That all being said, it's probably bad optics for Carney right now. It's probably in his interest to delay this until after the election.
Absolutely. The Chinese ambassador pretty much said that too by saying that Carney's current stance is a posture for election... Basically giving Carney room to flip the other way after the election without China holding a grudge. At least, that's how I read it.
Yes, I absolutely think we should prioritize deals with the EU. I think this is the perfect time for it. I worry that it won't be enough to make up for the US though and we'll need other deals to make up the shortfall.
This really feels like a huge opportunity for Canada. But I don't know enough on this to argue for making a deal with China - or against it. This is all just spit balling and I'm ready to be set straight!
I mean I know Carney has come out against China on a number of things, calling them a geopolitical and foreign interference threat. I think he also mentioned their human rights record in the past. Does that change if we increase or decrease trade with them? I genuinely don't know. Can we exert more influence over China if we work with them? Can they do the same to us? The timing of this particular announcement is interesting. It seems like they find PP more desirable than Carney....
When you look at progress in tech, science and space, China really looks to have a lot of momentum and is poised to take over leadership in these areas. I would hate for Canada to be left in the dust because we hitched ourselves too tightly to a collapsing America.
Maybe we can make an automotive deal with China that helps our own industry? Diversifying away from the US seems interesting.
It would certainly piss off Trump if we made some big trade deals with China.
I haven't been able to get deep into this article, and so far I'm not impressed at all.
There's a glaring grammar error of a missing word in the first sentence.
have issuing misleading reports with the purpose of manipulating public opinion.
The last sentence of the next paragraph is a struggle...
as their latest “24 facts for 2024” was, in a column, by Conrad Black, originally published in the National Post.
Okay, I'm being nitpicky, some editing could fix that.
But then the first counter-argument to one of FI's "facts", that Canada's personal income disparity vs the US is stagnating, is weak at best. Saudi Arabia in 2014? What? The global pandemic? Yeah, it was global, it affected Americans too. Donald Trump said it was China? How is that related? 2011 article about Calgary and Edmonton did something similar? So? Weak.
I was hopeful, but I'm not feeling enticed to read on at this point :(
Insurers always look at whether you've been denied coverage previously by another insurer as part of the decision whether to insure you and at what level and rate. Collusion is built into the system.
That said, I certainly wouldn't want to insure anyone in that area either. Not in this climate...
Oh come on, are you trying to say there's a better way to bring manufacturing of specific high end parts to the United States than blanket tariffs on everything?
"anal bum cover for 400"