Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

The Saddam stuff to me was always linked to 9/11 and America lashing out on the war on terror. I don't see the link. This is more of a Cold War than anything like Iraq.

There isn't going to be an actual war with China unless they invade Taiwan.

You can disagree with the US going after China economically - but its just normal politics. The US wants to be the solo super power. China wants to also be a super power. They have conflicting goals so they are going to logically be at odds. Canada is going to go along with what their giant neighbour and ally wants when its just a economic battle.

My reference to Saddam was more about the drumming up of fears to motivate people for conflict. The US didn't just say Saddam was a bad guy, they told a contrived story to make people believe they should feel threatened by him at home too.

I agree with what you're saying though, and that we're just seeing conflicting goals playing out between the US and China in terms of where China's development fits into the world too. I'm not sure that's how Cowboy89 or people who share his view of China as an existential threat to Canada via global domination see it though.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

The Saddam stuff to me was always linked to 9/11 and America lashing out on the war on terror. I don't see the link. This is more of a Cold War than anything like Iraq.

There isn't going to be an actual war with China unless they invade Taiwan.

You can disagree with the US going after China economically - but its just normal politics. The US wants to be the solo super power. China wants to also be a super power. They have conflicting goals so they are going to logically be at odds. Canada is going to go along with what their giant neighbour and ally wants when its just a economic battle.

Just to put this here, but even with China spending a ton of money on upgrading their navy and airforce, they don't have the amphibious capability to land invade Taiwan unless they're willing to level the whole island first. It doesn't make sense, the human cost to China would be huge, its not like Taiwan is militarily weak.

Its not like China's navy even with its fancy new carrier would stay alive for long against a American Battle Group with at least one super carrier. Also America's submarines are far better then China's submarine forces.

I'm not saying that China's navy is a paper tiger. Regionally its quite powerful. And Militarily China's military is just far numerically superior to a pretty capable Taiwan airforce and Military.

And China won't want to risk American retaliation if they basically flatten Taiwanese cities and key infrastructure.

If China is going to do anything its go after the rich resource islands through the South China Sea that other nations have laid claim to.

But to invade Taiwan. China has something like 30 landing ship tanks 30 small ambitious assault boats and 8 major assault boats. And most of those would probably be wrecked before they got in position to land troops.

[Fuzz]

I'm not sure China would plans to invade. They'll keep threatening, poking around, causing conflict while they quietly gain influence and power until it is defacto back in their hands, just like they did with Hong Kong(and perhaps Tibet as well). This won't be an open war, but I do suspect they win in the long run.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Just to put this here, but even with China spending a ton of money on upgrading their navy and airforce, they don't have the amphibious capability to land invade Taiwan unless they're willing to level the whole island first. It doesn't make sense, the human cost to China would be huge, its not like Taiwan is militarily weak.

Its not like China's navy even with its fancy new carrier would stay alive for long against a American Battle Group with at least one super carrier. Also America's submarines are far better then China's submarine forces.

I'm not saying that China's navy is a paper tiger. Regionally its quite powerful. And Militarily China's military is just far numerically superior to a pretty capable Taiwan airforce and Military.

And China won't want to risk American retaliation if they basically flatten Taiwanese cities and key infrastructure.

If China is going to do anything its go after the rich resource islands through the South China Sea that other nations have laid claim to.

But to invade Taiwan. China has something like 30 landing ship tanks 30 small ambitious assault boats and 8 major assault boats. And most of those would probably be wrecked before they got in position to land troops.

US actions with spending billions of dollars on moving chip manufacturing into the US says they think there is a risk of it happening in at least the mid-term future.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I'm not sure China would plans to invade. They'll keep threatening, poking around, causing conflict while they quietly gain influence and power until it is defacto back in their hands, just like they did with Hong Kong(and perhaps Tibet as well). This won't be an open war, but I do suspect they win in the long run.

I'm far from an expert - but wasn't Hong Kong very different? UK gave it back to China. It was China's territory - they just sped up taking control on the one country, two systems set-up.

Taiwan and China had a war and Taiwan ended up on the island. Will be a huge undertaking for China to 'win' over Taiwan using soft power given all the back ground.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Would it? You have two choices as a political party - be adaptable so you can win elections or be ideological, stick to your values and lose the vast majority of elections.

The Liberals will adapt to whatever is popular at the time. They've been debt hawks, spending machines, nationalists, deregulators at various times in their history. They swing as society's values changes.

The (federal) NDP and Green party are ideological - winning an election isn't really the goal. They just want to push their values and influence on Canada's government. The NDP could possibly win a razor thin minority if absolutely everything went their way but its very unlikely.

The Conservatives were for most of their existence similar to the Liberals just on the right side of the spectrum. But they are slipping to the ideological party the more they embrace that side.

I suspect - yes - the current Conservative party support would split and perhaps the PPC becomes an NDP lite that wins the odd rural seat. But the Conservatives could pick up a ton of voters who are sick of the Liberals but aren't willing to vote for a party that supports their fringe.

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

I'm far from an expert - but wasn't Hong Kong very different? UK gave it back to China. It was China's territory - they just sped up taking control on the one country, two systems set-up.

Taiwan and China had a war and Taiwan ended up on the island. Will be a huge undertaking for China to 'win' over Taiwan using soft power given all the back ground.

Sure, they are different. But China used a strategy of slowly widdling away at the rights Hong Kong had as part of "One China, two Systems", and will continue to do so until it is "One China, One System". They know how to do this slowly, and will do the same with Taiwan. Well, that's how I see it, anyway. Open war isn't really a benefit to them.

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

JohnnyB, I know it's in your interest to defend China at all costs(and I'm baffled as to why, you seem like an intelligent person), but I say it again, to ignore the threat of China on the geopolitical stage is true folly. You could, for instance, look at the Arctic, where they are trying desperately to leverage some control over it, despite not being an arctic bordering nation, having no land ownership, and there being no neutral unoccupied unclaimed area of the arctic to plant a flag on.





https://www.brookings.edu/research/n...and-ambitions/

So what, nothing to worry about? They feel entitled to take a share. We need to be prepared to defend ourselves from this.

Read the whole thing, it's worth it for the insight(and not that long).

It's not in my interest to defend China at all costs, but I do see a fair number of ignorant (sometimes even jingoistic) statements bandied around about China, and those kinds of statements are increasing in frequency as the US and US allies ramp up for more conflict with China.

Of course China has real problems too and does things I oppose, and Canada has legitimate interests to protect. I'm all for Canada doing things to protect Canadian systems and sovereignty. Why not? I'm just also firmly on the side of human development writ large and regardless of nationality, and CP is already full of voices advocating for Canadian interests but very few who present anything from a more China-sympathetic point of view.

For all the voicing of fears about "the threat of China" as you perceive it, for most of the world's population China's rise and China's interest in global commerce is actually a good thing for development and improving quality of life. Success of any country in particular means much less to me than broad-based development, safety, health and wellbeing. Personally, I'm very opposed to nationalism. I'm also really opposed to xenophobia and the like that comes from the exploitation of nationalist sentiments or ethnic identities.

The US right now is combatting a multi-polar world and will pull allies into a fight for that, but what does a multi-polar world mean? It means countries like China, India, Brazil, maybe even Indonesia rising up with economic power and output that matches their populations. That's 42% of the world's population just in those countries. Insofar as it's done peacefully and leads to broad-based development, I celebrate and support the rise of those populations and the populations of countries in their trade networks, and insofar as the preservation of an existing world order comes at the expense of those populations via intentional suppression of their development, I oppose that. To that extent, you could say I'm someone who supports a multi-polar world and an end to a unipolar world, but because of wanting to see broad human development and not because of any sense of nationalism.

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Sure, they are different. But China used a strategy of slowly widdling away at the rights Hong Kong had as part of "One China, two Systems", and will continue to do so until it is "One China, One System". They know how to do this slowly, and will do the same with Taiwan. Well, that's how I see it, anyway. Open war isn't really a benefit to them.

You often allude to Hong Kong like this, but Hong Kong was never at any point a sovereign nation. The handover in '97 was the transfer of sovereignty over HK from Britain to China. It's not like China seized a place that wasn't under Chinese sovereignty. Many aspects of things in HK are also still operating along the lines of One Country, Two Systems. China asserted control faster than expected, rather than waiting all the way until 2037, but there was never any doubt about HK going back to China.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

You often allude to Hong Kong like this, but Hong Kong was never at any point a sovereign nation. The handover in '97 was the transfer of sovereignty over HK from Britain to China. It's not like China seized a place that wasn't under Chinese sovereignty. Many aspects of things in HK are also still operating along the lines of One Country, Two Systems. China asserted control faster than expected, rather than waiting all the way until 2037, but there was never any doubt about HK going back to China.

They aren't respecting the agreement:

In accordance with the "One country, two systems" principle agreed between the United Kingdom and the People's Republic of China, the socialist system of the People's Republic of China would not be practised in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR), and Hong Kong's previous capitalist system and its way of life would remain unchanged for a period of 50 years.[51] This would have left Hong Kong unchanged until 2047.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handover_of_Hong_Kong

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

It's not in my interest to defend China at all costs, but I do see a fair number of ignorant (sometimes even jingoistic) statements bandied around about China, and those kinds of statements are increasing in frequency as the US and US allies ramp up for more conflict with China.

Of course China has real problems too and does things I oppose, and Canada has legitimate interests to protect. I'm all for Canada doing things to protect Canadian systems and sovereignty. Why not? I'm just also firmly on the side of human development writ large and regardless of nationality, and CP is already full of voices advocating for Canadian interests but very few who present anything from a more China-sympathetic point of view.

For all the voicing of fears about "the threat of China" as you perceive it, for most of the world's population China's rise and China's interest in global commerce is actually a good thing for development and improving quality of life. Success of any country in particular means much less to me than broad-based development, safety, health and wellbeing. Personally, I'm very opposed to nationalism. I'm also really opposed to xenophobia and the like that comes from the exploitation of nationalist sentiments or ethnic identities.

The US right now is combatting a multi-polar world and will pull allies into a fight for that, but what does a multi-polar world mean? It means countries like China, India, Brazil, maybe even Indonesia rising up with economic power and output that matches their populations. That's 42% of the world's population just in those countries. Insofar as it's done peacefully and leads to broad-based development, I celebrate and support the rise of those populations and the populations of countries in their trade networks, and insofar as the preservation of an existing world order comes at the expense of those populations via intentional suppression of their development, I oppose that. To that extent, you could say I'm someone who supports a multi-polar world and an end to a unipolar world, but because of wanting to see broad human development and not because of any sense of nationalism.

I think that might be in the eye of the beholder. There are no shortage of stories of human rights abuses with the belt and road initiative, or China's Debt Trap Diplomacy. I'm not say the history of the west in poor nations has been some glorious success, but I'm also not the one suggesting China's foreign actions are good, either. Are you aware of these things? All I see is a dismal future for any country that has gotten into China's fingers. Can you provide any examples of success?

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I think that might be in the eye of the beholder. There are no shortage of stories of human rights abuses with the belt and road initiative, or China's Debt Trap Diplomacy. I'm not say the history of the west in poor nations has been some glorious success, but I'm also not the one suggesting China's foreign actions are good, either. Are you aware of these things? All I see is a dismal future for any country that has gotten into China's fingers. Can you provide any examples of success?

This is an example of that kind of statement that frequently gets thrown around in misrepresentation of reality. If you read development finance literature on this kind of stuff, you would know that "debt trap diplomacy" is debunked in the development finance literature. That phrase in relation to Chinese development financing and eximbank activity was coined in Indian news media in relation to Sri Lanka, where India has it's own interests at play, and it has caught on internationally and gets thrown around endlessly as a meme, but it's not reality.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

This is an example of that kind of statement that frequently gets thrown around in misrepresentation of reality. If you read development finance literature on this kind of stuff, you would know that "debt trap diplomacy" is debunked in the development finance literature. That phrase in relation to Chinese development financing and eximbank activity was coined in Indian news media in relation to Sri Lanka, where India has it's own interests at play, and it has caught on internationally and gets thrown around endlessly as a meme, but it's not reality.

While it is not necessarily as widespread as claimed, how do you argue this isn't a reality?

“Chinese debt burdens are substantially larger than research institutions, credit rating agencies, or intergovernmental organizations with surveillance responsibilities previously understood,” the study said.


The reason is an increasing number of deals struck not directly between governments through central banks but through often opaque arrangements with a range of financing institutions, hence “the debt burdens were kept off the public balance sheets.”

Laos, for example, had to sell part of its national electricity grid to China in 2020 in exchange to debt relief from Chinese creditors.


Laos’ overall level of debt exposure to China is equivalent to 64.8 percent of its GDP, including 35.4 percent of GDP worth of hidden debt that comes with the China-Laos railway mega project, according to the study. The $6 billion dollar railway is due to open in December.

https://www.rfa.org/english/news/lao...021161618.html

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

They aren't respecting the agreement:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handover_of_Hong_Kong

Yeah, they accelerated the extent of control over HK by thirty years. I disagree with it, and was very upset when it happened, but it was no seizure of sovereign territory. I consider HK one of my homes and I have friends who joined the protests. I also have HK friends who supported it, and I can understand the Chinese point of view on it too. It's an island that China was forced to turn over essentially at gunpoint to a country using their navy to enforce the ongoing sale of destructive drugs to the Chinese population and the enrichment of the British drug dealers. The whole foundation of it was dishonorable, and as tensions started rising with the US, I think concerns over more foreign interference and influence in Hong Kong were rising. I don't like it and I disagree with it, but at least I understand it.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

It's not in my interest to defend China at all costs, but I do see a fair number of ignorant (sometimes even jingoistic) statements bandied around about China, and those kinds of statements are increasing in frequency as the US and US allies ramp up for more conflict with China.

Of course China has real problems too and does things I oppose, and Canada has legitimate interests to protect. I'm all for Canada doing things to protect Canadian systems and sovereignty. Why not? I'm just also firmly on the side of human development writ large and regardless of nationality, and CP is already full of voices advocating for Canadian interests but very few who present anything from a more China-sympathetic point of view.

For all the voicing of fears about "the threat of China" as you perceive it, for most of the world's population China's rise and China's interest in global commerce is actually a good thing for development and improving quality of life. Success of any country in particular means much less to me than broad-based development, safety, health and wellbeing. Personally, I'm very opposed to nationalism. I'm also really opposed to xenophobia and the like that comes from the exploitation of nationalist sentiments or ethnic identities.

The US right now is combatting a multi-polar world and will pull allies into a fight for that, but what does a multi-polar world mean? It means countries like China, India, Brazil, maybe even Indonesia rising up with economic power and output that matches their populations. That's 42% of the world's population just in those countries. Insofar as it's done peacefully and leads to broad-based development, I celebrate and support the rise of those populations and the populations of countries in their trade networks, and insofar as the preservation of an existing world order comes at the expense of those populations via intentional suppression of their development, I oppose that. To that extent, you could say I'm someone who supports a multi-polar world and an end to a unipolar world, but because of wanting to see broad human development and not because of any sense of nationalism.

The US essentially built up China's development by outsourcing its manufacturing to the country. How does China's rise help Brazil grow? India I can see as they have a bucket load of people and as China develops and their population starts to stagnate - they will outsource some of their business to countries with cheaper labour.

[Northendzone]

sunny days, sunny ways friends:

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/ott...ome-to-ontario

i always love when the federal government is quiet about subsidies to private businesses.....it would be interesting to do a cost benefit analysis of these deals to see if there was an overall gain or not

funny how folks like tzeporah berman rail about subsidies (tax credits) given to O&G - but I bet she will keep her head down about this

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Northendzone

funny how folks like tzeporah berman rail about subsidies (tax credits) given to O&G - but I bet she will keep her head down about this

More importantly, how do you feel about corporate welfare?

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Northendzone

sunny days, sunny ways friends:

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/ott...ome-to-ontario

i always love when the federal government is quiet about subsidies to private businesses.....it would be interesting to do a cost benefit analysis of these deals to see if there was an overall gain or not

funny how folks like tzeporah berman rail about subsidies (tax credits) given to O&G - but I bet she will keep her head down about this

Well.. they do say they will be released when the plant is announced but yes - basically all giant businesses are lured with subsidies and incentives. If you don't offer them - some US state will and we don't get all of these plants. Its not a Liberal vs Conservative thing - everyone does it.

Preferably you wouldn't do it - but if other places nearby are going to do it - you have to compete. If you want to split hairs - with O&G there is much less competition on where to invest. There has to be oil where you spend money. A manufacturing plant can pretty well go anywhere there are people able to work.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Northendzone

funny how folks like tzeporah berman rail about subsidies (tax credits) given to O&G - but I bet she will keep her head down about this

This type of investment by the government should be celebrated because it fueling the green revolution.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Well.. they do say they will be released when the plant is announced but yes - basically all giant businesses are lured with subsidies and incentives. If you don't offer them - some US state will and we don't get all of these plants. Its not a Liberal vs Conservative thing - everyone does it.

Preferably you wouldn't do it - but if other places nearby are going to do it - you have to compete. If you want to split hairs - with O&G there is much less competition on where to invest. There has to be oil where you spend money. A manufacturing plant can pretty well go anywhere there are people able to work.

It sounds like the subsidies are likely far and away bigger than typical though given how VW has been bargain hunting over the globe. They beat out 40 US sites so it certainly sounds like Canada may be footing the bill for a massive portion of this facility for an automaker. Little chance the government does this for any other province other than Ontario and Quebec.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

It sounds like the subsidies are likely far and away bigger than typical though given how VW has been bargain hunting over the globe. They beat out 40 US sites so it certainly sounds like Canada may be footing the bill for a massive portion of this facility for an automaker. Little chance the government does this for any other province other than Ontario and Quebec.

Awww muffin. So hard done out there.