Free Trade Agreement of the Americas

Rubiazo says on Oct 7, 2005, 17:39:

I would hope to see South America form its own internal trade deal, and deal more with the EU and with Asian countries. NAFTA didn't seem to work out the way it was supposed to. It was supposed to lower the cost of technology in Canada and Mexico but that frankly just hasnt happened the way it was supposed to.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

duanebg says on Oct 8, 2005, 10:40:

Say no to NAFTA In theory NAFTA was a good idea... If you were the States. Unfortunately if you aren't you simply end up getting exploited. NAFTA opens the door for large companies who will move in and buy up your smaller domestic companies. It isn't long before competition is depleted and all of your once national companies are owned by Americans. Hey but you will have Wal-Mart.

America also has a history of claiming its trading partners are illegally subsidizing there resource companies. They then impose tariffs which cripple the industry. Time and time again when these cases are brought to the courts it is shown that the tariffs were illegal and that there was no subsidization in the first place. This ruling has little effect by the way. Your domestic industries will already be decimated and the states won't be giving you back the money they stole. And in most cases the US will ignore any judicial decision that is handed down. The US ambassador to Canada, David Wilkins claimed that these rulings were irrelevant. He stated that these are just judicial decisions; we can't just act on those we must talk things out first. If you commit a crime and are found guilty you go to jail. You don’t talk it over.

Stay away from NAFTA. Build strong trade relations with your neighbours, but don't let America have unrestricted access to your markets. You can’t compete when the big guy doesn’t play fair.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Crazy Eagle says on Oct 8, 2005, 10:59:

pro Free Trade I'm a cancuck, and I whole heartedly support free trade. Studies on both sides of the border have shown benefits to both Canada and the US because of the free trade deal, as economic theory would predict.

BUT, Prez Bush-Lite has made a mockery of the deal. After campaigning as a fiscal conservative, he has turned out to be a protectionist arse and a spend-thrift. Socially conservative and fiscaly liberal, what a combo!

This bone-head will be history soon, and his predescor (probably Hillary) will be left to clean up the mess he will leave. But with all its political problems, free trade with everyone possible would be good for Colombia, and help solve social problems.

"Some are born to sweet delight, others are born to the endless night." William Blake

"The natural rhythm of life is routine punctuated by orgy" Aldous Huxley

0 funny, 0 helpful.

CaryGrant says on Oct 8, 2005, 12:52:

Also a Canuck, pro-free-trade in principal, against it in practice. Canada suffered a nasty recession post-FTA, because our politicians were idiots, corrupt, or most likely, both. See if this gives you some indication of what most Canadians thought about how the FTA was implemented:

* Prior to implementation, I remember polls showing Canadians generally in favour of the idea of free trade with the US.
* The Conservative Party held a majority government at the time (160 seats?), and pushed through the FTA. More polls showed Canucks none-too-happy about what was traded away (our water, our right to use our oil instead of selling it to the US, etc.)
* Post-FTA, the Conservatives pegged the Canadian dollar at 95c/1.00USD. This was stupid, verging on treason, but the US benefitted hugely as job moved south to get - guess what? - cheaper labour, lower taxes, laxer environmental regulations, etc.
* Pegging the dollar too high caused a recession in Canada, due to all the jobs leaving. Had the dollar been left to float, it would have balanced the higher cost of doing business in Canada, but that would not have pleased the American masters.
* In the next election, the Conservatives went from 160 seats (or whatever - it was a solid majority) to two (2) dos. Two. They still haven't recovered.

Has the FTA been good for Canada and the US? Definitely for the latter. I agree with everything duanebg said. The US will screw you any way they can in the name of 'protecting their interests' and 'tough negotiating.' Sure. All the while ignoring rulings by the free trade panels and other courts. The FTA has benefitted large companies, mainly US ones, of course, because there are more of them (the US has 10x the population of Canada) and they're bigger.

This is not a slag against any Americans on this site or elsewhere. I like Americans, lived in the US for eight years until recently, was married to an American, my son is in the Marines, etc. However, I believe that the US government is hopelessly corrupted by power, and not to be trusted. They will put pressure on your government, and you will get screwed. Knock down trade barriers with Canada, Europe, Asia. Not the US.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

duanebg says on Oct 8, 2005, 13:01:

I'm also for free trade Yes free trade has created benifits in all countries involved and is a must in todays economy. It just has to be fair!

My comments earlier were by no means a dig on Americans. Just the trade practices of thier government.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

World Citizen says on Oct 8, 2005, 13:24:

Is it a choice? I dislike the idea that globalization and markets integration is unavoidable BUT as a matter of fact I believe it is not a choice for developing countries. The IMF and WB loans and financial "aid" is tight to the neoliberal agenda, structural adjustments (privatization, liberalization etc.). Colombia is not prepared for trade agreements with developed countries. The 1991 economic opening in Colombia devastated local industries and small businesses... but that is not the only problem. While the US has pretended they had remove tariffs and other barriers it has increased madly non-tariff barriers. Ask Mexico about it... sanitary and ohytosanytary standards are insane and costly. Mexico has been playing the game since early 1990s previous the signing of the 1994 NAFTA yet it is just now that they are catching up with some of the policies. Colombia has not done ANYTHING about non-tariff standards. We want to export everything we think we have a competitive advantage on(form chontaduros and achiras to panties) but we don't know the playground; we don't have real protocols. I know we will need to learn it but we should do it BEFORE entering into the agreements. We need to learn what it happening withthe EurepGAP, CODEX alimentarius etc etc etc. I have heard Colombians saying about the infinite number of products we can export (fruits, flowers, garments etc) but it is often a entreprenuer Colombian guy planning to open a market on his own and profit. It is NOT the way. we need a strong policy for it. We need a governemnt that supports this things and so major lobbying in other countries manily the US and Canada. we need standards that regulate production, packing, shipping etc. We are far from being ready to take full advantage of the integration of markets and trade agreemets.

Life is not what one lived, but rather what one remembers, and how it is remembered to tell the tale. (Gabriel Garcia Marquez)

Life is not what one lived, but rather what one remembers, and how it is remembered to tell the tale. (Gabriel Garcia Marquez)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

cali373 says on Oct 8, 2005, 13:57:

Please remind me how US and Canadian workers, you know the people that spend the money that makes them economically powerful, benefitted from losing their jobs to Mexicans. By the way more mexicans have work but their average wages has dropped. Not necessarely a good thing and I think that the same would happen in Colombia with a free trade agreement.

Smile if you are a thinker!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

johnboy77 says on Oct 8, 2005, 14:17:

cali373....

I am a Canadian, and pro NAFTA, and I can't answer your question because I didn't loose my job to a Mexican.

With NAFTA I was able to get TN VISAs to work in the US, and I generally consider it to be good for Canada...

The US should play fair, but they don't, and I don't really think anyone expected them to. Its like a mouse signing and agreement with an elephant. I mean, the elephant is still in charge... agreement or no agreement.

If NAFTA benifits Canada, but benefits the US more, it is still a good deal for Canada, because we are seeing more benefits than we would have without NAFTA... and this is good regardless how well the US benefits from NAFTA.

Sure the screwed us on softwood lumber, and went a little too far with the Mad Cow thing, but PMPM (Prime Minister Paul Martin) just made a pretty tough speach where he warned that Canada may shift away from the US as a major trading partner for energy resources! So, unless Americans want to pay $4 a gallon, they may wish to reconsider playing a rigged game with Canada. We have the second largest deposit of oil in the world, and the supply is safe from Natural Disasters, Arab peoples, and Mr. Chavez.

South America should enter into any free trade agreement that will help them, and not hurt them. Even if the US gets the better end of the deal, a good deal is still a good deal. Just don't expect the Americans to play fair... they never do.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

bobbyb says on Oct 8, 2005, 14:42:

Maybe it's the Americans way of getting money back from all the illegals that send our money back to their countries. Just a thought I had.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Rubiazo says on Oct 8, 2005, 16:23:

I am 100% with CG on this one Canada got royally cornholed by that agreement. Part of the problem of being too closely tied to the US economy is that when the US economy coughs, you retch and barf. THEN you also have to worry about the US not playing fair even when things are going well for them!

Brazil seems to be experiencing excellent sustained economic growth these days. Consider this, its currency is rallying like no other over the past year, YET it is still growing close to 10% per year, and mainly from exports. I don't know what all they are doing right, but they're doing it without the US's help!! They deal a lot with Europe and Asia.

Personally I think the rest of the world would do very well leaving the US's sandbox until it has nothing left but cat shit to play with!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Rubiazo says on Oct 8, 2005, 18:19:

Don't forget the beef Brazilian beef is #2 in the world, right after Argentina and they produce a hell of a lot more of it.
Anyways the point is not that a country MIGHT fall off in the future. If we're taking bets in who is to lead the world in DECLINE over the next 10 years, I'd put money on America, hands down.
Over the long term, I think water is going to become more and more important as a natural resource, as we are using it up more and more. This could cause a big shifting in the balance of power worldwide. South America has close to a third of all the world's potable water. Also eventually oil will no longer be as important as it is. Alternative energy sources may be slow in coming but they are inevitable; the only question is, will we be dumb enough to wait until there are massive worldwide oil shortages before getting them in place?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

poco says on Oct 8, 2005, 19:04:

Give up our Hummers ? the only question is, will we be dumb enough to wait until there are massive worldwide oil shortages before getting them in place?

Yes and then it will be time to sneak across to border to Canada before they build a fence and set up a defense system.

"When you men get home and face an anti-war protester, look him in the eyes and shake his hand. Then, wink at his girlfriend, because she knows she's dating a pussy." Quote - General Tommy Franks

0 funny, 0 helpful.

johnboy77 says on Oct 8, 2005, 19:23:

Poco,

Are you making fun of out tank? Perhaps making fun of out submarine may be a better idea.

The idea of Canada having a plausible defence system is sort of funny. We border on only one country, the USA, and any war will be a lot different than the one we had in 1812. Who are we defending ourselves agains? If the USA, than its a little pointless, I think that would a rather quick war. We have a big country, so it make take time, but since the speed limit signs say 100, maybe it will be quicker.

As far as fresh water, Canada has more than any other country on the planet....

Alternative engergy will come, but the oil industry will dominate for at least another half century. Why develope alternative energy when you can make retardedly massive profits on a resource that is just waiting to be pumped out of the ground.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Rubiazo says on Oct 8, 2005, 19:24:

I wonder if we will have another war of 1812 in, say 2032 or so :) I don't think the Canadian army with their pea-shooters and slingshots will do much good against the Iraq Syria Lebanon Iran North Korea China and Cuba hardened Marines though :))))

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Rubiazo says on Oct 8, 2005, 19:27:

I bet all those crazy Mohawks will camp out in downtown Montreal and start one helluva guerilla war though. They will be the biggest Canadian heroes of all in a post-Canada age!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

johnboy77 says on Oct 8, 2005, 20:46:

"all those crazy Mohawks"

As the joke goes, just hide their welfare cheques under their workboats, and they'll starve to death! I am 1/8th Iroquios, so I am allowed the odd racial slant! LOL!

Anyway, sitting your fatass on top of pickup with a towel wrapped around your face and hunting rifle over your shoulder isn't much of a querilla war.

The Canadian army is in fact quite well trained, with a pretty remarkable history. I mean, we have never lost a war, nor started one. Sure we have always been a lesser player, but we don't have a Vietnam on our books either... I mean, to fight the poorest country on earth for 10 years and loose.... then make fun of the Canadian army....hmmmm. Oh, and as a side note, we stayed out of the second Iraq war, which may be the smartest thing our last Prime Minister ever did (or didn't do I should say...)

Today the Canadian forces suffer from lack of funding, and the army is VERY small. Half the stading army is deployed... typically in peace keeping missions... I think Canada is set to take total command of Afganastan in 6 months or so. My brother in law is all set to deploy.. he is a vehicle mechanic for the Regular Forces. This should allow more US soilders for Syria or Iran... whoever is next on the "Axis of Evil" list. I saw a funny t-shirt that had "Asses of Evil" with a picture of Bush, Rumsfeld, and Ashcroft on the front

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Rubiazo says on Oct 9, 2005, 03:58:

You're wrong about that There WERE Canadian soldiers in Vietnam too!!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

ronald1168 says on Oct 9, 2005, 04:14:

The Canadians bring some sense to North America God Bless there is Canada in North America, at least they bring some sense and intelligence to the continent.




R. Donders
London
ronald at donders.co.uk

ronald@donders.co.uk

0 funny, 0 helpful.

johnboy77 says on Oct 9, 2005, 10:09:

Rubiazo,

Yes, but they were a volunteer basis only. Canada allowed anyone who wanted to join to freely go to the US and join, but the these soilders were under American command. Canada, on an official level, did not participate in the war, nor did the "send" a single soilder. These Canadian soilders were equiped with American weapons and uniforms, ate US Army food, and were under the command of the US armed forces.

A co-worker of my father's at GM was one of the ones who served. He wasn't even in the Canadian army... he just decided one day he wanted to go to Vietnam and fight. He has a lot of mental problems because of the war, but my father told me he was a bit of a nut case even before he went.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

johnboy77 says on Oct 9, 2005, 10:14:

Canada and the Vietnam War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_and_the_Vietnam_War

0 funny, 0 helpful.

scotty says on Oct 9, 2005, 14:03:

thank you Michael Moore.

Get Rhythm, when you got the blues. Johnny Cash

0 funny, 0 helpful.

duanebg says on Oct 10, 2005, 16:49:

Vietnam? I don't know why every story involving the US and Canada has to come down to The war of 1812, America can kick Canadas butt and, Vietnam and whether we were there or not. But lets get the facts right.

Yes Canada won the war of 1812. Yes Canada would lose a war today if the States tried to invade (they would look really bad though, us being so nice and all). And No, Canada was not involved in the Vietnam war in any official capacity.

There were Canadians there. Those who enlisted in the American Army and those who were on exchange programs with the US (These happen all the time). There were similar cases with the first a second Iraq War.

I still don't know what this has to do with NAFTA.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Crazy Eagle says on Oct 12, 2005, 08:07:

Free Trade & social problems I think a free trade deal with the US and as many other countries as possible would help Colombia's social problems, including the allure of FARC and the drug trade. If people have good jobs, and can export more than white powder, then FARC is less attractive and the outflow of powder will slow down.

"Beer is the best proof that God loves us." Ben Franklin

"The natural rhythm of life is routine punctuated by orgy" Aldous Huxley

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Rubiazo says on Oct 12, 2005, 08:59:

I don't think Colombia's problems of civil strife and delinquency are at ALL due to poverty OR lack of resources.

Case in point: HOW many countries are poorer than Colombia and have less violent crime (TONS of them)

Another case in point. Thirty years ago fully half of Colombian households lacked basic services. In those days if you were Estrato 1 you were really MIDDLE CLASS. Yet in the 1970s there was very little violent crime in Colombia. It was only when people started getting involved in the drug trade and THE MONEY STARTED FLOWING IN that people started offing each other.

Likewise, here in the USA, in the 1980s the economy was WAY stronger and the middle class especially had much more purchasing power. The social safety net was a lot wider as well. YET the crime rate in American cities was many times that of the crime rate of today.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

BAQ says on Oct 12, 2005, 11:51:

WHY oh WHY Ok, I would like to hear opinions as to WHY many Colombians are AGAINST the free trade agreement. TODAY (October 12) they are marching in protest in the streets of Bogota against Uribe, the Govt not paying teachers, the free trade deal and I think a few other things.

IN ADDITION - I would be curious what everyone thinks will happen to the value of the Peso against the Dollar if the free trade agreement is signed by Colombia and the U.S.A.

Would like to hear your opinions,
THANKS

Semper Fidelis !

0 funny, 0 helpful.

CaryGrant says on Oct 12, 2005, 17:37:

"If people have good jobs, and can export more than white powder, then FARC is less attractive and the outflow of powder will slow down."

True. The debate is over whether a free trade agreement with the US will produce those jobs. The Canada-US FTA did produce more jobs - in the US, from Canada.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Crazy Eagle says on Oct 12, 2005, 19:54:

still pro-free trade BAQ: there are two reasons people are opposed to free trade: 1) they don't understand it and fear change, and 2) they work in industries that are protected by tarrifs and (rightly) fear losing their jobs if the tarrifs are removed.

But free trade really does produce jobs, and leads to increased wealth. The thing to realize is that the people who will be working in the new export industries are not out marching in the streets in support of free trade.

Cary: I can only respond by saying that I came across three studies several years ago (2 American, 1 Canadian) that concluded that both countries were better off because of the FTA. Both economic theory and the history of free trade in other parts of the world support the removal of tarrif barriers. Tariff barriers are just there to protect certain fat-cat industries in regions that help get certain politicians elected. Why should being a Canadian mean paying more for blue jeans?

Having said that, I readily admit that the Bush administration is protectionsist, and tries to make a mockery of the FTA.

"There is no better soporific and sedative than skepticism." Frederich Nietzsche

"The natural rhythm of life is routine punctuated by orgy" Aldous Huxley

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Crazy4Cali says on Oct 12, 2005, 20:29:

It works until it doesn't I saw places in Costa Rica where:

- A fabrica moved into town
- they hired lots of people (who sold their farm to live near the fabrica)
- worked for a couple of years, until...
- the C.R. government saw a potential cash cow
- the gov. tried to milk it for some more tax money
- while, labor in other countries like Honduras became more appealing
- the fabrica moved to Honduras leaving all these previously "wealthy" people without a job or a farm
- so all these people now live in a shantytown.

Didn't look like progress to me.

The problem with multinationals bringing work into the country is that is often just as easy to take it back out. But only after the local population has become "hooked" on the employment. (My guess is that the same multinationals bought their farms, too.) In Colombia, the FARC and cocaine and heroin would look very appealing after the company moves out.

If the business industry doesn't have any indigenous roots, they have nothing to tie them to the country. So I can see why "free" trade (meaning a foreign company can come in more easily) would be appealing to the U.S. (the country looking for cheap labor and resources) and not to anyone else.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Oct 12, 2005, 21:03:

I support free trade but unde I support free trade but initially under nationalistic and fair conditions, which means that no embarrasingly disproportionate free trade agreements with economic giants should be signed unless we are ready and/or we get a more sensible deal. To do otherwise is masochistic.

Since neither appears to be the case right now, I'm hoping that the free trade agreement stumbles in either/both the U.S. or Colombian Congresses, when the push comes to shove.

"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me".

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Rubiazo says on Oct 12, 2005, 22:06:

This has already happened in Chile, they privatized some public utilities, the companies who were in charge made a huge fucking mess of it and just WALKED AWAY.

Obviously sometimes privatization has been very beneficial. In Brazil it helped a LOT when they privatized the phone company. Before that there were two YEAR waiting lists to get a phone in your home.

Colombia signing a free trade deal with the US is almost sure to be a bad deal. I think they need to trade more with other countries who will give them better terms. I can certainly think of why citizens would be against it, or any of the other things BAQ mentioned.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

BAQ says on Oct 13, 2005, 01:14:

What I don;t understand is why Colombia has such high tarrifs on things like Cars. My way of thinking is this (And maybe I am dead wrong).

Cars are expensive here = Many people don;t buy them
Cars become affordable = More cars sold
More cars sold = More sale of gasoline = more tax revenue
More cars on the road = More sales of car parts = more jobs & more sales tax revenue.

This is just one example. Same with the Electricity. A majority of people don't have A/C's because it cost to much to run them. If electricity was cheaper, they would actually sell more of it. Sell more a/c's ect = more jobs ect, ect.

Honestly, if you were a business person, what would you rather have, low sales at a 35% profit margin or huge sales with a 15% profit margin? The way I see it, if the import taxes were LESS, they would sell more and it snowballs from there. Importing more because sales are up thus increasing your total cash intake from increased amounts of imported goods being purchased or consumed.

Am I correct or am I missing something here?

Semper Fidelis !

0 funny, 0 helpful.

CaryGrant says on Oct 14, 2005, 15:35:

Rubiazo - BC privatised the administration of health care to an American company, and that company has missed the metrics they promised to hit. So much so, in fact, that they are at risk of losing the contract.

If you make a "free trade" deal with the Americans, you will get screwed. (See article snippet below). US tariffs - post-FTA - are causing Canada to try and sell lumber and other products elsewhere, like China. Unfortunately, a condition of selling to China is that we not protest as they take over the world. Sort of like the US, actually. (China said that if Canada recognizes Taiwan as a separate country, no trade.)

And on the free trade new front in Canada:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/cpress/20051014/ca_pr_on_na/martin_bush_talk

OTTAWA (CP) -
Prime Minister Paul Martin has warned U.S.
President George W. Bush that Canada will wage its battle over softwood lumber in American courts - and in the court of public opinion.

"The president said he believes we need to get back to the negotiating table and try to find a lasting solution," said White House spokesman Scott McClellan.

The prime minister insisted there's no reason for Canada to negotiate because it has already won all NAFTA challenges to U.S. tariffs and duties that have cost Canadian lumber firms $5 billion.

"Canada has won panel decision after panel decision," Martin said later as he oversaw the inauguration of a new Quebec-U.S. border crossing.

"Fundamentally, what one might call the final court of appeal under NAFTA has also confirmed the Canadian position.

"And that should be respected."

A NAFTA extraordinary challenge committee ruled in August that Canadian exports pose no threat of injury to American producers.

But the U.S. government signalled it wouldn't accept the ruling, saying it was already complying with an opposing
World Trade Organization decision on the matter.

Canadian lumber exporters have paid more than $5 billion in duties since May 2002, when U.S. lumber producers filed their fourth trade complaint in 20 years.

Canada estimates that, based on past NAFTA rulings, the U.S. should pay back at least $3.5 billion of the duties collected so far.

A dispute resolution panel under the North American Free Trade Agreement has five times ordered U.S. trade officials to review the way they determine Canadian lumber exports are subsidized.

The NAFTA panel, made up of three American and two Canadian trade experts, recently gave the United States until Oct. 28 to comply.

If the panel's ruling is implemented, the countervailing duty rate would fall below one per cent, which under trade rules would result in its cancellation, according to the B.C. Lumber Trade Council.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

CaryGrant says on Oct 14, 2005, 15:37:

Deleted double post.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

BAQ says on Oct 14, 2005, 20:58:

Knew there was a reason CARYGRANT, I KNEW there was a reason I flunked economics in College, cuz 2+2 doesn;t seem to = 4.


I thought "Free trade" was just that. No tarrifs on a majority of items. If canada wants to sell us cheap lumber, GREAT. If we want to sell Canada cheaper tires, GREAT.

So I guess I am totally missing the point of a free trade agreement if there are going to be tarrifs on a large portion of items sold to/in the other Country.

I DO understand each Country wants to protect specific items but if the list of those items is long, then whats the point?

As far as BUSH, I wouldn;t trust a word that comes out of his mouth and as embarrasing as it is for me to say this, I voted for that dumb ass. My only excuse is, I must have been on my pain meds at the time.

Semper Fidelis !

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Rubiazo says on Oct 15, 2005, 01:10:

CG that's no surprise at all They wanted the Alaskan Achipelago back in the 1920s and they basically just annexed it. They broke their trade agreements with Japan and imposed a bunch of illegal tariffs at the time, which was part of the reason Japan ended up joining the Axis. The US has always fought dirty in terms of trade. Colombia had really better watch their backs!

BAQ, maybe they are so strict about cars coming in because they REALLY DONT WANT MORE CARS IN COLOMBIA. A good number of the population lives in cities where air pollution is a serious chronic problem, not to mention traffic jams, accidents etc. not even getting started about what it does to the social fabric.

I personally would like to see them start to tax the shit out of cars here in the US, and ban street parking in all major cities. Maybe then we'd start to get state of the art train systems everywhere. We'd all breathe easier, have less stress, and get wherever we are going faster.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

CaryGrant says on Oct 15, 2005, 12:48:

I'm not a huge fan of gov't intervention, but I agree with Rubiazo that we really should tax cars much higher. A friend suggested pay-at-the-pump car insurance and other fees; instead of paying $100/month for car insurance, you pay $13/gallon for gas. It might make people think twice before driving a block to the corner store for more fags and beer.

And BAQ - that was EXACTLY why so many Canadians were PO'ed. It wasn't a 'free trade' deal at all.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

BAQ says on Oct 15, 2005, 12:59:

Good Point Rubiazo & CaryGrant, both of you have very good points. Something to think about.

Semper Fidelis !

0 funny, 0 helpful.

lukus says on Oct 18, 2005, 13:44:

Self Interest The problem with free trade is that it can never be really fair. Every nation will protect its self-interests FIRST before allowing another country to have the advantage.
I live in Canada and right now our Prime Minister, Paul Martin, is pissed off that the States put a trade embargo on our soft-wood lumber. The States owes Canada $5 billion for that incident. He's using our oil and gas as a bargaining chip, saying Canada will sell to China instead of the States if Bush doesn't pay up.
The whole case started with Canada subsidizing its softwood lumber so that Canadian lumber companies can sell their product for cheaper prices then American companies could. Therefore, many American businesses were starting to buy Canadian lumber, because it was cheaper. This moved Bush to put huge tariffs on Canadian lumber coming into the States and that is illegal under NAFTA. Yes, America was protecting its self-interests but they are in a binding contract (NAFTA). Luckily, Canada has vast oil and gas resources (2nd or 3rd only to Saudi Arabia) so Paul Martin used this as a bargaining chip by threatening Bush with selling to China. If this is what it takes to make the Americans play fairly than I don't recommend a free trade agreement of the entire Western Hemisphere. America won't play fairly.

0 funny, 0 helpful.