Canadians fighting in Iraq...

[Guest eureka]

Canada's resources are around No. 1 in the world. I read somewhere no long ago that the reason Canada is in the G7 is because all those large economies wish to keep Canada close in order not to lose access to Canada's resources.

That makes Canada major power. Population and a large military are not the only indicators of power.

[err]

Drivel. Sellers always need buyers more than the reverse. The US can buy whatever it buys from us on the world market. We cannot find other buyers for our goods so easily, except, of course, for the oil and gas.

Really?

So they can get:

a) oil

water

c) gas

d) wood

e) uranium

and 95% of their supply of natural gas ....

[Argus]

Drivel. Sellers always need buyers more than the reverse. The US can buy whatever it buys from us on the world market. We cannot find other buyers for our goods so easily, except, of course, for the oil and gas.

Really?

So they can get:

a) oil

water

c) gas

d) wood

e) uranium

a) yes

don't need it

c) yes

d) yes

c) yes

You clearly don't understand anything about world markets. There is a finite amount of oil on the market, and a finite demand, with no real shortage. The Chinese and Americans both buy oil on that market. The fact we ship ours directly to the US while someone else sends theirs to China is basically irrelevent. If we refuse to sell oil to the US and ship it to China, instead, then whomever is currently supplying China will ship theirs to the US. The US will be no worse off in any respect. The same goes for other resources. I notice you ignored my suggestion that if we were so upset about the softwood lumber tax we simply refuse to sell them any wood and ship it to this mythical abundance of buyers out there.

Perhaps because you realize there ARE no other buyers.

[Argus]

Canada's resources are around No. 1 in the world. I read somewhere no long ago that the reason Canada is in the G7 is because all those large economies wish to keep Canada close in order not to lose access to Canada's resources.

There is nothing we have they can't get elsewhere. They can also afford to outbid anyone else in the world for whatever they want.

That makes Canada major power. Population and a large military are not the only indicators of power.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

True, in addition to population and military power they have the world's most powerful economy, and are the richest nation on Earth.

[Argus]

Drivel. Sellers always need buyers more than the reverse. The US can buy whatever it buys from us on the world market. We cannot find other buyers for our goods so easily, except, of course, for the oil and gas.

Really?

So they can get:

a) oil

water

c) gas

d) wood

e) uranium

and 95% of their supply of natural gas ....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Uhm, no. In fact, 84% of their natural gas is supplied by domestic sources. Further, the estimates of natural gas available to be tapped in the US are enormous, and more than capable, if necessary, of making up the difference if we destroyed our western economy by refusing to ship them any.

And once again, you do not understand how markets work. If we shut off the pipes we'd have to ship our natural gas across the ocean, presuming we can find buyers. That means building LNG terminals and finding ships for it. And once we start shipping to a world market how do you expect to stop the US from buying it from intermediaries? As I pointed out earlier, they are the richest economy in the world and can afford to outbid anyone else.

We supply 95% of their imports simply because it is easier for them to import gas in pipelines and easier for us to export it in pipelines. But they can switch sources if necessary, or expand domestic production.

[rbacon]

Remove their Canadian citizenship and deport all their families. That should help end their terrorist inclinations.

[Yaro]

You clearly don't understand anything about world markets. There is a finite amount of oil on the market, and a finite demand, with no real shortage. The Chinese and Americans both buy oil on that market. The fact we ship ours directly to the US while someone else sends theirs to China is basically irrelevant. If we refuse to sell oil to the US and ship it to China, instead, then whomever is currently supplying China will ship theirs to the US. The US will be no worse off in any respect. The same goes for other resources. I notice you ignored my suggestion that if we were so upset about the softwood lumber tax we simply refuse to sell them any wood and ship it to this mythical abundance of buyers out there.

Perhaps because you realize there ARE no other buyers.

Why do people keep saying I don't understand markets or trade? I don't get it, I would think that by this point it would be abundantly obvious that even if you disagree with my position that I know a great deal about this.

I understand world markets very well, I also understand that world supply is declining and world demand is rising. I understand that access to the geographically most convenient source of resources is far more important to the consumer then the supplier since the are purchased at sight and at world demand price. I understand that supply of natural resources located near China will always be cheaper for China to import then for the US and vise versa. I understand that under no circumstance will the US be able to continue to supply domestic demand without maintaining Canada as a supplier.

We supply 95% of their imports simply because it is easier for them to import gas in pipelines and easier for us to export it in pipelines. But they can switch sources if necessary, or expand domestic production.

The US cannot, in any meaningful way, increase domestic production of; water, wood, uranium, or gas. They are very limited in those areas. They have a good domestic supply of oil which they could tap but are very limited in other areas.

You are aware that Canada is the only country left on earth with a class 1 rain forest right? That wood is not easy to come by as it once was and that without Canada the US would be unable to maintain current levels of consumption without us? If we were to shut off shipments of wood to the US inside of a decade the US would be out of wood. That is a literal statement, there simply is no supply of suitable production hardwood left on earth besides Canada and Russia and Russian wood tends to be much lower quality.

You are aware that clean drinking water is becoming one of the worlds thinnest resources right? And that with deforestation the rate of this degradation will only increase? Water is most certainly a very important resource. On my last trip to japan a 500 ml bottle of water from the delta watershed (the same water my brother flushes his toilet with) cost $6. Now that's Tokyo where I also paid $5 for an orange but I would say it pretty clearly demonstrates that water is very much a commodity.

There is nothing we have they can't get elsewhere. They can also afford to outbid anyone else in the world for whatever they want.

No they can't, the US is no richer then anyone else and considering the way they are hemorrhaging they will soon be poorer then most. The US cannot afford to outbid anyone, certainly not any of the first world economies.

True, in addition to population and military power they have the world's most powerful economy, and are the richest nation on Earth.

They are not even nominally the richest nation on earth, and they do not have anywhere close to the worlds most powerful economy.

Perhaps because you realize there ARE no other buyers.

As I said before, perhaps you should do some research into why exactly the US wanted the NAFTA agreement so badly. There are dozens of other buyers in fact pretty much the entire planet. Its less efficient to ship to other places but the costs of trading with these other countries are born by them not us.

Of course this is ignoring the fact that nobody has yet to make even a half hearted attempt to explain to me the great advantages of international trade over a primarily domestic supply/consumption model.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Yaro,

Of course this is ignoring the fact that nobody has yet to make even a half hearted attempt to explain to me the great advantages of international trade over a primarily domestic supply/consumption model.

Indeed, we have pretty much everything needed to be self-sufficient. Heaven forfend that we should be cut off from our supply of Montel Williams and Geraldo.

[Argus]

You clearly don't understand anything about world markets. There is a finite amount of oil on the market, and a finite demand, with no real shortage. The Chinese and Americans both buy oil on that market. The fact we ship ours directly to the US while someone else sends theirs to China is basically irrelevant. If we refuse to sell oil to the US and ship it to China, instead, then whomever is currently supplying China will ship theirs to the US. The US will be no worse off in any respect. The same goes for other resources. I notice you ignored my suggestion that if we were so upset about the softwood lumber tax we simply refuse to sell them any wood and ship it to this mythical abundance of buyers out there.

Perhaps because you realize there ARE no other buyers.

Why do people keep saying I don't understand markets or trade? I don't get it,

Perhaps you understand them, but your ideological obsession with freeing Canada from its economic dependance on the US blinds you to the obvious and makes you sound ignorant.

We supply 95% of their imports simply because it is easier for them to import gas in pipelines and easier for us to export it in pipelines. But they can switch sources if necessary, or expand domestic production.

The US cannot, in any meaningful way, increase domestic production of; water, wood, uranium, or gas. They are very limited in those areas. They have a good domestic supply of oil which they could tap but are very limited in other areas.

The US does not need water, has enormous reserves of natural gas, and can buy wood from any number of our competitors, including Brazil and Argentina, Russia, the nordic countries, Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, etc. Canada is the largest producer of uranium, about 1/3rd, but there are other suppliers, including the Australians and Russians.

There is nothing we have they can't get elsewhere. They can also afford to outbid anyone else in the world for whatever they want.

No they can't, the US is no richer then anyone else

They're richer than us. They're richer, given the state of their economy, and the size of it, than anyone else on Earth. A billion dollars is a lot of money in Canada. To the Americans, it's chump change.

[kimmy]

This is simply not true. The insurgency has targeted American soldiers, but it has also ruthlessly attacked Iraqis who have joined the government, Iraqis who have joined the security forces, and believed kidnapped and killed a journalist working for the national broadcast network. You seek to convince me that the insurgents merely wish the US to go home, but that is only part of the goal. They also seek to undermine

Blah blah blah, the insurgencies have been ruthless bastards. Well no shit, they for the most part are trying to avoid the installation of a puppet regime. Targeting collaborators has always been a well accepted premise of any guerrilla war.

See, this highlights the difference between your position and our government's official position. In your view, they're collaborators. In our government's view, they're employees of a government we recognize and support.

If Canadian citizens went abroad and started killing government officials in Sweden or Australia, we'd capture them the moment they returned to Canada, and we'd send them right back to Sweden or Australia to stand trial. Is Iraq different from Sweden or Australia? No, not in the official position of our government.

It really is that cut and dried.

Blah blah blah, the insurgencies have been ruthless bastards. Well no shit, they for the most part are trying to avoid the installation of a puppet regime.

You recognize this, yet you're still trying to convince me that peace will break out in Iraq if the Americans just go home? An American departure wouldn't appease the insurgency, it would embolden the insurgency.

I am skeptical of this claim, and I would like to see some credible cites to support it.

I don't believe there are many credible analysts who would argue that the US can leave until the Iraq government is capable of maintaining security for its citizens, and clearly the ongoing activities of the insurgents make a convincing argument that the Iraq government is not yet able to provide security for its people.

Actually there’s virtually no credible analyst at this point that will say otherwise,

(...)

But if you want the assessments of a few key men that agree that the US should pull out you can look up the works of the following men some you might know;

Greg Thielmann, William Clark, Bruce Hoffman, or any of the DOZENS of former high ranking CIA members who have quit over the issues of Iraq.

I did a brief survey of the names you mention.

William Clark ascribes cynical motives to the invasion; he's a business analyst so I'm not sure what expertise he has on security issues anyway.

Thielmann argued that the information that "justified" the invasion was faulty.

Bruce Hoffman argued that the invasion was strategically a mistake.

None of that supports the claim I challenged you to support-- that analysts believe the US can or should vacate before the new government is capable of maintaining security in the country.

There is no doubt that many people question the decision to invade Iraq in the first place (I'm among them, btw.) And I don't doubt that many people in the CIA have quit their jobs over various Iraq issues. None of this supports the view that the US should just go home.

The US should go home, eventually, once the new government is capable of maintaining law and order. Pulling out before then would be grossly irresponsible and could result in catastrophic loss of life. I do not believe that our government's support for the new Iraqi administration, or the UN's support for it, is contingent upon an immediate withdrawal. There must be a time-line, and the Iraq government's ability to maintain law and order is a necessary precondition for a US withdrawal.

-k

[Yaro]

Perhaps you understand them, but your ideological obsession with freeing Canada from its economic dependance on the US blinds you to the obvious and makes you sound ignorant.

I am always willing to hear a well reasoned argument that points out flaws in my own arguments, this isn't one of them. You have made absolutely no coherent argument on this point, you have continually attacked me suggesting that despite my education on the topic I am obviously ignorant of some basic points of economics which are then unwilling to elaborate on. Until you do actually explain your point instead of making broad unsupported and unrealistic statements with no logical underpinnings you will have no realistic affect on anyone with an educated opinion on the subject.

As to my desire to "free Canada from economic dependence" its practical rather then ideological. The US star is setting, this is obvious to every non-US, non-sycophantic observer. When the US ship starts to sink it will have a very significant drag on other economies in direct proportion to the level of integration. Therefore why exactly would any sane person not argue for increasing separation between us and them?

The US does not need water, has enormous reserves of natural gas, and can buy wood from any number of our competitors, including Brazil and Argentina, Russia, the nordic countries, Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, etc. Canada is the largest producer of uranium, about 1/3rd, but there are other suppliers, including the Australians and Russians.

The US does need water, and will increasingly need water in the future. Which is why they have been working so hard to secure rights to Canadian water for the last 10 years. The issue is not that the US can't simply clean there water, its that this will have rapidly increasing price issues and the fact that there are some contaminants which are virtually impossible to remove fully. Drinking water is a strategic concern for the US.

Not a single one of those nations can provide the US with wood in a significant way, of them only Russia has a significant supply of lumber and they are literally surrounding with growing economies on all sides who will demand it including the worlds largest economy, the EU.

As for Uranium, Canada as the worlds largest exporter of uranium has a great deal to say on the topic of world prices on Uranium, to who, when, and for how much we sell it could have a very significant effect on its trade value.

They're richer than us. They're richer, given the state of their economy, and the size of it, than anyone else on Earth. A billion dollars is a lot of money in Canada. To the Americans, it's chump change.

No they're not, there in debt more then anyone on earth and even if they weren't they would still be poorer then the EU currently and China down the road. The US economy is flagging and will continue to do so, ignore that if you wish but don't do so and pretend to be informed on the subject if you do.

[Guest eureka]

Al Sistani has said that he wants a timetable for the US pullout following the elections. That will leave the US with no choice but to pull out according to his timetable not one in the indefinite future determined by the US.

That is if it does not want an insurgency conducted by the Shiites; and not just a few of them.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear kimmy,

and the Iraq government's ability to maintain law and order is a necessary precondition for a US withdrawal.

Perhaps you forgot something. Saddam maintained 'law&order', but was no longer US-friendly.

[Argus]

As to my desire to "free Canada from economic dependence" its practical rather then ideological. The US star is setting, this is obvious to every non-US, non-sycophantic observer.

No. This is a case of someone seeing what they want to see. The US "star" is nowhere near setting. Despite the idiotic economic policies of the Bush administration the US will survive it, and the war, and will be back into budget surpluses. Their productivity remains higher than that of Europe, and they have massive economic and natural resources. It remains to be seen how long the world will allow China to get away with its hostile trade policies, its mass counterfeiting and violation of trade rules adn regulations.

Not a single one of those nations can provide the US with wood in a significant way, of them only Russia has a significant supply of lumber and they are literally surrounding with growing economies on all sides who will demand it including the worlds largest economy, the EU.

It's WOOD. It grows everywhere. The only reason more isn't being farmed elsewhere is because there isn't a market for more. Have us stop exporirting to the US and suddenly there's a massive market, and the world will respond. Meanwhile, we'll be coping with forty percent unemployment.

As for Uranium, Canada as the worlds largest exporter of uranium has a great deal to say on the topic of world prices on Uranium, to who, when, and for how much we sell it could have a very significant effect on its trade value.

Canada has precisely nothing to say on who other nations sell their uranium too. Period.

[Argus]

Dear Yaro,

Of course this is ignoring the fact that nobody has yet to make even a half hearted attempt to explain to me the great advantages of international trade over a primarily domestic supply/consumption model.

Indeed, we have pretty much everything needed to be self-sufficient. Heaven forfend that we should be cut off from our supply of Montel Williams and Geraldo.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How much does a toaster cost? Eleven dollars? Ban all imports, which you'd have to do, I'm guessing, to preserve your home market for native industries if you have no exports, and that toaster coasts what? Thirty dollars? Shirts that are thirty or forty dollars are now eighty dollars. televisions that retail for two hundred are now four hundred. And on and on and on. You think Canadians are going to appreciate that?

The whole idea underlying trade is that we produce what we produce most efficiently, and trade it to other nations for what they produce most efficiently. Theoretically, that means we get cheaper manufactured goods and others get cheaper agricultural products and resources. As an example, the US is screwing that up right now with their tax on softwood imports, and that is costing every American homebuyer quite a bit of money.

[err]

As to my desire to "free Canada from economic dependence" its practical rather then ideological. The US star is setting, this is obvious to every non-US, non-sycophantic observer. When the US ship starts to sink it will have a very significant drag on other economies in direct proportion to the level of integration. Therefore why exactly would any sane person not argue for increasing separation between us and them?

The US does not need water, has enormous reserves of natural gas, and can buy wood from any number of our competitors, including Brazil and Argentina, Russia, the nordic countries, Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, etc. Canada is the largest producer of uranium, about 1/3rd, but there are other suppliers, including the Australians and Russians.

The US does need water, and will increasingly need water in the future. Which is why they have been working so hard to secure rights to Canadian water for the last 10 years. The issue is not that the US can't simply clean there water, its that this will have rapidly increasing price issues and the fact that there are some contaminants which are virtually impossible to remove fully. Drinking water is a strategic concern for the US.

Canada supplies 95% of their natural gas.

[err]

Not a single one of those nations can provide the US with wood in a significant way, of them only Russia has a significant supply of lumber and they are literally surrounding with growing economies on all sides who will demand it including the worlds largest economy, the EU.

It's WOOD. It grows everywhere. The only reason more isn't being farmed elsewhere is because there isn't a market for more. Have us stop exporirting to the US and suddenly there's a massive market, and the world will respond. Meanwhile, we'll be coping with forty percent unemployment.

Your head must be full of wood, Argus. Read your post again. There isn't a market for it ??? ... the world will respond....

[Yaro]

How much does a toaster cost? Eleven dollars? Ban all imports, which you'd have to do, I'm guessing, to preserve your home market for native industries if you have no exports, and that toaster coasts what? Thirty dollars? Shirts that are thirty or forty dollars are now eighty dollars. televisions that retail for two hundred are now four hundred. And on and on and on. You think Canadians are going to appreciate that?

This is completely irrelevant, unless your planing on arguing that society is able to maintain a higher level of social wealth despite a less efficient system then the actual cost of goods is irrelevant, it is only the cost compared to average income. As I said before, your operating on economics 101 logic, higher levels of efficiency are the only way to make a wealthier society and while there is often a significant correlation between productivity and efficiency they are not the same thing and tend to diverge when forced to peak levels of productivity.

The whole idea underlying trade is that we produce what we produce most efficiently, and trade it to other nations for what they produce most efficiently. Theoretically, that means we get cheaper manufactured goods and others get cheaper agricultural products and resources. As an example, the US is screwing that up right now with their tax on softwood imports, and that is costing every American homebuyer quite a bit of money.

The theory is called comparative advantage, it is one of the hallmarks of the argument for free trade. Basically the theory that goods should be produced and distributed from the point at which they are the cheapest. Unfortunately while the simplistic mathematics of the theory are sound the conditions for it to be at all useful simply do not exist.

A few of the issues which create our current delima.

The inability for labour to move, without the ability to move the labour pool to the point at which production becomes logically cheapest literally 1/2 of the value of contemporary comparative advantage becomes pointless.

Industrialization, it is important to note that the theory of comparative advantage is pre industrial. When Torrens developed the idea in the early 1800's the methods of production were often still small home/shops where individuals created specialized goods in small volumes. Industrialization changed the methodology and the value of specialized areas, for instance it was no longer possible to produce most textiles cheaper in areas that had previously specialized in it. The advantage of producing these kind of local specialties and how they relate to overall efficiency disappeared overnight.

Transport of raw goods is virtually without exception more expensive then the transport of finished goods. This is important to note because the availability of natural resources is one of the only remaining areas in which competitive advantage still holds any actual weight. However since raw goods are in almost all cases more expensive to transport then finished goods, production should occur close to resources.

It is however important to note that I have not argued that free trade when analyzed in isolation is a bad thing only that in the modern world because of outside factors it is misused and creates a great deal of inefficiency.

The single largest issue is that of wages, because wages are not an efficiency issue and in any economic model free trade is an absolute unifying factor it is a principle mistake that people from one market should believe that they are separate from any other market. For example the way that we discuss our economy and the US's economy, or by extension our economy and China's economy. Free trade creates a single economic entity, and so when we discuss wages in China we are really discussing wages in Canada as they are by any measure and any economic system or related theory directly and inexorably linked. Unfortunately because of the natural advantages that countries like China have been able to gain through there lack of IP law enforcement and slave labour camps free trade serves only to lower living standards everywhere.

No. This is a case of someone seeing what they want to see. The US "star" is nowhere near setting. Despite the idiotic economic policies of the Bush administration the US will survive it, and the war, and will be back into budget surpluses. Their productivity remains higher than that of Europe, and they have massive economic and natural resources. It remains to be seen how long the world will allow China to get away with its hostile trade policies, its mass counterfeiting and violation of trade rules adn regulations.

Only the most incredibly delusional among us are unwilling to admit that the US star is setting. They show every sign of economic collapse and other economies are growing rapidly. The US will undergo a massive shift, it will lose most of its productivity as IP production moves to other nations with better education systems and higher populations, its trade imbalances and debt will suffocate it. The US has nothing going for it other then a very substantial natural resource base, but when the capital shift to the much more profitable Asian markets is complete it wont even have its headquarter base anymore. China hasn't don't anything more hostile then the actions of the US when it comes to trade and it should be noted that the US is the #3 importer from China behind the EU and Japan so the notion that China's economy is so dependent on the US is rather farcical.

It's WOOD. It grows everywhere. The only reason more isn't being farmed elsewhere is because there isn't a market for more. Have us stop exporirting to the US and suddenly there's a massive market, and the world will respond. Meanwhile, we'll be coping with forty percent unemployment.

Wood grows everywhere does it? you should probably do more research before making such a stupid statement. The US does not produce anywhere close to enough domestically to supply itself and there are very few places left on earth that actually have whats necessary to grow large amounts of wood. Wood takes allot longer to grow then you realize.

Canada has precisely nothing to say on who other nations sell their uranium too. Period.

Of course not, but we do have a say in who we sell it to and how much for.

[Argus]

Canada supplies 95% of their natural gas.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How many times do I have to tell you you are wrong before you go and check?

[Argus]

Not a single one of those nations can provide the US with wood in a significant way, of them only Russia has a significant supply of lumber and they are literally surrounding with growing economies on all sides who will demand it including the worlds largest economy, the EU.

It's WOOD. It grows everywhere. The only reason more isn't being farmed elsewhere is because there isn't a market for more. Have us stop exporirting to the US and suddenly there's a massive market, and the world will respond. Meanwhile, we'll be coping with forty percent unemployment.

Your head must be full of wood, Argus. Read your post again. There isn't a market for it ??? ... the world will respond....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Right now there is a market, and that market is strongly supplied by Canada. If Canada withdraws from the market new suppliers will rush in to fill the void. That's how world markets work.

[Yaro]

Right now there is a market, and that market is strongly supplied by Canada. If Canada withdraws from the market new suppliers will rush in to fill the void. That's how world markets work.

Yes that's the way it works but certain preconditions have to exist before a country can supply that much wood and Canada is one of the only places on earth were those conditions exist. And even in Canada with all of our space and all of our natural tree-growing environment is lowering sustainable wood production, specifically the old growth production that is for all intents and purposes not a renewable resource (as it takes 100 years to produce true old growth standard hardwood). There simply isn't an country that can "turn on" the wood production it would take a minimum of 20 years for a country to start producing even the lowest quality pulp and soft fibre woods.