Progressive Tory Posted January 30, 2009 Report Share Posted January 30, 2009 When I posted the link to Michael Ignatieff's videos, one was on Obama and Protectionism. But then today: "The U.S. House of Representatives passed an $825 billion stimulus package late Wednesday that included a clause that said the funds could be used only for projects in which all the iron and steel involved was produced in the United States." Mr. Ignatieff stated that Canada has some muscle because of our natural resources. Mr. Harper is demanding that they honour their trade agreements. I read earlier today that the European Union is also concerned. This could be very bad for Canada if we can't count on their business until they're out of their own slump. Some Americans are saying that the stimulus package does not have to include business with anyone other than Americans. They take care of their own first. Do we have clout? Will he have to back down? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted January 30, 2009 Report Share Posted January 30, 2009 (edited) Wont Cut NAFTA. Edited January 30, 2009 by Charles Anthony deleted re-copied Opening Post Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 30, 2009 Report Share Posted January 30, 2009 ...This could be very bad for Canada if we can't count on their business until they're out of their own slump. Some Americans are saying that the stimulus package does not have to include business with anyone other than Americans. They take care of their own first. Don't worry....we'll still be buying a few cars and Belinda's car parts. Besides, Canada has its own infrastructure "stimulus package", right? Do we have clout? Will he have to back down? Back down from what? NAFTA? I recall that Canada whined for some of the services contracts in Iraq, despite declining an invitation to the invasion. So Bush tossed PM Martin a bone. I expect the same will happen this time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roof_top_eagle Posted January 30, 2009 Report Share Posted January 30, 2009 (edited) Just my opinion but if they feel like ignoring NAFTA and WTO we should lock the boarders down. I give my full view in my blog but the jist of it is that the world lock them into their own limits until they are forced to fulfill their NAFTA and WTO agreements. It's a bit extreme but I'm not a fan of cheats. Edited January 31, 2009 by roof_top_eagle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Progressive Tory Posted January 30, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 30, 2009 (edited) Just my opinion but if they feel like ignoring NAFTA and WTO we should like the boarders down. I give my full view in my blog but the jist of it is that the world lock them into their own limits until they are forced to fulfill their NAFTA and WTO agreements.It's a bit extreme but I'm not a fan of cheats. I'm sure he'd only really consider closing our borders as an extreme measure. Also, I'm not sure how devoted Obama is to NAFTA. Remember the leak from the PM's office during his campaign? Let's face it, they still hold a lot of our purse strings. If they shut down trade, even for a short time, we'd be in big trouble. Right now, they're only discussing iron and steel. Is that just the beginning? It's going to be an interesting story to follow and I wonder how the EU will deal with it. In many stories about our own economic crisis, there is a feeling that the U.S. economic stimulus could result in a 'trickle down' to help get us out quicker. Edited January 30, 2009 by Progressive Tory Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
say1988 Posted January 30, 2009 Report Share Posted January 30, 2009 A failing US economy will hurt us more than some steel exports, so long as it stays with iron and steel. Not to be callous to those workers (who will suffer) or anything, but Canada relies on the US and its trade. There is a reason our economy tends to follow theirs, and it still will. There is also nothing staying our exports will stop, just that it will not be allowed in some projects. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted January 30, 2009 Report Share Posted January 30, 2009 Trade restrictions with Canada will do the US no good. I can understand with Mexico, Asia and Europe, but Obama has nothing to gain by preventing Canadian goods from entering the US. We do indeed have quite a bit of clout as far as trade is concerned. We're their biggest trading partner, we're sitting on the world's biggest fresh water and second biggest oil reserves and we have minerals and metals up the wazoo. A trade war will blow up in his face and quickly alienate a good portion of ours and other countries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noahbody Posted January 30, 2009 Report Share Posted January 30, 2009 (edited) This could be very bad for Canada The Obama Koolaid doesn't taste as good now does it? It could get a lot worse for Canada too. If there's one guy who can bring out the patriotism of Americans and have them "buy American," it's Obama. This will be their path out of the recession. He may end up being great for the U.S., but McCain would've been better for Canada. Edited January 30, 2009 by noahbody Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Progressive Tory Posted January 30, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 30, 2009 Not to be callous to those workers (who will suffer) or anything, but Canada relies on the US and its trade. Exactly. Closing our borders now will only cut our own throats. However, is this just the beginning? If you polled the American people and asked do you prefer a 'Made in USA' approach to economic stimulus, or should we try to keep our import levels the same to help other countries; they'd say 'USA'. Afterall, as you mention, it's in everyone's best interest that the US gets turned around as quickly as possible. But in the short term, this could be bad for us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Higgly Posted January 30, 2009 Report Share Posted January 30, 2009 Very sorry to see that Obama has opened this pandora's box. One of the major causes of the 1930s depression is thought by many to be a retreat into protectionism by the US, which triggered an international trade war. As for NAFTA and the WTO, the softwood lumber battle pretty much showed what that is worth to the US Porkbarrel - oops, Congress. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 30, 2009 Report Share Posted January 30, 2009 Trade restrictions with Canada will do the US no good. I can understand with Mexico, Asia and Europe, but Obama has nothing to gain by preventing Canadian goods from entering the US. Sure he does...organized labor in the US would like to see Obama follow through on the campaign rhetoric. Not sure how/why you can exclude Mexico from the very same trade aggreement that includes Canada. We do indeed have quite a bit of clout as far as trade is concerned. We're their biggest trading partner, we're sitting on the world's biggest fresh water and second biggest oil reserves and we have minerals and metals up the wazoo. Unfortunately, and by Canadian design, it has taken an equally dramatic amount of foreign investment to realize such potential. Failure to diversify exports around the globe has also left Canada in a vulnerable position. A trade war will blow up in his face and quickly alienate a good portion of ours and other countries. Nobody likes a trade war, but if it comes, Canada would take a much bigger hit. I guess there is always Cuba! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 30, 2009 Report Share Posted January 30, 2009 Exactly. Closing our borders now will only cut our own throats. However, is this just the beginning? The beginning of what? We already have the usual suspects in place, from ranchers to lumber interests. Then there is the ever present intellectual property battle from Hollywood, CRTC "protectionism", and NAFTA itself, which can be abbrogated with only six months notice (I recall this "threat" often being used by the Grits come election time). If you polled the American people and asked do you prefer a 'Made in USA' approach to economic stimulus, or should we try to keep our import levels the same to help other countries; they'd say 'USA'. Afterall, as you mention, it's in everyone's best interest that the US gets turned around as quickly as possible. Not necessarily....more Americans realize that the global economy chooses winners and losers depending on the product, commodity, or service. Who do you think hires all the Canadian, Mexican, Chinese, Guatemalan, etc. illegals? But in the short term, this could be bad for us. Isn't it bad enough already? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Higgly Posted January 30, 2009 Report Share Posted January 30, 2009 The beginning of what? We already have the usual suspects in place, from ranchers to lumber interests. Then there is the ever present intellectual property battle from Hollywood, CRTC "protectionism", and NAFTA itself, which can be abbrogated with only six months notice (I recall this "threat" often being used by the Grits come election time).Not necessarily....more Americans realize that the global economy chooses winners and losers depending on the product, commodity, or service. Who do you think hires all the Canadian, Mexican, Chinese, Guatemalan, etc. illegals? Isn't it bad enough already? I channel-stumbled across a sermon by the American Fundamentalist cleric (i.e. Mullah) Joel Osteen on the eve of the Iraq invasion. Osteen was preaching that we should all submit to authority. And it wasn't even 1984... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted January 30, 2009 Report Share Posted January 30, 2009 The US has 4.8 million unemployed,people losing their homes, and yes, they are in big trouble thanks to Bush and the Republican and the democrat congress who allow this problem to happen. Everywhere I go on the net or listen to the TV/radio, countries are blaming the US for this global meltdown! I still think the worse is yet to come and I would hope that the government would have prepared Canada better for this, since they knew it was coming. They had a 54 Bil surplus from the EI which they took 37 Bil towards the national debt. Now, they have a 15 Bil deficit BEFORE they had to come up with the stimulus package and that is why its 84 BIL. I don't feel the Tories are doing a good job in handling our taxes dollars. Perhaps the PM could have a woman as a minister of finance, thats married with family and is the one that manages the household, she would be better than Flaherty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sulaco Posted January 30, 2009 Report Share Posted January 30, 2009 The US has 4.8 million unemployed,people losing their homes, and yes, they are in big trouble thanks to Bush and the Republican and the democrat congress who allow this problem to happen. Everywhere I go on the net or listen to the TV/radio, countries are blaming the US for this global meltdown! I still think the worse is yet to come and I would hope that the government would have prepared Canada better for this, since they knew it was coming. They had a 54 Bil surplus from the EI which they took 37 Bil towards the national debt. Now, they have a 15 Bil deficit BEFORE they had to come up with the stimulus package and that is why its 84 BIL. I don't feel the Tories are doing a good job in handling our taxes dollars. Perhaps the PM could have a woman as a minister of finance, thats married with family and is the one that manages the household, she would be better than Flaherty. Bahahahaha! For the last eight years I've been reading on these internets about a large number of America-haters who were gleefully rubbing their hands with the hope that the US economy would collapse. It's coming now baby. Take your medicine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sulaco Posted January 30, 2009 Report Share Posted January 30, 2009 In other words we get pissed on for being economically successful. Now that we ain't we get pissed on again. C'est la vie. No one likes to look at their own backyards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted January 30, 2009 Report Share Posted January 30, 2009 McCain would've been better for Canada. But a lot worse for the world, and I have no illusions about McCain's or any US president's credibility when it comes to keeping their international agreements. US interests always and forever come first, as they should in situations like this. In any case Canada should have been preparing for this disaster for years, you could see it coming from miles away. They have their lifeboat and we have our's and the ship's burning out of control and sinking. This is no time to be thinking about relying on the US for our economy's immediate survival, its way to late for that. They're on their own and so are we, get used to it and get aboard...fast. We can always raft up after the immediate danger has passed, assuming the threat of getting swamped isn't too great. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted January 30, 2009 Report Share Posted January 30, 2009 Sure he does...organized labor in the US would like to see Obama follow through on the campaign rhetoric. Yeah but this is about as important as the CPC retaining the anti-gay vote. Who else is organized labour going to turn to? The Republicans? Maybe, but not likely anytime soon. Besides, organized labor in the US is getting stepped on hard with the bailout packages. See Big Three Automakers. Not sure how/why you can exclude Mexico from the very same trade aggreement that includes Canada. Because a lot of the animosity against free trade comes from American workers not being able to compete with $5/day wages in Mexico/China. Canada is similar in both labor standards and wages thus the free trade agreement between us is more a tool to create economies of scale than anywhere else in the world. Unfortunately, and by Canadian design, it has taken an equally dramatic amount of foreign investment to realize such potential. Failure to diversify exports around the globe has also left Canada in a vulnerable position. Which is something that could be rectified easily. There have already been high-level talks with the EU discussing Canada's inclusion in the FTA there. That's something the Americans probably don't want. Whether or not foreign investment helped exploit Canadian resources, they are nonetheless Canadian resources and nobody is going to stop the provincial governments from targetting them with royalties like Alberta did with oil. Make no mistake here. Just because the US is a bigger economy doesn't mean they have don't have a lot to lose here. Nobody likes a trade war, but if it comes, Canada would take a much bigger hit. Relative to the size of our economy, yes I suppose so. On a dollar per dollar basis likely not and the long term repercussions would be that historically the US's closest and most important ally and trading partner would start looking for new friends and new places to sell their vital resources. I still think it's a lot of rhetoric but we'll see. Obama's a fool if he wants to get in a trade war. He has very little to gain (increased support of the crybaby labor unions) vs severe and long term diplomatic repercussions and easily billions and billions of lost cross border trade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OddSox Posted January 30, 2009 Report Share Posted January 30, 2009 (edited) The politicians will toss this back and forth for a while, eventually coming to an agreement that drops the restriction in Canada's favour (in return for something - perhaps a 'future consideration'). However, anyone in the US who plans to take advantage of infrastructure monies is going to make sure that they buy local - by that time, it will be a political requirement, even if its not leglislated. Edited January 30, 2009 by OddSox Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 31, 2009 Report Share Posted January 31, 2009 (edited) Yeah but this is about as important as the CPC retaining the anti-gay vote. Who else is organized labour going to turn to? The Republicans? Maybe, but not likely anytime soon. Besides, organized labor in the US is getting stepped on hard with the bailout packages. See Big Three Automakers. Organized labour backed Reagan...twice....when the votes were counted. Autoworkers are no longer the mainstay of now shrinking labor unions...teachers and government employees have more clout than autoworkers. Because a lot of the animosity against free trade comes from American workers not being able to compete with $5/day wages in Mexico/China. Canada is similar in both labor standards and wages thus the free trade agreement between us is more a tool to create economies of scale than anywhere else in the world. Except when it came to the lost autoworker jobs, call centers, paper/pulp products, etc. NAFTA and WTO fights were more often in the king's English than Spanish. Which is something that could be rectified easily. There have already been high-level talks with the EU discussing Canada's inclusion in the FTA there. That's something the Americans probably don't want. To hell with the Americans....talk is cheap. If Canada can figure out how to export hydro, lumber, and tar sands oil then go for it. Last time I checked, Canada can't even slaughter all of its own beef. Whether or not foreign investment helped exploit Canadian resources, they are nonetheless Canadian resources and nobody is going to stop the provincial governments from targetting them with royalties like Alberta did with oil. Make no mistake here. Just because the US is a bigger economy doesn't mean they have don't have a lot to lose here. American and other foreign capital will always seek opportunities around the world....but make no mistake here...any hint of Chavez-like policies will see such investment dry up. Ever been to Cuba? Relative to the size of our economy, yes I suppose so. On a dollar per dollar basis likely not and the long term repercussions would be that historically the US's closest and most important ally and trading partner would start looking for new friends and new places to sell their vital resources. Canada is not the US's most important ally...that distinction goes to the United Kingdom.... Canada is an important trading partner, but there are others, including China (which may displace Canada as #1 in a few years). "Looking for new friends" is an oft repeated but idle threat not consistent with over 80% of exports still going south. These are the results of a nationwide Harris Poll of 1,217 adults surveyed by telephone by Harris Interactive between August 9 and 16, 2005. Great Britain still holds a very special place among U.S. adults as almost three-quarters (74%) think of them as a close ally. Canada (48%), Australia (44%) and Israel (41%) receive high marks but they are quite distant from those received by Great Britain. I still think it's a lot of rhetoric but we'll see. Obama's a fool if he wants to get in a trade war. He has very little to gain (increased support of the crybaby labor unions) vs severe and long term diplomatic repercussions and easily billions and billions of lost cross border trade. There is no trade war...yet....but we do seem to have some false expectations about the special treatment Canada should get compared to other nations. Edited January 31, 2009 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 31, 2009 Report Share Posted January 31, 2009 Looks like the Aussies are panicking too.....PM Rudd even wants a "new world order": In a message to Mr Obama and the US Congress, Mr Rudd counselled against erecting trade barriers. "Soft or hard, protectionism is a sure-fire way of turning recession into depression as it exacerbates the collapse in global demand." The message was reinforced in Davos yesterday when the Trade Minister, Simon Crean, described the "buy American" provisions of the new Obama stimulus package as "very worrying". "On the face of it, it looks like it contravenes commitments made to the World Trade Organisation," he said. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2009/01/30/1232818725574.html But shucks, all he really wants is a piece of that BIG FAT $800 billion Yankee action...just like Canada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted January 31, 2009 Report Share Posted January 31, 2009 But shucks, all he really wants is a piece of that BIG FAT $800 billion Yankee action...just like Canada. Makes sense that the people that created the problem should have to fix it, doesn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 31, 2009 Report Share Posted January 31, 2009 Makes sense that the people that created the problem should have to fix it, doesn't it? May as well....had to fix your empire's problems before that too....all in a day's work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted January 31, 2009 Report Share Posted January 31, 2009 May as well....had to fix your empire's problems before that too....all in a day's work. That,s it...just change the subject. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 31, 2009 Report Share Posted January 31, 2009 That,s it...just change the subject. Nope...same subject.....who paid the check? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.