It's quite startling and amusing listening to the Presidential hopefuls talk about making America 'great again' and promising a 'political revolution is coming' while talk in protectionist, populist and nationalist tongue.
Particularly when it comes to trade.
On this issue, both Trump and Sanders (who promises to end NAFTA among other trade agreements) talk nonsense but if I had to choose between the two at gun point (or knife point depending on the effectiveness of gun-control in a given jurisdiction), I'd go with the former for obvious reasons. Not obvious to you? One has conducted business and the other hasn't. Simple as that.
In any event, protectionism is bad. Very bad. Retarded even. And any candidate should be chastised into the fetal position for even mentioning it.
Especially when it comes to trade between Canada and the United States. The two economies are so intertwined talking in protectionist tongue is akin to trying to cut around crucial nerves and tissue in the body. Cut the wrong nerve and forever be numb or worse, bleed to death.
In my view, there shouldn't even be any need for 'trade agreements'. Humans trade to deal with scarcity. It's a natural activity that (should anyway) transcend national borders and nation-states. There should just be FREE TRADE.
And the dichotomy between the two lands couldn't be any more different. A country like Canada can't afford to shut its borders pretending to act like it can sustain itself without a major finished goods economy (notice our complaints are always with resources - lumber for example) while the U.S. - ever producing and creating - needs new markets to keep its flow of goods and services going. These two countries were meant to be together as they fulfill each others needs and wants.
We're destined, for ill or for worse, to sink or swim together.
How this even becomes a talking point with politicians is beyond me to comprehend.
It's like complaining about earth, wind and fire.
Particularly when it comes to trade.
On this issue, both Trump and Sanders (who promises to end NAFTA among other trade agreements) talk nonsense but if I had to choose between the two at gun point (or knife point depending on the effectiveness of gun-control in a given jurisdiction), I'd go with the former for obvious reasons. Not obvious to you? One has conducted business and the other hasn't. Simple as that.
In any event, protectionism is bad. Very bad. Retarded even. And any candidate should be chastised into the fetal position for even mentioning it.
Especially when it comes to trade between Canada and the United States. The two economies are so intertwined talking in protectionist tongue is akin to trying to cut around crucial nerves and tissue in the body. Cut the wrong nerve and forever be numb or worse, bleed to death.
In my view, there shouldn't even be any need for 'trade agreements'. Humans trade to deal with scarcity. It's a natural activity that (should anyway) transcend national borders and nation-states. There should just be FREE TRADE.
And the dichotomy between the two lands couldn't be any more different. A country like Canada can't afford to shut its borders pretending to act like it can sustain itself without a major finished goods economy (notice our complaints are always with resources - lumber for example) while the U.S. - ever producing and creating - needs new markets to keep its flow of goods and services going. These two countries were meant to be together as they fulfill each others needs and wants.
We're destined, for ill or for worse, to sink or swim together.
How this even becomes a talking point with politicians is beyond me to comprehend.
It's like complaining about earth, wind and fire.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Mysterious and anonymous comments as well as those laced with cyanide and ad hominen attacks will be deleted. Thank you for your attention, chumps.