CanPol Megathread: Big Changus

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > CanPol Megathread: Big Changus

«‹›2341 »

vincentpricesboner: Sep 3, 2006; by LITERALLY AN ADMIN

anyone that owns stocks west of alberta will be first against the wall

# ? Mar 4, 2018 05:22

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 29, 2024 08:35

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

ok comrade fancy feast

# ? Mar 4, 2018 05:35

Stickarts: Dec 21, 2003; literally

My retirement plan, on top of a decent career pension if the wheels don�t fall off, is the sweat equity of building homes mosty by myself every few+ years. I guess that makes me petite bougie class traitor scum but it seems a fair way to be able to keep rents affordable if I ever build up enough to hold onto a couple properties. I don�t know if I have the stomach, in more ways than one, for the stock market. Or cat food, for that matter.

# ? Mar 4, 2018 05:41

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

you're not an Ideologically Pure Layton Socialist unless you die of prostate cancer with no money in a bank acocunt (because bank accounts are for bougie pigs)

# ? Mar 4, 2018 05:47

cowofwar: Jul 30, 2002; by Athanatos

namaste friends posted:

you're not an Ideologically Pure Layton Socialist unless you die of prostate cancer with no money in a bank acocunt (because bank accounts are for bougie pigs)

Do I need a Star Trek costume?

# ? Mar 4, 2018 05:48

The Butcher: Apr 20, 2005; Well, at least we tried.; Nap Ghost

cowofwar posted:

Do I need a Star Trek costume?

Every self respecting goon does.

I own a TNG one in command red.

Been my same easy halloween costume for like 5 years now.

# ? Mar 4, 2018 05:50

Stickarts: Dec 21, 2003; literally

namaste friends posted:

you're not an Ideologically Pure Layton Socialist unless you die of prostate cancer with no money in a bank acocunt (because bank accounts are for bougie pigs)

When I go, make me into a bike-riding statue.

# ? Mar 4, 2018 06:01

vincentpricesboner: Sep 3, 2006; by LITERALLY AN ADMIN

namaste friends posted:

you're not an Ideologically Pure Layton Socialist unless you die of prostate cancer with no money in a bank acocunt (because bank accounts are for bougie pigs)

do you rent or own your place in BC?

# ? Mar 4, 2018 06:31

patonthebach: Aug 22, 2016; by R. Guyovich

Actually pretty reasonable point of view by McMaster on people wanting to just shut down every speaking event at their uni

http://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.4559067?__twitter_impression=true

"The temptation to 'shut down' or prevent events from occurring is troubling. Censorship is not an option. There are very narrow grounds under which McMaster should restrict or stop a speaker or an event, essentially those dealt with in federal and provincial laws governing harassment, libel, slander and hate speech."

# ? Mar 4, 2018 13:33

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

Finally Jordan Peterson makes his way out West with planned speeches at be Douglas college, cap college, Vancouver community college, langara, university college of the caribou, kwantlen, camosun college and quest university, triggering libs into whining about how free speech is a paramount freedom and how they might not agree with what is said but how they will Deathmatch to the death to protect it

# ? Mar 4, 2018 15:39

DynamicSloth: Jul 30, 2006; "Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth."

patonthebach posted:

Actually pretty reasonable point of view by McMaster on people wanting to just shut down every speaking event at their uni

http://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.4559067?__twitter_impression=true

"The temptation to 'shut down' or prevent events from occurring is troubling. Censorship is not an option. There are very narrow grounds under which McMaster should restrict or stop a speaker or an event, essentially those dealt with in federal and provincial laws governing harassment, libel, slander and hate speech."

I'd call it horseshit and the height of arrogance to try and define acceptable forms of dissent. The government gets to define when protest crosses the line into being criminal activity not a university. Student groups have every right to organize and no platform someone if that's what they want to do with their free speech.

This is a how to guide for how the alt-right can tailor their dog whistles to receive the university's protection.

# ? Mar 4, 2018 16:06

infernal machines: Oct 11, 2012; we monitor many frequencies. we listen always. came a voice, out of the babel of tongues, speaking to us. it played us a mighty dub.

Just in case any of you are tempted to believe this is breaking new ground: A brief history of Fascism on Campus, and its relationship with free speech

# ? Mar 4, 2018 16:27

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

Hey everyone in this thread who was saying globalization is bad and NAFTA skills be cancelled, where you at? Steel is about to be tariffed 25% by the Americans do you're all gonna get your wish

# ? Mar 4, 2018 16:35

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

*Naomi Klein voice*

Well we couldn't have possibly known this would happen and besides the benefits long term to the Canadian worker are

# ? Mar 4, 2018 16:40

infernal machines: Oct 11, 2012; we monitor many frequencies. we listen always. came a voice, out of the babel of tongues, speaking to us. it played us a mighty dub.

You're replying to an off the cuff statement from a mush brained septuagenarian like it's actual policy. Wait until the actual tariffs are announced before going all :derp:

# ? Mar 4, 2018 16:42

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

https://twitter.com/thehill/status/970323238927634432?s=21

says the mush brained septuagenarian

Nevermore!

# ? Mar 4, 2018 16:44

Horseshoe theory: Mar 7, 2005

namaste friends posted:

https://twitter.com/thehill/status/970323238927634432?s=21

says the mush brained septuagenarian

Nevermore!

Donald J. Trump: well known for not talking out of both sides of his mouth on everything ever (and having a corresponding historical tweet to back it up).

# ? Mar 4, 2018 16:45

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

You guys should be welcoming this with open arms! Finally no more free trade! Wages will go up!

# ? Mar 4, 2018 16:48

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

Btw click on the tweet. It's Peter Navarro taking

# ? Mar 4, 2018 16:49

infernal machines: Oct 11, 2012; we monitor many frequencies. we listen always. came a voice, out of the babel of tongues, speaking to us. it played us a mighty dub.

Seriously, this is Literally Making poo poo Up: The Administration. Even half the poo poo they say they're going to do, and mean, turns out to be half-way illegal or completely unenforceable.

So again, wait for someone not wearing adult diapers to announce the actual implementation.

# ? Mar 4, 2018 16:49

PT6A: Jan 5, 2006; Public school teachers are callous dictators who won't lift a finger to stop children from peeing in my plane

He's been on this stupid thing since the loving campaign, sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "LALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" because you don't want him to do this thing is stupid.

# ? Mar 4, 2018 16:52

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

C'mon just embrace the trade war. You're gonna love it. Finally we'll have a socialist Utopia and Prime Minister Niki Ashton will usher in 50 years of properity

# ? Mar 4, 2018 16:52

infernal machines: Oct 11, 2012; we monitor many frequencies. we listen always. came a voice, out of the babel of tongues, speaking to us. it played us a mighty dub.

PT6A posted:

He's been on this stupid thing since the loving campaign, sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "LALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" because you don't want him to do this thing is stupid.

I'm not saying they can't or won't impose tariffs, I'm saying you can't predict jack poo poo based on the insane outbursts of the president, so wait until the actual trade policy is announced before going all chicken little.

Even Navarro saying "there won't be any exclusions, just exemptions" doesn't mean much.

# ? Mar 4, 2018 16:54

Stickarts: Dec 21, 2003; literally

vyelkin posted:

The trick is that either position can be either left or right wing, it's not as simple as "free trade vs. protectionism".

Increased trade can be a right-wing position if the goal is to open up new competition that erodes the power of labour in both countries while bolstering the strength and income of capital by making workers compete with each other across the world, or by importing labour to drive down wages in any given country, or by forcing countries into a race to the bottom, preventing them from enacting/maintaining/enforcing labour laws and regulations. It can also be a left-wing position if it instead enforces regulations and labour laws, bringing other countries up to higher standards (and thus preventing them from undercutting higher-paid workers in other countries) while offering specialization for industries in different countries, making everywhere more efficient and raising wages and standards of living. The trick, though, is that having this kind of trade isn't exactly the same as laissez-faire liberalism freeing capital to move across borders, it's more like managed trade (which, tbf, is what every "free trade" agreement actually does) forcing capital across countries to adhere to some kind of standards, and therefore restricting capital's ability to move through a globalized world to find the cheapest and most exploitative or environmentally-damaging place to set up shop. This kind of enforcement of regulations would also include strong welfare state mechanisms to prevent internal dislocation from too-negatively affecting workers who lose their jobs because of increased trade. There's nothing inherently wrong with factories being located across oceans from each other, as long as both countries are benefiting from the trade being exchanged--but too often, free trade agreements end up benefiting the wealthy in both countries by stripping away jobs and rights from workers in both countries, or by offering meagre increases to workers in outsourcing destinations and nothing to dislocated workers in outsourcing origins. There's no reason these deals can't be structured to benefit workers over capital in both locations.

I don't think I really need to go into how protectionism can be either a left-wing position aimed at protecting workers from the vulnerabilities of global capital flow or a right-wing position aimed at enforcing xenophobia, those are both pretty clear.

The trick to getting the good trade deals, though, is you need good governments in power in more than one country at a time and that's exceedingly rare in a world like ours. You either have neoliberals whose aim is to completely gut welfare provisions, environmental regulations, and labour rights, or you get nativist "populists" whose only goal in trade deals is to make domestic capital happy by loving over everyone else. I'm sure Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn could work out a decent trade deal if they were somehow both in power at the same time, but lol if you think that's happening anytime soon.

# ? Mar 4, 2018 16:56

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

THC posted:

trump is not going to kill nafta. he will expand free trade and sign new, even nastier trade deals by the time this is over, if anything.

Helsing posted:

Boeing's biggest rival is Airbus, a company that grew out of a consortium of European aviation firms and subsidized by various governments. Since 1970 Airbus has grown into the second largest aerospace company in the world and the second largest manufacturer of weapons in Europe.

Boeing wants to stop this from happening elsewhere which is why they're lobbying hard for punitive tariffs against Bombardier's "subsidies". It's the most blatant kind of protectionism imaginable and a really great illustration of why American "free trade" is consciously designed to advance American economic interests, often at the cost of the long term economic sovereignty of other countries.

Short term we benefit as consumers from greater integration with the United States but over a long time frame we're bleeding all the high productivity and innovating industries that actually create the basis of a strong economy and high wage work force.

RBC posted:

doesn''t really matter what the motivation for the vote is, if you honestly think free trade agreements are good for anyone other than global capital then lmao

JawKnee posted:

tell us again how great free trade is though

or how much you love just buying poo poo off amazon or ebay or whatever

Helsing posted:

If we circle back to the post you made previously to this one I think it really gets to the heart of my objections:

You're writing as though there is some kind of huge blockage slowing down rates of international investment and trade (you're also operating on the premise that maximizing global investment and trade is a good thing, but we'll set that debate aside for a moment to focus on this one). Someone totally unfamiliar with this debate, reading your post for the first time, might get the impression that without the TPP there will only be, as you write, "minimal cross border investment". But I just don't see how that even remotely describes the world we've been living in since the end of the Cold War.

The TPP purports to smooth over a couple rough edges and provide an even playing field, but in practice it is filled with really awful policy changes such as trying to impose American intellectual property laws on a much larger area of the globe. Numerous public health figures and charities such as Doctors Without Boarders have warned that this is going to raise the price of medicine, especially in third world countries but also places in Canada. I don't think that's a trivial objection: people will almost certainly die or go without medical care in larger numbers than before if the TPP is implemented.

So rather than debating the TPP's provisions abstractly I would want to see the specific conditions in the real world today that would justify passing this massive "trade" bill. Because it's almost universally agreed that there will be significant adjustment costs.

Now in addition to this there's the simple fact that the TPP really isn't aimed at preventing appropriation of assets. It's much more broadly targeted than that. It would prevent a local government from choosing which vendors to give its business to. It would prevent state owned firms from engaging in vital nation building projects. It would give companies the ability to sue over environmental or health and safety standards that have nothing to do with appropriating foreign profits. Worst of all, it essentially ties the hands of all future governments and tries to over ride the parliamentary precedents of practically every nation in the world which state that the legislative branch of government cannot pass laws that a future legislature is unable to over ride. You might say it doesn't really violate that precedent but it clearly destroys the spirit of it. And I think that's really dangerous.

Ultimately there seems to be a huge and still mounting pile of evidence suggesting that any real benefits the TPP offers are a cure worse than the disease. You mentioned in your post that part of the reason the TPP is designed in the way that it is is because its such a large agreement between so many countries. Well, to me that just reformulates the question slightly: why, exactly, do we need to have this big master agreement between the countries of the Pacific Rim? And so for as I can tell one of the main appeals is that it lets them use exactly the excuse you just invoked. It clouds the agreement in so many layers of obfuscating complications that it becomes much easier to smuggle in reprehensible provisions that might not pass muster with a more narrowly drawn agreement.

Part of this probably comes down to the fact that when you speak disparagingly of "domestic protectionism" what I hear is "national sovereignty". I don't want to remove a countries internal tools for economic development or wealth redistribution. If a local government wants to create jobs by sole-sourcing a contract to a local business then they should absolutely have the power to do that (even better if the government does it internally, but baby steps). This whole move in the last few decades to absolutist free trade never actually delivered the promised prosperity: Canada in particular has never realized the promised benefits of free trade. Obviously its nice to be able to buy Japanese cars, California peaches, Mexican avocados, Chinese electronics, German knives, etc., and nobody wants to stop those flows of goods. But the deeper premise of free trade, that it would massively boost incomes, that it would unleash a huge wave of innovation within Canada, that it would make us more globally competitive, turned out to be entirely false. Canadian companies remain among the least innovative in the OECD because, quite simply, they aren't really our companies. They are mostly branch plants with HQ's in other countries like the USA. And in fact the value added portion of our exports has decreased under free trade because our short term "comparative advantage" turned out to be extracting and selling minerals, oil, gas and timber. So basically all that hard work turning Canada into a manufacturing and innovating economy from the 1960s to the 1990s got flushed down the toilet when the free trade deals got signed and in the last twenty years we've actually become a less globally competitive economy than we were in the supposedly bad old days before NAFTA and the WTO.

So this opens a second set of objections: in addition to my specific problems with the TPP, I just don't see why Canada would be particularly eager to buy from snake oil from the Free Traders. I am strongly in favor of vigorous global trade but the form of "free trade" embodied in recent trade pacts, which the TPP puts on steroids, has actually had very poor results for most Canadians, and it has deformed the Canadian economy and undone half a century of progress by returning us to our default state as drawers of water and hewers of wood. Any clear eyed student of history knows that sustainable prosperity comes from the countries who build and innovate, not the countries who sell raw resources. Canada is on the wrong side of that divide and the free trade fundamentalists deserve a lot of the blame.

loving lmao

hold on to your butts motherfuckers

:smugdog:

# ? Mar 4, 2018 17:12

smoke sumthin bitch: Dec 14, 2009; by FactsAreUseless

free trade is a myth. people in china arent free.

# ? Mar 4, 2018 17:14

PT6A: Jan 5, 2006; Public school teachers are callous dictators who won't lift a finger to stop children from peeing in my plane

namaste friends posted:

loving lmao

hold on to your butts motherfuckers

Who would've guessed people want all the good parts of free trade but none of the bad parts?

a.k.a.

I never thought the leopards would eat MY face!!

# ? Mar 4, 2018 17:18

Helsing: Aug 23, 2003; DON'T POST IN THE ELECTION THREAD UNLESS YOU JOE BIDEN

namaste friends posted:

Hey everyone in this thread who was saying globalization is bad and NAFTA skills be cancelled, where you at? Steel is about to be tariffed 25% by the Americans do you're all gonna get your wish

My schadenfreude levels are dangerously high right now actually. I was at a Fraser Institute get together not that long ago and the speakers were visibly upset whenever American conservatism or Donald Trump came up. At the end of the day the last speaker was sullenly talking about how unlike American think tanks the Fraser Institute would never "allow itself to be captured by an ideology".

# ? Mar 4, 2018 17:19

infernal machines: Oct 11, 2012; we monitor many frequencies. we listen always. came a voice, out of the babel of tongues, speaking to us. it played us a mighty dub.

Helsing posted:

the Fraser Institute would never "allow itself to be captured by an ideology".

# ? Mar 4, 2018 17:22

Helsing: Aug 23, 2003; DON'T POST IN THE ELECTION THREAD UNLESS YOU JOE BIDEN

Also CI thank you for posting a bunch of comments I made a year ago that appear to be vindicated by current events.

# ? Mar 4, 2018 17:26

A Typical Goon: Feb 25, 2011

Free trade is only good for the American bourgeoisie. It�s sole purpose is to provide access to developing markets for exploitation by western capital. Trade wars are bad, free trade is garbage

# ? Mar 4, 2018 17:33

NZAmoeba: Feb 14, 2005; It turns out it's MAN!; Hair Elf

namaste friends posted:

loving lmao

hold on to your butts motherfuckers

Maybe after decades of slowly losing those innovation industries, suddenly having our raw materials now be tariffed is also a bad thing?

No, context is meaningless, just do the exact opposite of a bad thing from 20 years ago and things will instantly change back to how they were. This is a sensible argument everyone agrees with.

# ? Mar 4, 2018 17:43

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

Hahahaha. Guys it's all about context

I didn't say anything stupid about how protectionism is good now that I'm staring down the barrel of a trade war

End globalization now u guys

# ? Mar 4, 2018 17:45

Helsing: Aug 23, 2003; DON'T POST IN THE ELECTION THREAD UNLESS YOU JOE BIDEN

We all know you're frontin CI, you voted for Corbyn.

# ? Mar 4, 2018 17:49

mik: Oct 16, 2003; oh

smoke sumthin bitch posted:

free trade is a myth. people in china arent free.

how much do they cost?

# ? Mar 4, 2018 17:51

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

Hey can any of you go down to the steel mills in Hamilton and report back what happens when you tell the tariffs are going to make their wages higher

# ? Mar 4, 2018 17:53

JawKnee: Mar 24, 2007; You'll take the ride to leave this town along that yellow line

smoke sumthin bitch posted:

free trade is a myth. people in china arent free.

which is the point I was making, but CI doesn't give a poo poo about where what he buys comes from, he's just about bougie rear end in a top hat

# ? Mar 4, 2018 17:57

infernal machines: Oct 11, 2012; we monitor many frequencies. we listen always. came a voice, out of the babel of tongues, speaking to us. it played us a mighty dub.

namaste friends posted:

Hey can any of you go down to the steel mills in Hamilton and report back what happens when you tell the tariffs are going to make their wages higher

Stelco is owned by US Steel, which should be interesting.

# ? Mar 4, 2018 18:01

Postess with the Mostest: Apr 4, 2007; Arabian nights
'neath Arabian moons
A fool off his guard
could fall and fall hard
out there on the dunes

JawKnee posted:

which is the point I was making, but CI doesn't give a poo poo about where what he buys comes from, he's just about bougie rear end in a top hat

Reminder to only buy Quebec maple syrup where all the producers are indentured servants to la Fédération so you don't get that free trade bitterness in your pancakes.

# ? Mar 4, 2018 18:09

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 29, 2024 08:35

infernal machines: Oct 11, 2012; we monitor many frequencies. we listen always. came a voice, out of the babel of tongues, speaking to us. it played us a mighty dub.

Vermont delenda est

# ? Mar 4, 2018 18:10

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > CanPol Megathread: Big Changus

«‹›2341 »