Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Globe and Mail)   Hey, America, you want to re-negotiate NAFTA? Fine, let's start with adopting mandatory paid family leave and dumping all of your anti-union bullshiat   ( beta.theglobeandmail.com) divider line
    More: Interesting, United States, North American Free Trade Agreement, labour standards, Mexico, President of the United States, NAFTA, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, Party of the Democratic Revolution  
•       •       •

3400 clicks; posted to Politics » on 04 Sep 2017 at 5:15 AM (14 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



105 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2017-09-04 02:40:19 AM  
Seeing as how Trump is so pro-worker I'm sure he'll agree to this, right?
 
2017-09-04 02:43:53 AM  
Oh snap, we used to do this kind of shiat to 3rd world countries. back before the great regression.
 
2017-09-04 03:00:10 AM  
Haha. Woof! Us and Britain, hoist.
 
2017-09-04 03:16:20 AM  
As I understand it, though I welcome corrections:

A treaty is negotiated, gets signed by the President, and then is sent to Congress for ratification. If it receives 2/3 majority, it becomes binding. That's it. The process for withdrawing from a treaty varies and is based both on the treaty's stipulations and international law.

NAFTA wasn't a treaty and wasn't implemented as one. It was an "agreement" negotiated by G.H.W. Bush's administration and signed by him near the end of his term. He failed to get it fast-tracked, but Clinton agreed with the concept, added his own touch, and then sent it to Congress. Rather than simply voting on it like a treaty, though, they passed a bill (with a majority of Republican votes in both Houses, btw) that made NAFTA's conditions part of Federal statute.

While Trump can send a letter stating his intention to have the U.S. withdraw from NAFTA, he doesn't have the power to unilaterally invalidate the law that Congress created to implement it. Unless both Houses vote to repeal the law as well, the U.S. wouldn't be "out" of NAFTA.
 
2017-09-04 03:57:42 AM  

Hobodeluxe: Oh snap, we used to do this kind of shiat to 3rd world countries. back before the great regression.


It was also the major gain we would have got from TPP, specifically with most of the 3rd world countries that are stealing our lunch on manufacturing costs.
 
2017-09-04 05:52:32 AM  
Bless you, Canada. Don't let these bastards wriggle out of it, either.
 
2017-09-04 06:00:20 AM  
Why do you think when Trump was blowing off about repealing NAFTA Trudeau's reaction was "sure, that's fine with us"
 
2017-09-04 06:13:27 AM  
The First World. Trying to help America be great again.
 
2017-09-04 06:14:32 AM  
"Trump is a racist right now, and doesn't know much about Mexico," said Marco Antonio Paez, an 18-year-old high-school student, as he stood with a group of friends at the back of the rally. "If the United States wants to leave NAFTA, then they should leave. Then Mexico can find a way, maybe with Canada, to go on without the U.S."

That's the sound of America becoming increasingly internationally irrelevant.
 
2017-09-04 06:22:42 AM  
That would really make America great(er) again.  So, of course Republicans aren't for it.
 
2017-09-04 06:34:23 AM  

LowbrowDeluxe: Hobodeluxe: Oh snap, we used to do this kind of shiat to 3rd world countries. back before the great regression.

It was also the major gain we would have got from TPP, specifically with most of the 3rd world countries that are stealing our lunch on manufacturing costs.


One of the major gains, yeah. TPP would have forced Vietnam and Malaysia (among others) to take on the costs of treating workers like humans rather than disposable parts, easing the cost pressure on American businesses.

The other major gain of TPP for US manufacturers would have been in IP protection. Right now, there is no reliable enforcement mechanism keeping Southeast Asian factories from churning out cheap knockoffs of patented goods, or preventing Southeast Asian businesses from using nothing but pirated software. TPP would have forced our competition to shoulder their own damn R&D costs, rather than simply stealing whatever our engineers come up with and producing it for a fraction of the cost.

And of course there were enormous geopolitical gains in binding the entire Pacific into an anti-China trade pact led by the United States, especially with the Obama-era military/diplomatic "pivot" increasing cooperation between the US military and Indonesia, Vietnam, Malaysia, and the Philippines, drawing a cordon around the South China Sea.

But of course the TPP was enormously intricate, as most epochal diplomatic achievements are, and that made it an easy target for demagogues to whip up a good froth of populist rage. So we had ignorant Trumpers complaining that the TPP was a surrender to China, when it was in fact the framework of an anti-China economic alliance. And we had ignorant Bernie bros complaining that the TPP was an anti-worker monstrosity, when it was in fact a hammer forcing anti-worker countries to ease up on their own people, blunting the force of the race-to-the-bottom pressure that has been eroding workers' rights across the West.

And since a simple lie is better politics than a complicated truth (c.f. Brexit), the GOP and Dems both turned against a policy both had previous supported -- in fact, pretty much the only thing the GOP and Obama/Clinton had ever managed to agree on -- in the vain hope of appeasing the 2016 ignorant-populism anger-wave.

It sucks. Another year and they'd have pulled it off, but the half-literate pitchfork mob managed to put a stake through the most impressive diplomatic triumph America has pulled off since the end of the cold war.
 
2017-09-04 06:41:09 AM  
What Canada doesn't get is that, due to the very nature of igloo-life, *their* poor working class doesn't need to worry about refrigerator money at all,  so they're all free to spend that money on homes, decent healthcare and retirement and whatnot
 
2017-09-04 06:51:26 AM  
Things are so bad in our political leadership that we have to root for other countries negotiating trade agreements with us. That's farked up.
 
2017-09-04 06:53:11 AM  

pkjun: LowbrowDeluxe: Hobodeluxe: Oh snap, we used to do this kind of shiat to 3rd world countries. back before the great regression.

It was also the major gain we would have got from TPP, specifically with most of the 3rd world countries that are stealing our lunch on manufacturing costs.

One of the major gains, yeah. TPP would have forced Vietnam and Malaysia (among others) to take on the costs of treating workers like humans rather than disposable parts, easing the cost pressure on American businesses.

The other major gain of TPP for US manufacturers would have been in IP protection. Right now, there is no reliable enforcement mechanism keeping Southeast Asian factories from churning out cheap knockoffs of patented goods, or preventing Southeast Asian businesses from using nothing but pirated software. TPP would have forced our competition to shoulder their own damn R&D costs, rather than simply stealing whatever our engineers come up with and producing it for a fraction of the cost.

And of course there were enormous geopolitical gains in binding the entire Pacific into an anti-China trade pact led by the United States, especially with the Obama-era military/diplomatic "pivot" increasing cooperation between the US military and Indonesia, Vietnam, Malaysia, and the Philippines, drawing a cordon around the South China Sea.

But of course the TPP was enormously intricate, as most epochal diplomatic achievements are, and that made it an easy target for demagogues to whip up a good froth of populist rage. So we had ignorant Trumpers complaining that the TPP was a surrender to China, when it was in fact the framework of an anti-China economic alliance. And we had ignorant Bernie bros complaining that the TPP was an anti-worker monstrosity, when it was in fact a hammer forcing anti-worker countries to ease up on their own people, blunting the force of the race-to-the-bottom pressure that has been eroding workers' rights across the West.

And since a simple lie is better po ...


i.imgur.comView Full Size


But, no, seriously.  Well said.

I do agree with you on all points, just in general I considered the possibility of pulling the rest of the rim far enough up the chain that America could revitalize manufacture to an extent (it's not all coming back, it never is.  But there is certainly room for some of it.) without turning half of itself (and never the half in certain people's backyards, oddly) into the newest third world nation, the most hopeful possibility.

Now instead China gets to be the driving factor, US manufacture still can't compete, Malaysia and Vietnam maybe get pulled up to China's 'worker suicide prevention net' standards, and by the time they're economically competitive with China, China will be off-shoring it's labor and pollution costs to Africa.
 
2017-09-04 06:58:35 AM  
I think that Republican President Donald Trump and his White House are under the mistaken impression that the Invisible Hand of the Marketplace doesn't work on the macroscopic levels.

If governments see the United States as a risk to them and their interests, they're going to change shiat around to protect themselves and enter into agreements that don't include the United States. We could be seeing Canuckistan building into a large transit and logistics empire.
 
2017-09-04 07:05:59 AM  

TsarTom: What Canada doesn't get is that, due to the very nature of igloo-life, *their* poor working class doesn't need to worry about refrigerator money at all,  so they're all free to spend that money on homes, decent healthcare and retirement and whatnot


That's true, but the money saved on refrigeration is spent on insulation.  You've got to insulate both the inside and outside of the walls of an igloo or it'll melt.  You need a vapor barrier or the ice blocks will slowly sublime away.  It's not as easy as you'd think.
 
2017-09-04 07:08:55 AM  

wood0366: If governments see the United States as a risk to them and their interests, they're going to change shiat around to protect themselves and enter into agreements that don't include the United States. We could be seeing Canuckistan building into a large transit and logistics empire.


We were already protecting ourselves from US trade action, so it is already happening.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Economic_and_Trade_Agreem​e​nt
http://www.international.gc.ca/gac-amc/campaign-campagne/ceta-aecg/in​d​ex.aspx?lang=eng

Our government was also happy with TPP and a free trade agreement with Mexico if NAFTA falls through.  Losing NAFTA would still hurt, but it wouldn't be roses for the US either.  And given who is at the helm of the US currently, I doubt that they'd pick up alternative trading partners like we could and have.
 
2017-09-04 07:28:01 AM  
What, you mean that renegotiating NAFTA means that Canada and Mexico get to ask for things that would benefit them?!?  Who knew negotiating international trade agreements was so hard!
 
2017-09-04 07:34:02 AM  

SomeAmerican: What, you mean that renegotiating NAFTA means that Canada and Mexico get to ask for things that would benefit them?!?  Who knew negotiating international trade agreements was so hard!


Pretty much the first reaction of everyone even slightly sane when this first came up was that NAFTA as it exists is slanted in favor of the US to an absurdly, cartoonishly unfair degree... and that we only got that unfair a deal in our favor because it was negotiated in a situation where we were unambiguously the biggest economic force in the world by orders of magnitude, with our political status being the victory lap following straight-up winning the cold war.

By definition any re-negotiation in NAFTA is going to cause the US to lose ground, and everyone knows it.  We're in a much worse negotiating position than last time even if you ignore that literally the single worst person in the nation at business and negotiations would be in charge of them.
 
2017-09-04 07:35:09 AM  
Canada, do you really think you can influence America's one percent? That's so cute.
 
2017-09-04 07:40:09 AM  

Cache: Canada, do you really think you can influence America's one percent? That's so cute.


Trump's the one who wanted to start re-negotiating a deal that mathematically can't possibly be anything but worse from our perspective.

I mean... yeah, the real outcome is going to be that congress tells Trump to fark off and that NAFTA stays, but Canada responding to an explicit request by the US president by putting up ideas for renegotiation is well within the realm of reasonable.
 
2017-09-04 07:45:03 AM  

pkjun: And we had ignorant Bernie bros complaining that the TPP was an anti-worker monstrosity, when it was in fact a hammer forcing anti-worker countries to ease up on their own people, blunting the force of the race-to-the-bottom pressure that has been eroding workers' rights across the West.


. . .and we had globalization advocates screaming that if you don't support the TPP, there will be an "Economic World War I" of antiquated treaties going off on each other, that unless it was passed it would spell the complete economic doom of the US as the entire world economically mobilized against us, ect.

. . .and yes, it was fiendishly complicated, and buried way down in there were plenty of clauses that would truly screw us over, like making drugs subject to copyright protection instead of patent protection. . .that way there wouldn't be any new generic drugs, ever.  Because, instead of a drug getting generics when its patent runs out after a couple of decades, it would fall under de-facto permanent copyright.

The TPP was a corporate wish-list of ways they wanted to rewrite our laws.  Yes, it also served as a way to drag other countries up to standards we wanted them held to, but there was an awful lot of shiat in it to hate. . .and seeing anyone who had any problem with it demonized as "ignorant" didn't exactly change minds about the TPP.
 
2017-09-04 07:51:26 AM  

pkjun: LowbrowDeluxe: Hobodeluxe: Oh snap, we used to do this kind of shiat to 3rd world countries. back before the great regression.

It was also the major gain we would have got from TPP, specifically with most of the 3rd world countries that are stealing our lunch on manufacturing costs.

One of the major gains, yeah. TPP would have forced Vietnam and Malaysia (among others) to take on the costs of treating workers like humans rather than disposable parts, easing the cost pressure on American businesses.

The other major gain of TPP for US manufacturers would have been in IP protection. Right now, there is no reliable enforcement mechanism keeping Southeast Asian factories from churning out cheap knockoffs of patented goods, or preventing Southeast Asian businesses from using nothing but pirated software. TPP would have forced our competition to shoulder their own damn R&D costs, rather than simply stealing whatever our engineers come up with and producing it for a fraction of the cost.

And of course there were enormous geopolitical gains in binding the entire Pacific into an anti-China trade pact led by the United States, especially with the Obama-era military/diplomatic "pivot" increasing cooperation between the US military and Indonesia, Vietnam, Malaysia, and the Philippines, drawing a cordon around the South China Sea.

But of course the TPP was enormously intricate, as most epochal diplomatic achievements are, and that made it an easy target for demagogues to whip up a good froth of populist rage. So we had ignorant Trumpers complaining that the TPP was a surrender to China, when it was in fact the framework of an anti-China economic alliance. And we had ignorant Bernie bros complaining that the TPP was an anti-worker monstrosity, when it was in fact a hammer forcing anti-worker countries to ease up on their own people, blunting the force of the race-to-the-bottom pressure that has been eroding workers' rights across the West.

And since a simple lie is better po ...


I like everything you said, except..... the extension of US copyright terms/provisions to all those countries, instead of negotiating something sensible. Not everyone sees Mickey Mouse's immortality - copyright-wise - as a good thing.
 
2017-09-04 07:55:22 AM  

timujin: As I understand it, though I welcome corrections:

A treaty is negotiated, gets signed by the President, and then is sent to Congress for ratification. If it receives 2/3 majority, it becomes binding. That's it. The process for withdrawing from a treaty varies and is based both on the treaty's stipulations and international law.

NAFTA wasn't a treaty and wasn't implemented as one. It was an "agreement" negotiated by G.H.W. Bush's administration and signed by him near the end of his term. He failed to get it fast-tracked, but Clinton agreed with the concept, added his own touch, and then sent it to Congress. Rather than simply voting on it like a treaty, though, they passed a bill (with a majority of Republican votes in both Houses, btw) that made NAFTA's conditions part of Federal statute.

While Trump can send a letter stating his intention to have the U.S. withdraw from NAFTA, he doesn't have the power to unilaterally invalidate the law that Congress created to implement it. Unless both Houses vote to repeal the law as well, the U.S. wouldn't be "out" of NAFTA.


Interesting.  Puts you in a poor negotiating position when you have to go to your parents to get permission after you make a deal.  Makes it easy for Canada/Mexico to call your bluff.  Trudeau on the other hand, has the full authority to renegotiate as he controls his party which has a majority.
 
2017-09-04 07:55:51 AM  

Jim_Callahan: Cache: Canada, do you really think you can influence America's one percent? That's so cute.

Trump's the one who wanted to start re-negotiating a deal that mathematically can't possibly be anything but worse from our perspective.

I mean... yeah, the real outcome is going to be that congress tells Trump to fark off and that NAFTA stays, but Canada responding to an explicit request by the US president by putting up ideas for renegotiation is well within the realm of reasonable.


The issue is less that it's the .1% that needs to be influenced to tell Trump and the Legislature to get their poop in a group, it's the 1% and 10% that are going to get it in the balls so hard, their pelvic floor's going to crack. They have money but unless it's secured in liquid foreign funds, Trump stalling the US economy will suck them right down with Johnny Doublewide.
 
2017-09-04 07:56:21 AM  

Silverstaff: and seeing anyone who had any problem with it demonized as "ignorant"


It's true, that word is unfair.

If your head is so far up your own ass with the Nirvana fallacy that you'll willingly block economic solutions on a scale of actually saving millions of lives because you have minor semantic quibbles with the wording, you're not "ignorant".  Ignorant is the word for not knowing things.

Knowing things and yet still drawing a conclusion logically inferior to even what an ignorant person would draw is called "stupidity".  You're not ignorant, you're stupid.

You'd think someone so obsessively, retardedly focused on the specific definitions of things that they'd draw a line in the sand over the difference between copyright and patent but somehow miss that the treaty used the international law versions of the terms and was mostly devoted to setting up an independent governing structure and set of courts that would enforce them and make that supposed "difference" meaningless would at least know the right word for the kid of useless mental defective who'll never contribute meaningfully to society they are.
 
2017-09-04 07:57:07 AM  
Canada just put a trade agreement with Europe in place.  It should negotiate a bilateral agreement with Mexico that takes effect if the US backs out of NAFTA.  Heck, I could see Trudeau leading an Americas trade agreement.
 
2017-09-04 08:01:18 AM  

mrshowrules: Canada just put a trade agreement with Europe in place.  It should negotiate a bilateral agreement with Mexico that takes effect if the US backs out of NAFTA.  Heck, I could see Trudeau leading an Americas trade agreement.


Heck, a bunch of people in the US want to go back to the Isolationist days of before WW1/2/w/e, this should speed that up real nicely.
 
2017-09-04 08:05:43 AM  

Hobodeluxe: Oh snap, we used to do this kind of shiat to 3rd world countries. back before the great regression.


Yes, and you're going to see a lot more of this tactic in the future given how weak the United States is thanks to Putin and the Republican Party.  The world has figured out it doesn't need the United States, and will gladly work around it.
 
2017-09-04 08:08:10 AM  

Sydney Bridges: The First World. Trying to help America be great again.


That's not what they're doing.  They're trying to bring American into the 21st Century, kicking and screaming if they have to.  They're leading the United States.
 
2017-09-04 08:11:39 AM  

Jim_Callahan: If your head is so far up your own ass with the Nirvana fallacy that you'll willingly block economic solutions on a scale of actually saving millions of lives because you have minor semantic quibbles with the wording, you're not "ignorant".  Ignorant is the word for not knowing things.


Willing to fark over the American people by giving the corporate world its wish-list of ways they want to screw people, all for lofty and empty promises of "economic solutions" and "saving millions of lives" (somehow). . .you're farking delusional.

The TPP was a thousand ways to screw over American workers and citizens, all for vague, empty promises about how globalization and free trade would make everything better eventually.

I've learned that globalization is practically a religion among economists, the idea that it's good is so unquestionable that to even ask "is it good" or "why is it good" is heresy.  I've got a BA in Political Science, one class I signed up for in my undergrad years was "Politics of Globalization" my senior year, which was apparently being taught by an economics professor instead of a political science professor.  He opened the class on the first day by saying "Globalization is always good, the goal of this class is to learn to how to maximize globalization and overcome obstacles to it.". . .cue a dozen hands going up from the class of Political Science juniors and seniors with a lot of questions about is globalization always that good, and presenting their uncertainty and doubt on that part. . .and he went beet red and flew into a rage, screaming that he's a professor of economics, with a PhD and dozens of published papers, with decades of experience, that he's a recognized expert on globalization and he WILL NOT be questioned on this by lowly undergrads (with a side-note of saying it would be like telling Einstein that relativity is wrong), that if you can't just accept that globalization is good, to get out of his class. . .and about 2/3 of the class just walked out.

That rather cemented my views on globalization and free trade, when someone who is supposed to be a huge expert on it, in an academic environment, presented it to us as a dogma to be accepted on blind faith, instead of trying to teach WHY it's good, even in an academic environment in a 400-level class we were supposed to just ASSUME its inherently good. . .and that threw up every warning bell of critical thinking I'd learned in college. . .even renowned experts, in a classroom, to students, can't explain WHY it's good, we are just told to assume it's good and go from there.
 
2017-09-04 08:18:28 AM  

Jim_Callahan: Silverstaff: and seeing anyone who had any problem with it demonized as "ignorant"

It's true, that word is unfair.

If your head is so far up your own ass with the Nirvana fallacy that you'll willingly block economic solutions on a scale of actually saving millions of lives because you have minor semantic quibbles with the wording, you're not "ignorant".  Ignorant is the word for not knowing things.

Knowing things and yet still drawing a conclusion logically inferior to even what an ignorant person would draw is called "stupidity".  You're not ignorant, you're stupid.

You'd think someone so obsessively, retardedly focused on the specific definitions of things that they'd draw a line in the sand over the difference between copyright and patent but somehow miss that the treaty used the international law versions of the terms and was mostly devoted to setting up an independent governing structure and set of courts that would enforce them and make that supposed "difference" meaningless would at least know the right word for the kid of useless mental defective who'll never contribute meaningfully to society they are.


That hurt so hard that my balls sucked themselves into my body cavity.
 
2017-09-04 08:19:33 AM  

Smoking GNU: mrshowrules: Canada just put a trade agreement with Europe in place.  It should negotiate a bilateral agreement with Mexico that takes effect if the US backs out of NAFTA.  Heck, I could see Trudeau leading an Americas trade agreement.

Heck, a bunch of people in the US want to go back to the Isolationist days of before WW1/2/w/e, this should speed that up real nicely.


It Trump wants China to take the lead on trade and for the rest of the world to move closer to China, he is taking all the right steps.
 
2017-09-04 08:28:51 AM  

mrshowrules: timujin: As I understand it, though I welcome corrections:

A treaty is negotiated, gets signed by the President, and then is sent to Congress for ratification. If it receives 2/3 majority, it becomes binding. That's it. The process for withdrawing from a treaty varies and is based both on the treaty's stipulations and international law.

NAFTA wasn't a treaty and wasn't implemented as one. It was an "agreement" negotiated by G.H.W. Bush's administration and signed by him near the end of his term. He failed to get it fast-tracked, but Clinton agreed with the concept, added his own touch, and then sent it to Congress. Rather than simply voting on it like a treaty, though, they passed a bill (with a majority of Republican votes in both Houses, btw) that made NAFTA's conditions part of Federal statute.

While Trump can send a letter stating his intention to have the U.S. withdraw from NAFTA, he doesn't have the power to unilaterally invalidate the law that Congress created to implement it. Unless both Houses vote to repeal the law as well, the U.S. wouldn't be "out" of NAFTA.

Interesting.  Puts you in a poor negotiating position when you have to go to your parents to get permission after you make a deal.  Makes it easy for Canada/Mexico to call your bluff.  Trudeau on the other hand, has the full authority to renegotiate as he controls his party which has a majority.


Trump's party has a majority. Are you suggesting he's not in control of it? But he's, like, a smart person and gets along with everybody. What could possibly have gone wrong?
 
2017-09-04 08:34:34 AM  
The US would prefer to do away with all environmental regs and pay people about $5 day the way Mexico and other central American countries do.
 
2017-09-04 08:41:40 AM  

monoski: The US would prefer to do away with all environmental regs and pay people about $5 day the way Mexico and other central American countries do.


In many ways, Mexico has better protections for workers than the US does.

https://www.fisherphillips.com/Cross-Border-Employer/What-Multi-Natio​n​al-Employers-Need-to-Know-About-Mexican-Labor-and-Employment-Law
 
2017-09-04 08:58:57 AM  

timujin: mrshowrules: timujin: As I understand it, though I welcome corrections:

A treaty is negotiated, gets signed by the President, and then is sent to Congress for ratification. If it receives 2/3 majority, it becomes binding. That's it. The process for withdrawing from a treaty varies and is based both on the treaty's stipulations and international law.

NAFTA wasn't a treaty and wasn't implemented as one. It was an "agreement" negotiated by G.H.W. Bush's administration and signed by him near the end of his term. He failed to get it fast-tracked, but Clinton agreed with the concept, added his own touch, and then sent it to Congress. Rather than simply voting on it like a treaty, though, they passed a bill (with a majority of Republican votes in both Houses, btw) that made NAFTA's conditions part of Federal statute.

While Trump can send a letter stating his intention to have the U.S. withdraw from NAFTA, he doesn't have the power to unilaterally invalidate the law that Congress created to implement it. Unless both Houses vote to repeal the law as well, the U.S. wouldn't be "out" of NAFTA.

Interesting.  Puts you in a poor negotiating position when you have to go to your parents to get permission after you make a deal.  Makes it easy for Canada/Mexico to call your bluff.  Trudeau on the other hand, has the full authority to renegotiate as he controls his party which has a majority.

Trump's party has a majority. Are you suggesting he's not in control of it? But he's, like, a smart person and gets along with everybody. What could possibly have gone wrong?


I love/hate how certain combination of words force you read it in his voice.
 
2017-09-04 09:00:16 AM  
Canada for the win.
 
2017-09-04 09:04:53 AM  

Langdon_777: Canada for the win.


Proposing something that you know the US is never going to agree to or could agree to anyway is not a win.  The Canadian government has to be damn well aware that labor law in the US is mostly a state function not a federal one.
 
2017-09-04 09:05:06 AM  

Silverstaff: Jim_Callahan: If your head is so far up your own ass with the Nirvana fallacy that you'll willingly block economic solutions on a scale of actually saving millions of lives because you have minor semantic quibbles with the wording, you're not "ignorant".  Ignorant is the word for not knowing things.

Willing to fark over the American people by giving the corporate world its wish-list of ways they want to screw people, all for lofty and empty promises of "economic solutions" and "saving millions of lives" (somehow). . .you're farking delusional.

The TPP was a thousand ways to screw over American workers and citizens, all for vague, empty promises about how globalization and free trade would make everything better eventually.

I've learned that globalization is practically a religion among economists, the idea that it's good is so unquestionable that to even ask "is it good" or "why is it good" is heresy.  I've got a BA in Political Science, one class I signed up for in my undergrad years was "Politics of Globalization" my senior year, which was apparently being taught by an economics professor instead of a political science professor.  He opened the class on the first day by saying "Globalization is always good, the goal of this class is to learn to how to maximize globalization and overcome obstacles to it.". . .cue a dozen hands going up from the class of Political Science juniors and seniors with a lot of questions about is globalization always that good, and presenting their uncertainty and doubt on that part. . .and he went beet red and flew into a rage, screaming that he's a professor of economics, with a PhD and dozens of published papers, with decades of experience, that he's a recognized expert on globalization and he WILL NOT be questioned on this by lowly undergrads (with a side-note of saying it would be like telling Einstein that relativity is wrong), that if you can't just accept that globalization is good, to get out of his class. . .and about 2/3 of ...


Asking if globalization and free trade are beneficial is the wrong question, because the answer is basically always yes. The right question to ask is Whobenefits.

There are many costs and many benefits to free trade, but the people paying the costs are often not the people receiving the benefits.
 
2017-09-04 09:05:41 AM  

Helen Keller's Moaning Hand: Sydney Bridges: The First World. Trying to help America be great again.

That's not what they're doing.  They're trying to bring American into the 21st Century, kicking and screaming if they have to.  They're leading the United States.


Why bother? We clearly don't want or deserve it. Why not just quarantine us and let us rot and die off? The world would be a better place without us at this point.
 
2017-09-04 09:06:47 AM  

Pichu0102: Helen Keller's Moaning Hand: Sydney Bridges: The First World. Trying to help America be great again.

That's not what they're doing.  They're trying to bring American into the 21st Century, kicking and screaming if they have to.  They're leading the United States.

Why bother? We clearly don't want or deserve it. Why not just quarantine us and let us rot and die off? The world would be a better place without us at this point.


Apologies, I should have stated by us, I meant Americans, not you if you're not American. My apologies.
 
2017-09-04 09:19:49 AM  
mrshowrules:

I love/hate how certain combination of words force you read it in his voice.

I've known many smart people. I've heard people use the phrase, "I'm, like, smart.". A Venn diagram of these groups does not overlap.
 
2017-09-04 09:22:31 AM  
Honey Badger don't care. He can buy anything. He's a badass. So the poors suffer from trade disruption, higher prices, lack of worker benefits. He immune.

It's like if Congress passed a law, veto-proof majority, saying it was legal for a Russian to collect a debt over $100M by threatening to kill the debtor, or killing the debtor and family.

To make it interesting, there'd be a lottery where the lower limit would range from $10M to $500M for the day. It could be a feature on the news every night. Or a great game show.

We'd all be Honey Badgers, badass, for five minutes a day.  Many of us, who don't have $100M debts to the Russian government/banker/mob would be immune.
 
2017-09-04 09:23:24 AM  

Johnny Rockets: I find that most people that speak out in praise of unions have either never worked in a union facility, or are one of those shiatty workers that unions protect.


 Wow what type of stereo do you use in order to listen to music ?
 
2017-09-04 09:26:59 AM  

Johnny Rockets: I find that most people that speak out in praise of unions have either never worked in a union facility, or are one of those shiatty workers that unions protect.


I find that most people that speak out against unions have never worked a hard day in their life or are one of those brown-nosed useful idiots that management loves
 
2017-09-04 09:31:03 AM  
Yaaaasss! Do this, Trump you fail at everything renegotiate NAFTA go go go!
 
2017-09-04 09:33:50 AM  

pkjun: Bernie bros


DRINK!
 
2017-09-04 09:38:45 AM  

Johnny Rockets: I find that most people that speak out in praise of unions have either never worked in a union facility, or are one of those shiatty workers that unions protect.


You mean like the CEOs?
 
2017-09-04 09:46:13 AM  
When Americans realize Canada has been reduced to negotiating trade law with us as if we were a third world tin pot..

img.buzzfeed.comView Full Size
 
Displayed 50 of 105 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report