China Beats out Canada as top Exporter to US

[I miss Reagan]

Canada can no longer call itself the world's No. 1 seller of goods to the United States.

China has edged out Canada for the first time, taking top spot in exports to the United States in July, according to international trade data released this week.

"This is perhaps the wake-up call that people need," said Nancy Hughes Anthony, president of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. "We have to take it very seriously and be prepared to compete."

"We can't be taking [u.S. markets] for granted. There's very stiff competition,"

Globe

How about that, it happened sooner than I thought. Canada is not only now irrelevant in the world political arena but is now set on it's way to economic irrelevance.

Canada needs to realize that it doesn't have the luxury of taxing away it's wealth if it wants to be competitive. Already Ontario is on the path to have-not status because if it's Liberal economics. On the other hand B.C. seems to be figuring it out by promising tax cuts! Finally a surplus after 10 years of NDP destruction. Even Saskatchewan's NDP's have shown fiscal responsibility. Unfortunately the socialist, more populous, East runs this country and will eventually run it into the ground.

[Riverwind]

How about that, it happened sooner than I thought.  Canada is not only now irrelevant in the world political arena but is now set on it's way to economic irrelevance.

You could say the same about the US. In the next 20 years the US will decline from being the most powerful and wealthiest nation in the world to one of many equals - if it is lucky. You will likely see that the standard of living in Canada will surpass that of Americans depending on how bad the inevitable bloodbath created by the US budget/trade deficits.

Personally, I think the US will look a lot like India in 20 years: masses of deperately poor people working to prop up the standard of living of the super wealthy elite.

[I miss Reagan]

I think you are right in that the US is in trouble as well, but not for the same reasons. The problem in the US is protectionism. Canada's problem is it's competitive atmosphere, or lack thereof. Canadians are going to have to realize they can't tax like Europe with the US right next door if they want to be competitive. I think the US will shape up. Canada on the other hand is addicted to spending and entitlements.

[Riverwind]

I think you are right in that the US is in trouble as well, but not for the same reasons.  The problem in the US is protectionism.

I disgree - I think the problem in the US is they have given up on the social contract where gov't attempts to provide an equal opportunity to all. Instead. the US is rapidly moving towards a caste system where if you are born poor you stay poor because the gov't no longer provides any education or similar services that would allow people to get out of the poverty trap.

For now, the elite of the world migrate to the US because it is still the center of economic wealth in the world. As relative wealth of the US drops in the next few decades you will find the world's elite moving to other places.

You also have a misconception about where Canada is in terms of social services: Canada is more like Britain that respect. Canada never has and never will spend the kind of money that continental European countries do on social programs. Canada is in teh unique position to find the middle road between the excesses of continental europe and brutal social darwinsm that exists in the US and, ironically. China.

[Toro]

I disgree - I think the problem in the US is they have given up on the social contract where gov't attempts to provide an equal opportunity to all. Instead. the US is rapidly moving towards a caste system where if you are born poor you stay poor because the gov't no longer provides any education or similar services that would allow people to get out of the poverty trap.

You do not understand American society if you believe that the government attempts to provide an equal opportunity to all. Rather, it is defined through the ability of the individaul to attain for himself. Americans do not define equal opportunity to all as in everyone starts at the same position. Rather, its defined as there is no class or caste system that stops you from getting to the top.

There is no caste system in the US.

You also have a misconception about where Canada is in terms of social services: Canada is more like Britain that respect. Canada never has and never will spend the kind of money that continental European countries do on social programs. Canada is in teh unique position to find the middle road between the excesses of continental europe and brutal social darwinsm that exists in the US and, ironically. China.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"Brutal social Darwinism" does not exist in the United States. Its a mythology that Canadians and Europeans use to define themselves. The US spends a fair amount on social and health programs, just not as much as other industrialized countries.

I would agree with you, though, that Canada is not like continental Europe. Canada is more in the Anglo-American camp, as the French would define it, and leaning more to the Anglo side of that equation. Canada is America with a stronger safety net.

[I miss Reagan]

I think you are right in that the US is in trouble as well, but not for the same reasons.  The problem in the US is protectionism.

I disgree - I think the problem in the US is they have given up on the social contract where gov't attempts to provide an equal opportunity to all. Instead. the US is rapidly moving towards a caste system where if you are born poor you stay poor because the gov't no longer provides any education or similar services that would allow people to get out of the poverty trap.

For now, the elite of the world migrate to the US because it is still the center of economic wealth in the world. As relative wealth of the US drops in the next few decades you will find the world's elite moving to other places.

You also have a misconception about where Canada is in terms of social services: Canada is more like Britain that respect. Canada never has and never will spend the kind of money that continental European countries do on social programs. Canada is in teh unique position to find the middle road between the excesses of continental europe and brutal social darwinsm that exists in the US and, ironically. China.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If any country has what you describe it's Britain. There is more opportunity for poor in the US than any other country. I'd like to ask you where you get this whole social darwinism idea of the US, but I have a good idea.Factor

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Sparhawk,

Instead. the US is rapidly moving towards a caste system where if you are born poor you stay poor because the gov't no longer provides any education or similar services that would allow people to get out of the poverty trap.

You raise a good point, and I think Toro missed it...

There is no caste system in the US.

Truly, there isn't a 'rigid caste system' where your last name defines the work you will toil at for the rest of your life. However, where one is born in the US certainly plays a role in the opportunities one will have. Areas such as this, like Harlem, or South Central Los Angeles virtually ensured that a person would spend more time just trying to survive versus studying to attend Julliard or Harvard.

To say that there is equal opportunity for all in the US (and even Canada, but we are subject to less extremes) is purely hypothetical.

[Riverwind]

If any country has what you describe it's Britain.  There is more opportunity for poor in the US than any other country.  I'd like to ask you where you get this whole social darwinism idea of the US, but I have a good idea.

The right likes to tell itself that the poor are poor because they did not take advantage of the opportunities available. It is a convenient thing to believe because it makes it possible to justify the dismantling of almost every social program. However, lack of access to health care and decent primary/secondary education make it virtually impossible for most people who are born poor to get out of the ghetto.

Here a quote from a meandering article from the Economist:

Yet this survey will argue that the cycle no longer works as it did. Some component parts —notably geographical mobility and immigration—continue to whirr merrily. Voluntary associations are reviving, though only after a long period of decline. But disturbingly, there are signs that social mobility is dwindling. The political system, for its part, is adding to social rigidities instead of counteracting them.

The article makes the case for both sides and does not come to the definitive conclusion that America is moving towards a classed based society, however, it does identify many disturbing trends which the American right insists on ignoring.

http://www.economist.com/surveys/displaySt...tory_id=4148812

[Toro]

Dear Sparhawk,

Instead. the US is rapidly moving towards a caste system where if you are born poor you stay poor because the gov't no longer provides any education or similar services that would allow people to get out of the poverty trap.

You raise a good point, and I think Toro missed it...

There is no caste system in the US.

Truly, there isn't a 'rigid caste system' where your last name defines the work you will toil at for the rest of your life. However, where one is born in the US certainly plays a role in the opportunities one will have. Areas such as this, like Harlem, or South Central Los Angeles virtually ensured that a person would spend more time just trying to survive versus studying to attend Julliard or Harvard.

To say that there is equal opportunity for all in the US (and even Canada, but we are subject to less extremes) is purely hypothetical.

No I didn't. Social mobility in the United States is very high compared to the rest of the world AND most of Europe BUT it appears to not be as high as it was 20 or 30 years ago, according to recent studies, including one that was released this year. Canada has actually surpassed the US in social mobility according to the recent studies.

[Guest eureka]

Those figures, IMR, need to be put into context. The half way point of the Clinton term was rge early recovery period from a deep recession - the George Bush recession. The half way point of the Busg term was in the post recessionary boom.

Rvrn so, the raw numbers of poor had increased and the degree of poverty had been exacerbated as the poor fell further behind: income dispparity widened and social services were savaged.

America, BTW, is a class based society. It always has been and its Constitution is steeped in class protections. It has simply got much worse as the underclass has been driven into a position of hopelessness. Social mobility is a bad joke and has for a very long time been more restricted than in most of Europe in practise.

[Toro]

America, BTW, is a class based society.

No its not. This is totally incorrect.

[Black Dog]

The U.S. Is a class-based society. Has been pretty much from Day One. Then again, so iS Canada. So is any country with a remotely capitalist system. Class division is a necessary corollary to capitalism.

I'd like to ask you where you get this whole social darwinism idea of the US, but I have a good idea

Well, its funny that you'd folow that up with Bill O'Reilly. Certainly, the Katrina disaster has brought the ugly side of social Darwinism in the U.S, to the forefront, whether it's Bill rambling on about "many, many, many of the poor in New Orleans are...drug-addicted...thugs" or the widespread sentiment that those who were unable to get out were unable to do so because of a dependance on government (and not because of, say, a lack of resources) and therefore, deserve what they got.

[Toro]

The U.S. Is a class-based society. Has been pretty much from Day One. Then again, so iS Canada. So is any country with a remotely capitalist system. Class division is a necessary corollary to capitalism.

Sure, if you look at the world through an outmoded, antiquated Marxist prism...

[BHS]

The U.S. Is a class-based society. Has been pretty much from Day One. Then again, so iS Canada. So is any country with a remotely capitalist system. Class division is a necessary corollary to capitalism.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is possibly the single most putrid, ridiculous piece of trash I've ever seen you post. Congratulations. What possible definition of "class" can you be using to make this statement hold water, even in your own mind?

[newbie]

The following like gives a pretty good example of the classed based society that we are. Many want to ignore it, but it is definitely here. A little dated (2002) but still very valid.

http://www.workforcedevelopmentgroup.com/n...twenty_six.html

[Black Dog]

Sure, if you look at the world through an outmoded, antiquated Marxist prism...

Right, I'll just borrow your Mickey Mouse viewfinder.

The Marxist paradigm of workers and bosses is also a definition of capitalism. The disparities between these groups is a byproduct of capitalism, one that is essential to its function.

Put another way: someone has to own the factory, someone has to mop the floors. To argue that these individuals have the same access to wealth and influence is simply laughable. What's more, if these inequalities did not exist the system would not work.

This is possibly the single most putrid, ridiculous piece of trash I've ever seen you post. Congratulations. What possible definition of "class" can you be using to make this statement hold water, even in your own mind?

It's utterly bizarrre to me that people can casually throw around terms like "the poor", or the "middle class" and yet get completely in a twist when someone points out the existence of such as evidence of a class system.

[Toro]

To argue that these individuals have the same access to wealth and influence is simply laughable.

Funny though that some of the greatest fortunes were made from fairly modest means. Nicely fits the dogmatic stereotype though.

What's more, if these inequalities did not exist the system would not  work.

Fiction. Unless, of course, you view the world through an antiquated, outdated 150 year-old Marxist prism.

[August1991]

Put another way: someone has to own the factory, someone has to mop the floors. To argue that these individuals have the same access to wealth and influence is simply laughable. What's more, if these inequalities did not exist the system would not work.

Frequently, the person pushing the mop is also the person who owns a part of the factory. Such is capitalism.

Frankly, given all the evidence of the past century, I wonder why we are even discussing this. Marxist theory and Intelligent Design are obviously false. Nevertheless, here goes.

Any notion of "class" must require some semblance of a cartel. What's the point of belonging to a particular class if the other class members compete with you?

In the United States, there are many, many examples where American business people undercut competitors, bully opponents and try to take the money and run. Think world.com and Enron. The idea that American capitalists would form a cartel to exploit workers is laughable. American capitalists can barely respect honest deals let alone a deal that would require collective discipline.

----

As to the thread's title, I feel disheartened once again. Trade is not a sports game. The Globe & Mail article which started this thread is replete with sports metaphors, including the article's title: "China beats out Canada as top exporter to U.S." Other terms used: "edge out" "stiff competition" "Number One spot" "can't take for granted". This is the vocabulary of the sport pages. It is completely unsuitable for understanding trade data or trade relations.

After a snow storm, if you help get a neighbour's car out, and then your neighbour helps you to get your car free, does it make any sense to speak of "stiff competition" or "Number One spot"?

----

newbie, I read through that link you provided. It's very interesting, but it entirely misses the point and for this, it is truly comical.

But if we cannot identify a person's class by sight alone, how can classism exist?

Yet, it does. The very language we use to indicate class differences itself speaks of hierarchy and power differentials. Why else would we use the terms "lower, middle, and upper" to define class?

Using the article, I could surmise that since all dentists wear white uniforms, speak in clipped tones, have complicated chairs, offices with photos and framed diplomas, they must be part of a "class" - indicative of a "power hierarchy".

I have often said the Left confuses symbol and reality. Your article is perfect evidence. If dentists "exploit" their patients, it is because they are part of a cartel - State enforced. The symbols of dentists have nothing to do with the cartel.

----

To summarize, trade does not occur between countries or groups. It occurs between individuals. For the notion of class to have any practical meaning, it requires that individuals of the same class stick together, form a cartel, behave as a single collective to outsiders, refuse personal advantage.

[Guest eureka]

Far more often, August, the person with the mop is a recent immigrant - often illegal - who is paid less than minimum wage.

It really does not matter that China has passed Canada for one short period in exports to the US; or even if it actually does overtake Canada in volume. It is diplacing American manufacturers and suppliers, not Canadian and, therefore is cause for alarm in the US as it is in Canada.

I don't believe that you accept your statements about class. Class in North America is strictly a money categorisation. Cartels and competition have little to do with it. Members of the same class, generally, act in their personal interest like good little capitalists and have not much interest in whether some fall out.

Years ago, I had a discussion with a friend, a Prof of political science at U of T. He was a Scot and had been in Canada for several years. His take was that in Britain he was Upper Class; in Canada, Middle Class. In Britain his professional status governed; in Canada, his income.

He agreed that there were many other Profs who were of Upper Class in Canada although they were junior to him. That was because of money in the background. Income and wealth counts outside of North America but does not entirely exclude talent from the better clubs as it does here.

Cartel does in some degree apply to the upper classes, moneyed classes, on this side of the pond. I give the example I have cited in the absurd discussions about "Left Wing Media" in the uS.

That example is the 1973 resort meeting of several of the most powerful american Famoly heads. There they made the decision to gain control of the media and to found several foundations for the purpose of formulating a Right Wing agenda and of propagandising it.

They carried out their plans and the Americam media and all its better funded "think tanks" are controlled by these family foundations. They succededwithin a few short years - hence Reagan.

[Canuck E Stan]

"Far more often, August, the person with the mop is a recent immigrant - often illegal - who is paid less than minimum wage."

I agree that the person with the mop might be a recent immigrant, but often being illegal-who is paid less than minimum wage, You'll have to convince me with figures on that part.

My parents were immigrants that were so overjoyed to be allowed to come to Canada that the only reason they voted for the Liberals was because:

1.They thought it was because of the Liberals, that they were allowed to come to Canada and therefore it was their duty to vote for them....because if anyone else got in they would have to go back.

2. In those days the Liberals were Catholics and the Conservatives were Protestants,whether that was actually the case it didn't matter to them, that's the way they viewed it. And being Catholic you voted for those of your religion.

Now today this may sound like a stupid arguement for voting ,but I believe people still vote this way.Those who come from foreign lands feel obligated to the government for allowing to come here and regardless of the issues invoved in the elections will vote for the party that brought them here.As a second generation Canadian, you become more in tune with the issues and all the fear that your parents had about being returned is gone and you become more involved with the political process at hand.

Immigrants, and this is just my opinion,will mostly vote for the party that was in power when they arrived in Canada.And will continue to vote for that party because of that fact.

[Montgomery Burns]

Canada can no longer call itself the world's No. 1 seller of goods to the United States.

China has edged out Canada for the first time, taking top spot in exports to the United States in July, according to international trade data released this week.

"This is perhaps the wake-up call that people need," said Nancy Hughes Anthony, president of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. "We have to take it very seriously and be prepared to compete."

"We can't be taking [u.S. markets] for granted. There's very stiff competition,"

Globe

How about that, it happened sooner than I thought. Canada is not only now irrelevant in the world political arena but is now set on it's way to economic irrelevance.

Canada needs to realize that it doesn't have the luxury of taxing away it's wealth if it wants to be competitive. Already Ontario is on the path to have-not status because if it's Liberal economics. On the other hand B.C. seems to be figuring it out by promising tax cuts! Finally a surplus after 10 years of NDP destruction. Even Saskatchewan's NDP's have shown fiscal responsibility. Unfortunately the socialist, more populous, East runs this country and will eventually run it into the ground.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think the Americans are unreasonable. Just because Canada's Liberal Party refers to Americans as morons, bastards, and refers to the coalition as "the coalition of idiots"; just because Carolyn Parrish went on Canada's state-run, taxpayer-funded, Soviet-style TV station and stomped on a George Bush doll with her boots, then gleefully stabbed the Bush doll in the head like an out-of-control deranged pyschopath on meth.

What's the big deal? All classy govts do this to their neighbor and biggest trading partner.

Dumb ungrateful Americans. They're just not as progressive as our governing Liberal Party.

[Canuck E Stan]

And I'll add to that ,Ann McLelland saying that WE are THEIR best friends.Why she did not say that THEY are OUR best friends, still bugs me.

[Montgomery Burns]

I Miss Reagan:

Even Saskatchewan's NDP's have shown fiscal responsibility.

I'm not sure if I agree with this. Lorne Calvert has expanded govt by 25% since he took over in 2001; this despite that Sask's population has decreased since 2001. Indeed, if not for the $700 million handout by the feds, Sask would be nearly $500 million in the hole for this year.

Until the NDP quits being so anti-business (Sask has the highest corporate tax rates in Canada), and starts developing Sask's vast resources, it will continue to be a have-not province.

Saskatchewan's personal tax rate starts at 11%!!

Saskatchewan is filthy rich in resources (oil, potash, uranium, coal, diamonds, lumber) but it has been governed mostly by the NDP whose obsession is having the lowest rates for a package of basic phone, power, natural gas, and vehicle insurance services.

Why? Because their socialist policies have made most in the province poor and much of the public needs those "lowest utility rates in Canada" to survive.

Calvert's govt brags that Sask's "package of four" is a hair less than Alberta's. Yay!! Sask residents save about $10 or $20 per month...meanwhile their wages are about 2/3 or 3/4 of the typical Albertan.

But then again, no one ever accused the NDP of thinking big.

And that is why Sask continues to have a brain drain to Alberta.

[PocketRocket]

When you consider that China has about 1/3 of the world's population, virtually all of whom are willing to work for a fraction of what we would consider to be acceptable pay, and that they are finally opening their borders to 2-way trade on a large scale, it's only natural that they're going to become THE major player in world economics over the next few decades.

What's happening right now is small potatoes compared to what's coming.

Any sensible nation will be trying to anticipate what China is going to need to import over the coming decades, and start gearing up in that direction.

Whoever does so first will get ludicrously wealthy from trade with China.

[Black Dog]

Funny though that some of the greatest fortunes were made from fairly modest means. Nicely fits the dogmatic stereotype though.

Like...who?

Any notion of "class" must require some semblance of a cartel. What's the point of belonging to a particular class if the other class members compete with you?

That's bogus. Interclass competition occurs even in societies with rigidly defined and strictly adhered to class or caste systems.Common interests do not rule out competition, be it for economic superiority or social status.

In the United States, there are many, many examples where American business people undercut competitors, bully opponents and try to take the money and run. Think world.com and Enron. The idea that American capitalists would form a cartel to exploit workers is laughable. American capitalists can barely respect honest deals let alone a deal that would require collective discipline.

Strawman argument.