Future of US and Canada

Topaz · May 27, 2011

I know the topic of NAU has been discussed here and some don't believe too much in it and I did find a video that talks about the NAU and it also discuss the story behind 9/11 and who was behind it by a person who was told it was going to happen. Now, I'm not saying any of this is true, that's up to each of you but just keep the information in the back of your mind for future use. After, listening, what was your view on the video?

TimG · May 27, 2011

After, listening, what was your view on the video?

Nothing but the rantings of a conspiracy theorist.

Just because Canada volunteers to bind itself to international agreements of one sort or another that does not mean Canada will merge with the US. The fact is there are many places where having different laws for different countries is not justified from a practical POV.

Edited May 27, 2011 by TimG

GostHacked · May 27, 2011

People thought the EU was nothing but a conpsiracy theory before as well.

Moonlight Graham · May 28, 2011

People thought the EU was nothing but a conpsiracy theory before as well.

Some people still think it's a conspiracy. It ain't.

It's very easy to see the appeal of a Euro-like NA currency. It would greatly bolster trade between the countries. I wouldn't have to get my money changed to go to the US. I could buy US merch easier online, and if i had my own Canadian small business i could tap into the huge US market so much easier. It means bigger markets, freer trade, & higher economic growth for all countries...or so the theory goes.

TimG · May 28, 2011

It's very easy to see the appeal of a Euro-like NA currency.

There is no appeal. A currency union requires a single sovereign government. The EU model is failing miserably and several countries may leave the Euro over the next 10-15 years.

If anything, the experience of Canada over the last 20-30 years shows why Canada should have a seperate currency.

August1991 · May 28, 2011

I know the topic of NAU has been discussed here and some don't believe too much in it...

To quote an American, "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." And the last refuge of an English-Canadian Leftist is the accusation: "You are a secret American!"

I fear that WASP North Americans, whether American or Canadian, have an obsession with traitors and loyalty.

----

Truth be told: Canada is a Catholic country. America is a Protestant country. Canada elected its first Catholic federal PM in the 1890s. Almost all of Canada's federal PMs since 1970 have been Catholic.

In all its history, the US has had only one Catholic President.

----

Topaz, IME, Americans have no desire to make Canada part of the USA. Most Americans are happy with the border and want to maintain it. IME, Americans have only one objection to the current state of northern border relations: we bring them cold weather. (Fortunately, we are not blamed for tornadoes or hurricanes.)

In short Topaz, we Canadians are fortunate to live beside history's greatest democracy. (If you wonder about this, think of the plight of Poles.)

But then, Americans should be thankful to share a long border with people who are reasonable. (If you wonder about this, think of the Great Wall.)

One reason America is great is that Canadians are so civilized. If I were American, I would be grateful for such a civilized, sophisticated northern neighbour.

Edited May 28, 2011 by August1991

fellowtraveller · May 28, 2011

There a some signs that Canada acknowledges the slowly waning influence of the US, which will be followed by the depreciaiton of the US $ as the international standard for currency and business.

We should be working hard on trade, particularly with the East.

bush_cheney2004 · May 28, 2011

There a some signs that Canada acknowledges the slowly waning influence of the US, which will be followed by the depreciaiton of the US $ as the international standard for currency and business.

We should be working hard on trade, particularly with the East.

Instead, Canada/Ontario are working hard on a new bridge to Detroit!

The US recognized years ago that Canada would no longer be its #1 trading partner eventually, to be displaced by Mexico and China.

Edited May 28, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

GostHacked · May 28, 2011

Instead, Canada/Ontario are working hard on a new bridge to Detroit!

The US recognized years ago that Canada would no longer be its #1 trading partner eventually, to be displaced by Mexico and China.

Cause it was cheaper to get the Mexicans and China to make the shit that we buy. Part of the reason more and more can only shop at Walmart.

fellowtraveller · May 31, 2011

Instead, Canada/Ontario are working hard on a new bridge to Detroit!

Ontario is old Canada. Detroit is postcard dead US economy. In the West, they'll be building pipelines and ports to the Pacific to ship energy to China/India.

bush_cheney2004 · May 31, 2011

Ontario is old Canada. Detroit is postcard dead US economy. In the West, they'll be building pipelines and ports to the Pacific to ship energy to China/India.

That's great, but energy exports to Asia would have a long way to go to replace existing exports via the Windsor-Detroit port of entry. "Old Canada" is still #1 on that score.

fellowtraveller · May 31, 2011

That's great, but energy exports to Asia would have a long way to go to replace existing exports via the Windsor-Detroit port of entry. "Old Canada" is still #1 on that score.

Energy exports to Amerikkka have little to do with Windsor or Detroit.

And once the oil starts flowing on long term contracts through large diameter pipes headed West and not South- you'll be back to relying on Venezuela, Libya, Iraq, Saudi Arabia etc. to fuel your economy. All of that of course assumes you have an economy in a decade or two, it is not looking good now.

May 31, 2011

Energy exports to Amerikkka....

Interesting how you refer to the U.S. as Amerikkka, as you anticipate doing more business with China.

bush_cheney2004 · May 31, 2011

Energy exports to Amerikkka have little to do with Windsor or Detroit.

And energy exports are only a small portion of the total.

http://www40.statcan.gc.ca/l01/cst01/gblec04-eng.htm

And once the oil starts flowing on long term contracts through large diameter pipes headed West and not South- you'll be back to relying on Venezuela, Libya, Iraq, Saudi Arabia etc. to fuel your economy.

LOL! It's already flowing south and more pipeline capacity is building now...not "when". Canada doesn't distribute or refine west to east because it is not economical to do so. Just for fun, go back and learn which multinationals actually invested in Canada to make it all possible in the first place...mostly Amerikanskis.

All of that of course assumes you have an economy in a decade or two, it is not looking good now.

Why wouldn't there be an economy in ten years? That's just stupid!

Edited May 31, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

dre · June 1, 2011

LOL! It's already flowing south and more pipeline capacity is building now...not "when". Canada doesn't distribute or refine west to east because it is not economical to do so. Just for fun, go back and learn which multinationals actually invested in Canada to make it all possible in the first place...mostly Amerikanskis.

Actually a lot of the big US companies are divesting, and being offset by investment from China.

bush_cheney2004 · June 1, 2011

Actually a lot of the big US companies are divesting, and being offset by investment from China.

Thank you for confirming which companies made the most investment in the beginning.

Bonam · June 1, 2011

Actually a lot of the big US companies are divesting, and being offset by investment from China.

I don't see this as being of any great benefit to Canada or something to pridefully brag of. Foreign investment is foreign investment. And if it really matters which foreign nation the investment comes from, I'd surely rather have it be a nation with much closer values to Canada, and that would be the US, not China.

dre · June 1, 2011

I don't see this as being of any great benefit to Canada or something to pridefully brag of. Foreign investment is foreign investment. And if it really matters which foreign nation the investment comes from, I'd surely rather have it be a nation with much closer values to Canada, and that would be the US, not China.

I wasnt bragging. I couldnt care less who invests there really, it was just something I read.

Id personally rather see neither of them "invest" at all, and instead just sell them them oil for market value on the nymex. From a strategic point of view I think it would have been good to build a strong domestic petroleum industry as opposed to having foreign companies and governments do that work for us and take a big piece of any potential "upside". But its protectionism I guess, to not allow foreign multinationals to plunder your natural resources.

As for your idea of choosing the US over China, I agree... but you open up a pretty big can of worms these days if you start talking about business and trade as instruments to reward good behavior or punish bad behavior.

dre · June 1, 2011

Thank you for confirming which companies made the most investment in the beginning.

:unsure:

Uhhhhh... Ok. Yer welcome??

Bonam · June 1, 2011

As for your idea of choosing the US over China, I agree... but you open up a pretty big can of worms these days if you start talking about business and trade as instruments to reward good behavior or punish bad behavior.

How is that a can of worms? It's what we always do. We have sanctions against countries whose actions we don't like (punishment) and trade agreements with countries with which we have close ties (rewards).

bush_cheney2004 · June 1, 2011

Uhhhhh... Ok. Yer welcome??

I know.

bush_cheney2004 · June 1, 2011

...But its protectionism I guess, to not allow foreign multinationals to plunder your natural resources.

Nope....Canada explicitly sought foreign investment for development of such resources because it lacked sufficient domestic capital. Without the American and/or other foreign investment, it would have been just more of the fiasco that was the NEP and attempts to "repatriate" investment. Albertans know how that turned out.

dre · June 1, 2011

Nope....Canada explicitly sought foreign investment for development of such resources because it lacked sufficient domestic capital. Without the American and/or other foreign investment, it would have been just more of the fiasco that was the NEP and attempts to "repatriate" investment. Albertans know how that turned out.

Youre probably right. But what was the rush? Within a decade or so oil will cost $500 a barrel... when all is said and done we would have made more money if we brought production online slowly. We would have had more leverage if we did our negotiating during a global energy crisis.

Bonam · June 1, 2011

Youre probably right. But what was the rush? Within a decade or so oil will cost $500 a barrel... when all is said and done we would have made more money if we brought production online slowly. We would have had more leverage if we did our negotiating during a global energy crisis.

If oil costs $500 a barrel within a decade, we'll be using a lot less of it, since many of the uses of oil will be replaced by more economic means, whether its coal plants instead of oil plants, electric cars instead of gasoline cars, or products made from non-plastic materials.

dre · June 1, 2011

How is that a can of worms? It's what we always do. We have sanctions against countries whose actions we don't like (punishment) and trade agreements with countries with which we have close ties (rewards).

Thats traditionally how it works yeah, but thats getting to be much less of a factor, and its a much smaller factor than basic math and economics.

Nowdays its just fine to reward despotic regimes with shitloads of patronage, and we tend to do more business with countries that treat workers like human cattle, and have very little in the way of labor or environmental regulation, because thats how we get the cheapest widgets.