BS: NAFTA and the Primaries

Subject: BS: NAFTA and the Primaries
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 01:43 PM

Regarding "free trade" (NAFTA) between Canada, U.S. and Mexico, it appears that the candidates have very different opinions.

McCain (and Harper, Canadian PM) both right-wingers want to keep it in place.

Hillary wants to open it up and re-negotiate.

Obama is playing two ends against the middle and nobody seems to know what he really thinks about NAFTA.

If the primaries (especially Ohio) have anything to do with the economy, its Hillary who will be able to wade through this mess.

Subject: RE: BS: NAFTA and the Primaries
From: Riginslinger
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 01:45 PM

It's hard to know what Obama thinks about anything else either.

Subject: RE: BS: NAFTA and the Primaries
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 01:46 PM

All Canadians should hope McCain wins the election. Re-negotiation would only be to Canada's disadvantage.

Subject: RE: BS: NAFTA and the Primaries
From: Barry Finn
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 01:48 PM

O'Bummer agrees with Hillary!

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: NAFTA and the Primaries
From: Peace
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 01:48 PM

The only re-negotiation necessary is getting OUT of the NAFTA agreement.

Subject: RE: BS: NAFTA and the Primaries
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 01:58 PM

Peace, put Canada in the poorhouse?

Should the US put a tariff on the oil we furnish them?
Should General Motors, Ford, etc, and all companies shipping goods to the US be hit with US tariffs? Should our beef and farm produce be subject to quotas and tariffs?

NAFTA is important to Canada, it helps to keep our standard of living high.

Viva McCain!

Subject: RE: BS: NAFTA and the Primaries
From: Peace
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 02:02 PM

We are getting it in the neck and have been for years.

Subject: RE: BS: NAFTA and the Primaries
From: Peace
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 02:05 PM

Poor house?

Oil.
Natural gas.
Tar sands.
Electricity.
Trees/lumber.
Wheat/other grains.
Water.

Subject: RE: BS: NAFTA and the Primaries
From: gnu
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 02:32 PM

Q???? Beef? Produce? Good lord, man!! Where ya been? Not to mention softwood lumber. Canada has been getting shafted for $Bs!!! Over $6B JUST on the lumber. And that was a few years back.

McCain has been making hay with the "Canada" routine as of late. But, I suppose it's a start. Better than when Garge got in and said he wanted to meet with Mexican Pres ASAP as Mexico was the biggest trading partner of the USA. And FAR better than when Garge was on "This Hour Has 22 Minutes", where he was duped by Rick Mercer... Garge didn't even know the name of the Canuck Prime Minister. Betcha he knew it after he finally met with our PM and Jean served him Alberta beef and PEI spuds for a couple of days before asking Garge about the bullshit.

A tariff on our oil? I dunno if they would do that to their biggest supplier.

And potash has not been mentioned yet. Or M16s...

Subject: RE: BS: NAFTA and the Primaries
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 02:35 PM

Yes, all those things we sell to the U. S.; add the manufactured goods to the list.
Tariffs would cut into Canada's ability to make sales.

Some U. S. congressmen and many US ranchers and farmers would like to stop Canadian meat, poultry and farm produce from crossing the border. A sure recipe for poverty for many farmers and livestock growers.
______________________

Electricity may be an oddball. With the grid system interconnected, sometimes our supply in some areas may be from the US, and the next day the reverse. Dunno about this, but an engineer with the power company tried to explain to me how it worked, but not too successfully (we were in a refueling stop and the beer tap was open).

Subject: RE: BS: NAFTA and the Primaries
From: Amos
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 02:36 PM

ANyone who has difficulty understanding what Obama thinks is not paying attention, or is perhaps dyslexic.


A

Subject: RE: BS: NAFTA and the Primaries
From: PoppaGator
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 02:36 PM

"Free trade," specifically personified by NAFTA, is unpopular in rust belt states like Ohio, where manufacturing jobs are being lost to low-priced overseas labor. On the other hand, it's fairly popular in agricultural areas because crops can be sold more profitably in the post-treaty world.

All the candidates have shaped their pronouncements on this controversy differently in different primary states. Duh!

While I certainly sympathize with workers who stand to lose their current jobs, I think we're in an era that will increasingly require all of us to be more flexible about our job skills and our tenure in any given employment situation.

I'm speaking as a person who had a decent twenty-plus-year career in the now-defunct typography industry, and who has been scuffling ever since going through corporate bankruptcy in the mid-90s. There were not nearly so many of us typesetters as auto workers, so we had no politicians on our side when our industry disappeared out from under us. The only message I got, the one thing I learned, was to suck it up and try to adapt. I believe that many other people will have to undergo a similar process for our world to change to the degree that it HAS TO change, and soon.

Our nation, our economy, and our culture have been postponing "future shock" for at least a quarter-century if not longer. Many 20th-century industries and job skills are long overdue for obsolescence. We need to be retooling for a radically different future, and there are plenty of jobs that need to be developed in yet-to-be-created industries related to alternative energy, etc. The birth pangs will be difficult, but prolonging the agony by hanging onto the past is not helping.

One very obvious development that will have to be undergone (in the US) is a transition from today's hopelessly screwed-up medical-payment system. The current setup employs huge numbers of clerical workers spending their days figuring out how to deny customers the medical care they have been paying for. This has to stop, and a radically different system will very obviously be better for everyone in general, but for a whole lot of individuals, it'll mean loss of a fairly comfortable and well-paying job in the short run.

Many of the job losses blamed on free trade should be seen in the same light. The real solution is not to "protect" jobs that are becoming obsolete ~ and "retraining" is only part of a productive solution. Creation of entirely new jobs to replace the lost jobs has to come first, or people will be retrained for opportunities that won't exist.

Subject: RE: BS: NAFTA and the Primaries
From: Amos
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 02:39 PM

Fromt he Lonndon FInancial Times:

Obama's free-trade credentials top Clinton's

Published: March 3 2008 18:35 | Last updated: March 3 2008 18:35

"While Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are locked in combat for the Democratic party's presidential nomination, commentary on the front-running Mr Obama's policy agenda, especially on trade, has become faintly ludicrous.

On the one hand, David Wessel declared in the Wall Street Journal recently, as others have, that the two had no disagreements on trade policy. On the other hand, Mrs Clinton has assaulted Mr Obama for having no policy agenda at all, a charge that John McCain, the Republican frontrunner, has eagerly embraced. Both views are wrong. Mr Obama has specifics and they differ in important respects from those offered by Mrs Clinton.

The Russian proverb goes that, if you are looking for a good son-in-law, you would not ask whether he drank but only how he behaved when he was drunk. Similarly, no Democratic candidate during the primaries can be anything but a protectionist. The only question is: of the two, which is likely to be friendlier as president to the cause of multilateral free trade? Careful scrutiny suggests that the odds are in favour of Mr Obama.

To be sure, all Democratic candidates must face the reality that their party has gravitated towards protectionism, overt and covert, in the past decade. The number of Democrats voting for trade deals has steadily declined. The North American Free Trade Agreement was a turning point that deeply divided the party and then a succession of bilateral free trade agreements, many paltry, has steadily eroded the political capital of free-trade Democrats as they were forced repeatedly to go in to bat for trade in sceptical constituencies. The Democrats have also had to face the problem that the antiwar groups that have helped lift the party's fortunes also overlap often with anti-globalisation and hence anti-trade groups, so the party tends to be propelled into an anti-trade position willy-nilly.

This time, however, it is the labour unions that have come to dominate the scene. The past congressional elections saw their rise to disproportionate power, with nearly all newly elected Democrats indebted to union support that is doubly potent since it offers both labour (to ring bells and make house calls) and capital (to run advertisements). Besides, with the protectionist influence of John Edwards a factor, Mr Obama and Mrs Clinton were pushed into denigration of freer trade. The close race for working-class votes, the latest in Ohio, has meant that the witless fear of trade as the source of distress had to be indulged.

Yet at least five reasons make Mr Obama a less disturbing prospect.

First, Mrs Clinton, in an infamous interview with the Financial Times, responded to a question on support for the Doha round with the need for a pause, whereas Mr Obama has not done so. Second, whereas Mr Obama's economist is Austan Goolsbee, a brilliant Massachusetts Institute of Technology PhD at Chicago Business School and a valuable source of free-trade advice over almost a decade, Mrs Clinton's campaign boasts of no professional economist of high repute. Instead, her trade advisers are reputed to be largely from the pro-union, anti-globalisation Economic Policy Institute and the AFL-CIO union federation.

Third, Mr Obama's main union support comes from the Service Employees International Union and the Teamsters, neither of which is protectionist: the SEIU's membership is in the non-traded sector and, except on the issue of Mexican trucks coming into the US, Teamsters do well as trade expands. By contrast, Mrs Clinton's support comes heavily from the AFL-CIO, which holds strong anti-trade views. This matters because the IOUs you sign during campaigns provide a straitjacket that can restrict your policy options.

Fourth, while Mr Obama's anti-Nafta rhetoric is disturbingly protectionist, as is Mrs Clinton's, remember that this is also strategic. If both are anti-Nafta in the campaign now, her opposition is reinforced because she carries the burden of having supported her husband in backing it.

Fifth, Mr Obama has smartly seized John Kerry's proposal to remove the incentive to invest abroad and has gone further by proposing that those who invest at home will be given a tax incentive. It is dubious that this proposal will survive challenges from existing bilateral and World Trade Organisation agreements, or can achieve much when other countries can do the same. It is exactly the sort of policy that a constituency fearful of losing jobs demands but, by meeting that demand, President Obama would be left free to abandon the anti-trade rhetoric and embrace the multilateral free trade that has served the American and the world interest so well."...

Subject: RE: BS: NAFTA and the Primaries
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 03:43 PM

Obama obviously would be bad for Canada, and Hillary or any other Democrat probably would be anti-NAFTA.

Yes, Gnu, US restrictions have hurt Canadians; NAFTA offers help.
I doubt that Canada will ever be free completely of US restrictions, since bureaus and commissions can set exclusionary policies supposedly based on quality, hygiene, etc., that really have nothing to do with those matters.

Subject: RE: BS: NAFTA and the Primaries
From: gnu
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 03:50 PM

The North American Fuck Thee Agreement offers help? And, in the next sentence, you.... oh, nevermind. I am gone.... like the breaking wind. You shant see me here anymore... but you may still smell my disgust.

Subject: RE: BS: NAFTA and the Primaries
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 04:45 PM

Amos, would you care to translate the last two paragraphs of the article from the London Financial Times? It sounds like gobbly-gook to me.

Hillary and Obama say they want to re-negotiate NAFTA but its just rhetoric because:

1. Hillary supported the agreement when it was signed and because she is supported by the AFL-CIO

2. Obama embraces the multilateral free trade that has served the American and the world interest so well.

Can you please cite a source that isn't so confusing?

I think Hillary is being more honest than Obama and McCain will do anything the big boys tell him to do. Obama is looking more and more like he doesn't know what he is talking about.

Subject: RE: BS: NAFTA and the Primaries
From: Peace
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 05:10 PM

He is looking like maybe he doesn't understand the NAFTA agreement. But then, truthfully, Hillary doesn't seem to, either. IMO.

Subject: RE: BS: NAFTA and the Primaries
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 05:10 PM

This article is a little easier to understand:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080228.wwcomartin28/BNStory/specialComment/columnists

"...what a load of bunk the two Democrats preach. They want renegotiated environmental and labour standards to protect American jobs. But Canada's standards in those areas are as high, if not higher, than those of the United States.

They talk about the need for a new dispute-settlement mechanism. But which is the country that should be shouting from the rooftops on that front? Wasn't it Washington that undermined the dispute-settlement process in respect to softwood lumber negotiations?"

Subject: RE: BS: NAFTA and the Primaries
From: Peace
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 05:15 PM

True. And wasn't it Washington that got really punitive and cost Canada billions with the BS on mad cow disease and SARs? We didn't support them in Iraq (this time 'round) and we got it in the teeth from our dear friends to the south.

Subject: RE: BS: NAFTA and the Primaries
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 05:50 PM

Thats right, Peace, and the only good thing that McCain has to say about NAFTA is that it keeps Canada involved in Afghanistan and U.S. security measures at the border.

He's a very scary individual but our PM seems to think McCain is The Man.

Its definitely time for change on both sides of the border. If the U.S. is truly interested in "free trade" its time they started to deal fairly with Canada and Mexico. Its a good place to start. Afterall, if you can't live up to your agreements with neighbors, what will the rest of the world think?

Subject: RE: BS: NAFTA and the Primaries
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 05:52 PM

Isn't it interesting when the candidates have to choose between a policy that will get them elected and a policy that might please Canadians?
Face it..there IS no safe stance on an issues like NAFTA. No matter what you try, you will upset someone. Woodrow Wilson tried protectionism and isolationism just before WWI, but when his hand was forced, he tried to please everyone by helping win the war, then suggested the League of Nations...which was less successful than NAFTA.
Ok, so that's not the best example, but maybe it makes my point. No program like NAFTA can possibly be all things to all people.

And Obama seems to realize that and try NOT to make promises he can't keep and take positions he won't be able to defend later.

Subject: RE: BS: NAFTA and the Primaries
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 06:00 PM

Looks to me like the LFT reporter was confused by their intentionally ambiguous statements, but that didn't stop him from writing at length.
Doubt this will help much, it is from the NY Times:

Despite NAFTA attacks, Clinton and Obama Haven't Been Free Trade Foes. Michael Luo. Feb. 28, 2008.
As they have tussled for votes in economically beleaguered Ohio, ...Obama and Clinton have both excoriated the North American Free Trade Agreement while lobbing accusations against their opponent on the issue.
Lost amid the posturing, however, is that both have staked out nuanced positions in the past on Nafta and have supported similar trade deals. Although their language has become much more hostile to free trade as they have exchanged charges and countercharges, neither of them would have been mistaken in the past for an ardent protectionist or a die-hard free trader.
Instead, both appear to have been part of the conflicted middle ground within the Democratic Party that is groping for a proper balance between being friendly to free trade agreements, believing they are beneficial to the economy, but also seeking to level the playing field for the United States when it comes to labor and environmental standards and addressing job losses that come with globalization.
............
"They're hedging their bets," said Rep. Mary Kaptur, an Ohio Democrat whose district in the northern part of the state has been decimated by job losses. "They're trying to have it both ways, and you can't."
For Mrs. Clinton, her past on the issue poses a special dilemma as she stumps fopr votes in Ohio, where Nafta is extremely unpopular, given that it was her husband, Pres. Bill Clinton, whose administration pushed through the trade agreement, making it a top priority and counting it as one of his legislative triumphs.
She now says that she supported the trade agreement as a loyal member of the administration but had reservations in private, although there is scant evidence of this in her public statememts because she typically espoused Nafta's benefits.
_____________________.................
"The Obama campaign has seized on past statements Mrs. Clinton made about the positive effects of Nafta, including one from 2004 when she said "on balance Nafta has been good for New York and America" during a news teleconference. But she said in the same teleconference that past trade deals needed to be revisited with an eye to enforcing labor and environmental standards.
.................................
They have both sent out mailers with selective quotes. One from Clinton's camp quotes Obama in 2004 when he was running for the Senate praising Nafta, declaring "Ohio needs to know the truth about Obama's position on protecting American workers and NAFTA."
One from Obama's camp that quoted Mrs. Clinton as saying in Newsday that Nafta had been a "boon" to the economy- she objected, saying the word was not hers but part of the newspaper's assessment of her position on the trade agreement.

Doubt that this helps. Both camps seem to be intentionally ambiguous, and reporters try to make sense out of nebulosity.

Subject: RE: BS: NAFTA and the Primaries
From: Peace
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 06:08 PM

"No program like NAFTA can possibly be all things to all people."

True. However, we in this part of North America would like it to be something to us, too. We are NOT poor neighbours who feel we should receive the bones tossed our way. AND, we did get a screwing over SARs, mad cow, softwood lumber.

Subject: RE: BS: NAFTA and the Primaries
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 06:32 PM

"They want renegotiated environmental and labour standards to protect American jobs. But Canada's standards in those areas are as high, if not higher, than those of the United States."

True for Candada; not for Mexico

Subject: RE: BS: NAFTA and the Primaries
From: bobad
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 06:44 PM

"On Wednesday, the Canadian Television network reported that two unnamed Canadian sources said a "senior member" of Obama's campaign team had called Michael Wilson, Canada's ambassador in Washington, in the last month to warn him that Obama would be ratcheting up rhetoric against the North American Free Trade Agreement, but that he should "not be worried about what Obama says about NAFTA," adding, "It's just campaign rhetoric. … It's not serious."

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4365922&page=1

Subject: RE: BS: NAFTA and the Primaries
From: Janie
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 07:33 PM

I don't understand NAFTA either, but as long as trade issues are viewed through the monoculars of Free Trade vs. Protectionism, everyone is barking up the wrong trees, even if they are different trees.

Seems to me that as currently understood and implemented, free trade agreements result in lots of money for corporate coffers (and sometimes government coffers - where it stays or gets spend in ways other than to promote the welfare of the citizens to whom that government is responsible), and increased exploitation of workers and rape of the environment throughout the world.

I would like to see the advent of FAIR trade agreements that are contingent upon, and also offer some incentive for some minimally reasonable standard of working conditions for laborers in those countries, and some minimally reasonable standard for environmental protections.   Long-term, that would be a win-win situation.

The vast majority of the monitary benefits of free trade accrue to a relatively very small number of the inhabitants of this world, and result in a net degradation of the environment worldwide. The earth, and the people who produce the goods freely traded do not come close to reaping a proportionate share of the benefits.

Subject: RE: BS: NAFTA and the Primaries
From: Janie
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 07:43 PM

Several posts went up while I was typing the above.

As Dick noted - not for Mexico.

And I also realize I am not just commenting on NAFTA.

Subject: RE: BS: NAFTA and the Primaries
From: Sandy Mc Lean
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 07:45 PM

I am no fan of free trade. I voted for Cretien when he was going to shitcan it and ditto for the GST. He was lying about both though and agreed to add Mexico into the deal. There is no level playing field with Mexico and we are losing industry to a cheaper labour source with no great return benefit. Softwood lumber violated the FT agreement but the idiot in control of the Canadian government today backed down to kiss Bush's arse. If he had any balls he would have put a dollar for dollar export tax on oil to match the duty that Bush was illegally collecting on the wood. That all being said both Canada and the USA are being bled dry by China, even without a free trade deal. They use next to slave labour to flood the world market with cheap goods. Even if the quality is junk the cheap price creates demand and quality on some stuff is improving (think Blueridge). China is quickly gaining control of the world economy through it's hoard of American dollars. They can make the value of the American greenback swing at will and are not bashful about using threats of doing so to make Bush dance to their jig. The concept of the global economy is about to blow up in our collective faces. China also wants to use its new found wealth to buy into the Canadian oil industry. God help us if some arsehole on Sussex Dr. (like Pensylvania Ave.) allows this to happen.

Subject: RE: BS: NAFTA and the Primaries
From: Riginslinger
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 10:42 PM

Sandy - I think you're on to something. Free trade, as the politicians define it, has to be good for somebody, but it sure ain't people what work.

Subject: RE: BS: NAFTA and the Primaries
From: Beer
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 11:08 PM

Sandy,
The more I read your post the more I love you. Not really, but you know what I mean.
To me NAFTA is the least of our problems. Oh for sure it is. But damn it. Can't we three countries get together and make it right. I almost said make it one.

Get this. Two weeks ago I pick up the Montreal paper and read and "SEE" pictures of a Canadian Tire Distribution plant already built about 20 miles from me that is 170 football fields (I'm not making this up) that will have a train running through it. The area or place is called Cote du Lac. China will be shipping goods to Vancouver than on the train to this spot as it will be the Hub for Eastern Canada. Goods arriving than highway connections to Ottawa area than on down to the Maritimes. Fucking Canadian Tire. A Canadian institution sold out to China. I would much more appreciate it if it said made in U.S.A.   Remember how we Canadians said that the U.S.A. were taking over Canada? The U.S.A. is not the threat.
Beer (adrien)

Subject: RE: BS: NAFTA and the Primaries
From: Sandy Mc Lean
Date: 04 Mar 08 - 07:43 AM

Three years ago I traveled by car through many small towns of the southeastern US. I was shocked to see very little activity or people as they had become close to ghost towns with 75% of the buildings empty. In each there would be the remnants of a factory closed as well. I would guess that these were mostly textile plants upon which the town was built. I wondered where the people who had inhabited these one industry towns had all gone to, but gone they were. I found it a scary forerunner because I also live in a small town largely dependent on one industry.
When I enter that great bastion of American small town capitalism, Wal-Mart, I can't find a shirt that wasn't made somewhere in the far east, mostly in communist China. Duh....... Is there something wrong with this scene? The reason that the American economy is going to Hell in a handbasket is not free trade with Canada (China killed our textile industry as well) but corporate greed running unchecked. In the USA today and Canada as well more and more people are employed in the service industry. The service industry cycles wealth but does not produce it and balance of trade debt increases. However, the reason that the USA has a balance of trade deficit with Canada is largely petroleum based and not a result of free trade.

Subject: RE: BS: NAFTA and the Primaries
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 Mar 08 - 10:15 AM

Petroleum isn't free traded any more than textiles aren't free traded. What the corporate giants mean by free trade is, they are free to extort the working people's money.

Subject: RE: BS: NAFTA and the Primaries
From: Peace
Date: 04 Mar 08 - 10:18 AM

We sell natural gas to California for a cheaper price than we sell it to Canucks. That's gotta tell ya somethin'! This is not about people. It's about profits for corporations.

Subject: RE: BS: NAFTA and the Primaries
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 04 Mar 08 - 12:04 PM

"The Canadian and the U.S. natural gas markets operate as one large integrated market." Quote fron the Canadian NEB (National Energy Board).
www.neb.gc.ca/clf-nsi/rnrgynfmtn/prcng/hwcndnmrkswrk-eng.html

"The price is made up of three parts: the cost of the natural gas (known as the commodity cost), the pipeline transportation cost and the distribution cost." The commodity cost changes in response to supply and demand and can be volatile, transportation and distribution costs are regulated by government agencies.

Natural gas is traded on the New York Mercantile Exchange. In Canada, it is traded based on the AECO-C hub in Alberta. Trades are made in U. S. dollars. Trading units are 10000 million British thermal units on the NYMEX (open outcry trading 9:00An-2:30PM, NY time).
Call your commodities trader and become a part of the market, then you will want a good price increase and tough shit to the consumers!

The near equivalence of the Canadian and American dollars means a similarity in price on both sides of the border.

Subject: RE: BS: NAFTA and the Primaries
From: Peace
Date: 04 Mar 08 - 12:20 PM

Bullshit, Q. No offense. There is a contract between Sask and Calif that makes all that moot.

Subject: RE: BS: NAFTA and the Primaries
From: Bee
Date: 04 Mar 08 - 01:28 PM

""On Wednesday, the Canadian Television network reported that two unnamed Canadian sources said a "senior member" of Obama's campaign team had called Michael Wilson, Canada's ambassador in Washington, in the last month to warn him that Obama would be ratcheting up rhetoric against the North American Free Trade Agreement, but that he should "not be worried about what Obama says about NAFTA," adding, "It's just campaign rhetoric. … It's not serious."
- bobad

This was prominently featured by CBC and CTV. Is it any wonder that Canadians feel like wearing steel panties WRT the US no matter who ends up on the American throne?

Subject: RE: BS: NAFTA and the Primaries
From: Peace
Date: 04 Mar 08 - 01:30 PM

Let's hope they at least use vaseline, huh?

Subject: RE: BS: NAFTA and the Primaries
From: GUEST,JTS
Date: 04 Mar 08 - 02:02 PM

Canadians,

Don't worry about Obama and Clinton. Pay attention to their rhetoric. In the last debate they talked about negotiation sure. But they talked about making labor conditions and safety standards tougher. On a national level Canadian standards are more strict than American ones already. Obviously they are not going to tell Mississippi and Alabama to adopt Canadian standards to satisfy NAFTA so Canadian trade is safe from that particular threat.


"Three years ago I traveled by car through many small towns of the southeastern US. I was shocked to see very little activity or people as they had become close to ghost towns with 75% of the buildings empty."

Sandy,

I travel extensively through small towns in the South by car. What you say is by in large true about the downtowns. Many small business are empty, leaving some really cool looking old empty brick buildings. Also the textile mill that ran on hydro power from the local river is usually empty. As are the shacks where the mill workers lived. But if you head out on main street, in most towns, to the nearest major highway you will usually find a bunch of dollar stores, a Walmart, an Ace, Home Depot, or Lowes, and a Piggly Wiggly or Winn Dixie depending on the size of the town. There are also lots of new subdivisions and often the plant building of a large employer or two. The Smithfield hog plant in Tar Heel, NC employes way more people than live in the town. Industries in the US are locating away from where the people live.   In many places you will also find a military base or two which employees a lot of people. Not to mention all the educated kids who move to Charlotte, Raleigh, Greenville, Baton Rouge, Birmingham and of course Atlanta.

I don't doubt what you saw. I've seen to too. But look beneath the surface and you will see that the South is booming.

Subject: RE: BS: NAFTA and the Primaries
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 04 Mar 08 - 03:02 PM

Better look at the figures, which are readily available. What CA-SK contract?

Most Sask. natural gas is sold to marketeers and brokers.
2006 figures:
3.6 billion cubic meters to marketers or brokers
2.1 billion cubic meters to SaskEnergy
1.2 billion cubic metres in direct sales to industrial and
   commercial users in Sask.
233 million cubic metres in direct sales to out-of-province buyers
   (only 3.3%)

"Producers have the choice of selling to SaskEnergy [prov. gas utility, which is going into global opportunities], to natural gas marketers or brokers, to direct sales in Sask. or to markets in Eastern Canada and the United States."
This last amount is small.
Figures from www.ir.gov.sk.ca ("Natural Gas in Saskatchewan")

California imports 85% of its natural gas, 64% from other states and 24% from Canada. The latter comes through pipeline systems and includes gas from all western Canadian provinces. Within ten years, gas from the Canadian Beaufort and Alaskan North Slope also will be available.
Alberta and British Columbia both produce more gas than Saskatchewan, and contribute most to pipeline systems.

SaskEnergy and Nova Gas (pipeline operated with TransCanada) are looking for investments; they are expanding their interests in Chile (SaskEnergy Chilean Holdings), where they have the major interest in the trans-Andean pipeline carrying Argentine gas to Chile. SaskEnergy also operates a major pipeline in Mexico.

Subject: RE: BS: NAFTA and the Primaries
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 04 Mar 08 - 03:13 PM

Getting back to NAFTA, it may not matter what the candidates prefer. Two houses full of obstreperous members, who can deep six any proposals. I don't think either the Democrats or Republicans are capable of getting a workable majority.

Sentiment is more anti-globalization than it was in Bill Clinton's day, and McCain, if he wins, may have little chance to further NAFTA. Obama and Hillary probably are smart to be ambiguous.

Subject: RE: BS: NAFTA and the Primaries
From: Peace
Date: 04 Mar 08 - 03:17 PM

That I agree with in the context of the AMERICAN election. However, given the choice between their election and the Canadian people, Canucks are gonna come first as far as I'm concerned. We have been suckin' hind tit for far too long.

Subject: RE: BS: NAFTA and the Primaries
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 04 Mar 08 - 05:08 PM

Yep, have to sit back and hope and say nice tiger, don't bite.
Someone suggested putting a tax on oil exports to counter their lumber, etc. restrictions, but then they would put a tax on autos, Bombardier, etc. etc. and Canada would be no forwarder.

Pull a Hugo Chavez? Trade with China? Canada would get hammered.

Subject: RE: BS: NAFTA and the Primaries
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 Mar 08 - 05:16 PM

The Bush Administration, of course, will insist that they are being "free traders" now that they've decided to buy the new re-fueling planes from Airbus and have bypassed Boeing. Tax payers are going to love sending all that cash to France.

Subject: RE: BS: NAFTA and the Primaries
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 04 Mar 08 - 05:39 PM

FT are doctrinaire capitalists. Of course they like "free" trade because international capital can screw the workers in every country down and maximise profits.

If the FT dislikes it, it can't be all bad.

Subject: RE: BS: NAFTA and the Primaries
From: Sandy Mc Lean
Date: 04 Mar 08 - 09:30 PM

Someone suggested putting a tax on oil exports to counter their lumber, etc. restrictions, but then they would put a tax on autos, Bombardier, etc. etc. and Canada would be no forwarder.
I guess that someone would have been me Q. Having worked in the oil industry I'm sure that you know what a gate valve is. If Bush wants to up the ante you turn off a big one in the pipeline flowing south for 24 hours. You then turn it back on for 24 hours and ask Bush if he wants to remove those taxes. If not turn it off for another 24 hours etc. add infinitum until you attract someones attention. I'm betting that it wouldn't take long!

Subject: RE: BS: NAFTA and the Primaries
From: Sandy Mc Lean
Date: 04 Mar 08 - 09:36 PM

Pull a Hugo Chavez?
If it works for Venezuela perhaps even the threat would work for us. At least Chavez has balls!

Subject: RE: BS: NAFTA and the Primaries
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 Mar 08 - 09:53 PM

Yeah, I think Chavez has gotten a lot of bad press, but at least he's trying to do something for his people.

Subject: RE: BS: NAFTA and the Primaries
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 06 Mar 08 - 09:47 PM

I just got this very Canadian e-mail:

NAFTA's legacy: the worst agreement we ever signed
MURRAY DOBBIN

"But first, let's dispose of a myth about free trade — the notion that it was responsible for massive increases in trade between the U.S. and Canada. According to an Industry Canada study, 91 per cent of the increase in trade in the 1990s was due to the cheap Canadian dollar and the sustained economic boom in the U.S. Now that our dollar is at par or higher, our manufacturing exports are plummeting.

But even if NAFTA were responsible for increased trade, Canadian workers have paid a huge price. Throughout the 1990s, federal governments trumpeted the need to be "competitive" under NAFTA as an excuse to implement some of the most Draconian rollbacks of Canadian social programs ever undertaken. In the name of "labour flexibility," Paul Martin implemented drastic changes to EI eligibility, and repealed the Canada Assistance Plan, freeing the provinces to gut their welfare programs. His extreme low-inflation policy deliberately kept unemployment at high levels (8 per cent to 9 per cent) for most of the 1990s.

That meant that, throughout the decade, workers' real wages actually declined. They still have not caught up to 1981 levels. And the highly paid 220,000 industrial jobs lost as a result of NAFTA are gone forever, replaced by lower-paid jobs.

NAFTA was supposed to unleash a flood of foreign investment — boosting our industrial capacity and productivity. Instead, since the first trade agreement was signed, more than 95 per cent of direct foreign investment has been used to buy up Canadian companies. Head offices and research and development money has headed south, and Canada has seen a steady decline in manufactured goods as a percentage of its GDP for the past 10 years.

Our productivity has fallen behind that of the U.S. in virtually every year since the FTA came into effect in 1989."

He goes on to say how the corporate sector have benefitted greatly while the working class and the environment have suffered.

Sorry for the long cut and paste but since Harper loves the "corporation" and Bush and the Republicans, and especially NAFTA, I think Canadians should wonder why he wanted to hurt Obama with that leaked memo?

Could it mean that Harper would prefer Hillary in the White House and that NAFTA would be safe with Hillary.

...and what about that poll that said Canadians preferred Hillary? Where did that come from?

I think the last thing the corporate elite want to see is Obama as president. They would prefer McCain because he's obviously, pretty easy to handle but since he doesn't have a chance, Hillary is next best. Scary!

If Obama doesn't become president, I think American citizens could get very unruly!

Subject: RE: BS: NAFTA and the Primaries
From: Riginslinger
Date: 06 Mar 08 - 09:52 PM

Of course, the e-mail assumes that Obama would do what he says he would do, and would be able to pull it off, even if he wanted to stick his neck out.

Subject: RE: BS: NAFTA and the Primaries
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 06 Mar 08 - 10:12 PM

The e-mail said nothing about Obama.

The email ends with, "Our productivity has fallen behind that of the U.S. in virtually every year since the FTA came into effect in 1989."

I don't remember Obama saying anything much different than Hillary in regard to NAFTA. I think they both said they'd "tweak" it a bit.

Either way, NAFTA is not good for Canadians. Unless, of course, the U.S. were to say something like, "We're sorry for collecting all those tariffs illegally and we will pay you back."

Whose more likely to say that? Obama or Hillary.

Subject: RE: BS: NAFTA and the Primaries
From: Riginslinger
Date: 07 Mar 08 - 07:51 AM

"If Obama doesn't become president, I think American citizens could get very unruly!"

                   I guess I thought that was part of the e-mail.

             The problem that all three countries have as things relate to NAFTA is, all of the capital is flowing to a few "string pullers" at the top. We haven't heard a lot about Mexican Billionaires until the last few years. Now there seem to be quite a few of them.

             I suspect working people in all three countries are taking it in the shorts through NAFTA. It's a big winner for the people in positions to keep it in place. I suspect that would include Obama.