What's new

Trump’s beggar-thy-neighbour trade strategy is anything but foolish

Hamartia Antidote

ELITE MEMBER
Joined
Nov 17, 2013
Messages
35,188
Reaction score
30
Country
United States
Location
United States
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opi...hbour-trade-strategy-is-anything-but-foolish/

“We will continue to make arguments based on logic and common sense and hope that eventually they will prevail against an administration that doesn’t always align itself around those principles,” Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said in response to recent tariffs imposed by the United States.

Canadians are left with the impression that President Donald Trump is an irrational buffoon who is shooting himself in the foot with his trade policies. In fact, contrary to common (and, apparently, Canadian political executive) sense, the U.S. administration’s tariffs are actually perfectly rational – from Mr. Trump’s perspective.

The extent of the punitive tariffs Mr. Trump is imposing is unprecedented. They threaten to bring down the system of global trade – by design. The United States has been the guarantor of the free global economy, which dates from July, 1944, when 44 states laid its foundations in the New Hampshire town of Bretton Woods. The United States was the driving force behind a series of long-winded world trade negotiations – beginning in 1947 and continuing through the current Doha round initiated in 2001, but never concluded – that lowered tariffs and barriers to trade. Spreading the free-market gospel across the world would secure the United States’ political and economic hegemony. Today, this meticulously calibrated, multilateral system of rules has 164 member-states and comprises tens of thousands of products.

World Trade Organization (WTO) tribunals – which are about to grind to a halt because the United States has not named a judge to the seven-member Appellate Body – were meant to ensure that everyone sticks to the rules. But instead of being bound by WTO rulings, Mr. Trump’s trade czar Robert Lighthizer would prefer to default to the pre-WTO practice of directly negotiating the outcome of trade disputes.

The President is now intent on destroying co-operation within the WTO by driving wedges between the world’s trading blocs and countries. The United States would be in a much stronger position if it could negotiate with each trade bloc directly. The painful NAFTA negotiations are but one example, and Mr. Trump’s recent musings about replacing NAFTA with two separate trade agreements with Canada and Mexico are further evidence to that effect. Canada risks selling out the WTO by making concessions to the United States.

China, too, is negotiating bilaterally with the United States and is already caving to American demands. In the end, the large trading blocs are likely to divide up the world among themselves; countries with little leverage, such as Canada, could become collateral damage. The timing of Mr. Trump’s moves against China is auspicious: It coincides with President Xi Jinping anointing himself emperor for life and abandoning the progressive master plan for market-based reform for his Agenda 2030 for Sustainable Development, whose strategy clearly aims for Chinese economic dominance.

In the international system, states are confronted with two basic choices in how they interact: compete or co-operate. Either states co-operate, form alliances or agreements such as the WTO and grow more prosperous or they compete and take wealth from weaker rivals. Mr. Trudeau believes that the United States should co-operate. Indeed, for decades the United States played by the rules; everyone grew richer and the United States grew richer faster than everyone else. In the postwar world, the United States’ support of free trade was a key – perhaps the key – to its rise to global economic leader. Nowadays, however, the game has changed. Where once the goal of the United States was to rise to global hegemony, today its goal is to maintain that dominance.

So, that same rules-based system is now causing competitors – Mr. Trump’s national-security strategy makes no qualms about calling them that – to grow richer faster than the United States. Under these conditions, it is no longer in the interest of the United States to co-operate; as the global political and economic hegemon, the United States can win a strategic competition for wealth and power. Everyone ends up poorer, but the United States remains top dog because everyone else grows poorer faster than the United States. Beggar thy neighbour. Literally.

But being frank will not sit well with Canadians; painting Mr. Trump as a crazy buffoon is more politically expedient. So, along with the EU and China, Canada falls right into Mr. Trump’s bilateral trade-negotiation trap. R.I.P. WTO. Score: Trump 1; Canada 0.
 
.
DfzYCdxXkAATssV.jpg:large
 
. . . . .

LOL!!!
More like PDF members are the dumbest and keep falling for Fake News:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/1998-trump-people-quote/


Did Donald Trump Say Republicans Are the “Dumbest Group of Voters”?
Donald Trump did not proclaim that Republicans are the "dumbest group of voters" in a 1998 'People' magazine interview.
U5620qCZ-720.jpg

FALSE
ORIGIN
The above-reproduced image and quote attributed to Donald Trump began appearing in our inbox in mid-October 2015. The format is easily recognizable as one wherein questionable or offensive words are attributed to the individual pictured, and in this case image claims that Donald Trump made the following statement in a 1998 interview with People magazine:


Despite People‘s comprehensive online content archive, we found no interview or profile on Donald Trump in 1998 (or any other time) that quoted his saying anything that even vaguely resembled the words in this meme. Trump appeared somewhat regularly in the magazine’s pages before he came to star on The Apprentice, but the bulk of the magazine’s celebrity-driven coverage of him back then centered on his marriages to, and divorces from, Ivana Trump and Marla Maples.

Trump’s political endeavors (or the absence of them) did rate some space on the magazine’s pages, though. For example, a December 1987 profile titled “Too Darn Rich” chronicled Trump’s later claims that he had been courted by both Democrats and Republicans:

House Speaker Jim Wright led a delegation to Trump’s office asking him to chair a major fund-raising event for the Democratic Party. Trump is a Republican but gave the invitation serious consideration before bowing to pressure from GOP friends and turning down his Democratic suitors. Beryl Anthony Jr., the Arkansas Congressman who came up with the approach to Trump, was disappointed. “There’s no question he was getting a lot of pressure from the Republicans,” Anthony told a reporter. “It would have given him the opportunity to see if his temperament is sufficient, if he could stand the scrutiny.”

In 1988, Trump launched into an impassioned political diatribe on Oprah Winfrey’s daytime talk show, but he concluded by saying he “probably” wouldn’t [ever] run for office. In 1998 (the year the quote in question purportedly appeared in People), Trump’s political involvement was somewhat differently oriented:

“My information is that Donald Trump has raised in the ballpark of $1 million for the Bush campaign and the Republican Party,” said Sen. Steven Geller, president of the National Council of Legislators from Gaming States.

“I have heard from too many sources, including Republican lobbyists, that although Mr. Bush is denying it, the deal [to allow Indian casinos in Florida) has been cut,” Geller said.

By October 1999, Trump had become more serious about dipping his toes in political waters. Announcing on CNN’s Larry King Live that he was forming an exploratory committee with the intention of running for president, Trump said:

I’m a registered Republican. I’m a pretty conservative guy. I’m somewhat liberal on social issues, especially health care, et cetera, but I’d be leaving another party, and I’ve been close to that party … I think that nobody is really hitting it right. The Democrats are too far left. I mean, Bill Bradley, this is seriously left; he’s trying to come a little more center, but he’s seriously left. The Republicans are too far right. And I don’t think anybody’s hitting the chord, not the chord that I want hear, and not the chord that other people want to hear, and I’ve seen it.

At around the same time in October 1998, Trump ran through his then-current political positions with NBC‘s Stone Phillips:

Mr. TRUMP: I’d like to see major tax cuts.

PHILLIPS: Along the line, for what the Republicans are talking about —eight hundred billion or so? Would you go that far?

Mr. TRUMP: Along the lines of that number, yes, approximately at that number, and could even be more.

PHILLIPS: Health care?

Mr. TRUMP: [I’m] liberal on health care, we have to take care of people that are sick.

PHILLIPS: Universal health coverage?

Mr. TRUMP: I like universal, we have to take care, there’s nothing else. What’s the country all about if we’re not going to take care of our sick?

PHILLIPS: Abortion?

Mr. TRUMP: I hate the concept of abortion. I hate anything about abortion, and yet, I’m totally for choice. I think you have no alternative.

PHILLIPS: Gun control? Where do you stand on that?

Mr. TRUMP: If you could tell me that the bad guys, the criminals, wouldn’t have guns, I’d be a hundred percent for gun control. But the fact is, if you have gun control, the only people that are going to obey the laws, are going to be the good guys. So the bad guys are going to have the guns, the good guys aren’t going to have the guns, and what good does that do us? So, I’m not in favor of it.

Notable about the image’s apparently spurious Trump quote is its purported reference to Fox News in 1998. While the Fox News Channel was rolled out across major American news markets between 1996 and 2000 (and thus isn’t entirely chronologically out of place in a circa-1998 quote), the network wasn’t nearly as prominent or widely watched until the 2000 election of George W.Bush, the September 11th attacks in 2001, and the start of the Iraq War in 2003. Before that time, although Fox News was making its way into living rooms across the United States, it was not exceptionally well-known (or particularly regarded as a right-leaning outlet) in 1998.



 
.
The Globe and Mail, at it again, pushing the right wing economic agenda as always.
 
.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opi...hbour-trade-strategy-is-anything-but-foolish/

“We will continue to make arguments based on logic and common sense and hope that eventually they will prevail against an administration that doesn’t always align itself around those principles,” Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said in response to recent tariffs imposed by the United States.

Canadians are left with the impression that President Donald Trump is an irrational buffoon who is shooting himself in the foot with his trade policies. In fact, contrary to common (and, apparently, Canadian political executive) sense, the U.S. administration’s tariffs are actually perfectly rational – from Mr. Trump’s perspective.

The extent of the punitive tariffs Mr. Trump is imposing is unprecedented. They threaten to bring down the system of global trade – by design. The United States has been the guarantor of the free global economy, which dates from July, 1944, when 44 states laid its foundations in the New Hampshire town of Bretton Woods. The United States was the driving force behind a series of long-winded world trade negotiations – beginning in 1947 and continuing through the current Doha round initiated in 2001, but never concluded – that lowered tariffs and barriers to trade. Spreading the free-market gospel across the world would secure the United States’ political and economic hegemony. Today, this meticulously calibrated, multilateral system of rules has 164 member-states and comprises tens of thousands of products.

World Trade Organization (WTO) tribunals – which are about to grind to a halt because the United States has not named a judge to the seven-member Appellate Body – were meant to ensure that everyone sticks to the rules. But instead of being bound by WTO rulings, Mr. Trump’s trade czar Robert Lighthizer would prefer to default to the pre-WTO practice of directly negotiating the outcome of trade disputes.

The President is now intent on destroying co-operation within the WTO by driving wedges between the world’s trading blocs and countries. The United States would be in a much stronger position if it could negotiate with each trade bloc directly. The painful NAFTA negotiations are but one example, and Mr. Trump’s recent musings about replacing NAFTA with two separate trade agreements with Canada and Mexico are further evidence to that effect. Canada risks selling out the WTO by making concessions to the United States.

China, too, is negotiating bilaterally with the United States and is already caving to American demands. In the end, the large trading blocs are likely to divide up the world among themselves; countries with little leverage, such as Canada, could become collateral damage. The timing of Mr. Trump’s moves against China is auspicious: It coincides with President Xi Jinping anointing himself emperor for life and abandoning the progressive master plan for market-based reform for his Agenda 2030 for Sustainable Development, whose strategy clearly aims for Chinese economic dominance.

In the international system, states are confronted with two basic choices in how they interact: compete or co-operate. Either states co-operate, form alliances or agreements such as the WTO and grow more prosperous or they compete and take wealth from weaker rivals. Mr. Trudeau believes that the United States should co-operate. Indeed, for decades the United States played by the rules; everyone grew richer and the United States grew richer faster than everyone else. In the postwar world, the United States’ support of free trade was a key – perhaps the key – to its rise to global economic leader. Nowadays, however, the game has changed. Where once the goal of the United States was to rise to global hegemony, today its goal is to maintain that dominance.

So, that same rules-based system is now causing competitors – Mr. Trump’s national-security strategy makes no qualms about calling them that – to grow richer faster than the United States. Under these conditions, it is no longer in the interest of the United States to co-operate; as the global political and economic hegemon, the United States can win a strategic competition for wealth and power. Everyone ends up poorer, but the United States remains top dog because everyone else grows poorer faster than the United States. Beggar thy neighbour. Literally.

But being frank will not sit well with Canadians; painting Mr. Trump as a crazy buffoon is more politically expedient. So, along with the EU and China, Canada falls right into Mr. Trump’s bilateral trade-negotiation trap. R.I.P. WTO. Score: Trump 1; Canada 0.
So how long till US leaves UN and ends trade and relations with all countries?
I mean you alrrady left UNHCR might as well go all the way and be done with it atleast this way no more Iraqs and Libyas willl happen
 
.
very sad that you guys are reading news from canadian media...:rofl: since your supreme leader has declared your own media untrustworthy
 
.
very sad that you guys are reading news from canadian media...:rofl: since your supreme leader has declared your own media untrustworthy

Lol! Your media for years was claiming the haze in China’s cities was fog. When the US embassy started reporting it as dangerous levels of pollution you guys slammed them. You even tried shutting them down. Finally the Chinese government relented and started telling the truth.

So even obvious things are covered up by Chinese media deception.


https://www.wired.com/2015/03/opinion-us-embassy-beijing-tweeted-clear-air/

“People were attracted by the reliability of the Embassy’s data, which helped them make daily decisions—whether it was safe to let their children play outside, for example.”

:omghaha::omghaha: You guys have to seek the US Government for trustworthy pollution reports! That is beyond sad. You don’t trust your own government or media!.

Alert me when people in the US start checking your embassy for reliable news! .:rofl: .:rofl: It will never happen!!!
 
Last edited:
.
Lol! Your media for years was claiming the haze in China’s cities was fog. When the US embassy started reporting it as dangerous levels of pollution you guys slammed them. You even tried shutting them down. Finally the Chinese government relented and started telling the truth.

So even obvious things are covered up by Chinese media deception.

some twisted report from one of your fake news outlet...as expected. still a long way to go for unbrainwashing yourselves
 
.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opi...hbour-trade-strategy-is-anything-but-foolish/

“We will continue to make arguments based on logic and common sense and hope that eventually they will prevail against an administration that doesn’t always align itself around those principles,” Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said in response to recent tariffs imposed by the United States.

Canadians are left with the impression that President Donald Trump is an irrational buffoon who is shooting himself in the foot with his trade policies. In fact, contrary to common (and, apparently, Canadian political executive) sense, the U.S. administration’s tariffs are actually perfectly rational – from Mr. Trump’s perspective.

The extent of the punitive tariffs Mr. Trump is imposing is unprecedented. They threaten to bring down the system of global trade – by design. The United States has been the guarantor of the free global economy, which dates from July, 1944, when 44 states laid its foundations in the New Hampshire town of Bretton Woods. The United States was the driving force behind a series of long-winded world trade negotiations – beginning in 1947 and continuing through the current Doha round initiated in 2001, but never concluded – that lowered tariffs and barriers to trade. Spreading the free-market gospel across the world would secure the United States’ political and economic hegemony. Today, this meticulously calibrated, multilateral system of rules has 164 member-states and comprises tens of thousands of products.

World Trade Organization (WTO) tribunals – which are about to grind to a halt because the United States has not named a judge to the seven-member Appellate Body – were meant to ensure that everyone sticks to the rules. But instead of being bound by WTO rulings, Mr. Trump’s trade czar Robert Lighthizer would prefer to default to the pre-WTO practice of directly negotiating the outcome of trade disputes.

The President is now intent on destroying co-operation within the WTO by driving wedges between the world’s trading blocs and countries. The United States would be in a much stronger position if it could negotiate with each trade bloc directly. The painful NAFTA negotiations are but one example, and Mr. Trump’s recent musings about replacing NAFTA with two separate trade agreements with Canada and Mexico are further evidence to that effect. Canada risks selling out the WTO by making concessions to the United States.

China, too, is negotiating bilaterally with the United States and is already caving to American demands. In the end, the large trading blocs are likely to divide up the world among themselves; countries with little leverage, such as Canada, could become collateral damage. The timing of Mr. Trump’s moves against China is auspicious: It coincides with President Xi Jinping anointing himself emperor for life and abandoning the progressive master plan for market-based reform for his Agenda 2030 for Sustainable Development, whose strategy clearly aims for Chinese economic dominance.

In the international system, states are confronted with two basic choices in how they interact: compete or co-operate. Either states co-operate, form alliances or agreements such as the WTO and grow more prosperous or they compete and take wealth from weaker rivals. Mr. Trudeau believes that the United States should co-operate. Indeed, for decades the United States played by the rules; everyone grew richer and the United States grew richer faster than everyone else. In the postwar world, the United States’ support of free trade was a key – perhaps the key – to its rise to global economic leader. Nowadays, however, the game has changed. Where once the goal of the United States was to rise to global hegemony, today its goal is to maintain that dominance.

So, that same rules-based system is now causing competitors – Mr. Trump’s national-security strategy makes no qualms about calling them that – to grow richer faster than the United States. Under these conditions, it is no longer in the interest of the United States to co-operate; as the global political and economic hegemon, the United States can win a strategic competition for wealth and power. Everyone ends up poorer, but the United States remains top dog because everyone else grows poorer faster than the United States. Beggar thy neighbour. Literally.

But being frank will not sit well with Canadians; painting Mr. Trump as a crazy buffoon is more politically expedient. So, along with the EU and China, Canada falls right into Mr. Trump’s bilateral trade-negotiation trap. R.I.P. WTO. Score: Trump 1; Canada 0.

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/what-is-this-tariff-tariff.564434/#post-10577128
 
.
some twisted report from one of your fake news outlet...as expected. still a long way to go for unbrainwashing yourselves

:omghaha::omghaha::omghaha::omghaha::omghaha::omghaha::omghaha::omghaha::omghaha::omghaha::omghaha::omghaha::omghaha::omghaha::omghaha::omghaha::omghaha::omghaha:

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/06/...mbassies-to-stop-measuring-air-pollution.html
China Asks Other Nations Not to Release Its Air Data

ONG KONG — After years of choking smog that stings the eyes and burns the lungs, regularly documented by an air sensor at the American Embassy in Beijing that posts the results hourly on Twitter, the Chinese government took a strong position on the issue on Tuesday.

Wu Xiaoqing, the vice minister for environmental protection, demanded that foreign governments stop releasing data on China’s air.

In a criticism clearly aimed at the United States, Mr. Wu said at a news conference that the public release of air-quality data by foreign governments’ consulates “not only doesn’t abide by the spirits of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, but also violates relevant provisions of environmental protection.”

He complained that data from just a few locations were unrepresentative of broader air quality in China. He asserted that it was a mistake for a few consulates in China to be assigning labels like “hazardous” to China’s air based on standards that were drafted in industrialized countries and tightened over many years.

Such standards may not be appropriate for conditions in developing countries like China, Mr. Wu said, adding that “we hope the few consulates in China would respect our country’s relevant laws and regulations, and stop publishing this unrepresentative air-quality information.”

In case anyone missed the point, a Foreign Ministry spokesman, Liu Weimin, said at a briefing later in the day, “Of course, if the foreign embassies want to collect air-quality information for their own staff or diplomats, I think that is their own matter, but we believe that this type of information should not be released to the public.

The American Embassy began tracking and releasing air-quality data in 2008, followed by its Guangzhou consulate last year and the Shanghai consulate last month.

Officials in China and Hong Kong have grudgingly responded by moving to release their own data on extremely fine particles measuring 2.5 micrometers or less in diameter, a size that penetrates particularly deep into lungs and has been linked to cancer and other respiratory problems. Public awareness in China of the health hazards associated with extremely fine particles has soared with the release of the American data, and particularly smoggy days now set off a surge in mentions of “PM2.5” on Weibo, a popular Chinese microblogging service similar to Twitter.

The criticism of the United States by Chinese officials comes after officials in Shanghai have recently taken exception to the public availability of data from the new monitor there. Richard L. Buangan, the American Embassy spokesman, wrote in an e-mail that the monitor “is a resource for the health of the consulate community, but is also available through our Twitter feed for American citizens who may find the data useful.”

He added, “We caution, however, that citywide analysis of air quality cannot be done using readings from a single machine.”

Mr. Buangan declined to comment on how the Vienna conventions might or might not have any legal bearing on the air monitors or the release of the data.
 
Last edited:
.
:omghaha::omghaha::omghaha::omghaha::omghaha::omghaha::omghaha::omghaha::omghaha::omghaha::omghaha::omghaha::omghaha::omghaha::omghaha::omghaha::omghaha::omghaha:

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/06/...mbassies-to-stop-measuring-air-pollution.html
China Asks Other Nations Not to Release Its Air Data

ONG KONG — After years of choking smog that stings the eyes and burns the lungs, regularly documented by an air sensor at the American Embassy in Beijing that posts the results hourly on Twitter, the Chinese government took a strong position on the issue on Tuesday.

Wu Xiaoqing, the vice minister for environmental protection, demanded that foreign governments stop releasing data on China’s air.

In a criticism clearly aimed at the United States, Mr. Wu said at a news conference that the public release of air-quality data by foreign governments’ consulates “not only doesn’t abide by the spirits of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, but also violates relevant provisions of environmental protection.”

He complained that data from just a few locations were unrepresentative of broader air quality in China. He asserted that it was a mistake for a few consulates in China to be assigning labels like “hazardous” to China’s air based on standards that were drafted in industrialized countries and tightened over many years.

Such standards may not be appropriate for conditions in developing countries like China, Mr. Wu said, adding that “we hope the few consulates in China would respect our country’s relevant laws and regulations, and stop publishing this unrepresentative air-quality information.”

In case anyone missed the point, a Foreign Ministry spokesman, Liu Weimin, said at a briefing later in the day, “Of course, if the foreign embassies want to collect air-quality information for their own staff or diplomats, I think that is their own matter, but we believe that this type of information should not be released to the public.”

The American Embassy began tracking and releasing air-quality data in 2008, followed by its Guangzhou consulate last year and the Shanghai consulate last month.

Officials in China and Hong Kong have grudgingly responded by moving to release their own data on extremely fine particles measuring 2.5 micrometers or less in diameter, a size that penetrates particularly deep into lungs and has been linked to cancer and other respiratory problems. Public awareness in China of the health hazards associated with extremely fine particles has soared with the release of the American data, and particularly smoggy days now set off a surge in mentions of “PM2.5” on Weibo, a popular Chinese microblogging service similar to Twitter.

The criticism of the United States by Chinese officials comes after officials in Shanghai have recently taken exception to the public availability of data from the new monitor there. Richard L. Buangan, the American Embassy spokesman, wrote in an e-mail that the monitor “is a resource for the health of the consulate community, but is also available through our Twitter feed for American citizens who may find the data useful.”

He added, “We caution, however, that citywide analysis of air quality cannot be done using readings from a single machine.”

Mr. Buangan declined to comment on how the Vienna conventions might or might not have any legal bearing on the air monitors or the release of the data.
but neither article used the word “cover up”, only you did
 
.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom