TPP deal "worst thing that Harper government has done for Canada": RIM/BlackBerry's Balsillie - Polidicks

[url]http://globalnews.ca/news/2326744/tpp-deal-worst-thing-that-harper-government-has-done-for-canada-balsillie/[/url] [quote=Global]Jim Balsillie warns that provisions tucked into the Trans-Pacific Partnership could cost Canada hundreds of billions of dollars — and eventually make signing it the worst public policy decision in the country’s history. After poring over the treaty’s final text, the businessman who helped build Research In Motion into a $20-billion global player said the deal contains “troubling” rules on intellectual property that threaten to make Canada a “permanent underclass” in the economy of selling ideas. Last month, in the middle of the election campaign, the Conservative government put Canada’s signature on the controversial 12-country pact. The Pacific Rim agreement, which includes the massive American and Japanese economies, has been described as the world’s largest-ever trade zone. But Balsillie said parts of the deal will harm Canadian innovators by forcing them to play by rules set by the treaty’s most-dominant partner: the United States.[/quote]

hey don't blame the United States, blame the corporations of the United States, we the people hate this thing too

I wish I had the time and the know-how to go through all 6000 pages. I don't like being dependent on other people, even trustworthy people, telling me it's either going to be great for the economy while protecting workers (Obama and Trudeau, The Economist) or ruin everything (Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and now the former co-CEO of RIM).

[QUOTE=person11;49081038]I wish I had the time and the know-how to go through all 6000 pages. I don't like being dependent on other people, even trustworthy people, telling me it's either going to be great for the economy while protecting workers (Obama and Trudeau, The Economist) or ruin everything (Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and now the former co-CEO of RIM).[/QUOTE] well its all up to how countries react to TPP with NAFTA it was supposed to stop countries from abusing the trade barriers, but then mexico went and deflated their currency making it much cheaper to make stuff in mexico and ship it back to the US there's nothing in the TPP to stop countries from doing this as well, and vietnam certainly appears to be gearing up to do precisely that, with rumored billions in foreign investors lined up to bring manufacturing there. the problem with these nebulus agreements is that theres not really any easy metrics to track success. yes NAFTA ended up being profitable to the US, but one cannot ignore the damage that it did to US manufacturing when manufacturers were only required to have just enough of a car being built in the US. i always find it hilarious that companies want to maximize productivity from people, but they always get by doing the least they can

[QUOTE=Sableye;49081078]well its all up to how countries react to TPP with NAFTA it was supposed to stop countries from abusing the trade barriers, but then mexico went and deflated their currency making it much cheaper to make stuff in mexico and ship it back to the US there's nothing in the TPP to stop countries from doing this as well, and vietnam certainly appears to be gearing up to do precisely that, with rumored billions in foreign investors lined up to bring manufacturing there. the problem with these nebulus agreements is that theres not really any easy metrics to track success. yes NAFTA ended up being profitable to the US, but one cannot ignore the damage that it did to US manufacturing when manufacturers were only required to have just enough of a car being built in the US. [B]i always find it hilarious that companies want to maximize productivity from people, but they always get by doing the least they can[/B][/QUOTE] it's not hilarious, it's just capitalism, more money for the least amount of effort, which would be fine, if not for the fact that being an asshole is the easier path.

[QUOTE=Wizards Court;49081102]it's not hilarious, it's just capitalism, more money for the least amount of effort, which would be fine, if not for the fact that being an asshole is the easier path.[/QUOTE] ya i've known some companies that utterly abused their workers just because they could

[QUOTE=Sableye;49081078]with NAFTA it was supposed to stop countries from abusing the trade barriers, but then mexico went and deflated their currency making it much cheaper to make stuff in mexico and ship it back to the US[/QUOTE] you're ignoring the fact that US exports increased quite considerably and that US manufacturing actually expanded: [url]https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/NAFTA-Myth-versus-Fact.pdf[/url] [quote] From 1993 to 2007, trade among the NAFTA nations more than tripled, from $297 billion to $930 billion. Business investment in the United States has risen by 117 percent since 1993, compared to a 45 percent increase between 1979 and 1993[/quote] [quote]U.S. employment rose from 110.8 million people in 1993 to 137.6 million in 2007, an increase of 24 percent. The average unemployment rate was 5.1 percent in the period 1994-2007, compared to 7.1 percent during the period 1980-1993.[/quote] [quote]U.S. manufacturing output rose by 58 percent between 1993 and 2006, as compared to 42 percent between 1980 and 1993. Manufacturing exports in 2007 reached an all time high with a value of $982 billion.[/quote]

Harper? Trudeau did it

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49081718]you're ignoring the fact that US exports increased quite considerably and that US manufacturing actually expanded: [url]https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/NAFTA-Myth-versus-Fact.pdf[/url][/QUOTE] The problem with that report is they are assuming these increases are all a result of NAFTA, which is quite a leap given how complex the economy is. Or, to put it another way, who is to the say those increases wouldn't have been larger without NAFTA? Alternative views on the points you quoted from [url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/24/AR2008032401562.html[/url] and [url]https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/108th-congress-2003-2004/reports/report_0.pdf:[/url] Trade: [quote]U.S. trade with Mexico was growing for many years before NAFTA went into effect, and it would have continued to do so with or without the agreement. That growth dwarfs the effects of NAFTA.[/quote] Jobs: [quote]NAFTA has increased both U.S. exports to and imports from Mexico by a growing amount each year. Those increases are small, and consequently, their effects on employment are also small.[/quote] [quote]Many economists agree that NAFTA has had some positive impact on overall U.S. employment. But most also agree that gains have been accompanied by some painful side effects. Edward Alden, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, notes that wages haven't kept pace with labor productivity and that income inequality has risen in recent years, in part due to pressures on the U.S. manufacturing base. To some extent, he says, trade deals have hastened the pace of these changes in that they have "reinforced the globalization of the American economy."[/quote] GDP: [quote]Overall, the NAFTA deal has expanded U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) "very slightly," and has had a similar effect -- both positive and small -- on the Canadian and Mexican economies.[/quote]

[QUOTE=DaMastez;49083459]Or, to put it another way, who is to the say those increases wouldn't have been larger without NAFTA?[/QUOTE] Well, the sources you just quoted stating it helped expand GDP, imports and exports, and employment, for one.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49081718]you're ignoring the fact that US exports increased quite considerably and that US manufacturing actually expanded: [url]https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/NAFTA-Myth-versus-Fact.pdf[/url][/QUOTE] Misrepresenting my point, NAFTA's effect was very hard to quantify, yes trade went up, but you cannot ignore the massive amount of jobs that were created south of the boarder overnight, jobs that disappeared from Detroit and around the country. To say that NAFTA didn't do anything harmful to manufacturing is willfully ignoring the entire rustbelt. Many places were on the decline before NAFTA but automanufacturing had terrifis that made it more costly to manufacture in Mexico and send it back here, those were wiped out and replaced with minimum manufacturing requirements that allowed for tons of assembly jobs to be done down there cheaper than they could be up here while keeping some existing jobs here to manufacture components.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49081718]you're ignoring the fact that US exports increased quite considerably and that US manufacturing actually expanded: [url]https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/NAFTA-Myth-versus-Fact.pdf[/url][/QUOTE] Most independent studies of the effects of NAFTA have labeled it as nebulous at best, horrible for the American Worker at worst.

[QUOTE=Loli hat;49083310]Harper? Trudeau did it[/QUOTE] Um, No.... Harper signed it right before the election. It was literally the last asshole thing he did before he got thrown out of office. That guy was hell bent on destroying this country it seemed.

[QUOTE=DiBBs27;49084804]Um, No.... Harper signed it right before the election. It was literally the last asshole thing he did before he got thrown out of office. That guy was hell bent on destroying this country it seemed.[/QUOTE] Didn't know that. Regardless, Trudeau openly supports it and probably would have signed it already if Harper hadn't.

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;49084863]Didn't know that. Regardless, Trudeau openly supports it and probably would have signed it already if Harper hadn't.[/QUOTE] It'd probably be worse if he said he wouldn't follow through on it. It'd make bad relations if a country agreed to a treaty then turned around and ripped it up.

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;49084863]Didn't know that. Regardless, Trudeau openly supports it and probably would have signed it already if Harper hadn't.[/QUOTE] sort of like how obama took keystone out of trudeau's lap, if it fails in the US i would bet it will quickly die in canada without any fanfare

It's all a matter of timing to be frank, Harper announced support for the Bill even while he was skeptical about the deal to begin with. Justin on the other hand did not oppose the deal, or had no intention to take a stance prior to the Election. The only party firmly opposed to it was the NDP. NDP ran a terrible campaign and ultimately wound up third in each riding (although First Past the Post is also notable, as voters strategically voted against Conservatives per riding). And surprising to nobody, corporations will deliberately undermine production jobs within Canada, an illiberal concept to say the least. Not only that, but Telecoms have been gaming the system for decades now, and with TPP on the table, it's given them further reign.

[QUOTE=Yadda;49085166] NDP ran a terrible campaign.[/QUOTE] Trudeau just said anything that was popular to win.

[QUOTE=Loli hat;49083310]Harper? Trudeau did it[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=DiBBs27;49084804]Um, No.... Harper signed it right before the election. It was literally the last asshole thing he did before he got thrown out of office. That guy was hell bent on destroying this country it seemed.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Rangergxi;49084863]Didn't know that. Regardless, Trudeau openly supports it and probably would have signed it already if Harper hadn't.[/QUOTE] Please stop blaming this on one party. The timing+outcome of the election and the TPP final text is amazing because it results in a bi-partisan trade agreement. The Canadian negotiators agreed to the final text under CPC government, and it will be up to the liberal government to push it into law. The CPC could have backed out, and the LPC can still back out.