err Posted August 20, 2005 Report Posted August 20, 2005 err, I think you've missed my point.I don't approve of NAFTA at all.If you don't approve of NAFTA, then you must be in favour of barriers to trade between Canada and the US. Well, the US government has done precisely that, imposed a barrier to trade. You should applaud. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> August... I think it is you who has missed the point... re-read the post. My point had to do with both teams playing by the same rules.... Quote
mirror Posted August 20, 2005 Author Report Posted August 20, 2005 Whatever happened to the federal investment review agency (FIRA)? I always thought it was essential for Canada to be able to say yea or nay as to who was going to control our resources. Perhaps we need to slow down our exports of oil and gas anyways to make sure that we will have enough for ourselves in the years to come. Hopefully these softwood lumber criminal antics by the US is the straw that breaks the camel's back and that we pull out of NAFTA. I am so tired of our national governments being run by captains of industry which constantly cut business deals that screw the average working Canadian. Quote
shoop Posted August 21, 2005 Report Posted August 21, 2005 I am so tired of our national governments being run by captains of industry which constantly cut business deals that screw the average working Canadian. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> More empty, unsubstantiated leftie propaganda. When Jack Layton continually makes policy proposals that would hurt ALL Canadians economically it only goes to prove why he will NEVER be a realistic contender for 24 Sussex .... thankfully! Mindblowingly ridiculous policy proposal number 1 - Slap Tariffs on Canadian oil exports. Mindblowingly ridiculous policy proposal number 2 - Create a tribunal to examine the monopoly of multinational oil companies. What will be the third piece of this policy triple crown Jackie? Bring back FIRA? How about re-starting production of the Avro Arrow? Why not nationalize Petro Canada? Make Naomi Klein Minister of International Trade? Quote
Guest eureka Posted August 21, 2005 Report Posted August 21, 2005 Nothibg inconsistent at all, August. The victim of an assault would be well advised to insist that a street be properly lighted before walking down it again. He would also realise that he should have taken another route rather than tread dangerous territory in the dark. The perpetrator of the crime should still be punished. Quote
Toro Posted August 21, 2005 Report Posted August 21, 2005 Nothibg inconsistent at all, August. The victim of an assault would be well advised to insist that a street be properly lighted before walking down it again. He would also realise that he should have taken another route rather than tread dangerous territory in the dark.The perpetrator of the crime should still be punished. But the punishment hurts us as well. Trade wars benefit no one. The idiotic softwood lumber tariffs hurt Americans too as it slaps an extra $1,000 onto the cost of a house. Putting tariffs on west coast agricultural products hurts Canadian consumers. I certainly sympathize with the Canadian government as the US is 100% totally in the wrong. But a trade war hurts all parties. Quote "Canada is a country, not a sector. Remember that." - Howard Simons of Simons Research, giving advice to investors.
Guest eureka Posted August 21, 2005 Report Posted August 21, 2005 Enforcement always carries a cost: a cost that society must bear to deter crime - for we are talking about crime, About theft and extortion on a grand scale. This would not be a trade war in the ordinary sense but a skirmish that the Americans can end easily by returning the stolen property. I doubt that the hurt for Canada could be any greater than it is now suffering from unanswered breaches of contract. Quote
err Posted August 21, 2005 Report Posted August 21, 2005 But the punishment hurts us as well. Trade wars benefit no one. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Remaining a doormat probably hurts more though.... and for longer... Quote
err Posted August 21, 2005 Report Posted August 21, 2005 When Jack Layton continually makes policy proposals that would hurt ALL Canadians economically it only goes to prove why he will NEVER be a realistic contender for 24 Sussex .... thankfully! It seems to me, and to many Canadians (through published polls) that Mr. Layton's proposals, like the recent budget amendment, are to benefit Canadian citizens.... Mindblowingly ridiculous policy proposal number 1 - Slap Tariffs on Canadian oil exports. Did you read Mirror's Globe & Mail link... where even the NAFTA negotiators think that Canada should do something along these lines... Maybe you should advise them, since you're obviously way smarter than everyone else. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Quote
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.