I should add that my post above was not meant to be a free trade argument. I’m yet to be convinced that completely free trade based on comparative advantage is the best solution for the world’s economy, and especially for the world’s poor.
But if you constantly spout the rhetoric of free trade and its benefits—like the US government does—then you have an obligation to practice what you preach, most especially with countries like Canada and Mexico who have actually signed free trade agreements with you.
No, no, no, mhendo, you clearly don’t understand – it’s free trade for US to sell to THEM, but we have every right to impose restrictions, sanctions, or anything else we damn well feel like when it comes time for THEM to sell to US.
Where’s the pukey smiley when I need it?
My only dog in this fight was that I think the OP shouldn’t have been surprised by the US’s latest abrogation of an agreement. Upset, yes; outraged, probably; disgusted, sure. Just not surprised.
When it’s not trying to bully people with threats of economic retaliation, the United States is one of the most frequent litigants under international free trade agreements.
You need to visit my hometown; I grew up in a small town in Central BC that relies heavily on the lumber industry. Growing up my friends parents were getting laid off because the mills couldn’t make ends meet. This issue is VERY important to those of a lower class like you mentioned, and they follow it very closely. It is in their better interest to know exactly what is happening, and yes the humble logger is as involved in that chess game as the politicians.
No water in significant quantities that I’m aware of. If you count the Red River, I’d bet that we actually get more fresh water from the US than we send south.
I think that Canada, on the whole, benefits more from NAFTA than the US does, and hence has more to lose in a trade war. (But it’s not a zero sum game - the US comes out ahead with NAFTA too.) However, when the question comes to who can hurt who more with a trade war, I think Canada has the upper hand there as well, because the energy exports are utterly irreplaceable in the short and medium terms. They wanna play hardball, I say let’s play hardball. No pansy-assed import tariffs on California wine like I’ve heard mentioned. Go straight for the jugular.
If this makes US readers feel a tad uneasy, good. Write your elected representatives and tell them you don’t want to play hardball with the Canadians on trade issues, but would rather just stick with the agreed upon rules set out in NAFTA. It’s in everyone’s best interest.
I say you guys should kick our ass. We need a good asskicking these days. The Republicans in power sure don’t give a fuck about what I have to say, and the Democrats are too busy bitching about a goddamn video game to worry about anything important.
Fuck, maybe I should move to Edmonton and harrass Bioware until they give me a job.
I’ve heard from reputable sources that Canada has stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, and that Paul Martin once gassed some moose. In addition, the Canadian people have been suffering for centuries under a despotic monarchy, and thirst for true democracy. Sources also indicate that a Candian once spoke to Osama bin Laden. :dubious:
More accurately (and it’s the same in Canada, and every democracy, I suspect) the Republicans are too busy trying to hold onto power, and the Democrats are too busy trying to get into power to actually do any governing. But that’s not important right now.
I was going to say, mhendo, that that is a good comparison for what happens in Canada with beef and softwood lumber (and fishing industries, too).
And don’t forget some parts speak French so you would have world opinion on your side there (well all of it that counts anyway). And it’s close, so you save money there. And it has loads of oil. Perhaps you should deport some Muslims there as well.
Well shit. Up until now I’d been giving Wilkins the benefit of the doubt that he’d be better than that fucker Cellucci, but I guess not.
As one employed in the Alberta oilfield, I’d like to say I’m more than willing to have my hours cut back for a bit if it means we’re actually going to stick up for ourselves for once.
I’d love to see how fast we get our 5 billion back when the U.S. is missing over 2 billion barrels of Canadian petroleum a day. :mad:
I just have to ask what Cellucci did that was so bad. He used to be my governor, and I don’t recall him arousing any terribly strong emotions then. Since then, he apparently avoided causing armed conflict between the two countries, which would probably be the only way that our ambassador to Canada would ever get media coverage.
We got a lot of oil. We’re (Canada, that is, but I believe it’s mostly Alberta) is the number one supplier of crude oil and oil products to the United States, and the Alberta Tar Sands are one of the largest known reserves of oil at this point.
Paul Cellucci is not well-liked in Canada due to his pronouncements about what Canada was supposed to do to keep the U.S. happy. From Wikipedia:
This is just politics, and all countries play the stupid game. Senators and Congressmen in districts that have sheep farmers, or lumber industries, or other affected industries get leaned on very hard by their constituents. Their careers depend on them saying and doing what these people want. They get into Congress, and start wheeling and dealing and pressuring their fellow politicians, and this is the kind of crap that spews out. Canada’s no different. We’ve been criticized for not meeting our NATO commitments, but we don’t do anything about it. We’ve not been above trying to sneak subsidies and tariffs into the international trade market. The duty schedule is twisted and complex, made so by the horsetrading of the politicians who came up with it.
In this particular case, the U.S. is wrong. It should stop trying to strongarm Canada with threats, lest we take them up on the challenge. Alberta is sitting on hundreds of billions of barrels of oil, and we don’t mind playing hardball if we have to. There are other customers in the world for it.
I wonder if this isn’t the result of our government’s repeated slaps at the U.S., though? Not just our opposition to the war, but general hostility, our politician’s insults, etc. George Bush gets criticised for his diplomacy hurting America’s reputation. Well, our government has been doing a great job pissing off our largest trading partner. This is the kind of stuff that comes back, I suppose.
That would essentially mean putting Albertans out of work to prove a point. Maybe if it was an industry spread out across the country, but in this case we’d really be screwing one particular region.
Natural gas is a more spread out than oil - one of the reasons I mentioned it in particular. Moreover, I’m not sure US demand for NG is elastic enough for them to actually buy any less of it. That’s another of the reasons I mentioned it. NG is a real bear to ship other than via pipeline, and there’s really no way they can meet demand without buying from us. And do you really think they’ll accept rotating blackouts to avoid paying an export tax? Because that’s the direct implication of buying less NG.
I could quite possibly be convinced that we should just play nice and continue negotiations, though Og knows we’ve been doing that for years to no avail. However, if we’re going to take retaliatory measures, it makes no sense to put tariffs on wine or orange juice. If we’re going to do anything, it ought to be something which will actually apply real, significant pressure. Energy is the only thing that fits the bill. We’re not a big enough market to be a crippling loss to any of their export sectors, so it’s got to be something they’re importing, and it has to be something they can’t do without. Do you have any better ideas?
