Toro

That's interesting. When did Chretien first meet with Mr. Bush? Did he at all? If Axworthy is saying that the traditional continental model is under fire, then Chretien's attitude of benign indiffence - at best - certainly did not help Canada. That's one thing Martin has done right, getting the two countries on better terms with one another. Also, Mr. Axworthy, the world changed on 9/11. The Bush administration has probably pushed things too far, but its not surprising the country has become more isolationist in protecting its interests after the bombing of the WTC.

Chavez is a nutbar. If Bush had called his detractors "mad dogs with rabies", the Lefties would be salivating like crazy. But he has a great idea. I'm all for it. Bring the cheap oil into America and help the poor. Set it up Hugo. We support you 100% on that one.

Not necessarily. If Canadian consumption is rising faster than American consumption, then the proportion going towards American exports falls. Also, increased production can also mean exports to other countries increases, which has nothing to do with exports to the US. The agreement, of course, has nothing to do with production. It has everything to do with proportion of exports and reserves. That's not production. What the agreement says is that if Canada imposes an export restriction Canada must maintain the proportion of exports to reserves over the past 3 years. So we are not forced to increase exports to the US at any time, for any reason. There is nothing that says America can keep can keep a higher proportion of Canada's energy supply. Nothing at all. That's a myth. What we cannot do is one day arbitrarily cut off supply. That's not unreasonable. And the only reason why Canada would do that is because its resources are depleting and there is an energy crisis. And, if that were the case, then the volume of exports to the US that would need to be maintained, if the government imposed an export restriction, would fall anyways. As long as there are 180 billion barrels of oil reserves in Canada, that is not going to happen in our lifetime.

This is exactly what you wrote We are not "forced" to greatly increase our oil experts. That is flat out wrong. There is absolutely no where in the agreement that says what you are arguing. You said that Canadians don't understand what's in the agreement, then when I post the actual agreement, you say its legal jargon. Show me where in the agreement it says that Canada cannot reciprocate. Here's the agreement. http://www-tech.mit.edu/Bulletins/nafta.html Where does it say that the US companies can sue the Canadian government to overturn laws but Canada can't do likewise? Where does it say that the US can amend its trade laws that would violate the NAFTA agreement? Where does it say that the dispute mechanism can only decide on whether the US has applied its own law correctly. Here's the link to Chapter 20 http://www-tech.mit.edu/Bulletins/Nafta/20.dispute

August is anti-American?

Trudeau alienated the west, destroying the Liberal Party in that region of the country, and, from what I understand, his vision of Canada and Quebec's place in the country have been rejected by Quebecors.

I'll expand it it up further and explain it then. So, in other words, if tomorrow, we wake up to find that Canada's reserves are halved, and Canada decides to put on export restrictions, then Canada can restrict half of what it was exporting to the US. Eureka was saying that Canada is forced to greatly increase the exports of oil. That's false. There is nothing anywhere in NAFTA that says Canada must continue to export an absolute amount of energy to the US, let alone increase the volume. Here's the entire chapter (excluding the addendum pertaining to Mexico). Show me where it says what eureka is arguing http://www-tech.mit.edu/Bulletins/Nafta/06.energy

I hear this a lot from the Left. Its sheer fiction. I think you should read the provision in NAFTA about energy. There is nothing in there about "forcing" exports to the US. Here's what it says http://www-tech.mit.edu/Bulletins/Nafta/06.energy Its pretty obvious, as you say.

No. "Ugh" means a failure to find any connection to the loss of jobs, NAFTA and fighting a trade war to get them back.

Recommended to help you turn off your brain and soothe you with platitudes... Yes August. Throw in "It's the Crude, Dude" to that list as well.

Interesting tidbit I read this evening. From Grant's Interest Rate Observer, Vo. 23, No. 14, pp 8-9, in an article about the level of bond yields "[Van R. Hoisington] conducted a survey of secular forces going back to 1871, and concludes that periods of free trade and open economies are times of low inflation and low nominal yields. "The 'open', or global market lasted from 1871 through 1945, and then became 'closed' or restricted from 1946 through 1989...This closed period was a result of nearly half the world's population residing [in China] and [The Soviet Union]. The [fall of communism] reversed the 'closed' period to another 'open' period in the world economy,... "From a comparison of both periods, Hoisington observes that...Real growth was greater from 1871 through 1945."

One of the reasons for the invasion of Iraq was to put pressure on the Saudis. After 9/11, America asked the Saudis to crack down on al-Qaeda, but Saudi efforts were feeble at best. Saudi Arabia didn't believe that America would do anything if they didn't. The invasion was a show of force to the Saudis and others in the region - Iran, Syria - that America meant business, and that if they didn't take care of al-Qaeda in their countries, America would. (That was one of the reasons for all the sabre-rattling against Syria a year or so ago.) Not only because America was demonstrating they had the will, but by occupying Iraq, they would be more strategically able to do so. There were other reasons for the invasion, but that was a significant one. Tokyo is also correct when he says that America has had a great deal of success hitting at terrorist targets in the middle east. Whether thats a good long-term strategy remains to be seen, and certainly the bombings in London and Madrid are showing that al-Qaeda remains resilient elsewhere.

That's hilarious.

You're overreacting mirror. Remember, Jerry Falwell said that America deserved 9/11 because of its immorality. But I'd just like to thank Pat for giving credence to the anti-American left. Well done Pat. Quite the Christian thing to say, too.

But you're saying its because of globalization. I'm saying its not. Then you might want to read up on your economic history. I studied under one of Canada's better known economic historians who first brought this fact to my attention. That is factually incorrect. Real aggregate wealth fell during the Depression. Stocks plummetted by up to 90% around the globe and real estate dropped by around 25%. Plus, unemployment in some areas was running 20-25%. In those statistics I quoted earlier, real consumption fell by 1.2% per year for five years, or around 7% in total, and thus in aggregate, the real spending - after deflation - fell. People were worse off by virtually any measure. You also miss the point about pent-up demand. You had declining demand for much of the 1930s, then you had war, which required sacrifice. Items such as gasoline, sugar and rubber for example, were all rationed. Then as war spending fell off, the economy contracted a bit in 1946 and 1947. So from 1929-1947, you had the population making sacrifices. Then, demand began to take off. And part of that was also because of the baby boom. With the Depression a distant memory and the sacrifices of war over, people got on with their lives and began making babies. Consumption had been surpressed for a generation and took off.

So, globalization has been a failure compared to other time periods, eh? I ran the numbers from the US Bureau of Economic Analysis http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/dn/nipaweb/TableView.asp#Mid US growth rates, annualized 1930-39 0.9% 1940-49 5.6% 1950-59 4.1% 1960-69 4.4% 1970-79 3.2% 1980-89 3.0% 1990-99 3.1% 2000-04 2.6% Looking at different time periods though, we see a little different picture 1935-44 9.9% 1945-54 1.3% 1955-64 3.8% 1965-74 3.7% 1975-84 3.0% 1985-94 3.0% 1995-04 3.2% Not much of a difference between the so-called pre- and post-globalization eras, at least not for the United States. I have argued that one of the reasons why growth was higher earlier in the century is because of increased consumption due to pent-up demand after the Depression and World War II. Here's what consumption looked like since the Depression 1929-35 -1.2% 1935-44 3.9% 1945-54 4.3% 1955-64 3.9% 1965-74 4.1% 1975-84 3.2% 1985-94 3.2% 1995-04 3.7% Or, looking at through the prism of 1980 as being a demarcation 1930-39 1.0% 1940-49 4.0% 1950-59 3.7% 1960-69 4.4% 1970-79 3.5% 1980-89 3.3% 1990-99 3.3% 2000-04 3.3% Pent-up demand after the Depression and WWII lasted well into the 1970s. Such long-waves of demand are not uncommon if you study economic history. Its also hard to argue that globalization is a negative factor for consumption when globalization increases choice and lowers costs. Consumption BTW, has averaged between 60-70% of GDP and is by far the most important factor in the economy. As any macro econ 101 student learns, GDP = C + I + G + NX So let's look at investment and government spending Investment 1930-39 -1.6% 1940-49 7.6% 1950-59 5.2% 1960-69 5.5% 1970-79 4.7% 1980-89 2.5% 1990-99 5.9% 2000-04 2.0% or 1935-74 6.0% 1975-04 4.2% Investment slowed. But how can that be when investors are supposed to be the big benefactors of globalization? Government spending 1930-39 5.0% (War, New Deal) 1940-49 7.5% (War) 1950-59 5.8% (GOP President) 1960-69 3.8% (Democrat) 1970-79 0.5% (Nixon/Carter, decleration from Vietnam war spending) 1980-89 3.1% (Reagan/Bush) 1990-99 1.3% (Slick Willie, Dem) 2000-04 3.0% (W, GOP) So much for the GOP being the stewards of the purse strings. Spending has accelerated faster under Republican administrations since WWII than Democrat. Or 1946-74 3.4% 1975-04 2.3% So the conclusion that we draw from the US economy anyways is that its hard to say that "globalization" has lead to a slowdown in the economy. It has more to do with consumption slowdown after the long-wave of pent-up demand from the Depression and the war faded, and, less important, slower government spending.

Since 1980 is used as a reference point 1980-2003 Australia 0.8% Canada 2.0% France 0.8% Germany 2.2% Italy -1.2% Japan 5.4% Spain -0.3% Sweden -0.8% UK 0.9% USA 3.1% Notice that the EU countries have generally done worse than the Anglo-American ones, the latter being more willing to embrace a more free enterprise model. The exceptions in Europe are Germany, but they saw slow growth since 1990 and negative growth since 1995, and the UK, which saw slow growth overall but accelerating growth since 1995. Japan saw phenomenal growth, but it is now a sclerotic economy and has seen negative growth since 1995.

Well done Tokyo, especially your synopsis of facism. The Left confuses facism with free enterprise, yet they are totally different. I posted a thread here which gives annualized real growth rates in US dollars from 1970-2003. http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/index.p...t=0entry65617 It may be a more appropriate thread to debate economic growth than one about a smoking gun in Iraq.

There is the difference between short-term and long-term thinking on the issue. In the short-term a higher canadian dollar has a mixed impact on Canada. In the long-term it is overwhelmingly in the best interest of the country. Exporters are forced to be more competitive to sell abroad. Those who can't fail. Those who can compete gain larger market share back home and increased efficiencies that help ensure their long-term sustainability. Plus the strengthening dollar helps with debt repayment. Simply put a stronger Canadian dollar means our goods and services are more valuable. Tough to argue with that. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Agreed. It also improves the terms of trade globally for Canadians, which means Canadians are becoming relatively wealthier in the world. That's good for consumers. A long-term upward trend in the currency underpinned by fundamentals is a sign of strength, not weakness. A sign of economic weakness is when a currency continues to depreciate.

CiteUgh. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Double ugh!!

Why would we listen to Bruce Cockburn? What's his area of expertise? Folk singer? This is an odd statement. What do mean? Labour is not cheap because "of force of arms." Labor is cheap because productivity is lower. Its simple economics. Name a single third world country on the planet that has wages as high as the western world? You can't. That's why they're third world. Companies such as Wal-Mart are improving labour conditions in those countries. For example, real wages have risen 440% in China from 1980 to 2000 (according to Martin Wolf of the Financial Times, using World Bank Data). Another way to look at it is to see the results of this World Bank study on the effects of trade, demonstrating that increased trade has increased the wealth for the poor in China. There are other studies like this looking at other poor countries. Globalization benefits the third world as it provides jobs and incomes, often to the poorest of the poor. I think you're confusing "oligopoly" and "farmer's market" in general.

Crtitics come from both sides of the spectrum. The Left says the Libs should increase spending. The Right says they should cut taxes.

Cadman passed on from cancer didn't he? And aren't there a few other MPs with cancer as well?

That's great. Maybe she'll vote down the government, and then she'll be defeated. But that's okay. I'm sure the Toronto Star will find a place for her. Mirror - What were the latest poll results?

Yet they still offer options on cars. Why? Perhaps your preference was the Ladas built by the USSR for its citizens with no options. Your right it was cheap. You profess the common good while happily trampling individual freedoms in the process. Yes I could go to the US but I would rather advocate change here. BTW, I am not advocating for a mirrror image of the US but at least they do respect the individual's right to choose. Yes I am advocating for more choice for people who can afford that choice. I hardly see it is at the expense of anyone else's choice. Besides, what choice is it if you die waiting in line because you don't have another option?