the japanese appear to be expecting trump to flip-flop on the tpp.

http://www.thetelegram.com/business/2016/11/27/japan-waits-to-deal-direct-with-canada-o-4694243.html

see, this is the problem. and why we have to be patient in lowering our expectations for diversification as a best approach in the short run.

http://www.nationalobserver.com/2016/12/01/news/canadas-stagnant-slipping-national-wealth-overly-reliant-oil-and-gas-study

but, he's a "master negotiator", bernie.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/12/01/bernie-sanders-carrier-just-showed-corporations-how-to-beat-donald-trump/

do i think this is right? in some abstract way, maybe. in reality, businesses don't make decisions based on tax incentives in the first place. i know that because they tell us it when we ask them: tax policies have almost no effect on whether a business stays or leaves. that is because you basically can't cut taxes low enough to offset the benefits of offshoring. you'd have to resort to corporate welfare - which happens for the big players, but can't be the actual norm.

so, this is a bit of a bait and switch. the issue is labour costs. and, bernie is being tricked into responding on the wrong terms.

to be clear: even if you were to cut the corporate tax rate to 0%, it would still be cheaper to move to mexico in almost all cases where the issue exists. you would have to actually give them handouts to convince them to stay.

the idea that the issue is taxes is the lie that bernie should be taking down.

so, why is it so much cheaper to manufacture in mexico? it's a lot of reasons.

1) poor worker's rights, and subsequent low wages.
2) more regulation over all kinds of economic rents. that is, a much less "free" economy. this leads to a lower cost of living because the costs of rent are much lower.
3) greater centralization of resources. the state-owned oil sector is especially key in keeping energy prices low, but it's more general than this.
4) insufficient environmental and labour regulations, and poor enforcement of the ones that exist.

the solution is to reverse these problems:

1) we need greater solidarity with mexican labour unions. we need to help mexican workers organize and fight for their rights.
2) we need to go after the rentier class.
3) we need to nationalize our resources.
4) we need to enforce nafta and demand that mexico regulate it's industries.

but, the political class tells us that we need more open markets. they tell us that because they benefit from this, while the rest of us suffer.

it has nothing to do with taxes. and, tariffs will only lead to inflation.

-

"It’s not clear if organized labor will play a role in Trump’s efforts to save Midwest manufacturing jobs. Chuck Jones, the president of the United Steelworkers in Indiana — the union that represents workers at the Carrier and Rexnord plants — went to the Carrier event today to speak with Trump officials. Jones and the union were not briefed on the deal ahead of time.

Jones said he was checked by Secret Service and placed in a holding room to await Trump while the president-elect toured the plant. Jones said he was eventually told Trump’s schedule was too tight for a meeting; Trump left without speaking to him."

https://news.vice.com/story/donald-trump-threatens-u-s-companies-that-would-send-jobs-overseas

i didn't think of the pay cut slant. it's possible.

but, it's obviously not about workers, is it?

while i support the irv, i would actually prefer to keep fptp than move to a proportional system. that was another reason i voted for the liberals and not the ndp.

irv > fptp >>>>> pr.

if you put a proportional system up to a vote, i would vote against it.

i don't want fringe voices in parliament.

but, i'm disappointed that they're not ramming through a preferential ballot, too. they have a very strong mandate for this.

the other reason that pr is a bad idea is that it will increase gridlock.

and, i think that the minister's reaction is basically right: the committee is being obstructionist. now, let's hope the government reacts by ramming the preferential ballot through.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wherry-electoral-reform-committee-1.3866879

i just want to point out that this is ignoring the effects of the infrastructure rollout, which are going to be substantial in the long term - and are absolutely necessary, if we're serious about doing anything at all. this is stuff like expanding the grid.

that's not to argue that the net effects of his policies are positive. they aren't. but, all of the major parties were going to approve at least some of the lines. it's the least bad option out of three terrible choices.

http://www.nationalobserver.com/sites/nationalobserver.com/files/styles/body_img/public/img/2016/11/30/trudeau-bait-and-switch-on-climate-v2.jpg?itok=2V2Kydeb

just keep fighting this on the ground.

you were going to have to fight it under all possible outcomes.

one of the things that is going to hurt trump the most is this perception that nothing matters except winning, and his inability to understand the consequences of deploying negative tactics to do so.

he is not going to immediately understand why muslim leaders are going to react cooly to him. he's not going to understand why his rhetoric about mexicans is going to harm american interests in latin america.

he did it to win. he won. doesn't that justify everything he said? in his mind, it does.

principles matter. i don't want to argue over whether the ends justify the means. that's not my point. my point is that there's a day after, and the means have consequences on that day, and all following ones.

by 70 years old, most people have learned this lesson. if he hasn't yet, there is no reason to think he ever will. and, it will destroy him in the end, as his enemies grow in number.

the americans had driven down the price of oil primarily to hurt the russians, and also to hurt the iranians. so, is this a reset in relations? is this trump giving putin a hand? i doubt it. more likely is that opec is giving trump the finger. this was always a possibility (i suggested trump would keep oil prices low, unless he pisses off opec), but i didn't think it would actually happen - and certainly not this fast.

this benefits the canadian dollar, which means it hurts exports, too. although we'll see how that pans out with nafta. it could be a net benefit.

it benefits other oil exporters, of course - including russia.

it harms america, mostly.

the deep state fucked up.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/nov/30/oil-price-opec-cut-in-output-saudi-arabia-deal-market

i mean, the guy runs a campaign based on hating on muslims and latin-speakers because he thinks they're weak and despised and inferior. but, newsflash: it's muslims and latin-speakers that control the primary lever in the economy, which is energy prices. and, now he's got some 'splainin' to do.

they fucked up.

also, the shale oil theory is bunk. the saudis know that shale oil supplies are very limited, that their own supplies are much greater and that they'd be better off letting the americans run through what they have as quickly as possible. there's just a concerted effort in the american press to distract from any exploration of the geopolitical explanations of things. americans are supposed to believe that america is the unquestioned hegemon, and everybody else just does what it says.

consider the iran deal, for example.

look as hard as you may, you will not find any source in the american press that explains that russia and america have competing interests in iran. the entire narrative is that iran is subservient to american demands, and can either do what america says or face the consequences. the idea that iran may prefer to deal with russia instead, or that america may lose iran to russian influence, does not exist, anywhere.

there was a lot of literature about "who lost china". nobody asks who lost iran. because the premise that it could be lost is not admitted.

the result is that the business press usually bases it's reporting on false premises, and people end up with skewed concepts of what is happening.

the reason that oil prices went down in 2014 was to punish russia for it's invasion of crimea. it was a part of the sanctions regime. and, that sanctions regime relied on a very careful network of alliances that is apparently unraveling very quickly.

there was a series on the bbc a few years ago.

i think it may be sort of prophetic. bush II was in a lot of ways a replay of reagan, whereas obama was indeed somewhat like carter in the sense that he was kind of a republican front. and, now nixon has returned in the embodiment of trump.

can mike pence chew gum and walk at the same time?

maybe there's an upside. maybe there's a civil rights battle coming.

or, maybe civil rights are set to reverse in the next cycle...

it's not surprising. let's take a step back.

when trudeau was running for prime minister, he made it clear that he saw the purpose of the review process as a means to rubber stamp industry initiatives. his concern was that the process had been overly politicized by a conservative government that had openly ridiculed the premise of looking to science for evidence. in his view, that created a backlash that was slowing down growth. the problem wasn't whether the government was really consulting evidence or not - this did not matter - but the perception that they were anti-science, which abolished their credibility on the topic. the solution is for the government to pay greater lip service to science, so that canadians would not offer such resistance to industry.

trudeau seems to have actually believed that the protests would stop if people had more trust in the government. then, industry would have a free hand.

mulcair and the ndp said all of the same things, and often times in much clearer language - because mulcair is the policy wonk, and trudeau is the pr front.

this is of course the broader truth in the trudeau government - that everything is image, that truth is subjective, that it doesn't matter what the facts are so much as it matters how people perceive them. it's a softer kind of neo-liberalism. but, it's the same hogwash, under the surface.

and, when i saw him pick jim carr, i knew this was coming. he was sent for exactly this reason.

the thing is that they're still a lesser evil. i've pointed out repeatedly that it was clear that this was coming, and that it's unfortunate and that it needs to be fought on the ground. but, they're still the only one of the three major parties with a transition strategy.

the reason this is important to the federal government is that it pulls in a huge amount of tax revenue on oil exports. it is the difference between whether they can balance a budget or not. and, so long as we send the message that budgets should be balanced, they will support oil exports.

http://www.nationalobserver.com/2016/11/30/news/scientists-dont-know-what-evidence-trudeau-used-approve-pipelines

i'm trying an experiment with the heat down here.

i like this place. i really do. but all the pros come with the massive con that the heating is really awful.

it's the winter. i want the heat 'on'. i think that's reasonable. but, instead of just having a switch that i can turn on and off, i have one of these electronic temperature control devices that tries to turn the heat up and down to fit a desired temperature. of course, it doesn't work right. first, it's localized to one side of the room, so it's uneven - but i can deal with that. it's not the problem. the problem is that it gets stuck, and won't come 'on' by turning itself up past the heat i dial in and then never getting back down again. maybe this is supposed to be a power saving mechanism, but i have clean electricity here and i consequently don't have an environmental incentive to save energy.

so, what's been happening is that i just keep turning the heat up higher and higher. i set it to 23, and it turns off. so, i set it to 23.5 and it turns off. so, i set it to 24 and it turns off. listen: it's cold out. i don't care what the temperature on the thermostat says. i don't want it to set a temperature, have it shoot out a blast for a few seconds and then have it turn off. i just want it to stay 'on'. all the time. constant.

so, this cycle takes the temperature up higher and higher. but, then i eventually get to the point where i need to set the heat to 32 to turn it on, and i get dry skin and sore throats. so, this is not sustainable.

i'm trying to force the system back down to the low 20s by keeping the window open until it gets down to around 20. and it's taking a long time. and, then it turns on for a few seconds and turns off.

the answer may be to set up an algorithm where i take it up to 30 and then let it fall back.

but it can't be that dry in here. i need it to come down. and i need to find a way for it to stay on.

i'd like to just call the landlord and have him take out the thermostat. in an ideal world, i could explain to him that it doesn't work right. reality is that i'm just going to piss him off, because he's going to think i'm wasting energy. but it doesn't work right, and he'll save money taking them out.

right now, the windows are open. and i'm cold. but it's almost to the point that i can close them.

indeed. this article gives a lot away. the ndp are falling all over themselves to be indiscernible from the conservatives, and now the conservatives are realizing that they're running against themselves. i suppose this is a victory for capital. but, it's a sad day for alberta, and a sad day for dippers.

https://ipolitics.ca/2016/11/30/trudeau-notley-and-trans-mountain-in-your-face-mr-kenney/

the way out of this is that you refrain from voting next time, let the conservatives back in and rebuild. that sends the message to the ndp that they can't hold their base if they're going to govern like conservatives

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/trump-effect-increases-hate