Do you consider Canada an ally?

#52
#52
LouderVol said:
China was taking both of our nuts in the trade deal. They are now taking only one of Canadas. its a better deal, but not good. sorry that is too difficult for you to process.
Click to expand...
I asked about a “good deal” and you replied to it..very easy to follow. Not my fault you didnt articulate it in your originial reply.
 
#56
#56
05_never_again said:
To show that they aren't long-term oriented, I could just say "one-child policy" and not have to say any more. Sure, they reversed it, but the damage has been done.

Bad demographics, bad political system, shaky financial system, reliant on foreign imports for their food and energy, and their economy is completely dependent on US power projection (so they can ship the products that they make overseas). Other than that, they are in great shape.

I don't think China is about to collapse like some do, but there's this notion that they are incredibly ascendant and about to overtake the US in a variety of areas which I don't think is true.
Click to expand...
China was facing a population crisis either way. don't address it, and their noted food insecurity gets even worse.

they have been net importers of food for forever. considering its a change from their great leap backwards, its a much better long term plan. especially as it got them embedded with a bunch of other nations into trade associations, BRICS, they otherwise wouldn't have.

they have been building up their navy, to the point where they are producing far more military shipping than we can. they have expanded control into the South China Sea. and many of their trade deals, and infrastructure projects come with carve outs for future military use.

political system is bad in a moral sense, but it has been remarkably stable, and survived a lot. its also responsible for generating a ton of growth in China's economy, and military. they essentially started at nothing in the 70s, and are now unquestionably the second leading power in the world on pretty much every front.

china has been reworking their finances, much of the shakiness is because they were so heavily buyers of our debt. they have been slowly backing out of that after they got what they needed from it, namely building up their own infrastructure.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EasternVol
#57
#57
PEPPERJAX said:
Special thanks to the following:

John Candy (RIP)- You did everything in your power when you were alive to keep US and Canadian relations strong. You taught us that gambling drunk Uncles were important as well as clueless dads trying to rough it in the great outdoors. Additionally, those hot babes you mud wrestled never had a chance.

Dan Aykroyd- To this day I still don't understand why you let your nose look like a little peggar in Nothing but trouble, so whatever. Shout out for being a good sibling in the Blues Brothers. Most people probably don't even know that you had a small role in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. Thanks for your continued support of the grand ole USA.

Alanis Morissette-GTFO

Mike Myers- You shagged a lot of hot babes as a British secret agent. You are basically one of us now since you have been residing in this country for many years.

Rick Moranis- I would like to personally offer my condolences regarding the azz whoopin you took in Manhattan a few years ago. Congrats for toughing it out and not leaving us. Little Giants is also an underrated movie.

Seth Rogan- You smoke too much ganja like most Americans and for this, Pepperjax is eternally grateful.

Keanu Reeves- You weren't born in Canada but did grow up there. Lori Petty was gross in that flick when you pretended to be a bank robber with the great Patrick Swayze. I guess even mega stars live yourself have to lower your standards here and there. You embraced the role of Ted which means that you love the United States.

Neil Young- GTFO

Michael Cera- Made one good film.

Justin Bieber- Well umm..sorry about P Diddy. You endured enough.

Drake- Learn to rap

Donald Sutherland (RIP)- I still do your impressions from Kelly's Heroes as SGT. Oddball.
Click to expand...
ya left off half of these guys ya hoser
1746029816191.png
now go put a mouse in a beer bottle eh
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman, tbh, BernardKingGOAT and 1 other person
#61
#61
LouderVol said:
China was facing a population crisis either way. don't address it, and their noted food insecurity gets even worse.

they have been net importers of food for forever. considering its a change from their great leap backwards, its a much better long term plan. especially as it got them embedded with a bunch of other nations into trade associations, BRICS, they otherwise wouldn't have.

they have been building up their navy, to the point where they are producing far more military shipping than we can. they have expanded control into the South China Sea. and many of their trade deals, and infrastructure projects come with carve outs for future military use.

political system is bad in a moral sense, but it has been remarkably stable, and survived a lot. its also responsible for generating a ton of growth in China's economy, and military. they essentially started at nothing in the 70s, and are now unquestionably the second leading power in the world on pretty much every front.

china has been reworking their finances, much of the shakiness is because they were so heavily buyers of our debt. they have been slowly backing out of that after they got what they needed from it, namely building up their own infrastructure.
Click to expand...
They cannot project naval (or any military power) beyond the first island chain. Their history of political systems throughout history is certainly not stable. Just since their dynastic period ended (which was unstable itself) in 1912, they've had 2 revolutions that killed hundreds of millions of people. The precarious position of their financial system has absolutely nothing to do with them being buyers of our debt.
 
#64
#64
hog88 said:
Well now, Huff has explained how Canada isn't dependent on the US with this one simple post. Great job.
Click to expand...

Smart guy, care to help McDad out with this one since you're the first one to make the claim?

n_huffhines said:
Every deal has a cost and a benefit, and that net benefit is how we measure deals, right?

If you get 67% of the benefit and have only 60% of the cost, and your partner gets 33% of the benefit for 40% of the cost, where is the inequity?
Click to expand...
 
#65
#65
hog88 said:
They depend on our military protection, 17% of their GDP is reliant on exports to the US, 50% (or more) of their industry is US owned. So how are they not a dependent?
Click to expand...
That military protection benefits us as much as them considering who's over the northern horizon. Exporters aren't dependents of their importers. It's buying and selling, not feeding them and paying their tuition. The same with US factories there; Tennessee and Kentucky are hardly dependents of Japan.
 
#66
#66
JL24 said:
I do not.

I believe they are more an ally with China. Especially considering their election result.

Carney is a China supporter.
Click to expand...
We’re in a tariff spat with China; a diplomatic spat with them over jailed Canadian citizens; we consistently call out their human rights issues, and work closely with Taiwan. You are off your rocker
 
  • Like
Reactions: EasternVol
#67
#67
n_huffhines said:
Can you explain the error, please?

Every deal has a cost and a benefit, and that net benefit is how we measure deals, right?

If you get 67% of the benefit and have only 60% of the cost, and your partner gets 33% of the benefit for 40% of the cost, where is the inequity?
Click to expand...
I can try.

It may be much later today...maybe in the evening.
 
#68
#68
OHvol40 said:
Is there an allied relationship where there isn’t inequality in some form of fashion?
Click to expand...
that's a good question. O5 said all allied relationships are inequitable in some way. I tend to agree.

Has there ever been an allied relationship that is equitable? I am sure there has but I cannot think of any examples.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OHvol40
#69
#69
McDad said:
that's a good question. O5 said all allied relationships are inequitable in some way. I tend to agree.

Has there ever been an allied relationship that is equitable? I am sure there has but I cannot think of any examples.
Click to expand...
You could argue that the early days of the Big Three (Churchill, FDR, Stalin) was a pretty equitable relationship. As the war dragged on, the UK wasn't equal to the other two.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#70
#70
n_huffhines said:
Smart guy, care to help McDad out with this one since you're the first one to make the claim?
Click to expand...

So you're saying we the US are ahead on cost/benefit? That Canada's cost is higher than what they benefit from their relationship with the US?
 
#71
#71
EasternVol said:
That military protection benefits us as much as them considering who's over the northern horizon. Exporters aren't dependents of their importers. It's buying and selling, not feeding them and paying their tuition. The same with US factories there; Tennessee and Kentucky are hardly dependents of Japan.
Click to expand...

Without US protection Canada would be forced to spend much more than they do on defense, without US owned industry operating in Canada and their exports to the US Canda would essentially be Mexico so again explain how they are not dependent on us.
 
#72
#72
05_never_again said:
You could argue that the early days of the Big Three (Churchill, FDR, Stalin) was a pretty equitable relationship. As the war dragged on, the UK wasn't equal to the other two.
Click to expand...

In the beginning the only equity was in blood v treasure. England and Russia were equal partners in the sense that they were spending their young men while we were supplying their war material.
 
#74
#74
hog88 said:
So you're saying we the US are ahead on cost/benefit? That Canada's cost is higher than what they benefit from their relationship with the US?
Click to expand...

Not exactly. Relative cost/benefit is worse in the example. I am positing that it's likely Canada is on the inequitable side of the deal because they can't benefit as much as we do. IDK know for sure because there may be other considerations, but I know for fkn sure the benefit is not equal. This is an economic question and not a single economist in the world is going to say the benefit is equal just because they get the same protection.

McDad used the example of neighbors next to each other going in on home security together, but the part he left out is that one house is valued at $3.5 M and the other at $400k. They're both getting a good deal because they both get X level of security for a split cost, but the guy protecting a $3.5m house is definitely getting the better deal. He's getting $3.5m worth of protection.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top