Tag Archives: Don Farrell

That happens. I do not know everything and it is not my business to know everything. I learned that early in life, before I know thought I knew everything, I learned as I took the oath of a radio operator, that there is a price for knowing too I much and as such I tried to ‘calm’ the need to know too much. When it is in my business to know, I try to know the materials pretty thoroughly. I tech support there was one program I had to know, but I had to know it on dozens of systems and  for the most I knew the goods. This is not some spreadsheet or a presentation program and you know the in’s and outs of the program (not dissing these software solutions) but in one program know the issues on IBM MVS, DEC digital VMS, AS/400, Sun systems, Unit systems, Windows Systems and a whole lot more, and every mainframe had its own coordinators handbook. For the most it was OK. The dealers could help its own customers but when working deeper they came with questions on installation, data cleaning, syntaxes of the system and of course the limitations that existed per system. In an age where there was no system (it was promised, but was always a month away) I kept my head above water. So what does this have to do with the current issue?

It was given to me in the Conversation (at https://theconversation.com/trumps-trade-war-is-forcing-canada-to-revive-a-decades-old-plan-to-reduce-u-s-dependence-248433) where we get ‘Trump’s trade war is forcing Canada to revive a decades-old plan to reduce U.S. dependence’ it is here that we are given “After threatening Canada and Mexico with illegal tariffs, and Canada with annexation, United States President Donald Trump has agreed to hold off on imposing tariffs on Canada for at least 30 days. This decision came after Prime Minister Justin Trudeau spoke with Trump and committed to strengthening border security” with the added “Early responses seem to have coalesced around two policies: for Canada to trade less with the U.S. and more with other countries and to strengthen the internal Canadian economy.” This implies that the free trade agreements were signed up with that in mind and to ‘diverge’ Canada to go that way. It seems weird that the ‘councilors’ of this US administration did not hammer on this, or seemingly did not hammer this. You see, as I see it President trump shot himself in the foot here. And then watered all over himself. Two distinct settings that could have been avoided. Now America faces tariffs themselves and come to boot Allies of Canada are signing up deals on all markets which will cost America dearly. It also means that the Commonwealth will become stronger as one together. I don’t know (at present) where India stands, but in retail and pharmaceutical solutions there is every chance that Canada will seek solutions in that field. So as we see “But it will impose significant costs on Canadians and require a fundamental readjustment in how we think about our economy and society.” This might be fair, but that all depends on what India could help save Canada costs, if that is achieved (though pharmaceuticals mainly) the net savings for Canada are a lot greater then expected. There will be cost in the beginning yet in the end it might work out cheaper (not easier) for Canada.

Then we are given “In 1972, then-Secretary of State for External Affairs Mitchell Sharp wrote a paper called “Canada-US Relations: Options for the Future.” At the time, international politics were in a moment of transition, and the U.S. was recalibrating its understanding of its national interest.” It is here we are given (at https://gac.canadiana.ca/view/ooe.b1557737E_001/329) a lot more then we bargained for. It is a 332 page paper, as such the 46MB file is not here, but in its original location. As such I would surmise that American administrations forgot about ‘the U.S. was recalibrating its understanding of its national interest’ it seemingly forgot about this. I prefer to think that the setting of pending bankruptcy is making them knee jerk themselves into the next month and the next and the next. Yet there is a rather nasty hindsight to this (not for me). There is a rather urgent need to reassess criminal behavior. So the settings we see in London and other cities (like Los Angeles) imply that a more Venezuelan setting will come to America (thanks to Steve Inman) his comments are setting a new side to the debate. There is no doubt that these ‘free $1000 thefts’ will result in a need to shoot to kill escalation and for the most no one has a problem with that. This escalation is right on the horizon now. The $1000 misdemeanor setting will  (according to some) take care of the freeloaders and especially shopkeepers are fine with that. So as America does away with its freeloaders we still have an issue in Canada and for the most part I hesitate to consider what made America consider its tariff setting, especially as Canada was considering the paper in 1972, it might have been long, but not too long and in light of current trends this setting was on the horizon as were other options and now that America is feeling its first brunt with BRICS, there was a cautious tale on the horizon. And now that the US administration is setting up a ‘Sovereign Wealth Fund’ with the underlying ““We have tremendous potential,” Trump said while signing the order from the Oval Office on Monday. “I think in a short period of time, we’d have one of the biggest funds.”” (Source: The Guardian) I personally disagree. They HAD tremendous potential and now that they started the tariff wars (it doesn’t matter if it is on hold for 30 days). Canada is now looking at setting additional channels with the Commonwealth, whilst diminishing trade and we now see that there is a 1972 paper who did the hard stuff. The question is how much of that is still valid. I actually don’t know that, but I left the link for your reference. Then there is the options that America left on the floor and now China has an inner track to set a lot more towards the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. I mentioned it more then once in the last two years. As America stifled the sale of their F35, China has been active on at least two weapons trade shows to give rise to the Chengdu J-20 from the Chengdu Aircraft Industry Group. Did you think that China left a call for a few dozen billion unanswered? At $110,000,000 that implies at least 3 squadrons and guess what, they will not be compatible with whatever Northrop Grumman or Raytheon has to offer. As such there could be a bigger shift in that setting. And as soon as China ‘proves’ that the Chengdu J-20 is at least equal or even superior to the F35, America loses that game too. You see, China only have to prove it is at least equal, a much lower threshold. Add that to the Canadian setting and as Canada can prove goods to the UAE and Saudi Arabia (optionally Egypt and Bangladesh) that are a few more markets where Canada will get slices of pizza that were meant for America. All that for a tariff? So how much more does America have to lose to show its ‘Sovereign Wealth Fund’ to be close to irrelevant. Yes, others will profit too. Yet Canada never wanted this setting in the first place and that is where short term considerations make some lose ‘their’ war. And just for consideration. Fentanyl is not new. As given by some “Fentanyl was synthesized in 1960 as an intravenous anesthetic and went on the market in the U.S. in 1968. Transdermal fentanyl was developed in the 1980s and was subsequently used for pain management in cancer patients” it was invented by the Belgiums and it has been on the market over half a century. So it is not new, the (speculated) non-actions by America made it an easy drug to score big on. In addition, it is a pharmaceutical  with a boxed warning. So why is it not a controlled substance set to a narcotic? Lets consider that narcotics were ‘outlawed’ in 1914 and went to the American market in 1968. So why was it even allowed? And even as we see in the Conversation where we are given “For the Third Option to be viable today, Canadians must embrace an independent Canadian identity based on respect for democracy, pluralism, the rule of law and human rights. It likely requires consensus that U.S. authoritarianism is wholly unacceptable to Canada.” And this third option point is now reached and so far (as is visible) nearly all the Commonwealth nations. As I see the Australian parties weaseling (my personal assessment) as “Australian Trade Minister Don Farrell is seeking talks with America” (source: News) where we see no clear message to Canada in support as a Commonwealth nation (like weasels as I personally see it). At this setting Scotland shows itself as a much more honorable Commonwealth nation, but the larger issue will be India, as that is where the massive parts of retail goes. I get that India is playing a sensitive game but something must give at some point, Canada needs us now. From a personal note, Canada was there for the Netherlands in WW2. As Dutch born I will stand with Canada on this.

Yet the larger setting is missed. In the end Canada is not the larger play. It will be China and what it can grab from America on the long term from them involving Saudi Arabia, the UAE and optionally Egypt as well.

So have a loverly day and if you are in America try drinking Tim Hortons for a change. It might wake you up faster, stronger and better.