's 7 most advanced nations.

Speaking before German lawmakers on Wednesday, two days before the G-7 summit starts in Canada, Merkel said that Trump’s "America First" doctrine shows that “we have a serious problem with multilateral agreements." She added that failure to reach common ground could lead to the highly unusual step of host Canada issuing a concluding statement not agreed by all participants, according to Bloomberg.

Merkel said she plans to speak to Trump specifically about trade at the G-7. “There will be some controversial discussions” at the gathering, she told lawmakers. Germany will make sure that what was agreed on trade and climate at the last G-7 summit and at a G-20 meeting will be maintained in joint statements from the two-day meeting in Quebec "if any are agreed."

Commenting on Merkel's warning yesterday, we said that "we doubt Trump will be too "burned" by that statement."

And according to overnight newsflow, that is indeed the case and that if Merkel was hoping to "soften" Trump up by warning about the upcoming showdown between the US and the rest of the world, she made a mistake, because wires report that President Trump is said to be planning on adopting a confrontational tone at G7 in response to the other 6 nations collectively pressuring him regarding tariffs.

Which, of course, is hardly a major discover: after all "adopting a confrontational tone" is what Trump does, period. However, now that it has been formalized, this may actually be a G-7 meeting - traditionally boring and slow-moving - worth watching closely, if only for how the world's 6 most advanced nations + America will try to contain the fall out from what will likely be the first documented failure of globalization.

Meanwhile, Bloomberg reports that France joined Germany in warning US President Trump that they will not sign a joint statement at the G7 summit, with President Macron warning that progress must be made on tariffs and other contentious issues. Macron has concluded that other G-7 leaders must stand up to the American president, according to the Bloomberg source.  Commenting on this particular threat, UBS chief economist Paul Donovan said:

    The EU announced a list of products subject to a 25% consumer tax – products all partially made in the US. Ahead of tomorrow's G6 plus 1 summit, French President Macron indicated France may not sign the statement if the US does not change its approach. Clearly, this is a terrifying threat (though it does rather emphasise US isolationism, which markets may worry about).

White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow tried to play down the tension on Wednesday, describing it a “family quarrel" and telling reporters that “Trump is trying to fix this broken system,” adding that "He’s sticking to his guns. He’s going to talk to them. The lines are open."

Good luck: "The meeting this week will be by far the most dysfunctional G-7,” said Ian Bremmer, president of the Eurasia Group, a political-risk consulting firm. "The old order is over. What we are fighting over now, as the new order emerges, is whether the U.S. wants to have the most important seat at the table or not. Right now the answer is no."

We look forward to the fallout from the acrimonious meeting, and how the market spins as bullish this particular instance of the US and the rest of the world drifting further apart.
"The State is a body of armed men."

Offline Palloy2

  • Global Moderator
  • Sous Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 6097
    • View Profile
    • Palloy's Blog
Re: The G7 thread
« Reply #1 on: June 11, 2018, 09:28:33 PM »
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-06-11/pepe-escobar-putin-xi-top-g61
Putin & Xi Top The G6+1
Pepe Escobar
06/12/2018

All hell broke loose at the G6+1, aka G7, while the China-led Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) aimed at global integration and a peaceful multipolar order...

East vs. West: the contrast between the “dueling summits” this weekend was something for the history books.

All hell broke loose at the G6+1, otherwise known as G7, in La Malbaie, Canada, while all focused on divine Eurasian integration at the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) in China’s Qingdao in Shandong, the home province of Confucius.

US President Donald Trump was the predictable star of the show in Canada. He came late. He left early. He skipped a working breakfast. He disagreed with everybody. He issued a “free trade proclamation”, as in no barriers and tariffs whatsoever, everywhere, after imposing steel and aluminum tariffs on Europe and Canada. He proposed that Russia should be back at the G8 (Putin said he has other priorities). He signed the final communiqué and then he didn’t.

Trump’s “I don’t give a damn” attitude drove the European leaders assembled in Canada crazy. After the official photo shoot, the US president grabbed the arm of new Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte and said, in ecstasy, “You’ve had a great electoral victory!”

The Euros were not pleased and forced Conte to abide by the official EU, as in German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s, policy: no G8 readmission to Russia as long as Moscow does not respect the Minsk agreements. In fact it is Ukraine that is not respecting the Minsk agreements; Trump and Conte are fully aligned on Russia.

Merkel, in extremis, proposed a “shared evaluation mechanism”, lasting roughly two weeks, to try to defuse rising trade tensions.

Yet the Trump administration does not seem to be interested.

“Strategic” game-changer

Meanwhile, over in Qingdao, the stunning takeaway was offered predictably by Chinese President Xi Jinping; “President Putin and I both think that the China-Russia comprehensive strategic partnership is mature, firm and stable.”

This is a massive game-changer because officially, so far, this was a “comprehensive partnership.” It’s the first time on record that Xi has put the stress on “strategic”. Again, in his own words: “It is the highest-level, most profound and strategically most significant relationship between major countries in the world.”

And if that was not far-reaching enough, it’s also personal. Xi, referring to Putin and perhaps channeling Trump’s bonhomie with leaders he likes, said, “He is my best, most intimate friend.”

Heavy business, as usual, was in order. The Chinese partnered with Russian nuclear energy giant Rosatom to get advanced nuclear technologies and diversify nuclear power contracts beyond its current Western suppliers. That’s the “strategic” energy alliance component of the partnership.

In a trilateral Russia-China-Mongolia meeting, they all vowed to go full steam ahead with the China-Mongolia-Russia Economic Corridor – one of the key planks of the New Silk Roads, known as the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).

Mongolia once again volunteered to become a transit hub for Russian gas to China, diversifying from Gazprom’s current direct pipelines from Blagoveshchensk, Vladivostok and Altai. According to Putin, the Eastern Route pipeline remains on schedule, as does the US$27 billion liquefied natural gas (LNG) plant in Yamal being financed by Russian and Chinese companies.

On the Arctic, Putin and Xi went all the way for developing the Northern Sea Route, including crucial modernization of deep-water ports such as Murmansk and Arkhangelsk, and investment in infrastructure. The added geopolitical cachet is self-evident.

Putin had said last week that annual trade between Moscow and Beijing will soon reach US$100 billion. Currently, it stands at US$86 billion. Now Russian businesses venture the possibility of reaching US$200 billion by 2020 as feasible.

All this frenzy of activity is now openly described by Putin as the interconnectivity of BRI and the Russia-led Eurasia Economic Union (EAEU). Not to mention that the SCO itself interconnects with both BRI and the EAEU.

Putin told Chinese TV channel CGTN that though the SCO began as a “low-profile organization” [back in 2001] that sought merely to “solve border issues” between China, Russia and former Soviet countries, it is now evolving into a much bigger global force.

In parallel, according to Yu Jianlong, secretary general of the China Chamber of International Commerce, the SCO has now gathered extra collective strength to harness BRI expansion to increase business across Europe, the Middle East and Africa.

So it’s no wonder companies from SCO nations are now being “encouraged” to use their own currencies to seal deals, bypassing the US dollar, as well as building e-commerce platforms, Alibaba-style. So far, Beijing has invested US$84 billion in other SCO members, mostly in energy, minerals, transportation (including, for instance, the China-Kyrgyzstan-Uzbekistan highway), construction and manufacturing.

Putin also met with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani on the sidelines of the SCO and vowed in no uncertain terms to preserve the Iranian nuclear deal, known as the JCPOA.

Iran is a current SCO observer nation. Putin once again reaffirmed he wants Tehran as a full member. The SCO charter determines that “a dialogue partner status can be granted to a country that shares the goals and principles of the SCO and wants to establish relations based on equal and mutually profitable relationship.”

Iran, as an observer, fulfills the commitment. The spanner in the works happens to be tiny Tajikistan.

Enter the trademark convoluted internal politics of the Central Asian stans, in this case revolving around Tajik president Emomali Rahmon accepting Saudi Arabia’s acquisition of a 51% stake in Tajikistan’s largest bank. Nobody else wanted it; Riyadh was just buying influence.

All SCO full members must be approved unanimously. Still, that won’t prevent larger economic integration between Iran, Russia and China. The talk in the SCO corridors was that Chinese companies expect an extra bonanza in the Iranian market after the unilateral Trump pullout of the JCPOA.

Behind closed doors, as diplomats told Asia Times, the SCO also discussed the crucial plan devised by the SCO-Afghanistan Contact Group, an Asia-wide peace process with Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Iran and Afghanistan trying to finally solve the decades-long tragedy without Western interference.
So what about a G3?

The “dueling summits” clearly set the scene. The G7 meeting at La Malbaie represented the dysfunctional old order, dilacerated by largely self-inflicted chaos and its apoplexy at the Rise of the East – from the integration of BRI, EAEU, SCO and BRICS, to the yuan-based gold-backed oil futures market.

In contrast to the G7’s full spectrum dominance doctrine of total military superiority, Qingdao represented the new groove. Implacably derided by the old order as autocratic and filled with “democraships” bent on “aggression”, in fact it was a graphic illustration of multi-polarity at work, the intersection of four great civilizations, an Eurasian Café debating that another, non-War Party conducted future is possible.

In parallel, diplomats in Brussels confirmed to Asia Times there are insistent rumbles about Trump possibly dreaming of a G3 composed of just US, Russia and China. Trump, after all, personally admires the leadership qualities of both Putin and Xi, while deriding the Kafkaesque EU bureaucratic maze and its weaklings, currently represented by the M3 (Merkel, Macron, May).

In Europe, no one seems to be listening to informed advice, such as provided by Belgian economist Paul de Grauwe, who’s pleading for Frankfurt and Berlin to manage a common debt, without which the EU won’t survive the sovereign crises of individual members.

Trump, for all his dizzying inconsistencies, seems to have understood that the G7 is a Walking Dead, and the heart of the action revolves around China, Russia and India, which not by accident form the hard node of BRICS.

The problem is the US national security strategy, as well as the national defense strategy, advocate no less than Cold War 2.0 against both China and Russia all across Eurasia. All bets are off, however, on who blinks first.
"The State is a body of armed men."

Offline Agent Graves

  • Rookie
  • Bussing Staff
  • *
  • Posts: 227
    • View Profile
Re: The G7 thread
« Reply #2 on: June 12, 2018, 04:02:26 AM »
Spot on, and in the middle of the meeting Xi gets a phone call. 'Its Justin Trudo-Castro, he wants to know if you need any timber or tarsand?'  Petro yuan settlements  jump to 20% and american carpenters struggle.
« Last Edit: June 12, 2018, 04:14:51 AM by Agent Graves »
Junior  Operative, FBI Counter-Doomsdaycult Taskforce

Offline Palloy2

  • Global Moderator
  • Sous Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 6097
    • View Profile
    • Palloy's Blog
Re: The G7 thread
« Reply #3 on: June 12, 2018, 07:03:12 AM »
ABC's Business program has an "expert market analyst" who said the market's didn't react to the ridiculous events at the G7 and US-NK summit because they have learned not to take anything Trump says seriously, because it will probably be different tomorrow, without any reason.  All the trade wars tough talk was paraded in the media beforehand, and everybody stuck to the script, being really tough.  The summit's good news was all paraded in the media beforehand, while the bad news was totally blacked out, and everybody stuck to the script, although the details of what was decided is still not known.  (Can anyone think of a reason for that?)  Trump said the US will stop its war games with South Korea.  Was that in the written agreement? - no.

Next, the FOMC is meeting with the outcome due on Thursday (gamblers think 95% chance they will raise rates 0.25%)
"The State is a body of armed men."

Offline Surly1

  • Administrator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 16652
    • View Profile
    • Doomstead Diner
Re: The G7 thread
« Reply #4 on: June 12, 2018, 07:16:30 AM »
As I read somewhere earlier today, if a president of the United States were to sketch out a secret, detailed plan to break up the Atlantic alliance, that plan would bear a striking resemblance to Trump’s behavior.

Quote from: NYT
It would involve outward hostility to the leaders of Canada, Britain, France, Germany and Japan. Specifically, it would involve picking fights over artificial issues — not to win big concessions for the United States, but to create conflict for the sake of it.

A secret plan to break up the West would also have the United States looking for new allies to replace the discarded ones. The most obvious would be Russia, the biggest rival within Europe to Germany, France and Britain. And just as Russia does, a United States intent on wrecking the Atlantic alliance would meddle in the domestic politics of other countries to install new governments that also rejected the old alliance.

As I have asked elsewhere, Cui bono? Me, I think it's the boy holding the pee-pee tape and otgher kompromat.

Trump Tries to Destroy the West

David Leonhardt

President Trump at the Group of 7 summit meeting in Quebec on Friday. Credit Doug Mills/The New York Times

The alliance between the United States and Western Europe has accomplished great things. It won two world wars in the first half of the 20th century. Then it expanded to include its former enemies and went on to win the Cold War, help spread democracy and build the highest living standards the world has ever known.

President Trump is trying to destroy that alliance.

Is that how he thinks about it? Who knows. It’s impossible to get inside his head and divine his strategic goals, if he even has long-term goals. But put it this way: If a president of the United States were to sketch out a secret, detailed plan to break up the Atlantic alliance, that plan would bear a striking resemblance to Trump’s behavior.

It would involve outward hostility to the leaders of Canada, Britain, France, Germany and Japan. Specifically, it would involve picking fights over artificial issues — not to win big concessions for the United States, but to create conflict for the sake of it.

A secret plan to break up the West would also have the United States looking for new allies to replace the discarded ones. The most obvious would be Russia, the biggest rival within Europe to Germany, France and Britain. And just as Russia does, a United States intent on wrecking the Atlantic alliance would meddle in the domestic politics of other countries to install new governments that also rejected the old alliance.

Check. Check. Check. Check. Trump is doing every one of these things.

He chose not to attend the full G-7 meeting, in Quebec, this past weekend. While he was there, he picked fights. By now, you’ve probably seenthe photographreleased by the German government — of Trump sitting down, with eyebrows raised and crossed arms, while Germany’s Angela Merkel and other leaders stand around him, imploring. Shinzo Abe, Japan’s prime minister, wears a look of defeat.

No wonder. The meeting’s central disagreements were over tariffs that Trump has imposedfor false reasons. He claims that he’s merely responding to other countries. But the average current tariff of the United States, Britain, Germany and France is identical,according to the World Bank: 1.6 percent. Japan’s is 1.4 percent, and Canada’s is 0.8 percent. Yes, every country has a few objectionable tariffs, but they’re small — and the United States is not a victim here.

So Trump isn’t telling the truth about trade,much as he has liedabout Barack Obama’s birthplace, his own position on the Iraq War, his inauguration crowd, voter fraud, the murder rate, Mexican immigrants, the Russia investigation, the Stormy Daniels hush money andseveral hundred other subjects. The tariffs aren’t a case of his identifying a real problem but describing it poorly. He is threatening the Atlantic alliance over a lie.

If you need more evidence, look at his tweets after leaving the summit. Close readers of Trump’s Twitter feed (and I don’t envy that title) have learned that he often accuses others of committing his own sins. On Saturday, he called Justin Trudeau, Canada’s prime minister, “very dishonest.”

While Trudeau and other historical allies get disdain, Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong-un and various aspiring authoritarians are bathed in praise. Trump and his aides have promoted far-right politicians in Germany and elsewhere. In Quebec, he made excuses for Russia’s annexation of Crimea and argued that Russia should be readmitted to the G-7.Jay Nordlinger, the conservative writer, asked, “Why is he talking like an RT host?” — RT being Russia Today, a government-funded television network.

I don’t know the answer. But it’s past time to take seriously the only explanation for all of Trump’s behavior: Hewantsto destroy the Western alliance.

Maybe it’s ideological, and he prefers Putin-style authoritarianism to democracy. Or maybe he has no grand strategy and Putin really does have some compromising information. Or maybe Trump just likes being against what every other modern American president was for.

Whatever the reason, his behavior requires a response that’s as serious as the threat. Asthe political scientist Brendan Nyhan pointed out, this past weekend felt like a turning point: “The Western alliance and the global trading system are coming under the same intense strain that Trump has created for our domestic institutions.”

For America’s longtime allies, the response means shedding the hopeful optimism that characterized the early approach taken by Trudeau and Emmanuel Macron, France’s president. Merkel is the right role model. She has been tougher, without needlessly escalating matters, because she has understood the threat all along.

For Trump’s fellow Republicans, it means putting country over party. A few Republicans,like John McCain, offered appropriately alarmed words in the last two days. Now members of Congress need to do more than send anguished tweets. They should offer legislation that would restrain Trump and hold hearings meantto uncover his motives.

For American voters, it means understanding the real stakes of this year’s midterm elections. They are not merely a referendum on a tax cut, a health care plan or a president’s unorthodox style. They are a referendum on American ideals that are older than any of us.

“The old world is dying, and the New World struggles to be born: now is the time of monsters.”

Offline g

  • Golden Oxen
  • Contrarian
  • Master Chef
  • *
  • Posts: 12280
    • View Profile
Re: The G7 thread
« Reply #5 on: June 12, 2018, 07:31:22 AM »
What's your point Palloy, except that everything you find not to your liking is propaganda.?

Do you really think something written on a piece of paper sanctifies it?

How about the Third Reich and it's peace treaty with England??

There has been a dramatic break through in tensions between two enemy states, at least for now that is a definite positive.

As a mere proper posting reminder, the Summit with Kim does not belong on the G7 Thread IMO, nor does the upcoming Fed meeting. You may be in a confused state of mind due the positive outcome and quick speed of the Kim,Trump meeting. Relax, tension, conflict, war and atomic weaponry are still very much with us. Enjoy a few moments of Sunshine Palloy, it will rain again.   
« Last Edit: June 12, 2018, 07:41:26 AM by Golden Oxen »

Offline g

  • Golden Oxen
  • Contrarian
  • Master Chef
  • *
  • Posts: 12280
    • View Profile
Re: The G7 thread
« Reply #6 on: June 12, 2018, 07:39:38 AM »
You to Surly, Give the Trump hate a break for at least a few hours.

This latest bull shit piece about President Trump trying to destroy the West is unbecoming a gent with your intelligence.

Try thinking today about the millions of your fellow citizens losing jobs to Canada,Mexico, etc due NAFTA, despite the warnings of Ross Perot, a gent we both have high regard for.

We have screwed the American Worker long enough.

Offline Surly1

  • Administrator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 16652
    • View Profile
    • Doomstead Diner
Re: The G7 thread
« Reply #7 on: June 12, 2018, 08:40:49 AM »
You to Surly, Give the Trump hate a break for at least a few hours.

This latest bull shit piece about President Trump trying to destroy the West is unbecoming a gent with your intelligence.

Try thinking today about the millions of your fellow citizens losing jobs to Canada,Mexico, etc due NAFTA, despite the warnings of Ross Perot, a gent we both have high regard for.

We have screwed the American Worker long enough.

What's this "we" shit? I AM an American worker.

Also, the  article speaks for itself. If an American President were to embark on a campaign to loosen the ties of the western alliance, would it not look identical to that prosecuted by the Orange Lout?

Bullshit piece?   I ask once again the question you dare not answer: Cui bono? Everything about this so-called "administration" is about looting the commons and personal enrichment. The fact that it annoys anyone left of the US Chamber of Commerce is just lagniappe for the drooling right.

Scott Walker has in the past called a wall with Canada "a legitimate idea." When we build it, I intend to be on the other side.
“The old world is dying, and the New World struggles to be born: now is the time of monsters.”

Offline g

  • Golden Oxen
  • Contrarian
  • Master Chef
  • *
  • Posts: 12280
    • View Profile
Re: The G7 thread
« Reply #8 on: June 12, 2018, 11:51:20 AM »
Quote
What's this "we" shit? I AM an American worker.

Not one who lost his job to Mexico or Canada obviously.

You share the same concern for them as the Clinton's and Obama.

Offline Surly1

  • Administrator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 16652
    • View Profile
    • Doomstead Diner
Re: The G7 thread
« Reply #9 on: June 12, 2018, 01:49:11 PM »
Quote
What's this "we" shit? I AM an American worker.

Not one who lost his job to Mexico or Canada obviously.

You share the same concern for them as the Clinton's and Obama.

This is actually a useful link that seems to explain in factual terms what actually happened as a result of NAFTA:
NAFTA's Winners And Losers https://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/08/north-american-free-trade-agreement.asp#ixzz5IFIRO300

To your point, NAFTA's implementation has coincided with a 30% drop in manufacturing employment, from 17.7 million jobs at the end of 1993 to 12.3 million at the end of 2016. As you know, coincidence is not causation. Other causes have driven the shuttering of factories and manufacturing job loss-- as you also know.

There are gains in some areas and losses in others, as in many trade treaties. Which at least nominally subscribe to a set of agreed principles, unlike a trade war.

Quote
Whether NAFTA is directly responsible for this decline is difficult to say, however. The automotive industry is usually considered to be one of the hardest-hit by the agreement; yet although the U.S. vehicle market was immediately opened up to Mexican competition, employment in the sector grew for years after NAFTA's introduction, peaking at nearly 1.3 million in October 2000. Jobs began to slip away at that point, and losses grew steeper with the financial crisis. At its low in June 2009, American auto manufacturing employed just 623,000 people. While that figure has since risen to 948,000, it remains 27% below its pre-NAFTA level.

Anecdotal evidence supports the idea that these jobs went to Mexico. Wages in Mexico are a fraction of what they are in the U.S. All major American car makers now have factories south of the border, and prior to Trump's twitter campaign against offshoring, a few were openly planning to ship more jobs abroad. Yet while the job losses are tough to deny, they may be less severe than in a hypothetical NAFTA-less world.

If Trump tears up NAFTA, at least we will no longer have to worry about institution of the Amero.



https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/amero-coins/
Somewhere, Hal Turner is whining.
“The old world is dying, and the New World struggles to be born: now is the time of monsters.”

Offline Surly1

  • Administrator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 16652
    • View Profile
    • Doomstead Diner
Re: The G7 thread
« Reply #10 on: June 12, 2018, 02:11:49 PM »
Add NAFTA (I continued reading.) Because whothehell among us knows all the ins and outs of NAFTA, and has scored the winner and losers?

Every anecdote becomes a bullet.

Quote
NAFTA displays the classic free-trade quandary: diffuse benefits with concentrated costs. While the economy as a whole may have seen a slight boost, certain sectors and communities experienced profound disruption. A town in the Southeast loses hundreds of jobs when a textile mill closes, but hundreds of thousands of people find their clothes marginally cheaper. Depending on how you quantify it, the overall economic gain is probably greater, but barely perceptible at the individual level; the overall economic loss is small in the grand scheme of things, but devastating for those it affects directly.


True enough.

The effects of manufacturing job loss were even greater in textiles than in automaking. OTOH, those low, low prices at the house of the smiley face.

Like most treaties, trade issues are highly nuanced with many, many interlocking parts. And the issues can never be reduced to a bumper sticker slogan,demagogues notwithstanding.

Read more: NAFTA's Winners And Losers https://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/08/north-american-free-trade-agreement.asp#ixzz5IFP3N5OL
“The old world is dying, and the New World struggles to be born: now is the time of monsters.”

Offline Eddie

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 17521
    • View Profile
Re: The G7 thread
« Reply #11 on: June 12, 2018, 02:19:51 PM »
Scott Walker has in the past called a wall with Canada "a legitimate idea." When we build it, I intend to be on the other side.


It's a legitimate idea for Canadians. Wait until most of the midwest is desert. They'll be building a wall to keep out the wetbacks from the US of A.
What makes the desert beautiful is that somewhere it hides a well.

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 39389
    • View Profile
Re: The G7 thread
« Reply #12 on: June 12, 2018, 03:53:08 PM »
Scott Walker has in the past called a wall with Canada "a legitimate idea." When we build it, I intend to be on the other side.


It's a legitimate idea for Canadians. Wait until most of the midwest is desert. They'll be building a wall to keep out the wetbacks from the US of A.

How do you build a wall across the Great Lakes?  Not to mention said wall dwarfs the length of the proposed Mexican wall.  Where would Canada get the resources and manpower to build such a wall?  It's preposterous.

RE
Save As Many As You Can

Offline Eddie

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 17521
    • View Profile
Re: The G7 thread
« Reply #13 on: June 12, 2018, 04:04:53 PM »
I'm planning to build a midget sub to cross Lake Huron and infiltrate cottage country.
What makes the desert beautiful is that somewhere it hides a well.

Offline g

  • Golden Oxen
  • Contrarian
  • Master Chef
  • *
  • Posts: 12280
    • View Profile
Re: The G7 thread
« Reply #14 on: June 12, 2018, 04:10:20 PM »
Add NAFTA (I continued reading.) Because whothehell among us knows all the ins and outs of NAFTA, and has scored the winner and losers?

Every anecdote becomes a bullet.

Quote
NAFTA displays the classic free-trade quandary: diffuse benefits with concentrated costs. While the economy as a whole may have seen a slight boost, certain sectors and communities experienced profound disruption. A town in the Southeast loses hundreds of jobs when a textile mill closes, but hundreds of thousands of people find their clothes marginally cheaper. Depending on how you quantify it, the overall economic gain is probably greater, but barely perceptible at the individual level; the overall economic loss is small in the grand scheme of things, but devastating for those it affects directly.


True enough.

The effects of manufacturing job loss were even greater in textiles than in automaking. OTOH, those low, low prices at the house of the smiley face.

Like most treaties, trade issues are highly nuanced with many, many interlocking parts. And the issues can never be reduced to a bumper sticker slogan,demagogues notwithstanding.

Read more: NAFTA's Winners And Losers https://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/08/north-american-free-trade-agreement.asp#ixzz5IFP3N5OL

You may find them highly nuanced, but the 1% and Occupy Wall Street folks understood it for what it is.Two or three minimum wage part time jobs for the OWS group with no benefits clarified it for them and of course the benefits to the 1% group are your specialty, no need to talk about the disparity between the two.

                             

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
0 Replies
3814 Views
Last post April 06, 2012, 09:22:46 AM
by Surly1
36 Replies
3452 Views
Last post December 05, 2019, 06:48:14 AM
by Surly1
0 Replies
461 Views
Last post November 03, 2019, 03:50:49 AM
by RE