I found my first thread to be far more succinct and Pitworthy, but for a followup, I had dry details, more recent posts (involving your most favoured president in recent memory), and a preponderance of google results regarding that 5 billion $ and change owed by the U.S. to Canada over softwood tarrifs.
Condoleeza’s speech was based on the theme of “We believe that there is still room for negotiation.”, which if rulings have been in your favour again and again and again, tends not to go down well.
A fuck it, I’ll say what I really feel. Our government may be still ready to deal, but there’s getting to be quite a few of us that think ‘turning out the lights’ for a while isn’t a bad idea.
I think that’s right, and ironically it means that the US won’t make concessions that harm its own industries even for a country as close to it economically and politicaly as Canada is.
The trouble is, with conomic globalisation, some industries can no longer compete, but in the US those industries often have poweful politucal alies in the Congress. So the timber producers in the US can get protection for their industry, not just at the expene of timber producers in Canada and elsewhere, but also at the expense of timber users in the US. However, those timber uers are spread too thin: they are in every state, while the timber producers are concentrated in a few states.
The US needs to learn from te countries that have been competitive in the global economy, and not protect relatively inefficient industries, but get its industries doing what they are best at. That includes getting a better educated and trained workforce, and providing some kind of safety net for those displaced from the industries that can no longer compete.
I don’t know If what Nanoda says is true, the US should just pay what we owe. I mean $5Billion IS change to the US Government. That won’t even pay for the pedestrian walkway on Ted Stevens’Ketchikan Bridge.
