What is significant is that this is not just one nation trying to duke it out with an economic giant. It is most of the developed world and a fair chunk of the developing world, including the Euroean Union, Japan, Canada, Brazil, Mexico, South Korea and India. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/27/business/worldbusiness/27trade.html?th
I am curious to see if the international community will stick together, or if the USA will be able to divide its opposition.
I think the solution is obviously clear. We must invade Canada, Europe, Japan, Canada, Brazil, Mexico, South Korea and India. It’s in our best interests.
Okay, don’t make me bring up the torching of the White House. You know, there should be a Law about that - whenever Canadians and United Statesians argue, us Canadians always bring up the “We kicked your ass and burned your White House way back when” argument.
As a free-trade supporter (as almost all Republicans are, in THEORY, at least), I find incidents like this embarrassing… though not really surprising.
Almost all countries, including those that profess to believe in free trade, find all sorts of reasons to make exceptions for certain domestic industries. Practically every country has industries that make their voices heard at election time, and such industries tend to get subsidies and protection they don’t really deserve. In this case, it’s the American lumber biz.
Few countires sing the praises of free trade as loudly as the U.S., so we look worse when we engage in the usual hypocrisy, though.
On a one-on-one basis, trade sanctions against the USA are no more than a mouse trying to fuck an elephant. If most of the major trading partners unify their sanctions, then I expect that there will be a significant impact on the USA. I just don’t know if the major trading partners will be able to stay unified. Worth trying, though. Time to bring the USA in line with its own agreements.
I recognize that free trade between developed nations high end developing nations usually benefits both parties, and that the lesser party usually benefits relatively more than the greater party. I also recognize that nations may decide to protect certain industries or defend against certain industries. I have no problem with this, and have no bone in disputes concerning whether there should be free trade across the board, or whether there should be certain protections.
Where I am concerned, however, is when a nation makes a trade agreement with its eyes open, and then later on ignores the agreement. International trade depends on the good faith of the trading partners and the stability of the agreements. Throwing major agreements to the wind is a bad thing, and simply ignoring some aspects of major agreements while selectively enforcing others is a worse thing.
I dunno. Slap a bigass export tax on energy flowing south, then sit back and wait for the screaming to commence.
It’s true that, although we’re the Americans’ largest export market, we’re so small compared to their domestic market that tariffs are unlikely to be effective. Therefore, if we’re really serious about a trade war we have to hit them in the one sector where they simply can’t decide not to import from us.
No, no, no. It’s clear that it’s in their best interests; we would never invade another country for only our own gain! Clearly, they each need a new democratic government – otherwise, why would they criticize the world’s greatest democracy? Their governments are repressive; they must be stopped.
I’ve never understood how Canadians are so delusional as to take credit for the actions of British regulars (the 4th, the 21st, the 44th and 85th regiments). There wasn’t a Canadian further south than Detroit the entire war, as far as I know. Even most of the heavy lifting done in the defense of Canada was done by British regulars.
Maybe we should be rethinking our trade deals altogether?
I have no problem with low or zero tariffs per se, but I’m uncomfortable with NAFTA, partly because of our economic integration with the US (we should have a free hand when it comes to things like environmental and cultural protection), and partly because I feel that all-across-the-board free trade policies have more to do with ideology than two nations working out their interests mutually.
What we should have done is sat down and decided which items could be moved across the border tariff-free. Trade tribunals should not have the right to decide which products should or should not be banned, which services should be open to private competition, and whether a country can specify a minimum amount of local cultural content in magazines, etc.
I guess this is a bit of a highjack, but I think it is relevant because Canada, frankly, is making a massive sacrifice for free-trade agreement with the US in terms of political and cultural sovreignty, and our right to protect our environment.
If the US doesn’t feel bound by these agreements, clearly they don’t put much stock in them. So why should we feel bound ourselves?
I thought Canada was already being overrun by liberals leaving the USA. At least, all the posts and websites about seceding from the USA and joining Canada leave that impression.
But then again, the liberal all promised to leave after Bush won the first time and the lying bastards are still here, so…
Such a change would mean that Canadian natural gas suppliers will no longer be required by law to set their cost-to-consumer at the same absurd rate that relatively NG-poor nations like the U.S. charge, and we can go back to those wonderful days before my heating bills suddenly doubled when that NAFTA clause kicked in a few years ago, and I found that I simply couldn’t afford to leave my furnace on in the winter, and eat, too.
I can see it now:
Hey, Terasen! Great news! You don’t have to keep charging me back-breaking rates for an essential utility… uh… if you don’t want to.
