Is Free Trade really that good for Canadians?

[Topaz]

We all know about the Free Trade and how its not doing the job creation job but losing jobs to countries that pay 3-4 hrly. I just heard that Del Monte is closing and the peach farmers have lost 15,000 an acre and lost workers who picked the fruit. One thing is happening today is the province of Ontario has given Essex Plant, near Windsor Ont., money to keep the transmission plant going and 300 families keep their jobs with no thanks to the Harper government who said no but has helped out grain farmers, pig farmers, given Quebec more money then they asked for etc.

[oreodontist]

?????

What is 'the Free Trade'?

And what does the trade act you are speaking about have to do with the peach industry?

[August1991]

We iall know about the Free Trade and how its not doing the job creation job but losing jobs to countries that pay 3-4 hrly.

Over the past 30 years or so, Canada has lost more jobs due to technological innovation than it has to removal of trade barriers.

How many bank tellers, typists and secretaries have lost their jobs to computers? (And need I add that most of the computers are made outside of Canada?)

Topaz, would you prefer to return to a world of 1978 - without personal computers - so that many bank tellers and secretaries could still have their jobs?

The purpose of life is not to create jobs but rather to eliminate them. That's why people buy lottery tickets.

[Blur]

Yes, and it is good for everyone else too.

http://www.insideronline.org/feature.cfm?id=106

Above is basically as good as I could put it.

[eyeball]

It sounds good in theory.

[August1991]

It sounds good in theory.

It's also good in practice. Proof? The fact that we can communicate right now using the Internet.

Technology and trade are identical.

One of the consequences of technology (and trade) is that certain jobs become redundant - but society as a whole is better off. To argue against free trade is tantamount to arguing against new technology. Would you say that Canada was wrong to adopt bar code scanners since they lead to the elimination of many cashier jobs?

Yet, that is what Topaz is doing in the OP. Topaz is pointing at the job losses through trade without noting the benefits.

According to the logic of Topaz, Canada has "lost" millions of jobs since 1900 because of new trade opportunities and new technology. Many farmers, for example, lost their jobs.

Edited April 1, 2008 by August1991

[margrace]

And topaz if you believe the above then I have some ocean front property for sale in Saskatchewan.

[M.Dancer]

And topaz if you believe the above then I have some ocean front property for sale in Saskatchewan.

Whether he believes the above or not, Topaz is still a likely buyer....more oddly though, do you believe you own the property?

[Alta4ever]

Whether he believes the above or not, Topaz is still a likely buyer....more oddly though, do you believe you own the property?

You own it until the government decides that they need it, since property rights aren't in the charter, they can take it at any time.

[Wilber]

The tree fruit industry in Canada has been a tough row to hoe for years, that is why the Okanagan Valley has now become a major producer of wines. Crops come and go, where I live blueberry's are replacing other crops. You have to grow what is in demand. Regarding the auto industry, without the auto pact and free trade, Canada wouldn't have one, our market isn't large enough to support one on its own.

[Wilber]

You own it until the government decides that they need it, since property rights aren't in the charter, they can take it at any time.

As long as they give you fair market value for it.

[Alta4ever]

As long as they give you fair market value for it.

With out property rights they can take it at anytime and give you squat.

[Wilber]

With out property rights they can take it at anytime and give you squat.

Only if they change the law.

[omjensen]

Interesting and sadly true points about property rights. And, Blur, I liked the link to the moral arguments in favour of free trade. But I'm guessing Topaz' original question had to do with economic benefits. And here once again, the answer is an unequivocal yes. The benefits of free trade through the principle of comparative advantage were laid out years ago, 1817 to be exact, in David Ricardo's "On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation." Here's the Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage.

And it just stands to reason -- how can it be bad for Canadians to have more options to choose from when making purchases, or to have larger markets to sell to? What is the downside? Of course, certain, non-competitive industries might be hurt. But we live in a welfare state. How bad does it get for these people before the majority of them find work elsewhere in new, more competitive industries? And why should Canadians, already taxed nearly to the breaking point, be forced to pay additonal taxes in the form of higher prices created by tariffs, quotas and other trade barriers, just to protect some non-competitive industries? It's just a waste of precious resources.

Topaz begins his post with "We all know about the Free Trade and how its not doing the job creation job but losing jobs." I find that an odd way to begin a post when we have the lowest unemployment rate in over 30 years. Sorry Topaz, we know nothing of the sort.

[madmax]

Over the past 30 years or so, Canada has lost more jobs due to technological innovation than it has to removal of trade barriers.

So has China and Mexico lost more jobs to technology, what is your point? Technological innovation also creates jobs.

That is why Bell Canada offers Tech support from India.

Presidents Choice Financial Quotes are done in India for both Home and Auto Insurance.

Etc....

We could replace our entire financial industry offshore because of these great technological leaps.

I find it amusing that the same arguments still go round in circles just the sector changes.

Any COOPERs out there? I have a barrel I need fixed

Sir John A Mac Donald, recognised Canada as a resoure rich country that had been exploited for years by the French and the British and various trading companies.

He had great foresight with his National Policy. Something Liberals of the Day had great disdain for.

Today, Liberals and Conservatives Share the views of those 19th Century LIberals regarding Trade.

Trade will always be an issue with any country, and the balance will sway back and forth.

Looking at South America where for Decades and Centuries policies were driven by Right Wing and resource based trade agreements, many of these countries sold themselves out and the people did not benefit. Econonic Collapse for many countries.

Now we see, remaining puppet regimes of the US, or Extremists Left wing Challenges to the Global Economy and resource exploitation.

Luckily Canada has never suffered from such huge swings in government policies.

But are resources are in demand by the US and I don't believe we are getting as much for our natural resources as we should be demanding. However, other more knowledgeable people may know more about this one way or another.

NAFTA doesn't allow the free movement of Labour, only goods and resources.

One thing with the SPP is that they are working on allowing Mexicans to cross the borders freely to come to supply the US and Canada with cheaper labour.

Too many people look at trade deals as if they can't be touched or that they are perfect. They are not, they are trade deals plain and simple, and they need to grow with the times and the concerns of the players/countries.

One problem with NAFTA is how easily the US can thumb its nose at us, ignore rulings, and we have no enforcement or political leverage to make the US comply. Some have argued that by threatening reciporacal penalties in resource sectors the US can't ignore, were the tools that used to be used to get the US onboard in other areas.

These were never pleasant situations and FTA was to elliviate these situations.

Today, and since the inception of the FTA it was quite clear that the US main goal was to secure petrolium resources. Something they were always looking for.

Just some thoughts.....

[eyeball]

It's also good in practice. Proof? The fact that we can communicate right now using the Internet.

Technology and trade are identical.

One of the consequences of technology (and trade) is that certain jobs become redundant - but society as a whole is better off. To argue against free trade is tantamount to arguing against new technology. Would you say that Canada was wrong to adopt bar code scanners since they lead to the elimination of many cashier jobs?

Technological innovation also creates jobs.

Society appears to have programmed itself to constantly innovate and develop new technology. It also appears that the individual is not as important as the society - economics trumps virtue yadda yadda. This being the case I wonder what would happen if or when technological innovation makes all manufacturing, resource extraction and services fully automated and there is no need for any individuals at all. Society itself could even became redundant.

On the other hand if technology is so ubiquitous and cheap that it makes every person fully capable of meeting all their own needs will there still be a need for people to be ruled and people to rule them or will each individual be a sovereign unto themselves? I just can't see this happening given the way some nations behave as if their existance is the most important thing in existance and what about corporations? They're people too, silly as that sounds.

The freer the trade the freer the people. Whatever else we write into our trade agreements, above all else, we should use them to increase and enhance the rights of individuals. In other words we better start putting virtue ahead of economics lest the former become even more redundant and we as individuals have nothing with which to justify our existance and no one to justify it to.

I think property rights would be a disaster. Our present mechanisms of innovation, trade and technological development would result in everything being owned by some corporate entity and individuals would either face assimilation into it or be redundant and discarded. Resistance would likely be as futile as it was for cashiers in the face of bar-code scanners.

[Alta4ever]

Society appears to have programmed itself to constantly innovate and develop new technology. It also appears that the individual is not as important as the society - economics trumps virtue yadda yadda. This being the case I wonder what would happen if or when technological innovation makes all manufacturing, resource extraction and services fully automated and there is no need for any individuals at all. Society itself could even became redundant.

On the other hand if technology is so ubiquitous and cheap that it makes every person fully capable of meeting all their own needs will there still be a need for people to be ruled and people to rule them or will each individual be a sovereign unto themselves? I just can't see this happening given the way some nations behave as if their existance is the most important thing in existance and what about corporations? They're people too, silly as that sounds.

The freer the trade the freer the people. Whatever else we write into our trade agreements, above all else, we should use them to increase and enhance the rights of individuals. In other words we better start putting virtue ahead of economics lest the former become even more redundant and we as individuals have nothing with which to justify our existance and no one to justify it to.

I think property rights would be a disaster. Our present mechanisms of innovation, trade and technological development would result in everything being owned by some corporate entity and individuals would either face assimilation into it or be redundant and discarded. Resistance would likely be as futile as it was for cashiers in the face of bar-code scanners.

I highly doubt that enshrining property rights would be a disaster. Why shouldn't I have the right to own my property, not have to worry about the government swooping in a taking it way. Corporations rise and fall, and they won't assimilate you. What you want will result in anarchy.

[Wilber]

I highly doubt that enshrining property rights would be a disaster. Why shouldn't I have the right to own my property, not have to worry about the government swooping in a taking it way. Corporations rise and fall, and they won't assimilate you. What you want will result in anarchy.

They are to a degree in Japan and it can lead to ridiculous situations. Narita airport in Tokyo had to wait nearly 30 years before they could finish their second runway because of one patch of land owned by a particular farmer who wouldn't sell. The runway sat completed on either side and this bit was in the middle. There was also another small patch right in the middle of the apron for the second terminal that aircraft had to maneuver around. They pretty much had to wait until he died before they could purchase it from his heirs. He didn't live on the land and was offered a fortune for the patch but it was sheer bloody mindedness and served no purpose as it could not be economically farmed.

If property rights were enshrined it should be with conditions under which the state could expropriate such as giving fair market value according to independent sources or replacement in kind at the option of the land owner, plus full relocation expenses.

[M.Dancer]

They are to a degree in Japan and it can lead to ridiculous situations. Narita airport in Tokyo had to wait nearly 30 years before they could finish their second runway because of one patch of land owned by a particular farmer who wouldn't sell. The runway sat completed on either side and this bit was in the middle. There was also another small patch right in the middle of the apron for the second terminal that aircraft had to maneuver around. They pretty much had to wait until he died before they could purchase it from his heirs. He didn't live on the land and was offered a fortune for the patch but it was sheer bloody mindedness and served no purpose as it could not be economically farmed.

If property rights were enshrined it should be with conditions under which the state could expropriate such as giving fair market value according to independent sources or replacement in kind at the option of the land owner, plus full relocation expenses.

Imminent domain...or is it emminant domain....either or

[Wilber]

Imminent domain...or is it emminant domain....either or

Eminant I believe but only for the purpose of public use and not without specific conditions to protect the rights of the owner to fair compensation for his property and inconvenience. I guess restrictions could also be made on how imminent as well.

[Topaz]

Interesting and sadly true points about property rights. And, Blur, I liked the link to the moral arguments in favour of free trade. But I'm guessing Topaz' original question had to do with economic benefits. And here once again, the answer is an unequivocal yes. The benefits of free trade through the principle of comparative advantage were laid out years ago, 1817 to be exact, in David Ricardo's "On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation." Here's the Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage.

And it just stands to reason -- how can it be bad for Canadians to have more options to choose from when making purchases, or to have larger markets to sell to? What is the downside? Of course, certain, non-competitive industries might be hurt. But we live in a welfare state. How bad does it get for these people before the majority of them find work elsewhere in new, more competitive industries? And why should Canadians, already taxed nearly to the breaking point, be forced to pay additonal taxes in the form of higher prices created by tariffs, quotas and other trade barriers, just to protect some non-competitive industries? It's just a waste of precious resources.

Topaz begins his post with "We all know about the Free Trade and how its not doing the job creation job but losing jobs." I find that an odd way to begin a post when we have the lowest unemployment rate in over 30 years. Sorry Topaz, we know nothing of the sort.

As far as the lowest unemployment rate being the lowest there is a reason for that and its Alberta and Saskatchewan booming but the rest of the country isn't booming like them. Also, those people who haven't found a job, usually just give up and turn to welfare.

[Alta4ever]

They are to a degree in Japan and it can lead to ridiculous situations. Narita airport in Tokyo had to wait nearly 30 years before they could finish their second runway because of one patch of land owned by a particular farmer who wouldn't sell. The runway sat completed on either side and this bit was in the middle. There was also another small patch right in the middle of the apron for the second terminal that aircraft had to maneuver around. They pretty much had to wait until he died before they could purchase it from his heirs. He didn't live on the land and was offered a fortune for the patch but it was sheer bloody mindedness and served no purpose as it could not be economically farmed.

If property rights were enshrined it should be with conditions under which the state could expropriate such as giving fair market value according to independent sources or replacement in kind at the option of the land owner, plus full relocation expenses.

This I have very little problem with if there are avenues of recourse open to the property owner.

But property rights still need to be added to the constitution.

Edited April 1, 2008 by Alta4ever

[Topaz]

We here in North America have watched the boomed times but now corporations are finding that Third world countries are alot cheaper to produce their wares and I'm just wondering about the near future and how many jobs in every sector are going to be left to Canada and are the wages going to be 10-12 hrly when the companies threaten take this wage or we are gone!

[margrace]

Eminant I believe but only for the purpose of public use and not without specific conditions to protect the rights of the owner to fair compensation for his property and inconvenience. I guess restrictions could also be made on how imminent as well.

We already have this in ONtario. A farmer was using one of his fields for pasture. There were trees gowing up in this field. He was ordered to stop using it because these were a rare kind of tree. So he told the government to please buy the land since he couldn't use it. They refused and he went in and cut all the trees down. This was someplace in Eastern Ontario and I heard it last year on an Ontario Farm program on the TV. I believe it is in court supported by a group of farmers. I can't tell you any more.

[August1991]

Society appears to have programmed itself to constantly innovate and develop new technology. It also appears that the individual is not as important as the society - economics trumps virtue yadda yadda. This being the case I wonder what would happen if or when technological innovation makes all manufacturing, resource extraction and services fully automated and there is no need for any individuals at all. Society itself could even became redundant.

OMG! Eyeball, what you have written is a classic example of wilful ignorance or blind Leftism or perhaps a mixture of both. You can't see the trees for the forest.

Despite what you might think, people are not a consequence or an afterthought of society or the system - the system/society exists because people (you and I) want it. When you speak of "society", what do you mean exactly? To me, society (and corporations) can only be all the people (you and I) who make up society. The society/system/economy is the end result of billions of individuals going about their daily lives and making choices. If you took away the people, society would cease to exist.

I think it would be wonderful to live in a world where machines would do all the work and I could relax and read a book. In many ways, we have created such a world. Even a few decades ago, how many hours were spent washing clothes by hand or other tasks of sheer drudgery? Have you ever lived in a place without running water? Do you know what it's like to fethch water?

Technology (and trade) mean finding an easier way to accomplish a task and this invariably means eliminating jobs. That's a good thing - otherwise, we'd still be pumping water from wells (and even that assumes the invention of a pump). Think of how many people lost their jobs when the first guy invented a water pump.

We here in North America have watched the boomed times but now corporations are finding that Third world countries are alot cheaper to produce their wares and I'm just wondering about the near future and how many jobs in every sector are going to be left to Canada and are the wages going to be 10-12 hrly when the companies threaten take this wage or we are gone!

By that logic Topaz, we should forbid all imports into Canada. Think of how many jobs we could create if we had to produce everything ourselves!

And why stop at Canada? Topaz, why don't you produce everything yourself too! Think how busy you would be (and how many tasks/jobs you would have) if you had to produce all your own food, and make all your own clothes!

----

In Canada, we call expropriation what Americans call eminent domain. I doubt that putting "property rights" into the Charter would change much in the way of the governments ability to take property from private individuals. To start with, the government "expropriates" your financial assets when it imposes taxes. If the government collects $50,000 in taxes from you or takes a piece of land worth $50,0000, what's the difference?