A
afransen TO
Guest
Re: Manley is an idiot
And cacruden... why does your USA include Canada but not Mexico?
And cacruden... why does your USA include Canada but not Mexico?
|
|
|
C
cacruden
Guest
Re: Manley is an idiot
Just looking for an avatar that would be "red meat" to all the "anti-american dogs"... and it was the first one I saw.
I support the creation of a NAFTA based common market (including Mexico) with free movement of both products and labour. I also support getting in on the ground level .... by negotiating similar trade arrangements with countries that will eventually make up ASEAN common market (Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, etc.).
Just looking for an avatar that would be "red meat" to all the "anti-american dogs"... and it was the first one I saw.
I support the creation of a NAFTA based common market (including Mexico) with free movement of both products and labour. I also support getting in on the ground level .... by negotiating similar trade arrangements with countries that will eventually make up ASEAN common market (Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, etc.).
A
afransen TO
Guest
Re: Manley is an idiot
I agree with you on the second count. On the first, I'm less sure. What are the advantages of giving the USA the right to determine our immigration and customs policy? Free flow of labour? What you're proposing is essentially joint citizenship, and that will NOT happen for a very, very long time, if ever, if Mexico is involved. The USA spends billions annually keeping Mexican labour out.
Canada's trade with the US market is more or less maxed out... there isn't a lot of room for growth stemming from further relaxing trade barriers (NAFTA didn't make a whole lot of difference in terms of tariffs, either). I am far more interested in having Canada diversify trade with the rest of the world. Depending on one country for 40% of your GDP is a recipe for disaster, especially if that country is marching towards a debt/currency crisis.
I agree with you on the second count. On the first, I'm less sure. What are the advantages of giving the USA the right to determine our immigration and customs policy? Free flow of labour? What you're proposing is essentially joint citizenship, and that will NOT happen for a very, very long time, if ever, if Mexico is involved. The USA spends billions annually keeping Mexican labour out.
Canada's trade with the US market is more or less maxed out... there isn't a lot of room for growth stemming from further relaxing trade barriers (NAFTA didn't make a whole lot of difference in terms of tariffs, either). I am far more interested in having Canada diversify trade with the rest of the world. Depending on one country for 40% of your GDP is a recipe for disaster, especially if that country is marching towards a debt/currency crisis.
C
cdl42
Guest
Re: Manley is an idiot
Wot aboot?
Wot aboot?
C
cacruden
Guest
Re: Manley is an idiot
>I agree with you on the second count. On the first, I'm less sure. What are the advantages of giving the USA the right to determine our immigration and customs policy? Free flow of labour? What you're proposing is essentially joint citizenship, and that will NOT happen for a very, very long time, if ever, if Mexico is involved. The USA spends billions annually keeping Mexican labour out.
What I am proposing is the same thing that there is in Europe (but without the massive undemocratic beauracracy that they have created). Free flow of labour is just part of a common market. Each country would still have there own immigration, but there would be a security based veto on immigration into the common zone by any of the three countries. Personally, if the US perceives that a person is a terrorist threat to them.... I don't want them in Canada either. Until an immigrant is a citizen he will only have access to a single country for work.
Even with the US spending a tonne to keep Mexican labour out, somewhere around 7% - 10% of the Mexican population is already in the United States.
>Canada's trade with the US market is more or less maxed out... there isn't a lot of room for growth stemming from further relaxing trade barriers (NAFTA didn't make a whole lot of difference in terms of tariffs, either). I am far more interested in having Canada diversify trade with the rest of the world. Depending on one country for 40% of your GDP is a recipe for disaster, especially if that country is marching towards a debt/currency crisis.
Canada's trade with the United States is not maxed out..... Although we have "free-trade" there is still a massive amount of red-tape because each thing we build (or the US) is made up with parts from other countries -- and each of these bits come into play with rules of origin on tarrifs originating from outside of the country. Our tarifs are fairly close already (most are zero or near zero) -- if we can move towards a common external tarif (zero in most cases would be good) then that would make it easier on cross-border trade.
As far as the US and disaster.... hate to tell you this, but if the US sneezes (even if we build walls) -- we will still catch a cold. Even with the US running a deficit of half a billion dollars.... it will still take them years to catch up to us. Current debt-to-gdp ratio (all levels of government) are close to 80% in Canada and just over 60% in the United States.
---------
Why Mexico matters....
The first "gut" reaction when the US was attacked was to increase border security with Mexico (and Canada), shut down talks with Mexico about a more "Open border" (trade/labour), and build more fences. While this may make the US feel safer it actually is not really making things better. Open borders, trade etc. in the end will lead to a stronger more open Mexican economy, and will lead to a more secure border. Although it sounds counter-intuitive.... it is not.
Defending a border against "traditional" armies is fairly easy because they come in large numbers, and are very identifyable. Defending the same large border area against a small but determined number of "terrorists" is much more difficult. By reducing the number of people being drawn to cross illegally, the US security forces can focus their efforts more on those that are the real threats. You can hide 50 terrorists among 1,000,000 illegal crossings, then 50 in 3,000 illegal crossings.
The safest solution is to turn Mexico into a "buffer" against the terrorists, by helping raise the economy to be closer to American standards -- using a carrot and a stick approach (i.e. prove to us that you are secure, and the border becomes more open to trade and labour -- with measurements that Mexico can meet -- and once Mexico meets those standards there are rewards -- a graduated scale). Basically encouraging Mexico to work on a secure perimeter to North America (the border between Mexico and Central America is considerably more defendable than that between Mexico and the United States).
That is why the current Bush plan fails, it increases the reward to crossing the border illegally, while "punishing" those that did not ... (i.e. no labor agreement with those left behind). This has increased the number of people crossing the border illegally.
If the border was "defendable", the war on "drugs" would have been successful by now.... instead there is just as much contraband making it into the US now as there was before (probably even more).
>I agree with you on the second count. On the first, I'm less sure. What are the advantages of giving the USA the right to determine our immigration and customs policy? Free flow of labour? What you're proposing is essentially joint citizenship, and that will NOT happen for a very, very long time, if ever, if Mexico is involved. The USA spends billions annually keeping Mexican labour out.
What I am proposing is the same thing that there is in Europe (but without the massive undemocratic beauracracy that they have created). Free flow of labour is just part of a common market. Each country would still have there own immigration, but there would be a security based veto on immigration into the common zone by any of the three countries. Personally, if the US perceives that a person is a terrorist threat to them.... I don't want them in Canada either. Until an immigrant is a citizen he will only have access to a single country for work.
Even with the US spending a tonne to keep Mexican labour out, somewhere around 7% - 10% of the Mexican population is already in the United States.
>Canada's trade with the US market is more or less maxed out... there isn't a lot of room for growth stemming from further relaxing trade barriers (NAFTA didn't make a whole lot of difference in terms of tariffs, either). I am far more interested in having Canada diversify trade with the rest of the world. Depending on one country for 40% of your GDP is a recipe for disaster, especially if that country is marching towards a debt/currency crisis.
Canada's trade with the United States is not maxed out..... Although we have "free-trade" there is still a massive amount of red-tape because each thing we build (or the US) is made up with parts from other countries -- and each of these bits come into play with rules of origin on tarrifs originating from outside of the country. Our tarifs are fairly close already (most are zero or near zero) -- if we can move towards a common external tarif (zero in most cases would be good) then that would make it easier on cross-border trade.
As far as the US and disaster.... hate to tell you this, but if the US sneezes (even if we build walls) -- we will still catch a cold. Even with the US running a deficit of half a billion dollars.... it will still take them years to catch up to us. Current debt-to-gdp ratio (all levels of government) are close to 80% in Canada and just over 60% in the United States.
---------
Why Mexico matters....
The first "gut" reaction when the US was attacked was to increase border security with Mexico (and Canada), shut down talks with Mexico about a more "Open border" (trade/labour), and build more fences. While this may make the US feel safer it actually is not really making things better. Open borders, trade etc. in the end will lead to a stronger more open Mexican economy, and will lead to a more secure border. Although it sounds counter-intuitive.... it is not.
Defending a border against "traditional" armies is fairly easy because they come in large numbers, and are very identifyable. Defending the same large border area against a small but determined number of "terrorists" is much more difficult. By reducing the number of people being drawn to cross illegally, the US security forces can focus their efforts more on those that are the real threats. You can hide 50 terrorists among 1,000,000 illegal crossings, then 50 in 3,000 illegal crossings.
The safest solution is to turn Mexico into a "buffer" against the terrorists, by helping raise the economy to be closer to American standards -- using a carrot and a stick approach (i.e. prove to us that you are secure, and the border becomes more open to trade and labour -- with measurements that Mexico can meet -- and once Mexico meets those standards there are rewards -- a graduated scale). Basically encouraging Mexico to work on a secure perimeter to North America (the border between Mexico and Central America is considerably more defendable than that between Mexico and the United States).
That is why the current Bush plan fails, it increases the reward to crossing the border illegally, while "punishing" those that did not ... (i.e. no labor agreement with those left behind). This has increased the number of people crossing the border illegally.
If the border was "defendable", the war on "drugs" would have been successful by now.... instead there is just as much contraband making it into the US now as there was before (probably even more).
B
Brighter Hell
Guest
Re: Manley is an idiot
nobody here is anti-american. nobody here wants to build walls. how is maintaining our right to make our own decisions "building walls?"
That's just it - it wouldn't be anything like europe. europe isn't dominated by one massive country. north america is. europe has 5 or so major powers and lots of small ones, keeping things balanced. no one country always gets their way. if we tried the same arrangement in north america, the united states would be making the decisions 9 times out of 10. we don't need washington making domestic canadian decisions. the economic gains, if any, are puny compared to what we lose by selling our soul as a nation.
nobody here is anti-american. nobody here wants to build walls. how is maintaining our right to make our own decisions "building walls?"
G
ganjavih
Guest
Re: Manley is an idiot
The European Union model doesn't apply here. If North America consisted of 10 countries of similar size and clout, I would be for a common labour market, currency, etc. But that's just not the case.
The European Union model doesn't apply here. If North America consisted of 10 countries of similar size and clout, I would be for a common labour market, currency, etc. But that's just not the case.
A
afransen TO
Guest
Re: Manley is an idiot
"hate to tell you this, but if the US sneezes (even if we build walls) -- we will still catch a cold. Even with the US running a deficit of half a billion dollars.... it will still take them years to catch up to us. Current debt-to-gdp ratio (all levels of government) are close to 80% in Canada and just over 60% in the United States."
What about this past recession? It hit the USA much harder than Canada.
Also, it's worth considering the USA's total external debt. They have a very high ratio compared to Canada. They also have a current accounts deficit of over half a TRillion (not billion) dollars. Not even the USA can sustainably borrow that much over the long term.
On top of that, if/when OPEC switches to selling in euros rather than USD (and they stand to gain billions by doing so), the USD will implode.
I'm sorry, but you're being delusional if you think that any common market with the USA won't be jigged so that the USA is the winner in every instance. NAFTA hasn't protected our exports a great deal, while allowing American corporations sweeping powers in Canada through profit protection.
Do you think Canada would be allowed to retain control of energy policy, or fresh water supplies? Canada would be emptied like a shell and then tossed by the wayside.
"hate to tell you this, but if the US sneezes (even if we build walls) -- we will still catch a cold. Even with the US running a deficit of half a billion dollars.... it will still take them years to catch up to us. Current debt-to-gdp ratio (all levels of government) are close to 80% in Canada and just over 60% in the United States."
What about this past recession? It hit the USA much harder than Canada.
Also, it's worth considering the USA's total external debt. They have a very high ratio compared to Canada. They also have a current accounts deficit of over half a TRillion (not billion) dollars. Not even the USA can sustainably borrow that much over the long term.
On top of that, if/when OPEC switches to selling in euros rather than USD (and they stand to gain billions by doing so), the USD will implode.
I'm sorry, but you're being delusional if you think that any common market with the USA won't be jigged so that the USA is the winner in every instance. NAFTA hasn't protected our exports a great deal, while allowing American corporations sweeping powers in Canada through profit protection.
Do you think Canada would be allowed to retain control of energy policy, or fresh water supplies? Canada would be emptied like a shell and then tossed by the wayside.
C
cacruden
Guest
Re: Manley is an idiot
>>"hate to tell you this, but if the US sneezes (even if we build walls) -- we
>>will still catch a cold. Even with the US running a deficit of half a billion
>>dollars.... it will still take them years to catch up to us. Current
>>debt-to-gdp ratio (all levels of government) are close to 80% in Canada and
>>just over 60% in the United States."
>What about this past recession? It hit the USA much harder than Canada.
Lets see.... why was the "recession" harder on the USA... simple it was the after affects of a bubble economy ".com". There was simply a lesser amount of this economy to be affected. Funny how we think that the US has been through a prolonged and worse recession..... and the unemployment rate in the US now is 5.7%. When was the last time we were at that level? Our per capita income average was lower than Mississippi (when the dollar was at 63%). Our dollar has recovered a little but the average per/capita income is still on the low end of the states in the United States.
>Also, it's worth considering the USA's total external debt. They have a very
>high ratio compared to Canada. They also have a current accounts deficit of
>over half a TRillion (not billion) dollars. Not even the USA can sustainably
>borrow that much over the long term.
Dam, I wish I were able to buy that much.
>On top of that, if/when OPEC switches to selling in euros rather than USD (and >they stand to gain billions by doing so), the USD will implode.
OPEC does that and there might be a big investment in other energy resources.... It would hurt, but with all the United States resources put behind it the end result would be the death of OPEC.
>I'm sorry, but you're being delusional if you think that any common market
>with the USA won't be jigged so that the USA is the winner in every instance.
>NAFTA hasn't protected our exports a great deal, while allowing American
>corporations sweeping powers in Canada through profit protection.
>Do you think Canada would be allowed to retain control of energy policy, or
>fresh water supplies? Canada would be emptied like a shell and then tossed by
>the wayside.
So what you are saying is that we should not get into bed with the United States without being part of the United States
Canada's population is not sufficient to have an internally self-sustaining economy. You would probably need around 60 million more equally distributed.
>>"hate to tell you this, but if the US sneezes (even if we build walls) -- we
>>will still catch a cold. Even with the US running a deficit of half a billion
>>dollars.... it will still take them years to catch up to us. Current
>>debt-to-gdp ratio (all levels of government) are close to 80% in Canada and
>>just over 60% in the United States."
>What about this past recession? It hit the USA much harder than Canada.
Lets see.... why was the "recession" harder on the USA... simple it was the after affects of a bubble economy ".com". There was simply a lesser amount of this economy to be affected. Funny how we think that the US has been through a prolonged and worse recession..... and the unemployment rate in the US now is 5.7%. When was the last time we were at that level? Our per capita income average was lower than Mississippi (when the dollar was at 63%). Our dollar has recovered a little but the average per/capita income is still on the low end of the states in the United States.
>Also, it's worth considering the USA's total external debt. They have a very
>high ratio compared to Canada. They also have a current accounts deficit of
>over half a TRillion (not billion) dollars. Not even the USA can sustainably
>borrow that much over the long term.
Dam, I wish I were able to buy that much.
>On top of that, if/when OPEC switches to selling in euros rather than USD (and >they stand to gain billions by doing so), the USD will implode.
OPEC does that and there might be a big investment in other energy resources.... It would hurt, but with all the United States resources put behind it the end result would be the death of OPEC.
>I'm sorry, but you're being delusional if you think that any common market
>with the USA won't be jigged so that the USA is the winner in every instance.
>NAFTA hasn't protected our exports a great deal, while allowing American
>corporations sweeping powers in Canada through profit protection.
>Do you think Canada would be allowed to retain control of energy policy, or
>fresh water supplies? Canada would be emptied like a shell and then tossed by
>the wayside.
So what you are saying is that we should not get into bed with the United States without being part of the United States
Canada's population is not sufficient to have an internally self-sustaining economy. You would probably need around 60 million more equally distributed.
G
ganjavih
Guest
Re: Manley is an idiot
"Canada's population is not sufficient to have an internally self-sustaining economy."
???
What's an "internally self-sustaining economy"?
"Canada's population is not sufficient to have an internally self-sustaining economy."
???
What's an "internally self-sustaining economy"?
A
afransen TO
Guest
Re: Manley is an idiot
Sorry cac, all your arguments are just the same old same old. It is not in our interests to sell our souls for an extra few billion in trade with the USA. There isn't much growth potential in the US import market simply because they can't continue to borrow such obscene amounts of money.
We should be focusing on increasing our trade with the rest of the world, where there is a great deal of potential for growth in trade.
Canada isn't a "sustainable nation"? Now THAT is utter BS. That's pure national post/neocon Albertan nonsense.
Sorry cac, all your arguments are just the same old same old. It is not in our interests to sell our souls for an extra few billion in trade with the USA. There isn't much growth potential in the US import market simply because they can't continue to borrow such obscene amounts of money.
We should be focusing on increasing our trade with the rest of the world, where there is a great deal of potential for growth in trade.
Canada isn't a "sustainable nation"? Now THAT is utter BS. That's pure national post/neocon Albertan nonsense.
M
matt77gr1
Guest
Re: Manley is an idiot
A pure free market approach to north america will benefit mexico in the long run. it will level the living quality to that of it's northen neighbour.
I am not sure about becoming united with the states. If canada was the same as the states, many people would move south for higher incomes and better weather. This is more obvious in those highly qualified people who decide to move south b/c it's very easy for them comparing to say, you.
A pure free market approach to north america will benefit mexico in the long run. it will level the living quality to that of it's northen neighbour.
I am not sure about becoming united with the states. If canada was the same as the states, many people would move south for higher incomes and better weather. This is more obvious in those highly qualified people who decide to move south b/c it's very easy for them comparing to say, you.
A
afransen TO
Guest
Re: Manley is an idiot
No real political or economic union can ever really work in North America while the USA would comprise its majority. How could it?
No real political or economic union can ever really work in North America while the USA would comprise its majority. How could it?
U
unimaginative2
Guest
The Americans have shown that any trade agreement with them isn't worth the paper it's printed on, so really what is the point of selling out all of our values to get yet another one? Do you really think another treaty is going to prevent the Americans from shutting down the border any time they please?
Should we really be shackling ourselves to a country with a spectacularly high trade and budget deficit? One that is hated, rationally or not, throughout the world? One that forces state religion, the war on drugs, homophobia and other values completely contrary to those of the majority of Canadians? One that has a few hundred billionaires and untold millions with no health insurance at all and dismal living conditions? One with a wildly over-valued currency that is dropping like a stone? One with military adventures all over the world that is killing large numbers of its citizens? I have friends in the United States that are my age that have had to register for the Selective Service. Yes, that's right. The draft. Let me tell you I do NOT want to be forced into the army so that I can invade tiny countries because God told George W. Bush to do it. It is absolutely insane, in my view, to want to tie Canada even more than it is already to a country with such dangerous macroeconomic indicators.
Canada's population is too small to sustain its economy? What about the vast majority of other countries in the world that are far smaller than Canada, eh? Taiwan? Switzerland (highest per capita income in the world!)? the Netherlands? Australia? I guess they should all march off to Washington and beg for some scraps.
Should we really be shackling ourselves to a country with a spectacularly high trade and budget deficit? One that is hated, rationally or not, throughout the world? One that forces state religion, the war on drugs, homophobia and other values completely contrary to those of the majority of Canadians? One that has a few hundred billionaires and untold millions with no health insurance at all and dismal living conditions? One with a wildly over-valued currency that is dropping like a stone? One with military adventures all over the world that is killing large numbers of its citizens? I have friends in the United States that are my age that have had to register for the Selective Service. Yes, that's right. The draft. Let me tell you I do NOT want to be forced into the army so that I can invade tiny countries because God told George W. Bush to do it. It is absolutely insane, in my view, to want to tie Canada even more than it is already to a country with such dangerous macroeconomic indicators.
Canada's population is too small to sustain its economy? What about the vast majority of other countries in the world that are far smaller than Canada, eh? Taiwan? Switzerland (highest per capita income in the world!)? the Netherlands? Australia? I guess they should all march off to Washington and beg for some scraps.
C
cacruden
Guest
By "internally self-sufficent" economy... I mean that there is enough people in a given land mass to develop an economy that is not reliant on natural resources and also is not reliant on running a positive balance of trade (surplus). If your Canada extends only to Quebec and Ontario.... then yes -- we don't need anymore people. By the way, I also believe in a high-immigration rate (preferably from our secondarily important asian market).
As far as the arguements being old, I am afraid that all the arguements are old....
As far as being neo-conservative.... ok, interesting definition..... I see myself as being a libertarian conservative...
>The Americans have shown that any trade agreement with them isn't worth the paper it's printed on, so really what is the point of selling out all of our values to get yet another one? Do you really think another treaty is going to prevent the Americans from shutting down the border any time they please?
Be specific... many areas were "left out" of NAFTA because they were too controversial. If you are talking about softwood lumber. I am afraid you are wrong there.... both Canada and the United States are wrong. Most of the issues surrounding it relate to the fact that lumber in the west comes from government land.... which sets a non-market price and sells it only to Canadian lumber mills -- then turns around and pays for "reforestation" projects. THAT IS A SUBSIDY. One the lumber should be sold at market rate; Two the lumber companies should be required to reforest the land or Not be able to bid on future logging rights. It is funny that the same crowd to the left.... gets upset about logging; then gets upset that the logs that they don't want logged -- is not free of duty when sold into the United States.
The only thing that the americans did in error was base the duties on other than technical factors (political)... which makes them higher than they should. NOTE -- since the lumber in the maritines comes from private lots they are not charged the same duty.
>I am not sure about becoming united with the states. If canada was the same as the states, many people would move south for higher incomes and better weather. This is more obvious in those highly qualified people who decide to move south b/c it's very easy for them comparing to say, you.
So what you are saying is... if there was an open border canada would be depopulated as everyone moved south.... Sorry, don't believe that for a second... why does not everyone from the northern states move south? What are you going to do if the United States unilaterally made it easier for Canadians to immigrate? Build a wall to keep people in?
As far as the arguements being old, I am afraid that all the arguements are old....
As far as being neo-conservative.... ok, interesting definition..... I see myself as being a libertarian conservative...
>The Americans have shown that any trade agreement with them isn't worth the paper it's printed on, so really what is the point of selling out all of our values to get yet another one? Do you really think another treaty is going to prevent the Americans from shutting down the border any time they please?
Be specific... many areas were "left out" of NAFTA because they were too controversial. If you are talking about softwood lumber. I am afraid you are wrong there.... both Canada and the United States are wrong. Most of the issues surrounding it relate to the fact that lumber in the west comes from government land.... which sets a non-market price and sells it only to Canadian lumber mills -- then turns around and pays for "reforestation" projects. THAT IS A SUBSIDY. One the lumber should be sold at market rate; Two the lumber companies should be required to reforest the land or Not be able to bid on future logging rights. It is funny that the same crowd to the left.... gets upset about logging; then gets upset that the logs that they don't want logged -- is not free of duty when sold into the United States.
The only thing that the americans did in error was base the duties on other than technical factors (political)... which makes them higher than they should. NOTE -- since the lumber in the maritines comes from private lots they are not charged the same duty.
>I am not sure about becoming united with the states. If canada was the same as the states, many people would move south for higher incomes and better weather. This is more obvious in those highly qualified people who decide to move south b/c it's very easy for them comparing to say, you.
So what you are saying is... if there was an open border canada would be depopulated as everyone moved south.... Sorry, don't believe that for a second... why does not everyone from the northern states move south? What are you going to do if the United States unilaterally made it easier for Canadians to immigrate? Build a wall to keep people in?