I found your first graph very interesting. It made me wonder who were the winners and losers in that transition. I would expect the losers to be a numerically much larger group of primarily blue-collar workers in the rust-belt, while the winners would be a small group of business owners and their well-educated employees, many in Silicon Valley. In such transitions social and political conflict is usually reduced when the winners help out the losers, either directly or through government transfers. The extent to which this was done in the US was probably insufficient, in large measure because the Democrats focused on identity issues rather than winners and losers.
This is an interesting summary of the last 40 years of trade policy. A question I would have is that similarly to the United States, Canada needs to rebuild its industrial base. This doesn’t mean making all our own things - the current trade-based economic system wouldn’t support it - but making enough so that we retain technical knowledge and the ability to flexibly re-allocate capital and step up our industrial capacity if it is needed.
I am painfully aware of the problem Canada found itself in during covid when we had to rely on vaccines manufactured in the United States and Europe with no ability to make any of our own, as well as on an intellectual property arrangement with China to develop a vaccine, and agreement that China pulled out of, after securing the needed IP, and which left Canada in a bind.
It seems like a missing discussion in this election has been how to rebuild and spread out our industrial capacity with an emphasis on improving resilience of regional, resource-dependent economies like the Maritimes, and the Prairies. I am deeply concerned about this as unequal industrial development will continue to foster dependency in the former, and secessionist impulses in the latter. I am from Alberta myself, and I am concerned about our economic future post-oil.
I remember industrial policy was one of your touchstones back when you were a contender for PM.
I tried to have this discussion in 2020-21 and spoke about Canada First in terms of vaccines, PPE and other items, but the media could not look past the similarity in rhetoric to the US, so I shifted to self reliance. Same with the arctic and military spending positions I took. The media discounted it and the public wasn't ready. I think they are now.
Thank-you for the historical summary and retrospective. Well written and thoughtful. My only point is that unlike yourself, trump is not a rational man, nor are those in his orbit. Not only (as you mention) are they uneducated in basic economics, but there is a close association with nihilists and techno-autocrats like Peter Thiel, Curtis Yarvin and Marc Andreessen, the Silicon Valley venture capitalists who have JD Vance’s ear. They are preaching some very scary things. Journalist Carole Cadwallr gives a good talk. @jennycohn.bsky.social is also a good source for the curious.
If you know your negotiation opponent is irrational or easy to distract on certain issues, that calculus must go into your foreign policy approach and negotiation tactics. We did not do this as a country in the past. I hope we do in the future.
As an American who voted for Trump, this is very fair-minded. It doesn't entirely explain the panoply of issues behind the MAGA movement, but that's not its intention, with a focus on tariffs. Your recommendations and conclusions are ones that I largely share. After a clumsy and counter-productive rollout of Trump's regional and global tariff regime, wiser thinking, including a focus on China, emerged.
Thanks for your perspective. I have long thought it will come back to China, but there was political (and financial) appeal of broader tariffs, but this is where the backdraft implications harm the US economy. How and when the administration course corrects is what we are all watching closely.
Very well written and a great lesson on trade . I might be inclined to add that the inclusion of China into the WTO in 2001 will be remembered as a major turning point in global trade. The US senate overwhelmingly gave ascent to the resouloution in allowing China to join the WTO. My guess is that business lobbyists had a profound influence on this decision.
I am sure that a majority of US industries, including the manufacturing sector saw this as a golden opportunity to take advantage of lower cost both in terms of Labour and production costs,there by hollowing out the US manufacturing even more. Profits before people.
DT wants a BIG DEAL he can trumpet. The economy's shrinking, the stock market is dropping and there's no peace deal to be had in either Gaza or Ukraine.
He has no achievable success. Watch for the Republican exective begin to trim his wings if there's no win by September.
I found your first graph very interesting. It made me wonder who were the winners and losers in that transition. I would expect the losers to be a numerically much larger group of primarily blue-collar workers in the rust-belt, while the winners would be a small group of business owners and their well-educated employees, many in Silicon Valley. In such transitions social and political conflict is usually reduced when the winners help out the losers, either directly or through government transfers. The extent to which this was done in the US was probably insufficient, in large measure because the Democrats focused on identity issues rather than winners and losers.
This is an interesting summary of the last 40 years of trade policy. A question I would have is that similarly to the United States, Canada needs to rebuild its industrial base. This doesn’t mean making all our own things - the current trade-based economic system wouldn’t support it - but making enough so that we retain technical knowledge and the ability to flexibly re-allocate capital and step up our industrial capacity if it is needed.
I am painfully aware of the problem Canada found itself in during covid when we had to rely on vaccines manufactured in the United States and Europe with no ability to make any of our own, as well as on an intellectual property arrangement with China to develop a vaccine, and agreement that China pulled out of, after securing the needed IP, and which left Canada in a bind.
It seems like a missing discussion in this election has been how to rebuild and spread out our industrial capacity with an emphasis on improving resilience of regional, resource-dependent economies like the Maritimes, and the Prairies. I am deeply concerned about this as unequal industrial development will continue to foster dependency in the former, and secessionist impulses in the latter. I am from Alberta myself, and I am concerned about our economic future post-oil.
I remember industrial policy was one of your touchstones back when you were a contender for PM.
I tried to have this discussion in 2020-21 and spoke about Canada First in terms of vaccines, PPE and other items, but the media could not look past the similarity in rhetoric to the US, so I shifted to self reliance. Same with the arctic and military spending positions I took. The media discounted it and the public wasn't ready. I think they are now.
Thank-you for the historical summary and retrospective. Well written and thoughtful. My only point is that unlike yourself, trump is not a rational man, nor are those in his orbit. Not only (as you mention) are they uneducated in basic economics, but there is a close association with nihilists and techno-autocrats like Peter Thiel, Curtis Yarvin and Marc Andreessen, the Silicon Valley venture capitalists who have JD Vance’s ear. They are preaching some very scary things. Journalist Carole Cadwallr gives a good talk. @jennycohn.bsky.social is also a good source for the curious.
https://www.thenerdreich.com/carole-cadwalladr-warns-of-digital-coup-in-ted-talk/
If you know your negotiation opponent is irrational or easy to distract on certain issues, that calculus must go into your foreign policy approach and negotiation tactics. We did not do this as a country in the past. I hope we do in the future.
As an American who voted for Trump, this is very fair-minded. It doesn't entirely explain the panoply of issues behind the MAGA movement, but that's not its intention, with a focus on tariffs. Your recommendations and conclusions are ones that I largely share. After a clumsy and counter-productive rollout of Trump's regional and global tariff regime, wiser thinking, including a focus on China, emerged.
Thanks for your perspective. I have long thought it will come back to China, but there was political (and financial) appeal of broader tariffs, but this is where the backdraft implications harm the US economy. How and when the administration course corrects is what we are all watching closely.
The down, down, down escalator for the American economy . . . . . .
Very well written and a great lesson on trade . I might be inclined to add that the inclusion of China into the WTO in 2001 will be remembered as a major turning point in global trade. The US senate overwhelmingly gave ascent to the resouloution in allowing China to join the WTO. My guess is that business lobbyists had a profound influence on this decision.
I am sure that a majority of US industries, including the manufacturing sector saw this as a golden opportunity to take advantage of lower cost both in terms of Labour and production costs,there by hollowing out the US manufacturing even more. Profits before people.
Sorry to learn you were knocked out by successful PRC foreign interference in the last election
There were lots of issues involved in that chapter.
That's a total understatement as sad as that sounds
DT wants a BIG DEAL he can trumpet. The economy's shrinking, the stock market is dropping and there's no peace deal to be had in either Gaza or Ukraine.
He has no achievable success. Watch for the Republican exective begin to trim his wings if there's no win by September.