Post Number: 300
|Posted on Friday, February 29, 2008 - 9:21 am: || |
And economy for that matter? All you need is a little bit of oil, and then threaten to take it away:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com /servlet/story/RTGAM.20080228. wnaftaottawasb28/BNStory/Natio nal/home
Clearly as Americans we need to start calling on our government to invest in alternative energy research. If not for the environment, but at least to be energy independent...Come on...seriously...
Post Number: 1615
|Posted on Friday, February 29, 2008 - 9:36 am: || |
The problem with NAFTA isn't with Canada or energy trading. It is with the offshore employment standards. It is much cheaper to employ people in less developed countries where the standard of living is lower, which creates serious competition for North American workers, who have no way to live on $50 a month or whatever it is they are paying. What NAFTA needs to do is make offshore dealing more competitive, or we will continue our plunge to equalized living standards.
Meantime, I have heard a couple stories about China losing shoe factories and other clothing work as the standard of living and wages rise in China. Hundreds of companies that flourished through the nineties have closed or the operations moved to cheaper countries like VietNam.
We could be heading for equalized world living standards, at least among the manufacturing nations. Is that a bad thing? Or is that what was intended all along? They just didn't do anything about our standards going down to make it easier on us to understand, accept, and deal with.
Post Number: 10136
|Posted on Friday, February 29, 2008 - 9:51 am: || |
As Gazhekwe has pointed out, NAFTA between The USA and Canada (initially called Free Trade)is very good for both countries. In fact I would say that Canada gets the raw end of the deal whenit comes to commodities such as electricity and oil.
When Free Trade was expanded to NAFTA (Mexico) that is where a lot of trouble started. Sort of how a lot of maufacturing is going overseas today but without the NAFTA agreements in place.
Post Number: 3305
|Posted on Friday, February 29, 2008 - 9:55 am: || |
Hell, wait until the Chinese start to exert their influence even more than they are doing right now.
Those US treasury bonds they hold have a tendency to do that.
As far as I'm concerned, all trade agreements should be held in abeyance, and we should be focusing on taking more care of the problems here in the Good 'Ole U.S. of A.
Tapping into that massive oil & gas reserve just sitting off the Louisiana coast wouldn't hurt either.
Post Number: 301
|Posted on Friday, February 29, 2008 - 9:58 am: || |
How about we abandon so called "Free Trade" and instead shift more towards Fair Trade.
My point was less about NAFTA than it was about American reliance on foreign sources for our energy needs. That announcement by the Canadien Government seems more to me like a shot across the bow of the American Government essentially holding us to the whims of our foreign energy providers.
Lets face...The United States of America is the largest DEBTOR Nation in the HISTORY OF THE WORLD. I am sure that some of that imbalance comes from our dependance on foreign oil. NAFTA has been great for North America...Canada is Close to paying off its Debt....and the United States has TRIPLED its budget deficit in the last 8 years.
Post Number: 3306
|Posted on Friday, February 29, 2008 - 10:01 am: || |
The US is facing the amount of debt that it has right now because our government gets off bribing people with their own money.
It also likes to bribe people in other countries with our money as well.
Post Number: 1307
|Posted on Friday, February 29, 2008 - 10:02 am: || |
good points, but what we need is to let the free market take place in terms of letting companies do what they do best.
When a product/service is subsidized or price controlled it does nothing but extend change.
Nafta (That BJ Clinton signed)(that she said she was or is for or against) doesn't properly count the subsidized health care or gov't subsidies to industries overseas.
We do need to make it easier to export overseas like other countries ship here without much restraint. Ship to Japan and China etc, good luck.
BTW - NOW is the time to make big bucks exporting to Canada! Now go forth and prosper.
Post Number: 2776
|Posted on Friday, February 29, 2008 - 10:10 am: || |
How many cars were made in Michigan this year? How many in Ontario? Hmm.
Post Number: 610
|Posted on Friday, February 29, 2008 - 10:28 am: || |
North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)
In three separate ceremonies in the three capitals on Dec. 17, 1992, President Bush, Mexican President Salinas, and Canadian Prime Minister Mulroney signed the historic North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The framework agreement proposed to eliminate restrictions on the flow of goods, services, and investment in North America. The House of Representatives approved NAFTA, by a vote of 234 to 200 on November 17, 1993, and the Senate voted 60 to 38 for approval on November 20. It was signed into law by President Clinton on December 8, 1993, and took effect on January 1, 1994.
Under NAFTA, the United States, Canada, and Mexico become a single, giant, integrated market of almost 400 million people with $6.5 trillion worth of goods and services annually. Mexico is the world's second largest importer of U.S. manufactured goods and the third largest importer of U.S. agricultural products.
Prior to NAFTA, Mexican tariffs averaged about 250% as compared to U.S. duties. After the pact, about half of the tariffs on trade between Mexico and the United States were eliminated, and the remaining tariffs and restrictions on service and investment (as far as it is possible) will be phased out over a 15-year period. The United States and Canada have had a free-trade agreement since 1989.
The treaty provides full protection of intellectual property rights (patents, copyrights, and trademarks) and also includes provisions covering trade rules and dispute settlement and establishes trilateral commissions to administer them. NAFTA also marks the first time in the history of U.S. trade policy that environmental concerns have been directly addressed.