How TPP will affect us

Forum Sponsor
-JERICHO- said:
I think its in Canada's best interest to care what side of that we will be on. Who cares what oblivious people are doing. I don't think its fear mongering when these kind of things happen in secret. Decisions that will affect a lot of people are being made on their behalf without any knowledge of what comprises (entirely) this document. Who's country is this..? I can't feel good just to "live life" if elements of my life are vanishing because we have people who are more interested in their personal income gains, than Canada as a whole, especially looking towards the future..
Click to expand...

Well, I assume you voted in the last Fed election ... so our fearless leader got the majority and he's delivering on his promise, trying to sign as many treaties as possible, enact as many security laws as possible. If he didn't get the majority vote, we probably would not have this discussion.

If the TPP is so important to you just vote the "other" guys and hope they will actually do what they promise to do.
 
mxs said:
Well, I assume you voted in the last Fed election ... so our fearless leader got the majority and he's delivering on his promise, trying to sign as many treaties as possible, enact as many security laws as possible. If he didn't get the majority vote, we probably would not have this discussion.

If the TPP is so important to you just vote the "other" guys and hope they will actually do what they promise to do.
Click to expand...

it may be too late by then, just like when the liberals said they would take us out of nafta, they found out that the only way out was under severe penalty. The Harper government is still negotiating despite there being an election going on. Previous agreements by Harper have given away our sovereignty and guaranteed foreign companies profits at Canada's expense. I don't expect the TPP to be any different.

Send a message to our trade minister telling him that you do not want the TPP
https://stopthesecrecy.net/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=post&utm_campaign=6996&tdid=66
 
But the trade minister is Harper's boy .... he won't even open messages like that, he doesn't care what I or you think, because we disagree with his ideologies. You need a different political party running this country, then you might have a hope to have TPP perhaps shelved for good, or at least transparently discussed, if that is your priority.
 
Its actually quite positive for my industry.

We've been trying to get into places like Telstra, SingTel and TVB for years. This levels the playing field for us. In fact I already have a meeting set up with Telstra at Streaming Media West.

We are also working on some stuff in Malaysia which currently has a 30% tariff on Canadian goods and services. Crazy, how can we compete. The removal of tariffs + the low Canadian $ is a win, win :-)
 
Last edited:
Delboy said:
Its actually quite positive for my industry.

We've been trying to get into places like Telstra, SingTel and TVB for years. This levels the playing field for us. In fact I already have a meeting set up with Telstra at Streaming Media West.

We are also working on some stuff in Malaysia which currently has a 30% tariff on Canadian goods and services. Crazy, how can we compete. The removal of tariffs + the low Canadian $ is a win, win :-)
Click to expand...

So are you going to personally hand out cigarettes to all those Aussie teenagers? :P
 
xfactor said:
So are you going to personally hand out cigarettes to all those Aussie teenagers? :P
Click to expand...

What has this got to do with my company providing production and post production services to Telstra and Radio Televisyen Malaysia?

If you had read the first part of my post I did say it was very positive for my industry, now that the 30% tariff will be removed.

If I get Telstra, it will at least 3 more jobs in Toronto. Good jobs paying 6 figures. We need more of that
 
Last edited:
Delboy said:
What has this got to do with my company providing production and post production services to Telstra and Radio Televisyen Malaysia?

If you had read the first part of my post I did say it was very positive for my industry, now that the 30% tariff will be removed.

If I get Telstra, it will at least 3 more jobs in Toronto. Good jobs paying 6 figures. We need more of that
Click to expand...

We get wins of threes for losses of hundreds or thousands. We do not need more of that in Ontario...
 
People are attacking the Trans Pacific Trade Partnership before they have any idea what is in it. No matter. If you don't like it the ONLY party you can vote for is the NDP, who are inherently opposed to such agreements. The Lieberals will pretend to dislike it, then keep it if they're elected.
 
Roadghost said:
People are attacking the Trans Pacific Trade Partnership before they have any idea what is in it. No matter. If you don't like it the ONLY party you can vote for is the NDP, who are inherently opposed to such agreements. The Lieberals will pretend to dislike it, then keep it if they're elected.
Click to expand...

Yes well its easier than actually sitting down and reading it right? I'm sure there are winners and losers in it just like any other free trade accord. I've heard from both sides but haven't seen anything concrete just speculation and word of mouth.

If we want cheaper goods we must be prepared that we will also have to open our doors to competition. Can't have your cake and eat it too....Canadians want the best products for the cheapest price. Put a product with a made in Canada label and a made in XXXXX label side by side and I wonder what % difference it would take to buy the foreign made...5.....10.....15.....or more?
 
Roadghost said:
People are attacking the Trans Pacific Trade Partnership before they have any idea what is in it. No matter. If you don't like it the ONLY party you can vote for is the NDP, who are inherently opposed to such agreements. The Lieberals will pretend to dislike it, then keep it if they're elected.
Click to expand...

It should be attacked BECAUSE nobody has any idea what's in it
 
Delboy said:
What has this got to do with my company providing production and post production services to Telstra and Radio Televisyen Malaysia?

If you had read the first part of my post I did say it was very positive for my industry, now that the 30% tariff will be removed.

If I get Telstra, it will at least 3 more jobs in Toronto. Good jobs paying 6 figures. We need more of that
Click to expand...

I don't think you know what ":p" means.

moving on...


i. "There are even rules barring countries from favouring state-owned enterprises"

- This is not aimed at Malaysia or Vietnam. It is aimed at China.

ii. "All parties will be compelled to follow the International Labour Organisation’s basic principles on workers’ rights"

- Ditto. Aimed at China.

iii. "countries that do not live up to the deal’s environmental rules can be pursued through the same dispute-settlement mechanism that will be used to adjudicate commercial grievances."

- Ditto. Aimed at China.

The point of the TPP for the USA is establishing de jure "rules of the game" for all China's neighbours, who are also major trading partners for China. Then China can be brought in, on the TPP's terms.

This is a similar strategy to WTO, which excluded China initially, then after China complied with WTO, China was allowed to join.

The smaller countries win mainly from access to USA markets. And they don't give much up by way of de jure regulation as most are already de facto practices.

For the USA, this is a really good deal, as the short-term gains/losses are neutral, while the long-term strategic advantages are all massively positive.

And what's good for USA in trade usually means that we an Canada can piggy back and get on the windfall.
 
xfactor said:
I don't think you know what ":p" means.

moving on...


i. "There are even rules barring countries from favouring state-owned enterprises"

- This is not aimed at Malaysia or Vietnam. It is aimed at China.

ii. "All parties will be compelled to follow the International Labour Organisation’s basic principles on workers’ rights"

- Ditto. Aimed at China.

iii. "countries that do not live up to the deal’s environmental rules can be pursued through the same dispute-settlement mechanism that will be used to adjudicate commercial grievances."

- Ditto. Aimed at China.

The point of the TPP for the USA is establishing de jure "rules of the game" for all China's neighbours, who are also major trading partners for China. Then China can be brought in, on the TPP's terms.

This is a similar strategy to WTO, which excluded China initially, then after China complied with WTO, China was allowed to join.

The smaller countries win mainly from access to USA markets. And they don't give much up by way of de jure regulation as most are already de facto practices.

For the USA, this is a really good deal, as the short-term gains/losses are neutral, while the long-term strategic advantages are all massively positive.

And what's good for USA in trade usually means that we an Canada can piggy back and get on the windfall.
Click to expand...

It's ;) not :p. Get your icons straight.
 
AGAVE said:
Stop watching the damn TV news expecting them to tell you any truth at all, go find out for yourself.
New World Order coming soon, better catch up on research instead of playing the Two Word game.
Click to expand...

Spot on... Here's another long term secret goal; The North American Union. Look it up, because you're not going to hear about it on the 6 O'clock news until it's already done.. that's just how they roll.. TPP is a prime example
 
xfactor said:
For the USA, this is a really good deal, as the short-term gains/losses are neutral, while the long-term strategic advantages are all massively positive.

And what's good for USA in trade usually means that we an Canada can piggy back and get on the windfall.
Click to expand...

I have to respectfully disagree. Coming from a city which was once a manufacturing powerhouse I have witnessed countless manufacturers pack up and leave since the initial Canada/US free trade deal was signed (Followed by NAFTA). The list is enormous. Firestone, Proctor & Gamble, Westinghouse, Otis Elevator, Dominion Glass.. and soon, US Steel formerly Stelco. Almost all of those companies had been around since the early 1900's. And those are just the big names, there are countless other smaller manufacturers gone as well. The decline has not slowed either. From 2003-2013 the percentage of the work force in manufacturing went from 22% - 12%. That's a lot of good paying jobs gone... I don't see how this is beneficial

A good read on what I see as the realities of free trade.. or as the author put it, the "high cost of free trade"

http://goo.gl/zbJuKG

FYI, it's a PDF, 12 pages
 
If you are in farming or manufacturing this deal will be terrible. If you own a large company you can now search out cheap/substandard labour in 3rd world markets. I don't see many benefits for the Canadian worker (Middle Class).

NAFTA killed so much of our manufacturing sector. Why would any company keep a plant here and pay a living wage when they can boost their profits by exploiting cheap labour and lax regulations in Mexico. Tariffs keep regional plants for manufacturing products.
 
Neil_V said:
I have to respectfully disagree. Coming from a city which was once a manufacturing powerhouse I have witnessed countless manufacturers pack up and leave since the initial Canada/US free trade deal was signed (Followed by NAFTA). The list is enormous. Firestone, Proctor & Gamble, Westinghouse, Otis Elevator, Dominion Glass.. and soon, US Steel formerly Stelco. Almost all of those companies had been around since the early 1900's. And those are just the big names, there are countless other smaller manufacturers gone as well. The decline has not slowed either. From 2003-2013 the percentage of the work force in manufacturing went from 22% - 12%. That's a lot of good paying jobs gone... I don't see how this is beneficial

A good read on what I see as the realities of free trade.. or as the author put it, the "high cost of free trade"

http://goo.gl/zbJuKG

FYI, it's a PDF, 12 pages
Click to expand...

I understand where you're coming from. However, if you look at the overall gdp growth of the country without disseminating certain geographical/industrial sector then the "proof" is in the pudding. If you believe in Ricardian economics, then eventually these things would of happen due to the natural intrinsic need of the market. We have shed a lot of manufacturing jobs, which is true, but also we have gained a lot more high technology jobs. I don't mean high tech jobs as purely IT, but a more all encompassing design/draft/build kind of things.

If we truly get good at what we do then we simply just compete on that and we can be world beaters. We no longer (for a while now) can't compete on having a factory or IT dev house down the street to capture growth. If P&G moved it's plant to Mexico to produce for cheap, then IBM should move DB2/Websphere (which is what we do at Markham) to India/Poland/China, but we don't. Simply do to the fact that we are quite good at producing really good developers and service workers who are the very best at it. Does not mean it wont' happen, we just have to be good at it and keep out innovating the others.

In the end if we the consumers get the goods that are made for us by places that are efficient at making them then it's a win for us as a consumer. And by that same token, the goods that we produce can be shipped globally without arbitrary tariffs and other red tapes.

Of course this is all good in principle, we'll see how it pans out. The congress still has 90 days to squash this, although I don't see the Republicans doing that. These things are usually good for capital and bad for labour when starting out, but eventually things even out.
 
xfactor said:
I understand where you're coming from. However, if you look at the overall gdp growth of the country without disseminating certain geographical/industrial sector then the "proof" is in the pudding. If you believe in Ricardian economics, then eventually these things would of happen due to the natural intrinsic need of the market. We have shed a lot of manufacturing jobs, which is true, but also we have gained a lot more high technology jobs. I don't mean high tech jobs as purely IT, but a more all encompassing design/draft/build kind of things.

If we truly get good at what we do then we simply just compete on that and we can be world beaters. We no longer (for a while now) can't compete on having a factory or IT dev house down the street to capture growth. If P&G moved it's plant to Mexico to produce for cheap, then IBM should move DB2/Websphere (which is what we do at Markham) to India/Poland/China, but we don't. Simply do to the fact that we are quite good at producing really good developers and service workers who are the very best at it. Does not mean it wont' happen, we just have to be good at it and keep out innovating the others.

In the end if we the consumers get the goods that are made for us by places that are efficient at making them then it's a win for us as a consumer. And by that same token, the goods that we produce can be shipped globally without arbitrary tariffs and other red tapes.

Of course this is all good in principle, we'll see how it pans out. The congress still has 90 days to squash this, although I don't see the Republicans doing that. These things are usually good for capital and bad for labour when starting out, but eventually things even out.
Click to expand...

GDP Growth is addressed on the very first page of the paper I linked to:

"The era of Canada-U.S. free trade began with the signing of the Canada-US Free Trade Agreement (CUFTA) in 1988, and it triggered a phenomenal growth in commerce between the two countries--from a value of US$116 billion in 1985 to more than US$240 billion by 2002. Between 1989 and 2002, Canadian exports to the U.S. rose by 221%, while imports from the U.S. went up by 162%.

Politicians and media pundits point to these figures as "proof" of NAFTA's "success," but such crude mercantilist measures fail to conform to the actual economic rationale for free trade.One of the arguments, for example, was that free trade would increase Canada's disappointing rate of economic growth, which in the eight years prior to CUFTA had averaged only 1.9% per capita per year. Instead, in the first five years of free trade, real GDP growth per capita was actually negative, averaging -0.4% a year. The GDP rate rose after NAFTA came into effect, but for the entire free trade era has averaged 1.6% annually, which is still below the pre-CUFTA rate"
Click to expand...

Granted this document is from 2002 (I bookmarked it long ago), but the paper shows quite clearly that Free Trade failed to deliver on many of it's promises in it's first 15 years. Give a legitimate read..
Forum Sponsor
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom