The Motive Power Service Trades: Fill & Download for Free

I'm Canadian, and I just spent some time trying to learn about this in order to answer your question, as well as to work out for myself whether your President is correct.Here is what I've learned. I might be wrong, but if so, someone will correct me, hopefully.So there's a thing that countries have called a "trade surplus" or a "trade deficit". If your country has a "trade deficit", it means that they are importing more than they are exporting. I suppose this is kind of like running up the balance on your credit card, or spending more than your job pays. In terms of economy, I suppose a country's "job" is earning money from exports. So if you have a trade deficit, you're buying more groceries than you are able to sell at your job.If you have a "trade surplus", it means you earned more money than you spent. I think.Anyway, you can have an overall surplus or deficit, which can be broken down by country. With Canada, your country has a deficit on goods, but a surplus on services. Services of course are worth money too.The U.S.A. had a goods trade deficit with Canada of $17.1 Billion in 2017.The U.S.A. had a services trade surplus with Canada of $25 Billion in 2017.Which means that the U.S.A. has an overall trade surplus with Canada of $8 Billion, in 2017 anyway.So, if you want to see things the way your President seems to, America is actually "ripping off" Canada.Congratulations.I've probably oversimplified this, but that's what I managed to figure out in an hour or so of reading. I honestly couldn't tell you whether I believe your President is capable of grasping these concepts, but based on what I've read this morning, he's either misinformed, or he's deliberately lying to you. He cannot help but be aware that most Canadians don't like him, (although we are not thinking about him as much as he seems to think we are) and he's probably trying to "get even" because his ego demands it. This seems to be the motivation for a lot of things politicians do.But anyway, I think the answer is "no", we are not ripping you off. I think your President is ripping YOU off, though. He's behaving like a spoiled baby who just got magic powers, and who is using his powers to break his toys and force his parents to feed him ice-cream.*edit: I've recieved a few useful responses about this, and a couple of people have pointed out that a "trade deficit" is NOT like running up a credit card. I'm not going to change my original statement, because it shows how easy it is to view this concept as "positive" or "negative" when in fact it can be either, or both. My point remains however that your president is lying, because the facts don't support his erroneous claim. The United States has a TRADE SURPLUS with respect to Canada, and your President is claiming the opposite. To understand what is going on, I really found THIS New York Times article to be easy to read and understand:What Is the Trade Deficit?

Speaking as an Indian, first, be prepared to accept some facts:India NEVER mastered the internal combustion engine. Nor did it have the fuel to fuel these engines.▲INDIA: The most technologically backward nation in the whole of the East.While vehicles are made in India, each engine is the result of a foreign collaboration. We have failed to originate a single petrol or diesel engine of our own design. Right up to today: September 20, 2020.We are being bankrupted by our fuel imports. Crude oil, refined crude, natural gas: we import every damn fuel, often at huge cost. We have failed to develop any fossil fuel source of meaningful quantity on our own, like America has with its fracking.▲ God has gifted them natural gas. They liquify it, and sell it to us. We pay through our noses. An LPG terminal in Southern U.S.▲ Pennsylvania and Texas have plenty of oil underground.▲ The U.S. produces so much oil, there was a storage crisis in April 2020, so much so that oil futures went negative for the first time in history!▲ As if that was not enough, they extract oil offshore too!It is my firm belief that India will never, ever have an internal combustion engine of its own design. NEVER.A switch to any other non-fossil-fuel engine will be hugely beneficial to our economy provided we develop the motive power on our own. Otherwise we will end up importing batteries instead of oil, and again be at the mercy of foreign suppliers.Electric motors are not that difficult to build, and friendly countries are ever ready to assist us with high-efficiency technologies. Even working with low efficiency Bharat Bijlee or BHEL motors, we will not be facing crippling import bills.Everything is not so straightforward of course, and there will be roadblocks. But it’s been 73 years since we have been independent, yet when it comes to vehicle prime movers, we are still slaves to foreigners. It’s time to put in some money and switch.And damn the car manufacturers who will not switch to EVs.Now let’s have a look at what is happening in the EV industry worldwide as of September 2020.Buyers of EVs too often find them to be pricey, ugly, limited on range or unavailable. Car companies won’t invest because we aren’t interested in buying. We aren’t interested because there’s little to choose from.So, thirsty SUVs and pickups, powered by cheap gasoline, keep driving the U.S. car market.Yet, American business can’t stop talking about electric vehicles in 2020. Manufacturers are introducing battery-powered versions of nearly anything that moves, and EV startups are standing in line to go public. This past week Volvo Group introduced an electric Mack garbage truck and Ford Motor Co. broke ground on a factory to make electric F-150 pickups.Next month General Motors Co. unveils a battery powered Hummer.It would be easy to credit the hype to Tesla Inc. Chief Executive Elon Musk. He’s brilliant and enigmatic. His cars are well-designed and fun. His company is thriving and has spawned aspiring copycats—including Nikola Corp., which is facing government scrutiny—that have attracted billions from investors.What’s powering the buzz now is there are buyers. Not individual gear heads and technophiles shelling out big bucks for a Tesla, electric Jaguar or e-Porsche, but companies committing to hundreds of thousands of sturdy, affordable, workaday electric cars and trucks.Widespread use by big fleets theoretically leads to lower battery costs and a better charging network, two of the biggest impediments facing EVs. Uber Technologies Inc. Chief Executive Dara Khosrowshahi said recently that bulk buyers like ride-hailing firms or delivery and e-commerce services can “provide that shock to the system and then start creating the flywheel moving in the positive direction.”Ride-hailing rivals Uber and Lyft Inc. this summer launched initiatives aimed at getting millions of their contract drivers to tool around in electric vehicles. Amazon made similar waves last summer when it ordered 100,000 electric vans from Rivian Automotive.Tech titans aren’t only ones diving in. United Parcel Service Inc., Republic Services Inc., and Anheuser-Busch have made splashy commitments to buy zero-emission vehicles in various configurations and in large volume.“What we need to do is move EV investments beyond shiny PR announcements to core ways of doing business,” Mr. Khosrowshahi said.These orders are critical for EV companies large and small. A garbage company’s desire to go electric is expediting innovation in heavy trucking.Uber is committing $800 million on EV-related programs through 2025, for instance.Amazon pumped a nearly $700 million investment into Rivian.▲Rivian EV pickup truckAnd Tesla is feeling the heat.Palo Alto, California-based Tesla sued Rivian last month, alleging an “alarming pattern” of poaching employees and stealing trade secrets. Tesla says four of its former employees had taken sensitive proprietary information with them when they went to work for the electric-car rival. In response, Rivian filed a motion to dismiss saying Tesla was trying to scare its own employees from leaving the company.Electric-truck maker Rivian hires ex-Tesla exec as top engineerThomas Healy, the CEO of electric- and hybrid-truck startup Hyliion Inc., said the company’s outlook brightened when it received an order for up to 1,000 electric 18-wheelers from Agility Global Integrated Logistics. The Kuwait-based Agility ships goods for big producers.“Having that customer order is the light at the end of the tunnel that says ‘Yes, people want this, this is the right product,’ ” Mr. Healy said. “But then, it puts an extra layer of pressure on us. We’ve got to go execute.”

The decision I made on 23rd June 2016 to vote to leave the EU, was a tough and narrow one. This was hard for me. My career is in the economic analysis of EU regulatory policy. I have a strong emotional and professional engagement with the EU, stretching back 20 years.Since then, I’ve thought a lot about it, read a lot, talked to a lot of people and written about it. Never in my life had I written about anything to do with politics. No political issue has animated me to this extent.Based on this, I am convinced that the motivations for being in the EU — both for my part and others — are mainly emotional ones and the desire for membership, a statement of faith. That is not to denigrate them. Emotions are important.On the other hand, I’ve been fortunate enough (though at times may have preferred to remain blissfully ignorant), to see up close how things are actually done in Brussels.It really is about power and centralisation, and making the eventual superstate a manifest destiny though subtle manipulation via declarations, aspirations, institutional momentum and policy levers.Frankly, this disgusts me. The EU has an agenda. It has set up its institutions in such a way as to make progress towards that agenda, an inevitability. There is no mechanism — democratic or otherwise — to persuade it to change course. Yet it pretends there is no such agenda. It really is The Great Deception.Having strong emotional reasons for loving the EU but also for hating it, is a terribly conflicting thing. This is why I’ve taken solace in the drier but more comfortable world of my own profession: economic analysis.In short, I cannot see any good economic reason for being in the EU. Its policies are bad ones. Collectively, they are the chief reason for decades of being the world’s worst performing economic bloc. Being in the EU directly ties you to those policies. It is illegal not to implement them.All would be forgiven if the upside were so magnificent that it outweighed the considerable downside. For the EU, among its most celebrated economic institutions is its single market. It allows (up to a point) trade between member states to take place as if the EU were one big country.That’s a testable proposition. You can assess whether the single market has actually achieved its aims by comparing trade flows within the EU to trade flows between neighbouring countries running different frameworks.The short summary is, it has achieved something (but not much) for goods but nothing at all for services. It is the latter that matters most to the British economy.On the emotions, it’s a tie. On the reason, fact and economics, I’m convinced there is no good reason for Britain to be in the EU. My diligence on the subject has been a journey that started well before the referendum and has continued since.My view that Britain shouldn’t be in the EU has not changed. The more I’ve read, thought, written and engaged on the subject, the clearer the issues have become.