Free Trade with Europe -PR?

[PIK]

Ah, so now your saying they covered it but buried it?

Next week it'll be what...?...way back in the dark pages on section 1 ?

Goalposts...they go thataway -----------------> then they go ^

Buried is the same as not covering, something like that should be front page news and if he were a lib,it would be on every front page and on thier for days.

[guyser]

Buried is the same as not covering, something like that should be front page news and if he were a lib,it would be on every front page and on thier for days.

It was.

Please...any more goalposts moved or facepalms for me before the weekend?

Guess what else is even more important as front page news? Harper getting caught .

[dre]

The government is trying to hide the inflation by using subsidies to keep food prices artificially low. If they ended these subsidies today food prices would go up a fair bit across the west. They dont want to realize how fast their policies are driving down our wages, or notice the massive redistribution of wealth from the middle class to the upper class that has resulted from all these policies (union busting, free trade, etc)

Basically the same reason they removed food from the core CPI! Look! Inflation is still at two percent! (as long as we remove products where inflation is more than 2% from the basket of goods and services used to calculate CPI.

[dre]

Why wouldn't we just drop our tariffs ?

Philisophically that makes good sense, but in practice it can bring down wages and causes inflation in foreign goods and deflation in domestic goods. So it depends how you measure success I guess. If having a huge flat screen TV, and lots of electronic gadgets is what you are after Free Trade has been a boon for you. But if you measure success based on your ability to purchase a good education for your children or good healthcare, or good dental care its been a bit of a disaster.

[Michael Hardner]

Philisophically that makes good sense, but in practice it can bring down wages and causes inflation in foreign goods and deflation in domestic goods. ... But if you measure success based on your ability to purchase a good education for your children or good healthcare, or good dental care its been a bit of a disaster.

Inflation in foreign goods ?

I don't see how.

There are adjustments, but don't confuse them with losses. Most of the people who complain loudest about trade are the ones with a vested interest in protection, in my experience. We heard that the FTA would decimate Canada, but that didn't happen.

You would have lower costs and more prospects for prosperity.

[dre]

Inflation in foreign goods ?

I don't see how.

The cost of goods you can import goes down, and the cost of domestic goods go up.

There are adjustments, but don't confuse them with losses.

Like I said that depends who you are, and who you trade with.

Most of the people who complain loudest about trade are the ones with a vested interest in protection, in my experience. We heard that the FTA would decimate Canada, but that didn't happen.

If you are talking about NAFTA then that is an agreement with a country with wage parity. In theory everything should balance out, and for the most part it has.

Still from the perspective of your average worker if you calculate CPI the way we calculated it up until the 90's we have seen virtually no inflation adjusted wage growth for a prolonged period of time, whereas between 1940 and 1975 we saw rapid wage growth. GDP has grown a lot but the percentage of GDP that workers get their hands on has rapidly shrunk.

Trade expansion, and trade imbalances have not really brought us real prosperity. Countries that run trade deficits may be exerience increases in standard of life, by they are all accumulating massive debts to do so.

Both Freetradeism and Protectionism are equally dangerous and destructive ideologies. Sometimes it makes sense to remove trade restrictions, and sometimes it doesn.

You would have lower costs and more prospects for prosperity.

That hasnt been the result necessarily. Houses cost more, electricity costs more, healthcare costs more, eduction costs more, gasoline costs more. And thats why people are feeling such a squeeze after a couple of decades of globalism. Sure... you can buy a DVD player for 20 dollars. Thats great! Problem is you have 5-8% inflation in things like energy, food, education, and medical care, as a result of running the trade defecits that made that DVD player so cheap.

Edited October 26, 2013 by dre

[Michael Hardner]

The cost of goods you can import goes down, and the cost of domestic goods go up.

Domestic foreign goods ?

If you are talking about NAFTA then that is an agreement with a country with wage parity. In theory everything should balance out, and for the most part it has.

We heard the same arguments, though. Just as every country has a disadvantage compared to Canada, every one has an advantage which is what we hear about.

We hear arguments against Free Trade with Europe and with China, for example.

There could be other advantages, too, such as a diversified economy and more freedom of movement for labour.

[dre]

Domestic foreign goods ?

No idea what you are on about here. Read again I guess?

We heard the same arguments, though.

I cant speculate on what you might have heard.

We hear arguments against Free Trade with Europe and with China, for example.

Well... with europe we have a reasonable degree of wage parity. If we trade a billion dollars worth of our goods and services for a billion dollars worth of theirs it should come out in the wash. With china though we would run a huge trade defecit which will eventually reduce our wages and purchasing power and diminish our standard of life... With China we have a trade partner that intentionally destroys their own currency in order to maintain a trade imbalance that benefits them.

If we run trade imbalances with countries with lower wages than ours, then our wages will go down. No other outcome is possible. Thats why even if you look at this so called "free trade deal" with europe its jam packed full of quotas, which are meant to achieve some sort of parity and avoid a large trade imbalance from developing.

And that goes back to my point about freetradeism and protectionism being equally dangerous ideologies. Good trade policy should be geared towards acheiving balance of trade, and not developed around ideology that trade is either good or bad.

Edited October 26, 2013 by dre

[brian66]

With CETA, Harper may trade his way to victory.

http://looniepolitics.com/ceta-harper-may-trade-way-victory/

[Wilber]

Inflation in foreign goods ?

I don't see how.

There are adjustments, but don't confuse them with losses. Most of the people who complain loudest about trade are the ones with a vested interest in protection, in my experience. We heard that the FTA would decimate Canada, but that didn't happen.

You would have lower costs and more prospects for prosperity.

It's not as simple as just dropping tariffs if you end up trying to compete against subsidized goods. Subsidies can take the form of direct cash injection into certain industries such as European and US agriculture, or currency manipulation by nations like China. You also have to decide what things are important enough to the country that it should be able to produce them itself. Should we be able to produce a good portion of our own food or should we be more dependent on other countries? What industries do we need in order to retain critical technological and manufacturing capabilities etc.

[Michael Hardner]

It's not as simple as just dropping tariffs if you end up trying to compete against subsidized goods. Subsidies can take the form of direct cash injection into certain industries such as European and US agriculture, or currency manipulation by nations like China. You also have to decide what things are important enough to the country that it should be able to produce them itself. Should we be able to produce a good portion of our own food or should we be more dependent on other countries? What industries do we need in order to retain critical technological and manufacturing capabilities etc.

I'm pretty sure that the government would take into account subsidization in the negotiations.

As to what things are important enough to the country that it should produce them itself - the answer would probably be anything that it can produce at a competitive price. I think that it's ridiculous for Canada to put food under the 'security' umbrella - we have been dependent on the US for food for a long time, as they are dependent on us for energy. It strikes me as another way for monopolies to manipulate public opinion.

[Wilber]

I'm pretty sure that the government would take into account subsidization in the negotiations.

As to what things are important enough to the country that it should produce them itself - the answer would probably be anything that it can produce at a competitive price. I think that it's ridiculous for Canada to put food under the 'security' umbrella - we have been dependent on the US for food for a long time, as they are dependent on us for energy. It strikes me as another way for monopolies to manipulate public opinion.

And yet Europe and the US disagree with you because they heavily subsidize their agriculture. Food is probably the most strategic commodity there is next to water. There are also environmental costs to transporting large amounts of food long distances. By maintaining we should drop restrictions that prevent someone else's subsidized goods from unfairly competing with our un subsidized goods, you are expecting the taxpayers of another country to subsidize your consumption at the expense of your own country's ability to produce.

[Michael Hardner]

And yet Europe and the US disagree with you because they heavily subsidize their agriculture. Food is probably the most strategic commodity there is next to water. There are also environmental costs to transporting large amounts of food long distances. By maintaining we should drop restrictions that prevent someone else's subsidized goods from unfairly competing with our un subsidized goods, you are expecting the taxpayers of another country to subsidize your consumption at the expense of your own country's ability to produce.

Don't we subsidize our agriculture too ?

"Food is the most strategic commodity" is meaningless unless we're planning for supplies to be cut off. The environmental cost for transporting food long distance is offset by additional energy requirements to grow food in Canada, as I recall.

What is fair when it comes to trade ? Is it fair for some producers to have a monopoly on their goods but not others ?

I don't have enough information to argue the details of trade deals, but I find 'food security' to be deceptive and cynical.

[Wilber]

Don't we subsidize our agriculture too ?

"Food is the most strategic commodity" is meaningless unless we're planning for supplies to be cut off. The environmental cost for transporting food long distance is offset by additional energy requirements to grow food in Canada, as I recall.

What is fair when it comes to trade ? Is it fair for some producers to have a monopoly on their goods but not others ?

I don't have enough information to argue the details of trade deals, but I find 'food security' to be deceptive and cynical.

When you think of imported food in Canada, you are referring mostly to fresh produce. I live in a farming area and the cost of fresh produce goes up drastically when Canadian product is no longer available on the shelves, so be careful what you wish for.

Read up on the Battle of the Atlantic. At one point Britain was less than 3 weeks from losing WWII because of "food security".

[Michael Hardner]

When you think of imported food in Canada, you are referring mostly to fresh produce. I live in a farming area and the cost of fresh produce goes up drastically when Canadian product is no longer available on the shelves, so be careful what you wish for.

You mean, like, for 10 months of the year ?

There's really no arguing against the fundamentals of trade. We could create a Canadian pineapple industry by configuring the trade rules just right, if we wanted to. The point is that when countries, like individuals, specialize in what they're good at there's an overall economic advantage.

Read up on the Battle of the Atlantic. At one point Britain was less than 3 weeks from losing WWII because of "food security".

I suppose that's the ultimate argument against globalized trade - the prospect of world war. I prefer to look at it the other way - if we are truly interdependent and international then conflict makes even less sense.

[Wilber]

You mean, like, for 10 months of the year ?

There's really no arguing against the fundamentals of trade. We could create a Canadian pineapple industry by configuring the trade rules just right, if we wanted to. The point is that when countries, like individuals, specialize in what they're good at there's an overall economic advantage.

More like 8 months. Some things like apples and pears can be stored much longer. No, we couldn't create a Canadian pineapple industry. They aren't even viable in Hawaii any more. What overall economic advantage would there be? Just because you can buy something cheaper doesn't mean there is an overall economic advantage. Agriculture employs a lot of people in this country and contributes a lot to the GDP. The more dependent you become on other countries for food, the less control you have over how plants are grown and animals are raised (read some labels and see how much crap from China is now in the food you are eating) and you don't have local sources to compete with imports to keep prices down. Less choice is not better.

From MacLean's in 2011

A new report by the Canadian Agri-Food Policy Institute concludes that Canada is in need of a significant overhaul of its agricultural policy in order to compete in global markets and keep Canadians fed. Canada was once the third largest exporter of food, but has fallen behind countries like Brazil and China after exports fell by 9 per cent and imports rose by 2 percent in 2009. CAPI recommends that Canada double agricultural exports to $75-billion and produce 75 per cent of its own food by 2025. Gaëtan Lussier, former agriculture minister and CAPI’s chair, said “if Canada does not change the way we look at agri-food development, we will be losers for a long time.” Canada’s agriculture industry is a core sector of the economy that generates two million jobs and accounts for 8.2 per cent of GDP.

Edited November 8, 2013 by Wilber

[Michael Hardner]

More like 8 months. Some things like apples and pears can be stored much longer. No, we couldn't create a Canadian pineapple industry. They aren't even viable in Hawaii any more. What overall economic advantage would there be?

A home grown pineapple industry creating Canadian jobs, damn you ! We'd also have pineapple security locked up.

Just because you can buy something cheaper doesn't mean there is an overall economic advantage.

Absolutely true.

Agriculture employs a lot of people in this country and contributes a lot to the GDP.

Also true, although agriculture has far less impact as it did in the past.

The more dependent you become on other countries for food, the less control you have over how plants are grown and animals are raised (read some labels and see how much crap from China is now in the food you are eating) and you don't have local sources to compete with imports to keep prices down. Less choice is not better.

More choice is also not better - the idea of competitive advantage is real. I think what you're missing is that such trade deals concentrate wealth, but that doesn't make trade deals themselves the problem.

[Wilber]

More choice is also not better - the idea of competitive advantage is real. I think what you're missing is that such trade deals concentrate wealth, but that doesn't make trade deals themselves the problem.

Without choice, there is no competition. I am not against trade deals, I think they are necessary. I'm just saying that removing tariffs without taking other things into consideration can be a very bad idea.

[Michael Hardner]

I'm just saying that removing tariffs without taking other things into consideration can be a very bad idea.

I agree with you, but how can we even evaluate whether these things have been evaluated ?

I think the discussion on this thread has been a good one for sorting out some of the more common arguments about free trade.

[Wilber]

I agree with you, but how can we even evaluate whether these things have been evaluated ?

I think the discussion on this thread has been a good one for sorting out some of the more common arguments about free trade.

I guess you just have to hope our guys got it right.

I don't think there can be such a thing as "free" trade because not everyone has the same interests and priorities. The objective should be to remove unnecessary obstacles and expense.

[Michael Hardner]

I don't think there can be such a thing as "free" trade because not everyone has the same interests and priorities. The objective should be to remove unnecessary obstacles and expense.

I think the failing is that the political goals of jobs and cheaper goods are often given more visibility than the risks of economic disparity and environmental threats.