Canada-EU Free Trade

[GostHacked]

Tea, Earl Grey, hot.

It is the precursor to the replicator in many ways. Next step with those printers, they are figuring out how to do this with metals. That will be incredible.

[eyeball]

Interdependence is good, as long as we are trading with viable stable economies with stable accountable governments.

An international code of governance would help. Basing one on human rights probably wouldn't fly with the usual suspects but maybe an economic argument would bring them around.

[bush_cheney2004]

Actually, the "human rights" and "responsibility to protect" shuck and jive hasn't done much in the way of an "international code" except to reinforce the status quo.

[carepov]

That's not always so.......Nazi Germany's largest trading partner, pre-war, was France.........Imperial Japan relied upon energy and resources from the British Empire, Dutch East Indies and the United States etc

Well, nuclear weapons have already done that. More importantly, we might get some decent cheese!

There is no guarantee that increased trade will prevent war, just as there is no guarentee that nuclear capabilities and MAD stop prevent war -even a nuclear war.

Increased trade means increased travel, personal contacts, cultural exchanges, and increased interdependance for prosperity. This can only help reduce the chances of war.

[carepov]

Actually, the "human rights" and "responsibility to protect" shuck and jive hasn't done much in the way of an "international code" except to reinforce the status quo.

So I guess nothing has changed since 1948...

[bush_cheney2004]

So I guess nothing has changed since 1948...

Lots has changed....NATO has doubled in size and is now the undisputed "enforcer" of human rights (when there's a little something something in it don'tcha know).

[Guest Derek L]

There is no guarantee that increased trade will prevent war, just as there is no guarentee that nuclear capabilities and MAD stop prevent war -even a nuclear war.

Increased trade means increased travel, personal contacts, cultural exchanges, and increased interdependance for prosperity. This can only help reduce the chances of war.

History disproves your assertion, as like I said, the Empire of Japan was quite dependant on the oil and rubber exports of the British, Dutch and Americans prewar..........

All that being said, this is not to suggest that this trade deal will bring us closer or farther away from a war with the European Union…A possibility that doesn’t cause concern among most.

[Wilber]

History disproves your assertion, as like I said, the Empire of Japan was quite dependant on the oil and rubber exports of the British, Dutch and Americans prewar..........

All that being said, this is not to suggest that this trade deal will bring us closer or farther away from a war with the European Union…A possibility that doesn’t cause concern among most.

True but there was little interdependency. If the rest of the world had been the markets for Japan that it is now, things would have likely been very different.

[Guest Derek L]

True but there was little interdependency. If the rest of the world had been the markets for Japan that it is now, things would have likely been very different.

Well this is true in the sense of reciprocal trade with the Empire of Japan in the late 1930s and early 40s, one could suggest that if the British and Dutch, both nations in dire straits at the time, relented on their cutting off the flow of oil to Japan along similar lines as the French dealings with Indochina, war with the Empire of Japan could have been avoided………And with no provocative action from the Dutch and British, the Japanese would have no requirement to defend the shipping lanes against the American Asiatic Fleet in the Philippines…..Hence no need for war in the Pacific, as I’m certain the Americans, Dutch and British would have been more then willing to allow the Japanese to take on mainland Chinese Communism…

[Wilber]

Well this is true in the sense of reciprocal trade with the Empire of Japan in the late 1930s and early 40s, one could suggest that if the British and Dutch, both nations in dire straits at the time, relented on their cutting off the flow of oil to Japan along similar lines as the French dealings with Indochina, war with the Empire of Japan could have been avoided………And with no provocative action from the Dutch and British, the Japanese would have no requirement to defend the shipping lanes against the American Asiatic Fleet in the Philippines…..Hence no need for war in the Pacific, as I’m certain the Americans, Dutch and British would have been more then willing to allow the Japanese to take on mainland Chinese Communism…

My point was that when you have interdependency, you are more likely to have powerful business men who tell government, don't screw with our markets.

[Guest Derek L]

My point was that when you have interdependency, you are more likely to have powerful business men who tell government, don't screw with our markets.

Yet no relief for those men at Shell-Mex and BP in the early 1940s........

[Wilber]

Yet no relief for those men at Shell-Mex and BP in the early 1940s........

Britain an Holland didn't start that war. Edited October 21, 2013 by Wilber

[carepov]

History disproves your assertion, as like I said, the Empire of Japan was quite dependant on the oil and rubber exports of the British, Dutch and Americans prewar..........

All that being said, this is not to suggest that this trade deal will bring us closer or farther away from a war with the European Union…A possibility that doesn’t cause concern among most.

No, history does not disprove the assertion that increased trade reduces the probability of war.

Your examples disprove any claims like: war is impossible between strong trading partners. I made no such assertions.

[Guest Derek L]

Britain an Holland didn't start that war.

This is true, but their Governments actions against the Empire of Japan contributed to it, well giving the militant faction within the Japanese Empire another reason to foster in the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere..........In essence, an economic (and cultural) trading bloc centered around the Empire of Japan.

[Guest Derek L]

No, history does not disprove the assertion that increased trade reduces the probability of war.

Your examples disprove any claims like: war is impossible between strong trading partners. I made no such assertions.

You posted:

Counties will be more inter-dependant. I see this as a good thing as it should reduce the chances of a major war.

So prior to the inking of the Trade deal between the EU and Canada, was there a threat of a "major war"?

[carepov]

You posted: "Counties will be more inter-dependant. I see this as a good thing as it should reduce the chances of a major war."

So prior to the inking of the Trade deal between the EU and Canada, was there a threat of a "major war"?

What are you talking about? My response was to:

So when all these "free-trade" deals with all the countries in this world are completed down the road, the results will be ALL the country's economics being connected,so will that mean if one or two fall, the rest will too?

[Guest Derek L]

What are you talking about? My response was to:

Yes, your response:

Counties will be more inter-dependant. I see this as a good thing as it should reduce the chances of a major war.

You posted it, that's what we're talking about no?

[carepov]

Yes, your response:

You posted it, that's what we're talking about no?

Topaz suggested that more trade deals will mean that we are more vulnerable. I suggested that we will be better off with more globally interdependent economies, a principle reason is that more trade means less war.

As you often remind us, a major war is always a high risk. Of course it's not a high risk between Canada and the EU, and of course this trade deal does not reduce the risks of major war. But in general (as per Topaz's comment), more trade means less chance of war, do you disagree?

[Guest Derek L]

Topaz suggested that more trade deals will mean that we are more vulnerable. I suggested that we will be better off with more globally interdependent economies, a principle reason is that more trade means less war.

As you often remind us, a major war is always a high risk. Of course it's not a high risk between Canada and the EU, and of course this trade deal does not reduce the risks of major war. But in general (as per Topaz's comment), more trade means less chance of war, do you disagree?

Depends with who........as mentioned, the chance of a major war with the European Union is slim to none........for now

[Wilber]

This is true, but their Governments actions against the Empire of Japan contributed to it, well giving the militant faction within the Japanese Empire another reason to foster in the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere..........In essence, an economic (and cultural) trading bloc centered around the Empire of Japan.

It was Japan's aggression in Korea, Manchuria and China that initiated it. Because they didn't have extensive foreign markets to lose at the time, they tried to impose them by force. Because of interdependency, today's Japan would have far more to lose by such a policy than it could ever hope to gain.

[Guest Derek L]

It was Japan's aggression in Korea, Manchuria and China that initiated it. Because they didn't have extensive foreign markets to lose at the time, they tried to impose them by force. Because of interdependency, today's Japan would have far more to lose by such a policy than it could ever hope to gain.

Replace Japan with China and see what the reaction would be to cutting off, or threatening to cut-off, the flow of oil and required natural resources to Mainland China...........Hence the build-up of the Chinese navy, coupled with a string of basing rights through Southeast Asia, into the Indian Ocean, all the way to the Arabian Sea and East Coast of Africa……..The Chinese are not doing this “just because”…

[Wilber]

Replace Japan with China and see what the reaction would be to cutting off, or threatening to cut-off, the flow of oil and required natural resources to Mainland China...........Hence the build-up of the Chinese navy, coupled with a string of basing rights through Southeast Asia, into the Indian Ocean, all the way to the Arabian Sea and East Coast of Africa……..The Chinese are not doing this “just because”…

China is not trying to expand by force. Japan invaded Manchuria, Korea and China long before anyone threatened to cut off its supplies of resources and energy. The embargo was a result of Japanese aggression, not the cause of it.

[Guest Derek L]

China is not trying to expand by force. Japan invaded Manchuria, Korea and China long before anyone threatened to cut off its supplies of resources and energy. The embargo was a result of Japanese aggression, not the cause of it.

Tibet, Vietnam, Taiwan would beg to differ, plus disputes with both the Japanese and Southeast Asian nations over the Senkaku Islands and Spratly Islands have been growing increasingly “heated” over the last few years.......

[Wilber]

Tibet, Vietnam, Taiwan would beg to differ, plus disputes with both the Japanese and Southeast Asian nations over the Senkaku Islands and Spratly Islands have been growing increasingly “heated” over the last few years.......

"Heated" is a relative term. Nations will always have disputes, what matters is what they do about them. We have territorial disagreements with Spain, Denmark and the US. NAFTA, the new EU agreement and the fact we are all NATO members goes a long way to ensure that the damage caused by using force would far outweigh anything that could be achieved by it.

[Guest Derek L]

"Heated" is a relative term. Nations will always have disputes, what matters is what they do about them. We have territorial disagreements with Spain, Denmark and the US. NAFTA, the new EU agreement and the fact we are all NATO members goes a long way to ensure that the damage caused by using force would far outweigh anything that could be achieved by it.

Well this is very true that we’ve had disputes with various “allied nations”, but none has lead to an Arms Race like we currently see going on in Asia…….As I said above, there is a reason why the Chinese (and Japanese, South Koreans, Indians etc) are rapidly growing the size of their militaries, with their navies in particular, coupled with the United States Pacific Pivot……. As I said, it not “just because”.