All our propaganda are belong to us…

In comments yesterday about the likelihood of Canada joining the U.S-Mexico trade agreement, Justin from Canada stated emphatically that his country would not join any trade agreement that removes Canadian protectionist policy on “cultural industries”.

What are Justin’s “cultural industries“? Well, that would be control over media and telecommunications. In essence, Canada wouldn’t want any of that pesky free-market media stuff interfering with the state-run propaganda broadcasts.  Yup, you can’t make this stuff up folks…

CANADA – […] The prime minister also said his government won’t sign an updated free trade accord with the U.S. and Mexico if the deal doesn’t continue exemptions for Canada’s cultural industries, which aims to protect Canada’s publishing and broadcast industries.

(more…)

From a pure economic/financial perspective this Nike  branding campaign doesn’t make sense…. unless, you realize a much bigger picture. A hidden bigger picture.

On its face, it just seems absurd. Why would any major corporation intentionally stake out a branding position that is adverse to their financial interests?
I’ve spoken to some very excellent business actuaries on this late today; and one specific conversation finally helped to make it all make sense.  During that conversation a good ally shared: “a multinational corporation would never make a branding decision adverse to their financial interests. Unless there is a hidden risk unrelated to what is visible on the surface.” ….BINGO, there it is, the lightbulb went on.
A hidden risk that likely has nothing whatsoever to do with Colin Kaepernick.
The bigger risk to Nike has nothing to do with Black Lives Matter, U.S. Consumers, or Antifa-like political advocacy. The bigger financial risk to the Nike Corporation has everything to do with geopolitics and a reset of international trade agreements.
Here’s the hidden aspect with research to back it up.  Nike Inc. has hitched its massive corporate existence to a 10-year business plan that is dependent on the continuance of recently negotiated manufacturing contracts.
(more…)

When China announced the One-Road/One-Belt initiative (now banned from discussion in Beijing); in combination with a looming trade confrontation with President Trump; CTH pointed out that sketchy pandas’ bamboo economy was very vulnerable because it was deep, but narrow – simply too dependent on manufacturing and exports.
Slow down the manufacturing sector and, well, there is no fall-back position….. Cue:

BEIJING (Reuters) – China’s manufacturing activity grew at the slowest pace in more than a year in August, with export orders shrinking for a fifth month and employers cutting more staff, a private survey showed on Monday.
The gloomy findings reinforce views that China’s economy will cool further in coming months, even as the United States ramps up tariffs on Chinese goods. That is likely to prompt more spending and other growth boosting steps from Beijing.

(more…)

On Friday we shared the press release from U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lightizer about his trade notification to congress. [HERE]  Here is the text of the letter from President Trump via The White House:

Dear Mr. Speaker:   (Dear Mr. President:)
On May 18, 2017, my Administration notified the Congress that I intended to initiate trade negotiations with Canada and Mexico.  Negotiations began on August 16, 2017.  Since that time, my Administration has worked hard with Mexico and Canada to reach a modern trade agreement that sets high standards for free, fair, and reciprocal trade.
I am pleased to report that in only 1 year, we have made dramatic progress toward such an agreement:
(more…)

The Trump Doctrine is easiest to describe as: deploying economic leverage to achieve national security interests.  The Trump Doctrine is unique and stunningly effective.

Many of the geopolitical decisions have multiple facets which connect like small gears on a much larger machine.  One of those small dual-purpose gears is the Doctrine as it is applied to Pakistan.  The downstream moves impact China, our #1 geopolitical and economic adversary, then Russia, and also support new alliances with India and the broader Middle-east.

Toward China = ♦Squeeze #3. In 2017 Trump and Secretary Tillerson, now Secretary Pompeo, put Pakistan on notice they need to get involved in bringing their enabled tribal “extremists” (Taliban) to the table in Afghanistan. Pakistan’s primary investor and economic partner is China. The U.S. removed $900 million in financial support to pressure Pakistan toward a political solution in Afghanistan, China has to fill void.  [NOTE: Last month the World Bank began discussions about a financial bailout for Pakistan.]  Again, more one-way bleed for China. {Go Deep}

When President Trump removed the $900 million in aid to Pakistan, he empowered the Pentagon via Defense Secretary James Mattis, with an option to give $300 million to Pakistan if Mattis felt positive steps were being taken to change behavior.  Today the Pentagon announces no change in behavior is noted:
(more…)

U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer has submitted a regulatory 90-day notification to congress outlining the intent to modify the U.S. trade deal with Mexico according to mutually agreed terms.
However, the Canadian trade priorities; including retention of protectionist tariffs (dairy) and non-regulatory barriers (telecom/banking); in combination with subsidies (lumber/aeronautics), make Canada joining the deal almost impossible.

Canada is scheduled to meet with Lighthizer again on Wednesday, but it seems very doubtful the political needs for Justin Trudeau would allow any three-way agreement.
(more…)

U.S. Trade Represenative Robert Lighthizer releases a statement announcing the administration is filing a NAFTA Section 2202 trade modification “notification of intent” letter to congress:

Washington, DC – U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer today issued the following statement regarding the status of trade negotiations with Mexico and Canada:
“Today the President notified the Congress of his intent to sign a trade agreement with Mexico – and Canada, if it is willing – 90 days from now.  The agreement is the most advanced and high-standard trade agreement in the world.  Over the next few weeks, Congress and cleared advisors from civil society and the private sector will be able to examine the agreement.  They will find it has huge benefits for our workers, farmers, ranchers, and businesses.
“We have also been negotiating with Canada throughout this year-long process.  This week those meetings continued at all levels.  The talks were constructive, and we made progress.  Our officials are continuing to work toward agreement.  The USTR team will meet with Minister Freeland and her colleagues Wednesday of next week.”  (link)

Under the original 1993 terms and Chapter 22 of the Implementation Act, Lighthizer notifies congress that trade parties have modified the terms; this is the Section 2202 notification of modification. Ninety days after the date of the notification the U.S. and Mexico can sign the new terms of agreement; congressional approval is not required. [Canada can still join the U.S-Mexico agreement but they need to act fast.]
(more…)

Deploying her best cutesy high school routine at the Canadian Embassy in Washington DC, Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland gives an update on the state of trade negotiations between Canada and the United States.
The presentation is fraught with *tells* highlighting how every word is carefully selected through the prism of domestic politics. Chrystia now heads back to Canada for debriefing, discussion and poll-testing of Canadian sentiment. She will meet again with USTR Lighthizer next Wednesday with an answer as to whether or not to include Canada in the 2202 notification.

Continual emphasis on the severity of Canadian politics is needed to understand the latest developments in the U.S-Canada trade negotiations.
The Trump administration set a deadline of today for Canada to join the U.S-Mexico trade agreement and make the NAFTA replacement agreement a three-way pact.  The concessions needed by Justin Trudeau and Chrystia Freeland to join the agreement were politically devastating.

In order for Canada to accept or join, via a NAFTA 2202 modification, they would need to agree to the U.S-Mexico modification terms. For Canada they would have to:

• open their telecommunications and banking sector (eliminate non tariff barriers).
• eliminate soft-wood (lumber) and aeronautics subsidies.
• begin a process of lowering their assembly use of Chinese/Asian goods.
• accept the rules of origin for North American manufacturing.
• eliminate protectionist tariffs on dairy and farm products.
• accept the U.S-Mexico terms for arbitration and dispute resolution.

President Trump and U.S. Lighthizer are holding all the cards.  As we previously highlighted they don’t care if Canada doesn’t join; the U.S. would likely prefer to send congress a NAFTA 2205 withdrawal notification removing the U.S. from the original 1993 NAFTA construct in combination with a simultaneous 2202 modification notification for the U.S-Mexico side of the agreement.
This would allow the U.S. to go into a one-on-one trade negotiation where six months and a day from the 2205 notice. The U.S. would then apply 25% auto tariffs on Canadian made vehicles while negotiating a bilateral deal. Canada is in a very weak negotiating position; politics are paramount for the Canadian team; their exit needs political cover.  Media need to help the optics for the Canadian team.
(more…)

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau speaks Friday, August 31, 2018 about the Canadian perspective on trade negotiations with the U.S. – Everything about the Canadian position is framed through the prism of politics not economics. Virtue signalling is the primary tactic.
Trudeau and Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland are in a tenuous position, they cannot accept the terms of the U.S-Mexico deal because they cannot afford to drop the protections and carve-outs within their highly controlled and subsidized economy. Canada would have to: drop telecommunications and banking barriers; drop protectionist tariffs on Dairy and agricultural products; and drop subsidies for the lumber and aeronautics industry.